I Have Been Saying

[*bfine32*]

(12-16-2016, 08:22 PM)hollodero Wrote: oh sorry... my bad.


"Nope"? Seems like exactly what I said, it was at least exactly what I meant.
Yeah, I'm against that. First off, there always is a remaining risk. But foremost: I feel - like others - that we have no business telling women what she can or cannot do with her body and with her pregnancy (up to a certain point into the pregnancy). And I think that's the right way. I feel it's ok that a man doesn't get to say, well, I want the child, so whatever you want just forget it, you now have go through all that, the body changes, the whole discomfort, the risk, while I can still smoke and drink while forcing you to do so.
It seems to me like a violation of a basic human right - which is control over the own body.
Or in other words, it would seem EXTREMELY unfair that way around, too. I'd rather take the "unfairness" that is given by nature and the medical possibility of pregnancy termination alone - that the woman has the power over the pregnancy. I think men simply need to accept that (and when they want a child, they need to look after a woman that wants one with him... or use adoption, which indeed he should be allowed... and what's wrong with seeing/doing it that way?)
And I am not really flexible on that one. I guess we need to agree to disagree here. I just hope all supreme courts are and stay on my side.



But there's a huge difference in those two scenarios.
If the woman "walks away" (terminates pregnancy), there are NO obligations left.
If the man walks away, there are still ALL the obligations left.

So nope, that one isn't logical to me.

Of course you disagree, as you fall into the group that puts the women's temporary convenience over a lifetime of the man and child; even though, she was a willing participant in the act that caused the pregnancy. No matter how many times I am forced to write "Her body, her choice" on the blackboard I still won't see the equality in that.