Abortion and how I form my abortion stance

Author: TheUnderdog

Posts

Total: 100
#61
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Novice_II
Born children, unborn children....You are far from consistent and have a confusing way of switching between hypotheticals.

And a zygote could be any zygote, so why go on about zygotes.


And if you had paid attention previously, you might have understood my contention with the word belief.

However:

Belief is based upon supposition, so is therefore factually worthless.

Whereas factual certainty is such that belief is unnecessary.

So to say that I believed an advocate was obsessed, would also have been factually worthless.

Belief is a word that is used to conveniently prop up non-sense and uncertainty.


The obvious observation to be made from your verbosity, is that you are not actually interested in the issues in question.

I would suggest that sounding clever, is your primary game.


So, another question for you to ignore.

What is your stance on the issue of surgically induced, human embryonic/foetal abortion?
#62
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@CoolApe
In the case of consensual sex, both parents should have custody of the child regardless of their liking it. The state should enforce visitation of the father because fatherless children perform far below children with fathers. Forget child support. The state should force parents to live close to each other and make them both pay for the child. If the father and mother are irresponsible, they can pay for the consequences. 
Neither is a parent until birth. Until then, they are just gamete doners. That's it. 

A pregnancy is NOT [a] child. 

I do agree on the child support matter, both are equally responsible, and neither should pay more than the other, other than time. 

In the case of nonconsensual sex, we hope the mother will still love the child. If she is incapable of loving the child, it's likely in the child’s best interest for the mother to give the child up for adoption. Seeking restitution from rapists is not feasible in most cases. Unless it's a wealthy rapist, the rapist will never make the income to support the child while serving his sentence or getting out of jail.
The pregnancy, if carried to term, would be a waking reminder of the trauma experienced that conceived that offspring. She didn't ask to be violated. She should no more be asked to carry to term for something that would have otherwise never have happened to her, but for the "nonconsensual sex."

Adoption? There are over 90 million children worldwide who have been unwanted and given up for adoption or became orphans through circumstances clearly beyond their control. Why add to the growing problem by forcing women to become incubators for society?

Lastly, abortion should be illegal in all cases unless it protects the mother's life. The fetus is not like an organ of a female body. She is not entitled to dispose of it or treat it like her other body parts. A fetus is a person and not a organ. It is a dependent person.  However, we never kill a dependent child or person, nor do we kill a young child because it won’t have a good life. 
Possession is 9/10ths the law. Familiar with that saying? I am sure you are. The pregnancy is within the female's body. She possesses it. It is hers for all intent and biological/physiological purposes. A pregnancy has no legal rights. The female has legal rights. And no human willingly disposes of "her other body parts" willy nilly. Such an uneducated false equivalency fallacy that is. A pregnancy is NOT [a] person. A zygote is NOT [a] person. A blastocyst is NOT [a] person. A fetus is NOT [a] person. A birthed child = [a] person and upon birth are bestowed all the legal rights, privileges and equal protection of the law (14th A.). Which clearly means no birthed person can be killed, that would clearly be murder. Abortion is NOT murder. 

94% of ALL abortions take place before 14 weeks gestation. Majority of those are before 6 weeks. There is no "baby" or "child" involved. Those terms are too often used in this debate, both are flagrant misnomers. 

Less than 1.3% of ALL abortions are after 22-24 weeks gestation (point of viability), and for specific medical reasons.

Abortion is safe and necessary for the evolution of humanity. It should remain legal. 
#63
ebuc
ebuc's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 4,920
3
2
4
ebuc's avatar
ebuc
3
2
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
People may say, “It’s the female’s body
Yes, you got the primary concern under consideration, so now be considerate of those circumstance she finds herself in.

1} non-breathing human, to varying degrees, and differrent times over 9 month gestation period,

2} next, keep your nose out of her bodily business, be lile a considerate, responsible decent and mature adult who respects pregnant women rights to her personal bodily autonmy, unless she asks for your or others consent to stick you nose into her bodily business.

Can you do that?  No?
Do have an addiction to pregnant womens bodies?
Are you obsessed over pregnant womens bodies?
Do you also have other compulsive behavior disorders, other than pregnant womens bodies?
#64
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
A zygote is NOT [a] human being. 
A blastocyst is NOT [a] human being.
An embryo is NOT [a] human being.
An unviable fetus is NOT [a] human being. 

