I'm sure the number of non consensual fathers is higher than 1% of the population. I'm sure every person reading this thread knows several couples/former couples with child where the dad wasn't on board. I understand your point however, it's utilitarian in nature. You're saying that even if a thing seems self evidently true with regards to modern civil rights is it acceptable to ignore it if it would only affect a very small portion of the population.
It might seem like I'm trying to frame your position in a bad light but I'm not. Your point is correct. I don't think EVERY product in America should include braille writing on it, I don't think EVERY building in America should be modified to have handicap entry, and so on down the list forever and ever. To have a functioning society of hundreds of millions of individuals you MUST ignore the needs of some. Accepting that point I still think in a society with acceptable birth control (like I hope mine will be in 20 or 30 years) the number of unwilling fathers being forced into lifetime contracts is probably massive. And I do think it would be a reasonable use of societal resources to give men the right to not be forced into fatherhood.
I also think it would make better fathers. But that's a personal thing. As a civil rights issue I think the case stands on its own.
The Reproductive Rights of Man
Moderator: Moderators
-
Username17
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
The point is that selection bias is such that the fact you know several couples/former couples with a child where the dad wasn't on board doesn't mean that the number is higher than 1%. You know a lot of couples, and the fact that you know a couple where the man got a raw deal doesn't actually tell you that the percentage is out of the single digits or even higher than 1%.deanruel87 wrote:I'm sure the number of non consensual fathers is higher than 1% of the population. I'm sure every person reading this thread knows several couples/former couples with child where the dad wasn't on board. I understand your point however, it's utilitarian in nature. You're saying that even if a thing seems self evidently true with regards to modern civil rights is it acceptable to ignore it if it would only affect a very small portion of the population.
Or to put it another way: you probably don't know all the people in your family who are gay or bisexual. But you probably do know all the people in your family who had a custody battle. Some things are inherently more public than other things, and people will over estimate their frequency.
-Username17
What Frank said, plus the point that since we aren't perfectly monogamous (i.e. there are more pairs than population / 2), the number is even higher.
Which is not to say that it isn't a problem, or that men aren't getting screwed over, or vice versa. It's just that "I don't know any woman who would act like that," and "Everyone seems to know some guy that this happened to" are actually perfectly consistent.
Which is not to say that it isn't a problem, or that men aren't getting screwed over, or vice versa. It's just that "I don't know any woman who would act like that," and "Everyone seems to know some guy that this happened to" are actually perfectly consistent.
Vebyast wrote:Here's a fun target for Major Creation: hydrazine. One casting every six seconds at CL9 gives you a bit more than 40 liters per second, which is comparable to the flow rates of some small, but serious, rocket engines. Six items running at full blast through a well-engineered engine will put you, and something like 50 tons of cargo, into space. Alternatively, if you thrust sideways, you will briefly be a fireball screaming across the sky at mach 14 before you melt from atmospheric friction.