Why is murder punished?

You love to play "what if", so just play along. Remember, what is impossible now, will be possible in the future.

 

What's your point by asking me these hypothetical questions? Okay fine, I will answer your specific questions, just please ask me what the purpose of asking these questions is.

 

The purposes are 1. to get you to realize that the woman is making a sacrifice to gestate and give birth, possibly a larger sacrifice than you would ever be willing to make, and yet you think nothing of demanding it of a woman. 2. to get you to realize that you are deceiving yourself about the true goal of anti-abortion legislation, the true goal is punishing and controlling women, and that fact is confirmed by your reluctance to sign on as a surrogate gestator.

Now that I have explained all this to you, I'm sure you understand, and there is no need for you to answer any questions about it because you have already made your position clear, and that is, that you will not be voluntarily gestating any pregnancies.

 

Why would I have to do that? If I wouldn't volunteer, somebody else would probably volunteer to save the fetus's life.

My main belief in why abortions should be illegal is only to save the fetus's life, not to punish women for having sex.

 

If that were true, you would be willing to sacrifice yourself rather than requiring a woman to make the sacrifice.

 

Why would I have to sacrifice myself if somebody else would volunteer anyways to take the woman's place?

 

There are around one million abortions every year in this country, which means we need one million men to step up and risk their lives to gestate all those fetuses. Every year. Now even for women, it is not healthy to have a pregnancy more often than every 3 years (Yes, I know women do it, but it's not the healthiest for them.). So you're gonna have to take a turn.

Now if you're not willing to do that, you've got some nerve demanding that women do it.

 

The irony of abortion is that it has its roots in feminists trying to achieve "equality" for women. After all, men don't go through pregnancies.
Feminists resented nature, it wasn't fair.

Of course it was only ever about equality for women, not the children and not the family.

 

It's the biological role of women to carry children.

 

Science is very close to finding a way for men to also carry children. Science has already found a way, several ways, for women to avoid carrying children. We aren't locked into biology. We can be almost anything we want to be.

 

Is science close to enabling men to breast feed their babies too?

 

Oh, that can already be done.

http://www.unassistedchildbirth.com/misc-articles/milkmen-fathers-who-breastfeed/

A breast is a breast. Male lactation is physiologically possible and, according to Dr. Robert Greenblatt, production in males can be stimulated by letting a baby suckle for several weeks. Indeed some human males secrete milk at birth and at puberty.Historically, male lactation was noted by the German explorer Alexander Freiherr von Humboldt prior to 1859, who wrote of a 32-year-old man who breastfed his child for five months. It was also observed in a 55-year-old Baltimore man who had been the wetnurse of the children of his mistress.

 

This is very off topic.

 

You're right, it was wrong of me to respond to an off-topic post. Now you also have responded to an off-topic post.