Got curious about something... (regards abortion and father`s duties)

[Alceste]

I am not pretending they don't exist.
The point is that if sex binds a person to responsibility of supporting a child, then these options must not be used.

You STILL haven't explained why any options should be taken of the table for either sex. You really need to do that. I won't respond to you repeating yourself any more, since this is going nowhere until you can justify your belief that a woman's range of choices should be reduced. If your reasoning boils down to "because I personally think abortion is wrong", please just say so and we can move on.

 

[Koldo]

What did she agree to?
If your claim is that she agreed to giving birth and to NOT have a child when she agreed to have sex, youa re just plain flat out wrong.
Why?
Because unlike the man, the woman has options after the conception.

You can try all you like to ignore this fact, but it is still there.

It is indeed possible for her to do that.
But if you allow this, you are applying a double standard.

What argument have I made?

You tell me.

What bargain do you think the woman entered into?

To support a child if they get pregnant.

yet you have not shown how there is anything logical about your reasoning.
In fact, the more you post the more it looks like you are allowing passion to rule reason.

I have explained several times already.
I doubt it would work if i did once again.

it is not fault that you are content with going in circles.

I am not content.
I had high expectations.

 

[McBell]

I have already explained it several times.
First, if you bind the man to the responsibility of supporting a child because he had sex, you must do the same with a woman. Not doing so is called double standard.
Second, if a woman is bound to the responsibility of supporting a child, it doesn't matter if the pregnancy takes place in her womb. She accepted this condition once she had sex.

And I already stated that this is not a double standard.
It is the reality of the world.
The woman has options after the conception that the man does not.
Your ignoring this fact does not make it go away, nor does it amount to a double standard.

The woman does not have to accept the responsibility of raising a child simply because she had sex.
She has options available after conception.

The only reason the man does not have option after conception is because it is not his body.

So, why do you think that we should ignore the reality of the woman having options after the conception?
I mean, other than you think it is "unfair"...

 

[McBell]

What have you supported so far?

What argument have I made so far?

 

[McBell]

Double standard!
You are applying a different standard to women.
If sex binds men, it must bind women.

based on what?

And no, "logical reasoning" is not an answer.
Perhaps if you spelled out the "logical reasoning" you claim to be using it might help?

 

[Alceste]

Do not reduce your post to this.
You post clearly said that if a man has sex with a woman, it is a result of his personal choices, and therefore, he has to face the consequence. Which means to support the child. It is not that he is choosing to become a father every time he has sex, but rather that he is going through a risk and he has to be made responsible for the consequence.

Supporting the child is not necessarily what the "consequence" means. Another possible consequence the man might face is that the woman he impregnated has an abortion. Or she decides she wants the baby but has a miscarriage anyway. Or her Dad beats you up. Out you do "the right thing" and marry her but the baby comes out Asian out something. There are many possible outcomes. All of them are "consequences" of the couple's choices.

 

[Koldo]

You STILL haven't explained why any options should be taken of the table for either sex. You really need to do that. I won't respond to you repeating yourself any more, since this is going nowhere until you can justify your belief that a woman's range of choices should be reduced. If your reasoning boils down to "because I personally think abortion is wrong", please just say so and we can move on.

I already did.
At the moment a man and a woman have sex they agree to take responsibility for the risk of the woman getting pregnant, and if such happens they must support the child. If the sex is an agreement that binds the man to this responsibility, it must bind the woman too. Otherwise, you are using two different standards. One to men, and one to women. Which is known as a double standard. Abortion takes away the responsibility the woman had to support the child that was accepted at the moment she had sex.

 

[McBell]

It is indeed possible for her to do that.
But if you allow this, you are applying a double standard.

still clinging to your alleged double standard?

You tell me.

exactly.
Since i have not made an argument, i need not support an argument.

Seems rather simple to me....

To support a child if they get pregnant.

When did she make this agreement?

If you claim when she had sex, then you are again simply flat out wrong.
Why?
Because the woman does not have to make THAT decision yet.

I have explained several times already.
I doubt it would work if i did once again.

really?
Please be so kind as to point out where you successfully explained this alleged double standard.

I am not content.
I had high expectations.

Then stop with the merry-go-round already.

 

[Koldo]

And I already stated that this is not a double standard.
It is the reality of the world.
The woman has options after the conception that the man does not.
Your ignoring this fact does not make it go away, nor does it amount to a double standard.

I am not ignoring anything.
I am well aware of this as i have said that it is possible to make an abortion many times.
However, the abortion takes away the responsibility the woman had to support the child. And therefore, she shouldn't be allowed to do it.

The woman does not have to accept the responsibility of raising a child simply because she had sex.
She has options available after conception.

But she agreed to support a child the moment she had sex.

The only reason the man does not have option after conception is because it is not his body.

So, why do you think that we should ignore the reality of the woman having options after the conception?
I mean, other than you think it is "unfair"...

