| > No Thanks" refers not to carrying a child to term, but supporting a child who exists The existence is chosen by a woman, who is presumably aware of the fact that it's going to be 9 months of difficult physical changes, followed by 18 years of life changes. > I just as clearly support the notion that a child carried to term has two parents who share the responsibility of raising that child. Why do you support that notion? So basically a woman gets to choose to bear a child, but a man has to abide by that decision? > To clarify again, to avoid any "confusion", the logical equivalent of, "No thanks I'm not involved" is the woman leaving that child on the father's doorstep with a similar statement of disinterest. That is a logical fallacy. You've already carried the child to term, now you're roping another unwilling participant into this? When you've already had the choice (easy and affordable) of choosing a difficult path? > Beyond that, be aware that your other posts on this topic are visible, so the "I'm confused... not trying to be difficult" lines ring especially hollow. I don't see how any of my other posts would counter my position of confusion. There is no "hollowness" there. My point has always been that if a woman can terminate a pregnancy, a man should be able to renounce all parental rights and responsibilities. Remember, your original post referred to reproductive rights. Shouldn't men have those as well? Instead of just being told not to screw? |