Double Standard?

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


asleep, you are looking at this WAAAAY too legally. We don't care what the courts would say. We are saying what is right and fair. Courts be damned.

haha, you're probably right.

however, I am also looking at it as a product of divorce. While my parents both wanted me (or so I assume ) how would I have coped as a child after they divorced (when I was 6) and not had the support from my father (who never had a problem supporting me, afaik). Its not that much of a step further for me to imagine if my father skipped out altogether, mother struggling to raise me (and a sibling) on just her salary. not the ideal situation for a child.

[Imran Siddiqui]

LEGAL TIES? Is that all this is to you?

Yes... both sides should have a fair chance for severing ties.

Abortion in and of itself is 'taking responsibility'

No it isn't. Taking responsibility would be to have the child and raise it.

--

asleep, I can totally understand, and most of those (under my plan, I guess) who refused to pay support, I'd consider reprehensible, but I can't promote unfairness in the law.

[General Ludd]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Abortion in and of itself is 'taking responsibility'

No it isn't. Taking responsibility would be to have the child and raise it.

Notice the quotation marks? it may not be taking responsibility in the most common sense, but it is dealing with the responsibility none the less.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

asleep, I can totally understand, and most of those (under my plan, I guess) who refused to pay support, I'd consider reprehensible, but I can't promote unfairness in the law.

I understand. Its just a matter of priorities, I suppose. I can really see both sides. As a guy, this stuff would piss me off, not being in control of my own destiny, having the control be in the hands of a one night stand.

[Ramo]

What nationalist was getting at, and which others seem to be intentionally ignoring, or twisting, is that a fetus will continue to develope if nothing is done.

Cut off nutrients to the fetus and it won't develop. If you the mother does "nothing" with regards to the fertilized ova (does not send nutrients to it) it won't become a "person." Likewise, if the mother does "nothing" with regards to her skin cells, they won't become "people."

The only distinction is that one process uses the infrastructure natural selection gave to the mother, while the other uses more technology. And I don't see how that distinction is relevant.

[Ned]

Re: Double Standard?

Originally posted by November Adam
Should a man who wants the woman he got pregnant to have an abortion, should he have to pay child support if she chooses not to?

Should a legal system that supports abortion be in the right to force him to do so?

I believe the laws should promote family units. Therefore, I think the law ought to be something like this:

1) If a woman has a baby from a consensual relationship but is not married to the father, she should responsible for bringing up the child. The child should have no rights of inheritance.

2) The opposite if the woman is married to the father or if she was raped.

3) If a married woman has an abortion without the consent of her husband she may be immediately divorced without right of alimony, inheritance or other property rights she may have had through marriage. It should void all prenuptial agreements. An exception should be if the abortion were required to save her life.

4) If the man is not married to the woman, he should have no say at all in whether she aborts.

The consequence of the above legal regime would be that a lot fewer women would be willing to have unprotected sex outside of marriage, or have abortions without getting their husband's approval. It would level the playing field.

Ned

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Ramo


Cut off nutrients to the fetus and it won't develop. If you the mother does "nothing" with regards to the fertilized ova (does not send nutrients to it) it won't become a "person." Likewise, if the mother does "nothing" with regards to her skin cells, they won't become "people."

That is a ridiculous argument. The fetus will die if the mother doesn't eat. No ****. The mother would probably starve to death as well. I can't see what you are trying to get at with this.

The only distinction is that one process uses the infrastructure natural selection gave to the mother, while the other uses more technology. And I don't see how that distinction is relevant.

I'm speechless. If you can't see the relevance in the distinction between getting pregnant and doing this quasi-scientific skin cell nonsense then you are an idiot. You people are really scraping to put together an argument.

[nationalist]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Urban Ranger

So are parasites. They tend to have different genetic codes than their hosts.

So, you see no difference between fetuses and parasites?

A fetus does not necessary develop into a person. Besides, in theory, any cells of your body can develop into a person. So does it mean scratching yourself is not allowed?

What does a fetus develop into besides a baby? The last part makes no sense. I'll address it this way. How often do your skin cells develop into babies? Now, how often do fetuses develop into babies. That statement is completely assinine. No, you shouldn't scratch yourself... I can't believe that I dignified that with a response.

[nationalist]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil
Nationalist, your own seminal cells have a different genetic code than you. Does that means they are a different person than you ?
Twins has exactly the same genetic code. Does that means they are the same person ?

Splitting hairs. No, semen doesn't have your exact genetic structure, but it has enough to do what it is supposed to do: share your genetic information. Left to develop, semen will not develop into a disitinct person. As for twins, identical twins are initially the same person in a pregnancy, eventually splitting to become separate beings. After that point they are two different people, genetically and physically distinct from their mother, but only physically distinct from each other. Its the same as having a clone: you are genetically the same person as a clone, but you are physically distinct.

A person is a 'sentient being'. As long as the fetus does not have a nervous system, it's nothing more than a cell pack.

That "cell pack" will become sentient in a very short time. I think that it is short sighted to say "hey, its only a cell pack" and dispose of it. Do you do everything without thinking of the consequences, or without taking consideration of what will happen if you wait? I hope that you don't.

[Imran Siddiqui]

The consequence of the above legal regime would be that a lot fewer women would be willing to have unprotected sex outside of marriage, or have abortions without getting their husband's approval. It would level the playing field

Not bad ideas at all. Very well thought out, may I add.

[November Adam]

Originally posted by Ramo


Cut off nutrients to the fetus and it won't develop. If you the mother does "nothing" with regards to the fertilized ova (does not send nutrients to it) it won't become a "person." Likewise, if the mother does "nothing" with regards to her skin cells, they won't become "people."

The only distinction is that one process uses the infrastructure natural selection gave to the mother, while the other uses more technology. And I don't see how that distinction is relevant.

You have as much of a chance of cutting nutrients off to the fetus, as you do of cutting off your blood flow through your heart. Yet you do nothing to make the blood flow. It's a biological function.

[asleepathewheel]

Re: Re: Double Standard?

Originally posted by Ned

The consequence of the above legal regime would be that a lot fewer women would be willing to have unprotected sex outside of marriage, or have abortions without getting their husband's approval. It would level the playing field.

Do you actually think that people always think of the consequences when they have sex? I'm sorry, but I doubt that your suggestions would actually have any effect on sex. In the heat of the moment, do you really think the woman will say "if I get pregnant, you do not have to help out". don't you think that if the woman was thinking about getting pregnant at all, she would have had him use a condom in the first place?

[Ned]

Re: Re: Re: Double Standard?

Originally posted by asleepathewheel


Do you actually think that people always think of the consequences when they have sex? I'm sorry, but I doubt that your suggestions would actually have any effect on sex. In the heat of the moment, do you really think the woman will say "if I get pregnant, you do not have to help out". don't you think that if the woman was thinking about getting pregnant at all, she would have had him use a condom in the first place?

From my own personal experience, yes.

I think women are very capable of self control.

Ned

[asleepathewheel]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Double Standard?

Originally posted by Ned


From my own personal experience, yes.

I think women are very capable of self control.

Ned

of course each sex is capable of self control.

my point is that the out of wedlock prenancy rate is already high. Don't you think that if one of the two was thinking about pregnancy, they would have acted differently?

Or do you think that the woman is like "I don't care if i get pregnant, but, Damn! since the guy doesn't have to pay, lets use protection." Who thinks like that?

[Ned]

Asleepatthewheel, Since the law is not now the way I suggested it should be, we can really know whether women would change their thinking about unprotected sex before marriage. I just think they would, but I might be wrong.
Ned