|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
klg
|
|
response 94 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 01:35 UTC 2006 |
So, according to RW's theory, Josef Stalin - despite the millions he had
killed - must have been a very moral person, inasmuch as he was an
athiest and all.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 95 of 254:
|
Mar 9 02:40 UTC 2006 |
At least he wasn't a religious tyrant, but he was a tyrant still. He didn't
get his countrymen to follow him by appealing to their religion, but to their
sense of survival. Same with Saddam. Tyrants use whatever means they have at
hand to exercise their tyrrany. So....what's the point?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 96 of 254:
|
Mar 9 14:05 UTC 2006 |
>At least he wasn't a religious tyrant,
Oh, yes, thank goodness--that would have been really *really* bad...
|
jep
|
|
response 97 of 254:
|
Mar 9 14:08 UTC 2006 |
re resp:86: I would help a child before a man because it seems obvious
to me that a child should come first. A child is less likely to be
able to help himself. Children are to be protected by adults.
While some consider it an anachronism, I consider it is a man's duty,
in a dangerous situation, to sacrifice himself for a woman. That would
hold true for either myself or another man in that type of situation.
|
richard
|
|
response 98 of 254:
|
Mar 9 15:42 UTC 2006 |
#94 Actually Stalin wasn't always an atheist. As a boy he was I believe a
catholic and in a town very strictly controlled by the church. When he grew
up and became educated, it was his deep feeling of being repressed by the
church that led him to communism. Therefore one can argue that maybe Stalin
would not have grown up so embittered had he been raised as an athiest, which
he was not.
|
richard
|
|
response 99 of 254:
|
Mar 9 15:49 UTC 2006 |
And I never said that atheists cornered the market on morality. I just
believe that most people have good instincts naturally, and that in general
it is safer to trust those instincts IMO than to base moral decisions entirely
on what other people tell you, be those other people priests OR atheists.
|
jep
|
|
response 100 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:13 UTC 2006 |
There's an interesting story which is pertinent to the abortion
question, that I came across on Yahoo News. It's about a guy who's
starting a legal campaign to allow men who don't want to be a father to
opt out of the financial responsibility for supporting their child.
Here's the link I read:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060308/ap_on_re_us/fatherhood_suit
A group called National Center for Men is backing the campaign.
The lawsuit was filed in district court in Michigan.
I'm against the guy's position. Both parents should be responsible for
their child. If this concept were to become law, it couldn't help but
to cause more abortions. I wouldn't like that.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 101 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:20 UTC 2006 |
I believe a man should only be allowed to opt out of child support in
cases of rape and incest....in other words, damn near never.
Along the same mentality of if you're against abortion you just want to
punish sluts; if you support abortion rights and oppose this lawsuit,
then you might just want to punish men for fathering children.
|
richard
|
|
response 102 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:25 UTC 2006 |
If the mother has her own financial resources and is willing to sign a legal
document releasing the father from all paternal responsibilities, then why
not? In a free country, consenting adults get to make these decisions, not
the government. This is another case of JEP wanting morality imposed on
people of free will by one institution or another.
|
richard
|
|
response 103 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:27 UTC 2006 |
And since a man can donate his sperm to a sperm bank and end up being a father
without even knowing it, let alone having to support the child, why shouldn't
he be able to opt out in this other circumstance?
|
edina
|
|
response 104 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:36 UTC 2006 |
So let me get this straight. Couple has one night stand. They are both
willing participants. She gets pregnant. She doesn't believe in abortion.
He doesn't want to be a father. He should get to opt out?
|
johnnie
|
|
response 105 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:41 UTC 2006 |
>starting a legal campaign to allow men who don't want to be a father to
>opt out of the financial responsibility for supporting their child.
"The gist of the argument: If a pregnant woman can choose among
abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended
pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial
responsibilities of fatherhood."
Yeah, great. Guys get to have fun, gals get to "choose" from three
extremely difficult options.
