Interesting Logic Question:

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by scotty

Yes.

I believe thats called "taking responsibility for your actions".

At least thats what they tell the man when they come to him for child support, regardless of whether he wanted the child or not.

Why the double standard?

It's not the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to make a person take responsibility for their moral decisions. People answer to God.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by scotty

Yes.

I believe thats called "taking responsibility for your actions".

At least thats what they tell the man when they come to him for child support, regardless of whether he wanted the child or not.

Why the double standard?

Why the "double standard"? There is a higher responsibility to being a man. A man knows that should a woman lay with him and become pregnant... she may choose to keep the child. Ultimately... the responsibility lays in the hands of the male.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Cindy

What about teen aged girls that are forced to have abortions by their parents? Is that okay, Aquila?

I'd disagree with a parent forcing a minor to have an abortion. However, parents are ultimately responsible for the life and health of minors.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's not the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to make a person take responsibility for their moral decisions. People answer to God.

Then we should abolish child support in cases out of marriage when the man doesn't want the child.

Originally Posted by Aquila

Why the "double standard"? There is a higher responsibility to being a man. A man knows that should a woman lay with him and become pregnant... she may choose to keep the child. Ultimately... the responsibility lays in the hands of the male.

So ultimately if a man and woman have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant.......its ALL the mans fault?

This just gets better and better.

[Hoovie]

Originally Posted by Aquila

It's not the GOVERNMENT'S responsibility to make a person take responsibility for their moral decisions. People answer to God.

Wrong answer. The government "forces" people to make moral decisions all the time - in particular when it injures another human being.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by scotty

Then we should abolish child support in cases out of marriage when the man doesn't want the child.



So ultimately if a man and woman have consensual sex and the woman gets pregnant.......its ALL the mans fault?

This just gets better and better.

Not fault... "responsibility". Being a man has it's responsibilities.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Aquila

Not fault... "responsibility". Being a man has it's responsibilities.

And of course so does being a woman.

But whether or not to have sex is not one of them I guess.

[Aquila]

Originally Posted by Hoovie

Wrong answer. The government "forces" people to make moral decisions all the time - in particular when it injures another human being.

And again, we're back at the source of the problem. One cannot escape this situation without violating the sovereign rights of either the mother over her own body or the unborn child. This is the root problem. If GOVERNMENT sides with the unborn child, essentially the GOVERNMENT has to FORCE a woman to give birth against her will. That violates her sovereign rights over her own person. This would be no different from violating the sovereignty of her person and FORCE her to abort (as in China). It's the usage of GOVERNMENT FORCE.

However, if the GOVERNMENT chooses to REMOVE itself from the equation and allow the mother sovereign authority over her body and all contents in HER womb... the choice is entirely up to the woman in question. She may choose to give birth or abortion. From there, may she choose wisely, and may God have mercy on her soul. GOVERNMENT isn't FORCING anything and all moral responsibility rests on the individual woman.

Life and death decisions are made every day. I was invested with the authority to decide if life saving measures would be continued on my mother. I could have ask that they continue... and for all I know... she might have stablized and survived. However, I chose to let her go. I didn't want her to spend her last hours on earth being zapped and beat on should she perish.

As a soldier... we make life and death decisions every day.

There comes a point wherein the GOVERNMENT must back away and allow human beings to have due authority over various situations that are indeed life or death.

[scotty]

Originally Posted by Aquila

And again, we're back at the source of the problem. One cannot escape this situation without violating the sovereign rights of either the mother over her own body or the unborn child. This is the root problem. If GOVERNMENT sides with the unborn child, essentially the GOVERNMENT has to FORCE a woman to give birth against her will. That violates her sovereign rights over her own person. This would be no different from violating the sovereignty of her person and FORCE her to abort (as in China). It's the usage of GOVERNMENT FORCE.

However, if the GOVERNMENT chooses to REMOVE itself from the equation and allow the mother sovereign authority over her body and all contents in HER womb... the choice is entirely up to the woman in question. She may choose to give birth or abortion. From there, may she choose wisely, and may God have mercy on her soul. GOVERNMENT isn't FORCING anything and all moral responsibility rests on the individual woman.

Well the real problem here is defining life. If it could be concluded that life begins at conception, then what? Based on that conclusion, abortion would be murder, right?

[trialedbyfire]

Originally Posted by Aquila

So, essentially, if a girl caved into her sexual desires with a young man was became pregnant... then decided that she didn't want to give birth... you'd have the GOVERNMENT essentially force her to give birth.

I really don't know whats so hard to understand about choice have consequences.

I really don't. It's nature... sex=the possibility of giving birth.

If you make the decision to have sex you are making the decision to deal with the consequences. The government did not force her to lay down. Nor is it forcing her to "give birth". It was her decision to have sex, as a result she got pregnant. I don't see where the disconnect here is besides you want to continuously make excuses for this generation thinking it can do whatever they want and not deal with the consequences.