Moral Question, woman tricking a man into having a baby

[FionordeQuester]

secondly, this post is pretty offensive. are you saying women are so infatuated with having children that they can't control themselves, akin to an addict? are women addicted to children in your worldview? you feel pity for a woman that would deceive her husband so that she could have a child? and let's get rid of gender here: you feel pity for a partner that would deceive their significant other in bringing into the world (or from adoption) a child that they have to bathe, feed, shelter, care for? by law, no less? as in, if the spouse chooses not to, they'd go to jail? (you don't have a choice to take care of your child once they're born.) that is a dangerous point of view, there's no other way i can say that.

Hmm? What are you talking about? I'm not saying that women are sperm tanks who will go insane if they don't have children. I'm just saying that I feel more sadness than anger towards such a person, in the same way I feel more sadness than anger when I think of gamblers and alcoholics. She's clearly got issues, and it's hard not to feel bad for someone who clearly has issues. She's hurting herself just as much as she's hurting her husband after all. That's all I was saying.

with regards to your edit, it becomes abundantly clear that you don't quite understand how much work, time, and money go into caring for a single child, let alone multiple.

No, don't worry, I understand. My point is that my feelings on that particular subject would depend on whether her deception was a first time offense, or if it was something she did repeatedly. Like, when I was watching Breaking Bad, I cut Walter White some slack for getting into the drug trade the first time, but then I started to hate his guts when he KEPT on trying to build a drug empire, in-spite of all the obvious harm it was doing to everyone around him.

That was my only point.

Edited August 8, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

why do you feel pity, and how is the deceiver hurting? it's what they want. i want 2lb of chocolate, so if i take it from a store and eat all of it, would you feel pity because i'm also hurting myself in the process? the partner that uses deception to have a baby is essentially conning their significant other for a baby. why is that worthy of pity? what about the woman wanting a child and the man not (or switched) makes the offender worthy of pity?

in your other examples, it's not clear why you feel that way because addicts typically are only physically hurting themselves. typically, the family isn't legally liable for the actions of the addict, either. in this hypothetical, it's worse. the spouse, by law, is as responsible as the other. so what about this is deserving of pity?

and again, you show a clear lack of understanding. a child is a constant commitment from its birth until either the parent or the child dies (legally required to take care of for 18 years). i'm not equating the offense itself to murder, but the two are similar in that a single offense merits punishment. (in this case, divorce, abortion, law suit, whatever the victim can do.)

Edited August 8, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

why do you feel pity, and how is the deceiver hurting? it's what they want. i want 2lb of chocolate, so if i take it from a store and eat all of it, would you feel pity because i'm also hurting myself in the process?

Well, I guess it'd depend on whether or not you happened to be overweight, or if you were diabetic or something. Otherwise, I wouldn't feel pity, I'd just think "whoa, that's a ton of sugar!"

the partner that uses deception to have a baby is essentially conning their significant other for a baby. why is that worthy of pity? what about the woman wanting a child and the man not (or switched) makes the offender worthy of pity?

Because they don't really GET anything out of it. Having a child is one of the hardest challenges in the world, and they're going to be about as equipped to handle that challenge as a dizzy person on a cliff. In that case, they have only a few options. One, bumble their way through parenthood, which may not work. Two, give the kid up for adoption, which is emotionally heartwrenching. Three, get an abortion, which is ALSO heartwrenching. Or fourth, get a TON of counseling and help, enough to turn things around in-spite of their mistakes.

Obviously number 4 is preferable, but anyone who's in that kind of ditch in the first place is one who doesn't have access to that sort of counseling. And this isn't even counting all the problems the couple will have with their relationship. But does that mean I stop feeling sorry for them? Of course not.

in your other examples, it's not clear why you feel that way because addicts typically are only physically hurting themselves. typically, the family isn't legally liable for the actions of the addict, either. in this hypothetical, it's worse. the spouse, by law, is as responsible as the other. so what about this is deserving of pity?

Nah, the addicts totally hurt their family simply by burning through money and/or being abusive. They're own addictions put them in the position of being a burden on their families.

and again, you show a clear lack of understanding. a child is a constant commitment from its birth until either the parent or the child dies (legally required to take care of for 18 years). i'm not equating the offense itself to murder, but the two are similar in that a single offense merits punishment. (in this case, divorce, abortion, law suit, whatever the victim can do.)

