It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
There is no double standard. There is a biological difference.
Women have breasts and I'm a big fan of breasts. I have no giant breasts of my own. Should I start a thread talking about how unfair this travesty of genetic justice is?
I believe there are about fifty places in this thread where I have already refuted these feelings of unfairness that some of my fellow males seem to posses.
If you think it is unfair that a woman can have an abortion but you can't make her have one, then don't sleep with women. Problem solved.
There is no fundamentally sound way to rectify a biological difference - especially in regard to reproduction.
Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Hefficide
Oh... I was RIGHT!!!
THIS IS GOING TO BE A BLAST!
Originally posted by Edrick
So condescending Already?
I'm sure you are going to start hurling "Be A Real Man" epitaphs next...
Originally posted by Edrick
Super Good... just as predicted.
If Women are having Problems Financially Supporting their children, then perhapse they shouldn't sleep with men.
Originally posted by Edrick
*PROBLEM SOLVED*
Originally posted by Edrick
I *WAS* referring to *LAWS*, I'm sure you remembered reading the part where I specifically mentioned LEGALITY, as opposed to the reproductive and biological differences that you seem to want to believe (or want others to believe) that *I* am talking about.
Try *AGAIN*
Actually *TRY* this time.
-Edrick
Originally posted by Jwbmore
reply to post by Hefficide
We live in a society that makes up for others biological differences everyday and those are legally sound you seem to ignore that as if we live in a completely natural world where natural hierarchy rule the land this not true and i think your arguments would put us backwards in saying that nature is left as the deciding factor when this usually ends in one being oppressed if you want to talk about nature then men have no responsibility to anyone besides those who can physically control us and that's that i don't see a difference
Originally posted by Jwbmore
reply to post by Hefficide
You seem to not get his wording he said a women who could not financially support a child should not engage in sex.
Forgive me if directing you to my previous statements comes across as condescension. But I am afraid that slight is probably more in your perception than in my intention.
I've never said anything to contradict this obvious truth. Then again, if a mother is having financial problems does it not follow that a rational person would inquire as to why the father isn't also involved in solving this dilemma?
According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), there were 820,151 legal induced abortions in the US in 2005
Source: en.wikipedia.org...
The laws are clear upon this already. If you impregnate a female, at least in any civilized society, you are held responsible for the product of that union.
Originally posted by Hefficide
I completely understood what the member said. And I replied accordingly.
So, you would have a law passed saying that only financially solvent women should be allowed to breed? I don't think anyone should be having kids they cannot support. But I don't think that the mother should be the only one responsible for their financial care.
Technically if the woman aborts then the father isn't held responsible for the raising of the aborted child. I fail to see the disparity here.
Originally posted by Hefficide
reply to post by Edrick
Technically if the woman aborts then the father isn't held responsible for the raising of the aborted child. I fail to see the disparity here.