jcd11235

I made no such argument. I made and stand by that statement. In that scenario, there is no child. Without a child, there is no walking away from the responsibility of the child. It is simple, basic logic. Why so many people have so much trouble grasping logic, I'll never understand. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Not even close. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Exactly, she eliminated the fetus => eliminates the (potential for a) child => eliminates her responsibility to raise the child Sure. In other news, I eliminated my responsibility to try to bring peace to the Middle East by not becoming a candidate for POTUS yesterday. Perhaps that's because the playbook I'm using is entitled Basic Logic. Making logical arguments is rather convenient, to be completely honest. You might conclude the same thing if you should give it a try. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Actually, it is the application of basic logic. It has nothing to do with a party line. The refusal to recognize such basic logic, on the other hand … Men do have that choice. They simply have to make it at a different point in time. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

After all the decisions are made w/r/t whether or not to have sex, after all the decisions are made w/r/t what form(s) of birth control are used, the male is faced with a decision regarding the location of his penis at time of ejaculation. There are lots of options (Feel free to start a thread in Bonfire if you seek an enumerated list). Most pose no risk of pregnancy. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If you have your doubts, feel free to explain. In real life, the man is given his opportunity to choose before the woman is given hers. I would have thought that anyone who understands where children come from would recognize that fact. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I sometimes forget that your username is an anagram for W. (William) Maher, and thus you are called Bill, also. BTW, while I don't get to watch it often, I do enjoy your show on the occasions I do get to watch. You were pretty good in Religulous, too. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Having an abortion is not walking away from the responsibilities of parenthood. Parenthood implies the existence of a child. Abortion implies the lack of existence of a child. The responsibilities of parenthood are to the child. The convenience of either child is secondary to the child's wellness. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Once a child is part of the scenario, there is no option for abortion. That important point seems to be ignored by those whining about how unfair parenthood is for men. Not to a similar extent. Incorrect. His responsibility is tied to his child. If he didn't want to have a child, he should have taken greater care to prevent the possibility. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

"Pay or you go to jail" - yeah, I guess he does have a choice to make for himself - pay, or go to jail. She has the same choices if he has custody. So, if those are the choices you want to discuss; yes, there is equality. He has other choices, if the woman decides to carry to term? Please enlighten me. I've actually mentioned them multiple times: vasectomy, barrior contraceptives, or other options w/r/t sex. Artificially limiting the window of possible opportunities for a man to make choices to the nine months before birth is roughly akin to telling someone that they can only deploy their main in the last 900 feet of a skydive; it makes no sense, especially if you jumped from an Otter at 14k. Recognizing the current state of biology is that only women get pregnate, the options for a man to chose to not impregnate a woman aren't part of hypothetical scenarios. Pretending or insisting that he doesn't have those options (or she have contraceptive options as well) and that the only option is abort/not abort makes it a less than a logically robust proposition. /Marg The woman is pregnant - whether it was her contraception or his that failed is immaterial. He doesn't have custody, since he didn't want the baby in the first place (hence why he's at the "pay or jail" juncture). Tell me what OTHER options he has besides "pay or jail" in that situation, and why that DOESN'T affect his autonomy? She just did, rather clearly. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

If a woman aborts a pregnancy, there is no child. Giving men the option to turn their back on children that they father without any legal implications has no corresponding option for females. It's not remotely similar to the female's option to abort a fetus, which doesn't involve a child. If you have a kid, you're responsible for raising that kid.. It applies equally to fathers and mothers. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The male has one more major option/choice than the female in that respect. Thus, allowing a female to choose what to do with her own body does not give her more opportunities to choose than the male has. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

The male has his opportunity to choose long before then. That there is a child is a very strong indicator of what his choice was. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

In other words, they apply logic rationally and are able to understand why the two scenarios are not "parallel." Wrong. A woman has a right to abort a pregnancy. Aborting a pregnancy is in no way the same as avoiding the responsibility of being a parent and refusing to raise the child. There is no child in the former scenario. Apply basic logic, and you'll understand that simple fact of the matter. Bullshit. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

