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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (164341)	3/15/2003 3:39:55 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1573213

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

To: d[-_-]b who wrote (164341)	3/16/2003 10:42:59 PM
From: Tenchusatsu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1573213

Eric, we went down two separate paths, but I think we both focused on the father's responsibility for bearing the child, if not physically. I think a lot of guys are like, "What do I care if I knock some girl up? She can always get an abortion, right?" Regardless of how stupid that sounds in theory, you can't deny that this sort of logic sounds tempting to those thinking with their "other" head. So now guys feel more free to practice their lifestyles, knowing that any girl they impregnate will always have an "avenue of escape." <If the women has the ultimate choice I believe she bears the ultimate financial responsibility.> I disagree. That will only invite more men to be irresponsible in their behavior. Not only could a woman choose to abort an unborn baby, but that if the woman chooses not to, the father won't be held responsible at all. That's a win-win situation for the irresponsible, and a sure-fire way to make more women undergo abortions. Yes, there are women who get pregnant just to extort money from fathers. Sports stars are especially vulnerable to these women. But then again, it's kind of silly to paint the man as "vulnerable" to this, because just as women can stop men from coming too close, so can men stop women from coming too close as well. Tenchusatsu