Abortion: what do u think?
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="nomsayin"]
The whole pro-choice argument boils down to "it's a woman's choice, not yours." All I'm simply asking is why does this not extend to include late-term abortions?Â
lostrib
perhaps when/if the child is able to survive outside the mother?
But see, now you're placing your own personal guidelines on the child. This is supposed to be a decision made between the woman and her doctor. Just because it can survive outside a woman's body, doesn't mean that it isn't still in her body. According to pro-choicers, the women should have the right to do what she wants with her body, including whatever is inside of it. What you think does not matter in that case.
I've already stated that I think it should, while I still don't like the idea of it personally. The current limitation at 24 weeks in some states is due to the issue of viability, as it could potentially survive outside the mother with intensive medical care.The whole pro-choice argument boils down to "it's a woman's choice, not yours." All I'm simply asking is why does this not extend to include late-term abortions?Â
nomsayin
[QUOTE="nomsayin"]I've already stated that I think it should, while I still don't like the idea of it personally. The current limitation at 24 weeks in some states is due to the issue of viability, as it could potentially survive outside the mother with intensive medical care. While I disagree, I commend you for being consistent, unlike most pro-choicers here who are strongly against late-term abortion.The whole pro-choice argument boils down to "it's a woman's choice, not yours." All I'm simply asking is why does this not extend to include late-term abortions?Â
HoolaHoopMan
Abortion is such a boring topic. The rest of the civilized world is past it yet American politicians still make a big deal out of it lol so sad.
Not at all a fan.
[QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"][QUOTE="nomsayin"]I've already stated that I think it should, while I still don't like the idea of it personally. The current limitation at 24 weeks in some states is due to the issue of viability, as it could potentially survive outside the mother with intensive medical care. While I disagree, I commend you for being consistent, unlike most pro-choicers here who are strongly against late-term abortion. Although I agree it is inconsistent, the issue of late term abortions is really a non issue. Hardly any of them happen, and when they do its due to health issues for the woman or severe defects have been detected in the growing fetus. I don't think anyone here is PRO abortion, but they see it as a better option than outlawing any forms of it.The whole pro-choice argument boils down to "it's a woman's choice, not yours." All I'm simply asking is why does this not extend to include late-term abortions?Â
nomsayin
[QUOTE="nomsayin"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] Still irrelevant. If the law dictates that anything past fertilization is a person, any termination would result in a legal murder. In the rule of law: Murder>>>Mental anguish. HoolaHoopManThe mother is always taken preference to the fetus wrt health reasons. Most pro-lifers would be completely fine with abortion due to legitimate health reasons. Mental health would not be a legitimate health reason at it wouldn't endanger the life of the mother. Again inconsistent. The only legitimate and consistent pro-life stance that would allow for an abortion scenario is when the mother has a sure chance to lose her life during a pregnancy. Other than that, making exceptions is wildly inconsistent in viewing a fertilized egg as an equal to a person.
This is not simply a mild "depression" that doctors make their patients take pills for. This is rape. PTSD, depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, the list goes on. Many rape victims are sadly unable to become functioning members of society.
This is not simply a mild "depression" that doctors make their patients take pills for. This is rape. PTSD, depression, suicidal thoughts, substance abuse, the list goes on. Many rape victims are sadly unable to become functioning members of society.nomsayinI agree that rape can lead to all those things, and that they're all serious. However any termination of a pregnancy would be considered murder if person hood bills were to take affect. You would be effectively murdering someone to alleviate mental anguish for another. I believe one tips the scales a bit more than the other.
[QUOTE="nomsayin"][QUOTE="HoolaHoopMan"] I've already stated that I think it should, while I still don't like the idea of it personally. The current limitation at 24 weeks in some states is due to the issue of viability, as it could potentially survive outside the mother with intensive medical care. HoolaHoopManWhile I disagree, I commend you for being consistent, unlike most pro-choicers here who are strongly against late-term abortion. Although I agree it is inconsistent, the issue of late term abortions is really a non issue. Hardly any of them happen, and when they do its due to health issues for the woman or severe defects have been detected in the growing fetus. I don't think anyone here is PRO abortion, but they see it as a better option than outlawing any forms of it.