Human is the descriptor defining the second term in that phrase, being. To be [a] (human) being is to be [a] person. 
To be [a] person is not rooted in biology or physiology but rather everything to do with the law. Under the law, [a] person has all the rights, privileges and equal protections of the law. These rights, privileges and equal protection of the law is NOT bestowed until BIRTH, when the viable fetus is legally idendified/categorized as [a] (legal) person. 


#65
CoolApe
CoolApe's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 87
0
1
6
CoolApe's avatar
CoolApe
0
1
6
-->
@TWS1405
 A pregnancy has no legal rights. The female has legal rights. And no human willingly disposes of "her other body parts" willy nilly. Such an uneducated false equivalency fallacy that is. A pregnancy is NOT [a] person. A zygote is NOT [a] person. A blastocyst is NOT [a] person. A fetus is NOT [a] person. A birthed child = [a] person and upon birth are bestowed all the legal rights, privileges and equal protection of the law (14th A.). Which clearly means no birthed person can be killed, that would clearly be murder. Abortion is NOT murder. 
I think your forgetting that women have bodily autonomy for many things involving their body parts. If she wants to treat her body (ergo her organs) like crap by smoking and/or drugs, she might as well be disposing her organs. She can have parts of her organs removed in medical procedures for health reasons or vanity (cosmetic surgery).

The distinction that I make is the zygote is half the DNA of the father and the mother. Therefore, the organism is not the mother even though it is inextricable from her body. It would be inaccurate to call the zygote her body.

The phrase "To be a human being is to be a person" is a tautology. If the argument is a person is an individual not subsistent on another, then the term can used for legal scrutiny. However, the argument is not the recognition of law.

A zygote is the beginning of a new life. Since a zygote is related to the development of a human life, it deserves to placed under the scrutiny of human morality, which supersedes the law. Human life is sacred. Life should be respected for being life and have the right to life. If you purport that the zygote or fetus is like a cancer or parasite attached to the women's body, then your foolish because it is human life. (question to TWS1405) How do pro-choice people justify having a stance against life?

(For anyone reading) How do liberals justify abortion when they have a ironic pro-life stance on animals and a conservationist stance on nature?

#66
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@CoolApe
I think your forgetting that women have bodily autonomy for many things involving their body parts. If she wants to treat her body (ergo her organs) like crap by smoking and/or drugs, she might as well be disposing her organs. She can have parts of her organs removed in medical procedures for health reasons or vanity (cosmetic surgery).
I am not forgetting anything; I just do not care for false equivalency fallacies. Comparing a woman's personal freedoms to choose to smoke, drink, elective surgeries, or even choosing to drive (or be a passenger in) a car, thereby putting her body as a whole or in parts at risk of damage or death to that of being pregnant is beyond asinine ignorance of the subject matter under discussion. 

The distinction that I make is the zygote is half the DNA of the father and the mother. Therefore, the organism is not the mother even though it is inextricable from her body. It would be inaccurate to call the zygote her body.
NO one calls the zygote "her body," it is widely accepted that it is within her body. Same as a cancer tumor would be, or even a tapeworm. It is still within her body, but it is NOT "her body." 

And the whole DNA thing is an irrelevant point. When crime scene investigators find blood and organic material at a crime scene they collect it and test it. In testing it they are looking for ... wait for it ... DNA to tell them what organism the specimens originated from. Every cell in the human organism has DNA, but it doesn't make each cell, organ, or slice of tissue [a] human being, now does it!?! No, it does not. It's just a genetic/biological identifier, that's it. 

The phrase "To be a human being is to be a person" is a tautology. If the argument is a person is an individual not subsistent on another, then the term can used for legal scrutiny. However, the argument is not the recognition of law.
Uh, nowhere did I make such an absurd argument. And as for the rest of that statement it makes little to no sense, grammatically speaking. Try rephrasing, please. 

A zygote is the beginning of a new life. Since a zygote is related to the development of a human life, it deserves to placed under the scrutiny of human morality, which supersedes the law. Human life is sacred. Life should be respected for being life and have the right to life. If you purport that the zygote or fetus is like a cancer or parasite attached to the women's body, then your foolish because it is human life. (question to TWS1405) How do pro-choice people justify having a stance against life?
You're conflating the term "life" throughout your stated position. Cellular life is not the same as [a] human life (i.e., personhood). It appears you do not understand what the term "morality" means:

  • There does not seem to be much reason to think that a single definition of morality will be applicable to all moral discussions. One reason for this is that “morality” seems to be used in two distinct broad senses: a descriptive sense and a normative sense. More particularly, the term “morality” can be used either descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.

Morality does NOT "supersede the law." It is what helps shape it, but it certainly does NOT supersede it. No, human life is not sacred. ALL life is sacred. But how we deal with that issue is entirely dependent on our evolution and survival as a sentient species along with keeping all other life in check so as not to cause extinction, but balance for all life. 

Cancer meets the basic biological criteria for life. If that cancer is created from dead or diseased human tissue, being human in origin, scientifically that makes the tumor "human life" too. A parasite, not so much, but as I said before...it is still within her body. She intrinsically possesses it. Fact. 

Being pro-choice to allow a woman control over her body is not a position against life (define life). Her life matters first and foremost, all else is secondary. 

(For anyone reading) How do liberals justify abortion when they have a ironic pro-life stance on animals and a conservationist stance on nature?
Yet another false equivalency fallacy. You simply cannot compare abortion, which is inherently a human reality, with that of other non-human animals. 

For the record, I am not a liberal. I am a staunch conservative and constitutionalist to the core. 
#67
Ua488168
Ua488168's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4
0
0
0
Ua488168's avatar
Ua488168
0
0
0
-->
@TheUnderdog
Let’s say your a female, and you end up pregnant. You didn’t want to get pregnant, you used birth control and condoms. But you still managed to get pregnant. If you give birth this baby will ruin you’re whole life. So you think about it and you come to the conclusion that you’re gonna get an abortion. Your partner may try and stop you, but in the end it’s your body and not theirs. You get the abortion cause you want to. Your partner may never want to talk to you again, but in the end you did what’s best for you, not anyone else. 

Let’s say your a male and you got your partner pregnant. They wanna keep it, but you don’t. You express to them that and they tell you that they aren’t gonna get an abortion. You know you aren’t ready for a child, so you decide to it’s best for you to keep out of the baby’s life. You give up your rights, you don’t pay child support, you never are gonna be in the child’s life. That’s what’s best for you, you need to do what’s best for you. 
You may say they need to pay child support, but if they give up all rights to that child they don’t have to. 

In the end it’s what’s doing what’s best for yourself, one tiny mistake can change your whole life for the worst. You do what you need to do, you need to be there for yourself. 

If you wanna bring it to a scientific stand point, a pregnancy isn’t viable (can’t survive on its own) until the end of the second trimester. Most abortions happen in the first trimester. The pregnancy isn’t viable, it’s reliable on the person who’s womb it’s in. It’s not a living thing, it’s a fetus. Not alive and not dead. You aren’t killing it by aborting it, it has to be alive to kill. And it’s not. 
Topic's author
#68
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Deadbeat dad is your character.
I’m not a deadbeat.

This is why virgins shouldn't talk about sex
It’s like a non smoker telling you how bad smoking is.

Topic's author
#69
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
They hate women having control of their own bodies.
Do you hate dads having control over their own wallets?  Their money, their choice.  Bodily sensations aren’t priceless, do you deny this?  This applies from a pinch to a pregnancy.

This is why virgins shouldn't talk about sex
It’s akin to a non smoker telling you smoking is bad.

Why do you think it's okay to pay a woman to have a baby for a couple but it's not okay to pay a woman to have sex with them.
I think surrogacy and prostitution should be legal.  But I think married men should be banned from prostitution as it is adultery.  An exception applies if the wife is fine with it.

Why do you think it's okay to pay people to have sex on camera and call it porn but it's not okay for women to get paid to have sex with men on the street and call it prostitution. 
Porn Stars don’t get pregnant as the guys fucking them need vastectomies I think.  If not, I think guys who do porn should be required to have a vasectomy.  I don’t have a problem with legalizing prostitution for unmarried men and women.  I just think it’s stupid to sleep with a prostitute as that’s how you get STIs.  I fail to see what that has to do with abortion.

And the women that hate women are self-lothers who have been told their pieces of s*** their whole life and believe it.
No … some women want abortion banned and they don’t want to have sex without birth control.  Many of them just don’t have sex.


Topic's author
#70
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Double_R
The abortion debate is not about whether a fetus has a right to life, we generally all agree that it does. The debate is about whether the fetus’s right to life outweighs the mothers right to her own body. Pro lifers say it does, pro choicers say it doesn’t.

