- Joined
- Mar 3, 2010
- Messages
- 60,458
- Reaction score
- 12,357
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
I'm not complaining about nature. I'm pointing out that in nature there is a real and valid reason for why there is such a profound difference in the reproductive rights of men and women.
If we get back to when the child is born and not in a time period we are no longer in at this point in the child's life its apparent that the rights of both parties are equal. What we have is a child and two parents that both had a hand to play in the creation of the child. You might not consider the input of a sperm cell measurable to what the woman put in and perhaps its not, but it is still a factor all things being equal and at this point in time he holds equal parental rights. Yes, before birth even if I disagree with your abortion stance the woman does hold more rights, but that is not the time period we are in and those rights are no longer in play.
You later go on to argue that the act of raising a child is of less importance than the act, not even of creating a child, but the act of conceiving one.
A child is created at conception and developed after that point, but yes, I made that argument. Anyone can take care of a child and take the role of a father, but there is only one biological father and no one can replace him.
It's curious that everyone in this thread seems so eager to accuse me of having no regard for fathers and fatherhood when you are making these arguments.
I'm a bit amazed too honestly.