I must disagree. The fact that men do not get pregnant doesn't mean they are not impacted by abortion. Millions of men have wanted to keep their children but had no power to try to do so if the mother didn't share that desire. Millions more have been the ones wanting abortions to take place, but been bound by law to pay child support if the mother wanted to keep the baby. The notion that men should mind their own business because abortion has nothing to do with them is a naive one.
I posted about a proposed revision of law to take such things into account, and was asked why I hated women so much. Apparently people thought that anything which would give men any say at all (in the case I gave, allowing men to stop an abortion only if no health complications were present, with the understanding he would assume full responsibility and care of the child) would lead to mass suicides among women, who would be too distraught to deal with childbirth. Made me wonder why they thought those suicides didn't occur in droves prior to Roe vs Wade.
Yadda yadda yadda...
More freedom and less government achieved by more legislation that resricts free choice.
Next you guys will want an amendment resticting marriage benefits based on sexual preferences.
And mandating unneeded ultrasounds to run up healthcare costs...
If you dont like abortion, then opt out of sex with women.
I'm about as liberal as they come on a great many issues, but I agree with Traviis here. First off, the argument works both ways, if women don't want to get pregnant, they can opt out of sex with men.
Second, I feel that giving the woman 100% unfettered choice over abortion is a mistake. The reasons why women have the choice are because of the ways it can materially affect them. What if there is a danger to her health from the pregnancy? What if it is rape or incest? What if the father leaves and she doesn't want to take up the burden alone? She has the choice because of said possibilities. But I have to ask, what if none of the above apply?
One of the reasons why we have laws restricting and defining consent to sex is because we want to make sure that people are cognizant of what they are getting into, and they are willing participants? There are many consequences and complications that can occur from sexual relationships, and they want to make sure those who choose to have sex can handle them. Why then, does one gender get a free pass out of the most common consequence? The way the law is set up is inherently unfair, making it so the balance of power in the relationship is not truly equal.
In light of the sweater vests alone...I can't imagine there's much of anything hardcore in that household.
:lmao: