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.
1. NO. If a man doesn't want a kid, he needs to take responsibility for himself and make sure it is not possible for him to impregnate his partner. Any man who has unprotected sex is tacitly agreeing to becoming a father.
2. You are correct when you say that a woman, whose body is the incubator for 9 mos, controls whether or not the pregnancy continues.
1. By that rationale, any non-castrated male who has vaginal sex with any fertile woman is tacitly agreeing to becoming a father.
2. Based on the current law, Yes. Whether the current law in regards to this should be changed--well, that is a separate question and debate.
Indeed. Why does this debate always seem to come down to shaming women for their sexual impulses and holding them accountable for the consequences while letting the guys off the hook? A woman simply doesn't have the option of plausible deniability when the life created grows inside of her body. If we have all the responsibility, guys, that means we have ALL of the responsibility, up to and including whether or not to see the pregnancy through. That's just the way it is.
Who exactly here is advocating letting guys off the hook here without also letting women off the hook?
There is a strange level of disconnect on this issue. We could ban all abortions tomorrow and the day after, a certain conservative segment of the population (who were against abortion) would be whinging, complaining and throwing varying levels of fits about us giving handouts to the poor be they school lunches, food stamps, WIC or umpteen other programs. The babies are only a concern when they are unborn. After? Who cares as long as taxes aren't going to care for them.
This appears to be an appeal to hypocrisy fallacy on your part.
Furthermore, just because something can be done on the black market does not mean it should be allowed. The Mafia commits murder on the black market, should we legalize murder? With abortion we already have.
Agreed--also, isn't there a black market for child porn?
So, you are going to adopt and pay for these children out of your own pocket? No, you won't. You are just a big of a hypocritical liar as the liberals on this board.
Abortion should be legal, safe, and tax payer subsidized. Would help us NOT to pay for the unwanted millions of kids, not wanted and, moreover, not NEEDED in this country.
We conservatives have fallen very short on this issue.
Your argument here is as poor as saying that we need to legalize painless elective infanticide in the event of a shortage of adoptive parents so that we would not need to pay for all of these unwanted and unneeded children.
Believe it or not pro-abortionists, most couples are excited when they are expecting. To most decent people, that is a person, a human being growing inside. Having that developing person killed by an assault is equal to murder.
By that rationale, if Person A kills Person B's pet cat, dog, pig, and/or et cetera and Person B considers this pet of his/hers a person, then Person A should be charged with murder for killing Person B's pet.
So, it's back to the back alleys for Florida women.
Too bad.
Nope, because this law doesn't relate to this.
As for the back-alley argument, I myself am a fan of this argument, just not when it comes to abortion (at least based on my current views on abortion).
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.