He was slick.
He could have saved himself a lot of time, money and trouble if he had just followed Bill's example.

Have her swallow.

no, its not required,, but it is present often times when they disregard the long term consequences for the short term satisfaction,,,

IF she had been desiring an abortion, he should pay half expenses of ending that life, as he would have no choice(which is not fair)

If she had not, he should pay for the life he helped her create (and had FULL choice in creating )

She had the same choice as he in the beginning. But, later she holds all the cards. If she chooses to end the pregnancy (whether he pays or not) she can. But, if he doesn't want the responsibility, she can still force it upon him.

Why should he have to pay if she doesn't?

I think the baby is the one who pays

as to who has to provide FINANCES,,,I think its the age old gender roles,, she will be expected to provide the REAL TIME companionship, nurturing, teaching, feeding, cleaning for their child and he wont

but he will be expected to provide (unless he gets the custody and she has the money in which case the roles would be reversed as well as the legal obligations)

You're dodging the question.

Is it fair that a man is forced to take responsibility when a woman is not?

the flesh is donated by the parents, the soul is donated by God

neither have ownership of the soul, both have responsibility for the flesh,,,

he wanted the pleasure of the action without the responsibility for the consequence

She had the same choice as he in the beginning. But, later she holds all the cards. If she chooses to end the pregnancy (whether he pays or not) she can. But, if he doesn't want the responsibility, she can still force it upon him.

Why should he have to pay if she doesn't?

Assuming this is true... they have no ownership and no responsibility for the soul, the parents; then god has responsibility for the soul alone by himself.

If God has an ongoing responsibility for the soul, then he must make sure that the flesh is capable of supporting the soul. If the parents by their free will decide to not carry out their responsibilities, then god must carry on alone, otherwise the child dies.

God can allow the child to die, or god can decide to provide for the child.

The parents know that; the parents know that when they give up the caring for a child's flesh, they are giving the child's flesh over to god for Him to take care of it if he wants.

if He wants, he will. If he does not want to, then the child may die even if the parents continue caring for the flesh of the baby.

You see my point? Parents are responsible to care for the flesh of the baby, but if they stop doing it, they are not truly abandoning the baby, but, instead, they hand the baby over to god's care. The parent's wash their hands, and say to god, "It's your baby now."

This is not nice of the parents to do, but it's not awful at all, either. God is omnipotent, he can take care of a baby for sure, don't kid yourself.

So the caring for the flesh should be a shared responsibility by the parernts, but the parents can transfer this this responsibility to god without much or any bitter ramification to them; and if they can jointly hand over this responsibility, and free themselves of it, then one or the other can also unilaterally rid himself of this responsibility, since this is an ominous responsibility, but in a relgious sense it is not a big deal.

it is not like going out and killing a person, or staying in an killing a person.

You can live a good christian life without providing for the flesh of any christian on a distant continent, and you can stay a good christian even if you give up your responisibility to care for the flesh of your child.

For the flesh of your child is not the life of your child.

So did she, dinshe. If her sense of responsibility was higher, she could have swallowed, she did not have to selfishly enjoy the pleasure herself.

I mean to say, what you say about him, is equally applicable to her (not more or less, but equally).

You're dodging the question.

Is it fair that a man is forced to take responsibility when a woman is not?

This is the wrong question.

The right one would be, under the terms of the argument you are putting forth,

Is it fair that the woman alone decides for both the man and herself whether to take responsibility, or not to take it.

it is not like going out and killing a person, or staying in an killing a person.



I think it is exactly like that

for the soul doesnt stop being Gods at birth and God doesnt become any less omnipotent

so allowing a child to die or killing a child, is not excused by the notion that God can do it instead

the responsibility of the parents doesnt become alleviated with the omnipotence of God,,,,

This is true, but there is no assurance that the sould of the baby wouldn't have departed the baby's flesh even if the baby's flesh stays in the care of the parents.

There is intentional killing, and there is the lord recalling a soul.

If a murder occurs, there is no denying about intention and responsibility.

But if abandonment occurs, there are two unanswered questions that always vindicate the abandoner (the person who does the abandoning):

- why is his responsibility not transferable to god? it is.
- people die at random, at any age; they die not due to murder, but due to god's deciding it's time to go. In an abandonment case, there is no assurance that if the abandoment hypothetically did not happen, the child would stay alive. This is not assured, and it gives absolution to the parents from the charge or sin of murder. Why should the parents' abandoning a responsibility they have for their baby, to care of the baby's flesh, such a big deal? It is not a big deal, because god can carry on (and in many instances he does) caring for the flesh, and it is not a big deal, because the death through abandoning is not a del facto cause of death; death could have occurred without abandoning.

In fact, perhaps it's the sign and wise act of god to have parents discontinue their responsible behaviour for their child flesh, so a lot of medicare dollars can be saved in the case the baby died while still in their care.

some will say yes because of the physical nature of childbearing being exclusively the womans

some will say no because of the developing life NOT being excslusively the womans

I believe a father should have the right to legally sign away any paternal rights or obligations during pregnancy, so the woman can still decide to have or not have the child Alone

I also believe a father should have the right to stop an abortion and legally accept FULL responsibility for the child and all medical expenses incurred in its coming into the world,,,so the woman will not be forced to care for a life she doesnt want beyond the nine months that she will be compensated for


I am opposed to abortion altogether honestly, except in cases where the mothers life is at high risk

yet, as long as abortion remains legal, I do believe parental rights(and responsibilities) should exist for BOTH parents from conception,,,

He was slick.
He could have saved himself a lot of time, money and trouble if he had just followed Bill's example.

Have her swallow.

He was sick? It was her that killed her baby for a trip.