Theresa May, Brexit and the like

[Chippy]

You support babies being aborted right into the 9th month?.

[Volourn]

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be   supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women  suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense.  Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because  the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where  it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena  couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN  the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women  suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans  carry on to the next generation.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Volourn

[Zoraptor]

I'm somewhat fuzzy on this I'll admit, but I half recall that there needed to be a parliamentary motion for the referendum to happen. So in a sense, wouldn't that have been the act of parliament for the results of that referendum to be valid if they needed one to hold it?

 

The ruling was that since it took an Act of Parliament to go into the EU you cannot use Royal Prerogative to leave since only Parliament can alter laws generated by Parliament; while RP can be used to make/ break treaties which is what HM'sG position is. I don't think they really thought through what would happen legislatively if 'leave' won as basically no one except Mark Carney seemed to have planned anything for that contingency and it was meant to be a rubber stamp.

[HoonDing]

"How about the babies' rights?"

 

they have the right to be ripped from the womb

[Chippy]

Hmm.

Edited November 4, 2016 by Chippy

[Hurlshort]

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where  it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena  couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN  the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

 

This is a very empathetic and eloquent argument, Volo.  Well done.  

[Chippy]

Hillary Clinton will want planned parenthood and extreme abortion laws implemented so she can get those baby parts to cure whatever brain disease she's got, support the companies that have invested in it, and to rebuild Bill Clinton's **** after a lifetime of abuse so he can continue his merry lifestyle.

 

So there's a tin foil hat wearing theory, but essentially the problem I have with taking such things as third wave feminism at face value.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

 

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where  it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena  couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN  the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

 

This is a very empathetic and eloquent argument, Volo.  Well done.  

 

 

Too bad it's used as the intellectual equivalent of a cudgel to bludgeon the people he disagrees with, but hey, baby steps!

[Ben No.3]

Everyone is like that. Nobody truly believes in real freedom. It is all pretend.

Funny enough, I agree. Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Not my words, Rousseaus. But I agree with his message.

 

But then again, it is impossible to have absolute freedom. Let's say hypothetically you have a society with perfect freedom. Then that society can not have religion, philosophy, science, politics, law.... That society can not think, because every thought is already a restraint of absolute freedom because you decide to go one way rather than the other, limiting yourself to the chosen way.

 

So, your idea of absolute freedom is only archievable if we give up the one thing that (in my opinion) makes the difference between existence and life: The ability to think.

[Ben No.3]

 

WOD many laws need to evolve and adapt to the social conditions of the time ....or they become redundant and criticized

If laws "evolve" they need to "evolve" by people voting, not on the whim of tyrannical judges.

 

 

Maybe the right should stop trying to step in the way of personal freedoms, that way they would stop losing court cases.

 

The right does the exact same thing with guns and religious freedoms, btw. Hobby Lobby is apparently a person, now.

May be you should try winning an election for a change, since people like you claim that that stuff is so popular. Guns and religious freedom are both in the Constitution, abortion and gay marriage are not. Hobby Lobby may not be a person, but its owners are.

I know this is the Declaration of Independence, but it says "we hold these following truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal, that they have been endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that amongst those are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."

 

So, definitely gay marriage and arguably also abortion (I'd say it is so, but you might disagree) fall under the "pursuit of happiness" part, wouldn't you agree?

 

Religious freedom is great.

 

Guns are not.

 

 

Also, you realise judges can not MAKE laws?

Edited November 4, 2016 by Ben No.3

[Ben No.3]

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense. Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans carry on to the next generation.

Look, another thing we agree on: let's forget religion.

 

Look, a whole bunch of things we disagree on.

 

By prohibiting abortion you will disable victims of rape to abort they're child.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable poor women who did not intend to get pregnant from aborting the child. That woman may not be able to afford her own life, needless to say that of a child's. So, rather than saving one life by prohibiting abortion, you are ruining two lifes: that of the mother who needs to witness her child growing up in agony, and the child who grows up in agony itself.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable women who carry children with a major genetic disorder firm aborting the child.