The financial desires of the father has no place in this debate.
Why not?  The father is forced to pay for the female’s choice.  I understand men’s rights activists aren’t as common as feminists, but I don’t look at parties.  I come up with my own thoughts.

That’s absurd. Stealing money out of one’s bank account is not the same thing as stealing one’s left hand.
If it’s a small amount of money, I’d agree.  But what would you rather lose, all of your million dollars or your left hand?  I think a lot of people would answer their left hand.  But I also think most people perfer 9 months of unwanted pregnancy to losing their left hand.  So losing your left hand might be worth $1 million, especially since hands I think are replaceable right now.  But a pregnancy I think is significantly less than $1 million in sacrifice.  Surrogates charge $25,000, so it’s an appropriate value for a pregnancy.

The reason more females are not surrogates is because they are not willing to allow their bodies to be used for the low price of the market.
That’s possible, but I thought the reason most females weren’t surrogates was because most people would rather produce their own kids through sex than pay tens of thousands of dollars for the service.  But people who want kids tend to do whatever it takes to have them, include pay really high fees.
Topic's author
#71
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@ebuc
non-breathing human, to varying degrees, and differrent times over 9 month gestation period,
If you don’t believe a fetus is worthy of protection, do you support the right to smash and dash?

next, keep your nose out of her bodily business,
This would be like me saying that you shouldn’t force a deadbeat dad to pay child support.  Mind your business; their money, their choice.  If a deadbeat isn’t allowed to opt out of a pregnancy, neither is a female.  #GenderEquality.
Topic's author
#72
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@TWS1405
A zygote is NOT [a] human being. 
A blastocyst is NOT [a] human being.
An embryo is NOT [a] human being.
An unviable fetus is NOT [a] human being. 
If this is really what you believe, do you support smash and dash if a fetus isn’t a human being?
Topic's author
#73
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@Ua488168
You give up your rights, you don’t pay child support, you never are gonna be in the child’s life. That’s what’s best for you, you need to do what’s best for you. 
I looked up child support laws; you can’t opt out of child support just because you don’t want to pay for it.  
#74
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
If this is really what you believe, do you support smash and dash if a fetus isn’t a human being?
This makes zero senses. Having a one-night stand has nothing to do with that which isn't even in existence, let alone even a question of fact. 
#75
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@TWS1405
A zygote is NOT [a] human being. 
A blastocyst is NOT [a] human being.
An embryo is NOT [a] human being.
An unviable fetus is NOT [a] human being. 

  Human is the descriptor defining the second term in that phrase, being. To be [a] (human) being is to be [a] person.
Then explain why Human Development begins at fertilization? Personhood/agency is a requisite for the consideration of rights, not for the description, "human."


NO one calls the zygote "her body," it is widely accepted that it is within her body. Same as a cancer tumor would be, or even a tapeworm. It is still within her body, but it is NOT "her body." 
A zygote IS NOT a tumor.

I suspect the reason you and others attempt to diminish the humanity of a zygote/embryo/fetus is to cope with and justify its death. Because simply saying, "it's her body, therefore, it's her right" isn't as palatable to a collectivism-obsessed populace. But it is honest, much more so than lexically incorrect disqualifications of a zyogte's/embryo's/fetus's humanity.



Topic's author
#76
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@TWS1405
Having a one-night stand has nothing to do with that which isn't even in existence, let alone even a question of fact. 
If the person you have a one night stand gets pregnant, do you support the right to ditch her?  No.  Why?  Because the dad created a human being.  Hold the female to the same standard.
#77
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
-->
@TheUnderdog
Having a one-night stand has nothing to do with that which isn't even in existence, let alone even a question of fact. 
If the person you have a one night stand gets pregnant, do you support the right to ditch her?  No.  Why?  Because the dad created a human being.  Hold the female to the same standard.

Do not put words into my mouth. 

Yes, I would support him just as much as I would the woman ditching him. 

He isn't a "dad" until birth of the child. That's when his legal responsibilities begin. 

Also, the male did not create the pregnancy (not [a] human being); takes two gametes to do that. They did that, not he. 


