Silence,
I used the same analogy. I can't speak for the other person, but, for myself it is not making a political statement on abortion. It was used to demonstrate how bizarre our society can go to justify things. In other words how ridiculously sick this man is.
Though I personally do not agree with abortion,........I feel it's not my right to tell another what to do in such a personal matter and I cannot draw a direct comparison between a abortion and what this man did.
I think my point was quite clear, as long as the child is in the womb, the only person who makes the determination that it's a child or fetus is the mother. I believe that is inherently unfair to father's out there. How about we allow the father, the same outs as the mother, right up until the child is born he can choose to either be the father or not to be the father. If he chooses to be the father he gets all the rights and responsibilities including childsupport, if he chooses not to, he gets nothing.
Why is it only the mother who has the right to decide to be a mother or not after conception?
Of course, I've known too many mother's that use their kids as a means to get money from fathers and don't give two hoots for the dad at all, or the kids for that matter. Had one of them say to me, "He's a jerk, why would I marry him?" to which I replied "He's a jerk, why would you have a kid by him?" Surprisingly, no answer.
The guy who killed his child is a jerk, but would the child still be alive if he'd had the same rights as the mother? Hmm? Maybe she would have aborted the kid if she knew the father could get custody instead of her.
There are flaws in our system and they need to be addressed. If you can kill a kid right up to the 9th month and not be charged with anything simply because you are the mother, then why can't you kill the kid the day after it's born?
The line is too fuzzy for me.