Posted on 04/02/2024 3:55:14 PM PDT by grundle
ROFL!!!
You don't know the meaning of "hyperbole". Your grasp of rhetoric is as poor as your understanding of the law.
I'll spell it out for you:
Under the laws of these United States, the decision to slaughter an unborn baby is solely given to the mother of that unborn baby. The father of that unborn baby has absolutely no rights whatsoever, under the laws of these United States, to protect his unborn baby. A father of an unborn baby who wishes to protect the life of his unborn baby against the wishes of his unborn baby's mother to slaughter his unborn baby can, therefore, only resort to illegal methods.
What's absolutely appalling here, is that you know that but refuse to acknowledge it.
“…States, the decision to slaughter an unborn baby is solely given to the mother of that unborn baby”
The decision to conceive the baby is up to the father and the mother
The abortion is secondary
The law does not supercede Natural Law
When the guy dies and has to talk to God, the law the democrat idiots came up with is not going to help him. The mobs of men he can point to and say ‘everyone else was doing it’ will not help him.
God will say something like ‘there’s a dead rejected baby here why did you conceive the child if you expected to have it killed’
Not ‘oh a woman you knew had an abortion and you’re not responsible even though you are the father. By choice.’
If you'll go and read the my post which got your feathers all ruffled, you'll see that I addressed that matter.
Now ... since it is understood by both of us that the father of an unborn baby has no LEGAL recourse if the mother of his unborn baby wishes to slaughter his unborn baby ...
What actions OUTSIDE OF THE LAW do you think such a father should take?
Please be specific.
Life is not like that. One has to plan. Tge recourse comes in before taking the risk of conceiving the baby. I have zero sympathy for any guy who can’t figure that out
I see.
You refuse to answer.
Yes ... life IS like that. I have zero sympathy for any gal who spreads her legs for someone other than her husband. She chose to engage in baby-making activities, she doesn’t get to kill the resulting baby.
I agree with that but that’s not what the conversation was about
These free republic abortion talks always go back to blaming the woman, claiming innocence for the man
No stories of how the guy insisted or just offered that she not have the abortion he’ll marry and support her
That’s rare and never mentioned here
I have never heard such a story not that it has never happened.
My first comment was how did she not know the guy wasn’t interested in having children with her. It’s easy to spot He’s not marrying you is a dead give away for instance
Anyway my opinion doesn’t matter here at all. I’m simply putting out the natural law fact that it takes a man as well as the aborting mother to conceive the baby. The abortion is on the both of them equally. He’d be well advised to speak with a clergy level theologian about any argument he’d have with that because otherwise putting it off until he has to interview God is just a risky bad idea
In a case where the woman who is married and has not expressed that she doesn’t want kids and has an abortion without telling the husband then she would be psychotic and would have shown signs prior but if such a case existed then ya he’d be off the hook
People here like to pretend that’s the vast majority of cases
No mention of these guys wanting to marry and support the woman But pretending he’s off the hook because he didn’t know that’s Adam and Eve level BS ‘she made me do it’ wimp-don that ruins the world.
He’s just not off the hook with God
In these United States, the decision whether or not to slaughter a baby in utero is given entirely to the baby's mother. The baby's father is entirely removed, legally, from the decision; he has no rights whatsoever.
That it takes two to tango is not a matter of dispute between us. If you would read my posts in their entirety, you would know that.
pretending he’s off the hook
As I pointed out, under the laws of these United States, the unborn baby's mother can relieve herself of her "problem" legally, and in some circles be hailed as "courageous". A father of an unborn baby cannot legally relieve himself of his "problem", and is condemned as a deadbeat, a bounder, and a cad if he tries. The double standard should be obvious even to the most casual observer.
“ The baby’s father is entirely removed, legally, from the decision; he has no rights whatsoever.”
He has the right to not conceive an unwanted child. He knows it is unwanted
Yep. And I bet he also wonders why abortion wins in every state that has a referendum on it.
Mary got pregnant by a kid named Tommy said he was in love.
Said “Don’t worry ‘bout a thing, baby doll, I’m the man you’ve been dreaming of.”
Three months later, he said he won’t date her or return her calls.
And she swears, “G*d damn, gonna get that man, cuttin’ off his b*lls.”
And she goes to the clinic, and she gets some static walking through the door.
They call her a killer, and they call her a sinner, and they call her a whore.
But God forbid you ever have to walk a mile in her shoes,
Then you really might know what it’s like to have to choose.
—Everlast
“A father of an unborn baby cannot legally relieve himself of his “problem”
That’s your argument?
He’s at a disadvantage because he can’t kill his kid?
I’d say, again, he can choose to not conceive the baby
Much with this
He didn’t have sex to have children. Men can’t get pregnant
People dump girlfriends all the time. This guy actually dumped his child.
And if he follows my advice, which you have refused to read, he will not do so. This is not in dispute between us.
Again:
“ The baby’s father is entirely removed, legally, from the decision; he has no rights whatsoever.”
The above is a simple truth. You do yourself no favors by trying to obfuscate it.
The mother has no rights to make the father marry her and support her while she raises the baby.
When the father of an unborn baby "dump[s] his child", the child still gets to live.
When the mother of an unborn baby "dump[s] her child", the child literally ends up in the dump. DEAD.
True
and support her while she raises the baby.
False.
On the other hand, the father has no rights at all. Even if he wants to raise HIS CHILD as a single father, with nothing at all from the mother who wants to KILL HIS CHILD, he's out of luck. If mommy-dearest says KILL, the baby is killed. If mommy-dearest says LIVE, the baby lives.
“On the other hand, the father has no rights at all. Even if he wants to raise HIS CHILD as a single father, with nothing at all…”
That happens all the time, the way people around here talk
But it doesn’t
How is he going to work admins take care of a child? Does this fictional guy conceive the child telling the mother of the child he is doing this so he can be a single dad and raise the child? The mother of the child agrees to this?
How often does this happen? I’ve never heard of it
What if he draws up a contract with a lawyer stating that after she goes through such a preganacy, he’ll pay for labor and delivery any neonatal ICU costs any birth defects any lifetime illnesses he’ll take care of all of it out of pocket because his health insurance is not paying for this unless they’re married
How is he going to work. Just pulling an example at random, I know a 30 year old who is a corporate lawyer he owes a lot of money to an Ivy League loan for law school. He works 16-18 hour days. Who’s taking care of the baby there? A house keeper? He should have married the mother and given her the money
She probably wouldn’t have had the abortion
No sale
What I find, is both parties dump the other, as welfare is gamed by the “mother.”
Multiple babies, she does 5 - 8 years “alone,” but hubby is actually hanging around . . . and they get together and have a home.
The state pays for the “kids’ upbringing.”
Something like that.
That's a personal problem on your part.
I have presented you with the truth. You can accept it, you can ignore it, you can attempt to obfuscate it ... you have choices.
About 80% of the people in my inner city do not work
FDR brought in the welfare state
Before that there was no inner city welfare collecting voters putting democrats in power
Regan won 49 states. Nixon was way up there
Now. New York, Calif all the northeast gone forever
Texas is iffy. Once that goes forget it
It’s not red it’s pink it’s like 10 points ahead
San Antonio, now Houston, Austin. All democrat
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.