Quote:
Yeah we know Guennys a stupid wh*re. Let me know when a man can decide whether or not a woman can have a child without dealing with the financial repercussions. Liberals are all about equality until it comes to matters of true equality. If two consenting adults chose to procreate, yes that's having sex, then shoudn't both those partners have the right to terminate the result of that procreation? Mens life expectancies are already shorter than womens isn't forcing him to be financially responsible for a b*stard he never wanted the definition of inequality?
Hey, I'm a liberal, and I'm all about it. I don't think a man should be financially on the hook if he doesn't want a child either. I just haven't quite figured out how to ethically force a woman to get an abortion against her will. So you could make an argument that she just has to absolve the man of any responsibility if she wants to have the baby, I guess. The problem is that it flies in the face of the entire legal system-- a parent has no legal ability to be absolved of responsibility. The legal system is aimed (rightfully) at protecting the child's interest first, and it's difficult to make the legal argument that a child is better off without an additional financial provider.
But if you figure out some way to get men off the hook without ******** the woman or the child, I'll be right behind you.