The ratio of male initiated sex vs. female initiated sex is quite unbalanced.
It isn't unbalanced at all. It's a product of evolution and the balance has been determined over hundreds of thousands of years. What isn't currently balanced is the lack of consequences for women and men fucking on a whim's notice.
The ratio of final female decision on sex (that isn't rape) is close to 100%.
to punish a man for poor judgement would be more socially acceptable that punishing a woman
It's also socially acceptable right now to "be less white" What kind of cuck upbringing did you have?
Your balking is not about logic; it is about not wanting to hold men accountable for their essential part in unwanted pregnancy
There's no balking here. Your idea wouldn't work, wouldn't do any good and would just end up putting even more abortions onto the tax payers bill.
You aren't smart enough to qualify as retarded. In the thimble full of brain cells that you have, you think women can't be responsible with their actions. Plenty of women are. The declining value placed by society on a traditional family (Husband, Wife and Children) is where abortion began to skyrocket. You wouldn't know any of that because you haven't spent more than 15 minutes researching abortion.
to punish a man for poor judgement would be more socially acceptable that punishing a woman
It's also socially acceptable right now to "be less white" What kind of cuck upbringing did you have?
Race/genetics is not a choice though. A man who chooses to have unprotected sex with a woman who he is not sure wants to raise a child WITH him and impregnates her has however made a choice.
Do you see the difference?
The precedent has been set that women will not be punished and so they will continue to get pregnant by stupid, careless or negligent men. who are also not punished, but nobody has every proposed the idea before BECAUSE IT MEANS WE NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE.
Question: Have you ever impregnated a woman who was not happy to have become pregnant?
If not, WHY NOT? ( Bad with women or good with judgement and restraint?)
If so, then it would be clear what is holding you back from (some of) my plan.
(So I don't have all the details - rough draft - but it is either this or abortion continues and continues to be "fashionable" )
Someone can be transracial just as realistically as they can be transsexual. Michael Jackson wasn't the only person trying to change his race.
As for my comment on what was socially acceptable - You should note that Coca Cola is actually doing training with their employees to "be less white". Leftists think being white is a choice.
The precedent has been set that women will not be punished
The precedent was set that slavery is legal. The precedent was set that women would be punished for abortion. If you put your left shoe on first today, then the precedent for putting your shoes in order is "set".
Instead of repeating the same lines, you should look up some of what I have posted. Abortion "rights" were almost overturned not that long ago - Scalia was worried about SCOTUS looking foolish by reversing itself and had to come up with some new convoluted logic and case history to "save" Roe v Wade.
Separate but Equal was also precdent. I'm not sure you understand how history works.
Question: Have you ever impregnated a woman who was not happy to have become pregnant?
If not, WHY NOT? ( Bad with women or good with judgement and restraint?)
Good with judgement and restraint. It is easy to get laid, if that's all you want. It isn't much more difficult to get laid by a good looking woman, if that's all you want. Women are almost as horny as guys are (a few are more so than most guys). The only "secret" is that women aren't horny all the time, like guys are. Knowing when a woman is "ready" is half the battle. Having something the woman wants is the other half. Combine those two and you are in like flint, so long as you don't make any deal breaking mistakes.
Your "solution" also ignores that there are couples that want to have a child, but then the woman decides she doesn't want it after all and has an abortion - when the man is ready to raise the child, by himself if necessary.
Abortion is murder. It is killing a child in the womb. The woman is making the ultimate decision to murder that child, so she (and the abortionist) should be the ones facing prison time.
Abortion is murder. It is killing a child in the womb. The woman is making the ultimate decision to murder that child, so she (and the abortionist) should be the ones facing prison time.
But that is not every going to happen again. So if you want to stop abortion, you need to do it a different way than continuing to preach the same thing which clearly has failed ALREADY.
It didn't fail. Judicial Fiat took it out of commission. When SCOTUS overturns it, it will be back in action. It isn't much different than an executive order from a POTUS, except that it takes 5+ robes agreeing rather than just one president. Abortion's legality is on extremely shaky grounds, with no real Constitutional underpinnings.
It isn't unbalanced at all. It's a product of evolution and the balance has been determined over hundreds of thousands of years. What isn't currently balanced is the lack of consequences for women and men fucking on a whim's notice.
The ratio of final female decision on sex (that isn't rape) is close to 100%.
It's also socially acceptable right now to "be less white" What kind of cuck upbringing did you have?
There's no balking here. Your idea wouldn't work, wouldn't do any good and would just end up putting even more abortions onto the tax payers bill.
You aren't smart enough to qualify as retarded. In the thimble full of brain cells that you have, you think women can't be responsible with their actions. Plenty of women are. The declining value placed by society on a traditional family (Husband, Wife and Children) is where abortion began to skyrocket. You wouldn't know any of that because you haven't spent more than 15 minutes researching abortion.
to punish a man for poor judgement would be more socially acceptable that punishing a woman
Race/genetics is not a choice though. A man who chooses to have unprotected sex with a woman who he is not sure wants to raise a child WITH him and impregnates her has however made a choice.
Do you see the difference?
The precedent has been set that women will not be punished and so they will continue to get pregnant by stupid, careless or negligent men. who are also not punished, but nobody has every proposed the idea before BECAUSE IT MEANS WE NEED TO BE ACCOUNTABLE.
Question: Have you ever impregnated a woman who was not happy to have become pregnant?
If not, WHY NOT? ( Bad with women or good with judgement and restraint?)
If so, then it would be clear what is holding you back from (some of) my plan.
(So I don't have all the details - rough draft - but it is either this or abortion continues and continues to be "fashionable" )
Someone can be transracial just as realistically as they can be transsexual. Michael Jackson wasn't the only person trying to change his race.
As for my comment on what was socially acceptable - You should note that Coca Cola is actually doing training with their employees to "be less white". Leftists think being white is a choice.
The precedent was set that slavery is legal. The precedent was set that women would be punished for abortion. If you put your left shoe on first today, then the precedent for putting your shoes in order is "set".
Instead of repeating the same lines, you should look up some of what I have posted. Abortion "rights" were almost overturned not that long ago - Scalia was worried about SCOTUS looking foolish by reversing itself and had to come up with some new convoluted logic and case history to "save" Roe v Wade.
Separate but Equal was also precdent. I'm not sure you understand how history works.
If not, WHY NOT? ( Bad with women or good with judgement and restraint?)
Good with judgement and restraint. It is easy to get laid, if that's all you want. It isn't much more difficult to get laid by a good looking woman, if that's all you want. Women are almost as horny as guys are (a few are more so than most guys). The only "secret" is that women aren't horny all the time, like guys are. Knowing when a woman is "ready" is half the battle. Having something the woman wants is the other half. Combine those two and you are in like flint, so long as you don't make any deal breaking mistakes.
Your "solution" also ignores that there are couples that want to have a child, but then the woman decides she doesn't want it after all and has an abortion - when the man is ready to raise the child, by himself if necessary.
Abortion is murder. It is killing a child in the womb. The woman is making the ultimate decision to murder that child, so she (and the abortionist) should be the ones facing prison time.
But that is not every going to happen again. So if you want to stop abortion, you need to do it a different way than continuing to preach the same thing which clearly has failed ALREADY.
It didn't fail. Judicial Fiat took it out of commission. When SCOTUS overturns it, it will be back in action. It isn't much different than an executive order from a POTUS, except that it takes 5+ robes agreeing rather than just one president. Abortion's legality is on extremely shaky grounds, with no real Constitutional underpinnings.