Butters

Agree (and added another factor). "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

True, but just because we can't make things "identical" doesn't mean we shouldn't try to make "comparable". "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

It's not even uncomfortable. I'm an avid tracker and wingsuiter and am constantly pulling in full flight. PS: You have much more experience than I do, so feel free to correct me if I'm wrong but I don't believe pulling in full flight (tracking or wingsuiting) poses any greater risk of injury or death. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you really believe that this is the only time during intercourse that a man can get a woman pregnant than you really should take a sexual education course ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If you have your doubts, feel free to explain. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

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. Blah, blah, blah ... you are trying to argue that a man is denying support for a child by denying support for a fetus while simultaneously arguing that a mother isn't denying support for a child by aborting the fetus. Regardless, I'm going to take the wise words of Wendy and stop dealing with individuals like yourself ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The male has one more major option/choice than the female in that respect. Really, what option/choice is that? riverdance Isn't that the same as abstinence? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The male has one more major option/choice than the female in that respect. Really, what option/choice is that? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

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. Do you understand where children come from? PS: There is no child in the scenario where the man is allowed to make a decision during the same period of time that the woman is. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Legally, parenthood starts when a baby is born. Until that time, there is no child to support. Emotionally is a different story for many, but we're not talking emotionally here Wendy P. Correct, parenthood starts when a baby is born. However, I still don't understand how a woman can abort a fetus which terminates support for the child while a man can't terminate support for fetus (which terminates support for the child)? PS: The claim that the fetus will become a child and a child requires support can not be used because then it could be used against abortion ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

But it's not absurd to allow women to simply walk away from the responsibilities of parenthood simply because they would choose abortion? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Can you please explain how? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

But I'm talking about allowing the man to make a decision during the period of time that a woman can make a decision whether to have an abortion (which is before a child is born) ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The problem doesn't occur when both parties want the same thing, the problem occurs when both parties want different things. 1] If a man wants a child and a woman does not, the woman has the choice. 2] If a man does not want a child and the woman does, the woman has the choice. Allowing the man to make a choice on whether to support the child in the case when a man does not want a child and the woman does minimizes the inequalities. 1] If a man wants a child and a woman does not, the woman has the choice. 2] If a man does not want a child and the woman does, the woman has the choice and the man has a choice. Edit: This doesn't remove autonomy from the man or the woman. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Instead of decreasing the woman's rights we could increase the man's rights. Like mentioned multiple times in this thread, give the man the choice whether to support the child if the woman decides not to have an abortion. This way the man and the woman can make choices regarding sex and contraception and the man and woman can make choices regarding child support. This still leaves the situation where the man wants the child and the female does not ... but it's as close as we're going to get equal. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

We cannot minimize or remove the inequalities of biology, particularly in our current social paradigm. A pregnant mother gets to: - need new clothes - probably have back pain - lose sleep - be tired much of the time - have her joints become looser and get clumsy (at least I did) - change her activity level if she's active - maybe quit work towards the end - everyone asks her when the baby (that she wasn't ready for) is due, - maybe people look at her with disfavor because you're single - be the one the hospital is guaranteed to deal with for expenses - suffer the physical risk of pregnancy and childbirth The man can choose to pay the hospital bill. None of the others, no matter how badly he wants to. And without that, making things "strictly even" in terms of long-term custody will leave a rather huge inequality which cannot be minimized. Wendy P. But I'm discussing legal inequalities, in regards to the law we are suppose to be equal. If we allow legal inequalities based on biology on this subject than we have to allow them on other subjects ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

If we are going to accept inequalities on this subject due to biology than we must accept inequalities on other subjects due to biology ... PS: I would rather we minimize or remove the inequalities. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

No, because that ability would put the father's (or mother's, if the situation were reversed) convenience ahead of the child's needs. The child's needs understandably come first. What is the difference between a father choosing not to support a potential child while it's a fetus and a mother choosing to abort a potential child while it's a fetus? "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Wow ... did hell freeze over? I can't believe people are actually beginning to discuss what I've posted over and over and over again in various threads regarding abortion. PS: Thanks Bill (rehmwa) for explaining it in a much better way than I obviously have. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

The government has grabbed power hand over fist without checks and balances based on the premise of safety ... ... stop being afraid and start being free! "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Then don't argue with those posters. Argue with the ones talking substance, or start your own substance. Otherwise you're just feeding the arguments of quibblers. Wendy P. Wise words ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I bought the DVD a long time ago ... laughing, laughing, and more laughing. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

I'm glad you get the point I've been trying to convey over and over regarding the terms pro-choice and pro-life. After all, someone could be pro-choice for the 1st and 2nd trimester and then pro-life for the 3rd (or some other variation) ... The problem with using the commonly-given (or taken) names is that certain posters are using the names themselves as arguments. I've tried giving examples to show how ridiculous this type of argument is but they don't appear to understand ... "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

Not at all. I’ve just not denied a women’s autonomy over her body for 9 months. Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

You mean the one who supports wars and death penalty, right? It appears to be pointless trying to convey a point ... feel free to continue to use poor labels (pro-choice and pro-life) out of context. Denying abortion has a very direct consequence of introducing unwanted children into the world, who will likely to need foster care and adoption. Therefore if someone is anti-choice, it is very appropriate to ask what do they personally do to counter the possible consequences. However I'm failing to see any direct relationship between death penalty and blank panthers/KKK. Could you please enlighten me? Once again, it appears to be pointless trying to convey a point ... feel free to continue to use poor labels (pro-choice and pro-life) out of context. "That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch