Men should not impregnate women until they have the means to support the resultant offspring Great believer in the fact that many men should just tie it in a knot
I agree. You aren't wrong, except I was not speaking at all to the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy, but to parents' responsibility once a child is born.
Consent to sex is not consent to giving birth. That is the womans arguement, as it should be, and it should legally be the mans too. Equality. Sure but that is not reality
Fair enough... although that leaves us without a solution to the topic. - - - Updated - - - You think it is responsible to have a baby she can't support and have the taxpayers pick up the cost?
So you want to force her to abort? Uh, the Repubs want women to be forced to give birth but they ignore the "taxpayers pick up the cost.....""" Talk to them. - - - Updated - - - Learn how to multi-quote.......and you won't be able to hide from those inconvenient questions.
Sure there are: 1) Don't have sex with a fertile woman (your choice but not likely). 2) Have a vasectomy (your choice). 3) Change the child support laws in your jurisdiction (not likely). 4) Deal with it.
1. No. Never even suggested such a thing. 2. Relevence? That is your issue buddy... you quoted me fine but screwed upnanother post muddling it all up. Don't learn... I don't care much. - - - Updated - - - Appeal to Tradition. Logical fallacy. Debate fail. Anything else?
No and I don't think we should be rewarding them for having more kids they can't afford. Someone considering more kids should also have to consider the work it takes to raise them. No parent should be allowed to drop their kids off at school only to return home to watch TV until school is out. They should be required to work.
To my argument these are all Appeals to Tradition. Sorry you don't like it. I say that we need change and you counter with reasons why it is the way it is and should remain that way. *shrugs* Not my fault you can't comprehend...
Intellectual cowardice... instead of soundly defeating me in debate you cower behind doofy bravado. LOL.
Keep pretending. Your ignorance about the application of informal logical fallacies is not worth the time to correct.
Completely worthless summation without the context of the other posts... and the time you took to take multiple quotes could have been spent correcting me. But your goal is not to debate but instead to protect your ego. All good little buddy...
Finding an parent to adopt your baby is 100% guarantee. It is only kids who are grown up that have trouble getting adopted. For some odd reason people think the only options are abort or take care of the baby yourself.
Because: If they want a baby they keep it... If they dont want a baby they get rid of the potential before it becomes a problem...
Maybe those who favor government control would like it if every couple had to apply for a license to have a baby. The government would be able to check your DNA for potential problems and evaluate your collective ability to provide (financially and emotionally) for a child. If a woman gets pregnant without a license, she has to get an abortion as soon as possible (for the good of society). As a pro-choice advocate, I would not like this approach, but since pro-life advocates believe the pregnant woman does not deserve a choice in the matter... most of them (especially those who believe the fetus becomes a person at 20 weeks) might like this option since it is good for society and does not harm an actual person. For the record, I believe the fetus begins person-hood at birth (when the mind is activated) but I would still object to this plan because (just like anti-abortion legislation) it is an assault on personal freedom.
What would be illogical is giving fathers the legal right to abandon their children for absolutely no reason other than they don't want to support it. Whatever the woman should or shouldn't have done is immaterial. The outcome of sex is sometimes the birth of a child who needs supporting - and the people to do that are his or her parents. I do not see what is unfair or illogical about that. Women have birth control choices that men don't, solely because of the way human reproduction works.
The idea of a license to have a baby is not a bad idea. What qualifications or tests you have to pass would be to difficult to manage not too mention that enforcing it would be impossible. - - - Updated - - - What people keep avoiding in the argument is that there is no child if she aborts it because she can't support it on her own. I wonder why this avoidance keeps occurring? Oh, it is because it displays the illogical nature of the counter argument.
