Atheism or agnosticism?Follow

ITT, Varus supports limitation of personal freedoms, forced sterilization, big government, AND stealing children.

Nifty!

Vaguely related.

You can turn in your man card at the nearest distributor.

Playah?

And that's irrelevant to the point I'm making though. I'm talking about the resulting rates of women raising children on their own. If we're to buy the argument that abortion is about allowing women the freedom to avoid that state, then why are those numbers going up?

You forgot the pretend Christians.

Which one are you?

Unless I'm missing something, you're not saying what you mean to say with those facts. 40% of children born today are to single women. Abortion was not used in these cases. Your statistic would be better used only toward making an argument against, say, the assistance now given to unwed mothers making more of them able to raise children. Or the higher wages of single mothers to sustain having a child. Potentially the issues of having single pregnancies glorified in popular media. Even the lessening of social stigmas against pre-marital sex. But saying that women think "Oh, I can just have an abortion, NO WAIT! I want the baby now!" is... a jump.

Basically I'm seeing no causation here, just a correlation. You cannot in good faith say how large a contribution "ease of abortion" is contributing to "single mothers having kids." If anything, it seems logically unrelated... because the "ease of abortion" obviously did not decrease the number of children born to unwed mothers.

Edit: If you meant pregnancies, then it's a whole different ballgame. But you specifically said "children born today"... which makes me think you either stuck up a strawman, or didn't actually read your statistic.

Edited, May 3rd 2011 4:58pm by LockeColeMA

So, when you read " Give women TOTAL FREEDOM AND RESPONSIBILITY for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired. ", you interpreted that as " the man should have a say, and that if his views are not agreed upon he should be able to wash his hands of the child completely.!"

Interesting... Thank you for proving to us all that you're an idiot.



1. Money != father.. I'm sorry you feel that way..
2. He's in the military, the women are in the military. He has no choice, it is automatically deducted from his pay check. If he had it his way, he wouldn't pay anything.

3. He doesn't care about his children, at least his newest one, that makes him a dead beat dad...

4. In any case, I gave you hypothetical situations of husbands/fathers getting their mistresses pregnant. Do you believe that they want them to carry the pregnancy or have an abortion and pretend that nothing happened?

Give it up, you're wrong.



I already argued that the scenario of a man not paying is retarded, hence why I defaulted to scenario two.

So answer the question, if you have to receive governmental assistance to care for your child, then what's the problem?



So basically you're just making stuff up just like you did about your claim that health reasons are the prime reasons for abortion..... yeaa. man.. No wonder you're such a "science genius"....