 

So, what kind of existence are you saving? You may save a exitence, but you destroy potentially two, three, four or however big a family may be lifes. And one of those destroyed lifes, and in some cases the most destroyed life, is the one you were so keen on saving.

[Oerwinde]

 

 

 

 

 

It's been going on in US for decades. Whenever left loses in voting they just run to the courts and get their way anyway.

Examples?

Major examples would be abortion, gay marriage, immigration enforcement and voter id's.

I do not know enough about most issues to comment on them, but the right to abort and gay marriage sound pretty good to me, wouldn't you agree?

That depends on your views. The right generally sees abortion as murdering babies. The left doesn't see babies as human until they are born so see it as a womens health thing. So the courts enforcing a woman's right to murder babies doesn't sound like something super cool.

 

I'm pro choice, to a certain degree, but I can understand the other side.

 

Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies

 

Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be   supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women  suffer emotionally much worse than most men

 

 

Abortion is a very complicated issue. As a father, I disagree it is solely a woman's choice. I think it is abhorrent to say that a father has no say on whether or not his child lives or dies, as long as the coupling was consentual. I understand that to pro-life people it isn't about the woman's body, it is about the child's life. Despite militant leftists saying its just about men wanting to control women. That said, a woman raped absolutely should have the choice, instances of incest the same. As for a cutoff point, I would argue if the baby could survive  outside the womb, than an abortion is murder.

[Azdeus]

Abortion is a very complicated issue. As a father, I disagree it is solely a woman's choice. I think it is abhorrent to say that a father has no say on whether or not his child lives or dies, as long as the coupling was consentual. I understand that to pro-life people it isn't about the woman's body, it is about the child's life. Despite militant leftists saying its just about men wanting to control women. That said, a woman raped absolutely should have the choice, instances of incest the same. As for a cutoff point, I would argue if the baby could survive  outside the womb, than an abortion is murder.

The instant that you can carry that child as the father, I will agree with you. Until then, it should be 100% the womans choice and noone elses. I would agree with you on the last point though, if it can live on it's own it has a life.

[Volourn]

"oo bad it's used as the intellectual equivalent of a cudgel to bludgeon the people he disagrees with, but hey, baby steps!"

 

NO MERCY.

 

 

"By prohibiting abortion"

 

Nowhere in my post did I state that abortion should be disallowed legally all the time.  In fact, I said the opposite.

 

 

"The instant that you can carry that child as the father, I will agree with you"

 

I say the man should be allowed to 'abort' up to the point the mother is allowed to abort by signing away all rights and responsibilities of the child. That is fair for everybody 9well except the child but we've already established that a good chunk of the pro abortion crowd don't give a crap about the child (or 'fetus') anyways so they shouldn't have an issue with the father  'aborting' the child in that way. RIGHT?

 

But, hey, we all know the pro abortion crowd also happen to include (not all but many) people who  don't mind screwing men and enslving men and  love using children to do so.

[Azdeus]

That is fair for everybody 9well except the child but we've already established that a good chunk of the pro abortion crowd don't give a crap about the child (or 'fetus') anyways so they shouldn't have an issue with the father  'aborting' the child in that way. RIGHT?

 

But, hey, we all know the pro abortion crowd also happen to include (not all but many) people who  don't mind screwing men and enslving men and  love using children to do so.

I'd say that the father should have the right to sign away his parenthood and not being able to be forced to pay alimony. Then again, you'd need some sort of backups in place to prevent fathers to be from just abandoning the mother aswell.

[BruceVC]

 

Abortion is a very complicated issue. As a father, I disagree it is solely a woman's choice. I think it is abhorrent to say that a father has no say on whether or not his child lives or dies, as long as the coupling was consentual. I understand that to pro-life people it isn't about the woman's body, it is about the child's life. Despite militant leftists saying its just about men wanting to control women. That said, a woman raped absolutely should have the choice, instances of incest the same. As for a cutoff point, I would argue if the baby could survive  outside the womb, than an abortion is murder.

The instant that you can carry that child as the father, I will agree with you.

