What sort of man supports abortion?

[martybegan]

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

That doesn't answer the question.

 

[Carla_Danger]

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

That doesn't answer the question.

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

 

[martybegan]

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

That doesn't answer the question.

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's up to both willing participants to be responsible and practice safe sex. The man is just as much responsible as the woman.

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

That doesn't answer the question.

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

 

[martybegan]

Agreed, but before sex both have a choice, after sex only one has a choice, and how can that be considered equality?

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

That doesn't answer the question.

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

 

[Carla_Danger]

Hey, I'm all for you getting pregnant, making the choice to keep the baby even if the woman wants you to have an abortion, then suing the woman for child support. After all, I am for equal rights.

That doesn't answer the question.

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

 

[martybegan]

That doesn't answer the question.

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It sure did answer the question. No one can force a woman to give birth against her will. Why is that so hard to get through your thick skull?

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

 

[martybegan]

Again, that isn't the question. The question is if a woman can decide not to have a kid post conception, why is the supposed father precluded from the same choice? Of course this choice has to be made in time for the woman to have an abortion, or not have one.

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

 

[quorthon]

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

That's how things go usually.

 

[Carla_Danger]

As I've already stated, at least 10 times on this thread, I'm sure most women keep in mind where their partner stands on the issue, but the final say belongs to the woman because she's the one who has to carry to term, or not carry. If the decision is to keep and raise a child, then BOTH parents owe that child support.

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

So your idea of equality would be to push someone like koshergrl into a forced abortion with the threat of not paying child support if she decides to keep and raise the child? LOL! Good luck with that.

You know, women live longer than men. I'm against that. I think men and women should be able to live as long as the other, however, I have no control over that, just as I have no control over a woman being the only gender who can carry a baby to term.

 

[martybegan]

Again, how is that "equal"?

If she wants to carry to term, and the man wants no part of it, why, if his intent is known, should he be responsible against his will?

Are you saying women need special protection from the government?

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

So your idea of equality would be to push someone like koshergrl into a forced abortion with the threat of not paying child support if she decides to keep and raise the child? LOL! Good luck with that.

You know, women live longer than men. I'm against that. I think men and women should be able to live as long as the other, however, I have no control over that, just as I have no control over a woman being the only gender who can carry a baby to term.

Or keep it and provide for it herself. The whole idea of the sexual revolution was "liberation". Why is it now that one side of the equation has to run to government for protections?

And your second paragraph has not relation to the discussion at hand, which is legal equality when it comes to choices before and after conception with regards to wanting a child or not.

 

[Carla_Danger]

It's equal because a male would be treated with the same respect to privacy if the situation were reversed. Holy Mother of Gawd.


Before birth, however, the issue takes on a very different cast. It is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the child a woman is carrying will have a far greater impact on the mother's liberty than on the father's. The effect of state regulation on a woman's protected liberty is doubly deserving of scrutiny in such a case, as the State has touched not only upon the private sphere of the family but upon the very bodily integrity of the pregnant woman. Cf. Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Dept. of Health, 497 U. S., at 281. The Court has held that "when the wife and the husband disagree on this decision, the view of only one of the two marriage partners can prevail. Inasmuch as it is the woman who physically bears the child and who is the more directly and immediately affected by the pregnancy, as between the two, the balance weighs in her favor." Danforth, supra, at 71. This conclusion rests upon the basic nature of marriage and the nature of our Constitution: "


Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

So your idea of equality would be to push someone like koshergrl into a forced abortion with the threat of not paying child support if she decides to keep and raise the child? LOL! Good luck with that.

You know, women live longer than men. I'm against that. I think men and women should be able to live as long as the other, however, I have no control over that, just as I have no control over a woman being the only gender who can carry a baby to term.

Or keep it and provide for it herself. The whole idea of the sexual revolution was "liberation". Why is it now that one side of the equation has to run to government for protections?

And your second paragraph has not relation to the discussion at hand, which is legal equality when it comes to choices before and after conception with regards to wanting a child or not.

Run it by the judge!

If a woman decides to keep and raise a baby, both parents are financially responsible. There is no going around that fact.

While the fetus is in a woman's body, she has the final say to continue the pregnancy or end it. There is no going around that.

You're going to have to argue with mother nature on the other issues.

 

[martybegan]

Actually it's not equal, and that's the whole point.

and what you are quoting deals with a couple inside of a marriage, not outside of a marriage, so it really isn't applicable.

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

So your idea of equality would be to push someone like koshergrl into a forced abortion with the threat of not paying child support if she decides to keep and raise the child? LOL! Good luck with that.

You know, women live longer than men. I'm against that. I think men and women should be able to live as long as the other, however, I have no control over that, just as I have no control over a woman being the only gender who can carry a baby to term.

Or keep it and provide for it herself. The whole idea of the sexual revolution was "liberation". Why is it now that one side of the equation has to run to government for protections?

And your second paragraph has not relation to the discussion at hand, which is legal equality when it comes to choices before and after conception with regards to wanting a child or not.

Run it by the judge!

If a woman decides to keep and raise a baby, both parents are financially responsible. There is no going around that fact.

