No, but that doesn't make it okay to cede control of our property to some third party just because the government takes some portion in taxes.But none of us have full control over our finances in our system.
It is a silly answer and a WRONG answer. You are really grasping at straws.It was a clear answer to your question "Name one that can't be avoided via an abortion."
If I ask you to name one thing that can't be avoided by doing X, it is stupid to answer "X", as that is implied in the question.
Still, if you want to get extremely technical you also remove the responsibility of getting an abortion by getting an abortion. You don't need two abortions... getting one fulfills the needs of that responsibility.
It is hard to minimize what is already so small. You actually listed "find out you are pregnant" as one of the "obligations". Are you surprised that it is hard for me to take you seriously after that?You minimize all the steps up to the point of the abortion and the abortion itself. All of that is an obligation and for many a heavy burden.
You said it was the "most equitable way". So I responded by posting a more equitable way: one where the woman doesn't get to control the man's finances and the man doesn't get to control the woman's body.Simply because you disagree with my assessment does not mean it is alien to my post. That aside you simply restated your position rather than responding to what I said. Hence my question "How does this relate to what I said at all?"
Why do I need to "counter" it? These "obligations" are laughably niitpicky (or not obligations at all). I said I'd include half the cost of the pregnancy test and half the cost of the stamp. Hell, I'll even throw in two dollars to pay her twenty dollars an hour for the six minutes it takes her to scratch out a letter and drop it in the mail box.I am listing all the parts of her responsibility. You belittling each step does not counter it.
I'll even include the cost of an ounce of water and half a calorie that it took her to lick that stamp!
For an extra ten bucks your "obligations" can be made equitable again.
She needs to choose whether or not she wants to get an abortion, the man needs to choose whether or not to opt out of child support. They both have a choice to make, so this "responsibility" is perfectly equitable.It is another responsibility that she has that the man does not.
It is only a "burden" the man doesn't deal with because you refuse to give the man any choices. In our system we give the man choices so he has that equal "burden".First is is not always a 'choice' it is often mandated by her emotions and/or morals.
Second we are comparing both sides. It is a burden the man does not need to deal with.
Of course calling the freedom of choice a "burden" is laughable.
If you like we could ban abortion and remove this "burden" of choice from the woman's shoulders.
It is the system that is favored by most of those that have entered the debate on this forum. That is the "our" I am referring to.You need to be clear what you mean. Our is a pronoun that is unclear. It is not my system and I am demonstrating the far heavier burden the current system places on the woman, let alone your proposed changes.
It is still a choice they have. That is all that matters when it comes to being equitable before the law.We already covered that side of the equation. As I have said over and over and many women will share it is not a choice their morals or emotions will allow.
...unless she chooses to abort it, when she has no burden.And yet you always say the man must pay, but you ignore that when the woman has the child the burden on him is far smaller than her.
Sorry, I consider 18 years of child support payments a bigger burden then "finding out you are pregnant" or "contact the father".I did not expect you to take the points seriously. I am debating, not trolling. In a debate you present points and defend them. I am. You laugh at the burden the woman has and lament for the far smaller burden the man has in each eventuality. Belittling the points does not counter them.
In either case, what I lament is the fact that the woman has CHOICES regarding her burdens. The man is given no choice. If you give the man the choice as well for his burdens then everything is equitable and fair.
Yes, they are "different". Yes one is more common. It doesn't make one "worse" than the other.A physical demand of your being is not really comparable to taxation which occurs all the time. Taxation removes your money.
What difference does this make? You are still refusing them the freedom of their body and taking away their right to bodily autonomy.No with trying to save the suicidal person you are dealing with their body. With the fetus you are dealing with another person's body.
Your irrelevant difference aside, this is still a counterexample to your belief that the government can't make laws controlling your body.
Will you pretty please explain the purpose of this irrelevant analogy?Then you should learn to ask.
If only you were making a point for me to avoid. The real point is that the fetus is a person or it is not a person. If it can be murdered, then it is a person.Again you avoid the point.
See every one of my replies to you. For starters: the inconsistency that you seem to think the government can't put legal restrictions on our body, yet clearly can and does (suicide, the draft, etc)Please show me where they are inconsistent rather than simply making broad claims with no support.
I care for both. I give both full power of choice over their responsibilities. That is being equitable.And no as I have demonstrated and you spent many words belittling it would not be more equitable unless you only care for the men's side.
You give the woman full say over her obligation as well as the man's obligation. That is not being equitable.
Even if it were true it wouldn't matter. I call it "bullshit" because it is meaningless semantic redundancy.You call it 'bullshit' because you can not counter this argument and it invalidates your argument.
If you wish to makes claims about my definition at least provide it otherwise you are making unsupported claims. I am not afraid of posting the definition you are speaking of.
1. Having capacity or ability; efficient and able: a capable administrator.
2. Having the ability required for a specific task or accomplishment; qualified: capable of winning.
3. Having the inclination or disposition: capable of violence.
4. Permitting an action to be performed: an error capable of remedy; a camera capable of being used underwater.
capable - definition of capable by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.
I underlined the portion for you. All women are capable, some are not willing. The only portion of the definition by which you can argue that all women are not capable is definition three, which IS A SYNONYM FOR WILLING.
That is why this is redundant bullshit.
Then please explain "very clearly" by what part of that definition a woman is "not capable" of choosing an abortion. Please note that definition three is a synonym of willing.Now of course all words have many meanings and I have been very clear to explain what I mean, so making an accusation that capable and willing are synonyms strikes me as you "intentionally being misleading through semantic" games. It has been very clear from my explanations I do not mean willing. If you wish to suggest another word to better match my explanations, I am more than happy to entertain it, but I think that is not your goal here.