Dark Moth

That's a good question. Let me know when you find out.

Yes, I know. As creepy as I find you calling me cute, it's easier to type 'husband' than husband/boyfriend/fiance. But don't worry, you won't have to put up with me very often any more. With classes starting and with my schedule, I won't be visiting these boards very frequently.

I'm interested to know how you would see this working in practice. If the mother wants an abortion and the father does not, what happens? How about if the father wants an abortion and the mother does not? Where does the casting vote fall? You suggest that the mother cannot have full say in what to do with the baby, yet at the moment that's exactly how UK law stands (I don't know if US law is different). A woman is under no obligation even to inform the foetus' father that she's having an abortion, let alone get his permission. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Then they'd have to come to a compromise on what to do. They'd have to discuss it. In other words, the woman should not just decide 'I want to get rid of it' and not have to let her partner have a say in what happens. As said, a relationship is supposed to be a give-take situation. The couple have to be able to negotiate and compromise. If they can't even reach a decision on what to do with something as important as a child, then either they shouldn't be in a relationship, or they shouldn't be parents. Anyway, if they can't reach a decision, then maybe it should be up to the woman in the end. However, that also depends on the situation. But my main point is that it's unfair to not let the husband influence the decision whatsoever from the start. That's my POV. The husband helped create it, it carries half his genes, he should be able to have influence.

Believe me, this is not fun. More like a bad habit; done in the faint hope of instilling some sense into that cheerful little mind of yours. I believe that if the man stays and shows some responsibility, then he does have a right to a say in the baby's fate. I have emphasized that point in all my posts. If he just just runs with his tail between his legs or doesn't contribute at all to the relationship, then yes the woman probably should have more say in what to do with the child. And I think the fact that many of us here have/had fathers that were responsible and stuck around is a big enough indicator of the fallacy of your POV.

In other words, don't attempt to knock some sense into him, just ignore him.

Did the woman create it herself? No. Does the baby carry her genes only? No. Why do I even bother?

Don't you ever call me naive. You of all people don't have any right to judge other people's points of view. Hell, you don't even respect your own, mr "I don't do logic". Which by the way, is probably your excuse for saying the things you say. And as for relationships, I'm sure you're the voice of experience on that. But you forget millions of people do make it work, and just because you think a relationship is just taketaketake doesn't mean it has to be so. A woman might carry a child, but it is not just her baby. She did not create it herself. She in turn cannot expect to have full say in what to do with it, provided the man doesn't cut and run.

As said already, that is absolute bullcrap. A relationship is supposed to be give-take/compromise. If the couple have a child, the man has a say in whether or not it stays. Just because the woman does the carrying doesn't mean it's up to her alone to decide whether the baby lives or dies.

DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!

That's [wonderfully creative use of creative writing]. The man helped create the child, and if he stays with her in a devoted relationship he has a right to have a say in whether or not they keep the child. Now that I wouldn't put past him. Personally I've found him to be every bit as zealous and aggressive in his views as those 'fundies' who supposedly pester him day after day. He seems to be just as, if not more hateful than those zealots he often refers to.

It's up to the couple.

I can, and I will. Our species already has things with which we can compare what is normal and what's not. Once again, in case anyone is just reading this, I'm not trying to say abnormal=bad. What I am tring to say is that there are things that nature has already told us is normal that won't change. What is normal might vary from species to species, but we are human beings, and we have to live by our own standards.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying normal depends on what you compare it to. We don't designate anything as normal, and then compare something to it. We compare something to something else, and then decide if it's normal or not. You understand the idea, but at the same time, you don't. The last sentance there, it's only normal or abnormal depending on what you compare it to. You can't just say something is universally normal or abnormally, no matter what the situation is. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's basically what I meant. Believe me lou, I know what you're trying to say. And I'm saying that yes you can. Not universally, because what's normal for one species might be different for the other. But when talking about more specific things, you can. And what you're saying doesn't change the fact that there are already standards built into our species that we are supposed to compare things to, that define what is normal and what isn't. It's normal for a wolf to have a tail, but not a human. It's normal for a woman to be pregnant, but not a guy.

I was just clarifying in case you and I weren't thinking along the same lines. Yes, I do understand what you are trying to say, which is that is normal is all relative so we can't say what is normal unless we already compare to something we've already designated as normal. And my point is that, whether you believe in God or not, there are certain things nature on our planet has already determined to be normal and abnormal.

