KY: Men must get note from wives before purchasing Viagra.

[Machismo]

If a guy has no say in the child he helped conceive, he shouldn't have to pay child support either.

He had a say when he decided to conceive.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

[Damajin]

she is suspicious when her husband gets an erection. aint no way its natural

No wonder her husband has to get those pills, here's where we need Austin Powers to tell us what sex this 'person' is.

- - - Updated - - -

He had a say when he decided to conceive.

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

He never decided to conceive, incidentally neither did the woman. Dumb argument is dumb.

[Machismo]

No wonder her husband has to get those pills, here's where we need Austin Powers to tell us what sex this 'person' is.

- - - Updated - - -



He never decided to conceive, incidentally neither did the woman. Dumb argument is dumb.

Having sex is assuming the risk of a conception. That's how babies are made.

[anon5123]

I will never understand how someone can refer to a developing fetus as a parasite, a bundle of cells, the way you'd refer to a tumor. I just will never understand it.

It is objectively a parasite. It cannot survive without being latched onto another living being, feeding off of that other being's resources. You're just taking "parasite" as a highly negative term.

I don't see an early fetus as a "person". It has no consciousness. It has no intelligence. It has no emotions. It has no personality. I don't view a fetus as a human, just like I don't view an acorn as a tree.

[mage21]

It is objectively a parasite. It cannot survive without being latched onto another living being, feeding off of that other being's resources. You're just taking "parasite" as a highly negative term.

I don't see an early fetus as a "person". It has no consciousness. It has no intelligence. It has no emotions. It has no personality. I don't view a fetus as a human, just like I don't view an acorn as a tree.

In the strictest, most technical sense, you're not wrong. But I'm sure you can appreciate the connotations of calling a fetus a "parasite".

It's somewhat like calling a welfare recipient a "leech".

[Damajin]

Having sex is assuming the risk of a conception. That's how babies are made.

Yeah, I have a child so I'm more aware of the realities than the majority of this entire website.

Your 'assuming the risk of a conception' is a societal pressure, albeit one grounded in natural cause and effect. It's amusing to see you go soft on your freedom bit, but as you're fond of playing the hypocrite card against others while ignoring when you meet the standards.

[Machismo]

In the strictest, most technical sense, you're not wrong. But I'm sure you can appreciate the connotations of calling a fetus a "parasite".

It's somewhat like calling a welfare recipient a "leech".

It's no different than calling a fetus a baby, it's meant to draw emotion. Now, some scientists have sought to make the definition of a parasite include the caveat that it must be two organisms from different species just for that reason. If pro-lifers are going to continue falling a fetus a baby, then there's no reason why people cannot call a fetus a parasite.

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah, I have a child so I'm more aware of the realities than the majority of this entire website.

Your 'assuming the risk of a conception' is a societal pressure, albeit one grounded in natural cause and effect. It's amusing to see you go soft on your freedom bit, but as you're fond of playing the hypocrite card against others while ignoring when you meet the standards.

I believe in freedom, but I also believe in personal responsibility. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, the most possible freedom can only be attained through personal responsibility and some threat of force from a governing body (I prefer a voluntary government). People should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. If two people created a child, then they are logically both responsible for that child. After all, they both did the very same action that led to the child existing.

Now, if we wish to go the other route, then any parent can simply choose to stop taking care of their children at any time, and let them starve to death. That is no different than choosing not to be responsible for an offspring. If the man can abandon his responsibility, then a woman can abandon hers. They can both simply leave a baby in a crib, and let it die. If that's the path you wish to take, very well.

[Dhrizzle]

It is objectively a parasite. It cannot survive without being latched onto another living being, feeding off of that other being's resources. You're just taking "parasite" as a highly negative term.

Both mother and foetus have mechanisms necessary to make the relationship work, also the relationship increases the evolutionary fitness (read: ability to pass on genes) of the mother. Also parasites always show parasitic behaviour towards members of other species (though very few also have parasitic relationships to members of their own species.)

If you're look for a word to describe the relationship between human women and zygotes/embryos/foetuses in-utero try "symbiotic."

[Damajin]

It's no different than calling a fetus a baby, it's meant to draw emotion. Now, some scientists have sought to make the definition of a parasite include the caveat that it must be two organisms from different species just for that reason. If pro-lifers are going to continue falling a fetus a baby, then there's no reason why people cannot call a fetus a parasite.

