Without getting into an abortion debate, this is dumb.
Reminds me of the old joke: What is the difference between a pregnant woman and a light bulb? You can unscrew a light bulb.
He should have backed out to begin with....
Without getting into an abortion debate, this is dumb.
Isn't that pretty much what child support already attempts to do?
Isn't that pretty much what child support already attempts to do?
That screenshot should be broadcast with the names and images intact. If they're so proud of being communists by belief, they shouldn't have any problem with their names being attached to it.
Does that mean everybody gets to share her assets?
If only there were some legal mechanism to force men to pay money to, ya know....provide monetary support for the child. I don't know what we'd call it, though.
That works the same way that an AR pistol is a pistol until it touches the operator's shoulder, at which point it becomes a short-barreled rifle, and subject to a $200 tax stamp, or 10 years in club fed. Likewise, it's a pistol until it has a vertical foregrip on it, at which point those same rounds that came out of a pistol before are now "rifle fire".Exactly. My questions, which is generally ridiculed and dismissed by leftists, never answered, are:
1. How is it that an unborn child is a human life when murder charges are filed after killing a pregnant woman, but abortion is legal, apparently hinging on the notion that an unborn child either is or is not a life strictly at the whim of an individual woman, which, is at best, an untenable legal position?
I'm less strict in my pro-life stance. I favor choice, because some individuals will choose life. The inescapable fact is that the potential life in that fetus both affects and is affected by the actual life of the mother-to-be. My small-L libertarian beliefs won't allow me to support governmental limitation on the rights of the known for the potential.2. Why do we hear a clamor for women being free to do as they choose with their own bodies (apparently including and especially exercising a contrived right to destroy someone else's body) but there is scarcely a voice supporting the men who have no choice in the matter, but are financially on the hook for the next couple of decades, or not, strictly on someone else's whim, when that someone else was equally responsible in creating the situation.
Some on "your side" of this subject would say she had that choice when she spread her legs.While I am strictly pro-life, if we are going to have elective abortion on demand, it should run something like this:
1. A woman gets the choice to carry or abort. In other words, she has an unfettered choice to opt out.
And they would say he had that same opportunity, when he "dipped his wick", so to speak. Personally, I agree, though. He should have the same right she has, as they are equal partners in the creation of the fetus.2. Unlike the present system in which a woman gets to make a man's decision to opt out our not for him, he should have that same right to opt out of parenthood. Specifically, he should get a one time up or down choice in which he either takes responsibility or the child is legally a complete stranger to him and never will be any more than that.
Also true. Sauce for the gander/sauce for the goose, so to speak.3. There should also be an option in the event of a woman wanting to opt out in which the man can take sole responsibility for the child and the woman becomes a legal stranger to the child.
This is one of many leftists screams for 'equality' which rests on the foundation of denying anything approaching equality to the non-preferred class of individuals involved. There is a reason why math offers us signs for known quantities in form of 'equal', 'not equal', 'less than', or 'greater than', with no room for debate (less/greater than or equal to deal with unknown quantities).
First off, if we're gonna have this discussion, we should probably split it out of this thread. If people want to do that, let me know and I'll move the posts, or any mod can do it.