Double Standard?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


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

"Natural"? I hate that word. Ever since the secularisation of the State people have tried to reformulate their moral beliefs around some fraudulent view of the world as "naturally" following a certain path which human beings should attempt to avoid disturbing. Gaia has replaced God, but it's no less theological in substance.

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.

Long blathering post with no substance and an ad hominem attack at the end to top it off.

To reiterate: what will/might happen in the future has no bearing on the humanity of a tissue sample in the present. If you let it grow up then it becomes a human being. If you don't then it doesn't. If I build a computer from raw materials then I have a computer. If I don't build it, then all I have is 20 pounds of copper, oil and sand.

I'll monitor this thread, but it's already beginning to degenerate. If anything particularly interesting pops up then I'll respond.

[General Ludd]

KrazyHorse, you are talking about abortion as if it where a casual choice - no more signifigant then putting on a condom.
Like I've already said, you desperately need a woman's perspective on this issue.


Why don't you ask your girlfriend or your mother what they think of this?



And my original question was "I wonder how women think about this attitude of 'who cares if I get a woman pregnant, she can always get an abortion'" I don't see how your smart-ass remarks about women geting pregnant for the child support money relates to that at all.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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

Who said the man wouldn't want to pay child support? What if the man is married to the woman? He wants the kid and she doesn't... she can get rid of the kid against his wishes.

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.

SHE is the one that decided to have the baby, when the guy didn't. SHE also has the choice to have an abortion.

Man doesn't have a choice after intercourse... SHE does... that is unfair... and violates equal protection under the law.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


"Natural"? I hate that word. Ever since the secularisation of the State people have tried to reformulate their moral beliefs around some fraudulent view of the world as "naturally" following a certain path which human beings should attempt to avoid disturbing. Gaia has replaced God, but it's no less theological in substance.

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.

Long blathering post with no substance and an ad hominem attack at the end to top it off.

To reiterate: what will/might happen in the future has no bearing on the humanity of a tissue sample in the present. If you let it grow up then it becomes a human being. If you don't then it doesn't. If I build a computer from raw materials then I have a computer. If I don't build it, then all I have is 20 pounds of copper, oil and sand.

I'll monitor this thread, but it's already beginning to degenerate. If anything particularly interesting pops up then I'll respond.

translation: victory

[Imran Siddiqui]

translation: victory

You remind me of the creationists on Poly .

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

translation: victory

You remind me of the creationists on Poly .

It was just a joke. I thought Krazy was getting a little pissed, so I wanted to push his buttons a little. No harm done, no harm meant

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


translation: victory

Ahh. So you follow this philsophy?

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by nationalist


It was just a joke. I thought Krazy was getting a little pissed, so I wanted to push his buttons a little. No harm done, no harm meant

Actually, I knew that.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse


Ahh. So you follow this philsophy?

lol... I think that I agree with the Resource Consumer guy.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


SHE is the one that decided to have the baby, when the guy didn't. SHE also has the choice to have an abortion.

Man doesn't have a choice after intercourse... SHE does... that is unfair... and violates equal protection under the law.

regardless of the fairness of the issue, this is not an equal protection violation under the US Constitution.

[Imran Siddiqui]

regardless of the fairness of the issue, this is not an equal protection violation under the US Constitution.

Actually that was my next twist in the argument .

After sex, the woman has a choice to have (and thus support the child) or not. The man does not.

This violates equal protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

[November Adam]

So Imran.. do you think that the man should have the ability to over ride the womans choice to abort if HE will take care of the child?

[nationalist]

Originally posted by November Adam
So Imran.. do you think that the man should have the ability to over ride the womans choice to abort if HE will take care of the child?

I think so. The baby is as much his as it is her's. If she would abort it, she would be killing a child that would be cared for if born.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So Imran.. do you think that the man should have the ability to over ride the womans choice to abort if HE will take care of the child?

Yes... if the child can be taken out at that point and survive. The abortion issue is consent. If the woman doesn't want the child to be in her body and use it as an incubator, she has that right.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

regardless of the fairness of the issue, this is not an equal protection violation under the US Constitution.

Actually that was my next twist in the argument .

After sex, the woman has a choice to have (and thus support the child) or not. The man does not.

This violates equal protection of the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

Before the child comes into existence, the father would not have standing to bring a lawsuit. Once a child comes into being, it is entitled to equal protection, which requires support from both parents, regardless if one doesn't want the child.
The child's rights are always the paramount concern to the court.

There have been numerous cases to support this position: that fathers (and mothers) have to pay support even if the child is unwanted.

check out Wallis v Smith, 22 P.3d 682, a fairly similar case to the one you suggest, (and recent, 2001) where the couple agreed to use birth control, she stopped (without telling him) and became pregnant. He sued for fraud (attempting to avoid his support obligations) and the case was dismissed.