Re: 40 Days for Life campaign begins today
THERE SHOULD BE NO QUESTION REGARDING OWNERSHIP OF A PREGNANCY. That's what I was talking about. Child support is another matter, involving a live birth --a months-later event.
you support imposing child support payments for it? Ok?
DON'T TRY TO MIX APPLES AND ORANGES. During a pregnancy one of the things that happens is that DNA gets copied vast numbers of times. In terms of Copyright Law, any data you possess you are free to make all the copies you want for your own purposes. (You simply are not allowed to sell the copies.) During pregnancy the unborn human is the "possessor" of DNA data in this situation, mostly-equal parts of which were provided by the man and the woman --and it is the unborn human that is making all those copies of the DNA. That has no effect on overall ownership of the
pregnancy --the importance of this becomes apparent at birth, when
the Law steps in and claims that the newborn human has right-to-life.
Now, knowing how helpless are newborn humans, the immediate question is, how can a newborn human possibly survive without assistance? Do you think that assistance is going to arrive from thin air?
DNA allows the biological parents to be positively identified.
On what basis can anyone else be blamed for the existence of that need-for-assistance? Right-to-life, for the newborn human, essentially means assistance MUST be provided!
Which therefore leads to child-support. It Is Very Simple! And for a man who doesn't like that situation, it all starts with his own extreme stupidity --THAT is why he pays, as I explained elsewhere.
I've never watched that movie, but from the looks of it the movie is not about abortion.
It's about a man offering a couple a lot of money to let the man have sex with the wife of the couple. The "indecency" relates to rationalizations and hints of prostitution/pimping --but the
point is, there are lots of things folks are willing to do for enough money.
Seriously? So the man has to try to convince her to abort in your mind?
ONLY IF HE WANTS TO AVOID CHILD-SUPPORT. And since the whole scenario here is all about a man not wanting to pay child-support, It Logically Follows that he should try to convince the woman to abort. (And in my personal opinion, any man to opposes abortion DESERVES to pay child-support, if he helps cause a birth he didn't want!)
So it's somehow worse for the man to just
I MADE NO SUCH CLAIM, regarding "better" or "worse" options. I simply laid the relevant Facts down plainly. He has no rational basis for claiming any significant degree of ownership of a pregnancy. The woman is free to abort or to try to carry the pregnancy to term.
HE has the right to try to influence her decision. If a live birth happens, then with his DNA written all through the newborn human, who has right-to-life, the State assigns assistance-responsibilities. (He has one last option, to try to convince the woman to adopt-out the baby --which means some other couple will acquire all the assistance-responsibilities. But I think the chances of him succeeding at that are far lower than the chances of convincing her to abort.)
allow her to decide on her own as he goes forward with his plans
NOT WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. Are you deliberately trying to twist what I said?
instead of bothering the **** out of her to get her to kill the kid?
ABORTION IS LEGAL, and getting one is entirely her choice. I'm simply following Facts and Logic where they lead.
Jesus, it's like the we are living on different planets.
THE PLANET OF THE IGNORANT --is that where you say you are living? Because I most certainly am not living there!
