First, it can be, you just don't want it to be. Responsibility != the amount of effort/work done.
Then what does responsibility equal...? How are you measuring it, exactly? I only want to know so I can laugh at you.
Second, that's the whole argument. If a woman wants to have total control of the outcome of the fetus/baby/cells/whatever you want to call it, then fine, leave the guy out of it.
The woman wants to have total control over her body. I think that's more than reasonable. A man shouldn't have any control over her body. Period.
If a woman wants to have total control of the outcome of the fetus/baby/cells/whatever you want to call it, then fine, leave the guy out of it. If you want to force a man to take care of something that he might not want, then you should be forced to take care of something that you might not want.
As you're so fond of saying, "see above."
False. I've told you numerous times already that the irresponsibility that I'm referring to is on both people for having unprotected ***, so at this point, you're just making stuff up.
Sure. Except the woman has to be punished in the process. Nooo, you don't dislike women... /rolleyes
I'm talking about responsibility. Once again, responsibility != the amount of effort/work done.
A single mother of 4 children( of various ages) may have to do way more work than a woman with a husband and one 17 year old child, but that doesn't mean she is being any more responsible.
Again. Let me know what you consider acting responsibly. Because, to me, having an abortion is a responsible decision. As is deciding to have the child and only making the father, who is equally to blame for the issue, pay a fee to support his portion of the mistake. An incredibly small price to pay when considered on the whole.
Because that's exactly what you're doing to me. My entire argument is on equality of responsibility, which starts before ***. All of your counters deal with a pregnant woman having the "right" to do x,y and z. I'm proposing a solution that is already placing the responsibility BEFORE the woman or the man even decides to have ***, not AFTER the woman realizes that she is pregnant.
No, you're not. You're proposing that a woman be forced to carry a child to term for three quarters of a year if a man wants her to. Proposing something that places responsibility before anyone decides to have *** would be something along the lines of mandatory birth control, mandatory sterilization, or something along those lines. Your "options," which are simplistic to the point of idiocy, only deal with what happens afterward. Nice try, though.
What do you mean? You mean like supporting single mothers? Yeah, you're simply making false connections that aren't there.
No, like suggesting that a woman should be forced to carry a child she doesn't want and then the child should suffer if the mother can't support it simply because a man has deemed it should be so. Edited, May 2nd 2011 1:11pm by Belkira