Thread: When did so many women become so passionate about killing babies?

"My body, my choice"

If women get the choice of abortion (without the choice of what the father wanted), then a similar right should be given to men.

"My money, my choice"

If the man doesn't want to be a father (or maybe he does, but he doesn't want a court ordered ransom), then he should be given the choice to not be in the child's life (without the choice of what the mother wanted).

Originally Posted by opensource

"My body, my choice"

If women get the choice of abortion (without the choice of what the father wanted), then a similar right should be given to men.

"My money, my choice"

If the man doesn't want to be a father (or maybe he does, but he doesn't want a court ordered ransom), then he should be given the choice to not be in the child's life (without the choice of what the mother wanted).

I believe in what you wrote and I advocate for exactly that when talking to others. Yet, something nags me about it in the back of my mind. I mean, if the father is relieved of all financial responsibility, then when the mother turns to welfare or other public assistance, guess who pays for that? I do. You do.

At worst, if what we advocate for came about, men could impregnate without responsibility and I'd get to help pay for it thru taxes. After all, how quickly do you think feminists and the gubmint will work together to rescue women from carrying the full financial responsibility of her choice? Heck, it would be anticipated and built into the same law that freed the menz.

I'd be paying for men's irresponsibility.

Profligate men would jump on this idea. Imagine if men started doing this en masse, which I see as possible. Women will just pivot from these men to the gubmint for their financial assistance. There will be no female regret. She still wins.

Hello, abortion-on-demand.

So, in self-examining why I advocate for what you wrote, if there is an element of revenge to my thinking, or of turnabout-is-fair-play, or a concept of just deserts, I may not be winning much, unless I am the guy getting her pregnant. Which ain't gonna happen.

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

I believe in what you wrote and I advocate for exactly that when talking to others. Yet, something nags me about it in the back of my mind. I mean, if the father is relieved of all financial responsibility, then when the mother turns to welfare or other public assistance, guess who pays for that? I do. You do.

At worst, if what we advocate for came about, men could impregnate without responsibility and I'd get to help pay for it thru taxes. After all, how quickly do you think feminists and the gubmint will work together to rescue women from carrying the full financial responsibility of her choice? Heck, it would be anticipated and built into the same law that freed the menz.

I'd be paying for men's irresponsibility.

Profligate men would jump on this idea. Imagine if men started doing this en masse, which I see as possible. Women will just pivot from these men to the gubmint for their financial assistance. There will be no female regret. She still wins.

Hello, abortion-on-demand.

So, in self-examining why I advocate for what you wrote, if there is an element of revenge to my thinking, or of turnabout-is-fair-play, or a concept of just deserts, I may not be winning much, unless I am the guy getting her pregnant. Which ain't gonna happen.

For me, a major part of the benefit in overturning Roe comes down to the massive blow it is to feminism. Abortion is a major pillar of feminism and removing that weakens feminism overall.

Nb4 blue states, yes, abortion will still be available even after Roe is overturned. But that's not the way feminists see it. It needs to be 50-state legal and it won't be anymore once Roe is history. That drives them crazy. Feminism will be less attractive to some percentage of women after Roe is overturned, simple as that.

Originally Posted by OwenWentFullMGTOW

For me, a major part of the benefit in overturning Roe comes down to the massive blow it is to feminism. Abortion is a major pillar of feminism and removing that weakens feminism overall.

Nb4 blue states, yes, abortion will still be available even after Roe is overturned. But that's not the way feminists see it. It needs to be 50-state legal and it won't be anymore once Roe is history. That drives them crazy. Feminism will be less attractive to some percentage of women after Roe is overturned, simple as that.

50 state abortion, 50 state gun control, 50 state homogenized monolithic monster, their nature is hive consolidated rule by Queen Bee top down management, consigning everyone to live under rules not designed nor advantageous to any good outcome.

We've been on this road of imperial government consolidation and any deviation back to constitutional roots is attacked relentlessly, they want more power over the plantation, not dismantle it by individual incentives and personal reward, it's how so many bad mistakes become imbedded law and resulting chaotic order.

Originally Posted by mgtower

50 state abortion, 50 state gun control, 50 state homogenized monolithic monster, their nature is hive consolidated rule by Queen Bee top down management, consigning everyone to live under rules not designed nor advantageous to any good outcome.

We've been on this road of imperial government consolidation and any deviation back to constitutional roots is attacked relentlessly, they want more power over the plantation, not dismantle it by individual incentives and personal reward, it's how so many bad mistakes become imbedded law and resulting chaotic order.

The D's were trying to pass pro-abortion legislation through Congress but Joe Manchin pissed in their corn flakes.

Still, blue states routinely flout federal law by either allowing or even legally permitting recreational consumption of marijuana. So, even if the pro-abortion bill had been pushed through Congress somehow, there would be precedent for red states to ignore federal law and pass anti-abortion laws on the state level. Honestly, I'm glad it probably won't come to that. Just saying, it's a possibility.

To your point, I do find it amusing how the "multicultural" party doesn't want to allow different cultures and attitudes on a state-by-state basis.

Originally Posted by Unboxxed

I believe in what you wrote and I advocate for exactly that when talking to others. Yet, something nags me about it in the back of my mind. I mean, if the father is relieved of all financial responsibility, then when the mother turns to welfare or other public assistance, guess who pays for that? I do. You do.

At worst, if what we advocate for came about, men could impregnate without responsibility and I'd get to help pay for it thru taxes. After all, how quickly do you think feminists and the gubmint will work together to rescue women from carrying the full financial responsibility of her choice? Heck, it would be anticipated and built into the same law that freed the menz.

I'd be paying for men's irresponsibility.

Profligate men would jump on this idea. Imagine if men started doing this en masse, which I see as possible. Women will just pivot from these men to the gubmint for their financial assistance. There will be no female regret. She still wins.

Hello, abortion-on-demand.

So, in self-examining why I advocate for what you wrote, if there is an element of revenge to my thinking, or of turnabout-is-fair-play, or a concept of just deserts, I may not be winning much, unless I am the guy getting her pregnant. Which ain't gonna happen.

Maybe women wouldn't 'fall' pregnant so easily if they knew they couldn't financially enslave a male. Same is true with marriage and divorce. The 'systems' incentivize bad behavior on women's part. The 'systems' are corrupt. Unless it's rape or some kind of fraud, put the responsibility and accountability on women, not men.

Their body, their choice, their responsibility.