Posted: Apr 08, 2014 6:40 pm
scott1328 wrote:Agrippina wrote:michael^3 wrote:surreptitious57 wrote:
Because he is both morally and legally responsible for the child till it becomes an adult
I see no reason why. If the woman is has the freedom to avoid the financial burden of a future baby (by killing it), then the father should have a similar right to renounce it. This seems utterly obvious to me.
Oh good lord do we have to go around with this one again.
1) She does not "kill a baby."
2) It is her body, the cells developing inside her body are not a person.
3) It is her body, she makes the decision about what to do with her body.
4) When the foetus has fully developed, it is born. It is then a person.
5) A foetus when born, becomes a child, with all the rights of a child.
6) These rights include the right to expect both parents to care for it.
7) At this stage of its development, the father has a responsibility.
8) At any stage prior to this, while the foetus is still not viable, and is being carried by the woman, it has nothing to do with the father.
Jesus Christ on a crutch, why does this have to be explained to every single nose-poking theist who comes along with his self-righteous bullshit about "babies" being "killed" by abortion. Get it right, a foetus is not a "baby" it only becomes one when it is able to live on its own.
Except that most jurisdictions allow a woman to give up her baby with no further obligation. This right should be afforded to a father. He should not be saddled with an unwanted child anymore than should a woman.
I'm not getting into this fight again. Been there. I'm just going to say that if men don't want to be responsible for having sex when they don't want anymore kids, they should have a vasectomy, then they don't have to worry about the babies they don't want to support. And that's all I'm going to say about this derail.