Ok ape-brained, thanks for proving my point. The man is burdened with all the costs of raising the child and has no say in its existence or death as a fetus. Nobody cares about the much much smaller pregnancy costs.
Once the baby is born you have full, equal rights!
Men are only burdened with half the costs of raising the child.
If you want more rights over the fetus, I suggest taking on more of the burden and risk. How very trans-accepting of you!
It’s pretty funny how smug you sound calling me “trans-accepting” thinking it would offend me. Shows what a clueless generalizing bubble dweller you are.
By definition if you support abortion you cannot be devout. I’m guessing you still consider Biden a devout Catholic though so it shows you don’t know what you are talking about.
In regard to your other post where you say that we shouldn’t discourage sex in order to decrease abortions, how can you in anyway come to that conclusion? You do know how babies are made right?
Unitarians, Episcopalians, Jews, and Muslims don’t count as devout?
I think I just hurt my eyes rolling them so hard. We both know you didn’t mean any of those groups.
Of course, duh, one can sue for negligence and win while the other can not, understandably.
Who is the first person suing? It was raining, they slipped on a public street. The local government can’t be held liable because rain made the sidewalk wet.
The person running track knew the risk of getting injured, and that it was an unnecessary one, whereas the person walking to work needs to go to work.
No you are wrong coz I already decided that the appropriate comparison scenario was one where, in addition to the rain, there was ice on someone’s pavement because they were negligent in cleaning it. You didn’t specify that that icy rain scenario was off limits in the discussion.
Who is the first person suing? It was raining, they slipped on a public street. The local government can’t be held liable because rain made the sidewalk wet.
The person running track knew the risk of getting injured, and that it was an unnecessary one, whereas the person walking to work needs to go to work.
No you are wrong coz I already decided that the appropriate comparison scenario was one where, in addition to the rain, there was ice on someone’s pavement because they were negligent in cleaning it. You didn’t specify that that icy rain scenario was off limits in the discussion.
It’s my hypothetical scenario.
But I understand that you’re not interested in the comparison.
Once the baby is born you have full, equal rights!
Men are only burdened with half the costs of raising the child.
If you want more rights over the fetus, I suggest taking on more of the burden and risk. How very trans-accepting of you!
It’s pretty funny how smug you sound calling me “trans-accepting” thinking it would offend me. Shows what a clueless generalizing bubble dweller you are.
Not really a leap to think that the kid who thinks mothers dying in childbirth is natural and thus acceptable has issues being called "trans-accepting." But go for it, enlighten us Mr. High IQ (but low EQ).
No you are wrong coz I already decided that the appropriate comparison scenario was one where, in addition to the rain, there was ice on someone’s pavement because they were negligent in cleaning it. You didn’t specify that that icy rain scenario was off limits in the discussion.
It’s my hypothetical scenario.
But I understand that you’re not interested in the comparison.
Dude, you need a person analogous to the rapist, otherwise the analogy makes no sense. That would be the negligent homeowner in my scenario.
Otherwise your rhetorical question is just another one of your menstrual zygote search expeditions, a weak attempt at whataboutism that goes nowhere and that nobody understands why you are even bringing it up.
Men like you maybe who just like to virtue signal but don’t have the backbone to support their women and children.
Wrong. In society in general men do not put equal work in to support their children. That is a fact.
But in this ideal world they would, therefore we must legislate based on this ideal world. Even if such legislation cause real harm to women, but ideally it wouldn't. Thus, as you see, I am ideologically pure and you cannot argue!
It’s pretty funny how smug you sound calling me “trans-accepting” thinking it would offend me. Shows what a clueless generalizing bubble dweller you are.
Not really a leap to think that the kid who thinks mothers dying in childbirth is natural and thus acceptable has issues being called "trans-accepting." But go for it, enlighten us Mr. High IQ (but low EQ).
But I understand that you’re not interested in the comparison.
Dude, you need a person analogous to the rapist, otherwise the analogy makes no sense. That would be the negligent homeowner in my scenario.
Otherwise your rhetorical question is just another one of your menstrual zygote search expeditions, a weak attempt at whataboutism that goes nowhere and that nobody understands why you are even bringing it up.
I considered that. You could say that someone needs an ACL repair after being assaulted. Are they more deserving of that compared to someone who needs to from playing football? If Delaware banned ACL repair surgery with exceptions only if the injury were caused by assault, would that be just?
Once the baby is born you have full, equal rights!
Men are only burdened with half the costs of raising the child.
If you want more rights over the fetus, I suggest taking on more of the burden and risk. How very trans-accepting of you!
Good, your ape ass finally got it. The man has unequal rights over the fetus despite already being committed with certainty to sharing the cost of raising it.
Yes, once the baby is born you have full rights. Before then, you have no obligations and no rights. Quite simple.
Dude, you need a person analogous to the rapist, otherwise the analogy makes no sense. That would be the negligent homeowner in my scenario.
Otherwise your rhetorical question is just another one of your menstrual zygote search expeditions, a weak attempt at whataboutism that goes nowhere and that nobody understands why you are even bringing it up.
I considered that. You could say that someone needs an ACL repair after being assaulted. Are they more deserving of that compared to someone who needs to from playing football? If Delaware banned ACL repair surgery with exceptions only if the injury were caused by assault, would that be just?
Sigh, ACL repair has no element of taking a life, at least as felt by a nontrivial portion of the population, so it makes no sense to ban it. An analogy can only be stretched so far before it becomes a zygote search expedition in the sea of Menses.
Not really a leap to think that the kid who thinks mothers dying in childbirth is natural and thus acceptable has issues being called "trans-accepting." But go for it, enlighten us Mr. High IQ (but low EQ).
Your leap of logic is exposing your low IQ.
Still waiting for you to enlighten us with your views. Don't let me down!
It’s pretty funny how smug you sound calling me “trans-accepting” thinking it would offend me. Shows what a clueless generalizing bubble dweller you are.
Not really a leap to think that the kid who thinks mothers dying in childbirth is natural and thus acceptable has issues being called "trans-accepting." But go for it, enlighten us Mr. High IQ (but low EQ).
Bluh quite obviously has issues being called 'trans-accepting' considering he made a whole post telling us how not owned he is. A sure sign of being, in fact, owned..
Good, your ape ass finally got it. The man has unequal rights over the fetus despite already being committed with certainty to sharing the cost of raising it.
Yes, once the baby is born you have full rights. Before then, you have no obligations and no rights. Quite simple.
Ok then sign a contract handing over a million dollars to me next year. You have no obligation until year. Next year, you will also be forced with some rights whether you want it or not.
Yes, once the baby is born you have full rights. Before then, you have no obligations and no rights. Quite simple.
Ok then sign a contract handing over a million dollars to me next year. You have no obligation until year. Next year, you will also be forced with some rights whether you want it or not.
Something tells me you aren't too good with the word 'no.' Icky.
Yeah I don't think you know much about Mississippi. Many people can't just hop in a car that don't have. Poor is poor.
I’m familiar with the rural delta area. My point being that Mississippi has only had 1 abortion clinic for 3-4 years. What have people been doing for abortions? Surely some were already driving out of state if they were closer to a state line with more clinics.
I also think you skimmed over my part about abortion activist groups are already promising to help fun travel for people who want an abortion. Companies are stating they will pay up to $4k for their employees to travel for an abortion.
If you’re truly dead set on getting an abortion, you can get one.
Poor people don't work for those companies. Your right that if one is truly dead set on getting an abortion they will use a coat hanger for those that are poor.
