Stupak amendment won't cover miscarriagesFollow

See, this points up a really fundamental problem with the abortion debate, and one that I truly believe will keep it from ever being fully resolved.

Pregnancy, or rather the ability to bear children, gives women a power that men can not have. There are men, and even some women, who will never be fully comfortable with that basic fact and who will react inappropriately to their discomfort with anger and resentment.

Flight and invisibility are good, too.

I'm a fan of breathing in space, myself.

I urinate while standing and manage not to wet myself every time I use a public restroom.

Sorry, BD.

So, we've decided through consensus agreement now that men are just jealous that God gave women the ability to have the babies, and anti-choicers like Virus are scared ******** that while they can knock a woman up, they can't force her to have the kid. As long as Roe vs Wade is law, they don't have the final piece of control over women they so desperately long for.

There's some evolutionary force at work here, I suspect.

VHEMT? Or some other one I don't know about and need to sign up for? Hopefully less voluntary.

In a rather stupid way, Varrus actually makes a good point here. Consider this, with regard to elective abortion only (abortion due to health risks to the mother or child is a no-brainer)

Scenario A:

Man and woman have sex, woman gets pregnant.
Woman doesn't want to bear responsibility, but man does
Woman has abortion. Man loses child he actually wanted to care for

Scenario B:

Man and woman have sex, woman gets pregnant.
Man doesn't want to bear responsibility, but woman does
Woman has baby, sues for child support. Man pays child support for 18+ years

In scenario A, the woman can choose not to bear the burden.
In scenario B, the man cannot choose not to bear the burden.

It's kind of unfair to allow a woman to opt out of responsibility for the child and disallow a man that same choice, especially when the former constitutes making the choice for both the man and the woman. The obvious solution is to ban elected abortion. Both parents must then always bear the burden of the consequences of their action.

Edited, Nov 11th 2009 2:12pm by BrownDuck

Roe won't be overturned. But if it is, then I say we women pull a Lysastrata and refuse sex until it's reinstated.

A man can sue the government over that all day long. I'm sorry to see, however, that you're so opposed to a man taking care of a child he helped create. I hope you understand one day that what you're advocating hurts the child so much more than it will punish the mother, since that's what you're looking for here. I understand the dilemma, and I'm sorry. But again, take it up with god, not us. Once you want to carry a kid to term instead of a woman, we can revisit the issue.

I'd be okay with a man opting out of responsibility for a child, assuming A) that he sign away all rights to and interest in the child; and B) there's a guarantor available to ensure that mother and child are able to live in safe housing with enough to eat. Guess what, y'all? That means the government.

Yay for government!

For the same reason a man has to pay for something he has no control over.

I'll agree to that.