08-08-2016, 10:22 AM
(08-08-2016, 09:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The man has control over his finances by not getting a woman pregnant. No birth control is 100% effective. To put all of the burden of an unwanted pregnancy on the woman is the misogynistic way of thinking.
It doesn't put all of the burden on the woman. The woman has the choice to abort or not.
(08-08-2016, 09:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: And certainly a man should not be allowed to agree to get a woman pregnant and then just decide he does not want to support the child. Are you saying he should be allowed to do that AFTER the child is born? If this were the law men would have children all over the place and not be responsible for any of them.
No, no one is saying that. That would be why I said this:
(08-08-2016, 07:38 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: For the second section, please avoid the strawman. We are discussing events before a child is born.
(08-08-2016, 09:01 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Someday technology will advance to the point that a fetus will be able to be removed from the mother and raised outside of the womb. Would you still deny the father the right to that child then? Why should the woman be given 100% control over the fetus when she does not have to let it grow in her body?
I'm not denying anyone the right to anything with my position. Not sure what you're going on about here.
"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