 

This is the real point and the most relevant

 

It is 100 % the women's choice until men are able to have a  baby, once this happens of course it is the man and womens choice

 

That doesn't mean the women cant or wont consider what the man has to say on the matter. An abortion is understandably emotional and difficult on  numerous levels  for men and women 

 

But the final decision to have an abortion is up to the women 

[BruceVC]

 

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense. Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans carry on to the next generation.

Look, another thing we agree on: let's forget religion.

 

Look, a whole bunch of things we disagree on.

 

By prohibiting abortion you will disable victims of rape to abort they're child.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable poor women who did not intend to get pregnant from aborting the child. That woman may not be able to afford her own life, needless to say that of a child's. So, rather than saving one life by prohibiting abortion, you are ruining two lifes: that of the mother who needs to witness her child growing up in agony, and the child who grows up in agony itself.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable women who carry children with a major genetic disorder firm aborting the child.

 

So, what kind of existence are you saving? You may save a exitence, but you destroy potentially two, three, four or however big a family may be lifes. And one of those destroyed lifes, and in some cases the most destroyed life, is the one you were so keen on saving.

 

QFT, very well said 

[Meshugger]

 

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense. Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans carry on to the next generation.

Look, another thing we agree on: let's forget religion.

 

Look, a whole bunch of things we disagree on.

 

By prohibiting abortion you will disable victims of rape to abort they're child.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable poor women who did not intend to get pregnant from aborting the child. That woman may not be able to afford her own life, needless to say that of a child's. So, rather than saving one life by prohibiting abortion, you are ruining two lifes: that of the mother who needs to witness her child growing up in agony, and the child who grows up in agony itself.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable women who carry children with a major genetic disorder firm aborting the child.

 

So, what kind of existence are you saving? You may save a exitence, but you destroy potentially two, three, four or however big a family may be lifes. And one of those destroyed lifes, and in some cases the most destroyed life, is the one you were so keen on saving.

 

 

Aside from no one can pinpoint from where exactly life begins, there you have the crux of the problem. As carriers of life, it's ultimately the responsibility of the woman for bringing the child to this world. By extension is it not then society's moral duty to nurture values for women to make sure that they pick partners who can provide for them safety, both financially and emotionally, so that any child, accidental or not, is brought to this world with minimal suffering? And for the men to be virtuous and choose women who have these values when they look a partner for their future family that they have to provide? 

 

Sadly these kinds of discussions have been pushed away from pop-culture and can only be found in the domain of the religious. 

[Barothmuk]

Better yet lets move beyond the confines of flesh and bone, liberate women from the labour of pregnancy and have vat-grown designer babies.

[ShadySands]

My wife would approve

[Meshugger]

Better yet lets move beyond the confines of flesh and bone, liberate women from the labour of pregnancy and have vat-grown designer babies.

 

...to become robot-philosopher-kings?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VXa9tXcMhXQ

[BruceVC]

Better yet lets move beyond the confines of flesh and bone, liberate women from the labour of pregnancy and have vat-grown designer babies.

 

[BruceVC]

 

 

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense. Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans carry on to the next generation.

Look, another thing we agree on: let's forget religion.

 

Look, a whole bunch of things we disagree on.

 

By prohibiting abortion you will disable victims of rape to abort they're child.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable poor women who did not intend to get pregnant from aborting the child. That woman may not be able to afford her own life, needless to say that of a child's. So, rather than saving one life by prohibiting abortion, you are ruining two lifes: that of the mother who needs to witness her child growing up in agony, and the child who grows up in agony itself.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable women who carry children with a major genetic disorder firm aborting the child.

 

So, what kind of existence are you saving? You may save a exitence, but you destroy potentially two, three, four or however big a family may be lifes. And one of those destroyed lifes, and in some cases the most destroyed life, is the one you were so keen on saving.

 

 

Aside from no one can pinpoint from where exactly life begins, there you have the crux of the problem. As carriers of life, it's ultimately the responsibility of the woman for bringing the child to this world. By extension is it not then society's moral duty to nurture values for women to make sure that they pick partners who can provide for them safety, both financially and emotionally, so that any child, accidental or not, is brought to this world with minimal suffering? And for the men to be virtuous and choose women who have these values when they look a partner for their future family that they have to provide? 

 

Sadly these kinds of discussions have been pushed away from pop-culture and can only be found in the domain of the religious. 

