12-19-2016, 03:40 AM
(12-16-2016, 05:33 PM)bfine32 Wrote: If the man wants no part of it, he should have that choice.
Well, if there's a guy with the means, I don't think the taxpayer wants to pick-up the tab. The man having no financial obligation is also pretty clearly not a Conservative viewpoint on the issue.
That said, there is definitely a double standard in that the financial burden is a popular pro choice argument. Why does that not apply to the man? Legally, I don't think the financial question is even relevant so long as the fetus is considered to have no rights.
--------------------------------------------------------