Althrun the Silent wrote:
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
This has nothing to do with adoption. We're talking about the parents rights to create a child.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Faith in Humanity drops another notch.
Faith in Humanity drops another notch.Follow
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
This has nothing to do with adoption. We're talking about the parents rights to create a child.
Althrun the Silent wrote:
Quote:
Logical except for one thing: You're not creating a plant, asshat. Someday this zygote would become a baby, who would then become a woman or a man, and come looking for its birth-parent.
If you are a basically good person, perhaps this isn't the way you want to meet your firstborn. Signing away parental rights is just part of it, and by no means a fix to any of it.
If you are a basically good person, perhaps this isn't the way you want to meet your firstborn. Signing away parental rights is just part of it, and by no means a fix to any of it.
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
In what respect? As far as giving up parental rights? Of course not, but then it's still a conscious choice that is made by the birth parent, only it's made in the affirmative instead of the negative. You have the right to have a kid, give it up for adoption and pro-rate the drama, OR to choose not to father a child and sidestep the drama entirely.
MentalFrog wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
This has nothing to do with adoption. We're talking about the parents rights to create a child.
Try applying that in respect to what Flea said in response to me and try again.
I was talking about bring it to term and letting the birth-father waive any further responsibility insofar as the child is concerned.
Like in a case of adoption, where the child is brought to term and the parent(s) give it up for adoption, waiving yadda yadda yadda.
Quote:
I was talking about bring it to term and letting the birth-father waive any further responsibility insofar as the child is concerned.
Maybe he doesn't feel that sort of responsibility is something that can be waived.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
This one's kinda wierd. I don't think, though, that the fact that this women can't make any more eggs should be a determining factor. It's merely an unfortunate coincidence.
What confuses this for me is the guy must have already consented at some point to make the embryo. Still, if he doesn't want a kid now I wouldn't make him have one.
The women can always adopt.
Embryo and Zygote - wouldn't those be great names for a set of boy/girl twins?
What confuses this for me is the guy must have already consented at some point to make the embryo. Still, if he doesn't want a kid now I wouldn't make him have one.
The women can always adopt.
Embryo and Zygote - wouldn't those be great names for a set of boy/girl twins?
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Althrun the Silent wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
This has nothing to do with adoption. We're talking about the parents rights to create a child.
Try applying that in respect to what Flea said in response to me and try again.
I was talking about bring it to term and letting the birth-father waive any further responsibility insofar as the child is concerned.
Like in a case of adoption, where the child is brought to term and the parent(s) give it up for adoption, waiving yadda yadda yadda.
Except here we're talking about bringing the child to term. It's not the same.
Quote:
Embryo and Zygote - wouldn't those be great names for a set of boy/girl twins?
Even I'd get creeped out banging Zygote.
Althrun the Silent wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
This has nothing to do with adoption. We're talking about the parents rights to create a child.
Try applying that in respect to what Flea said in response to me and try again.
I was talking about bring it to term and letting the birth-father waive any further responsibility insofar as the child is concerned.
Like in a case of adoption, where the child is brought to term and the parent(s) give it up for adoption, waiving yadda yadda yadda.
Doesn't apply. Bringing it to full-term alone requires his consent, and he chooses not to give it. End of story.
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
Embryo and Zygote - wouldn't those be great names for a set of boy/girl twins?
Even I'd get creeped out banging Zygote.
No you wouldn't. You'd get some kind of sick joy out of it.
MentalFrog wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
MentalFrog wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
So adoption doesn't work either in this respect?
This has nothing to do with adoption. We're talking about the parents rights to create a child.
Try applying that in respect to what Flea said in response to me and try again.
I was talking about bring it to term and letting the birth-father waive any further responsibility insofar as the child is concerned.
Like in a case of adoption, where the child is brought to term and the parent(s) give it up for adoption, waiving yadda yadda yadda.
Except here we're talking about bringing the child to term. It's not the same.
Reading comprehension ftw
Read it over again. Now again. Follow the path of conversation, noting where I said this was a reasonable option as opposed to not bringing the child to term (there are only two options it would seem, either kill the zygotes/cells/whatever, or bring to term and he walks away), since his main vocal point against this was that he didn't want the responsibilities of said child.
I was giving argument and reasoning as to assuage his concerns and still be able to let her perpetuate her genetics.
Are we caught up now?
Edited for emphasis on wth I'm trying to get across here.
Edited, Tue Mar 7 15:55:40 2006 by Althrun
You *think* you're assuaging his concerns. I'm not so sure.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Quote:
OR to choose not to father a child and sidestep the drama entirely.
MentalFrog wrote:
Quote:
OR to choose not to father a child and sidestep the drama entirely.
That doesn't say anything about my contention with you MF- you keep/kept posting that my point wasn't even being discussed, when it is very much part of this debate.