I know that, don't worry. Are you thinking that I'd change my stance if I somehow got a clearer picture into the burden of childhood? If so, I weighed all that when taking my stance.

Edited August 8, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

lol

if she didn't get anything out of it, she wouldn't do it in the first place. you're not even making sense, here. if she feels unprepared, why is she forcing a baby onto her husband? this only makes the offense worse in my eyes. at this point, i don't think you understand the hypothetical.

the wife wants a child, and we're led to believe the husband doesn't. as far as the far husband knows, his wife is taking the pill, so he's not expecting a pregnancy. then BAM! she's pregnant. what happened? she lied about taking the pill because she wants a kid.

if she's unprepared, that makes me feel even less bad for her. perhaps she shouldn't have forced a baby in the first place?

i'm not worried. it's just clear to me that you don't actually grasp it. it's like, "whoa, whoa, i was fine when you forced a baby on me once, but four times? this is just getting ridiculous!" say you're 20, or worse, older, and a baby is forced on you. you now aren't free to do what you want to do, through no fault of your own, until you're nearly 40. this isn't something that you forgive and forget.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

if she didn't get anything out of it, she wouldn't do it in the first place. you're not even making sense, here. if she feels unprepared, why is she forcing a baby onto her husband? this only makes the offense worse in my eyes. at this point, i don't think you understand the hypothetical.

Ok, sure, she gets her kid, but it's probably not going to be nearly as pleasant or good as she thinks it will be, same way it is with all crimes. She thinks she's going to get something good out of it, but we obviously know better, don't we? We know that whatever she wanted was not anywhere near worth the cost. It's not going to be some kind of "Karma Houdini" situation where they're just going to get off scott free. She's going to suffer for her decision much more than she benefits from it.

the wife wants a child, and we're led to believe the husband doesn't. as far as the far husband knows, his wife is taking the pill, so he's not expecting a pregnancy. then BAM! she's pregnant. what happened? she lied about taking the pill because she wants a kid.

I know.

if she's unprepared, that makes me feel even less bad for her. perhaps she shouldn't have forced a baby in the first place?

That's one way to look at it, but me, I try not to be so judgemental. We're ALL stupid, and we ALL make stupid choices at one point or another. Plus, I don't know what her background is. I mean, I'm relatively confident that I would never do something so selfish and stupid, but then, I was raised in a good family. I was raised with a mother and father who loved each other, were highly educated, always stayed together, put me through the absolute best schools they could, and would never tolerate me ever having to endure any physical or emotional abuse from anyone.

This woman though? She may not have had those opportunities. She may not have had the chance to be educated. She may have lived in a family where lies and deception were so normal, that she didn't even think anything was wrong with what she did. In fact, I'd say that's highly likely to be her background, otherwise, I can't imagine why she'd be stupid enough to force her husband to have a kid with her in the first place!

Really, I just don't think anyone should ever be so quick to condemn someone else, ever.

i'm not worried. it's just clear to me that you don't actually grasp it. it's like, "whoa, whoa, i was fine when you forced a baby on me once, but four times? this is just getting ridiculous!" say you're 20, or worse, older, and a baby is forced on you. you now aren't free to do what you want to do, through no fault of your own, until you're nearly 40. this isn't something that you forgive and forget.

It's something I'd forgive. Oh sure, I might not forget it, and I'd always be living in fear of "what happens if she does that again?", but, if it's a first time offense, alright.

But then, I'm the kind of guy who would also forgive her for cheating on me, as long as she makes it clear that she's sorry, and makes a really strong effort to never, ever hurt me like that again. So, maybe our forgiveness thresholds are just different period. At the very least, I'm always aiming to be that sort of guy who can forgive just about anything done to me as long as the perpetrator is truly sorry.

