I'd say that everything that happens in this world is "natural."

Otherwise, it is "supernatural."

Actually many animals do still live in caves. They work quite well for them. But there are also many animals that dig holes and build nests. It doesn't take too much intelligence to realize that a cabin/house/castle is just a human style nest. And a gun is an efficient way of throwing a rock.

But when your dealing with folk that can't figure out the beginning of life, you can't expect too much can you?

My point exactly.

Where can you justify that statement. I readily acknowledge that the situations are different. But when a couple create a life, if the man is gonna be legally bound in the case of birth, he should have some say in the case of abortion.

I have never said otherwise. Have you really been reading or is this all you have to add?

Nope, it's bullshit. If it were "reality" people would know the consequences of having sex and take responsibility for their actions instead of relying on killing and "legal" to rid themselves of this problem.

Only to those with their heads in their anal orifices trying to prove a point based on legal rather than what is obviously right and wrong.

Well, if you acknowledge the fact that the "natural" situation is different, then why can't you accept the fact that the "legal" situation could or should be different as well?

And, why should the existence of the right of a born child to be supported by both of his or her parents depend on someone's choice concerning abortion?

In my opinion, you are proposing a meaningless argument since children have the right to be supported by both of their parents REGARDLESS of the legal status of abortion and any of the issues that that status includes. In short, even IF a man has a say over the outcome of a pregnancy, the man would still be legally bound to support that child since that child has the right to be supported by both of his or her parents AND since it is in the interest of the state to protect that child's rights. Of course, either one of that child's two parents can personally choose to provide that child with all the support he or she needs...as long as the state directly or indirectly agrees with that implied or agreed-upon mutual agreement. But, I would argue that it isn't in the state's interest if they where to accept a system whereby a man doesn't have to provide support for a child simply because he wanted a women to have an abortion since that choice has nothing to do with the woman's ability to support the child. The child's rights are, in effect, INALIENABLE, at least in the eyes of the state. Thus, a child's right to be supported by both of his or her parents cannot simply be taken away from him or her pending the outcome of the man's decision concerning a woman's potential abortion. Hence, your argument that a man should not have to support a born child if he wishes that the woman get an abortion, yet she doesn't, is meaningless.

I have no problem acknowledging that differences exist. I've nevr indicated differently. But to have ALL decisions rest with the woman when we both know it takes 2 people to make a baby, doesn't sound like the correct legal remedy to me. If you are gonna require the father to have financial responsibility, he should have something to say about the abortion. I'm not saying a man should be able to force or stop an abortion, but "nothing" doesn't sound right either.

For the same reason that only the woman can make the decision that the born child exists in the first place. Since we are talking about "legal" and not "right" ANYTHING is on the table. "Legal" gives us abortion in the first place. If a woman has the "legal right" to abort a fetus, a man should have the "legal right" to legally oppose a birth. I mean "legal" is malleable when it removes itself from what is obviously right, and starts making up BS as it goes along.

And in my opinion it is the responsibility of a woman to make sure when she copulates, she is prepared for the consequences. If a man is gonna be required to pay child support if a baby is born, then the woman should be required to at least support the life of the fetus at least until it is a baby. And if she can terminate the life in the interest of "fair" and "choice", he should be able to oppose that life in the same window that would at best, relieve him of some of the financial responsibility for a pregnancy that he doesn't want.

The most meaningless argument is the one that supports contraceptive abortion.