2% is still quite a few, and the problem is "mental health" can be quite vague. I've heard of some doctors allowing abortions due to women suffering from "depression", but it's still not really clear-cut and can be abused. With rape, we know for a fact that there will be legitimate mental health issues, ranging all the way from PTSD to legitimate depression.Â
Â
I just thought it was interesting how many pro-choicers (not you) are fine with early abortions but not late ones.
unwanted foetuses are parasites.
Â
Kill them.
[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="BranKetra"] That seems like a technicality.BranKetra
technically correct, the best kind of correct
Maybe you misunderstand my point. As II_Seraphim_II explained, a woman makes changes to her own body causing the removal of a fetus from her body. While the operation is technically performed on the woman's body, the effects of the operation directly lead to the fetus' death. In fact, that is the entire point of the operation. I completely understand what you are trying to say. And it's a completely valid point. I just think that this is one of those issues where people have their own reasons for being on one side of the equation, all equally valid, its just a matter of where you personally stand. I'm pro choice, but I understand the concerns of pro-life people in certain instances (excluding the extremist who say a woman should still have the baby if she is raped or her life is threatened). I dont think there is a 100% right answer to this issue, but I picked a side that I felt most comfortable with :P
Maybe pro lifers would be taken seriously if their arguments were based on emotion and semantics.
"It's murder!!"
You clearly don't understand what murder is, and it makes you look stupid, not convincing.
The way I see it, both people are equally as responsible and the law should recognize that. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want it, the woman can still choose to have the baby, fair enough. But if a man wants the baby and the woman doesnt want it, she can still get an abortion unilaterally, understandable cause its her body. But if you're going to let a woman unilaterally make such a decision, then it stands to reason that this isnt really a 2 person deal. Now, it makes absolutely no sense to force a woman to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months that she does not want only to give it to the father at the end of the day.
So my suggestion would be that if 2 people have sex, and the woman gets pregnant and wants the baby but the man doesnt, the man should offer to pay for an abortion. If the woman refuses and says she wants to keep the baby, the man should be able to sign away all legal responsibility towards the child and the woman can raise the child on her own without expecting any cash or money. That is the only solution that equally and fairly represents both people as having both played a part in the conception of the child. If the woman really thinks she can raise the child on her own and refuses the abortion, then it is her choice as a responsible adult, and she should be able to take care of it.
By saying the man should just deal with it, you are absolving the woman of any sort of responsibility. Yeah, the guy didnt have to go have sex with the woman, but at the same time, she didnt have to open her legs and let the man ejaculate in her without a condom. If she can unilaterally decide what to do in the situation of a pregnancy, then she should unilaterally deal with the consequences of her decision.
II_Seraphim_II
See, that's completely untrue. Both people created the child, both should care for its well-being. The woman is not being absolved of any responsibility, to claim so is outrageous. She's the one who has to carry the child for nine months, and then she has to raise it, with OR without the man to help her (even if he sends money, she's still the one caring for it). How, then, is she being "absolved of any sort of responsibility"? In fact, you're the one suggesting that the man should be absolved of all fatherly duties. Offer to pay for an abortion, and if she says no, goodbye? "Screw condoms, I'm free to knock up a girl every day, and all I have to do to is offer to pay for an abortion to clear myself of all accountability. I'm sure the kids who pop out are going to live wonderful lives under the sole payroll of a single mother! And I don't even have to be there during the pregnancy!" Seriously, how can you guys be that callous? The man had a choice too. He didn't have to chase the woman; he could've wore a condom. Ultimately, they're both responsible. Either in paying for an abortion, or raising the child. And if a woman you're with chooses to abort your child, then you have the choice to drop her like a lead weight (so saying that the man has no choice is simply wrong).
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]
The way I see it, both people are equally as responsible and the law should recognize that. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want it, the woman can still choose to have the baby, fair enough. But if a man wants the baby and the woman doesnt want it, she can still get an abortion unilaterally, understandable cause its her body. But if you're going to let a woman unilaterally make such a decision, then it stands to reason that this isnt really a 2 person deal. Now, it makes absolutely no sense to force a woman to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months that she does not want only to give it to the father at the end of the day.
