Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Double Standard?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    So what you are outlining Imran is a double standard then.


    Yep, there is a double standard.

    Like KH said... when you consent to sex, you don't consent to child birth... that is why we have abortions .

    Consent for one act doesn't lead to consent for another act.
    “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
    - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

    Comment


    • #17
      No contraception is 100% foolproof. If you are ignorant of this fact when you jump in the sack then tough titties.


      And there isn't a 100% chance you won't get hit by a car when you cross the street... so I guess you'd say if you were hit while crossing the road, tough titties, eh?
      “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
      - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

      Comment


      • #18
        My ideal system:

        If the man knew that the woman would not have an abortion before having sex, he gets to pay.
        If he did not use contraception, or used sh*tty contraception, he gets to pay (unless the woman told him not to use a condom or something).
        If the abortion would cause a risk to the woman, he gets to pay.
        If he doesn't want her to have an abortion, he gets to pay.

        Failing all of these, he should be off the hook.
        I refute it thus!
        "Destiny! Destiny! No escaping that for me!"

        Comment


        • #19
          The "double standard" works both ways. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, the woman gets to make the decision.
          ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
          ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

          Comment


          • #20
            Walking across the street isn't 100% safe either. Why should a girl be able to hold you up for ransom for an accident caused by the both of you? There's a legal alternative, and if she chooses not to take it then you should be absolved of all legal responsibility.
            12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
            Stadtluft Macht Frei
            Killing it is the new killing it
            Ultima Ratio Regum

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
              No contraception is 100% foolproof. If you are ignorant of this fact when you jump in the sack then tough titties.


              And there isn't a 100% chance you won't get hit by a car when you cross the street... so I guess you'd say if you were hit while crossing the road, tough titties, eh?
              Actually abstinence is 100% foolproof.

              Anyway, thats a terrible analogy. You are comparing some guy getting his rocks off with crossing the road?? Pffffffffff
              ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
              ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by Caligastia
                The "double standard" works both ways. If the man wants the child and the woman doesnt, the woman gets to make the decision.
                Huh? That's the point. The woman always has the choice under the current system. You shouldn't be able to force a woman to have an abortion (since it's her body), but the fact is that there's a legal and safe alternative to having the child. It's her decision to have the baby, therefore it should legally be her responsibility.
                12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                Stadtluft Macht Frei
                Killing it is the new killing it
                Ultima Ratio Regum

                Comment


                • #23
                  If he did not use contraception, or used sh*tty contraception, he gets to pay


                  Well if they did not use contraception, the woman can either have the child or not... she has a choice after the pregancy is revealed.

                  The man has NO choice after the revelation of the pregnancy. If he wants the child, but she doesn't, the child is aborted. If he doesn't want the child, but she does, then he is responsible for child support. He is at the mercy of the woman after the act of sex, because she has the only say after the sexual act.
                  “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                  - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Caligastia


                    Actually abstinence is 100% foolproof
                    Not going outside will guarantee you won't get hit by a car, too.
                    12-17-10 Mohamed Bouazizi NEVER FORGET
                    Stadtluft Macht Frei
                    Killing it is the new killing it
                    Ultima Ratio Regum

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by KrazyHorse
                      Walking across the street isn't 100% safe either. Why should a girl be able to hold you up for ransom for an accident caused by the both of you? There's a legal alternative, and if she chooses not to take it then you should be absolved of all legal responsibility.
                      Getting your rocks off with some chick is not a necessary part of daily life. Crossing the road is. The analogy sucks.
                      ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                      ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Anyway, thats a terrible analogy. You are comparing some guy getting his rocks off with crossing the road??


                        It is terrible to you because it doesn't jive with your views.
                        “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                        - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Being a person who pays child support, I think you are all wrong. It's not a double standard. If you can't do the time, don't do the time.

                          And as far as, "I don't want anything to do with the child, so why should I pay?"

                          Because, you jag off, you stiil helped bring life into the world, you can at the very least, make sure that life flourishes.
                          Don't try to confuse the issue with half-truths and gorilla dust!

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                            Anyway, thats a terrible analogy. You are comparing some guy getting his rocks off with crossing the road??


                            It is terrible to you because it doesn't jive with your views.


                            No, its terrible period.
                            ...people like to cry a lot... - Pekka
                            ...we just argue without evidence, secure in our own superiority. - Snotty

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Getting your rocks off is not a necessary part of daily life. Crossing the road is. The analogy sucks.


                              How about another one... if you enter in a bar and someone beats you up, then tough titties. You didn't have to go into the bar, and it could be seen that you could have been beaten up, so you have to deal, right?
                              “I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
                              - John 13:34-35 (NRSV)

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
                                If he did not use contraception, or used sh*tty contraception, he gets to pay


                                Well if they did not use contraception, the woman can either have the child or not... she has a choice after the pregancy is revealed.

                                The man has NO choice after the revelation of the pregnancy. If he wants the child, but she doesn't, the child is aborted. If he doesn't want the child, but she does, then he is responsible for child support. He is at the mercy of the woman after the act of sex, because she has the only say after the sexual act.
                                Which I think is wrong.

                                But then again, I'm with Calig on the whole abstinance thing.
                                What if your words could be judged like a crime? "Creed, What If?"

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X