Honestly, I don't care if every man was willing to care for the child once it was born. Whilst it takes its oxygen direct from the woman's bloodstream, it is a part of her body.


Okay, so after hundreds, indeed thousands of years of the balance being all in favour of men, we get about twenty five years of the balance shifting towards women a little and men like you can't stop whining. It's all skewed in the woman's favour is it now? Because she can decide not to endure 9 months of pregnancy after her contraception failed?

Y'know my mother's generation were the first ones to be considered the natural parent in cases of custody. My grandmother's generation were still being locked up in mental asylums for 'moral and mental instability' for the crime of getting pregnant outside wedlock.

D'you think my generation doesn't know this? Hasn't heard the stories? Do you really think your "Waaah waaaaah, it's not fair, waaaah, women get it easy" bullshit resonates at all?

Exactly. If a Mexican woman is in the US, and is pregnant, the fetus is not an American citizen. It only becomes an American citizen when it is born.

Doesn't that infringe on its inalienable rights? How can you defend an ammendment that limits these rights?


Cut the baby in half while still in utero.

You are so wise King Sol...Spexxvet.

The latest studies show that babies need to be breast fed for at least 6 months.
Hmmmm.....................

You've got it backwards. The 4th amendment does help protect inalienable rights. The supreme court has decided that children do not have that 4th amendment protection.

No really....who is going to breast feed it for 6 months to make sure it's healthy?

Ask the billions of people that were not breast fed for six months. It's best for the kid but far from necessary.

The ONLY thing breast feeding does is add natural immunity for the baby during the first 6 months and relieves painful milk pressure off mom.

Uh, no, that's wrong. :headshake

The truth is we're still finding things out about the effects of breastfeeding, or not.

Recent studies suggest that men who don't get breastfed as babies do not develop the overwhelming fascination with boobies and therefore do not use them to objectify women, thus ending the need for mass subjugation of women.[/ smartass comment]

Yikes, I read back to about pg 13 and thought I might puke.

Keep your laws off my body.

So, rk, as a diabetic married woman, for whom pregnancy would be a major health catastrophe, I can never have sex with my husband since no birth control is 100% effective?

Is that "morality" in your book?

Breast-feeding is a really bad example of what I'm getting at. *sorry*
My only point- to what extent do we get to control the baby factory in this scenario?
Do we get to control it's lifestyle and food intake until we have reached our subjective idea about what's best for the fetus in our custody?

I keep thinking of this guy threatening to sue if it eats another bon-bon.
And
Do we get to charge it with attempted murder if it falls down a staircase?

Sorry about all the "it's" but that is the proper language for the subject at hand. Kind of like "buffalo bill" from "silence of the lambs".
"it will have the baby for me and put the lotion on it's skin"..........

Yeah, breastfeeding misinformation really bugs the shit out me, but I won't derail the thread... Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.

Of course not I have stated that more than once, but if they are not honorable they would simply ignore the pregnancy and she would get an abortion. He would not want a child... people are tail-posting their asses off in here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...TailPoster.jpg
I have not been here moron.
By allowing the father to have his child if he wishes. Simple.

As for those of you talking about "viability" does that mean every time science allows us to keep a child alive earlier and earlier outside the mother the definition of fetus moves? Idiotic argument.