- Joined
- Apr 25, 2011
- Messages
- 25,803
- Reaction score
- 20,579
- Location
- Austin, Texas
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Wtf?
Giving the male a choice is the proposal.
Wrong, as this proposal is and can be viable and legal.
So stop pretending like it can't.
No it doesn't, as we are talking about the time after conception when she gets to choose. A choice which may burden the male. Which is what is unfair, and the proposal eliminates that unfairness.
Yes, we know you stated a ridiculous suggestion.
Once this proposal is excepted there is no need for all the other bs.
We know who is responsible for the child. Obviously the woman, and anybody else who accepted responsibility.
The below already put you arguments in their place as nonsense.
So why you persist at being wrong, I have no idea.
And what is the best interest of the child and the state, can change with the flick of a pen or the wisp of a decision.
And having it established prior to birth as to whom is responsible, seems like it is in the best interest of both.
Which also means that a woman choosing to bring a child into this world would be doing so knowing she would be responsible for supporting the child if the man didn't want to. Which equates to a more informed decision as whether or not to bring a child into this world. Likely resulting in less births. Less births where the state wouldn't have to seek out someone to be responsible because she couldn't.
Making a decision before birth as to who is responsible does not compromise anybody's welfare. It actually ensures who is responsible for the child's welfare.
Ex...all circular.
Until I see the actual legislative language used to enact a law that GIVE MEN CHOICE...back to square one.
And the more you say that I'm "wrong" doesn't make it anymore true.