- Joined
- Apr 25, 2010
- Messages
- 80,422
- Reaction score
- 29,077
- Location
- Pittsburgh
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
No, they are not both responsible. The woman can kill the child and remove responsibility; the man has no such option.
Well at least in that case the kid is just poor instead of dead.
As the old saying goes, "Ignorance of the law is no excuse for breaking it."
There is a calculated risk by both men and women that if they have sex, protected or not, there is always the possibility of a pregnancy.
Here's the deal....like it or not. It is what it is. The law is what it is. We are a nation of laws. IF YOU DON'T LIKE like the biases or injustices created in laws related to abortion or men's lack of rights pertaining to women having a choice to abort or keep the child...and if women choose keep it...they have the right to go after the guy would help created it despite him not wanting the child...then seek to change the laws. Organize, protest, write to your law makers, place ads, do blogs, etc. etc.
I didn't make the laws. I don't have any say over the enforcement of laws pertaining to this topic. I'm merely pointing out what they are...and the consequences of not understanding them or abiding by these laws...Unfair as they may be...they are what they are. Having said this, MEN SHOULD CLEARLY UNDERSTAND THE FOLLOWING:
1) LIFE AIN'T FAIR...Since the law is what it is FAIR OR NOT...men who ignore the realities of the possible consequence of impregnating a women...gets what they deserve.
1) Men clearly know prior to having sex that women have to right to abort or "MURDER AS YOU CONTEND" their baby with or without their permission.
2) Men clearly know that in today's world, in the United States of America, that many men see divorce and child custody laws biased, unfair and unjust. They may be forced to disproportionately have to provide support that isn't fair to them.
3) Men clearly know that if a baby is conceived out of wedlock that a woman who chooses keep a baby...with or without their permission...they will be liable in the eyes of the law and in court of law , which will require them to provide support to the limit of the law.
FOLKS...like it or not...IT IS WHAT IT IS! The only way to change any of the above is change the current laws. PERIOD! In other words, THERE IS NO ANSWER EXCEPT TO USE ONE'S HEAD to think about the consequences of having sex. If you don't like them. Don't have sex.
Wait...you're anti-abortion? If that's the case I cannot fathom why you would support something like this. What do you think would be the result, if more women were faced with the prospect of having to raise and financially support their kid alone if they don't have an abortion?
I'm merely using the logic of your side's arguments with a different starting set of assumptions.
:lamo Which side would that be?
No offense but since there are people in this thread who actually agree with the premise, I'd rather discuss the issue with them, than with someone who doesn't actually believe what he's saying and will always fall back on "This isn't what I really believe" whenever I point out the flaws in this argument.
The flaws of the argument are the same flaws fundamental to the overall abortion argument. The welfare of the child is not considered, all that is considered is the convenience of the humans already in existence. The abdication of responsibility of the father would occur before the child is born.
...which would thereby provide women with an even bigger financial incentive to abort, if faced with the prospect of having to raise the child alone. Which you're supposedly against.
Next?
The flaws of the argument are the same flaws fundamental to the overall abortion argument. The welfare of the child is not considered, all that is considered is the convenience of the humans already in existence. The abdication of responsibility of the father would occur before the child is born.
Well she knew the risks going into it. Guess she should have kept her legs closed or made better choice of partner if she didn't want to face the repercussions, right?
You just claimed, less than five minutes ago, that abortion was killing a child for convenience. Now you don't even MENTION the welfare of the child when I pointed out that this would increase the abortion rate. Again, it's all about the woman and what a slut she is, and how she needs to be punished.
this is NOT always the case, yes some mindless dont think about that but the majority actually do and its WHY they abort. You may disagree with them but its still why they do it. :shrug:
The abortion arguments in and of themselves do not consider the welfare of the child. As I said, I'm using the logic of the other side with a different set of assumptions is all. Why would you try to restrain my arguments with constraints not bound to the other side as well?
I do disagree since nothing is so damaging to the welfare of the child as death is. Death is oh so very permanent.
and you are free to have that opinion but the fact remains your opinion isnt other peoples and they make their choices for THEIR reasons not for what YOU say they are. I know you get that.
While I do understand that people claim that, there are absolutes. One such thing is that dead is dead. If we are considering "welfare" of an unborn child, it should be known by all sides that death is the most damaging dynamic to affect "welfare". Once you have chosen death of a human, you have marginalized that human's welfare. That is an absolute. I know you get that.
LMAO
wow did you just declare your opinion as an absolute?
Fact is people dont share you opinion on what abortion is nor do they all feel that bringing an unwanted child into the world is better than death. Hell people kill them selves because they disagree with you.
Sorry its still your opinion and NOT an absolute. Thats what I understand because those are the facts. :shrug:
No, I declared death as an absolute. Which it is. All welfare stops at death. If you can't admit that, then you can't be honest in this debate. Of course, if you don't hold honesty to your arguments, then I'll no longer have to be bothered by that constraint either.
your reading comprehension was impaired when you read thatSo for the one you support choice but the other support them getting fixed? Wow, that speaks volumes.
they both get to decide and they both have liability if they have failed to take adequate precautionsSo again the woman can decide to not care but the man is dragged for the ride. Seems fair..
so what that death is an absolute LMAO
it still doesnt mean ANYTHING to the debate on what your opinion is verse others.
it has as much impact as saying yellow is a color
Please explain how saying death is an absolute, which I agree it is changes anything about its still only your opinion that death is a pro or con in welfare of the child?? not to mention people dont even agree with you on what abortion is.
answer is it DOESNT :shrug:
hell death itself could even be argued as not an absolute, wouldnt be my argument but it could be argued by some religions, so again
this all still has no impact on you selling your opinion as fact because it is not
1wel·fare
noun \ˈwel-ˌfer\
Definition of WELFARE
1
: the state of doing well especially in respect to good fortune, happiness, well-being, or prosperity <must look out for your own welfare>
2
a : aid in the form of money or necessities for those in need b : an agency or program through which such aid is distributed
Innate to welfare is being in a state of "alive". If you are looking to maximize welfare, you are looking to maximize one's state of well being...which requires being. Thus, welfare stops at death. Once you no longer are, you no longer possess welfare or the possibilities to improve or diminish it. So when you talk of considering welfare, choosing the death of an organism is marginalizing that organism's welfare as you are setting it to zero.
As for death as an absolute, I suppose if you're some flavor of theist you could say that it's not an absolute. But then I suppose it depends on your flavor of theism. There are some sects which believe in original sin and that you must be baptized to remove that original sin, else you are going to hell. In such case, we can ask "is it better to be poor or in hell?".
LMAO
so if I read the definition of whore in the dictionary and then judge some one as such does that make in an absolute or even true? nope it will just be my opinion
theres adults that kill themselves because they think they are better off dead, they believe they have no welfare or death is the best one :shrug:
what you think is innate to welfare is just your opinion
like I said, OPINION, sorry
try to argue it if you like but the fact thats its your opinion will not change, you are judging it from your view and thats it nothing more.
All these arguments work the other way too. Life ain't fair. Women clearly know prior to having sex that pregnancy can result, blah blah blah. All the arguments you use can be used in reverse as well; you've just made assumptions and definitions earlier on to support your argument is all.
As I stated much earlier in the thread, these topics are purely philosophical as no real law would ever be passed that would allow fathers to get away without paying for the kid. Thus we are free to explore the topic void of the usual moral quandary which typically accompanies the topic.
IN THE END
NO...you aren't going to reverse anything. If it could be done...we wouldn't be having this debate.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?