Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And abortion should not be permitted as a 'birth control' method when other methods to avoid pregnancy are available. I believe that too many abortions take place because some women are lazy and don't take precautions which would make the procedure, in so many instances, unnecessary. Responsibility flows both ways. But if for birth control purposes only, the woman shouldn't have unilateral control.
Just how do you plan to weed out those who didn't take precautions at all from those that had a birth control failure?
Most definitely. One thing I've found odd about some women who've chimed in on this topic over the years: they want a man to stick around after she becomes pregnant. In fact, they expect him to. I agree with that wholeheartedly.
However, with equal responsibility, comes equal say in the matter. If the woman expects the man to be just as much a parent as she is (and to have an equal say in where the child goes to school, how the child is raised, etc), and to make equal financial contributions in raising the child -- then that woman better be prepared to extend equal say to all facets of the decisions regarding the child.
And yes, that includes whether or not to abort the pregnancy.
And yes, that includes whether or not to abort the pregnancy.
fail. You are advocating slavery of the woman. If she doesn't want to carry that child, then its none of that mans business. If he forces her to have the child, then that is tantamount to slavery. Sorry, but we do not live in the 1600's
and goes the same for forcing her to have an abortion.
If she keeps the child, then hell yes he is responsible. For every penny that she asks of him.
Forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is equivalent to forcing them back into the kitchen, with no rights or choices at all except those some man has allowed to give her.
Backwards step people.
Instead of harping "pro-life" why don't you all become "pro-education" instead.
NO WOMAN WANTS TO BE PREGNANT UNLESS SHE WANTS A BABY.
Pregnancy is uncomfortable at best, and some women can't even get out of bed they are so ill.
Who would choose to go through that unsupported for a parasite you never wanted?
Here is where I mixed views. One part of me would say that the taxpayer say it is not his choice whether the woman aborts or not. The other part says it is not the child's fault and he is the father.
Also, why should the taxpayer pay? If the woman decides to keep the baby, then she should pay. If she is old enough to have a baby and wants to exercise that rigth, her responsibility is to carry the burden. If she can't and want the taxpayer to carry the burden, than I as a taxpayer that has to pay should have a say so on the matter. I should be able to say she that if she cannot support it I as a taxpayer demand the babe taken away from her and give it to a couple that want to take care of the baby. Doesnt the legal system terminate parental right if they do not take care of their children in many other casees? Why not in this case? Take care.
Quote:
Originally Posted by elamigo
That is another different issue. In another discussion if welfare is the discussion, I would gladly share my views. You stated a fallacy. Take care.
You are the one who bought it up. You think the taxpayers should be able to take a child away from its mother if she needs taxpayer dollars to care for it.....if that isn't welfare, what is it?
Why shouldn't the taxpayer also be able to take a child away from a husband and wife who need taxpayer dollars to care for their child? They also could have decided not to have a child they could not support.....they could have aborted or put it up for adoption. If they decide to keep the baby, they should pay. It is their responsibility to carry the burden. If they can't, and want the taxpayers to carry the burden, than I, as a taxpayer, demand that the baby be taken away from them and given to a couple who can. Right?
Why should a couple be allowed to use taxpayer money and keep their child, but a single woman has her child taken away?
That is NOT a fallacious question.....it is a valid question.
Forcing a woman to continue with an unwanted pregnancy is equivalent to forcing them back into the kitchen
They are so identical.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
