Yabby, I'm a man with three sisters and a long history as a single man prior to my marriage. I'm well aware of what some men like your self may get up to for sex. I'm also well aware of what some women get up to for financial gain and to get their man. And the laws as they stand today support that exploitation of men. Celivia has it worked out in her little sexist fashion that regardless of circumstance the man pays. Not only can I not agree with that, or the emotionalism of saying but, the child comes first. Considering this thread deals with abortion so obviously the woman comes first. (Not that they would ever admit that:-))
Celivia says abortion is a womans right to determine whether she becomes a parent or not(after impregnation). All I'm asserting is that the man have an equal right to determine(after impregnation)whether he wants to be a parent or not. Are we not supposed to be working towards an equality of rights for all. Women have abortion. They are not compelled by law to be a parent. It's fundamentally wrong to mandate by law that the man be subservient to the womans choice. It's like going back in time. It may excite the feminist sense of revenge but, it is still as wrong as a women being subservient to mens choice.

aqvaris

If a man with children becomes a divorced man, why shouldn’t he pay for the upkeep of his children, if they continue to live with his former wife and their mother? Shame if the mother siphons off money from the children. Surely the more important point is that the husband and wife do everything possible to guard and enrich their marriage.

Regarding your comments about your brother and sister, what right does a man have to a marriage, if he does not want children? Seems a very selfish position to take. In particular why did your brother marry a women already with 2 children?

Yabby,

You are still on the wrong track with respect to population. The world today is living more sustainably than at any time in the past (huge improvement in India, SE Asia and China, even some improvement in Africa)

With respect to my comments regarding Europe and your response, I’m not on about skin colour (a trivial matter) but about culture. By trivialising the matter to skin colour you fail to take up the challenge I offered you.

CJ Morgan

So you know more about sex than I do? But may be you’re just talking about depravity?

Like Yabby, your response fails the challenge I offered.

Me, dancing lessons? Your joking!

Celivia,

I have found you a worthy debating partner and already acknowledged that you make good points.

Firstly, a comment about Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka. Like you I was puzzled by his objection to abortion while claiming not to be religious. I suggest he grew up with a religious background either directly in the family or from the surrounding culture. The thing that religious culture left him with was (Christian) morality, hence his position on abortion. Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka will correct me if I’m wrong.

Celivia some honesty please.

You wish to impose your views upon others, your view of the world, your view of abortion and no doubt many other subjects (I note you also refer to euthanasia and homosexuality). I acknowledge your right to do so, and I have to say your views are commonplace, actually in my judgment the majority view in Australian society.

But you do not wish to accord me (and Christians generally, whether singly or as the Church) the same right. Why the intolerance? I see you have not distanced yourself from Richard Dawkin’s assertion that the children of believers should be removed from the care of their parents so that they can not pass on their religious beliefs to their children. Are you that intolerant?

I responded to your challenge over sex education even if not to your satisfaction, but I note your failure to respond to my challenge, explicitly made because of your interest in sex education, to what appears on our television screen, etc (eg Californication, etc).

Regarding your comments about the success of sex education, I would need to see the research. I believe that when the State of Texas introduced a requirement that those contemplating an abortion were required to view images of the unborn child, the abortion rate fell.

My religion doesn’t wish to control others, but to affirm the sanctity of all human life, and we will do our best to protect the orphans and widows and the aged, the young, the poor and the unborn as we have done the past 2,000 years.

David Palmer, I have not suggested that married or common law men NOT pay child support. Careful reading of my post speaks directly to single men/single women relationships where the womans choice to have the child in lieu of abortion over the mans choice not to be a parent and the laws as they are, compelling the man to be a parent while having offered the woman the choice to be a parent or to not be a parent vis a vie abortion. The woman can have her baby when and if she finds a compatible partner.
Yes it is a shame that many mothers do siphon away the child support. It's also a shame that some women are in it for that game and abuse the children something awful. It is equally shameful that some men behave in the most selfish and abusive of ways. I'm not pitting men against women to see who can be the nastiest. Both have won blue ribbons. While I am in full agreement that husbands and wives ought to do everything to guard and enrich their marriage. Many marriages are not given mature consideration from the get go. Quite a number of people get married because they feel it is an expectation they must live up to.
As for my brother, I would say he married the woman because he loved her and wanted her children to be safe, secure from want and raised in a proper nurturing environment. Of course now, after so many years they are his children by law, financially anyways. They are two boys and he has had them keep their fathers name even though both would willingly change that in a heart beat. My sister married the love of her life, knowing his short comings, and hoping if she worked really really hard, that she would be enough for him. I don't think the fellow ever gave her a moments thought or saw the effort she put forward. His mind was solely on himself. Her second husband can't see anything but her. Like night and day in comparison.

Aqva, you keep overlooking the different biology, in your quest for
so called equality. The same law applied to unequal biology would
not produce equality, but a distinct disadvantage for females.
To me that is not what justice is all about.

David, I ran out of words, when responding to your question, so had
to cut most of my reply last time. Ok so its culture that you
are concerned about, Christian culture I presume. Culture changes
constantly, ie does not stay the same. Today Europe has very much
become a secular culture, not too many people bother with religion.
Christian culture used to burn people like me. Thankfully they can't
do that anymore :)

As to our ever increasing population living sustainably, nonsense.

We have moved a great deal of pollution to the third world, as our
own economies rely more on services. But take a look at fisheries
and the worlds oceans and tell me what is sustainable about that.

Africas forests are being cleared empty by the bushmeat trade,
to feed the ever rising population. People in Rwanda turned to
genocide in their fight over less and less land for more people.

We simply keep cutting into the habitat of other species. There are
more tigers in zoos now, then in the wild. Bonobos are down to a
few thousand, chimps, gorillas, orangs, all heading towards extinction. The list goes on.

We still have no answer to replace cheap oil, which drove the
population increase in the first place. Just remember, without
biodiversity, there won't be a humanity.

So we are not living sustainably at all, just exploiting a larger
% of global resources, for ever more people

David,
Thanks, you’ve made good points also.

I see a difference between ‘imposing’ a view upon others and ‘expressing’ a view and trying to convince others. How could I impose my view upon others by wanting an option to be legally available? I am not forcing anyone to undergo an abortion.
Religions however, especially the Catholic Church, DO impose their beliefs onto others. Outlawing euthanasia because of religious doctrine is a good example of interference with people’s freedom.

“… Richard Dawkin’s assertion that the children of believers should be removed….. Are you that intolerant?” No, just running out of words. I am not aware that RD made this statement. I might or might not agree with everything that Dawkins says; I am not a worshipper of anyone, I merely like some things some people say.
I have been an atheist from birth (just like any other child unless indoctrinated), not because of RD’s influence.
Anyway, if he did say that, I don’t agree with taking any children away from their parents because of religion.

However, removing religious children from their homes is a very mild idea compared to what God has in mind for unbelievers. We should all be stoned to death- I guess this includes our children.

About sex ed, I didn’t ignore your ‘challenge’ deliberately, I’d never heard of Californication until you mentioned it, I don’t have pay-TV... After googling it, it seems an adult show? I’m not sure what you’re challenging me about. I would agree with you if you’re saying that children shouldn’t be watching adult shows. Isn’t that why they are rated R or 18+ so they can be kept away from children?

Sex education has nothing to do with watching sexy shows but everything about information and facts of life.

Sex-ed is always age appropriate. In Kindergarten, children should be taught what their private parts are and that it is worng for anyone to touch them, They are being taught what to do when someone touches their private part.

To be continued