Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 6:01:25 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you got all of that from. I do believe that the woman has the right to choose whether to terminate. If she instead carries, she absolutely has a responsibility to the fetus. Her actions can have a profound effect on it and its development, so of course she has a responsibility there. The male does not have a corresponding responsibility to the fetus (since nothing he does can affect it) unless and until it becomes a child.
I would also argue against the idea that it all of a sudden "becomes" a human being at birth. It is a very sticky subject since there is no scientific basis for a conclusion either way. I go with the "potential human being" from conception through several months' development. My standard is viability, which is used in other instances as well. It is why late-term (post-viability) abortions are either prohibited or very limited, and why there was a double-murder conviction in the Scott Peterson case.
Then the fact remains that in your view, the only thing the father has assisted in is conceiving a "potential human being" sans rights, not a child. Think of it this way: If a couple has sexual intercourse and one or both of them have no desire to be a parent, we must reasonably conclude that abortion of offspring is an implicit expectation of entering into sexual relations. Analogously, if I enter into a business contract with you to build a factory, an implicit expectation is that waste it produces will be promptly disposed of. If we enter into a such a contract and you decide that you'd prefer to store industrial waste in a giant tank next to the factory, no judge in their right mind would obligate me to participate in this further venture. Why? Because there's a reasonable expectation that I contracted to build a factory and not a giant tank. At some point during the pregnancy, the mother decides that rather than disposing of the potential human being (per the implicit terms of the contract), she prefers to convert the potential human being into an actual human being. In our society, we've ruled that it's her prerogative to opt into doing so. The father cannot prevent her from engaging in this further venture, by which she inherits many new responsibilities. However, contract law is clear that her partner, who does not desire a child and whose reasonable expectation entering into the contract was standard disposal of "potential" children, is not automatically a party to this new venture. Indeed, in the spirit of fairness and consistency, the father must explicitly opt in to such a venture. If you deny that abortion of offspring is an implicit expectation of entering into sexual relations, I ask you: if one or both parties has no desire to be a parent, how can it not be so? If you deny that granting the partner (the father) the protection of having to explicitly opt in is fair and consistent, I defy you to find me any other contractual legal matter where this protection isn't afforded.
|
|
Opti
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 18, 2010 10:45:38 GMT -5
Posts: 42,237
Location: New Jersey
Mini-Profile Name Color: c28523
Mini-Profile Text Color: 990033
|
Post by Opti on Aug 18, 2015 8:36:22 GMT -5
There is this old-fangled concept of giving up a child for adoption.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 9:18:52 GMT -5
There is this old-fangled concept of giving up a child for adoption. The old-fangled concept was that a child was a child, and the very least a mother owed her child was to bring her into the world and give her up for adoption if necessary.
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 18, 2015 9:20:47 GMT -5
There is this old-fangled concept of giving up a child for adoption. The old-fangled concept was that a child was a child, and the very least a mother owed her child was to bring her into the world and give her up for adoption if necessary. And mothers that had miscarriages were failures.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 9:26:34 GMT -5
The old-fangled concept was that a child was a child, and the very least a mother owed her child was to bring her into the world and give her up for adoption if necessary. And mothers that had miscarriages were failures. Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think?
|
|
ArchietheDragon
Junior Associate
Joined: Jul 7, 2014 14:29:23 GMT -5
Posts: 6,379
|
Post by ArchietheDragon on Aug 18, 2015 9:29:51 GMT -5
And mothers that had miscarriages were failures. Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think? If "the very least a mother owed her child was to bring her into the world" then a mother who failed that would be a failure. I don't see any other logical conclusion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 9:47:01 GMT -5
Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think? If "the very least a mother owed her child was to bring her into the world" then a mother who failed that would be a failure. I don't see any other logical conclusion. "Failure" (n.) carries the strong connotation of failing chronically and consistently, and in most cases connotes failure of all of one's major undertakings. Moreover, it's rarely used when an endeavour fails due to unpreventable circumstances. But in the strictest literal sense, I suppose you're correct.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2015 11:05:47 GMT -5
And mothers that had miscarriages were failures. Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think? i hope you understand how funny this is coming from you. fully half of our arguments consist of you telling me what i think.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 12:37:19 GMT -5
Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think? i hope you understand how funny this is coming from you. fully half of our arguments consist of you telling me what i think. More accurately, half our arguments consist of me rebutting the most reasonable interpretation of what you've said, and you admonishing me that this isn't what you meant to say at all and that if your arguments seem flawed or nonsensical I ought to ask you whether what you've said is what you actually mean. You're one odd duck, but I like you anyway.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2015 13:57:49 GMT -5
i hope you understand how funny this is coming from you. fully half of our arguments consist of you telling me what i think. More accurately, half our arguments consist of me rebutting the most reasonable interpretation of what you've said, and you admonishing me that this isn't what you meant to say at all and that if your arguments seem flawed or nonsensical I ought to ask you whether what you've said is what you actually mean. You're one odd duck, but I like you anyway. my point was that you would rather presume than ask, and your "reasonable interpretations" are so wildly off the mark that i have often considered the idea that they are not really even attempts to be accurate, but rather to construct an elaborate fiction of my views that is more easy to assault. try asking. it is not like i am not available for questions, bro.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 14:19:22 GMT -5
My point is that one's language should be carefully crafted so as to obviate the need to ask questions, and that you consider my reasonable interpretations "so wildly off the mark" because you ignore words' proper connotation and stretch their definitions so markedly that I have often considered the idea that post hoc word twisting is your go-to method for abandoning arguments you can't defend.
