Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
The social contract in these United States stands opposed to your opinion, so while you're entitled to that opinion you're also subject to the law and customs of the land. While I know that rationale has been used to defend social inequities in the past, the inequities of reproduction bolster the social standard. The father is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether he wants to be. I never said the mans' place is in the workplace, I said the man is always the provider. When the woman is earning the money, he's ensured the child is provided for. Should she, for whatever reason, stop earning the money, it's still his responsibility to ensure the child's provided for.
Yes, it's a double standard. Double standards aren't always a bad thing, and sometimes there's no reasonable alternative.
|
What about this statement, which is similar to yours:
"The
mother is always responsible for the child, regardless of whether she wants to be." Sounds very pro-life.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by pr0f3n
It's the woman's body. I know pro-lifer's want to blur the issue, but it's the woman's body and the fetus is a parasite, unable to survive outside the womb until, with the aide of cutting edge technology, roughly the 24th week of gestation. You deal with your parasites, let a woman deal with hers.
|
A fetus is a symbiont, not a parasite. The mother provides protection and nourishment and the child provides a continuation of the species. The relationship is symbiotic.
Not only that, but does housing suggest ownership? As I stated before, if I eat your jewelry, is it then mine? Because if that's the case, then I see a lucrative future in ingesting precious stones in my future.