Random dudes? Boned? I hope you’re a kid and not an adult talking like this. “Dudes” have the choice not to stick their dicks into “random” women who they can impregnate without a condom...they know they will be at the mercy of the woman’s decision.Thats their consequence
If men do their expected to pay the consequences women aren't. The poor little things they need special treatment, and special rights that no one else gets. You want to be seen as equal to men renounce abortion. Live with the same expectations we place on men.
It's a standard sjw tactic and it's not done in order to prove anything. It is done to attack you to make the attacker feel better about themselves.
"I heard Sweeden was going to let guys cut their parental ties during pregnancy and let the woman choose an abortion or to raise it without him." Well in sweeden guys will almost have equal rights towards unborn and unwanted childeren as women. If they don't want the child they don't have to pay/have anything to do with it. Women have the choice to stop the child being born if it is unwanted. It seems very fair to me. I find it quite hypocritical that you don't see this as fair and are discussted by it. Everyday women kill off an unborn child without even consulting the father. They don't even consider if the father wants the child to live or not. Even if he does the child can still be terminated against his will. This Its about trying giving men a fair option, they don't get to choose if they want the child to live if the mother dosent. But it gives them at least an option he they really don't want the child.
So basically what you’re saying that if a woman carries a man’s child and gives birth to it he can just walk away from his own flesh and blood. What a great deal, it’s win-win for a man.What if a man has a toddler and he walks away from that because after all he didn’t want it I can’t find anything saying Sweden is going to allow men to abandon their potential children, As a matter of fact Sweden’s parental leave for men has increased every year
The argument is that the woman could have had an abortion, so it was her choice. Not saying that I agree with it, but that's the argument. If she doesn't want to take responsibility for what's growing inside her, why should the man? Do you believe only the woman should have the choice whether or not the have the baby? So you're okay putting the man on the hook for having the sex but not the woman.
He doesn't. He's responsible for his children. So you want men to be able to force women to abort if that's what the "man" wants?
Because it’s her decision. If she has an abortion he has no Responsibility because there isn’t a child involved. But if she doesn’t have an abortion and gives birth it is half his child. Who do you think should have the final say? If I’m not mistaken you’re opposed to abortion, so if a woman is also, the father of the child should be able to ignore HIS child. So tell me how the man is put on the hook for having sex but not the woman? That makes absolutely no sense. She is the only one who is physically on the hook. How does a woman NOT take responsibility for what’s growing inside her?
Why? What for? Ya, having a man around to do all the housework, laundry, and cooking would be pleasant for pregnant women but most men shy away from being that supportive. I think it's a great idea for women to do as they please.
Why? What for? Ya, having a man around to do all the housework, laundry, and cooking would be pleasant for pregnant women but most men shy away from being that supportive. I think it's a great idea for women to do as they please. I mean what I posted, not one of your numerous weird twists on it. As usual , you cherry picked my post and didn't address a word of it....
You obviously imply things all the time, and then deny that's what you stated, even though it's obvious you were arguing for it. As if it's some stupid strategy so you can blame the other side for "putting words in your mouth". Make your argument and shut down the rebuttal by calling it a strawman, even though it's obvious to anyone it isn't, and that's what you were saying. Just play some sort of semantics game.
If there was truly nothing wrong with abortion, like many people seem to claim, then why shouldn't they? She let him in, now there's something that's part his growing inside her body. But it seems you're trying to take this off topic.
FoxHastings said: ↑ So you want men to be able to force women to abort if that's what the "man" wants? You still haven't got the fact that forcing women to do what others want is wrong..... There IS nothing wrong with abortion, , now read slowly, there is something wrong with forcing women to do things like gestate, have sex(did you know it's wrong to force women to have sex ????) , have an abortion, or anything else without their CONSENT . "CONSENT", one of those words you haven't looked up yet... Just because a man impregnates a woman does NOT mean he owns her. One of your typical comments that only deserves a big ""SO WHAT! "" …….. comments that have no meaning, ….nothing... ...and you should know, that's your favorite thing.....
Not necessarily, but I don't think the woman necessarily should. There has got to be some sort of creative compromise, that can recognize the rights of both parents.
Yes, the woman is the pregnant one so SHE has the final say. I love how Anti-Choicers scream that the "man" should have a "say" UNTIL they are asked , well, what if he says abort ? They never seem to have an answer for that BTW, the "man" is not a parent until the baby is born.... both woman and man then have the same rights concerning the child.
