16 pts ยท February 15, 2013
5555555555555
Alright, sorry for upsetting you. I'm leaving this here, have a lovely day.
mother & child. Instead of a default scenario where the mother has to take all the burden of keeping the child or getting an abortion ALONE
Nice stawman. I'm talking about the two people responsible coming to an agreement AND the man being involved if HE CHOOSES TO SUPPORT
of unwanted pregnancies down.
I'm not suggesting they force her to have it and then disappear. But my stance is on more affordable prevention methods to bring the number
Sorry, couldn't remember the original comment. I still agree with that, if they want a say they have to be willing to support the woman.
that's all, not sure what you're talking about.
I meant the man should also be held responsible.
That was never my point but no worries.
Probably because they contributed 50% of the genetic material to make it?!?!?
Where does the funding come from? Tell me that prevention in the long run wouldn't be more cost effective than funding abortion clinics.
When you have sex, even with protection there's a risk of pregnancy. Men & women should be taking responsibility for taking those risks.
That is wrong as well but you can't just use it to silence what I have to say.
I'd say both extremes struggle with this problem.
If you want to hold them responsible, give them a voice in whether the woman goes through with the abortion or not. It's their child too.
But were taxpayers funding it?
more nonsensical than the original comment about how the thing growing inside a woman has no 'rights' because it can't ask for consent?
Abortion isn't solving any problems. It's costing tax-payers money that can be saved through prevention.
Exactly, it's about lowering the total number of unwanted pregnancies through better education & more affordable contraception.
I guess the reason is that if women can only give birth after receiving consent from their unborn child then humans would go extinct.
The woman owns her body but not the thing growing inside with it's own DNA
This is a bit ironic. Dealing with the consequences of your actions.
I don't think it's about creating a 100% solution but reducing the occurrences of unplanned pregnancy. Prevention.
The womb belongs to the womb but the thing growing inside of that womb is not her body.
Tell that to the 30 year olds still living with their parents.
I would agree with this if the woman's life is in danger. People are pretty ignorant about just how gruesome late-term abortion is.
If you end up with an unwanted pregnancy & you have the resources to avoid it, then its is an easy way to shrug off personal responsibility
Would you like to discuss? I'm not even pro-life but where I come from contraception is government subsidized.
Government subsidization. Not free but making something affordable is a good start.
If you J-walk across a busy street, you risk getting hit by a car. Same for sex. Bar the extreme cases, it's a get out of jail free card.
Alright, sorry for upsetting you. I'm leaving this here, have a lovely day.
mother & child. Instead of a default scenario where the mother has to take all the burden of keeping the child or getting an abortion ALONE
Nice stawman. I'm talking about the two people responsible coming to an agreement AND the man being involved if HE CHOOSES TO SUPPORT
of unwanted pregnancies down.
I'm not suggesting they force her to have it and then disappear. But my stance is on more affordable prevention methods to bring the number
Sorry, couldn't remember the original comment. I still agree with that, if they want a say they have to be willing to support the woman.
that's all, not sure what you're talking about.
I meant the man should also be held responsible.
That was never my point but no worries.
Probably because they contributed 50% of the genetic material to make it?!?!?
Where does the funding come from? Tell me that prevention in the long run wouldn't be more cost effective than funding abortion clinics.
When you have sex, even with protection there's a risk of pregnancy. Men & women should be taking responsibility for taking those risks.
That is wrong as well but you can't just use it to silence what I have to say.
I'd say both extremes struggle with this problem.
If you want to hold them responsible, give them a voice in whether the woman goes through with the abortion or not. It's their child too.
But were taxpayers funding it?
more nonsensical than the original comment about how the thing growing inside a woman has no 'rights' because it can't ask for consent?
Abortion isn't solving any problems. It's costing tax-payers money that can be saved through prevention.
Exactly, it's about lowering the total number of unwanted pregnancies through better education & more affordable contraception.
I guess the reason is that if women can only give birth after receiving consent from their unborn child then humans would go extinct.
The woman owns her body but not the thing growing inside with it's own DNA
This is a bit ironic. Dealing with the consequences of your actions.
I don't think it's about creating a 100% solution but reducing the occurrences of unplanned pregnancy. Prevention.
The womb belongs to the womb but the thing growing inside of that womb is not her body.
Tell that to the 30 year olds still living with their parents.
I would agree with this if the woman's life is in danger. People are pretty ignorant about just how gruesome late-term abortion is.
If you end up with an unwanted pregnancy & you have the resources to avoid it, then its is an easy way to shrug off personal responsibility
Would you like to discuss? I'm not even pro-life but where I come from contraception is government subsidized.
Government subsidization. Not free but making something affordable is a good start.
If you J-walk across a busy street, you risk getting hit by a car. Same for sex. Bar the extreme cases, it's a get out of jail free card.