Belkira wrote:
No, I'm not wrong.
That was easy!
And you do understand that the amount of work is pretty much tied to the welfare of the child... right?
Except it isn't. Some children may need more attention then others.
So your argument is that a mother with two kids is a more responsible mother than a mother of one child, because she has to do more work? She might have more responsibility to attend, but that doesn't make her any more responsible as a person.
Belkira wrote:
Of course it does. It's ridiculous that you can't see how. Not really surprising, though. You are sort of dim.
Please explain, because I already have counter ready.
Belkira wrote:
I don't like women and children because I think a woman should have control over her body, and children should be taken care of...? And you're the guy insinuating that a woman should have to bear a child if the couple aren't in agreement that an abortion is their choice, and if the woman wants the kid and the father doesn't, the kid is sh*t out of luck...? Or maybe you're saying that if a man doesn't want the kid, the woman should abort it, or suffer the consequences. That's another take on your little "two options, take'em or leave'em" argument.
Do you know how to read English? I'm not trying to be rude, but there is absolutely no excuse for you still not to understand my two options...
Belkira wrote:
True. The woman should, of course, listen to what the man tells her to do with her body. Either have the kid the man wants, or get rid of it so he doesn't have to be burdened with a monthly payment for the kid to eat. Man, I see the light now, Alma! /sarcasm off
Read above.. Who are you arguing with? I've never stated that...
Belkira wrote:
More emotion. Pathetic, really.
Only to match your "waaaahhhh a man shouldn't leave a child to the mother".. which was the point...but nice try anyway..
Belkira wrote:
Like I said, it sucks, but that's the way it is. Suck it up. Put on your big boy pants and live in the real world.
Oh, there's that emotion again. Funny how when I said the laws of marriage are equal but not fair, you complain. Yet when I argue that the current laws of children responsibilities aren't equal or fair, you say "suck it up and live in the real world"... biased a little?
Belkira wrote:
What sort of welfare do you think a kid's doing to have in a household where the parents don't want it, genius? My feelings are first and foremost for the woman, because she's the one who's body is being hijacked. Once the decision is made to keep that kid, though, the welfare of the baby becomes the primary focus.
Sorry the world isn't black and white for you, sweetcakes.
No, I'm just glad that you finally admit it's about you (or the woman) and not the child. If there isn't any reason other than "I don't wanna" and you still support the abortion, it isn't about the welfare of the child. So, you can't act like it's the most important thing in the world when it's born when you didn't give two sh!&ts if it were dead or alive a few weeks ago.
Belkira wrote:
Oh no, friend. I don't think so. You want to find it, go look for it.
I can't find anything that doesn't exist.
Belkira wrote:
You're talking about abortion. That's about as far AFTER sex as it gets.
Evidence of you not reading. I not only quoted it for you, but bold it for you and you STILL don't see it?
Belkira wrote:
No expansion necessary. It's not like buying a video game. A woman ends up pregnant and it's a life changing decision to carry to term or terminate the pregnancy. There's no returns, no store credits. Either way, her life is changed forever. Simply "not wanting it" is a perfectly acceptable reason to terminate a pregnancy.
Now, don't pretend this translates to me saying, "Abortion is a WONDERFUL form of birth control!!" because I don't think it should be used that way. I think that's terrible, and really, it's not used that way. But I really have no right to tell a woman not to use her body that way. That's her decision, not mine. It's not one I would make for myself, but then, neither is piercing my labia or tattoing a guy's name on my body. If they want to do those things, that's their business.
Ok, I just wanted to make sure that I was right about your failing at life. I'm not trying to "strip" away the right to abortion, but simply "I don't wanna" with no other reason or logic is a terrible excuse. So what if your significant other quits his job because "he doesn't like his job" while you're at home caring for the child? He then says "I don't wanna work" Forcing me to work is "slavery". Really? You know how many people hate their jobs but do it to support their families?
It's not a direct comparison in scenarios, but the concept of not doing something simply based on " I don't wanna" is the same
Belkira wrote:
Look at scenario two, dimwit. How do you think that plays out?? Pretty much what it comes down to is this:
Option one, a woman can decide to have an abortion, or the man can take the opportunity to leave the child unsupported, or she can be forced to have an abortion because she can't support a kid on her own.
Option two, both the man and the woman have to mutually decide that an abortion is right for them, or the woman is forced to carry to term.
That's how EVERYONE reads your sh*t options, Alma. And I honestly see no other way to read them. You have yet to address what should happen if the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't.
Your failure to read isn't my fault.... I'll try again /sigh
My two scenarios are the only situations that I can think of where the responsibility is as fair as you can get make it. If you know any other scenarios, please feel free to comment.
Scenario one: The woman has total rights over the outcome of any given pregnancy and the man is completely left out of the picture, to include any financial support.
Scenario two: The man and the woman have to go with the pregnancy and support the child by default and abortions will only be granted on a case by case scenario to include scenarios such as rape, health issues, proven poverty that can't be overcome, etc.
Is it clear now?