So my suggestion would be that if 2 people have sex, and the woman gets pregnant and wants the baby but the man doesnt, the man should offer to pay for an abortion. If the woman refuses and says she wants to keep the baby, the man should be able to sign away all legal responsibility towards the child and the woman can raise the child on her own without expecting any cash or money. That is the only solution that equally and fairly represents both people as having both played a part in the conception of the child. If the woman really thinks she can raise the child on her own and refuses the abortion, then it is her choice as a responsible adult, and she should be able to take care of it.
By saying the man should just deal with it, you are absolving the woman of any sort of responsibility. Yeah, the guy didnt have to go have sex with the woman, but at the same time, she didnt have to open her legs and let the man ejaculate in her without a condom. If she can unilaterally decide what to do in the situation of a pregnancy, then she should unilaterally deal with the consequences of her decision.
GamerForca
See, that's completely untrue. Both people created the child, both should care for its well-being. The woman is not being absolved of any responsibility, to claim so is outrageous. She's the one who has to carry the child for nine months, and then she has to raise it, with OR without the man to help her (even if he sends money, she's still the one caring for it). How, then, is she being "absolved of any sort of responsibility"? In fact, you're the one suggesting that the man should be absolved of all fatherly duties. Offer to pay for an abortion, and if she says no, goodbye? "Screw condoms, I'm free to knock up a girl every day, and all I have to do to is offer to pay for an abortion to clear myself of all accountability. I'm sure the kids who pop out are going to live wonderful lives under the sole payroll of a single mother! And I don't even have to be there during the pregnancy!" Seriously, how can you guys be that callous? The man had a choice too. He didn't have to chase the woman; he could've wore a condom. Ultimately, they're both responsible. Either in paying for an abortion, or raising the child. And if a woman you're with chooses to abort your child, then you have the choice to drop her like a lead weight (so saying that the man has no choice is simply wrong).
That exactly is my problem right there. You say the man is also responsible but then how come he doesnt get a choice in whether or not she has a child? You keep saying on and on that both people made the baby, but the woman can unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. Both people created the child, but that doesnt seem to matter to the law when it comes to abortion.
If you wanna pull that "both people created the child" card then you have to be 100% fair. If the father wants the child, and the woman doesnt, she still has to have the child, and then give it to the father. That's the only way that you can be 100% fair about this, because I dont see the fairness in forcing a man to take care of a child he doesnt want because a woman wants it, but giving the woman the option of unilaterally getting an abortion of a child the man wants.
And you say this woman has to carry the baby for 9 months? well the man has to give her money for 18 years. Id rather carry a baby for 9 months than spend the next 18 years paying for a child I never even wanted. And on another hand, why cant this woman just find someone who actually wants to have a baby with her? You make it seem like the man raped her. She could have kept her legs shut too. Or told the man to wear a condom. Its not about being callous, its about being fair. You dont think it would be callous if a woman got knocked up and the man was super excited about the child and the woman just went out and got an abortion on her own? You don't think that's callous?
If you want to play that "it takes 2 to make a child" card, then it should equally take 2 to make a decision regarding abortion, but the truth is it doesnt. If the woman can shoulder the responsibility of unilaterally making a decision that affects not just her but someone else, she should be able to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child on her own.
Play it however you want. Either my previous suggestion, or make it so that its illegal for a woman to get an abortion if the father wants the child. That's the only way you can have a fair law regarding this.
Nothing really. I don't get pregnant. So, I leave that thing to the women. Pro-choice I guess.
The wife is generally pro-life though.
See, that's completely untrue. Both people created the child, both should care for its well-being. The woman is not being absolved of any responsibility, to claim so is outrageous. She's the one who has to carry the child for nine months, and then she has to raise it, with OR without the man to help her (even if he sends money, she's still the one caring for it). How, then, is she being "absolved of any sort of responsibility"? In fact, you're the one suggesting that the man should be absolved of all fatherly duties. Offer to pay for an abortion, and if she says no, goodbye? "Screw condoms, I'm free to knock up a girl every day, and all I have to do to is offer to pay for an abortion to clear myself of all accountability. I'm sure the kids who pop out are going to live wonderful lives under the sole payroll of a single mother! And I don't even have to be there during the pregnancy!" Seriously, how can you guys be that callous? The man had a choice too. He didn't have to chase the woman; he could've wore a condom. Ultimately, they're both responsible. Either in paying for an abortion, or raising the child. And if a woman you're with chooses to abort your child, then you have the choice to drop her like a lead weight (so saying that the man has no choice is simply wrong).GamerForca
You don't get it. Both contributed to it, both have responsability towards it, therefore both MUST have a say in it. You're going around the word choice for a man as if the woman did not have a choice to make him wear a condom or did not have a choice to open her legs. It doesn't work like that.
 I wonder if all these women-loving, feminist pro-choicers would be cool with late term abortions (not just for health reasons only). After all, it's the women's body, and the big bad government should not be interfering with it.Â
nomsayin
I'm not a feminist by any stretch of imagination, in fact if you look back to find a thread about feminist issues you can be 100% sure I'll be posting in it to bash women-lovers, and I'm fine with late term abortions.
This has nothing to do with being women-lovers and everything to do with the fact that I consider a toddler's life worthless.
[QUOTE="nomsayin"]
 I wonder if all these women-loving, feminist pro-choicers would be cool with late term abortions (not just for health reasons only). After all, it's the women's body, and the big bad government should not be interfering with it.Â
N30F3N1X
I'm not a feminist by any stretch of imagination, in fact if you look back to find a thread about feminist issues you can be 100% sure I'll be posting in it to bash women-lovers, and I'm fine with late term abortions.
This has nothing to do with being women-lovers and everything to do with the fact that I consider a toddler's life worthless.
Wow...Im not that extreme lol. I think you need to be more specific what you mean by "late term" If its like in the 3rd trimester, I dont agree with it. Because at that stage organogenesis has been completed the CNS is pretty much in place and some premature babies at that stage are able to survive. Which means the baby is no longer 100% dependent on the host body for survival. Also, any woman that decides after 6 months to have an abortion has some serious issues. No, I dont have any quotations or special laws to help support my claims, those are just my thoughts on the matter. The only time late term abortions should be allowed is if the mother is at risk.I think having a law this way is the best way to meet both sides at the middle. A woman will still have the right to decide what to do with her body and get rid of the pregnancy but at the same time, after a certain amount of time has passed and the baby has developed to the point that it is able to survive (with a lot of luck and medical assistance) without a host, abortions should be disallowed. I think 6 months is ample time for any woman to decide whether or not she wants to have a child.
[QUOTE="GamerForca"]
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]
The way I see it, both people are equally as responsible and the law should recognize that. Because if a man gets a woman pregnant, and he doesn't want it, the woman can still choose to have the baby, fair enough. But if a man wants the baby and the woman doesnt want it, she can still get an abortion unilaterally, understandable cause its her body. But if you're going to let a woman unilaterally make such a decision, then it stands to reason that this isnt really a 2 person deal. Now, it makes absolutely no sense to force a woman to carry a baby in her womb for 9 months that she does not want only to give it to the father at the end of the day.
So my suggestion would be that if 2 people have sex, and the woman gets pregnant and wants the baby but the man doesnt, the man should offer to pay for an abortion. If the woman refuses and says she wants to keep the baby, the man should be able to sign away all legal responsibility towards the child and the woman can raise the child on her own without expecting any cash or money. That is the only solution that equally and fairly represents both people as having both played a part in the conception of the child. If the woman really thinks she can raise the child on her own and refuses the abortion, then it is her choice as a responsible adult, and she should be able to take care of it.
By saying the man should just deal with it, you are absolving the woman of any sort of responsibility. Yeah, the guy didnt have to go have sex with the woman, but at the same time, she didnt have to open her legs and let the man ejaculate in her without a condom. If she can unilaterally decide what to do in the situation of a pregnancy, then she should unilaterally deal with the consequences of her decision.
II_Seraphim_II
See, that's completely untrue. Both people created the child, both should care for its well-being. The woman is not being absolved of any responsibility, to claim so is outrageous. She's the one who has to carry the child for nine months, and then she has to raise it, with OR without the man to help her (even if he sends money, she's still the one caring for it). How, then, is she being "absolved of any sort of responsibility"? In fact, you're the one suggesting that the man should be absolved of all fatherly duties. Offer to pay for an abortion, and if she says no, goodbye? "Screw condoms, I'm free to knock up a girl every day, and all I have to do to is offer to pay for an abortion to clear myself of all accountability. I'm sure the kids who pop out are going to live wonderful lives under the sole payroll of a single mother! And I don't even have to be there during the pregnancy!" Seriously, how can you guys be that callous? The man had a choice too. He didn't have to chase the woman; he could've wore a condom. Ultimately, they're both responsible. Either in paying for an abortion, or raising the child. And if a woman you're with chooses to abort your child, then you have the choice to drop her like a lead weight (so saying that the man has no choice is simply wrong).
