"No. The Man does not have equal rights. He does not even have equal responsibility either."
Outside of the nine months of pregnancy 1% of the average womans lifetime his responsibilities are the same, men are required to provide financially for their kids until the age of *at least* 21. This financial provision is not tax deductible for the man but is tax exempt for the woman.
"There is no person yet."
Well that *should* be the subject of debate but it usually gets ignored. Neither your not my own statements about 'when life begins' are the definitive lines but we should note that traditionally rights err on the side of caution...
"You are attempting to take us to the end of the slippery slope already with fallacious conclusions not supported by any facts."
I am trying not to go there, but historically that *has* been the trend. We have also seen that years ago when people said Abortion would be based on such silly things as hair color and eye color that they were told 'that could never happen and its slippery slope bs'. When that is precisely where we have ended up. I did not make the statement to say that if you allow abortion you will turn into Nazi Germany but such flippant attitudes about it and the unborn child are quite dangerous.
"Eugenics traditionally has been laws selectively controlling who had the rights to breed with who."
Ummm no, planned parenthood was founded by a eugenicist. There are two ways to accomplish the ends sought by master racers one would be force of law and the other would be force of culture. You are confusing something that can be a social movement and thus over the course of generations affect law with a law itself.
"(1)An embryo is not a person. (2)It does not have a personality. (3)Depending on who you talk to, it does not even have a soul yet."
1) Is a statement, it holds no weight 2) depends on who you talk to my wife was very predictive of how the kids would be based on behavior before birth in her womb. Where as some people swear newborns themselves dont have personalities yet 3) does not matter, one can be an atheist and *never* believe in a soul and it does not negate the biological truth of what lies in the womb.
"OK, now you just crossed a line from fallacious logic to absurdly offensive bullshit. You don't like abortion. I get it. You don't like eugenics. I get that too."
The hears of the attitude are the same X is not a person so what I do is my business not the governments. Many of the day use social and scientific reasoning to justify it... If its ugly to you its because you live today *not* 300 years ago, I really hope in 300 years people are condemning us as strongly.
"So I understandably have a hard time agreeing that government could declare a position either way on this. They should just be silent and mind their own business."
I took out the BS part of your post, as you most certainly think the govt should have a position and the position should be pro-choice. To try to mask this with a total indifference is more deceptive than *anything* I have said. Abortion is pretty much (outside the life of the mother) a black or white issue (like murder), either the government should allow it or not.. You cant say with any reason that you don't think the govt should have a position on this at a societal level.
"Your attempt to invalidate my arguments by comparing me to a slave owner and/or a supporter of a slave ownership has only brought you shame and dishonor. You owe me an apology, sir."
I'm sorry you're being such a dumb ass... I was not comparing you to a slave owner only pointing out the logic you were using has been used before and God help us will be used again to move folks to the 'undesirable' class of humanity.
"You can say that a sperm can't become human without an egg. And I can say that an embryo can't become human without its mother. In both cases, take the object away from what it needs and it will die"
Here is the difference
No matter how far science advances you can not provide an environment in which a sperm will become a baby, I can not happen. Where as given a proper environment (even outside the mother) an embryo *can* become a baby to ignore the fundamental difference in the nature of a sperm and the nature of an embryo undercuts any single grain of respectability you might have in this debate. It is, in fact, the most desperate straw grab I have ever seen.
"take the object away from what it needs and it will die"
This is also true for you and me...
"I just think that not only do I not have the answer, but nobody else does either."
Yet you are willing to accept prohibitions on murder as reasonable and good but dismiss any claims on the status of the unborn because 'you're not sure' that seems rather lazy of you.
"I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either."
Why then, does a woman post intercourse still have the choice to be a parent but the man does not? Especially when it comes to taking care of a potentially ill child? What if the father does not want to have the responsibility of supporting a baby with downs? Do not both the Man and the Woman have the same rights?
--
That being said I find Abortion abhorrent, not that people who have or perform them are evil and I am good, far from it! we merely disagree about when human life begins but unfortunately the language (on both sides) becomes very unloving. I take the term Fetus literally (Latin: ftus, offspring) though we use it in the English language to dehumanize someone thus making their extermination more palatable it is, in point of fact, a human being.
When you open the door to 'its just a clump of cells' you open the door to sex selection, eye color, hair color, height, weight, and any number of features that would make your local eugenicist smile. And that, my friend, is a nice little seed of evil to plant in society. Some people are more genetically deserving to live than others, some are superior and should rule over others, and it only gets darker from there.
"They should just be silent and mind their own business."
BTW this was the argument of slave owners in the south, because in their view Africans were not fully evolved people, or the descendants of Ham, or whatever other excuse they were peddling they were adamant that the government had no place in their lives..
"The melt would be mostly symbolic--thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer."
So when we say the North Pole will melt we are talking about a point not the whole Artic ocean which is what impression one might get from the title.
Slashdot Mirror
"No. The Man does not have equal rights. He does not even have equal responsibility either."
Outside of the nine months of pregnancy 1% of the average womans lifetime his responsibilities are the same, men are required to provide financially for their kids until the age of *at least* 21. This financial provision is not tax deductible for the man but is tax exempt for the woman.
