As much as I would like to support you in giving the father a say, I can't see any way to go about implementing it. A quick glance at daytime talk shows is enough to prove that the woman doesn't always know who the father is. Barring woman from getting abortions without the consent of the father would keep many of the women who most need an abortion from getting one. Add a caveat to the law where the woman can say she doesn't know who the father is and anyone can just lie their way into the clinic. I do agree that the father should be able to opt out of child support.
|
bgt (8814)
3 SFW Posts |
24 Space Comments
| Favorites | RSS Feed
Registered 2009-02-23 02:55:43 Comment Karma: 3 Featured Comments: 0 Member of : |
Recent Comments from bgt
- Comment on this is not a difficult concept (2010-07-11 23:31:58)
As much as I would like to support you in giving the father a say, I can't see any way to go about implementing it. A quick glance at daytime talk shows is enough to prove that the woman doesn't always know who the father is. Barring woman from getting abortions without the consent of the father would keep many of the women who most need an abortion from getting one. Add a caveat to the law where the woman can say she doesn't know who the father is and anyone can just lie their way into the clinic. I do agree that the father should be able to opt out of child support. - Comment on this is not a difficult concept (2010-07-11 20:49:20)
No, you were using "retards" figuratively, and not very well, given the confusion it caused. I am well aware of how broad my definition is. I am also aware that dolphins and most apes fit into this definition. I stand by what I said when I called it the only sensible way to determine the humanity of a subject. I see the killing of infants being as morally wrong as the killing of goldfish. It's not something I would advocate for, and it should not be performed against the will of the organism's caretaker, but ultimately it's not of any real concern to me. Now, from the point of view of civil ethics I would argue that once the child is born it is a citizen of its country, and as such it is entitled to any protection of law that country offers. I simply hold that an organism, regardless of its DNA, cannot be held to the same sort of moral sanctity we award ourselves until it actually posses that "humanity" granted by our intellect. - Comment on this is not a difficult concept (2010-07-11 11:53:59)
The mentally retarded do meet those requirments. I believe the term you are looking for is "anencephalic". - Comment on this is not a difficult concept (2010-07-11 10:16:58)
I disagree with you on the acorn. Barring outside interference, I will develop into a tree. Also, do you honestly support the concept that DNA is the definition of humanity? Twins have the same DNA. If I kill one, is it only assault because that DNA is still alive? People with Down's Syndrome techniclly don't have human DNA. Is it OK to kill them? If you allow for some wiggle room to accomodate mutants with almost human DNA, then why not chimps? Their DNA is 99% human. Fruit flys are 60% human. Is swatting a fly a 60% murder? The only sensible way to determine humanity is the presence of sentience, sapience, and self awareness. If an organism can both percieve its environment, make judgments based on its observations, and recognizes its own existence in relation to those judgements, then it deserves to be protected. - Comment on Dem fuckin` Dorfs! (2010-05-06 10:18:16)
It's massively tldr, but check out Let's Play Dwarf Fortress: Boatmurdered. http://lparchive.org/LetsPlay/Boatmurdered/intro.html That'll learn you everything you need to know about dorfs. - Comment on Toblerone (2010-03-20 20:54:57)
There's a bear in the mountain. - Comment on An Overview of the Same Sex Marriage Debate (2009-12-20 22:19:05)
I find your statement that homosexuality is a disability interesting. The definition of a disability, according to the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 is as follows: "The term ‘disability’ means, with respect to an individual – (a) a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more of the major life activities of such individual; (b) a record of such impairment; or (c) being regarded as having such an impairment.†I refer you to section a of the quote. In what way does homosexuality limit an individual? I posit that no such limits are present, and thus your statement is fallicous. - Comment on The ultimate sex chart (2009-12-19 19:16:30)
Ah. That makes sense. - Comment on The ultimate sex chart (2009-12-17 11:53:06)
Perhaps this is a sign that I've stared far to long and to deeply into the internet, but it seems to be lacking several more common fetishes. Transgender transformation, futanari, and monstergirls are absent, if I'm reading this right. - Comment on Difference Engine (2009-11-02 09:39:12)
Wish I could see it in action. - Comment on One Nation Under God? (2009-10-21 09:25:44)
Mormons are a sect of Christianity. - Comment on skin color vs. development (2009-10-08 22:44:13)
Indeed, baked potatoes truely are the greatest of foods. Have you ever had fingerlings slow roasted with olive oil and pepper? Delicious. - Comment on how do you choose between believing in jesus (2009-09-10 06:25:55)
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -Thomas Jefferson Yay! Defend the quote with more quotes! - Comment on Fishy Smell (2009-09-03 22:12:29)
It might be a repost, but I still lol'd. - Comment on Illuminatie Piramid Illusion (2009-09-02 09:44:26)
brb someone's at the door.