Edited August 8, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Phoenix Wright]

Ok, sure, she gets her kid, but it's probably not going to be nearly as pleasant or good as she thinks it will be, same way it is with all crimes. She thinks she's going to get something good out of it, but we obviously know better, don't we? We know that whatever she wanted was not anywhere near worth the cost. It's not going to be some kind of "Karma Houdini" situation where they're just going to get off scott free. She's going to suffer for her decision much more than she benefits from it.

how she feels after is irrelevant. what happens after is irrelevant. what she did is wrong, is definitely undeserving of forgiveness (whether you personally actually would or not doesn't matter), and should be punishable.

That's one way to look at it, but me, I try not to be so judgemental. We're ALL stupid, and we ALL make stupid choices at one point or another. Plus, I don't know what her background is. I mean, I'm relatively confident that I would never do something so selfish and stupid, but then, I was raised in a good family. I was raised with a mother and father who loved each other, were highly educated, always stayed together, put me through the absolute best schools they could, and would never tolerate me ever having to endure any physical or emotional abuse from anyone.

criticizing a person for an extremely poor decision isn't being judgmental. her background is irrelevant (for a hypothetical case).

believing that a criminal should be punished justly by the law isn't being judgmental, is it?

This woman though? She may not have had those opportunities. She may not have had the chance to be educated. She may have lived in a family where lies and deception were so normal, that she didn't even think anything was wrong with what she did. In fact, I'd say that's highly likely to be her background, otherwise, I can't imagine why she'd be stupid enough to force her husband to have a kid with her in the first place!

this isn't relevant.

It's something I'd forgive. Oh sure, I might not forget it, and I'd always be living in fear of "what happens if she does that again?", but, if it's a first time offense, alright.

But then, I'm the kind of guy who would also forgive her for cheating on me, as long as she makes it clear that she's sorry, and makes a really strong effort to never, ever hurt me like that again. So, maybe our forgiveness thresholds are just different period. At the very least, I'm always aiming to be that sort of guy who can forgive just about anything done to me as long as the perpetrator is truly sorry.

whether you'd forgive is irrelevant. this is the type of offense that's definitely undeserving of forgiveness, as is infidelity. a conscious breach of trust is typically unforgivable in a relationship, a "dealbreaker."

if i conned you out of $245,000 and 18 years of labor, is that deserving of forgiveness? especially if you trusted me not to do exactly that beforehand?

Edited August 8, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[FionordeQuester]

how she feels after is irrelevant. what happens after is irrelevant. what she did is wrong, is definitely undeserving of forgiveness (whether you personally actually would or not doesn't matter), and should be punishable.

It should be punishable of course. But I wouldn't count it as unforgivable either. And even if it was, who are we to make those kinds of calls anyway, when we're just a bunch of armchair critics hanging out in one of the nerdiest places on the internet?

criticizing a person for an extremely poor decision isn't being judgmental. her background is irrelevant (for a hypothetical case).

No, actually, her background IS relevant, even in a court of law, because the hypothetical factors I'm talking about? Those are called "mitigating factors" by our Judicial system. What are mitigating factors? According to the Cornell Law School, they are defined as...

"Any fact or circumstance that lessens the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Mitigating factors include an ability for the criminal to reform, mental retardation, an addiction to illegal substances or alcohol that contributed to the criminal behavior, and past good deeds, among many others. Recognition of particular mitigating factors varies by jurisdiction."

So, there you go. Her background IS relevant, Mr. Wright. Speaking of which, there's also something called an "aggravating factor", and THAT'S defined as...

"Any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Aggravating factors include recidivism, lack of remorse, amount of harm to the victim, or committing the crime in front of a child, among many others. The recognition of particular aggravating factors varies by jurisdiction."

Which is exactly WHY I say that the severity of her crime is increased if it's something she keeps doing repeatedly. So, there's your fun facts for today.

believing that a criminal should be punished justly by the law isn't being judgmental, is it?

Not really. Or if it is, it's being done according to the Rule of Law, by a specially appointed council of qualified individuals specifically elected or appointed by whoever put them there (the rules differ from place to place).

this isn't relevant.

It is actually.

whether you'd forgive is irrelevant. this is the type of offense that's definitely undeserving of forgiveness, as is infidelity. a conscious breach of trust is typically unforgivable in a relationship, a "dealbreaker."

Eh... I'm not sure deception like that would actually qualify as a deal-breaker. For me, I typically follow something my Dad referred to as the "Four A's" when trying to think through hypothetical situations like this. For me, these "4 A's" constitute grounds for divorce...