The debate is bringing a child to full term. Regardless of what happens afterwards. The father allowing it to be brought full term and waiving all responsibilities is his right. However it's also his right to not consent to full term. That's the issue. You're taking away his rights. Changing any terms doesn't change that fact.
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
Embryo and Zygote - wouldn't those be great names for a set of boy/girl twins?
Even I'd get creeped out banging Zygote.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Quote:
That doesn't say anything about my contention with you MF- you keep/kept posting that my point wasn't even being discussed, when it is very much part of this debate.
Well, you're ignoring my perfectly reasonable and responsive points, Mr. Pot-Meet-Kettle.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
Samira wrote:
You *think* you're assuaging his concerns. I'm not so sure.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
It would be something I would bring up to him, if given the chance, with the intent change his mind. Which is all I've been saying, that this is an option (which most of you seem to disagree w/me on.). Would it change the mind of this person? Prolly not. But it's how I feel this should be handled and I am voicing that opinion/argument/whatever.
And aren't we all about Chëster's original and disturbing perversions anyways?
Althrun the Silent wrote:
Samira wrote:
You *think* you're assuaging his concerns. I'm not so sure.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
It would be something I would bring up to him, if given the chance, with the intent change his mind. Which is all I've been saying, that this is an option (which most of you seem to disagree w/me on.). Would it change the mind of this person? Prolly not. But it's how I feel this should be handled and I am voicing that opinion/argument/whatever.
You can probably rest assured that it has been brought up to him, and he just plain didn't wanna. I'm sure there were many steps such as "Well, Howard, I would buy the nappies. You wouldn't even have to see the l'il bugger" before it went to the freakin' EUROPEAN COURT, for chrissakes.
MentalFrog wrote:
The debate is bringing a child to full term. Regardless of what happens afterwards. The father allowing it to be brought full term and waiving all responsibilities is his right. However it's also his right to not consent to full term. That's the issue. You're taking away his rights. Changing any terms doesn't change that fact.
How many times am I going to have to repeat that it is a viable option for him to chose and not have any of the concerns or responsibilities that he says he doesn't want, yet still appease her right to procreate. What part of that are you absolutely missing here? I can't be any more blunt.
Elinda wrote:
Baron von Barkingturtle wrote:
Quote:
Embryo and Zygote - wouldn't those be great names for a set of boy/girl twins?
Even I'd get creeped out banging Zygote.
I know, that's what makes it creepy.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
Samira wrote:
You *think* you're assuaging his concerns. I'm not so sure.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
At any rate this is pointless; no one's mind is getting changed here, although we are finding out yet more details about Barkingturtle's original and disturbing form of perversity.
It would be something I would bring up to him, if given the chance, with the intent change his mind. Which is all I've been saying, that this is an option (which most of you seem to disagree w/me on.). Would it change the mind of this person? Prolly not. But it's how I feel this should be handled and I am voicing that opinion/argument/whatever.
You can probably rest assured that it has been brought up to him, and he just plain didn't wanna. I'm sure there were many steps such as "Well, Howard, I would buy the nappies. You wouldn't even have to see the l'il bugger" before it went to the freakin' EUROPEAN COURT, for chrissakes.
I'm sure it was brought up, I still think he's a twit for saying no to it though.
Althrun the Silent wrote:
I'm sure it was brought up, I still think he's a twit for saying no to it though.
Many women can't give birth for one reason or another and most don't have the luxury of Embryos on Ice. There are other, just as rewarding, ways to be a Mom.
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
Elinda wrote:
Althrun the Silent wrote:
I'm sure it was brought up, I still think he's a twit for saying no to it though.
Many women can't give birth for one reason or another and most don't have the luxury of Embryos on Ice. There are other, just as rewarding, ways to be a Mom.
Granted, however none of his voiced objections (which would kill her chances in court if he was able to prove her an unfit mother right there) are about that. Just him and not wanting the "Financial and emotional responsibility."
Elinda wrote:
There are other, just as rewarding, ways to be a Mom.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Having heard him and her interviewed (they didn't interview the embryos yet - I can wait):
She sounds like a whiny *****. "I want babies! It's my right"
Mehh. Sh[Beige][/Beige]it happens. You lost yer ovaries and you lost your bloke. That makes you childless. Deal with it.
He sounds like a whiny ***** "Bla bla responsibility bla bla bla commitment"
In other breaking news. . . "You can't always get what you want"
She sounds like a whiny *****. "I want babies! It's my right"
Mehh. Sh[Beige][/Beige]it happens. You lost yer ovaries and you lost your bloke. That makes you childless. Deal with it.
He sounds like a whiny ***** "Bla bla responsibility bla bla bla commitment"
In other breaking news. . . "You can't always get what you want"
"I started out with nothin' and I still got most of it left" - Seasick Steve
Recent Visitors: 235
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (235)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- Faith in Humanity drops another notch.
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC