Well I'm sorry that you feel that way, but you're wrong.A man can be a stay at home dad and not be responsible at all. This is what I'm trying to get you to understand, the end result is the welfare of the child, the amount of work you might have to do is admirable (as you stated) but it doesn't make you any more responsible than the next person.
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?
Just because you have more children than another family, doesn't make you more responsible. It's sad that you think otherwise.
Of course it does. It's ridiculous that you can't see how. Not really surprising, though. You are sort of dim.
I presented you two options, you lean towards the one that I already stated as being idiotic. I think you're the one that don't like women and children.
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.
The kid only would only suffer if the woman makes that choice.
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
You can't kill a child
More emotion. Pathetic, really.
... and say that a man has no say in the matter, then turn around and try to throw in the child's well being in a man's face when you want to keep it. That's beyond idiotic and hypocritical.
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.
If you support a woman making a decision to cease the development of a child in a perfectly stable situation (i.e., wealth, health, etc.), then you don't care about the welfare of the baby. PERIOD. So stop pretending that it's all about the baby when a man doesn't want to pay. Your main concern is the ability for a woman to decide to have an abortion or not, not the welfare of the child.
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.
You can disagree, it doesn't make you right.
You believing it's so doesn't make you right, either. Na na na na boo boo to you, too.
Where was this?
Oh no, friend. I don't think so. You want to find it, go look for it.
I'm not sure what argument you're in, but my entire argument stated this.
Almalieque on page 6 wrote:
Anyways, as I'm sure you're at least slightly interested, my argument against abortion has nothing to do with the murder of innocent children. My argument is based on the belief that the responsibility of a child should be predetermined with exceptions on a case by case scenario.
I've been arguing that from the beginning, so I'm not sure what nonsense you made up, but it's wrong.
You're talking about abortion.
That's about as far AFTER *** as it gets.
So simply "I don't want it" is considered a "responsible course of action"? Really? I'll give you a chance to expand on that, because that is a horrible and idiotic thing to say.
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 ***** or tattoing a guy's name on my body. If they want to do those things, that's their business.
Are you even reading my posts? WTFRU getting this crap from. PLEASE quote me where you inferred this.
[quote=Almalieque's first reference on page 6]Either 1 of the 2 things should happen IMO.
1) Give women total freedom and responsibility for children, defaulting men the opportunity to support if desired.
2) Make both men and women equally responsible, only allowing abortions on a case by case scenario.
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. Edited, May 2nd 2011 7:24pm by Belkira Edited, May 2nd 2011 7:26pm by Belkira