actually they are identical LMAO
YOU said the welfare of the child is not considered
I said:this is NOT always the case, yes some mindless dont think about that but the majority actually do and its WHY they abort. You may disagree with them but its still why they do it.
this is EXACTLY the same as saying as saying
""Some people have abortions because they feel its in the child's best welfare to do so"
if you are trying to now play a word game of majority vs some the only reason I said some the second time is the same reason I said majority the first time. Neither of them mean ALL.
Thats it all I meant is NOT ALL LMAO
sorry they are identical
and if if you are trying to claim they are not because of majority/some that doesn't really matter because you think none and that still makes you are 100% wrong.
Like I said dont tell me what you THINK I mean go by what is actually being said LOL
Pro lifers want to make abortion and reproduction all about consequences and duties. They fail to understand that some people shouldn't have kids. They also fail to understand that when parents don't adequately care for their children, then society has to step inand they will literally pay for their pro life beliefs. On top of that, most pro lifers I know haven't adopted a child, and don't help children in their own communities. They spend more time in pro life marches and volunteering the PCC, than doing anything for kids already born and in need.
You know the time is right to take control, we gotta take offense against the status quo
Originally Posted by A. de Tocqueville
A wallet can't be equated to one's physical body. Men and women can't ever really be equal when it comes to reproduction.
If a woman dies in childbirth, we don't shoot the man in the head.
My sister was 24 and had her first son, and later required a total hysterical because of that pregnancy. Now her chances of cancer and bone disease have increased tenfold.
My other sister developed gestational diabetes and was severely ill most of her pregnancy, and couldn't work.
Men will never experience that. I have no ****ing idea how men can go into a delivery room, and watch their wife and especially their own child give birth, and then have the ****ing arrogance to tell all females in this country that shouldn't be a choice for them. I am sorry, but you're a man, stfu. It's not your body or your health, and don't try to tell me, "but it's not just your body..." because it does involve my body, my identity, and my emotions. Don't pretend or try to tell me that is NOT relevant or NOT important, because it is.
It is all about her choice and talking about when it is concieved is to miss the point entirely...The parents are BOTH financially responsible from the child from the moment it is conceived until it turns 18. If it dies somewhere in between, then the financial responsibility ends.
The man chooses to do the right thing and care for his kid.That is NOT at all analogous to a man disavowing responsibility for his child. Let's take a look at how those outcomes would actually play out. Can we agree that a 50-50 split of financial responsibility is fair for "standard" cases...where both parents want the child (and assuming relatively equal incomes for simplicity)? OK, then let's look at how those two "choices" would actually play out to see if it's fair.
The woman chooses to have an abortion: Man 0%, woman 0% (of the cost of raising the child).
The woman chooses not to have an abortion: Man 50%, woman 50%.
The man chooses to disavow responsibility: Man 0%, woman 100%.
The man chooses to do the right thing and care for his kid: Man 50%, woman 50%.
In NONE of these cases would the man be responsible for more than half of the responsibility of caring for the kid. In all of those situations EXCEPT the one you are advocating (allowing the man to run away from his financial obligations), the financial burden is equal on both parents. Therefore letting men disavow responsibility is NOT the same as a woman having an abortion; it's more analogous to the baby being born and then the woman disavowing responsibility...which is also not allowed by our legal system.
The man to run away from his financial obligations.
Jeez. Such emotional hatred.
It isn't a "kid". It is a zygote.
That being said, I pay far more than 50% and I would bet that most men do that have some custody of their children. I pay for 100% of my time with them, around 50% of the week and I pay her for much of her time with them as well.
I have pointed out that this is a disingenuous argument at it's core. It is analogous to saying that a homosexual can marry equally as a heterosexual can. If a man can't get pregnant, to say that he has equal rights to an abortion is dishonest and misleading.Correct. If you get pregnant you're just as free to have an abortion as a woman is. If you're unable to exercise that right, blame biology rather than our legal system.
Dude, if you are going to take that route then you can just have a nice day. Play pop psychologist with somebody that it might actually bother or be true of. I could just as easily say that you sound like a female feminist and that if you are a man, you lack self esteem. What's the point in that?The misogyny here is staggering. You start off saying that the WOMAN should have used birth control to prevent a pregnancy, and then when I point out that exactly the same thing could be said about the man, you immediately shift blame to this theoretical woman based on how she "might" have been a conniving bitch. I don't know what your deal is, but it sounds like you have some real issues with women.
Stick to the topic.
She has the ultimate birth control... abortion. If she does not want to raise a child on her own she "COULD" get an abortion. It is her choice. There is no kid yet, it is a zygote. Neither have any responsiblity since there is no kid. She CHOOSES to let the pregnancy continue. It is her CHOICE to let the zygote evolve. Nobody is or will force her... certainly not the man in question. She has free will to abort or not abort. If she chooses to abort, fine. If she chooses to not abort, fine. Forcing that man to be repsonsible for her "CHOICE" lacks logic at it's core and you have said LITERALLY NOTHING to refute that.
There is no "kid". There also is no "child" or "baby". It is a group of cells known as a "ZYGOTE". Got it?Your solution of allowing a father to disavow responsibility for his kids would stick the woman with 100% of the cost of raising the child. I have not advocated anything similar in the reverse.
It is her choice to continue the pregnancy until it becomes a kid. Deal with that and about her choice. All you are doing with the rest is to create tangents and alter the point of the argument away from her choice and onto some mythical "responsibility" that he has for a zygote.