Well... this is problematic. Unless we can find a new carrier bird it is back to square one.
Advertisement

by Khanastan » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:14 pm

by Czechanada » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:15 pm

by Czechanada » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:17 pm

by Mkuki » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:17 pm
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.

by Torcularis Septentrionalis » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:17 pm
The Andromeda Islands wrote:This! Is! A! Bad! Idea!
Furious Grandmothers wrote:Why are you talking about murder when we are talking about abortion? Murdering a fetus is impossible. It's like smelling an echo. You're not making sense.

by Torcularis Septentrionalis » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:19 pm
Mkuki wrote:Now that I've thought about it I think that men should have a hand in the decision of whether or not to have an abortion, but the woman should be the one to 'pull the trigger' so to speak.
The Andromeda Islands wrote:This! Is! A! Bad! Idea!
Furious Grandmothers wrote:Why are you talking about murder when we are talking about abortion? Murdering a fetus is impossible. It's like smelling an echo. You're not making sense.

by Czechanada » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:19 pm
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Czechanada wrote:
Hermaphrodites would be difficult to implement. I was just advocating that every woman should get pregnant with twins (or any even set, for that matter.) *nods*
That... that doesn't work at all... He'd still be forcing her to do something with her body that she would not want to do.

by Mkuki » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:19 pm
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Mkuki wrote:Now that I've thought about it I think that men should have a hand in the decision of whether or not to have an abortion, but the woman should be the one to 'pull the trigger' so to speak.
He should have an opinion to place forth - whether or not she listens to it or not is her decision.
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.

by Evil Siamese Cats » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:27 pm

by Ifreann » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:28 pm
Evil Siamese Cats wrote:In terms of the biological father's rights, I'm torn. On one hand, if he really, really wants to be a father, the mother of the child can pretty much go out and abort the child for no other reason than to spite him, and he can't legally do shit, so for nine months, he's potentially at the mercy of the mother. On the other hand, he's not the one giving birth, carrying extra baby weight, or giving up sushi and bourbon, so the bulk of the rights should go to the mother.
The only time the father should ever have a right, if he has one at all, to control an abortion is to prevent one, unless the mother is incompetent.

by Torcularis Septentrionalis » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:30 pm
Evil Siamese Cats wrote:In terms of the biological father's rights, I'm torn. On one hand, if he really, really wants to be a father, the mother of the child can pretty much go out and abort the child for no other reason than to spite him, and he can't legally do shit, so for nine months, he's potentially at the mercy of the mother. On the other hand, he's not the one giving birth, carrying extra baby weight, or giving up sushi and bourbon, so the bulk of the rights should go to the mother.
The only time the father should ever have a right, if he has one at all, to control an abortion is to prevent one, unless the mother is incompetent.
One possibility, and this may or may not work - an unmarried pair hooks up, and all of a sudden, bam, she's pregnant, and it's plainly obvious to both parties who the father is. She wants an abortion because she doesn't want a damn kid and doesn't want to go through all the hell of carrying a kid to term because she, let's just say, needs to avoid pregnancy for professional or school reasons. However, the father really wants the baby, to the point where he'll raise it on his own or find another mother to help. At this point, the situation turns into an awkward form of surrogacy, at which point we have to determine what is fair to compensate the mother for her troubles. Certainly the right to sign away her parental rights free and clear is in order. Also, the father should probably be on the hook for the bulk of her medical bills. Beyond that, I don't know.
The Andromeda Islands wrote:This! Is! A! Bad! Idea!
Furious Grandmothers wrote:Why are you talking about murder when we are talking about abortion? Murdering a fetus is impossible. It's like smelling an echo. You're not making sense.

by Condunum » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:34 pm
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Czechanada wrote:
Hermaphrodites would be difficult to implement. I was just advocating that every woman should get pregnant with twins (or any even set, for that matter.) *nods*
That... that doesn't work at all... He'd still be forcing her to do something with her body that she would not want to do.

by The Grey Wolf » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:41 pm

by Mkuki » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:43 pm
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.

by Torcularis Septentrionalis » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:46 pm
Mkuki wrote:Ashmoria wrote:should she be forced to hear him out?
Not physically forced. Legally, though, it depends on the case. If the husband is abusive to either her or, if there are any, the existing children then no she shouldn't. However, if the male has no record off being abusive in any way then she should, legally, be forced to hear his grievances. Of course that applies only if the two are married or have some form of domestic partnership contract.
The Andromeda Islands wrote:This! Is! A! Bad! Idea!
Furious Grandmothers wrote:Why are you talking about murder when we are talking about abortion? Murdering a fetus is impossible. It's like smelling an echo. You're not making sense.

by The Rising Sun Katana » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:49 pm


by The Grey Wolf » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:50 pm

by Mkuki » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:50 pm
Torcularis Septentrionalis wrote:Mkuki wrote:Not physically forced. Legally, though, it depends on the case. If the husband is abusive to either her or, if there are any, the existing children then no she shouldn't. However, if the male has no record off being abusive in any way then she should, legally, be forced to hear his grievances. Of course that applies only if the two are married or have some form of domestic partnership contract.
Sorry but she doesn't even have to listen to him if nothing is going to change her mind either way.
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.

by Ifreann » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:52 pm
The Rising Sun Katana wrote:Khanastan wrote:Well... this is problematic. Unless we can find a new carrier bird it is back to square one.
Mallards are cool!! There's a park by my house that has a small lake and lots of ducks, turtles, and fish and we go there to feed'em sometimes. Mallards can bust a move for a nummy so they'd bee the bomb!!

by Mkuki » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:54 pm
Ifreann wrote:The Rising Sun Katana wrote:Mallards are cool!! There's a park by my house that has a small lake and lots of ducks, turtles, and fish and we go there to feed'em sometimes. Mallards can bust a move for a nummy so they'd bee the bomb!!
Nah, ducks are busy fighting their rape war against each other.
John Rawls wrote:In justice as fairness, the concept of right is prior to that of the good.

by The Rising Sun Katana » Mon Jun 10, 2013 5:57 pm
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Alvecia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Crankblitz, Des-Bal, Elejamie, Eragon Island, Fractalnavel, Galloism, Habsburg Mexico, Haganham, Kerwa, Kractero, Lysset, M-101, New Bradfordsburg, Primitive Communism, Qwuazaria, Rary, San Lumen, Stellar Colonies, Stone Age Electricians, Tarsonis, The Astral Mandate, The Two Jerseys, Unitria, Warvick, Z-Zone 3
Advertisement