@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
I am saying that once a guy and a girl start a baby what happens should not be up to the girl alone. She decided to open her legs and she took the risk that a baby could be started when she decided to remain fertile....she got to the point of loosing full control of her reproductive system through her own choices.
It would be nice if that is the way life is but it is not. In the animal kingdom many male animals will eat their young if they are given a chance.
Some species of mother snakes will climb trees and drop their newborns from trees in order to avoid being stung and killed by her own offspring.
Providence gave men brute and gave women the reproductive organs.
Women and men are not wolves nor are they snakes but sometime we behave like them.
Men start their wars give their sons guns and send them off to die for what they call a "just cause".
I tend to think men use their brute too often for bad causes.
Neither sex is innocent. It all comes down to control. If a spouse goes out and has extramarital sex the other spouse has a choice... They can either leave their unfaithful partner or they can live with it. It is all about choice and living with the consequences afterwards.
So a man has sex with a woman and from that point on thinks he has the right to limit a woman's choice. Many sexual encounters today are done outside the boundaries of any matrimonial bonds. Are you saying a woman should not have the right for second thoughts? Maybe a man before he makes a woman pregnant could inquire as to the mental state of his partner before producing an offspring?
You know like, first marry her and secondly provide her with a stable home. This is not often the case and when it is not... a woman should have the right to (wrong or right) abort the fetus. Making a baby is a partnership only if both partners plan on hanging around to raise the child. Considering that most men won't even change their own kids baby diapers women are more-so than not just left to fend for themselves and a child. I see no reason why male brute and force disguised as law should apply to the general rights of a woman's reproductive organs.