Reply With Quote
You act like there's not two people involved while having sex.
so do abortion laws...
A guy generally has to approach a woman, make her laugh, get her interested, say all the right things, generally take her out to dinner, pay for everything, and establish trust, all so that he can get laid. Unless she likes him a lot more than he likes her!
The girl only has to say no somewhere along the line. Also, girls are usually a lot more mature at that age, at least emotionally. So I'd say at least 60/40.
You act like there's not two people involved while having sex.
so do abortion laws...
Sad story...I had a buddy on the team back in my rugby days who got his G/F pregnant. They were pretty serious. Serious enough that she moved from VA to move in w/ him. He was like 22 at the time, and the "rookie" on the team, so he caught a lot of , but he was a good guy. Sort of like a little brother to us. He was ready to buckle down and do the right thing, but his girlie went back to Virginia and got an abortion. He was devastated.
Addendum: I've never hit a woman, and never will, but I'm glad I'll probably never run into that again...I don't need any sort of incitement to do something stupid.
.
Last edited by SpursWoman; 06-16-2005 at 04:17 PM.
Yeah, thats pretty ed up.
Dude, that was tongue in cheek.
I think this whole thing has to do with anatomy. Since the woman is the one that carries the child, it has always been considered her responsiblity for getting pregnant. Also, woman accept the sperm into their bodies, and men donate it from themselves. So in following logic, the person receiving would be the one to refuse, not the one offering.
That's some ed up logic, dear.
It is?That's some ed up logic, dear.
Manny shows his true colors, he could give a crap about the shiavo case it was agenda driven the whole time. Your replies in the thread proves that point beyond a shadow of a doubt.
Did I care about some woman I've never met? No dude, I didn't have any faux sleepless nights like some people. I care about the way law is carried out in this country and thats what I cared about in this case.
Desflood is one sad mother er.
Yes I am, but probably not for the reasons you are thinking.
I'll take Des over a guy who changes names and vists Nsync boards.
Oh how ing benevolent that men would donate their sperm to us that we might have their child.
Jekka, calm down. I wasn't talking like a macho pig. Sorry if the verbage I used made it sound that way, but I stated the process in logical terms. Logic sounds cold because it's cut to the chase and raw.Oh how ing benevolent that men would donate their sperm to us that we might have their child.
How about the logic that the man knows the ramifications of sex just as much as the female and that makes him just as liable for the results?
If you're going to equally assign responsibility between the two, then the man should also get equal say as to the pregnancy. He should be able to demand an abortion just like she can. Yes I know it's not his body, but the thing growing within her is half his. Why should her "rights" always trump his?
Yes, but in the animal kingdom, the male doesn't always give a flying about the ramifications. Since we have a much more evolved social society and structure it's different. But underneath all of that is still the primal instincts that drive us all.
Let me make it clear that I of course believe men are as responsible for a pregneancy as the women they have sex with. That's a duh statement. I wasa just stating what I believe are some of the basic reasons where the at ude of some men stems from.
While we are part of the animal kingdom, there is a HUGE difference between a -and-run with a lesser intelligent animal and a human. If the less-intelligent animal gets knocked up, she has a low-risk birth in most cases followed by having to look for more food - and most mothers in the "animal kingdom" live together and help each other out. With humans, it's a little more complicated than that, with everything from a higher risk birth and longer recovery time due to the larger brain and head cir ference of the baby to paying bills and watching the child.
You want everything to be black and white, and it's not. "Logic sounds cold" because this is not a situation where you can use that logic because there are three people involved, and you're saying that with logic that means that one of them gets out scott-free and two of them get hurt - that's not good logic.
I know this quote is somewhat out of context, but this is the reason people are against abortion.
He can give up his parental rights. I agree that he should have a say in the abortion process - or to stop it - but the problem is how do you force a woman to carry a baby when she doesn't want to when that baby argueably isn't a full fledge human?
I don't have an answer, because it's not cut and dry.
Allow me to preface this with stating that while I hate the idea of abortion, I respect a woman's right to have one. I personally view abortion as more of stopping a life before consciousness, which is different than abandoning a child who will likely be disadvantaged and might have psychological reprocussions - these are also things that get passed down in many cases through subsequent generations. Not to mention, I do not see the mother as getting out of the situation without getting hurt if she chooses to have an abortion. Except for the minority of women who use it as birth control, abortion is a horrible, horrible decision to have to make - it's not easy, it's painful, it's psychologically detrimental in a huge way. To insinuate the mother gets out scott-free is completely untrue.
Ok, this is getting really dumb. I AM NOT SAYING THAT THE MAN GETS OFF THE HOOK! OK?!!!
I was saying it is not a basic instinct in many animal species for the male to care for the young, or even acknoledge thir existence. I had already said like 3 times that men should be held responsible, just as much as the woman.
The logical process has nothing to do with what's right, fair, or any responsibilities. The males of many species sole responsibility is to fertilize as many females as possible. The females responisbility is to give birth to as many offspring as possible. Sometimes those roles are slightly different, or more complicated. Because human's are so intelligent, they need more care and for a longer period of time during their early years. Because of that, human females have spent more and more time raising and nuturing their offspring than other animals typically do. Now it is common for the male of the couple to also take a large part of the development of their own offspring. But for some, they still have the instincts of procreation wired into their brain. In today's society, this behavior is frown upon, and considered leacherous.
So I will state again, I'm not condoning, excusing, or promoting man s!!!
Who's to say that humans fall into that category then if you're willing to admit that not every species does? If that's the case then your whole argument is moot.I was saying it is not a basic instinct in [b]many animal species/b] for the male to care for the young, or even acknoledge thir existence. I had already said like 3 times that men should be held responsible, just as much as the woman.
Then the point of stating the logic was .... playing dumb-devil's advocate?
I suggest you either take a class in primate biology or a class in physical anthropology before you decide to start making this arguement. Humans are far removed from animals without a social structure built into their species and in addition that has nothing to do with logic.
Biological behavior patterns are what you are reffering to, but even then you are incorrect.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
