certified batshit crazy
- May 1, 2012
- Reaction score
- Near Kingston, Ontario, Canada
- Political Leaning
Actually, people do get abortions for their dogs. I don't see anyone howling about that.It is a developmental stage of humans, when anything else but a human is developing we can talk! Maybe we should call them pup[pies y'all would lose your mind if anyone tried harm a puppy!
No kidding?Last I read, the cost of a surrogate is solidly $40K above that. (Likely because of medical costs for all the prenatal appointments, delivery, etc)
A man could easily find a surrogate that wants to be pregnant and compensate her for the matter…instead of trying to force one that doesn’t want to be pregnant to carry one to term for him.
Which brings us back to abortion not being about men WANTING a baby or about the medical science…but about control.
This is ridiculous. Women have gotten pregnant by using sperm donor sperm. They have gotten pregnant with the defrosted sperm of deceased husbands.The terms you are using, are simply terms to ease the guilt of killing babies, by scientists and doctors who benefit from said abortion, big business!
She still didn't do it by herself, even a little bit, epic fail!
Abortion isn't about "terminating life." It is about the removal of an embryo/fetus from attachment inside of the woman's body. She is not obligated to give it part of her life.The right to terminate life, so if the mother wants to keep it, and tha father wants no part, can he then kill it, try to be consistent, I mean if no harm comes to the mother during the assassination of the child by the father.
If by answer correctly you mean they don't give the answer you want to hear, then you are already committing a bias fallacy.If a man, and a woman agree to consensual sex, and she gets pregnant, why, when the child is equally the mans, does he not get equal protection under the law, lets keep it scientific shall we, leave your emotion next to the tissues. WHY DOES HE NOT RECEIVE EQUAL RIGHTS
So just to be clear, when one of the two is not a legally consenting adult, then there is not an issue with the offspring being aborted? I mean if the science includes legally consenting adults, then the science has to take into account where consent is absent. Also since we are talking about legally consenting adults, then when a minor is involved, that too means no issue with offspring being aborted, right?SCIENCE! That child cannot be made without the sperm, from one of the legally consenting adults. But thank you for providing evidence that it is unequal protection!
The overall load is irrelevant, both parties engaged in consensual sex, that child is equally a part of him regardless of who carries it. When you speak of overall burden or load it is an emotional plea to give women a special right to murder! You can dress that crap up all you want with semantics like, healthcare, and burden, fact is he is not equally protected.
Exactly. I would go further and say not only are they unwilling to accept that much of what they claim about abortion is not the law, but it is also not biologically accurate, biblically true, culturally accepted or socially rational. The fact is that they are not running for office in order to discharge duties of the office, they are there to change US law, American culture and the constitutional command of freedom of religion. This is a crowd that is seeking to create a theocracy.The right has been unwilling to accept that their religious bullshit is not the law. The renders the right incapable of properly discharging the duties required of those who hold public office.