Michigan starting round 2 of the War on Women

[nehalem256]

Once you realize babies aren't property you will wonder why you typed all that.

Actually they basically are. Why do you think society allows people who abuse their general to routinely keep them(see for example the "imaginary grenade" thread for an exampe)?

Well, you're saying that a baby is part of the woman, are you saying that a part of a person is not their property? That's...distrubing...

The baby both is and is not the woman's property. When it comes to her making decisions about it is her property. When it comes to paying for it is 50%(or more) the man's property.

It sounds like you want it every way for the woman: She chooses to spread her legs, thereby choosing to potentially have a baby even if she knows the man doesn't/won't. She then chooses to either have the baby or abort it. If she has the baby and the man never wanted it, she legally gets 50% child support costs from him (or whatever fantastical number a court comes up with). If she doesn't want the baby but the man does, she can abort it without his consent, even though half of it is his and she is destroying that without his permission.

It sounds like he wants it every way for the woman because that is exactly what liberals want.

 

[chucky2]

Once you realize babies aren't property you will wonder why you typed all that.

Oh? If they're not property what are they while they're in the womans body?

 

[sandorski]

Oh? If they're not property what are they while they're in the womans body?

...not Babies.