My question to pro-choice supporters

[The Grand Nudger]

Sexist, untrue, and irrelevant.  If she doesn't want any part of that she can opt out.   

So now you're a champion of free will, huh?  See, I think that society, family and instinct are heavily stacked against the girl "opting" out. . . except when she's lucky enough for them not to be.

LOL, hardly, just pointing out inequality in reproductive choices.  Sure, society can be shitty, and?  Is that an argument for the maintenance of inequality or for changing that attitude?

It's surprising how many human beings were created by sex.  I mean. . . must be like 60% at least, hey?  It's almost like. . . sex does that.

Cute, but garbage.  How many times have you had sex?  How many babies have you made?  I'm guessing that there' a disparity between the two numbers.  

Driving super fast isn't choosing to end up with your brains on the road, either.   And yet it's almost like they seem connected in some subtle, abstract way.  Hmmmm. . .

.............................?  Here in america, one party can choose to drive fast and not end up with their brains on the road.  Had to take it all the way to the supreme court and fight comments and attitudes like yours, and we're still fighting those comments and those attitudes...but, we pulled it off.

And now you're dropping evolution, too?  Sex feels good because of a strong relationship to reproductive fitness. . . apparently.  If only someone could figure out the relationship, we'd be set.  Oh wait. . . I think I might have it.  It seems like. . . sex is HOW people reproduce.  Go figure.

................................................................?  Evolution isn't a justification for our laws.  We evolved to be clever thieves and brutal murderers, too.  

In order to exercise this free will of which you are suddenly champion, there has actually to BE a choice.  If for whatever reason the girl decides to keep her baby, then where does that leave the society?  Who's gonna foot the bill?  The girl alone?  Almost impossible.  The society-- fuck that, the kid's not mine.  The other person involved in the reproductive act?  Yeah. . . you might want to protect his rights, but I'd rather protect myself and everyone else from having to pay $400,000 so some punk can get his rocks of on Saturday night.

She'll pay for it or we will...but that has absolutely nothing to do with any choice he made.  It's what's going to happen anyway, if he's dead broke. So maybe take it up with her, not him?  Yes, I would fight for someone rights....even when someone else thinks that rights cost -him- something and so seeks to prevent someone else from having them by demonizing that person.  So long as one group of people can be denied rights and equality, every other groups rights and equality are imperiled. One persons right to choose is threatened by a state that can remove that choice from another. Lots of people would like to see roe v wade overturned, too. They're constantly bitching and moaning about how much it costs society, and how society shouldn't have to pay for that cost because fuck that slut she made her choice at conception.

Basic 'murica shit.  I don't expect a canadian to understand.

---

Different countries. Different societies. Different wellfare states. Different taxes and applications.

Rgr, I'm only speaking from an american perspective, personally.  A system in which a significant portion of americans already qualifies for public assistance regardless of whether or not they have a child, and a system that has money to toss at everything -but- public assistance, apparently.  We wouldn't need more taxes, but supposing that we did, we'd simply be telling people that having reproductive rights was too expensive.  Sorry yall, it's too hard, we give up.  

 
Suffice to say, I'm not saying don't change THE system. I'm saying if you were to make things different, you'd better make sure THE system adapts.
My country's wellfare hasn't adapted to evolutionisten in our population. Which doesn't bode well for THE future. Best to avoid that noise.

Agreed.  Government very often finds itself behind a changing society, or behind the wave of medical advancement.  Abortion was possible long before it was legal, and there's still pushback on abortion from within our system, for example.  I actually think that it would help the system adapt.  By and large, single parent families qualify for support regardless of whether or not we try to extract blood from the fatherly stone.  If there were fewer single families...and if there were fewer stones to chase for extraction..we would not only pay less in support as a society, child support enforcement would cost less and be more effective.  It would also reduce the HE rounds that anti abortion activists and faux MRA misogynists have in their magazine while promoting reproductive equality insomuch as we can manage it - firmly cementing both sexes right to choose and putting them on the same side in the debate over whether or not -anyone- should have that choice. Win win win, imo.