But my point scaeagles is that you are conflating separate issues:
1) The right of a woman to control her own body.
2) Financial responsibility for offspring.
You said:
Quote:
|
I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.
|
My, I'd like to think logical, response is that just because the former can impact the need for the latter does negate the independent existence of the latter. But I also fail to see how showing that you would be burdened if the baby is carried to term would give you the right to insist on being so burdened.
I too think life begins at conception. I just don't think that life gains the rights of a human being until quite a bit later in the process and until they turn 21 they slowly accrue them.
Another side question, if the issue for the pro-choice side is, at root, the right of a woman to control her own body, what should be done if technology were created to allow removal and ex utero development at any stage of pregnancy. Sex would still bring with it the emotional and financial risk of parenthood for the mother (as it currently does for the father) but not the bodily risk or change of carrying a baby to term.