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.
Gladly. I have no problem asking "probing" questions aimed at saving the lives of the defenseless.
And when she tells you to get out of her face and stay out of her business, what will you do? Scream "baby killer" at her? It's none of your business whether a woman chooses to get an abortion.
So now you want to force-sterilize women as well as force them to give birth? What do you have against women? Why do you think it's even your business what other women do?
Seems these anti choice folks want them to be celibate or use two forms of bc. No social services, they get to look down on them for being poor. Want them on a strict budget as another thread explains. No birthday cake for the kid either. These women should take personal responsibility.
"What else do you want a poor woman with more children than she can handle already to do?"
I HOPE you are NOT being serious!
I am completely serious. A poor woman, married or not, with 3 or 4 or 5 children already may not be able to handle the cost of another child. A woman who is barely getting by already will most likely be thrown into poverty if she has another child.
Fact. Thousands and thousands of men skip out on court order child support leaving the woman to raise their child on her own.
That does nothing to release the legal obligation. My point stands: When men can't "keep it in their pants," they're saddled with 18+ years of child support payments. Why shouldn't women have the exact same 18+ year responsibility for a child when they've failed to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
That does nothing to release the legal obligation. My point stands: When men can't "keep it in their pants," they're saddled with 18+ years of child support payments. Why shouldn't women have the exact same 18+ year responsibility for a child when they've failed to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
You're missing the point. How do women have a "choice" but men don't? That's sex-based discrimination, which is unconstitutional as well as a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act.
That does nothing to release the legal obligation. My point stands: When men can't "keep it in their pants," they're saddled with 18+ years of child support payments. Why shouldn't women have the exact same 18+ year responsibility for a child when they've failed to prevent an unwanted pregnancy?
18 years of paying money is NOTHING when compared to a woman's bodily changes (and possible lifelong medical problems) when forced to give birth and the 18+ years of caring for that child. No comparison whatsoever!
I am completely serious. A poor woman, married or not, with 3 or 4 or 5 children already may not be able to handle the cost of another child. A woman who is barely getting by already will most likely be thrown into poverty if she has another child.
If a woman has 3-5 children already and can't support another one then why did she engage in an activity and probably without protection, that creates another child?
You're missing the point. How do women have a "choice" but men don't? That's sex-based discrimination, which is unconstitutional as well as a violation of the federal Civil Rights Act.
Biology. His choice is before sex and after. Same as a woman’s.
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.
