I oppose abortion in principle and want it restricted but it is legal without limits federally. And as long as it is legal without restrictions, men should have the option to abort their financial responsibility which would accomplish the equivalent to a woman aborting the physical pregnancy.
That is as false as it gets. The woman has as much "financial responsibility" as the man after birth.
Explain to me why I should have to pay for THEIR child - since that is your claim UNLESS you advocate killing the child if abandoned by both. Why do you claim I should have to pay for their child? Explain that to me.
No, I really don't. It is a simple issue. Have sex, protect yourself, or take the chance on getting pregnant. This is junior high school stuff here, not rocket science.
There are exceptions to every rule, but the rule is, aside from rape and/or incest with a young girl, prevention is pretty easy, and is widely available to the general public.
Do you then advocate letting the child die?
You don't need to be condescending. But no, it is not that simple and all the responsibility should not be placed on the women.
You shouldn't. So work/lobby to get the laws changed.Explain to me why I should have to pay for THEIR child - since that is your claim UNLESS you advocate killing the child if abandoned by both.
As a republican, this is a silly argument. You are not paying for the child. You are paying taxes. Taxes you will need to pay even if any single pregnancy doesn't results in a child. Child insurance coverage, child education, child WIC, child welfare will exist even if any singular pregnancy exists or not.
That is as false as it gets. The woman has as much "financial responsibility" as the man after birth.
Explain to me why I should have to pay for THEIR child - since that is your claim UNLESS you advocate killing the child if abandoned by both. Why do you claim I should have to pay for their child? Explain that to me.
You shouldn't. So work/lobby to get the laws changed.
it certainly is the same to consenting to the possibility of pregnancy. The way men look at this is totally skewed because they do not get pregnant. The man is responsble for taking every precaution for making certain that those swimmers don't make it if he does not keep them in wraps than he is consenting to any obligations that result form sex.
The reality is that she gets to choose. Her choice should not burden the man.We are forced to deal with the reality.
She has a the right to choose as it is. Which she is responsible for.
The man should have the same option.
The reality is that she gets to choose. Her choice should not burden the man.
So he should have an effective right of choice also.
No, the law does require parents have at least financial responsibility for the child(ren) they make. What is being advocated is eliminating those laws on behalf of wannabe deadbeat men.
And that is as stupid a response as possible. It really is absurd for you to claim that the cost of 1 child and 1,000,000 children is the same. I AM paying for the child via taxes.
Nor is it the pregnancy that requires taxes. IT IS DEADBEAT PARENTS - the majority fo which are DEADBEAT MEN - that requires the tax money - and all the other problems that come with child who are abandoned by their parents like higher crime rates. The bastard child you claim you get to make and then dump on society so you got your free 15 minutes of toe curling is who will burglarize my house.
I despise deadbeat parents and any sicko rationalizations they make for it. They are the ULTIMATE meaning of being immoral scum who should live in prisons.
He did have a choice. He chose to have sex without a condom. He has a choice to it just comes before instead of after.
He did have a choice. He chose to have sex without a condom. His choice just comes before the pregnancy instead of after.
False dilemma.
He chose to have sex. Not have a child.
But under your scenario she let him penetrate her without a condom, so she is responsible.
Do you realize I could flip that argument on you? :lol:
They are both responsible. That would be more evident if you read what I was responding too.
I don't recall you being pro-life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?