Quote:
Originally Posted by dellinger63
This is true. It would also be nice if women kept track of what's cuming in to prevent a game of DNA roulette once the baby is born.
Why does an image of Rev. Jesse Jackson keep popping up in my head as I write this?
Also if I and society will be needed to support an unborn baby maybe 'we' should have some say on whether to terminate the pregnancy. 
Freedom and choice is great until someone else has to pay for it. |
If men were the ones taking on the health risks of pregnancy and child-birth (which, as I've seen, can be life-threatening), then sure, they could get a say. But men are at no risk of health complications as a result of gestating a fetus. Take it up with evolution. I can assure you, I have no opinion about treatments for the prostate. And trust me, between the health risks of pregnancy and the health risks of a prostate, men got the better end of the deal. By far.
So, you're saying, that if you don't get to have a say about abortion, you are content watching babies starve to death? I'm just trying to clarify your position about children after they are born.
For what it's worth, I'd take the GOP position on the morality of abortion more seriously if they weren't so vociferously opposed to women getting access to birth control (hi, Mike Huckabee!). But when a party's position is no birth control access and no abortion, it's pretty clear its concern is not the life of future Americans, it's about controlling the freedom of a large swath of Americans already here. Female ones.
The GOP is saying that it is appropriate for a government to force women to reproduce.