You know me for five years and still put the 'g' there? How could you A Lurker. ;_;

I wasn't aware that hippies had lots of abortions. I thought they were all about respect for all living things, letting their kids run naked in their communes, and all of that crap.

Yeah except fetuses aren't alive so, no biggie, right?

Actually, I read Lewis Black's autobiography and he grew up during the 60s. He said hippies used to start collections to send a women to another country to get it done.

I think us men should have the right to refuse child support... maybe before the child is born or something.

Sure women assume all the risk and responsibility from a pregnancy, but does that really give them the RIGHT to place a financial obligation on a man? What in the hell?!

One could argue "what about the welfare of the child?" Well I think that a man should be able to deny child support. The woman STILL has a choice: bring a child into the world knowing she will probably not be able to provide everything he/she needs, or abort the pregnancy.

I'm sorry, but, even considering the risks and responsibilities involved with pregnancy, it's just fundamentally wrong for women to have reproductive rights and choices so far exceeding those of men.

I don't think it's clear whether the Exodus 21 verses pertain to the child getting damaged or the woman. It could go either way, but I think it more likely concerns damage to the mother.

The pro-mother damage interpretation is that if the woman is only damaged to the extent of giving a premature birth, it's OK, but if it's further damage you must take vengence.

The verse reads (NIV) "If men who are fighting hit a pregnant woman and she gives birth prematurely but there is no serious injury, the offender...." The problem with interpreting this verse as fetus-damage is that the fetus isn't even mentioned in this verse as noun. It only speaks of the woman giving a premature birth, which is a verb applying to the woman. Therefore, trying to apply "serious injury" to a subject that doesn't appear in the sentence is unlikely.

I agree that the analogies used (eye for eye, tooth for tooth) are done for the sake of repetition, but it also lends weight to the argument that it's damage against the woman. This is because we're talking about reciprocating damage to an exact degree. If it's damaging a fetus, how are you even going to be able to tell which parts were damanged in order for it to be reciprocated? This is a poor set of visuals if it's trying to associate itself with fetus damage, and makes more sense in the context of adult damage.

And even if it's all talking about fetus damage, it doesn't say what stage, so I say it only applies to late-stage abortions :-P

Let's be honest, here. The woman is the one who will ultimately bear the responsibility for the child, so it makes sense that she would have rights and choices equal to her level of responsibility. Men have the option of just walking away if they want to. It happens all the time. Women do too (I guess), but how often do you really hear about a woman abandoning her child? It's far more rare for women to do this - almost unheard of - and everyone knows it.

Women don't abandon their children; they kill them.

There is no such thing as SIDS - it is only a name that doctors made up because so many women have suffered from post-partum depression and smothered their babies in their sleep and a strangled baby's corpse shows very few if any of the signs of suffocation that an adult corpse does.

Anyway, your argument is null. You're being as sexist and prejudiced as the court - assuming point blank that all men are irresponsible.

Are you kidding me? Are you kidding me?!

I can't even respond to that, it's so retarded. I have now officially deemed you not worth my time. Have a nice life.

Why would I be kidding you? I have at least that much respect.

Well, I did before you made this childish post.

Ignorance is bliss, I guess. Have a nice life indeed, ma'am.

I'm going to have to ask you to provide some sort of evidence to back this assertion up.

About SIDS not existing? You know it's much harder to prove that something doesn't exist than it is to prove that something does exist. But the absolute lack of any clinical definition for SIDS speaks for itself. It is best described only as "any sudden and unexplained death of an apparently healthy infant aged one month to one year." (Wikipedia.

As for women killing their children, there is a very good article in Psychology Today titled "Moms Who Kill". I suggest you read it.

This is what could be called a dodge. You asserted that SIDS doesn't actually exist and was invented to cover mothers killing their children. You were then asked to provide proof to back that assertion up, you failed to do so, saying that it's harder to prove something doesn't exist than that it does. This ignores your specific assertion as to SIDS not existing and what it really is.

Which, I repeat, you have provided no evidence to support.

I trust you'll be willing to provide the issue of Psychology Today that this very good article was published in, so I can read it like you suggest.

Here you go Styphon.

http://www.psychologytoday.com/artic...02-000001.html

I don't think so either.
A link was asked for, and I was already familiar with the site, so I satisfied the demand.

However, I think that somehow, he is trying to say that this should be enough explanation for why babies die, without the need to invent another disorder, syndrome, or disease.

No, but how conveniently we all forget that it started with Alice labelling all men as irresponsible.

I don't need to. I've made my case well enough, which is that women are not more able and responsible than men to care for a child.

My argument isn't totally serious, either. I don't waste good arguments against stupidity like hers.

And still, you're antagonizing me over it. Follow your own good advice, why don't you.

ArrowHead: SIDS doesn't exist. It's just something doctors made up to cover up mothers killing their own babies.

I call bullshit. Evidence, please.

ArrowHead: Well, I can't exactly provide any, but I'm still right. In the meantime, here's a psychology article about postpartum psychosis.

This article doesn't support your argument about SIDS being made up at all.

ArrowHead: I WAZ JUST JOEKING LOLZ

Seriously, if this is all you have for us, don't bother. You're just wasting our time.

So you're saying that because some women kill their children, all women should not be trusted more than men with children?

"Some men molest little boys and girls, thus all men are not to be trusted with little boys and girls."

a) From what I've seen you've been the only one who's made stupid statements, or at the very least has made the stupidest statement in this thread.

b) You don't fuck around in PP (or in debates PERIOD) because you are ALWAYS taken seriously. =\

Who's wasting whose time? You're the ones having a circle jerk over it. This discussion is over.

Simply saying that men are more prone to walking out on the mother with child is an incomplete assumption. I'm sure that situation has a very strong correlation with living in a low socio-economic level.

I was just speaking my mind. Nobody had a problem with it except for Alice.

I have a problem with the fact that you've read a couple of articles (which, by the way, do NOT support your assertion that SIDS isn't a legitimate disorder) and drew your own screwed-up conclusion and stated it here as fact.

I happen to know a few women whose babies died from SIDS and what you're claiming is unthinkable to me. Some of these women had other children - before and after - and were excellent mothers. One woman I know almost didn't survive herself after her infant died (presumably from SIDS). I also know of two people whose babies almost died of SIDS, but they were discovered in time to save them and both babies wore monitors thereafter that would alert the parents any time the condition started to happen again (which it did, in both cases).

What you said is ridiculous and we all know it. They haven't completely figured SIDS out, but there have definitely been advances, such as the monitor I mentioned. Also, studies that show that there's a 12.9 times higher risk of death when babies sleep on their stomachs instead of on their backs.

Now prove that what you said wasn't some temper tantrum outburst brought on by the fact that I said more men abandon their children than women, or GTFO.