If there is an abortion then there is no child to damage. Why you can't grasp this is beyond me...Sorry, it is not. It establishes that there is a causal relationship that is damaging to the child.
That is all I need for that aspect...Huh? Is this all you got?
I have repeatedly stated to you why you are wrong. I have not just, "asserted that (you) are wrong".All you are doing is asserting that I am wrong and failing to offer any argument as to why or how. Your point is worthless and without merit for the reasons I have outlined.
No. She has the ultimate birth control... abortion. It ultimately is her choice and her choice alone. All you are doing is making excuses for selfishness and trying to hold others accountable.That choice was made by both.
I will take you on in an ad hom battle fest if you like... just start one in the basement, mate.I responded to your ad hom with an ad hom. Dummy, I did not say that I did not want to turn this into ad homs. I said YOU don't want it to turn into ad homs. You are in the position of being painted as the pusillanimous little twerp that abandoned his child(ren).
I am a father and have posted their pictures here and had discussions with many about them and I have met one member of this forum in person who has seen them and another who I will be meeting upor return to the USA in December. If you are in the LA area let me know and my daughters and I can meet you for lunch.So what you want me to believe is that you are a responsible father who simply has chosen to be a champion for a bunch of deadbeat irresponsible jerks? Okay, does not make much sense, but whatever... you are still flat wrong.
I am not championing dead beats... I am challenging a sexist and flawed law much like others have done in history. I am basing it off logic, not emotion.
True enough...I don't need to use the ad homs to make my point. Your only argument in rebuttal is your claim that I am naive, which is not an argument at all.
I am saying, in this thread that I created (no idea where you got the idea that I am on a tangent), that those instances were the ones that got me thinking about this issue that I just sorta realized about a month or two ago.Your point in this little tangent was that the laws should seriously consider that the woman had punched holes in the condom or tricked the man in some way. There is no reason for that assumption without solid proof, as it is not the common way in which pregnancies occur.
1. Agreed1. He does not get to choose abortion as the pregnancy has no effect on his body or health.
2. His choices in the matter have already occurred and he is responsible for them.
2. Nope. Biology and law need not be intertwined.
jeez... a typo since I was typing fast, am tired and have minor Dyslexia. AffectedNot hard to understand? This is not even coherent. The child is affective??? I don't know wtf ur talking about.
The state is amenable to allowing someone else to assume the father's responsibility. That has nothing to do with any argument you made. You are arguing that the man should be allowed to deny his responsibilities.
The rest was extremely coherent. If there is no baby there is nothing to be responsible for. That is why this is all about her choice... debate that. The rest is irrelevant.
IF THERE IS NOT CHILD THEN THERE IS NO IMPACT ON THE CHILD!!!!!!You just want the woman to be held solely responsible for the benefit of the father, regardless of its impact on the child. In other words, it's a battle between the man and the woman that ignores the child.
Holy freaking christ!
You realize that Appeal to Popularity is a logical fallacy and one that did not help Separate But Equal stay law nor keep the woman from attaining the vote. It will also eventually see that gays are allowed to marry. Anything else?You are in a very small minority and most of your cohorts are POS who want to rationalize the abandonment of their responsibilities.