- - - Updated - - -



I believe in freedom, but I also believe in personal responsibility. The two are not mutually exclusive concepts. In fact, the most possible freedom can only be attained through personal responsibility and some threat of force from a governing body (I prefer a voluntary government). People should be free to do whatever they want, so long as it does not harm others. If two people created a child, then they are logically both responsible for that child. After all, they both did the very same action that led to the child existing.

Now, if we wish to go the other route, then any parent can simply choose to stop taking care of their children at any time, and let them starve to death. That is no different than choosing not to be responsible for an offspring. If the man can abandon his responsibility, then a woman can abandon hers. They can both simply leave a baby in a crib, and let it die. If that's the path you wish to take, very well.

I'm aware they're not mutually exclusive concepts. It still doesn't change the fact that the assumptive risk is a societal pressure, one that is backed up by mankinds' own natural urge to procreate and advance the species. Yet in the modern society the man has far, far less sway or input into what happens once that conception happens which is of course disgusting on a ridiculous number of levels but that's another discussion entirely and one I've neither the time nor interest to indulge in tonight.

Your 2nd paragraph is of course predicated on much of the thing I don't have the time or interest to get into, so gg on that.

[Machismo]

Both mother and foetus have mechanisms necessary to make the relationship work, also the relationship increases the evolutionary fitness (read: ability to pass on genes) of the mother. Also parasites always show parasitic behaviour towards members of other species (though very few also have parasitic relationships to members of their own species.)

If you're look for a word to describe the relationship between human women and zygotes/embryos/foetuses in-utero try "symbiotic."

But, a fetus is harmful to its host. It can even kill the host body, causes numerous health issues, and takes nutrients from the host.

[THE Bigzoman]

Thanks. Clearly some people are taking the article personally, lol.

- - - Updated - - -


Family values

Where exactly?

[Dhrizzle]

But, a fetus is harmful to its host. It can even kill the host body, causes numerous health issues, and takes nutrients from the host.

The mother provides nutrients to the foetus, you do realise that the female reproductive system has evolved to support the development of a baby right? Yes it's possible for a woman to experience health issues during pregnancy, just like people can experience health issues if any other biological process goes wrong.

I'll tell you what, I'll buy into your "babies are parasitic" idea if you can explain how women would be better able to pass on their genes if they couldn't get pregnant.

[Symphonic]

I don't see anything wrong with the topic. Why shouldn't men's wives approve it?

[Poopymonster]

I'm aware it's to mock stupid abortion bills. Why is it taking up space and time?

They claim to be good christians. If god took away a guy's boner, why should man interfere with it?

[Total Crica]

I don't see anything wrong with the topic. Why shouldn't men's wives approve it?

Why should wives need the law to force men to seek their wives approval?

[Machismo]

The mother provides nutrients to the foetus, you do realise that the female reproductive system has evolved to support the development of a baby right? Yes it's possible for a woman to experience health issues during pregnancy, just like people can experience health issues if any other biological process goes wrong.

I'll tell you what, I'll buy into your "babies are parasitic" idea if you can explain how women would be better able to pass on their genes if they couldn't get pregnant.

You are talking about to completely different issues. The mother is actually harmed during pregnancy in many cases, I'm not even sure how that is in question.

[May90]

I don't see anything wrong with the topic. Why shouldn't men's wives approve it?

Because the idea of the government staring at them giving blowjobs to their husbands might not appeal to them.

[Dhrizzle]

You are talking about to completely different issues. The mother is actually harmed during pregnancy in many cases, I'm not even sure how that is in question.

I'm talking about zygotes/embryos/foetuses/babies not being parasitic, that holds true whether or not pregnancy puts strain on the mother's body.

[Machismo]

I'm talking about zygotes/embryos/foetuses/babies not being parasitic, that holds true whether or not pregnancy puts strain on the mother's body.

It's not a symbiotic relationship, since the host is harmed.

[Dhrizzle]

It's not a symbiotic relationship, since the host is harmed.

That's immensely simplistic, I'm sure this isn't the only situation where a creature accepts a risk of short-term harm in order to reap long-term benefits.

The mother has biological systems that have evolved specifically to allow the foetus to develop, the mother also benefits from pregnancy allowing them to pass on their genes. These are not features of a parasitic relationship. If you don't like the term "symbiotic" for this sort of relationship what word do you like?