posted on July 24, 2001 03:13:51 PM new
Sadie999, in the midst of disagreeing with me, and claiming I missed your point, you said,
I agree with the poster who said that women get saddled with the child, and so unfair or not, should be more careful.
Maybe you need new glasses. That poster was me:
"But the fact is, the woman, not the man, gets saddled with the child in an unwanted pregnancy. That is why women should be more careful."
But even though you seem to agree with that, by your post above you still indicate that in your opinion, it is the man's responsibility to use birth control. Practically speaking, that's reckless. And not the kind of reasoning anyone would use who didn't have the easy option of abortion to fall back on.
Okay, so put moral considerations aside. The man should use birth control. Fine. That's the man's responsibility. And once the baby is born, the man must support the child financially. Fine. That's the law, isn't it? So, at every step of the way, the man is equally responsible for the child. EXCEPT when it comes to deciding the issue of whether the child will live or die. Then the man has no say whatsoever. Why? Because it's "my body, my choice!" Cut through all the political misdirection and it's a simple case of women refusing to take responsibility.
How would you react if a baby were born, and the father said, "I don't want it, there are too many babies in the world already, I won't support it." Of course, you'd be outraged. You'd call the father an irresponsible deadbeat. (In fact, you've already labelled any father who has a concern for his child as "arrogant" and "immature," so as Barry pointed out, you've damned Mankind either way.) But what is the difference between that deadbeat dad, and a woman who arbitrarily decides to terminate a pregnancy, simple because it's inconvenient for her? Hey, NEWS FLASH! That has been known to happen in some galaxies, sweetie.