Topic's author
#78
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@TWS1405
I don’t see how anyone can support smash and dash when the female gets pregnant.  Men should not smash and dash and they should be prosecuted if they do and forced to pay all the child support they owe.
#79
TWS1405
TWS1405's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 1,048
3
4
7
TWS1405's avatar
TWS1405
3
4
7
I don’t see how anyone can support smash and dash when the female gets pregnant.  Men should not smash and dash and they should be prosecuted if they do and forced to pay all the child support they owe.
Women do manipulative things to get pregnant. It's no different than the smash and dash concept. 





#80
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
I didn't say you were deadbeat. But you created the deadbeat dad character who goes around creating zygotes.

And I'm pretty sure that I didn't instigated the virgins thing.

Nonetheless, one doesn't need to be a smoker to know that smoking is addictive and detrimental.
Topic's author
#81
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
One doesn’t need to have sex to know that sex without the intent on producing a kid is addictive and detrimental.
#82
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Sex drive is inherent.

Sort of an in built addiction.

The whole purpose of which, is to produce kids.

Recreational sex is a side benefit, and won't result in kids if care is taken.

No accounting for deadbeat dad and mum though.

So thank goodness for abortion.......Yet another benefit of human ingenuity.
Topic's author
#83
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
Sex drive is inherent.

Sort of an in built addiction.
If sex drive is inevitable and people shouldn’t be punished for it, do you support punishing deadbeat dads with child support money?


#84
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Yes.

But my original point still stands.

That is:

Deadbeat mum is as much to blame. 

So early term  abortion is a sensible option for her.
Topic's author
#85
TheUnderdog
TheUnderdog's avatar
Debates: 5
Posts: 4,340
3
5
10
TheUnderdog's avatar
TheUnderdog
3
5
10
-->
@zedvictor4
If you support a female abandoning the fetus she chose to create, do you support the dad doing the same thing?  I think that would be ridiculous.
#86
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,067
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
Well, that's your stylised  version of events.

My version is that deadbeat mum and dad only chose to have recreational sex.

The fusing of gametes was an unwanted consequence rather than a choice.

Couples who wish to start a family choose procreational sex, where the consequence of gamete fusion is the preferred outcome.


As I stated previously, the benefit of human ingenuity affords us options these days, one of which is the termination of unwanted pregnancies.


So you're cutting  firewood, and you choose to sever your leg with a chainsaw, therefore should you be compelled to bleed to death?

Choice or consequence?


For sure deadbeat mum and dad could have chosen to use a condom.....But when all is said and done, they are only sex driven deadbeats.

And can you imagine what it would have been like with all those deadbeat kids that would've been kicking around the neighbourhood if it hadn't have been for the ingenuity of surgically induced  abortion.

Thank GOD for giving us ingenuity is what I say.


9 days later

#87
Ua488168
Ua488168's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4
0
0
0
Ua488168's avatar
Ua488168
0
0
0
-->
@TheUnderdog
If you were to not put down that you are the child’s parent on their birth certificate, you don’t have to pay child support.
#88
Basti123
Basti123's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 8
0
0
4
Basti123's avatar
Basti123
0
0
4
-->
@TheUnderdog
I have always been pro-letting people abort. More like pro- giving more access to contraceptives and more sexual education to avoid getting to that extreme point. 
But your point has made me gone silent, your point is very good; but my view on abortion is for it to be generally legal and always when a life is at risk.
#89
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TheUnderdog
 Doing what he did should be illegal, even when it’s a zygote. You should hold the female to the same standard.  If a guy isn’t allowed to ditch the zygote he chose to create, then neither is the female.
The fact you use the term zygote instead of fetus is very strange but I’ll take a shot at this.

It’s not illegal for a man to leave or abandon a woman when he gets her pregnant, but once the child is born he can definitely be required to support that child. The female can ditch the fetus if she lives in a normal state or travels to a normal state. She can even legally ditch the baby after it is born as long as she does it in a safe way prescribed by law.

So the entire premise of your post is faulty.


#90
IwantRooseveltagain
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,597
3
3
6
IwantRooseveltagain's avatar
IwantRooseveltagain
3
3
6
-->
@TWS1405

Women do manipulative things to get pregnant. It's no different than the smash and dash concept.

Women reveal the reasons they’re secretly trying to get pregnant | The Sun

I was desperate for a baby so I ‘spurgled’ a man and tricked him into getting me pregnant – The Sun | The Sun

Find a guy who would get me pregnant and leave? - GirlsAskGuys

Yup, definitely enlisted. Only an enlisted guy would cite a British tabloid in a debate and think he has made a strong argument.