What's more, I have been asking questions. When is the last time I was "wildly off the mark" about something you said, and it wasn't phrased in the form of a question?
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2015 14:25:26 GMT -5
And mothers that had miscarriages were failures. Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think? I can remember that attitude from some women in the 50s and early 60s, Virgil. There would be all sorts of whispering about how a woman who miscarried probably didn't take care of herself, etc. I don't recall it being blamed on Conservatives, necessarily. It was just nasty gossip amongst nasty women.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 18, 2015 14:53:48 GMT -5
We had plenty of miscarriages and I don't recall any politically slanted blame laying. No one wanted a punch in the nose.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2015 15:29:08 GMT -5
My point is that one's language should be carefully crafted so as to obviate the need to ask questions, and that you consider my reasonable interpretations "so wildly off the mark" because you ignore words' proper connotation and stretch their definitions so markedly that I have often considered the idea that post hoc word twisting is your go-to method for abandoning arguments you can't defend.
What's more, I have been asking questions. When is the last time I was "wildly off the mark" about something you said, and it wasn't phrased in the form of a question? i think you are confusing your inability to ask questions with my inability to communicate, Virgil. regarding the bolded portion above, the only time i abandon arguments is when i am WRONG, which is quite rare. the rest of the time, i defend them. so that bolded portion above is utter rubbish and and an ad hominem attack, to boot. i don't twist anything. instead i tend to rely on the dictionary to show you how you are twisting words, which you typically ignore or belittle. edit: just ask, bro. here, i have a suggested phrase you can try: "what did you mean by that?" i guarantee that will be better received than a fictional dialog whose participants are you and some imagined horror of me that says a bunch of stuff i would never say in a million years.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 18, 2015 15:30:16 GMT -5
Says who? The Liberal's Handbook on What Conservatives Secretly Think? I can remember that attitude from some women in the 50s and early 60s, Virgil. There would be all sorts of whispering about how a woman who miscarried probably didn't take care of herself, etc. I don't recall it being blamed on Conservatives, necessarily. It was just nasty gossip amongst nasty women. women with autistic children were accused of not loving them. yet another example of blaming women for stuff that is not their fault.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 18, 2015 15:32:44 GMT -5
My favorite is men blaming their wives for not birthing a son. Hello!
