 Quote:
Men (and women) are held responsible for the born children they concieve simply because it is in the interest of the state for them to be responsible.
In other words, regardless of who may or may not have wanted a child, and regardless of the status of the legality of abortion, men (and women) will be held responsible for their born children because it is in the interest of the state for them to do so.
Hence, your argument is essentially meaningless.
And, besides, could you possibly state any cases today where men are being compelled by the state to act "responsible" while their children are being gestated by women?
| Sorry, I don't really understand your argument. I think. If I am understanding it correctly, all I have to do is mention is that divorce is legal and practiced often. That's not in the state's interest but it's still legal. So I don't see why my argument is "meaningless".
and yeah, "deadbeat dads" are tracked down everyday.
Anyhow, your claim that "It's in the best interest of the state" therefore "your argument is meaningless" is a mental path I'm not following. It doesn't speak to my actual argument, either. If a woman has the legal option to abrogate responsibility for a potential child, then so should the father. |