I am not ignoring anything.
To prevent a double standard, using the argument that sex binds people to support children, it must be the case abortion is not to be allowed.

 

[Koldo]

based on what?

And no, "logical reasoning" is not an answer.
Perhaps if you spelled out the "logical reasoning" you claim to be using it might help?

I already explained several times.
I suggest you read my posts once again.

 

[Alceste]

I already did.
At the moment a man and a woman have sex they agree to take responsibility for the risk of the woman getting pregnant, and if such happens they must support the child. If the sex is an agreement that binds the man to this responsibility, it must bind the woman too. Otherwise, you are using two different standards. One to men, and one to women. Which is known as a double standard. Abortion takes away the responsibility the woman had to support the child that was accepted at the moment she had sex.

Nobody is arguing that having sex indicates both parties agree to have a child together and raise it except for you. That's a preposterous claim, and if you really think that's true I would STRONGLY advise you to discuss it with any prospective sexual partner before you get down to business.

 

[Koldo]

Supporting the child is not necessarily what the "consequence" means. Another possible consequence the man might face is that the woman he impregnated has an abortion. Or she decides she wants the baby but has a miscarriage anyway. Or her Dad beats you up. Out you do "the right thing" and marry her but the baby comes out Asian out something. There are many possible outcomes. All of them are "consequences" of the couple's choices.

In the context it was used, it does mean supporting the child.

 

[McBell]

I already did.
At the moment a man and a woman have sex they agree to take responsibility for the risk of the woman getting pregnant,

Yes.

and if such happens they must support the child.

nope, sorry.
this is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

If the sex is an agreement that binds the man to this responsibility, it must bind the woman too.

It binds the woman to take responsibility. It does not bind the woman to give birth and raise a child.

Otherwise, you are using two different standards. One to men, and one to women. Which is known as a double standard. Abortion takes away the responsibility the woman had to support the child that was accepted at the moment she had sex.

no, there are not two different standards.
The standards are the same for both the man and the woman.
The only difference is that the woman has more choices than the man after conception.

 

[McBell]

In the context it was used, it does mean supporting the child.

only to those who would like to throw out reality in favour of their argument.

 

[Alceste]

In the context it was used, it does mean supporting the child.

Yes, having to pay child support is one possible consequence of your own choices. Having a girlfriend who decides to abort your child is another possible consequence. If these consequences don't appeal to you, it would be best for you to be extremely careful not to cause any unplanned pregnancies.

 

[Koldo]

still clinging to your alleged double standard?

I cling to truth.

exactly.
Since i have not made an argument, i need not support an argument.

Seems rather simple to me....

Do i need to refresh your memory?
Perhaps you don't remember when you said :"The fact of the matter is that since it is the womans body, the woman gets to decide."

When did she make this agreement?

If you claim when she had sex, then you are again simply flat out wrong.
Why?
Because the woman does not have to make THAT decision yet.

Double standard!
Sex binds a man, but it doesn't bind a woman.

really?
Please be so kind as to point out where you successfully explained this alleged double standard.

Read everything i have said so far.
It will be much better.

Then stop with the merry-go-round already.

It takes two to do this.

 

[Koldo]

Nobody is arguing that having sex indicates both parties agree to have a child together and raise it except for you. That's a preposterous claim, and if you really think that's true I would STRONGLY advise you to discuss it with any prospective sexual partner before you get down to business.

You did suggest that having sex indicates men agree to take responsibility and support a child if the woman gets pregnant as a result. Didn't you?

 

[Koldo]

It binds the woman to take responsibility. It does not bind the woman to give birth and raise a child.

It binds the woman to support the child.

no, there are not two different standards.
The standards are the same for both the man and the woman.
The only difference is that the woman has more choices than the man after conception.

Why should her?
If the sex binds the responsibility to support a child for a man, why should the woman be able to throw away this responsibility by the means of an abortion?

 

[Me Myself]

Nobody is arguing that having sex indicates both parties agree to have a child

Nope, the are arguing the MAN agreed. The woman is totally off the hook.

The man agreed upon the second he stuck his penis into a vagina.

You agreed when you inserted your penis into her vagina.

 

[McBell]

I cling to truth.

:biglaugh:
Then you should be receiving an academy award for your performance in this thread!

Do i need to refresh your memory?
Perhaps you don't remember when you said :"The fact of the matter is that since it is the womans body, the woman gets to decide."

Thats right.
It is the womans body that is required to take the fetus to term.
How you can twist that to mean that the fetus is the womans body, I have no idea.

so much for clinging to truth, eh?

Double standard!
Sex binds a man, but it doesn't bind a woman.

round and round and round we still go...

Read everything i have said so far.
It will be much better.

So you are unable to point out where you have allegedly already explained it?
Wow.

It takes two to do this.

i take it you are content with your merry-go-round?