Abandonment-If the wife or husband runs out on the family and leaves their spouse to fend for themselves?  Yep, that's grounds for an instant annulment in my book.  

Abuse-This can be emotional, physical, or any other kind of intentional harm towards your spouse.  So wife/husband beaters don't get to have any kind of moral high ground if their spouse decides that enough is enough.

Addiction-Alcoholism, gambling, drug addiction, and all that isn't just a self-destructive act.  It is also something that tends to be a significant financial burden on the family, especially when the offender is dipping into, say, their daughter's College fund to support their addiction.  In this case, the offended party is completely justified in leaving the wrongdoer.

Adultery-Obviously

Out of all those 4 A's, the only category that this hypothetical situation might fall into is "Abuse", depending on whatever aggravating factors were in play. But again, I don't think it's that hard and fast, so I don't feel comfortable saying that the situation your describing is unforgivable.

if i conned you out of $245,000 and 18 years of labor, is that deserving of forgiveness? especially if you trusted me not to do exactly that beforehand?

If you were really sorry about it? Hmmm...to be honest, I don't know.

EDIT: Ooooh, I get it, you're going to follow up on this and say "Well, that's EXACTLY what the woman did!", right? Well, see, that's different though. Because in the example you described, someone deliberately conned me out of a large sum of money. But in THIS scenario, we don't know if the woman's intentions were as hateful as all that. She could have simply naively assumed that everything would work out all hunky dory, and that child-rearing would be totally magical. So I'm not sure it's quite the same scenario though.

Edited August 8, 2015 by FionordeQuester

[Skynstein]

I think it's immoral but I've actually seen the opposite... The man puncturing his condom with a needle to make the girl have a baby. And, you know, here in Banana Republic getting an abortion is very far from simple, so the girl had the baby anyway, and didn't seem to be a happy mom afterwards.

[Phoenix Wright]

It should be punishable of course. But I wouldn't count it as unforgivable either. And even if it was, who are we to make those kinds of calls anyway, when we're just a bunch of armchair critics hanging out in one of the nerdiest places on the internet?

No, actually, her background IS relevant, even in a court of law, because the hypothetical factors I'm talking about? Those are called "mitigating factors" by our Judicial system. What are mitigating factors? According to the Cornell Law School, they are defined as...

"Any fact or circumstance that lessens the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Mitigating factors include an ability for the criminal to reform, mental retardation, an addiction to illegal substances or alcohol that contributed to the criminal behavior, and past good deeds, among many others. Recognition of particular mitigating factors varies by jurisdiction."

So, there you go. Her background IS relevant, Mr. Wright. Speaking of which, there's also something called an "aggravating factor", and THAT'S defined as...

"Any fact or circumstance that increases the severity or culpability of a criminal act. Aggravating factors include recidivism, lack of remorse, amount of harm to the victim, or committing the crime in front of a child, among many others. The recognition of particular aggravating factors varies by jurisdiction."

Which is exactly WHY I say that the severity of her crime is increased if it's something she keeps doing repeatedly. So, there's your fun facts for today.

Not really. Or if it is, it's being done according to the Rule of Law, by a specially appointed council of qualified individuals specifically elected or appointed by whoever put them there (the rules differ from place to place).

It is actually.

Eh... I'm not sure deception like that would actually qualify as a deal-breaker. For me, I typically follow something my Dad referred to as the "Four A's" when trying to think through hypothetical situations like this. For me, these "4 A's" constitute grounds for divorce...

Abandonment-If the wife or husband runs out on the family and leaves their spouse to fend for themselves?  Yep, that's grounds for an instant annulment in my book.  

Abuse-This can be emotional, physical, or any other kind of intentional harm towards your spouse.  So wife/husband beaters don't get to have any kind of moral high ground if their spouse decides that enough is enough.

Addiction-Alcoholism, gambling, drug addiction, and all that isn't just a self-destructive act.  It is also something that tends to be a significant financial burden on the family, especially when the offender is dipping into, say, their daughter's College fund to support their addiction.  In this case, the offended party is completely justified in leaving the wrongdoer.

