Yes, it does. Some cases it drove the mothers into depression, there are several mother who committed suicide. Lemme find links.

Quote from Zed

On topic please people. Do fathers have any rights?

Why should they have any rights? It's the woman that has to carry the baby around, it's the woman that has to go through the pain of birth and eventually, the woman will also wind up with most of the trouble of caring for the child.

Quote from Zed

The baby is no more part of the woman than it is the man. Just because it's inside her doesn't make it part of her. If I were to anally rape you it would still be my cock, even though it were in your body.

You can't fucking be serious. This is so ridiculous.

Quote from zawmbee

Yes, it does. Some cases it drove the mothers into depression, there are several mother who committed suicide. Lemme find links.

Don't bother. You're actually saying some individual cases way out against hundreds of broken down mothers around the world.

Quote from ScHaLL

Why should they have any rights? It's the woman that has to carry the baby around, it's the woman that has to go through the pain of birth and eventually, the woman will also wind up with most of the trouble of caring for the child.

In the example I gave the woman would have had no part in caring for the child at all. The baby would have had absolutely no effect on the woman after the pregnancy. The only reason that could justify the father not being allowed a baby in this case is if the woman was working in a high powered business environment where the few weeks maternity leave would drastically effect her life. Morning sickness and stretch marks are no justification for denying a father the right to have a child and causing him the inevitably huge psychological stress and trauma.

Quote from ScHaLL

You can't fucking be serious. This is so ridiculous.

Why? The baby is precisly 50% the father. There is no logical reason that the baby should belong more to the mother just because it ate the same food as her for a while.

Yes, but the baby does become part of the mother, it is linked to her and that is how it is fed.

Quote from Zed

In the example I gave the woman would have had no part in caring for the child at all. The baby would have had absolutely no effect on the woman after the pregnancy. The only reason that could justify the father not being allowed a baby in this case is if the woman was working in a high powered business environment where the few weeks maternity leave would drastically effect her life. Morning sickness and stretch marks are no justification for denying a father the right to have a child and causing him the inevitably huge psychological stress and trauma.



Why? The baby is precisly 50% the father. There is no logical reason that the baby should belong more to the mother just because it ate the same food as her for a while.

I already explained you how a baby is PART of the woman for a while.
How can you not see that? It's quite obvious really, I'd nearly think you only take this position for discussions sake. I know I have done a few times...

Quote from Kaas

A baby grows out of the womans womb. It feeds on her, and is for the time it is in her womb litteraly a part of her, it's attached to her. How has the father the same connection? Also, there is a huge difference, man an woman aren't the same. A child will generally be closer to his mother then is father because the mother has the natural task of nurturing the child. Feminisms aside it's the womans task to care for the child, look at nearly every species on the planet and see it for yourself.

Quote from Kaas

Don't bother. You're actually saying some individual cases way out against hundreds of broken down mothers around the world.

Yes, yes I am.

Quote from Kaas

I already explained you how a baby is PART of the woman for a while.
How can you not see that? It's quite obvious really, I'd nearly think you only take this position for discussions sake. I know I have done a few times...

A baby grows out of the womans womb. It feeds on her, and is for the time it is in her womb litteraly a part of her, it's attached to her. How has the father the same connection? Also, there is a huge difference, man an woman aren't the same. A child will generally be closer to his mother then is father because the mother has the natural task of nurturing the child. Feminisms aside it's the womans task to care for the child, look at nearly every species on the planet and see it for yourself.

I'm not taking this side for fun, although I too have done so before. I believe I made some anti-gay arguments in the gays and lesbian thread a while back because no one else would at the time but the pro-gay arguments were flawed. This time, however, I am expressing my genuine beliefs.

The two are connected, yes, but I don't think that makes a difference. Surgeons can connect bits up to you that weren't yours before. The new organ will have different DNA to yours and it could easily be claimed that it was still the donars kidney/liver/whatever, even though they had given it to you.

As to the maternal bond, that is only something that arises because of human culture. If you take a child away from its mother at birth it will not be able to pick its mum out of a line up. To say that a mother is more suited to looking after the child is no different to saying that men are better businessmen or that only male white landowners should be allowed the vote.

Quote from zawmbee

Yes, but the baby does become part of the mother, it is linked to her and that is how it is fed.