"There is no person yet."
Well that *should* be the subject of debate but it usually gets ignored. Neither your not my own statements about 'when life begins' are the definitive lines but we should note that traditionally rights err on the side of caution...
"You are attempting to take us to the end of the slippery slope already with fallacious conclusions not supported by any facts."
I am trying not to go there, but historically that *has* been the trend. We have also seen that years ago when people said Abortion would be based on such silly things as hair color and eye color that they were told 'that could never happen and its slippery slope bs'. When that is precisely where we have ended up. I did not make the statement to say that if you allow abortion you will turn into Nazi Germany but such flippant attitudes about it and the unborn child are quite dangerous.
"Eugenics traditionally has been laws selectively controlling who had the rights to breed with who."
Ummm no, planned parenthood was founded by a eugenicist. There are two ways to accomplish the ends sought by master racers one would be force of law and the other would be force of culture. You are confusing something that can be a social movement and thus over the course of generations affect law with a law itself.
"(1)An embryo is not a person. (2)It does not have a personality. (3)Depending on who you talk to, it does not even have a soul yet."
1) Is a statement, it holds no weight
2) depends on who you talk to my wife was very predictive of how the kids would be based on behavior before birth in her womb. Where as some people swear newborns themselves dont have personalities yet
3) does not matter, one can be an atheist and *never* believe in a soul and it does not negate the biological truth of what lies in the womb.
"OK, now you just crossed a line from fallacious logic to absurdly offensive bullshit. You don't like abortion. I get it. You don't like eugenics. I get that too."
The hears of the attitude are the same X is not a person so what I do is my business not the governments. Many of the day use social and scientific reasoning to justify it... If its ugly to you its because you live today *not* 300 years ago, I really hope in 300 years people are condemning us as strongly.
"So I understandably have a hard time agreeing that government could declare a position either way on this. They should just be silent and mind their own business."
I took out the BS part of your post, as you most certainly think the govt should have a position and the position should be pro-choice. To try to mask this with a total indifference is more deceptive than *anything* I have said. Abortion is pretty much (outside the life of the mother) a black or white issue (like murder), either the government should allow it or not.. You cant say with any reason that you don't think the govt should have a position on this at a societal level.
"Your attempt to invalidate my arguments by comparing me to a slave owner and/or a supporter of a slave ownership has only brought you shame and dishonor. You owe me an apology, sir."
I'm sorry you're being such a dumb ass... I was not comparing you to a slave owner only pointing out the logic you were using has been used before and God help us will be used again to move folks to the 'undesirable' class of humanity.
"You can say that a sperm can't become human without an egg. And I can say that an embryo can't become human without its mother. In both cases, take the object away from what it needs and it will die"
Here is the difference
No matter how far science advances you can not provide an environment in which a sperm will become a baby, I can not happen. Where as given a proper environment (even outside the mother) an embryo *can* become a baby to ignore the fundamental difference in the nature of a sperm and the nature of an embryo undercuts any single grain of respectability you might have in this debate. It is, in fact, the most desperate straw grab I have ever seen.
"take the object away from what it needs and it will die"
This is also true for you and me...
"I just think that not only do I not have the answer, but nobody else does either."
Yet you are willing to accept prohibitions on murder as reasonable and good but dismiss any claims on the status of the unborn because 'you're not sure' that seems rather lazy of you.
"I don't think men should have any business telling a women what to do with their bodies, certainly not based on faith either."
Why then, does a woman post intercourse still have the choice to be a parent but the man does not? Especially when it comes to taking care of a potentially ill child? What if the father does not want to have the responsibility of supporting a baby with downs? Do not both the Man and the Woman have the same rights?
--
That being said I find Abortion abhorrent, not that people who have or perform them are evil and I am good, far from it! we merely disagree about when human life begins but unfortunately the language (on both sides) becomes very unloving. I take the term Fetus literally (Latin: ftus, offspring) though we use it in the English language to dehumanize someone thus making their extermination more palatable it is, in point of fact, a human being.
When you open the door to 'its just a clump of cells' you open the door to sex selection, eye color, hair color, height, weight, and any number of features that would make your local eugenicist smile. And that, my friend, is a nice little seed of evil to plant in society. Some people are more genetically deserving to live than others, some are superior and should rule over others, and it only gets darker from there.
"They should just be silent and mind their own business."
BTW this was the argument of slave owners in the south, because in their view Africans were not fully evolved people, or the descendants of Ham, or whatever other excuse they were peddling they were adamant that the government had no place in their lives..
No, thats the half eaten carton of Ben and Jerry's from 1997, clean out your damn fridge..
Polar bears don't actually live 'at the pole':
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/24/Polar_bear_range_map.png
They live in areas around which, according to the article, have plenty of ice...
"The melt would be mostly symbolic--thicker ice, pushed against the Canadian continental shelf by weather and Earth's rotation, would still survive the summer."
So when we say the North Pole will melt we are talking about a point not the whole Artic ocean which is what impression one might get from the title.