If a child is completely dependent on its parents by definition it is a parasite. I only used the word to help the argument that the women has rights too. I love babies and children as much as the next person.
Why would a woman allow male zygotes into her reproductive system if she doesn't want to become pregnant?
Really? Do I have to answer that?
And then pregnancy results in a child being born. Should it be a woman's right to starve her child?
Is that what my argument suggested to you? C'mon. I merely pointed out that there are many down-sides for a women even is she planned on having the child. I did not give any answers to the complicated issue of conflicting rights. I just pointed out why this issue is not as cut and dry as 'life begins at conception or a women is guilty of federal murder'.
It would have been nice if one of the scathing replies to my argument even touched upon the point I made. Perhaps they should pass a law that says the women is responsible through pregnancy and through DNA evidence the man is responsible from there out. Not one reply addressed the man's responsibility either. I do not have the answer. Ron Paul was not so arrogant to make the claim that the Feds should mandate this and he is a baby scientist.
Want DP delivered to your inbox daily? Subscribe here:
Content of posts and comments on the Daily Paul represent the opinions of the original posters, and are not endorsed, approved, or otherwise representative of the opinions of the