During pregnancy the rights of the potential mother supercede those of the fetus or the potential father.

After birth, the rights of the child supercede those of either parent.

It IS unfair that at no time are the man's rights primary. But life sucks that way sometimes.

(Just like your grasp of "modifiers". I suppose you think a double negative is just a SUPER No?)

Before I engage your silly ad-hominem attacks, I'll address your "logic."

The scenarios aren't different. In both cases, there are merely a bundle of cells during the first trimester.

The difference is in the balance of power. If the woman has dreams or aspirations that a potential kid would ruin, or just plain doesn't like kids (see one of the latest topics), she can scrape out the bundle of cells, and the man has to like it. It's not callous or cold of her to do that, it's her right, and it's just like having a period. If he objects, or it causes him emotional pain, well he's a weirdo. Just read the letters if you don't believe me.

If the man has dreams and aspirations that a kid would ruin, and she carries it to term over his objections, well, tough. He's callous and cold. How could he even be thinking of his own future, when there's a kid involved?

Ya, I guess you're right. No double standard there.

Now, to the rest of your post.

My nickname on the site is pretty tongue in cheek, and if you don't like it, I really couldn't care less. Bus since you brought it up: an Iconoclast is already a renegade, or someone who goes against the mold, who challenges cherished beliefs. So by calling myself renegade iconoclast, I'm saying I'm even more renegade than a regular iconoclast. You could translate it as "super rebel."

And you're quite wrong about my age. In fact, you seem younger than me. I'd never attack someone based on their name, or their age. Then again, I wouldn't even have done that when I was younger. I was taught better.

Hey 19 is the name of a song.

Hey 6 is just you scrambling. Again.

and you are called what, "Hey6"?

Must be, because you figure you can just rename someone with an insulting name and therefore you have effectively defeated them.

Wow, that sure works... (the irony)

In one scenario, there is never a child. There is a woman who, like all people in this country, has individual rights over her body

In the other, there IS a child and is has individual rights of its own. Among those rights is to be provided for by his/her parents until he/she is eighteen.

And on another topic: the Dictionary.

Unlike BullShit65 and Bad Logic (who I may RE re-name "Bad Logician" since it scans better) I have never been able to come up with a nickname for you since your name makes no sense.

ren·e·gade /ˈrɛnɪˌgeɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ren-i-geyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a person who deserts a party or cause for another.

2. an apostate from a religious faith.

–adjective 3. of or like a renegade; traitorous.

i·con·o·clast /aɪˈkɒnəˌklæst/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ahy-kon-uh-klast] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation

–noun 1. a breaker or destroyer of images, esp. those set up for religious veneration.

2. a person who attacks cherished beliefs, traditional institutions, etc., as being based on error or superstition.

So a Renegade Iconoclast would be someone who objects to cherished beliefs, etc. but turns on the other Iconoclasts and refuses to say so? Or doesn't even actually object in the first place having abandoned the Iconoclasts?

I think I'll just have to call you "Hey 19". Because there is simply no WAY you are any older than that.

When men (or women for that matter) walk away from an actual baby they're irresponsible deadbeats.

If a woman is pregnant, and during the first trimester, he says, "I don't want a child," and walks away, he is NOT (according to your logic) walking away from a baby. He is walking away from a bundle of cells, and a woman.

If she continues to nurture that bundle of cells until it becomes a baby, why is that not her decision, her prerogative, and her responsibility?

If she doesn't like the idea of raising the potential baby that will result if she keeps on nurturing that bundle of cells, she can abort it. Or, she can give it up for adoption. Or she can tough it out.

You want to have it both ways. I don't expect you to see your hypocrisy. Those in power never do.

When women don't want the baby, it's called "reproductive autonomy." When men don't want the baby, it's called "irresponsible deadbeat." The hypocrisy is palpable.

No.

When women don't want to continue a pregnancey it is "reproductive autonomy". There never IS a baby.

When men (or women for that matter) walk away from an actual baby they're irresponsible deadbeats.

What a double-standard Laurel takes! Let's alter Laurel's own words a little to put the shoe on the other foot, and see how comfortably it fits.

"It's hard to believe this is even being discussed in 2008 -- that (women) should be allowed to (conceive) all the children they can, but retain "the right" to walk away scot-free when (it's inconvenient for them, even if their partner wants to keep the child). The logical reading of this is that (women) have an all-encompassing right to have condom-free sex, with all the partners they can, because the right to sexual freedom trumps every personal responsibility."

In a more recent Broadsheet, they quote that it should be defensible to abort (and by extension adopt out) even for reasons like never wanting to be a parent because you hate children. When women don't want the baby, it's called "reproductive autonomy." When men don't want the baby, it's called "irresponsible deadbeat." The hypocrisy is palpable.

I'm not advocating heaping scorn on women for not wanting children. But if you are going to heap scorn, Laurel, have the honesty to apply it equally wherever it fits.