Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Heart wrenching. Give me a break. It's the woman that carries the fetus to term she is the one that goes through all of that while the man dances off doing whatever it is he does. Then he wamts to moan that it is sexist. Well excuse me for not feeling sorry for the man. If he wanted a chold he shold have asked. He he didn't want the woamn he shold have worn a condem. Just what i like to hear a woman is sexist while a man sits and wallows about the loss of a fetus. I'll get out my violin.
if he uses a rubber and it doesn't break, then absolutely, he shouldn't and WON'T be held accountable....cuz the kid won't be his! this is how he can hold himself responsible....Not our fault. If the decisions rests solely on the woman, than the man should not have any responsibility unless he chooses to. Of course, then you get into the sociology debate of fatherless societies and all that. I am sure that is a much better way to go.
To all men that think they have a say-so on what females do with THEIR bodies, can go to HELL........ women are not cattle, sorry it is the law, all women have free agency over their own bodies.... NO UTERUS = NO OPINION
if he uses a rubber and it doesn't break, then absolutely, he shouldn't and WON'T be held accountable....cuz the kid won't be his! this is how he can hold himself responsible....
If a man has unprotected sex that results in a baby, after the sex is over the man has no rights to the kid until, the kid is born (out of the women's body) then he can pay support, or get married............... prettty simple...........
If a man has unprotected sex that results in a baby, after the sex is over the man has no rights to the kid until, the kid is born (out of the women's body) then he can pay support, or get married............... prettty simple...........
What if they had protected sex which failed?
Happens, you know.
Abortion is murder and should never be a choice for a woman to make.
I agree with you and I think this is the saddest part of the freedom of choice dilemma...our society condones and subsidizes abortion, which leads young girls, and women, to believe that it is not wrong to have an abortion. One of the most horrible things that can happen to a woman is to get an abortion, or worse, multiple abortions, while young, thinking "it's legal so I'm not doing anything wrong" and then come to the realization, years later, that each of those abortions represented a real, living, wonderful child started in the exact same way as her living children (if she is blessed with living children). Even worse is the realization (for those who believe) that those children will not be in heaven because they did not have the opportunity to accept Christ, and that according to the Bible special punishment will be meted out to those who kill the innocent. I believe, myself, that "the innocent" is referring to children, and quite possibly, unborn children.
I feel nothing but sadness for the women today who are told by pro-choice propogandists that because a child is growing in their body, it is theirs to do with as they will, including murdering it. Parents do have the right to raise their children as they see fit....but they do not have the right to kill them. Even if that child starts in your body, it is not your body, it is a separate entity, and you have no more right to kill it than you do to kill the child of another who is in your protection.
But let me ask you this Allie...
Why, during a period in which the British were very religious, was abortion not against the law under Common Law, until it was TO the point of Quickening, (when the baby can be felt kicking or out of the embryo stage but in to the Fetus stage...around 12 weeks and past)?
Even in the united states, until the mid to late 1800's we folowed the same Common Law in the united states....where abortion was permitted by all women up to the point of quickening?
Only when a fundamentalist/evangelical movement of a FEW got legs did abortion become a topic of interest...and banning it altogether.
Women aborted back then, via Pharmacuiticals they got...chemical abortions so to say....
for hundreds of years in the old and new countries, common law was followed and early abortions were not against the law....and these people were highly religious...most of the women aborting were married at the time, usually with alot of children.
----------------------------------------------------
ON another NOTE, you do realize that it was a republican movement that started family planning for the sole purpose of eliminated the poor and black's children....? It was a pandora's box, once it was opened for the gvt to do this race and poor elimination...it opened the door, to what you see as, (for some reason), a liberal move, today.
It's not just her body. There are two bodies.
It's not just her body. There are two bodies.
But let me ask you this Allie...
Why, during a period in which the British were very religious, was abortion not against the law under Common Law, until it was TO the point of Quickening, (when the baby can be felt kicking or out of the embryo stage but in to the Fetus stage...around 12 weeks and past)?
Even in the united states, until the mid to late 1800's we folowed the same Common Law in the united states....where abortion was permitted by all women up to the point of quickening?
Only when a fundamentalist/evangelical movement of a FEW got legs did abortion become a topic of interest...and banning it altogether.
Women aborted back then, via Pharmacuiticals they got...chemical abortions so to say....
for hundreds of years in the old and new countries, common law was followed and early abortions were not against the law....and these people were highly religious...most of the women aborting were married at the time, usually with alot of children.
----------------------------------------------------
ON another NOTE, you do realize that it was a republican movement that started family planning for the sole purpose of eliminated the poor and black's children....? It was a pandora's box, once it was opened for the gvt to do this race and poor elimination...it opened the door, to what you see as, (for some reason), a liberal move, today.
In what way can a man destroy his organs through an abortion, or be physically effected by child birth...he can't...
While I agree with your logic, it was also legal for hundreds of years for women to be burned at the stake under suspicion of being a witch. Or crushed with stones for that matter.