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2015 15:37:17 GMT -5
I can remember that attitude from some women in the 50s and early 60s, Virgil. There would be all sorts of whispering about how a woman who miscarried probably didn't take care of herself, etc. I don't recall it being blamed on Conservatives, necessarily. It was just nasty gossip amongst nasty women. women with autistic children were accused of not loving them. yet another example of blaming women for stuff that is not their fault. Well into the 50s and even early 60s, these kids were quite often kept behind closed doors. It was as though it was, somehow, shameful to have a child who wasn't letter-perfect. A child with a disability was thought to cast a bad light on the family. Thankfully, we've learned a little something along the way.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 18, 2015 15:38:16 GMT -5
My favorite is men blaming their wives for not birthing a son. Hello! LOL! No kidding! There are still a lot of people who don't realize the gender of a child is decided by the male's contribution, not by the female's contribution.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 22:01:46 GMT -5
women with autistic children were accused of not loving them. yet another example of blaming women for stuff that is not their fault. Well into the 50s and even early 60s, these kids were quite often kept behind closed doors. It was as though it was, somehow, shameful to have a child who wasn't letter-perfect. A child with a disability was thought to cast a bad light on the family. Thankfully, we've learned a little something along the way. I've been told it's exactly the opposite; that there are greater stigmas associated with disabilities today than at any earlier point in history. In literature dating back to the 1920's, authors discuss mental disabilities downright casually. Circa 1920: "You know Jim, the simpleton?" "Yes. He works down at the plant." "Can you find him for me?" Circa 2105: "You know Jim, the retard?" "...*!" (gasps; stunned silence; possible lawsuit) Don't get me wrong, I don't think there was ever a good time to be disabled, but society has never made a bigger deal about it than today, which is truly ironic given disabilities are less of an impediment today than ever before.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 22:03:58 GMT -5
I can remember that attitude from some women in the 50s and early 60s, Virgil. There would be all sorts of whispering about how a woman who miscarried probably didn't take care of herself, etc. I don't recall it being blamed on Conservatives, necessarily. It was just nasty gossip amongst nasty women. women with autistic children were accused of not loving them. yet another example of blaming women for stuff that is not their fault. Source?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2015 22:44:15 GMT -5
Yes, I absolutely deny that. Most likely it was not even thought about, much less discussed. Unless one is an idiot, one knows that pregnancy is a possibility. One SHOULD know what the partner's plans are if one should occur. One should also do everything possible to protect himself against that possibility. The likeliest explanation is that they ignored the risk because they did not think it would happen, or they did not think at all in the moment. It does not follow that ignoring the risk equals an "expectation" of abortion.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 23:21:16 GMT -5
My point is that one's language should be carefully crafted so as to obviate the need to ask questions, and that you consider my reasonable interpretations "so wildly off the mark" because you ignore words' proper connotation and stretch their definitions so markedly that I have often considered the idea that post hoc word twisting is your go-to method for abandoning arguments you can't defend.
What's more, I have been asking questions. When is the last time I was "wildly off the mark" about something you said, and it wasn't phrased in the form of a question? i think you are confusing your inability to ask questions with my inability to communicate, Virgil. regarding the bolded portion above, the only time i abandon arguments is when i am WRONG, which is quite rare. the rest of the time, i defend them. so that bolded portion above is utter rubbish and and an ad hominem attack, to boot. i don't twist anything. instead i tend to rely on the dictionary to show you how you are twisting words, which you typically ignore or belittle. edit: just ask, bro. here, i have a suggested phrase you can try: "what did you mean by that?" i guarantee that will be better received than a fictional dialog whose participants are you and some imagined horror of me that says a bunch of stuff i would never say in a million years. I'm not confusing anything. We've already butted heads on how often you're WRONG and didn't come any closer to agreement. The bolded portion is brutally honest and no more of an ad hominem than your suggesting I deliberately attempt to "construct an elaborate fiction of [your] views that is more easy to assault". I've butted heads with you on issues where you've ignored the dictionary definition. The most obvious example is "liberal", to which you attach various ethical caveats despite these caveats being totally absent from the definition. Or "intolerance", to which you attach the "right of survivorship" amendment to circumvent "intolerant of intolerance" paradoxes, despite this amendment being totally absent from the definition. I've butted heads with you by explaining what bloggers mean when they re-appropriate terms like "liberal", "Keynesian", and "socialism" and encouraged you to simply accept the terms in the context of the discussion, which you categorically refuse to do, often resulting in long, pointless arguments about definitions with other posters. I've butted heads with you when you've refused to acknowledge the existence of terms you find repugnant, like "secular religion", in spite of the fact that studies, Wikipedia articles, and even entire