I am bemused at your response to my post, which was simply an argument for women's entitlement to abortion, and not the argument for irresponsible parenthood and abuse of social welfare you appear to have taken it as.
As a society I think we have become so laid back about reproduction we hardly give a thought to how the child will fare in life. If say a seventeen year old girl gets pregnant, decides that she wants to keep the child, even though the father does not want to face the responsibility of providing a home and stable environment; why then should the state have to shoulder his responsibilities?
I agree. But what has this got to do with anything I said?
Does anyone seriously, give a toss about the fact that a child could be being borne into poverty,
Yes, that is one of many things I am deeply concerned about, which is why I take the position I do on sex education, contraception and abortion.
The right to bear a child must also come with the moral obligation of bringing it up by the parents’ own endeavours and not simply based on the woman’s so called ‘right’ to be able to conceive and give birth and be funded entirely by an over abused welfare system.
I couldn't agree more.
In exceptional circumstances, of course, late terminations are necessary; but in the first 4-6 weeks the parents should be able to evaluate whether it is fair to the child, themselves or society to allow the foetus to develop to full term.
Indeed they should and, in an ideal world, they would. So?
Casual unprotected sex is now so common that becoming pregnant or fathering a child appears to some people not to carry any sense of responsibility or obligation. So much so,I would suggest that life itself has been devalued: could this be why when life so easily created, it is also so easily taken away in stabbings and shootings of and by young people with no real sense of reality or moral conviction?
This, again, is very true. However, like much else in your post it is a complete red herring that has nothing to do with anything I wrote.
I have not defended "the woman’s so called ‘right’ to be able to conceive and give birth and be funded entirely by an over abused welfare system".
I have not suggested that it is "society’s responsibility to support an individual’s procreative desires",
I have not argued that it is "it is society’s role to dictate to anyone how they should design their lifestyle". Indeed that it is very opposite of what I have argued.
It is so easy to glibly trot out the same old hackneyed arguments about a woman’s inalienable right to decide whether or not to carry through to delivery, a pregnancy or to terminate it at will.
Does the father have the same right? It took two to establish the pregnancy it should be mutually agreed to decide on the outcome.
Of course it took two to establish the pregnancy, of course it should
be mutually agreed to decide on the outcome. But this doesn't always happen, does it? Sometimes they disagree on what the outcome should be. Sometimes the man has disappeared by the time the woman discovers she is pregnant and sometimes he does a runner straight afterwards. Sometimes the woman has no idea which of a number of men was responsible for the pregnancy and wouldn't know how to trace him if she did. That, alas, is the nature of things.
The bottom line is that it is the woman's body that the foetus grows inside, the woman who goes through childbirth and the woman who is left holding the baby. The buck stops with the woman and that's why she should be entitled to terminate the pregnancy if that is what she wants to do. To force her to continue a pregnancy against her will is to deny her humanity and treat her as a breeding machine.
This is the only argument I have made in my previous two posts and I note that you have made no attempt to address this argument.
May I respectfully suggest you read my previous posts again, carefully this time, and try to avoid reading into them things that simply aren't there?