 

This post is silly and sexist and offensive but I also think you trolling 

 

But maybe Im misunderstanding your point, can you define 

 

•  society's moral duty to nurture values for women :  What do you mean by society's moral duty ? What morals are we referring to?
• nurture values for women:  Who decides what these values are? Are members of the LGBT community included in these values?
• to make sure that they pick partners  : How would we make sure....should we decide on the best partner with the women?
•  

[Ben No.3]

 

 

"Abortion is a womens choice, no one should have a right to tell any women what they can or cant do with there bodies :)"

 

How about the babies' rights?

 

 

 

"Abortion is also a very traumatic and emotional experience to go through so its important to be supportive if you know anyone who had an abortion. It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than most men"

 

The logic here doesn't make sense. Pro abortioners claim it is okay to abort because the embryo isn't a human... so why would it be traumatic. Also, I have known women who have chosen to have an abortion. The choice was tough because when you choose to have an abortion ( which I can understand the choice in certain circumtsances) you at echoosing to end the lfie of your child.

 

This scientific mumbo jumbo bullcrap magic where it isn't a child is just intellectually dishonesty to make it less morally 'wrong' to sokme people. But, if you have ever seen a woman suffer a miscarriage, if you have ever seena couple struggle with fertility treatments (especially the wannabe mother), if you have seen a woman struggle with the choice to have an abortion or not, you would not that's all bullocks.

 

When a woman gets pregnant they are carrying a human baby inside. That is factual science. The choice to abort the pregnancy is exactly that. OWN the tough chocies that people have to make don't baby it up or whitewash it.

 

One can support the 'right to choose' but be intellectually honest about what the actual choice entails because when you don't insult the women making said choice. Do you hate women, Bruce? Will don't baby them.

 

 

"It can be hard for many men but trust me the majority of women suffer emotionally much worse than men."

 

Sexism. Thy name is Bruce.

 

 

Only psychotic religious wackjobs believe the fake science of 'it's not a child'. People who believe in science knows when the female (or male in some speciies) get pregnant they are carrying their offspring. FACT. That's how humans carry on to the next generation.

Look, another thing we agree on: let's forget religion.

 

Look, a whole bunch of things we disagree on.

 

By prohibiting abortion you will disable victims of rape to abort they're child.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable poor women who did not intend to get pregnant from aborting the child. That woman may not be able to afford her own life, needless to say that of a child's. So, rather than saving one life by prohibiting abortion, you are ruining two lifes: that of the mother who needs to witness her child growing up in agony, and the child who grows up in agony itself.

By prohibiting abortion you will disable women who carry children with a major genetic disorder firm aborting the child.

 

So, what kind of existence are you saving? You may save a exitence, but you destroy potentially two, three, four or however big a family may be lifes. And one of those destroyed lifes, and in some cases the most destroyed life, is the one you were so keen on saving.

 

 

Aside from no one can pinpoint from where exactly life begins, there you have the crux of the problem. As carriers of life, it's ultimately the responsibility of the woman for bringing the child to this world. By extension is it not then society's moral duty to nurture values for women to make sure that they pick partners who can provide for them safety, both financially and emotionally, so that any child, accidental or not, is brought to this world with minimal suffering? And for the men to be virtuous and choose women who have these values when they look a partner for their future family that they have to provide? 

 

Sadly these kinds of discussions have been pushed away from pop-culture and can only be found in the domain of the religious. 

 

yes, but sadly our society does not do so. So, how should the woman choose right now?

 

I'm atheist btw...

[redneckdevil]

If it SOLEY the woman's choice, then do away with child support then bc its wholely unfair then. Also do away with double homicides if a pregnant woman is murdered.

One of the many areas our court system is need of an overhaul is the sexist ideals that a woman should have first choice with the child IF u are gonna require the father to be perceived at the beginning to be the "bad" guy and ALSO do more than the mothers share in costs in raising it.

If it is SOLEY the woman's choice, then the father shouldn't be required by law to take care of the child AND mother of seperate did u are gonna deny them the right the mother has.

 

If u wanna dispute, then come at me. I've dealt with it personally.