Of course not. As you know, I really dislike gender stereotypes. I guess I'm just frustrated from having heard this particular reasoning from so many women.Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I will not bunch all women in this group.</STRONG>
a father's rights
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Yes there are few who do it on purpose.Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Of course not. As you know, I really dislike gender stereotypes. I guess I'm just frustrated from having heard this particular reasoning from so many women.Even though very few actually go ahead and get pregnant without the man wanting it.</STRONG>
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
Carrying a child for 9 whole months -- ooohh, what torture. It's inhuman, it ought to be illegalOriginally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>What do you do if the female decides she doesn't want a child and the male does?
Force her to carry the child for 9 months?
Isn't this one step away from being a slave?</STRONG>
I've heard expectant motherhood called lots of things but slavery has not been one of them. And there is a vast difference between forcing someone to do something they don't want or like for 9 months, and bearing a child. There is another life involved here. It's not like saying, "Sit in the data entry cubicle for 9 months or you're fired." It's sheltering and nourishing a potential human life for 9 months. I think that life needs to be considered as well. But what do I know.
Look, I didn't say it was an easy situation. I said it cannot be just up to one person, because each has an equal role in bringing the child about.
Bottom line, IMO: Sex and childbirth are naturally linked. In general: Don't have sex with someone you can't or won't discuss having/not having a child with. Don't just throw sex around like it's just something to do, with anyone you take a fancy to, without discussing the possible repercussions and consequences. Contrary to popular belief, this kind of lifestyle is not impossible, repressive, or laden with suffering.
[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]
Yes, luckily. I'm very sad you have met one of themOriginally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Yes there are few who do it on purpose.</STRONG>
[/qb]posted by loner:
Sex and childbirth are naturally linked. Don't have sex with someone you can't or won't discuss having a child with.
Making sure the link is temporarily cut off is another alternative.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
Exactly; if you read onOriginally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Making sure the link is temporarily cut off is another alternative.</STRONG>
[ 10-19-2001: Message edited by: loner72 ]
Sorry, I misread your meaning. In any case, there are many potentially serious consequnces of sex - ranging from children to death in AIDS. Open and honest discussion about those issues is IMO very important. However, I don't view time as a necessary factor - but honesty and being informed and updated enough to take all necessary safety precautions.Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>Exactly; if you read onyou'll notice I said, discuss it one way or the other, for OR against having a child.</STRONG>
I wonder what difference those abortion pills ("day after pills") will make in the long run. There is of course a risk that the decreased fear of pregnancy might lead to increase of STD:s instead. Time will tell - I've not seen any studies yet.
"There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets knowledge, the latter ignorance." - Hippocrates
Moderator of Planescape: Torment, Diablo I & II and Dungeon Siege forums
I feel nice tonight, so I will let slide your smart ass remarks. Plus I rather play on a different field...a grown up field.Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>Carrying a child for 9 whole months -- ooohh, what torture. It's inhuman, it ought to be illegal![]()
I've heard expectant motherhood called lots of things but slavery has not been one of them. And there is a vast difference between forcing someone to do something they don't want or like for 9 months, and bearing a child. There is another life involved here. It's not like saying, "Sit in the data entry cubicle for 9 months or you're fired." It's sheltering and nourishing a potential human life for 9 months. I think that life needs to be considered as well. But what do I know.
Look, I didn't say it was an easy situation. I said it cannot be just up to one person, because each has an equal role in bringing the child about.
Bottom line, IMO: Sex and childbirth are naturally linked. In general: Don't have sex with someone you can't or won't discuss having/not having a child with. Don't just throw sex around like it's just something to do, with anyone you take a fancy to, without discussing the possible repercussions and consequences. Contrary to popular belief, this kind of lifestyle is not impossible, repressive, or laden with suffering.
</STRONG>
Opinions differ, but I will never force someone to do something they don't want to. What right do I have to do this? Because it's a potential human life. So I need to force my belief on this person? Never!
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
- Yshania
- Posts: 8572
- Joined: Wed May 09, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Some Girls Wander By Mistake
- Contact:
Hmmm...interesting. My own opinion? well I am with CE and Loner in the sense that if the right precautions are taken in a casual relationship then there would not be the issue. However, what if you were already in a steady relationship - or already married?
One partner wants a baby the other is not ready or not even interested...
The way things are at the moment, the best contraceptive methods are offered to women, giving us the choice as to whether to take a risk or not. Taken correctly, the chances of forcing a man (or indeed the woman) into a decision over parenthood should be very slim. Never-the-less, should the man take the woman's word that she is using contraception? No he could also take responsibility...especially as it also protects against STDs...once in a steady relationship though, you would eexpect an element of trust...difficult subject. I have also known a girl to get deliberately pregnant. They had been in a relationship for some years, initially both agreed they were not to have children. As time went on, she began to change her mind...the relationship was destroyed...
There are two people involved in conceiving a child, one person involved in bringing that child into the world...for some pregnancy has been imprisonment, I was very fortunate on both occasions.
In summary - two people have to take responsibility of whether or not a risk is taken, one person makes the decision as to whether or not that baby is born. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not discussing abortion as if it was no major issue. We now know it is widely available, whether or not I believe it is right or wrong does not detract from the fact that women now have an option they didn't have legally or safely 30 odd years ago.
*********************
Another one for you regarding a father's rights....
Consider a loving relationship. This couple agree to have children but are not interested in getting married as a proof of their committment to each other...a modern attitude.
In the UK that father - regardless of whether he is named on that child's birth certificate or not and whether the child takes his name or not - has NO parental rights over that child. No more than a child born to a, say, one night stand.
That father, who has planned his kids with his partner cannot sign for school places, cannot apply for said child's passport without his partner's consent, and more seriously cannot even sign for emergency medical or dental treatment.
In short he has no more rights to legally care for his own child than his next door neighbour. Because he is not married to his partner.
This is a strange law that still stands. The only way that father can get those rights is by paying a solicitor to draw up a parental responsibility agreement, or by marrying the mother.
The irony is if the father did not want those rights...the government have a department that will actively chase him for financial aid that will be deducted from his earnings at source. Here they accept he has responsibilities....
Contradictory...
One partner wants a baby the other is not ready or not even interested...
The way things are at the moment, the best contraceptive methods are offered to women, giving us the choice as to whether to take a risk or not. Taken correctly, the chances of forcing a man (or indeed the woman) into a decision over parenthood should be very slim. Never-the-less, should the man take the woman's word that she is using contraception? No he could also take responsibility...especially as it also protects against STDs...once in a steady relationship though, you would eexpect an element of trust...difficult subject. I have also known a girl to get deliberately pregnant. They had been in a relationship for some years, initially both agreed they were not to have children. As time went on, she began to change her mind...the relationship was destroyed...
There are two people involved in conceiving a child, one person involved in bringing that child into the world...for some pregnancy has been imprisonment, I was very fortunate on both occasions.
In summary - two people have to take responsibility of whether or not a risk is taken, one person makes the decision as to whether or not that baby is born. Please do not misunderstand me, I am not discussing abortion as if it was no major issue. We now know it is widely available, whether or not I believe it is right or wrong does not detract from the fact that women now have an option they didn't have legally or safely 30 odd years ago.
*********************
Another one for you regarding a father's rights....
Consider a loving relationship. This couple agree to have children but are not interested in getting married as a proof of their committment to each other...a modern attitude.
In the UK that father - regardless of whether he is named on that child's birth certificate or not and whether the child takes his name or not - has NO parental rights over that child. No more than a child born to a, say, one night stand.
That father, who has planned his kids with his partner cannot sign for school places, cannot apply for said child's passport without his partner's consent, and more seriously cannot even sign for emergency medical or dental treatment.
In short he has no more rights to legally care for his own child than his next door neighbour. Because he is not married to his partner.
This is a strange law that still stands. The only way that father can get those rights is by paying a solicitor to draw up a parental responsibility agreement, or by marrying the mother.
The irony is if the father did not want those rights...the government have a department that will actively chase him for financial aid that will be deducted from his earnings at source. Here they accept he has responsibilities....
Contradictory...
Parachute for sale, like new! Never opened!
Guinness, black goes with everything.
Guinness, black goes with everything.
@ysh - yet another case of where a man gets screwed over.
here's another case for everyone. in the US, if a woman has an extramarital affair and becomes pregnant from it, she can hold her current husband liable for all financial needs even after a DNA test proves him not to be the father.
everywhere the system is designed to give women the option to have whatever they want. the whole thing disgusts me.
in case ya'll couldn't tell by now...

here's another case for everyone. in the US, if a woman has an extramarital affair and becomes pregnant from it, she can hold her current husband liable for all financial needs even after a DNA test proves him not to be the father.
everywhere the system is designed to give women the option to have whatever they want. the whole thing disgusts me.
in case ya'll couldn't tell by now...
I would be a serial killer if i didn't have such a strong distaste for manual labor
- Shadow Sandrock
- Posts: 1356
- Joined: Sat Sep 08, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Rhode Island, USA
- Contact:
Smart ass remarks? So everyone else on here can be sarcastic to prove a point, except me?Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>I feel nice tonight, so I will let slide your smart ass remarks. Plus I rather play on a different field...a grown up field.</STRONG>
In what way am I not being a grown-up, Weasel? Because I disagree strongly with your opinion and I'm honest about it?
Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>Smart ass remarks? So everyone else on here can be sarcastic to prove a point, except me?
</STRONG>
Where have I been a smart ass to any one in this thread?? You don't like my veiw , fine but save the sarcastic remarks for a spam thread.
I think that life needs to be considered as well
I sit here and wonder, do all these por-lifers realize just how many children are born in the world to parents how cannot even feed them. Is a potential human life worth so much to put these children through this?
Now to the question..Force her to carry the child for 9 months? Someone will have to spend time making sure she gets nourishment for the child. Someone will have to make sure she see's the doctor regularly. All of these things will have to be watched because she doesn't want the child. One slip and she could defy the goal.
