Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

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 : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: average joe who wrote (17159)	6/20/2001 9:44:46 AM
From: thames_sider	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 82486

Strange day... I agree with AJ. 1. Should a man have any right at all to determine the fate of a child he has conceived? If not, why not? I wouldn't say 'none' as such, but the final decision belongs to the woman who has to bear it. Hopefully she'd take the father's feelings into account... but her rights in this matter over-ride his. 2. If a woman has a right to abort a child and avoid the financial burden of raising a child, should a man have a right to "abort" his rights to the child if he does so at a time when the woman can still choose whether or not to have a safe and legal abortion, and thus choose to avoid the financial burden of raising the child? As AJ says, it's not completely safe. I assume we're talking about the case where the woman wants to keep the child, AND it's detected early enough for minimal risk - if she doesn't, then presumably the pregnancy was accidental (or careless - same thing...); he probably ought to share the abortion costs... If the man had wanted, and/or committed to raising the child with the woman (as is implied, for example, by marriage - never mind more direct promises) then he has financial burden. If he did not ever want the child, then it depends; did he take precautions to avoid pregnancy? did he believe that the woman had? was the pregnancy deliberate? IMO if he'd genuinely not wanted or expected children, not entered into some commitment, believed that pregnancy was prevented, and the woman nevertheless insists on having the child - then I'd say his obligation is low; but, it takes two, so I'm not sure we can acquit him of all financial responsibility. Maybe he should pay - up to the full cost of an abortion. -------- Canadian question: should Canadians be allowed to accept foreign honours? What if those entail a civil standing of power in another society, e.g., House of Lords? Do I believe these latter should be given in the first place? Well, no: it's undemocratic and unwise (since the rulers have no onus to live under any laws they make or influence). But I can't see why other honours cannot be given, and accepted, to and by any citizens of any nationality.