I don't believe in the right to kill babies

[Anonymous]

Finally someone agrees. Without a man, no baby

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:To 10:01 (my quote function isn't working)

We can all agree that a woman has a 50% responsibility for putting the parasite in her body and a 100% responsibility for hosting the parasite in her body. She also legally has 100% rights determining whether or not she will have the parasite removed from her body.

Although a man has 50% of the reponsibily for putting the parasite in the woman's body, he has 0% responsibility for hosting the parasite and 0% rights to determining if the parasite remains or is removed from the woman's body.

So in my opinion, if he legally has no rights to the parasite, then in the case of removing the parasite he has absolutely no responsibilities, unless he forcibly put this parasite in the woman's body (through rape or incest).

As a result, I have competely left him out of my post above. He is irrelevant to this discussion.

One can't say in one breath that a man is 50% responsible, and in the next breath that he has 0% say in what happens to the parasite.

If you think a fetus is a parasite over which the father has no input regarding its status, than the sperm donor is not worth discussing in this debate.

When you can do a uterus transplant then the man can sue for custody and gestate it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 10:01 (my quote function isn't working)

We can all agree that a woman has a 50% responsibility for putting the parasite in her body and a 100% responsibility for hosting the parasite in her body. She also legally has 100% rights determining whether or not she will have the parasite removed from her body.

Although a man has 50% of the reponsibily for putting the parasite in the woman's body, he has 0% responsibility for hosting the parasite and 0% rights to determining if the parasite remains or is removed from the woman's body.

So in my opinion, if he legally has no rights to the parasite, then in the case of removing the parasite he has absolutely no responsibilities, unless he forcibly put this parasite in the woman's body (through rape or incest).

As a result, I have competely left him out of my post above. He is irrelevant to this discussion.

One can't say in one breath that a man is 50% responsible, and in the next breath that he has 0% say in what happens to the parasite.

If you think a fetus is a parasite over which the father has no input regarding its status, than the sperm donor is not worth discussing in this debate.

When you can do a uterus transplant then the man can sue for custody and gestate it.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Finally someone agrees. Without a man, no baby

Correct : no man, no baby, but who wants to live without a man?
With birth control available to women the result is not perfection, but dramatically fewer unwanted pregnancies therefore fewer abortions.
There is one big BUT that being the pro life agenda includes shutting down women's health care facilities such as Planned Parenthood and the denial of insurance coverage, thereby denying women access to birth control.
It would be nice if the Catholic Church, the backbone of the Pro Life movement, would pay more attention to adhering to the tenets of the Bible regarding pedophiles and less attention to "spilling one's seed upon the ground"

[Anonymous]

What I am saying if I, as a woman, voluntarily engage in a behavior (in this case sex) where I have 100% of the rights and 100% of the risks, then I should be 100% responsible for protecting myself.

It is immature to say that a man should make sure I do not get pregnant when I voluntarily have sex with him

If it is my body and my choice, and the man has zero say in any outcome, then birth control is my responsibility.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:To 10:01 (my quote function isn't working)

We can all agree that a woman has a 50% responsibility for putting the parasite in her body and a 100% responsibility for hosting the parasite in her body. She also legally has 100% rights determining whether or not she will have the parasite removed from her body.

Although a man has 50% of the reponsibily for putting the parasite in the woman's body, he has 0% responsibility for hosting the parasite and 0% rights to determining if the parasite remains or is removed from the woman's body.

So in my opinion, if he legally has no rights to the parasite, then in the case of removing the parasite he has absolutely no responsibilities, unless he forcibly put this parasite in the woman's body (through rape or incest).

As a result, I have competely left him out of my post above. He is irrelevant to this discussion.

One can't say in one breath that a man is 50% responsible, and in the next breath that he has 0% say in what happens to the parasite.
If you think a fetus is a parasite over which the father has no input regarding its status, than the sperm donor is not worth discussing in this debate.

Nature made the decision about the man's role and responsibility in reproduction. The man's opportunity for "a say" is when he chooses to leave his genetic material in a vagina, or not. If he does not want to be responsible for supporting offspring, or if he wants to be sure to prevent abortion, he should absolutely ensure that he takes his sperm with him when he is done (i.e. used condom). Better yet, vasectomy, monogomy or abstinence are obvioulsy better insurance for him to avoid these pitfalls.

If he mistakenly leaves his sperm in a woman, yes he is shit out of luck. Because only she can decide whether or not to terminate. But if a child is the result of the sex act, he has to take responsibility for his role.

