by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:12 pm
by Blouman Empire » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:16 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:But it says nothing about then forcing him to be a good father or provide financial stability.
by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:16 pm
by KiloMikeAlpha » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:17 pm
by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:20 pm
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.
You can't have it both ways.
by Greed and Death » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:20 pm
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.
You can't have it both ways.
by Sdaeriji » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:22 pm
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.
You can't have it both ways.
by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:24 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.
You can't have it both ways.
The problem with abortions is that it's a zero-sum game. There's no compromising to be done. If the two parents disagree, then only one of them can get what they want and the other one gets nothing. You can't half abort a child. Giving the father "a say" such as this bill is trying to do is putting the decision entirely in his hands. This bill is allowing another person to make a medical decision for a pregnant woman, and that should offend everyone.
by Ninivarnia » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:25 pm
by San Guillermo » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:28 pm
Sdaeriji wrote:KiloMikeAlpha wrote:I say fine. Either we allow the Father a say in abortions, or allow him to be forever exempt from child support for that child.
You can't have it both ways.
The problem with abortions is that it's a zero-sum game. There's no compromising to be done. If the two parents disagree, then only one of them can get what they want and the other one gets nothing. You can't half abort a child. Giving the father "a say" such as this bill is trying to do is putting the decision entirely in his hands. This bill is allowing another person to make a medical decision for a pregnant woman, and that should offend everyone.
by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:29 pm
San Guillermo wrote:
By the way, is the guy's name really John Adams?
by The Alma Mater » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:29 pm
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:29 pm
by Vectrova » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:29 pm
by Christmahanikwanzikah » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:32 pm
by The Class A Cows » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:35 pm
by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:35 pm
by KiloMikeAlpha » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:36 pm
by SaintB » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:38 pm
by Vetalia » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:39 pm
Vectrova wrote:Absolutely friggin' not. The mother is the ultimate authority as she has the parasite growing inside of her. The man has no place whatsoever to decide what's done to it until after the parasite has plopped out.
by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:39 pm
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:What about the baby?
This debate revolves around when does life begin?
Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.
If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?
To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!
Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.
It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".
by Desperate Measures » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:41 pm
Vetalia wrote:Vectrova wrote:Absolutely friggin' not. The mother is the ultimate authority as she has the parasite growing inside of her. The man has no place whatsoever to decide what's done to it until after the parasite has plopped out.
So he basically has no rights whatsoever? Frankly, if a woman wants to carry a child to term over the protests of the father, I think the father shouldn't have to pay child support...it's only fair given the woman's right to kill it off before it's born without input. She shouldn't be permitted not only to terminate her pregnancy without input but to also ensure the father is forced to pay for the child if she decides that she wants to keep him or her.
by Phenia » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:42 pm
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!
Close your legs
take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.
by SaintB » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:42 pm
KiloMikeAlpha wrote:What about the baby?
This debate revolves around when does life begin?
Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.
If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?
To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!
Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.
It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".
by KiloMikeAlpha » Tue Jul 21, 2009 10:43 pm
Desperate Measures wrote:KiloMikeAlpha wrote:What about the baby?
This debate revolves around when does life begin?
Is abortion murder? Plan and simple.
If one murders a pregnant woman and the baby dies, is that 2 murders? If so, why isnt the abortion 1 murder?
To all of you who are for abortion... I say this.... THANK GOD YOUR MOTHER WASNT!
Close your legs, take responsibility for your actions and STOP KILLING OUR KIDS.
It seems kinda funny to me, "kill the children, save the rainforests".
Yeah. Great. I see you got some beliefs there.
How about you explain how the choice should be left to the father and not the mother?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Hidrandia, Philjia, Quincy, Spirit of Hope
Advertisement