Tapeworms are inside you and take on the same food as you do but I don't see people claiming that they share a special connection.

Quote from zawmbee

Yes, yes I am.

You know that makes no sense?

Lol, yes. I had no way to comeback to that.

Quote from Zed

I'm not taking this side for fun, although I too have done so before. I believe I made some anti-gay arguments in the gays and lesbian thread a while back because no one else would at the time but the pro-gay arguments were flawed. This time, however, I am expressing my genuine beliefs.

The two are connected, yes, but I don't think that makes a difference. Surgeons can connect bits up to you that weren't yours before. The new organ will have different DNA to yours and it could easily be claimed that it was still the donars kidney/liver/whatever, even though they had given it to you.

Tapeworms are inside you and take on the same food as you do but I don't see people claiming that they share a special connection.

As to the maternal bond, that is only something that arises because of human culture. If you take a child away from its mother at birth it will not be able to pick its mum out of a line up. To say that a mother is more suited to looking after the child is no different to saying that men are better businessmen or that only male white landowners should be allowed the vote.

So you are disregarding every natural proven fact about maternal bonds? In some species the male takes the nurturing role aswell, but guess what? In the case of primates is is pretty much always the mother, and natually humans do the same.
Also tape worms don't grow out of your genetic material or grow out of your own flesh.

But I'll do have to say that I think you have a very intimite bond with tapeworms. Same goes for other parasitic life-forms.

Quote from zawmbee

Lol, yes. I had no way to comeback to that.

It's nice that you now see the other side of the story ^^

Quote from Kaas

So you are disregarding every natural proven fact about maternal bonds?

No. I've studied the maternal bond closely. I cite the work of Bowlby here and his evolutionary maternal learning theory and his maternal deprivation hypothesis. Both support my arguments.

In some species the male takes the nurturing role aswell, but guess what? In the case of primates is is pretty much always the mother, and natually humans do the same.

In the world of most primates the group is led by one Alpha male and the other Beta males can become the leader of the group if they beat him in a fight. Do you not think we have moved on from there? If women get the vote, men get a say on whether their child is aborted.

Also tape worms don't grow out of your genetic material or grow out of your own flesh.

So the two on their own are invalid but when we combine the two the paradigms synergistically realign and we get something special? It's possible, I suppose, so I can't argue against it, but it is a highly subjective viewpoint.

But I'll do have to say that I think you have a very intimite bond with tapeworms. Same goes for other parasitic life-forms.

Answers in bold.

Zed wins again, with his cites on the work of Bowlby, his evolutionary maternal learning theory and his maternal deprivation hypothesis

Quote from KD

Zed wins again, with his cites on the work of Bowlby, his evolutionary maternal learning theory and his maternal deprivation hypothesis

That's another quote that's going in the scrapbook for when I get bored of my current sigs, but I haven't won yet. Bowlby's work can be criticised, if Kaas finds it I predict a shit storm.

Just pray that I don't have to do a lengthy statistical analysis.

So you are disregarding every natural proven fact about maternal bonds?

No. I've studied the maternal bond closely. I cite the work of Bowlby here and his evolutionary maternal learning theory and his maternal deprivation hypothesis. Both support my arguments.

If the maternal-bond is fiction than how come I ow so often hear about how women have the natural urge to care for children? Not every woman has it of course, but statistically there obviously is a significant difference between men and woman. The women's mind also is way better adapted to social care then the men's.

In some species the male takes the nurturing role as well, but guess what? In the case of primates is is pretty much always the mother, and naturally humans do the same.

In the world of most primates the group is led by one Alpha male and the other Beta males can become the leader of the group if they beat him in a fight. Do you not think we have moved on from there? If women get the vote, men get a say on whether their child is aborted.

Strong point. But even with other animals where both parents have "equal rights" and both care for the child like with a lot of birds the female still has a prominent role with nurturing.

Also tape worms don't grow out of your genetic material or grow out of your own flesh.

So the two on their own are invalid but when we combine the two the paradigms synergistically realign and we get something special? It's possible, I suppose, so I can't argue against it, but it is a highly subjective viewpoint.
They aren't stated as terms, they are just facts that prove the example obsolete.

But I'll do have to say that I think you have a very intimite bond with tapeworms. Same goes for other parasitic life-forms.

Unterlined .