What is this called?
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.
fairness.Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>
Now to the question..Force her to carry the child for 9 months? Someone will have to spend time making sure she gets nourishment for the child. Someone will have to make sure she see's the doctor regularly. All of these things will have to be watched because she doesn't want the child. One slip and she could defy the goal.
What is this called?</STRONG>
I would be a serial killer if i didn't have such a strong distaste for manual labor
not necessarily, but maybe. i just think it is an issue that needs to be addressed more thoroughly and publicly. men are seriously getting screwed over.
does anyone know if a civil suit for a wrongful death has been filed for an abortion? particularly in relation to this topic, filed from the father of the baby?
does anyone know if a civil suit for a wrongful death has been filed for an abortion? particularly in relation to this topic, filed from the father of the baby?
I would be a serial killer if i didn't have such a strong distaste for manual labor
So are women.Originally posted by nael:
<STRONG>not necessarily, but maybe. i just think it is an issue that needs to be addressed more thoroughly and publicly. men are seriously getting screwed over.
</STRONG>
I don't argue with this, though some of them are rightfully, and some are not.
does anyone know if a civil suit for a wrongful death has been filed for an abortion? particularly in relation to this topic, filed from the father of the baby?
It seems you are thinking having baby for woman is similar to her appendix out, unless there's any complications. It is not. Once she got pregnant, it will not go away mentally and physically, regardless she gave birth or had abortion (or miscarried), or if she wanted a baby or not.
If you think a man can tell her, "Don't worry, I'll look after the baby. You just carry the baby for 9 months, and forget about it all once you give birth", and that should be fine, then you are wrong. It may the case for some men (I repeat, "some" men), but not women. Never.
I suggest you to go and meet real pregnant women and see what it really is like for a few weeks. You obviously don't know the real life of pregnant women.
"Strength without wisdom falls by its own weight."
A word to the wise is sufficient
Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
A word to the wise is sufficient
Minerva (Semi-retired SYMer)
Not in this thread, and not you specifically. I was referring to general posts. I'm genuinely curious as to why the sarcasm in the post to which you are referring is so unacceptable. I see nothing harmful or inflammatory in that post. You are the one making it into a big deal. Why should I save any method of argument for a spam thread, if I'm trying to get a point across?Originally posted by Weasel:
<STRONG>Where have I been a smart ass to any one in this thread?? You don't like my veiw , fine but save the sarcastic remarks for a spam thread.</STRONG>
I cannot even believe you're asking if a human life is "worth so much." Just think about that for a moment.<STRONG>I sit here and wonder, do all these por-lifers realize just how many children are born in the world to parents how cannot even feed them. Is a potential human life worth so much to put these children through this?</STRONG>
Following that logic through to its natural conclusion, you could say the exact same thing about any suffering person. Anyone who is depressed, or going through a hard time; or someone who is abused at home, or old people in nursing homes who suffer day in and day out. Let's not actually put our brains to work and think of life-affirming ways to help. Why not just put them out of their misery. Just give them a nice humane injection to prevent their suffering.
Of course it's terrible when a child -- or any person -- suffers in any way and everything should be done to prevent such a situation. But life is full of suffering all the way through. So we should take a life because the person is going to have a hard time? That makes no sense to me.
It lets us all off the hook, doesn't it? It's the easy way out. We don't have to do any work to figure out how to make life better for the child, how to improve his or her circumstances. No, just get rid of it. Get it out of everyone's way so no one is inconvenienced. Prevent any potential suffering. Wow, a quick, easy, and happy solution for all involved!
It’s called putting some thought and hard work into coming up with real solutions, like I just said. Hard work and thought…heaven forbid.<STRONG>Now to the question..Force her to carry the child for 9 months? Someone will have to spend time making sure she gets nourishment for the child. Someone will have to make sure she see's the doctor regularly. All of these things will have to be watched because she doesn't want the child. One slip and she could defy the goal.
What is this called?</STRONG>
Yes, Weasel. There was some sarcasm in there.
- Georgi
- Posts: 11288
- Joined: Sat Apr 21, 2001 10:00 pm
- Location: Can't wait to get on the road again...
- Contact:
Actually, Weasel said a potential human life. And this topic comes down to the same thing as abortion debates - whether you would consider a fetus to be a separate person, with the rights that entails, or part of the mother's body...Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>I cannot even believe you're asking if a human life is "worth so much." Just think about that for a moment.</STRONG>
Who, me?!?
Originally posted by loner72:
<STRONG>It’s called putting some thought and hard work into coming up with real solutions, like I just said. Hard work and thought…heaven forbid.
Yes, Weasel. There was some sarcasm in there.</STRONG>
Lack off an arguement is a good excuse to use sarcasm. When you don't have the answer "attack" Point proven
As for the rest of your post....maybe I will come down to your level later. The difference being..I will give you some answers...instead of 'putting some thought and hard work into coming up with real solutions' which you haven't.
"Vile and evil, yes. But, That's Weasel" From BS's book, MD 20/20: Fine Wines of Rocky Flop.