Adultery-Obviously

Out of all those 4 A's, the only category that this hypothetical situation might fall into is "Abuse", depending on whatever aggravating factors were in play. But again, I don't think it's that hard and fast, so I don't feel comfortable saying that the situation your describing is unforgivable.

If you were really sorry about it? Hmmm...to be honest, I don't know.

EDIT: Ooooh, I get it, you're going to follow up on this and say "Well, that's EXACTLY what the woman did!", right? Well, see, that's different though. Because in the example you described, someone deliberately conned me out of a large sum of money. But in THIS scenario, we don't know if the woman's intentions were as hateful as all that. She could have simply naively assumed that everything would work out all hunky dory, and that child-rearing would be totally magical. So I'm not sure it's quite the same scenario though.

i think you're forgetting that this is a moral question, not a legal question.

morally, it is wrong to deceive. to lie. morally, it is wrong to force someone to have a baby or take care of a baby. (at least, i'm sure for most this rings true.) therefore, it follows that it's morally wrong to lie to your partner about contraception techniques so that you may have a baby, a baby that you alone aren't solely responsible for.

i'll admit i got carried away with the rest of whatever bs we're discussing, but above is the crux of the situation and argument. because the partner lied and forced a baby on an unwilling party, i believe that the act is at the very least undeserving of forgiveness.

Edited August 8, 2015 by Phoenix Wright

[eclipse]

I did suggest that at the time. I think the reply was something along the lines of it's not a matter of right and wrong. I feel I should stress that my mother is overall a lovely (if quite unreasonable) person overall. This is just one isolated incident of incomprehensible values. I know none of you will ever meet her but I still don't want to sully her good name by making her look like nothing but a sexist maniac.

Oh, don't worry, I've got a mother who has similar traits. . .but not on these values, she'd flip her shit if she found out any of her acquaintances did this!

right, okay. your initial post was:

which means that you don't think it's a good counter. the problem is that it's a good counter. the roles are reversed and the morality of the hypothetical doesn't change.

it would still be a good counter even if a person isn't convinced by it because that person probably isn't seeking to be convinced by it.

you're claiming that you know this person's derangement well enough that you can assess the quality of an argument from the imaginary point of view that you're attributing to this person - well enough to dismiss phoenix wright's post. there are two possible conclusions: either you share this point of view or you have no idea what you're talking about, and bayesian probability suggests to me the latter.

If your argument is brushed off because you failed to assess the other person's stance correctly, it's a bad argument. Situational awareness is crucial, especially if your goal ISN'T just to make yourself look good.

Do you want to be right, or effective? Because the argument you posed won't be effective in the situation outlined in the first post. So I'm going to assume you want to be "right".

Lastly, I don't respond to people who refuse to be convinced otherwise (as stated in your quote) - and if that were the case, I'd shake my head and move on.

So, what she did was definitely wrong, but I'm not sure I'd call her a bad person or anything. A naive person, maybe. Shortsighted, oh definitely. And of course, dishonest to the 9th degree, which is in itself will cause huge problems in the relationship. And of course, it definitely makes me question just how good their relationship actually is...but it's still not something I'd likely divorce her for.

You're far more forgiving than I am. Children (or the inability to produce them) have caused divorces in the past. . .and this situation throws deceit on top of it all! If I can't trust someone, I have no business being in a relationship with them!

I think it's immoral but I've actually seen the opposite... The man puncturing his condom with a needle to make the girl have a baby. And, you know, here in Banana Republic getting an abortion is very far from simple, so the girl had the baby anyway, and didn't seem to be a happy mom afterwards.

This is equally disgusting, and I feel sorry for the mother.

Kids shouldn't be a unilateral decision!

[Jotari]

i don't see how that's not a criminal act, to be completely honest.

first of all, if a the husband does not want a child, and the wife does, the couple shouldn't be together.

secondly, this post is pretty offensive. are you saying women are so infatuated with having children that they can't control themselves, akin to an addict? are women addicted to children in your worldview? you feel pity for a woman that would deceive her husband so that she could have a child? and let's get rid of gender here: you feel pity for a partner that would deceive their significant other in bringing into the world (or from adoption) a child that they have to bathe, feed, shelter, care for? by law, no less? as in, if the spouse chooses not to, they'd go to jail? (you don't have a choice to take care of your child once they're born.) that is a dangerous point of view, there's no other way i can say that.

with regards to your edit, it becomes abundantly clear that you don't quite understand how much work, time, and money go into caring for a single child, let alone multiple.