It's not normal, because it's part of a human's genetic code to be born with only two arms. That's how we developed as a species. Any more or less is considered a mutation, a genetic abormality. If we were talking about some alien species on planet Gorfbnag that had three arms, then it'd be normal for them. If a wolf pack was comprised of purely homosexual wolves who had no interest whatsoever in the other sex, they'd die out. That's not normal. So if homosexuality is caused by a genetic defect, then how could one say it's normal? Also, don't forget that acceptable and normal are two different things.

Normal isn't always subjective, though. It's not normal for a human to be born with three arms (imagine the sexual possibilities) and one eye. It's a genetic abnormality. Homosexuality has biological ties, it's not like one's political views. If it's biological, that could make it a mutation, if it's really caused by a genetic defect.

This goes back to the old argument though. Is it normal for one to be a pedophile just because it's natural?

Well, yes. One could say it's not normal for horses and donkeys to breed because mules can't reproduce.

Well, one could easily say it's not normal because it's impossible to create a zygote with two sperm.

That I could not say for sure. Despite what some people will say, you do see gay people eventually turning straight in their lives and vice-versa. It has happened. Does that mean those urges actually go away completely? I don't know. I would also have to see why homosexuality was removed from the list in the first place. Many reasons, I'm sure. As for pedophilia, that's natural but it's still taboo because of the whole 'decision' clause, that those children are minors and aren't capable of making a mature decision about their sexuality yet. There's also necrophilia, but let's not go there. My only point is that the whole 'it's okay because it's natural' excuse isn't always good enough. And even if it is natural, that doesn't mean it can't be curbed/cured. God, I'm just begging for a flame.

I was just thinking, homosexuality is not the only trait humans are predisposed toward. A person can be genetically predisposed to have anger problems, violence, kleptomania, etc. All these things people can try to curb or cure by counseling, etc. These are all things we're 'born with' but people still make attempts to alter our behavior anyway for our own good. I don't see any problem with this as long as they aren't corrupt in their dealings. If the person wants to be straight and wants help, let him. It'd be wrong and bigotted if they were forced to go or were wrongfully treated and/or exploited. But if they're treated well then I don't see why people have a problem with this. Or maybe it's just because I'm a bigoted right-wing Christian. I think people here are so prejudiced against these sorts of institutions they automatically assume the worst and so dismiss it automatically.

I lack the maturity and intelligence to actually counter you, so I'm just going to delete everything you said and type in a lame-ass excuse. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Clarified. That's not a scientific theory at all. Scientific Theories are exceptionally strong statements, that are supported by empirical evidence. Anything lacking in proof is at best called a hypothesis. And besides, the naming convention of Laws and Theories is outdated and not even followed. Einstein's theory of relativity is a far more accurate predictor of motion than Newton's Laws of Motion. Here's an interesting read I have found <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well, I was thinking more along the lines of the "Big Bang theory" or the "String theory". Those kinds of theories which are based on fact but don't have concrete evidence that they are true. My point was that not all things in science are based upon concrete mathematical proof but must rely on reason and deduction instead. But they still are lacking in proof.

Spoken like someone who's never seen children play by themselves before.

Do you even know what a theory is? I'll just assume 'yes'. A theory is different from a law because a theory doesn't necessarily have concrete proof that it is true. A theory is rarely infalable. Hence the name theory. While a theory is based on reason, research, and deduction, because of the lack of concrete proof scientists have to go by what they believe, not what they know. Yes, it is possible for a scientist to have the dreaded thing known as 'faith'. It's what they believe to be true but that doesn't necessarily make it reality. Type faster, dammit! Anyway I'd love to stay and continue this little chat, but classes start at 8:00 AM tommorow and sleep calls.

That is absolutely ridiculous and untrue. You don't need religion to have morality. Some of the world's greatest philosophers weren't religious in the sense you're thinking of. And it's also unfair and untrue to say belief is not subject to reason. Many base their beliefs on reason. In other words, they believe in whatever scenario might be more likely to be true. This includes us religious folk and scientists. Some scientists don't have concrete proof for their theories, but they believe them to be true based on reason. Get it? And I don't know if you realize it, but a lot of governments are based on society's concept of morality. You'd be extremely hard-pressed to find a government that is not based on the accepted moral standards of whatever society it precides over.