books make use of them, and they in fact conform to broad definitions. I've butted heads with you where you plainly misuse terms. For example, "disenfranchise" in the context of the voter ID debate; conflating "doddering" and "foolish" with "mentally ill" in a cop-on-citizen shooting thread; confusing liberalism and progressivism once in a roaring debate with Jim, which was actually kind of funny; "slavery" in another roaring debate with Jim (although I agreed with you in that case); and most notably in the torture thread where it took me at least a page to figure out that torture being "of no material value whatsoever" to you actually meant "less effective than alternative interrogation techniques". Not a month goes by without you clashing with Paul, workpublic, Richard, Jim, billis, me, or somebody who's grossly misunderstood you. Suffice it to say I definitely don't think I'm the problem here. More to the point, I've been trying to accommodate you more by asking more questions lately. "i hope you understand how funny this is coming from you." out of the blue isn't helping things.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 18, 2015 23:38:20 GMT -5
Yes, I absolutely deny that. Most likely it was not even thought about, much less discussed. Unless one is an idiot, one knows that pregnancy is a possibility. One SHOULD know what the partner's plans are if one should occur. One should also do everything possible to protect himself against that possibility. The likeliest explanation is that they ignored the risk because they did not think it would happen, or they did not think at all in the moment. It does not follow that ignoring the risk equals an "expectation" of abortion. Certainly pregnancy is a possibility. And abortion takes care of it. By assumption the father isn't an idiot and he doesn't want a child, hence why would he have sexual intercourse if he wasn't reasonably convinced that the mother would abort? He wouldn't. He's a reasonable human being and reasonably believes he won't have to deal with a child because the mother will abort. The fact that aborting the child isn't a "do nothing" scenario is irrelevant. I can cite dozens of examples where "do nothing" isn't a reasonable expectation. Perhaps to make it more formal, to absolve himself of responsibility in future the father will have to ask a woman "You're aborting, right?" prior to having sex with her, in which case if she answers "Yes", this explicitly validates his "play doesn't mean pay" assumption. If she changes her mind, that's not his problem to deal with.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 18, 2015 23:55:21 GMT -5
Yes, I absolutely deny that. Most likely it was not even thought about, much less discussed. Unless one is an idiot, one knows that pregnancy is a possibility. One SHOULD know what the partner's plans are if one should occur. One should also do everything possible to protect himself against that possibility. The likeliest explanation is that they ignored the risk because they did not think it would happen, or they did not think at all in the moment. It does not follow that ignoring the risk equals an "expectation" of abortion. Certainly pregnancy is a possibility. And abortion takes care of it. By assumption the father isn't an idiot and he doesn't want a child, hence why would he have sexual intercourse if he wasn't reasonably convinced that the mother would abort? He wouldn't. He's a reasonable human being and reasonably believes he won't have to deal with a child because the mother will abort. The fact that aborting the child isn't a "do nothing" scenario is irrelevant. I can cite dozens of examples where "do nothing" isn't a reasonable expectation. Perhaps to make it more formal, to absolve himself of responsibility in future the father will have to ask a woman "You're aborting, right?" prior to having sex with her, in which case if she answers "Yes", this explicitly validates his "play doesn't mean pay" assumption. If she changes her mind, that's not his problem to deal with. Seriously? I'm surprised most guys can get any sex at all. I doubt they would even consider turning it down for a possibility they don't consider likely.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 19, 2015 0:54:58 GMT -5
Since when does your opinion speak for society at large?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 76,445
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 19, 2015 1:33:57 GMT -5
i think you are confusing your inability to ask questions with my inability to communicate, Virgil. regarding the bolded portion above, the only time i abandon arguments is when i am WRONG, which is quite rare. the rest of the time, i defend them. so that bolded portion above is utter rubbish and and an ad hominem attack, to boot. i don't twist anything. instead i tend to rely on the dictionary to show you how you are twisting words, which you typically ignore or belittle. edit: just ask, bro. here, i have a suggested phrase you can try: "what did you mean by that?" i guarantee that will be better received than a fictional dialog whose participants are you and some imagined horror of me that says a bunch of stuff i would never say in a million years. I'm not confusing anything. We've already butted heads on how often you're WRONG and didn't come any closer to agreement. The bolded portion is brutally honest and no more of an ad hominem than your suggesting I deliberately attempt to "construct an elaborate fiction of [your] views that is more easy to assault". I've butted heads with you on issues where you've ignored the dictionary definition. The most obvious example is "liberal", to which you attach various ethical caveats despite these caveats being totally absent from the definition. Or "intolerance", to which you attach the "right of survivorship" amendment to circumvent "intolerant of intolerance" paradoxes, despite this amendment being totally absent from the definition. I've butted heads with you by explaining what bloggers mean when they re-appropriate terms like "liberal", "Keynesian", and "socialism" and encouraged you to simply accept the terms in the context of the discussion, which you categorically refuse to do, often resulting in long, pointless arguments about definitions with other posters. I've butted heads with you when you've refused to acknowledge the existence of terms you find repugnant, like "secular religion", in spite of the fact that studies, Wikipedia articles, and even entire books make use of them, and they in fact conform to broad definitions. I've butted heads with you where you plainly misuse terms. For example, "disenfranchise" in the context of the voter ID debate; conflating "doddering" and "foolish" with "mentally ill" in a cop-on-citizen shooting thread; confusing liberalism and progressivism once in a roaring debate with Jim, which was actually kind of funny; "slavery" in another roaring debate with Jim (although I agreed with you in that case); and most notably in the torture thread where it took me at least a page to figure out that torture being "of no material value whatsoever" to you actually meant "less effective than alternative interrogation techniques". Not a month goes by without you clashing with Paul, workpublic, Richard, Jim, billis, me, or somebody who's grossly misunderstood you. Suffice it to say I definitely don't think I'm the problem here. More to the point, I've been trying to accommodate you more by asking more questions lately. "i hope you understand how funny this is coming from you." out of the blue isn't helping things. i make minor mistakes occasionally, and when i do, i admit to them, and correct them. it doesn't happen "often". as to torture, "of no material value" is the same as "less effective" when the action is immoral. in other words, if something is BOTH immoral AND ineffective, then it is of no material value. so it is not JUST "less effective". you ignored half the argument- the half that we already agreed on. as to the rest of the above, i only get angered by your assertions about "what i think", which is usually nothing like what i think. and i am hardly alone. i doubt you have gone a week without doing it to someone (aka "OFTEN"), and you are utterly unrepentant about it, which is, as Franklin once said, devilish. frustrating. i have noticed that you have been trying, and therefore felt both sad AND annoyed when i saw you backsliding into presumptuousness. i am sorry to say that it has not grown on me. if you keep doing it, you will get the same reaction you always have. for the record, the line about you confusing things was me making light of the situation. you taking it seriously is a sure sign of trouble for us. as is your refusal to ask questions rather than assuming things about me and other posters. edit: i appreciate all of the careful archiving and cataloging of my posts. it is nice to know i have a few fans here.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 6:27:53 GMT -5
Well, my apologies for saddening you with my backsliding into presumptuousness by critiquing Archie's literalism.
I'm assuming your "sad AND annoyed" comment is because the critique actually saddened and annoyed you, but at this point I have no idea whether my taking the comment seriously is another sure sign of trouble for us, and I'm this close to giving up caring.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Aug 19, 2015 6:44:53 GMT -5
Well, Virgil Showlion, I can only speak for myself and what I saw with my own eyes, whatever the authors you've read might say. People who had disabled children just kept them indoors, for the most part, and didn't discuss them. Since they weren't seen often by other than family and didn't go out in public much, there wasn't much chance for them to be called "retard." I can't say I see it the same way you do.
|
|
Virgil Showlion
Distinguished Associate
Moderator
[b]leones potest resistere[/b]
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 15:19:33 GMT -5
Posts: 27,448
|
Post by Virgil Showlion on Aug 19, 2015 6:50:13 GMT -5
Certainly pregnancy is a possibility. And abortion takes care of it. By assumption the father isn't an idiot and he doesn't want a child, hence why would he have sexual intercourse if he wasn't reasonably convinced that the mother would abort? He wouldn't. He's a reasonable human being and reasonably believes he won't have to deal with a child because the mother will abort. The fact that aborting the child isn't a "do nothing" scenario is irrelevant. I can cite dozens of examples where "do nothing" isn't a reasonable expectation. Perhaps to make it more formal, to absolve himself of responsibility in future the father will have to ask a woman "You're aborting, right?" prior to having sex with her, in which case if she answers "Yes", this explicitly validates his "play doesn't mean pay" assumption. If she changes her mind, that's not his problem to deal with. Seriously? I'm surprised most guys can get any sex at all. I doubt they would even consider turning it down for a possibility they don't consider likely. If a man is desperate and ignorant of the risks as you suppose, the sexual relationship is coercive. All the more reason to grant him an opt-out protection similar to what the mother is afforded. No matter how many ways you look at this, the fundamentals are the same. Either parental responsibility begins at conception, which is completely at odds with a woman's right to abort (i.e. total abandonment of responsibility), or else parental responsibility begins at birth, in which case the clearly more equitable option is to permit the father to opt out during the same period as the mother. The fact that I happen to agree with you that parental responsibility begins at conception is irrelevant. The law clearly sees things differently, and the option that leads to more equitable treatment of mother and father in the courts' paradigm is equally clear.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,560
|
Post by tallguy on Aug 19, 2015 7:18:05 GMT -5
Bizarre. Just bizarre.
And the only thing you would have made coercive is the "option" to abort.
|
|