Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Like I said before this town has more churches than anything else and more or forming each year. On campus alone there would be buggers shoving the little NT bibles or some religious fellow yelling about how God is always right and everyone is going to Hell at the Hub. There are always church missionary types, traveling in twos, going everywhere in order to increase their membership. A population that is barely 50,000 without students can only support so many churches so the competition fierce.
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) Wrong. Unless all of a sudden a man can get pregnant. After all a man can just sit back and watch. It's the woman who has to do all the work. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. After the few encounters with religious missionaries I have had, the only possible way you could persistently getting people yelling at you screaming that you are going to hell is if you brought it on yourself by provoking them. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. Edited August 30, 2006 by metadigital
metadigital Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 The great part was right after that line, when he said straight up that those people have misplaced morals. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> In the society that he doesn't want to be a part of! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> And your point? Why would I want to be around those who yell at me, force their religion in my face, and expect me to follow their two faced morality? I don't force anyone to do any thing. Checkpoint, you have the option to hit ignore so you won't have to read my bothersome posts. You can't do that when a person is less than a foot away yelling that you are going to hell. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> My point is that you seem very keen to foist your own opinion on this society that you want no part of. That's called hypocrisy. OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 That's called hypocrisy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> DINGDINGDINGDINGDING!!!!
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 If she allows him say, but ultimately it is up to her alone. The man is not the one who is carrying the child. Only thing the man did was share some chromosomes and nothing else. Like I said before if it is a good relationship it will more than likely be a mutual decision but more than often that is not the case. In cases in which abortion is a viable option its usually after a "ram bam, thank you ma'am" one night affair.
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 My point is that you seem very keen to foist your own opinion on this society that you want no part of. That's called hypocrisy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, all of a sudden the ignore function doesn't work?
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) If she allows him say, but ultimately it is up to her alone. The man is not the one who is carrying the child. Only thing the man did was share some chromosomes and nothing else. Like I said before if it is a good relationship it will more than likely be a mutual decision but more than often that is not the case. In cases in which abortion is a viable option its usually after a "ram bam, thank you ma'am" one night affair. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> 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. Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Dark Moth, that is the ideal but we don't live in an ideal world and it is rather naive of you to think so. Yes a relationship is often supposed to be a give-take/compromise affair but more often than not its just Take Take Take.
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 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.
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Does the man carry it for the nine months? No. Does the man give birth to the child? No. Therefore the man has no say. Change both those two factors then, and only then should a man have a say.
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Did the woman create it herself? No. Does the baby carry her genes only? No. Why do I even bother?
metadigital Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 My point is that you seem very keen to foist your own opinion on this society that you want no part of. That's called hypocrisy. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh, all of a sudden the ignore function doesn't work? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> What? OBSCVRVM PER OBSCVRIVS ET IGNOTVM PER IGNOTIVS OPVS ARTIFICEM PROBAT
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 In other words, don't attempt to knock some sense into him, just ignore him.
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) I think the process of creation is meaningless to the hardship of actually carrying a child to term, Dark Moth. Why do I even bother? Because, like me, you find arguing fun. Okay that is an assumption but I'm having fun discussing this. I think that our major difference of opinion here is that you believe that the man would stick around show some responsibility while I do not. This could be because of difference our own familial background. Such as my father did in fact cut and run while, again this is an assumption, that your's did not. This is why it should be handled by a case by case basis because not every situation will be as you describe it nor how I describe it. That is why we need freedom of choice to so that a solution can be as fluidic to handle as many scenerios as possible. Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) 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. Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 He has the right to have as much say as the woman allows, which can be none at all or a whole lot. Depends on the owman and how she feels. Also thinking that the community here is an good indicator of human civilization is a fallacy of itself.
SteveThaiBinh Posted August 30, 2006 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. "An electric puddle is not what I need right now." (Nina Kalenkov)
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) That is a very good point, Steve. If the father wants the abortion but the woman does not, who has the final say? I say the woman. Dark Moth, what say you? Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) 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}> 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. Edited August 30, 2006 by Dark Moth
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 (edited) You are assuming that the couple are married, Dark Moth. That is kind of cute. You know, you can have kids out of wedlock. In fact most unwanted pregnancies, may it be unwanted by the man or woman, happen out of wedlock. Edited August 30, 2006 by Judge Hades
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 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.
alanschu Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 If a man wants an abortion and the woman doesn't, does that absolve him of legal responsibility to the child?
Dark Moth Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 If a man wants an abortion and the woman doesn't, does that absolve him of legal responsibility to the child? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That's a good question. Let me know when you find out.
Judge Hades Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 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. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> That is sad because I do like our arguments. I know we bump heads a lot on many many many issues but that is one of the reasons why I like you. As a friend. Just wanted to make that clear. As a friend. Alan, it should. Then again if a man wants to have the kid and the woman doesn't it should still be the woman's final call. Of course this call should be made before the end of the first trimester. Late term abortions is a much greyer issue with me and if you are going to carry the kid 6 to 8 months already you should just plop the kid out and place him or her for adoption. Also for those who are 17 years or younger the parents need to be involved because an abortion, for the most part, is a surgical procedure and all surgical procedures need to be told tot he parent/guardian of the minor.
alanschu Posted August 30, 2006 Posted August 30, 2006 Alan, it should. Then again if a man wants to have the kid and the woman doesn't it should still be the woman's final call. Of course this call should be made before the end of the first trimester. Late term abortions is a much greyer issue with me and if you are going to carry the kid 6 to 8 months already you should just plop the kid out and place him or her for adoption. Non-sequitor. It wasn't what I was asking.
Recommended Posts