09-11-2023, 10:30 PM
(09-11-2023, 08:36 PM)Dill Wrote: I think the bolded is kind of an important point. One of the many negatives from shifting the emphasis from education to incarceration back in the '80s, followed by three strikes laws in many states.
In order to end up in state prison you have to have committed several felonies. No one ends up in prison for their first felony, unless it is a very serious one e.g. murder, rape, arson, assault with a firearm etc. A child is far better off not being raised by a criminal, and their obvious influences, than to not have them around at all.
(09-11-2023, 09:58 PM)pally Wrote: you can nitpick all you want, however, the point remains, that the only solution Vivek can come up with is to force the woman into an unwanted marriage. If she doesn't get married she loses government benefits. The guy doesn't marry her...nothing happens. When will politicians look at the other half of the pregnancy equation? For every single mother on her own, there is a single deadbeat father living it up making more babies.
A much better argument then your string of false equivalencies. Being pro-choice I'm not a fan of such ideas, but you do your position no favor when you compare them to the examples you put forth. Also, your last sentence is patently untrue, given that men are far less likely to be given full or joint custody of children, even when the mother is obviously an unfit parent.
I do have a counter point though. Would you be in favor of abortion access for women, but men get to decide if they want to have anything to do with the child? Meaning a woman can get an abortion or not, and a man can decide to have absolutely nothing to do with said child, financially or in any other manner.
