Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 The first sentence of that paragraph did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 In situations like that, it'd be alot easier on the couple if they were responsbile enough that they wouldn't be put in that situation in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) That I can agree with, Dark Moth. The issue of abortion wouldn't even exist, for the most part, if the couple practiced abstinence or contraceptives. Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 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... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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}> Can't use his genetic material without consent to start a pregnancy with a previously created and stored embryo, either ... OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) Then they'd have to come to a compromise on what to do. They'd have to discuss it. Are you suggesting that the law require some kind of compulsory mediation or counselling session? Would that involve the woman and man together or seperately, with or without their families? Can't use his genetic material without consent to start a pregnancy with a previously created and stored embryo, either ... <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Yes. As it stands, the man has control over his sperm until it enters the woman's body, and must consent to that entry. Once that has happened, he has no rights until the child leaves the mother's body. It's important that the law be workable in practice, and this seems to be. Edited August 30, 2006 by SteveThaiBinh "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
metadigital Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 In other words, don't attempt to knock some sense into him, just ignore him. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm a moderator, I can't ignore ANYONE ... I have to ensure everyone is playing nice. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Then they'd have to come to a compromise on what to do. They'd have to discuss it. Are you suggesting that the law require some kind of compulsory mediation or counselling session? Would that involve the woman and man together or seperately, with or without their families? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> When did I mention law? I was talking about along a more personal basis. They're a couple, they should be able to talk about these things. If the couple are both old enough to be legally separate, then the decision should ultimately be up to them, not their families. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 And if its a one night stand? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 What am I, a relationship adviser now? Anyway, I already made that point clear. If the man gets up and runs away, then the decision is the woman's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 The first sentence of that paragraph did. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I am well aware of your stance on the issue. THere's no need to repeat it again, unsolicited, when responding to the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 I did answer your question. Isn't that the point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alanschu Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) You included unnecessary (and unrelated, and previously stated) rhetoric with it. Edited August 30, 2006 by alanschu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 So? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arkan Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 So? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> I think he's calling you a republican. "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger." - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials "I have also been slowly coming to the realisation that knowledge and happiness are not necessarily coincident, and quite often mutually exclusive" - meta Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEK! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SteveThaiBinh Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 When did I mention law? I was talking about along a more personal basis. They're a couple, they should be able to talk about these things. If the couple are both old enough to be legally separate, then the decision should ultimately be up to them, not their families. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You didn't mention the law directly, but the law is important in this debate. You, I, governments, church organisations and anyone else can give advice and say what we think should happen, but no-one is obliged to follow or even listen to our advice. We can discuss whose decision we think it should be, but ultimately the law has to clarify whose decision it actually is. At the moment in the UK, it's the woman's alone. How would you change that? "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fionavar Posted August 30, 2006 Share Posted August 30, 2006 Yep looks llike we have derailed - thanks for not spilling too much sand everyone ... The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts