A woman who gets an abortion is like an Indian giver

Unless you're gay, transgendered, Muslim etc......

 

I think he's suffering from uterus envy.

 

Good gracious you come up with some dumb arguments. Do you think "every sperm is sacred" as well ?

 

A male who impregnates a woman and then leaves her to raise a child that he produced and doesn't want is a what?

 

How many children do you have?

 

Before abortion was legal every small town in the South had a colored lady or pharmacist who did abortions over there on the wrong side of the tracks.

 

a guy with a court order to pay child support

 

I have seen court ordered child support of $35 a week that deadbeats protested as unfair. Men who don't want to support their offspring are a dime a dozen... and their mommas are their biggest cheerleaders.

 

Or a disappearing act who has been ordered to pay child support.

 

You mean that they like to keep that womb full up?

 

Yup, and I have seen some dead beat mommie who lost custody and went into hiding so they would not have to pay. They are worthless as well.

Make sure the law lands on them.

 

fill 'er up, bubba

 

Come and stay in my uterus, you're welcome.

 

Sex is not consent to a child.

You missed a few other steps. An accidental pregnancy does not necessarily create a child. The dude is not responsible for a woman's unilateral decision to carry an accidental pregnancy to term.

The man does not "produce" the child. This is silliness. The sperm and egg get together. Should his result in a zygote, the DNA in the zygote then goes on to "produce/create" a child.

Even if the woman (for what ever reason) decides unilaterally to carry an unintended pregnancy to term ... she still has the right/ability to avoid the financial consequences of her decision.

As per the Rule of Law (Equal justice/equality under the law) - the man should also have the same right to avoid the financial consequences of the woman's irresponsible decision. An irresponsible decision should she decide to keep the child.

It is also a violation of the rule of law (one person is not to be punished for the actions of another).

 

Yes, if she immediately runs to get a shot of estrogen, or pops a Plan B pill. If she waits longer than that though...

 

Now I'm assuming you're talking about adoption.

I'd hope you don't mean that if the woman brought the pregnancy to 37 weeks gestation it would be OK to just terminate it.

 

Think of the female killing her child as being fined. If she wants no kids, prevent them. Killing them is like a bonus for running a red light.

 

But the man doesn't though.

But right now he doesn't.

That's not how real life works though. If a woman goes on the stand and says she was raped, a man can go to prison. Of course, if they later come to believe that she lied, she can get punished too.
One person very much can be punished for the actions of another.

Another rare example (you can stop reading here if it will be uncomfortable to read this) is a deranged rapist that kept a woman captive for breeding and they didn't discover her until she was already eight months pregnant. Now, you think it's OK to abort that baby? The woman is being punished because of what a man did to her.

... Sorry if I went off on a tangent there...

Anyway, all this is really besides the point, because one of them is not being punished for the actions of the other. They are being assigned responsibility because they both consented to sex and engaged in the procreative act, and however a baby might result from that, they're responsible. Than man will no more responsible for child support if the woman terminates than the man would be if the woman ended up killing the child. Obviously that doesn't mean the man is being "punished" because the woman isn't deciding to kill her child.

how's that different from paying for wanted children?

Sounds like you're making a strong argument for forced abortion. (China is way ahead of you)

 

I agree with you. The woman can abort, but that was not my point. He has as much responsibility as she. Yes, the choice is hers,
definitely, but he has financial responsibility also.

 

The difference is that wanted children are payed for by those who want them. Sounds to me that a strong argument is being made for abortion by choice.
Unwanted children end up in places where they don't want to be and often have mental issues, which manifest themselves in negative ways. Parents who love and nurture their children are crucial for a healthy upbringing.

 

Giftedone said: ↑
You missed a few other steps. An accidental pregnancy does not necessarily create a child.

""If she waits longer than that though""".... WHAT??????? She gets an abortion.....

 

We can sit here and spout off philosphical differences all day, but are you will to help pay for the care of 600,000 babies each year (which would grow in numbers every year)?

 

Hey, there's an idea. Think of all the tax money we'd save if we executed all state and federal prisoners and declared open season on chronic welfare recipients.

 

I took you seriously until your second sentence.

 

Think of all the money we'd save if we attacked all the waste and corruption in the military complex and government.....what we spend on poor children in this country is a drop in the bucket compared to those two entities.....but you want "open season" on poor children...how sick is that...