08-07-2016, 11:01 PM
(08-07-2016, 10:41 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Because he consented to the possibility of fathering a child and he can not force a woman to have an abortion. He has no control over her body.
If he was carrying the child he would have the exact same rights as the mother, and the woman would be bound to support the child the same as the man.
Equal rights.
It's not equal rights. I laid out why earlier. The ability to walk away exists for the woman, why doesn't it for the man? They would be different methods because one would be physically and one would be financially, but what you are saying is not equal.
I don't think you're understanding the argument, or if you are you are stuck in some very misogynist thinking. For it to actually be equal, there would have to be a way for the man, of the woman decides to keep the child and the man does not want it, to extricate himself from the situation. This isn't some pro-life talking point, it is a legitimate argument. My women's college feminist wife agrees with me on this.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