I know you said you want get away from the legal ramifications and back to the moral ones, but I just want to express my views that it shouldn't be considered a crime (legally). For one, it would be a nightmare to actually prosecute anyone because people can innocently forget to take their pills (of any sort) and no contraception technique is 100% effective. So pretty much anyone whose accused of it could just say they forgot and unless we start criminalizing idiocy and forgetfulness, there's absolutely no way around it. Secondly it would in no way help anyone in the situation. The perpetrator would either have to pay something to the injured party which money that will in all likelihood go right back to the child (unless the unwilling parent wants absolutely nothing to do with the child, in which case the money is something the child desperately needs). Or the guilty party would have to spend some time in prison which won't do the child any good either. The only other alternative is a legally enforced abortion, which even under normal standards isn't legal in a lot of the world and I don't think anyone would be in favor of supporting an unwilling abortion.

Also morally speaking I don't think any act, no matter how monstrous, should be considered unforgivable. It might not be easy to forgive but holding a life long grudge towards someone that is genuinely remorseful will help no one. I'm not saying we should instantly forgive everyone who crosses us but we should believe it's possible. Probably going a bit off topic here overall so I'll just leave it with a Cracked article about people who managed to forgive in what would be considered some extremely unforgivable circumstances.

http://www.cracked.com/article_22710_5-sworn-enemies-who-formed-inspiring-friendships.html

I think it's immoral but I've actually seen the opposite... The man puncturing his condom with a needle to make the girl have a baby. And, you know, here in Banana Republic getting an abortion is very far from simple, so the girl had the baby anyway, and didn't seem to be a happy mom afterwards.

Was it from this video perhaps?

http://5secondfilms.com/watch/the_one

(I've wanted to reference that for two pages now)

[Borz]

Because they don't really GET anything out of it.

They can break up the relationship and extort money from the man via child support, basically enslaving him for 18 years for a passive source of income.

In fact, they don't even have to trick the man, they can also just steal the sperm from a used condom or something and impregnate themselves with it and the man can't do anything about it.

[Phoenix Wright]

I know you said you want get away from the legal ramifications and back to the moral ones, but I just want to express my views that it shouldn't be considered a crime (legally). For one, it would be a nightmare to actually prosecute anyone because people can innocently forget to take their pills (of any sort) and no contraception technique is 100% effective. So pretty much anyone whose accused of it could just say they forgot and unless we start criminalizing idiocy and forgetfulness, there's absolutely no way around it. Secondly it would in no way help anyone in the situation. The perpetrator would either have to pay something to the injured party which money that will in all likelihood go right back to the child (unless the unwilling parent wants absolutely nothing to do with the child, in which case the money is something the child desperately needs). Or the guilty party would have to spend some time in prison which won't do the child any good either. The only other alternative is a legally enforced abortion, which even under normal standards isn't legal in a lot of the world and I don't think anyone would be in favor of supporting an unwilling abortion.

Also morally speaking I don't think any act, no matter how monstrous, should be considered unforgivable. It might not be easy to forgive but holding a life long grudge towards someone that is genuinely remorseful will help no one. I'm not saying we should instantly forgive everyone who crosses us but we should believe it's possible. Probably going a bit off topic here overall so I'll just leave it with a Cracked article about people who managed to forgive in what would be considered some extremely unforgivable circumstances.

http://www.cracked.com/article_22710_5-sworn-enemies-who-formed-inspiring-friendships.html

Was it from this video perhaps?

http://5secondfilms.com/watch/the_one

(I've wanted to reference that for two pages now)

how should forcing a child on another party be handled other than legally?

whether or not an act actually is unforgivable isn't what i'm saying. it's a question of whether an act can be deserving of it in the first place. i can forgive a man that murders a loved one of mine, but that doesn't mean i'm obligated to. the murderer is completely undeserving of forgiveness. it's the same here, in my eyes.