You found the wrong post! Here is Bill's proposal (to which I commented): I added boldface to highlight the portion that removes the female's right to choose for herself what to do with her own body. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I can't speak for Marg, but I don't like it because it removes the female's right to choose. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

That would be expected in a nation where so many people are proud of their ignorance. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

And, as I pointed out, some methods are. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Since that's not an issue being discussed, I don't see that it's relevant. (Unless, you consider child support payments "lots of money," in which case I would disagree. If child support == "lots of money", then yes, the father should have a legal obligation to provide "lots of money" for the costs associated with raising his kid.) Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

No, but even as analogies go, you're comparing apples with oranges. Do you have a problem with parents not being able to sign away their children's rights on a skydiving waiver? If someone shows up at Perris with an adult sized twelve year old kid who wants to make a tandem jump, and is willing to, along with both parents, sign the standard Perris Valley Skydiving waiver, would he get to make a tandem? If not, why not? Parents can't sign away their children's legal rights so they can make a tandem jump. Nor should they be able to sign away their children's rights just because they don't feel like stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

I just want to play devil's advocate for a moment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. It would seem the Defense of Marriage Act might violate that particular amendment. By only allowing states the not recognize same sex marriages, and not inter-sex marriages, one might be able to argue that a marriage performed by religious clergy is "an establishment of religion," and that DOMA unfairly respects different religions (those who prohibit same sex marriage) without parity. One might also argue that a marriage is a peaceful assembly of two people. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

He gets to make that decision before she does. If he regrets the decision he made, he can try to influence her decision, but can't make it for her. He ultimately has to live with the decision he already made. It would be absurd to allow men to simply walk away from the responsibilities of parenthood simply because they would choose abortion if it were their choice to make. They had their choice to make and they made it. If they want a different outcome, they need to make a different choice. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Did you plan the irony, or did it happen naturally? Not particularly. By the same token, we weren't uncomfortable with the intelligence level of President Clinton, so an intelligent spouse may have seemed redundant by comparison. Yet you consider Sec. Clinton to have been committed to her marriage for political leverage instead of considering the possibility that she may just take her marital vows more seriously than you do. In other words, Thank you for illustrating my point. None of it was ever any business of the public. I'm certainly not going to fault her for not playing to the public spectacle/media circus. I wouldn't expect her to, unless she were trying to utilize the experience for political leverage. So, by your own admittance, you lost respect for her because she didn't react as you think you would. Instead, she honored her wedding vows. Again, thanks for being such a great example and helping me make my point.

I can't think of many instances when it's in the child's best interest to be in the custody of someone who didn't want to raise the child. That's a matter of perspective, I suppose. I'm not sure which one would cause more sleepless nights over the course of a lifetime. That sounds reasonable, provided that in the event the custodial parent is not able to provide for the child, the non-custodial parent is legally responsible. I'm not surprised, and I'm not defending that practice. Still, we need to remember that the primary consideration is the kid, not either parent. Sometimes things that might be unfair to one of the parents occur because that's what is best for the kid. To clarify, that's in addition to any other measures taken (e.g. pill and/or condom, etc.). I'm fairly comfortable with the remaining risk. There's always that remote chance. Of course, there's a remote chance that any number of bad things could occur, each with its own very low probability. Sex is a lot like skydiving. It can be all fun and games as long as everything goes as planned (i.e. no unplanned pregnancies). Like with skydiving, when things don't go as planned, things can get serious in a hurry. Lives can be changed forever. We may pay our money and take our chances, but we decide for ourselves what chances are justified. Whatever our personal level of acceptable risk, we should all be aware that we could pay a very big price if things don't go as planned. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

Please don't advance this misconception any further. Despite some creative interpretations of torture by some Justice Department (not to be confused with any part of the judicial branch of the federal government) lawyers, legal precedent is pretty clear about water boarding being torture in the eyes of the law. The US has prosecuted water boarding as torture in the past. Except, y'know....when we do it to our own troops with their consent and while giving them the ability to make it stop immediately, with full awareness that it is a training exercise to learn to resist torture...THEN it's ok. Yeah. Under those limited circumstances, it wouldn't be torture. Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!