Double Standard?

[Sarxis]

I don't think that a man should have an easy way out just because the women doesn't want to have an abortion.

He made the decision to twinkle his twinkie; wether he wanted the baby or not, that is the risk you take with twinkling.


But there does need to be a double standard, since men and women ARE DIFFERENT, and do play different (though an overall sharing of) responsibilities in birthing and raising children.

[Tuberski]

The man has the same "OUT" with abortion. If she doesn't want it, it's highly unlikely that he wants it either. Do you REALLY think that the pittance I send my ex each month makes her live in comfort?

Get a clue.

And until then PLEASE do not get a woman pregnant.

[nationalist]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by KrazyHorse

Having a different genetic code doesn't mean crap; it's neither a necessary nor a sufficient requirement for individuality.

If different genetic structure does not make a different human being, then what does?

I judge things on what they are, not what they might become. Anything else is a silly system. A fertilised ova does not a human being make.

"Might" has nothing to do with it. A fetus WILL become a human. There is no question to that. And yes, a fertilized ova does make a human being. That's what they developed from. That response sounds like a justification rather than an answer.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by November Adam


Uhm, I don't think that has anything to do with the biological definition of a human either.

Cojoined twins often are not "individual", as they often need to share organs.

Conjoined twins are messy. There is obviously one human being. The question is: are there two? My answer is yes, given that they gain individuality through behavioural differences; one acts differently than the other. If they both acted as one then they would be one.

November, is a tissue sample of a dead person an individual human being? No, despite it having a unique genetic code. It is not viable; it does not live or breathe on its own. Neither can a fetus, before a certain point. Functionally, it is part of the mother's body, and must remain so in order to grow. It gains its humanity when it gains viability.

I think you seriously need to get a woman's perspective on this. There is no way a woman is going to get pregnant just so she can get child support

Osweld, she has the choice to either carry the child and raise it with subsidies from the father, or to abort it. Why does she get to make the choice for the father?

And I don't see how this relates to what I said, anyways

Then you're being dense.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

November, is a tissue sample of a dead person an individual human being? No, despite it having a unique genetic code. It is not viable; it does not live or breathe on its own. Neither can a fetus, before a certain point. Functionally, it is part of the mother's body, and must remain so in order to grow. It gains its humanity when it gains viability.

A dead person won't develop into an individual human being. It already was. However, a fetus will become a human being, and in a very short amount of time. Chopping up a dead body won't destroy a life, because it is already dead. Chopping up a fetus destroys a certainty of human life. See the difference?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


If different genetic structure does not make a different human being, then what does?

Functional/behavioural independence. Somebody's already pointed out (previous thread) that some organs (stomach lining) in your body actually have a distinct genetic code. They're still part of you.

"Might" has nothing to do with it. A fetus WILL become a human. There is no question to that. And yes, a fertilized ova does make a human being. That's what they developed from. That response sounds like a justification rather than an answer.

a) Might has everything to do with it. There are no guarantees that a fertilised ovum will develop into a human being.

b) Are spermatozoa in the vaginal cavity also destined to become human beings? Should we protect their "right" to fertilise whatever ova is there? Potential means squat. It either is or isn't a human being. "Will become if things go its way and we choose not to interfere" is worthless.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


A dead person won't develop into an individual human being. It already was. However, a fetus will become a human being, and in a very short amount of time. Chopping up a dead body won't destroy a life, because it is already dead. Chopping up a fetus destroys a certainty of human life. See the difference?

a) A dead tissue sample will develop into a human being if you chose to extract a nucleus from a cell, inject it into an unfertilised ovum, then provide a nourishing environment (womb) and wait 9 months.

b) Potential still means squat. If I've already rejected it as a standard of judgment, then it does no good for you to continue to harp on it

c) The final three sentences are simply restating a position I disagree with, and are thus immaterial

[nationalist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
A dead tissue sample will develop into a human being if you chose to extract a nucleus from a cell, inject it into an unfertilised ovum, then provide a nourishing environment (womb) and wait 9 months.

Pregnancy is a natural process. What you described isn't, and besides that, it isn't true. You can't really compare the two.

Potential still means squat. If I've already rejected it as a standard of judgment, then it does no good for you to continue to harp on it

It doesn't matter if you reject the argument. Its not really potential, its certainty. A fetus develops into a person without deviation unless disrupted by genetic flaw or outside action. Do you judge everything by only what exists at the present, without regards to the future? No wonder you don't believe that people have to deal with the consequences of sex.

[Tuberski]

It's wonderful to listen to you rehash this AGAIN, but what does it have to do with child support?

[Imran Siddiqui]

No wonder you don't believe that people have to deal with the consequences of sex.

Well women don't if they don't feel like it.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Tuberski
It's wonderful to listen to you rehash this AGAIN, but what does it have to do with child support?

Nothing . I've already said that I think that the guy should have to pay child support.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The man has the same "OUT" with abortion. If she doesn't want it, it's highly unlikely that he wants it either.

So what she wants is what he wants now too? hehehe

[nationalist]

Well women don't if they don't feel like it.

They should have to as well. I am against abortion because I see it as the ultimate shirking of responsibility on both the man and woman's part.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

The man has the same "OUT" with abortion. If she doesn't want it, it's highly unlikely that he wants it either.

So what she wants is what he wants now too? hehehe

Most likely. Anybody who doesn't want to pay child support would be happy to have that out, correct?

Also, pay child support is called taking responsibilty for your actions. You make it seem like it's a harsh penalty. SHE is the one who is single and trying to rasie the child. SHE is also the one who's life will be changed if she has an abortion. The man's life won't be changed in either case.

Except a couple less six packs a month. Which will help in keeping him from repeating the process.

[Imran Siddiqui]

They should have to as well. I am against abortion because I see it as the ultimate shirking of responsibility on both the man and woman's part.

That is consistant then. But there are a lot of people who believe that abortion should be legal and men should pay child support.