That furthers the mother's ability to control the father's reproductive freedom.They pretend it is. Does't the wording make the sperm donor liable for half the abortion costs if the mother chooses to have one?
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.
That furthers the mother's ability to control the father's reproductive freedom.They pretend it is. Does't the wording make the sperm donor liable for half the abortion costs if the mother chooses to have one?
So you're saying there is no data on survivability rates for premature babies based on length of gestation over the past 50 years? Damn, I'll just delete the findings..........Wow, you’re getting data from something nonexistent! Unbelievable, I knew you didn’t do science
If they both decide to, yes. If it's just one, that one should pay. Either way, it's not on the taxpayer.Does't the wording make the sperm donor liable for half the abortion costs if the mother chooses to have one?
The viability argument falls flat for several reasons:To the useful idiots on the left, viability means being able to survive without assistance. If that is the bar set for being able to kill a human, liberals would all be dead by now.
It will never pass because it could force a father to pay for an abortion even if he claims his Super Natural deity says it's a sin.That furthers the mother's ability to control the father's reproductive freedom.
Does it?They pretend it is. Does't the wording make the sperm donor liable for half the abortion costs if the mother chooses to have one?
As it is, she's in complete control over his parenthood status. She can snuff out his fatherhood or force him to pay for a child to become an adult.It will never pass because it could force a father to pay for an abortion even if he claims his Super Natural deity says it's a sin.
I didn't read that in the wording. Half if it's for all medical expenses after conception.If they both decide to, yes. If it's just one, that one should pay. Either way, it's not on the taxpayer.
Hilarious, you finally gave me what I initially asked for!So you're saying there is no data on survivability rates for premature babies based on length of gestation over the past 50 years? Damn, I'll just delete the findings..........
Incorrect. A father could prevent the mother from aborting in that situation. If the father wants an abortion, he can pay for it. If the mother says no, he should be absolved of all financial responsibility. This only occurs if abortion remains legal, of course.It will never pass because it could force a father to pay for an abortion even if he claims his Super Natural deity says it's a sin.
Finally Give the donor rights!!It will never pass because it could force a father to pay for an abortion even if he claims his Super Natural deity says it's a sin.
ExactlyIncorrect. A father could prevent the mother from aborting in that situation. If the father wants an abortion, he can pay for it. If the mother says no, he should be absolved of all financial responsibility. This only occurs if abortion remains legal, of course.
The baby is at faultIt does sometimes seem like they believe in the lawyer fairy, who sprinkles magic lawyer dust on a new-born after the mother formally submits her agreement that she wants the baby. The dust apparently does something to the baby's DNA that turns it into a human being, and without it the baby can safely be killed violently with repercussions. What the child is before that they can't seem to explain, they're just sure it's not a human.
Hahahaha uh-huh!Hilarious, you finally gave me what I initially asked for!