While the fetus is in a woman's body, she has the final say to continue the pregnancy or end it. There is no going around that.

You're going to have to argue with mother nature on the other issues.

The only reason both parents are responsible when the man doesn't want the kid is because evidently women need more protection than men when it comes to the law, and more insulation from their own choices. If one wants to argue equality, one is confronted by the fact above.

A woman can have the final say on termination, but forcing the man to accept her choice by government fiat is antiquated, and assumes women need additional help from the government with regards to their choices.

 

[LittleNipper]

Any man who would tell the girl he got pregnant to get an abortion, did not love that girl, used that girl, and had absolutely not intention of ever marrying that girl. He is a creep, a coward, and a fraud.

 

[BlueGin]

A

Any man who would tell the girl he got pregnant to get an abortion, did not love that girl, used that girl, and had absolutely not intention of ever marrying that girl. He is a creep, a coward, and a fraud.

And any girl/woman that goes through with an abortion when her boyfriend doesn't want her to... Is using it as a weapon and is too immature to be sexually active in the first place.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

A

Any man who would tell the girl he got pregnant to get an abortion, did not love that girl, used that girl, and had absolutely not intention of ever marrying that girl. He is a creep, a coward, and a fraud.

And any girl/woman that goes through with an abortion when her boyfriend doesn't want her to... Is using it as a weapon and is too immature to be sexually active in the first place.

Life can be unfair, not all things are equal. Now you know.

And I know, you're mad that you don't have a womb. That would give you the same rights she has...

 

[Esmeralda]

Because women cannot give birth to wars, firefighters, or policemen. (eye roll)

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

You don't even see the simple logic in what I am saying, stupid. Let me put it to you simply:

Women already take main responsibility for birth control:that's why I say men should take equal care, which, 99% of the time, they don't.

Women are the ones who also must bear the responsibility of what happens if the birth control fails: 99% of the time, men don't.

Are you naturally stupid or do you work at it?

 

[martybegan]

Nothing to do with how you are seeing it.

The argument is men have no say, the reason is women are the only ones who get pregnant.

Well firefighters are the only ones who usually fight fires, so that means only firefighters get a say on fire funding, and other fire fighting related activities?

I think you should stop talking about lady parts, you are not qualified.

I think I can talk about whatever I want, and you can go to hell.

It's not the parts we are talking about, it's the consequences. Consequences women have power over, and men do not. If equality is your true goal, why is this acceptable?

Keep your dick in your pants and you won't have to worry about consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the woman. Get a vasectomy or abstain. It's simple.

keep your pants over your vagina, and you won't have to worry about the consequences. Don't leave birth control up to the man. Get your tubes tied or abstain. It's simple.

You don't even see the simple logic in what I am saying, stupid. Let me put it to you simply:

Women already take main responsibility for birth control:that's why I say men should take equal care, which, 99% of the time, they don't.

Women are the ones who also must bear the responsibility of what happens if the birth control fails: 99% of the time, men don't.

Are you naturally stupid or do you work at it?

Actually in my relationship I'm responsible for the birth control.

and the question isn't about mechanics or who does what, and it isn't about forcing a woman to do anything, its about both parties having choices before and after conception.

or are you saying women require special protection by the government in this case?

This has nothing to do with my intellect, and all about your side not really being for "equality".

Also go fuck yourself for being a condescending twat.

 

[Carla_Danger]

The same stands for single women since she's the one who has to carry the baby to term. It's totally applicable. The same rules apply to boyfriends/biological fathers.

The only way to get the kind of equality you desire is to figure out a way where men can carry a baby to term. Once you do that, you will have more control over the outcome of the pregnancy. And once again, I'm all for that kind of equality.

No, the way to get equality is for both sides to have an out before and after conception. If the man give notice in time for a legal abortion that he does not want a child, then the woman has the choice to keep it herself or abort it. At most the man would have to pay for the procedure.

So your idea of equality would be to push someone like koshergrl into a forced abortion with the threat of not paying child support if she decides to keep and raise the child? LOL! Good luck with that.

You know, women live longer than men. I'm against that. I think men and women should be able to live as long as the other, however, I have no control over that, just as I have no control over a woman being the only gender who can carry a baby to term.

Or keep it and provide for it herself. The whole idea of the sexual revolution was "liberation". Why is it now that one side of the equation has to run to government for protections?

And your second paragraph has not relation to the discussion at hand, which is legal equality when it comes to choices before and after conception with regards to wanting a child or not.

Run it by the judge!

If a woman decides to keep and raise a baby, both parents are financially responsible. There is no going around that fact.

While the fetus is in a woman's body, she has the final say to continue the pregnancy or end it. There is no going around that.

You're going to have to argue with mother nature on the other issues.

The only reason both parents are responsible when the man doesn't want the kid is because evidently women need more protection than men when it comes to the law, and more insulation from their own choices. If one wants to argue equality, one is confronted by the fact above.

A woman can have the final say on termination, but forcing the man to accept her choice by government fiat is antiquated, and assumes women need additional help from the government with regards to their choices.

Child support is just that....it's for the child, you boob. The mother and the father are both equally responsible in supporting a child. If a man has custody of that child, he can sue the mother for child support.