Jerk. Wear a condom next time, or get yourself snipped. $500/month is
cheap compared to the responsibility and difficulty of raising a child.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 106 of 254:
|
Mar 9 16:43 UTC 2006 |
resp:102 Richard, read the whole response- note the part where JEP says
he's AGAINST the guy's position.
It's again, grey. What if a man and a woman enter a relationship wherein
he flat out says he does NOT want kids, and she agrees... only to turn
around and stop taking the pill, put pin holes in the condoms, whatever?
He didn't want the child- but now she's pregnant. Should he be held
responsible?
Turn it around- she says she doesn't want kids- and he agrees, and then
sabotages the birth control. Should she be held responsible, ie carry
the child to term?
And how can we tell the difference between an 'act of God' (i.e. they
did everything necessary to avoid pregnancy and still ended up with it)
and sabotage?
That said, I do think that pro-life people should be chanting for all
men to be held responsible for the children they create. What the angry
side of me thinks is that the men in the above suit are likely to be
pro-life, but they don't want to be responsible- placing the entire
burden on the woman.
|
richard
|
|
response 107 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:03 UTC 2006 |
re #104 edina, I said only IF he had the mother's written permission.
Michael Jackson is being sued now by the mother of his two kids. He paid her
off and got her to sign an agreement opting out of her parental rights. Now
because she thinks he's become emotionally unstable, she wants to opt BACK
IN and get custody of the kids. The question is can you back out of a written
agreement where you willingly gave up your parental rights?
|
jep
|
|
response 108 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:12 UTC 2006 |
Richard, I missed the part where I said I didn't think the guy should
be able to get out of his financial responsibilities if the mother
agreed. Can you refer to my statement on that subject? Or more fully
explain my position? I'd really like to know what I think. Thanks!
|
jep
|
|
response 109 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:13 UTC 2006 |
I am pretty sure Richard didn't read what I said...
|
jadecat
|
|
response 110 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:13 UTC 2006 |
resp:107 I would imagine so if you can prove some sort of undue coercion
took place (how is that word spelled?).
|
jadecat
|
|
response 111 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:14 UTC 2006 |
resp:109 well no... but you posted the information - so obviously you
agree with it- right? ;)
|
richard
|
|
response 112 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:14 UTC 2006 |
jep you said you were AGAINST the guy's position, and I took that to mean the
guy who was filing that lawsuit to allow men to opt out of their parental
responsibilities. If you are against that guy's position, does that not mean
that you are against him or any guy being able to opt out of parental
responsibilities?
|
richard
|
|
response 113 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:15 UTC 2006 |
|
richard
|
|
response 114 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:17 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
"The lawsuit was filed in district court in Michigan.
I'm against
the guy's position. Both parents should be responsible for .."
sounds clear to me...
|
jep
|
|
response 115 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:17 UTC 2006 |
Richard, please go back and read what I said, and the article to which
I referred, then let me know what you saw. Take your time. *Please*.
I didn't say anything like what you think I did. I didn't say anything
on any related subject.
|
richard
|
|
response 116 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:19 UTC 2006 |
I just quoted what you said, you said you were against the guy's position,
that you think as a moral position both parents should be responsible. I said
that was akin to your wanting the law, or any outside institution, to impose
moral viewpoints on people who should make their own decisions.
|
klg
|
|
response 117 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:24 UTC 2006 |
That article doesn't seem to include information in other articles on
this subject that the woman told the father she was either taking
contraceptives or otherwise unable to have children.
From the Detroit News:
"It's just not fair. She has options in this. As a man, I have no
options and am forced to live with her choices," Dubay said Wednesday
night. "I was up front. I was clear that I didn't want to be a father
and she reassured me that she was incapable of getting pregnant."
|
richard
|
|
response 118 of 254:
|
Mar 9 17:25 UTC 2006 |
jep are you against the concept of sperm banks, which allow women to have
babies without a father being part of the relationship?
|