quote:

The argument is that he is aware of the possibility of his actions leading to the pregnancy of the woman, and that she thereby holds rights to whether that pregnancy results in a child or not.

Of course she does. Where we differ is that you think that the rights of the two parties to decide whether to be parents should be symmetrical only until she gets pregnant (after which the woman should hold all of the rights), and I think that they should be symmetrical all the way through.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Of course she does. Where we differ is that you think that the rights of the two parties to decide whether to be parents should be symmetrical only until she gets pregnant, and I think that they should be symmetrical all the way through.

So what happens when he wants it and she doesn't? When she wants it and he doesn't? Does it get defaulted to a game of rock, paper, scissors?

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Of course she does. Where we differ is that you think that the rights of the two parties to decide whether to be parents should be symmetrical only until she gets pregnant, and I think that they should be symmetrical all the way through.

Unfortunately life is not so fair.

I think that the responsibilties of a child should be symmetrical between the two parties, but turns out that women HAVE to be the child bearers, so tough shit for me.

Until men have the ability to become pregnant and carry a potential human to term, there isn't much of an argument.

It's unfair, but that's the way the cookie crumbles.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On So what happens when he wants it and she doesn't?

She aborts, since terminating a pregnancy is a matter of bodily autonomy. Or she carries it to term and allows him to care for it, if they plan on splitting up and she is willing to carry it to term.

quote:

When she wants it and he doesn't?

He can choose not to support it financially.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa I think that the responsibilties of a child should be symmetrical between the two parties, but turns out that women HAVE to be the child bearers, so tough shit for me.

Well, no, they do not have to be, since they may choose to abort.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Well, no, they do not have to be, since they may choose to abort.

You can't abort a child.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles He can choose not to support it financially.

Wow, consequence-free sex! We should remove all other consequences from the world as well, that will solve a lot of problems.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.

quote:

Originally posted by Theresa You can't abort a child.

But you can give it up for adoption.

quote:

Originally posted by Halcyon+On+On Wow, consequence-free sex!

Exactly what anti-choicers say.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles But you can give it up for adoption.

Which is total bullshit in my opinion.

I'd really prefer the government not get involved in these types of situations in any way. Let nature take its course.

quote:

Originally posted by MrJiveBoJingles Exactly what anti-choicers say.

Yeah, I'm definitely anti-choice. I don't agree with something that could be exploited by asshole fathers, so I guess I am a nazi communist too.

I also hate kittens and freedom.

___________________
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.