Skagens

Depends weather or not you find it attractive or fashionable. I have a beard because I look better in one, and I take good care of it. I shower every day and make a habit of using both shampoo and conditioner. It feels quite nice when it's soft, and my girlfriend is into beards so she doesn't want me to shave it either. I do trim/style it up a bit every once in a while and when I go to the barber he really trims it and fashions it. Some people don't like beards, some do. It's a preference thing.

I remember that movie, but it's been a while since I last saw it. I suppose when it's an "end-of-the-world" scenario then morals, ethics and principles all go out the window, and it's all about survival. Thankfully though I don't think we as a civilization will ever experience something close to world ending, but it's interesting even with events going on around the world the lengths some people are willing to go.

I'd say people aren't born good or bad, it depends on their upbringing and what kind of morals and ethics that are instilled in them. Seemingly good people with genuinely good intentions can be seduced by wealth or power, but to me that only shows a lack of morals and a weak will. It's a complicated subject since depending on the scenario, the line between good and bad is blurred.

Pity. Yeah it's not necessarily that they're breaking the rules but that they're purposefully misinterpreting or being bad faith, along with a couple of insults and bad attitude. Makes it a bit difficult to argue or even have any discussion. But I get it.

Is there a way to limit certain users ability to post comments in a forum post or just remove their ability to post altogether? It's quite difficult to have a discussion on something when there are bad actors who only resort to insults or intentionally misinterpret what you mean.

I feel like I've clarified my point plenty at this point. If you're still confused, I can try to clarify my comments again. Is there any comment specifically? I personally don't believe I came of as malicious, but if you disagree, I would like to hear how. Also, the topic is fairly broad so you're welcome to give your opinion about anything associated with abortion, be it the responsibility argument, the autonomy argument or any argument put forth in my initial post. Hopefully in a respectful manner going forward :happy:

Well, this is the debate side of the game forum so I figured why not give it a shot. I would love to get a woman's perspective, they're more than welcome to discuss. I agree that so far, this post hasn't started off the way I would've hoped, my own temptation to join in was a bit too great. Perhaps I should retreat a bit and just look at the responses :laugh:

No, I don't. It's not only the man's child, it also belongs to the woman. "The man's child" is not the same as "Only the man's child". Wow, no that's not even close to what I'm saying. If that's your interpretations then that's fine. Yes, I am familiar with the phrase, but I disagree it can be applied here. How you interpret what I've written has told me much about you as well. If you had any questions about what I meant behind certain phrases then you could've just asked and I could've clarified, instead of interpreting how you want.

It was my understanding that sperm is required. Is that no longer the case, or was this an attempt at humor?

Saying that "the father should have some say" is not the same as "the man decides". That is not what I've said and it's not what I believe. How you choose to interpret what I say is up to you. The child is both the man and the woman's. One does not exclude the other, no matter how much you want it to. If believing that both parent's opinions matter is in your mind being a male chauvinist then fine. I've already stated it but I'll repeat however many times is required: The man doesn't have a right to her body, nobody does. Her body is her own to do with as she wish. An argument can be made, though, that the man should have some say or some easy-off when it comes to pregnancy. You make me out as some monster who hates women, which is an interesting deduction from a few comments. I know what I believe and I know nothing I can say at this point can convince you of otherwise. If I were to base my entire opinion of you on these few comments then what I'd take away from this is that you seem care very little for children and will in all likelihood never have them. You see them as nothing more as taking resources, being a burden and contributing nothing, parasites. I don't believe one can completely know a person from a handful of comments, though. I am a little concerned you are upset with me. If it means anything, that was not my intention. In any regard, this was fascinating, and I wish you a good day. But ok, if abortion should be available, which both of us agree it should, then what is your opinion, if you have one, of the child support system as it is now? Should it be dismantled or restructured to better serve both parties? Is it fair for a man to be financially stuck to support a child that he never wanted, and took reasonable steps to prevent? If not, how come?

The woman is carrying the man's child, because it is his child. The woman is at the same time also carrying her child, because the child is also hers. A woman can't develop a fetus by herself.

Saying that "the man should have some say" is not the same as giving him ownership over the woman to do with as he pleases. Saying that the man should have some say in the pregnancy and women having the right to do what they want with their own bodies can both be true. As I already previously stated, the ultimate and final decision is up to the woman. Interesting. Much to unpack. The legal definition is survivability outside of the womb, which most consider is around 24 weeks. That doesn't include the obvious support the child would need from the mother in order to continue surviving. What about that is eroding freedom? A child of 2 can't survive without an adult, but I think most people would agree it would be wrong both ethically and morally to consider that child a parasite. By your logic, the mother could just choose to kill her 2 year old baby if she suddenly changed her mind. Also, a parasite is a very specific thing with it's own definition. A parasite is an organism that benefits at the other's expense. A fetus would qualify if it develops at the cost of the mother and her health, which most would agree is just not true. I suppose you could make an argument that the relationship between a fetus and the mother is close to being parasitic, but you can't really make that argument to fully formed babies. A fetus is not a parasite, nor is a 6 month old baby, nor is a 2 year old baby, nor is a 5 year old child. They can't fend for themselves, true, but that in it of itself doesn't make them parasites. Maybe you consider them to be, though.

Yeah, this is also why many countries with legal abortions has about a 20-22 week cutoff period for having the procedure. "Before this time, the fetus is not a person, therefore it has no human rights, therefore it is not murder." That's an argument I hear a lot of people in the pro-choice side make.

I'm not giving you my approval of anything. You seem to take my comments personally for some reason which is interesting if nothing else. I'm not trying to upset you. I just wondered what you meant when you initially said that my framing of the debate seemed strange to you. Now to the topic at hand: One could argue the "sperm chucker" has some say as the woman is carrying that person's child. The child (if you consider a fetus as such) belongs to both parents. What if the dude doesn't want it but the mother decides to keep it, should the father be stuck financially even though protection was used? Obviously, the ultimate decision is up to the woman, as the dude can't force her to do anything. I personally believe it's a discussion to be had amongst the parents, and not up to some institution or state. Also, I have to disagree, you should give a s*** about rights, they're kind of important. The question is weather or not the aforementioned rights are applied to the fetus. And no, obviously the woman isn't a slave or an object owned by anyone. The question isn't weather or not the man owns the woman, it's if he should have some say in the pregnancy. I would argue, yes. That doesn't reduce the woman to some meat bag whose only purpose it to be life-support to the fetus, which isn't even an argument I'm making.