It's simply biology. And yes, I realize that the inequity in power here - the woman has all the say, all the control, all the power - must really piss men off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What I am saying if I, as a woman, voluntarily engage in a behavior (in this case sex) where I have 100% of the rights and 100% of the risks, then I should be 100% responsible for protecting myself.

It is immature to say that a man should make sure I do not get pregnant when I voluntarily have sex with him

If it is my body and my choice, and the man has zero say in any outcome, then birth control is my responsibility

World does not work like that
A man does not own a woman, so he cannot force her to make babies
A man is responsible for his offspring.
Many want to sow their wild seed, but not reap

Contraceptive is the responsibility of both

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I had sympathy for people like you and used to even agree with you.
But as a society we do not provide paid maternity leave, some women cannot afford to give birth, access to birth control is not a right.
Fix other issues first, then you can practice what you preach

+100000.

[Anonymous]

You don't? And I do.

Let's just agree to disagree.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You don't? And I do.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And that is how we get a country where women have a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't? And I do.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And that is how we get a country where women have a choice.

Except that with most other laws, we do not get a choice to follow it or not. We come together in a society and agree upon rules such as we do not shoot people, we do not rob people, we do not speed when we are driving, etc. And some people believe that this should follow under the same category: an agreed-upon rule that we do not take the life of unborn babies. That this should not be a subjective decision which varies from one person to another. Just as other rules in society (as I have listed above) are not subjective and not up to one's individual choice to follow them or not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't? And I do.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And that is how we get a country where women have a choice.

Except that with most other laws, we do not get a choice to follow it or not. We come together in a society and agree upon rules such as we do not shoot people, we do not rob people, we do not speed when we are driving, etc. And some people believe that this should follow under the same category: an agreed-upon rule that we do not take the life of unborn babies. That this should not be a subjective decision which varies from one person to another. Just as other rules in society (as I have listed above) are not subjective and not up to one's individual choice to follow them or not.

so we can add paid maternity leave to be a rule as well?
And as a rule we do not have a religion prohibiting womens right to have access to contraceptives?
Can we also have a woman president?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You don't? And I do.

Let's just agree to disagree.

And that is how we get a country where women have a choice.

Except that with most other laws, we do not get a choice to follow it or not. We come together in a society and agree upon rules such as we do not shoot people, we do not rob people, we do not speed when we are driving, etc. And some people believe that this should follow under the same category: an agreed-upon rule that we do not take the life of unborn babies. That this should not be a subjective decision which varies from one person to another. Just as other rules in society (as I have listed above) are not subjective and not up to one's individual choice to follow them or not.

You have forgotten our most cherished laws: the ones protecting our freedoms. We come together as a society and decide that people are entitled to certain freedoms, and so we do not imprison them for what they say or which God they worship.

It's called liberty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am saying if I, as a woman, voluntarily engage in a behavior (in this case sex) where I have 100% of the rights and 100% of the risks, then I should be 100% responsible for protecting myself.

It is immature to say that a man should make sure I do not get pregnant when I voluntarily have sex with him

If it is my body and my choice, and the man has zero say in any outcome, then birth control is my responsibility

World does not work like that
A man does not own a woman, so he cannot force her to make babies
A man is responsible for his offspring.
Many want to sow their wild seed, but not reap

Contraceptive is the responsibility of both

Yes. Biology means that woman is the one with the choice to terminate or not (or looked at another way, with the burden of deciding and the burden of enduring an abortion). But all other responsibility - to prevent conception and to support babies if prevention fails - falls on both.

[Anonymous]

I don't believe in the right to kill babies, either. Nor do I believe in the right to reinvent language to win an argument.

But I do believe in a woman's right to abort a fetus!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What I am saying if I, as a woman, voluntarily engage in a behavior (in this case sex) where I have 100% of the rights and 100% of the risks, then I should be 100% responsible for protecting myself.

It is immature to say that a man should make sure I do not get pregnant when I voluntarily have sex with him

If it is my body and my choice, and the man has zero say in any outcome, then birth control is my responsibility

World does not work like that
A man does not own a woman, so he cannot force her to make babies
A man is responsible for his offspring.
Many want to sow their wild seed, but not reap

Contraceptive is the responsibility of both

Yes. Biology means that woman is the one with the choice to terminate or not (or looked at another way, with the burden of deciding and the burden of enduring an abortion). But all other responsibility - to prevent conception and to support babies if prevention fails - falls on both.

the way you talk is weird
I do not get it.
It takes 2
both are screwed
Man cannot force girl to have baby, girl can have abortion without his permission
if the baby is born, both are responsible