Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (164341)	3/15/2003 3:39:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) of 1573197

I don't see the connection, there seems to be a leap in your thinking. One reason for an abortion is to avert an unwanted child on one of both parties behalf. The point I make is that a women can hold a partner legally responsible for something neither wanted in the beginning. One person deciding the financial fate of the other seems illegal. Further if a women can hold a man financially responsible for an unwanted child - why can't a man sue a women for aborting his child without his consent? It's a one sided financial and moral bargain I find unfair. If the women has the ultimate choice I believe she bears the ultimate financial responsibility. I agree......to some degree, its sexist. However, before that legal requirement, men knocked up women and didn't always "do the right thing" which was to marry the pregnant woman and make them "honorable". I think the law was probably put into place in order to make men more responsible, and force the big head to rule the little head. ted

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next