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 : Should God be replaced? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: zonder who wrote (21513)	7/21/2005 7:20:34 AM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 28931

I did not mean the compensation to be necessarily and/or all in monetary terms. I also meant it in terms of emotional support, environment, hospital and after birth care, etc. Most women I have spoken with about this are cognizant of the man's right as the father and do not take the (imo) extreme position of "my body, my choice". Nor is the decision for abortion (in all but one case I know of) on the basis of "I do not want to go through the headache of childbirth". It usually has to do with the woman not being able to afford having a child (in a broad sense) or being uncertain of wanting the baby with that particular man. So if the man is willing to sign legal papers to state his/her rights and responsibilities and to compensate her (better emotional and social support, environment, hospital care, post-birth care, etc) which I believe to be her right, then a mutual arrangement should be possible. As a woman, do you find this unreasonable? Do you believe that most women think the father has no rights or say about the unborn? BTW, I thought most of throwing up was for a brief period in the beginning and the pains you talk of in the last two months.

To: zonder who wrote (21513)	7/21/2005 1:27:12 PM
From: Greg or e	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 28931

Women are generally active and equal participants in the sexual acts that result in pregnancy. Both partners have legal and moral responsibilities as a result of their actions. Inconvenience is a factor, but when compared to the gravity of killing an innocent Human being it is not sufficient to justify abortion on demand. The first question to ask and answer is: What is it, that is being killed? If it is a Human being then the bar must be set higher than simple inconvenience.