That exactly is my problem right there. You say the man is also responsible but then how come he doesnt get a choice in whether or not she has a child? You keep saying on and on that both people made the baby, but the woman can unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. Both people created the child, but that doesnt seem to matter to the law when it comes to abortion.
If you wanna pull that "both people created the child" card then you have to be 100% fair. If the father wants the child, and the woman doesnt, she still has to have the child, and then give it to the father. That's the only way that you can be 100% fair about this, because I dont see the fairness in forcing a man to take care of a child he doesnt want because a woman wants it, but giving the woman the option of unilaterally getting an abortion of a child the man wants.
And you say this woman has to carry the baby for 9 months? well the man has to give her money for 18 years. Id rather carry a baby for 9 months than spend the next 18 years paying for a child I never even wanted. And on another hand, why cant this woman just find someone who actually wants to have a baby with her? You make it seem like the man raped her. She could have kept her legs shut too. Or told the man to wear a condom. Its not about being callous, its about being fair. You dont think it would be callous if a woman got knocked up and the man was super excited about the child and the woman just went out and got an abortion on her own? You don't think that's callous?
If you want to play that "it takes 2 to make a child" card, then it should equally take 2 to make a decision regarding abortion, but the truth is it doesnt. If the woman can shoulder the responsibility of unilaterally making a decision that affects not just her but someone else, she should be able to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child on her own.
Play it however you want. Either my previous suggestion, or make it so that its illegal for a woman to get an abortion if the father wants the child. That's the only way you can have a fair law regarding this.
Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%.
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="GamerForca"]
See, that's completely untrue. Both people created the child, both should care for its well-being. The woman is not being absolved of any responsibility, to claim so is outrageous. She's the one who has to carry the child for nine months, and then she has to raise it, with OR without the man to help her (even if he sends money, she's still the one caring for it). How, then, is she being "absolved of any sort of responsibility"? In fact, you're the one suggesting that the man should be absolved of all fatherly duties. Offer to pay for an abortion, and if she says no, goodbye? "Screw condoms, I'm free to knock up a girl every day, and all I have to do to is offer to pay for an abortion to clear myself of all accountability. I'm sure the kids who pop out are going to live wonderful lives under the sole payroll of a single mother! And I don't even have to be there during the pregnancy!" Seriously, how can you guys be that callous? The man had a choice too. He didn't have to chase the woman; he could've wore a condom. Ultimately, they're both responsible. Either in paying for an abortion, or raising the child. And if a woman you're with chooses to abort your child, then you have the choice to drop her like a lead weight (so saying that the man has no choice is simply wrong).LJS9502_basic
That exactly is my problem right there. You say the man is also responsible but then how come he doesnt get a choice in whether or not she has a child? You keep saying on and on that both people made the baby, but the woman can unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. Both people created the child, but that doesnt seem to matter to the law when it comes to abortion.
If you wanna pull that "both people created the child" card then you have to be 100% fair. If the father wants the child, and the woman doesnt, she still has to have the child, and then give it to the father. That's the only way that you can be 100% fair about this, because I dont see the fairness in forcing a man to take care of a child he doesnt want because a woman wants it, but giving the woman the option of unilaterally getting an abortion of a child the man wants.
And you say this woman has to carry the baby for 9 months? well the man has to give her money for 18 years. Id rather carry a baby for 9 months than spend the next 18 years paying for a child I never even wanted. And on another hand, why cant this woman just find someone who actually wants to have a baby with her? You make it seem like the man raped her. She could have kept her legs shut too. Or told the man to wear a condom. Its not about being callous, its about being fair. You dont think it would be callous if a woman got knocked up and the man was super excited about the child and the woman just went out and got an abortion on her own? You don't think that's callous?
If you want to play that "it takes 2 to make a child" card, then it should equally take 2 to make a decision regarding abortion, but the truth is it doesnt. If the woman can shoulder the responsibility of unilaterally making a decision that affects not just her but someone else, she should be able to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child on her own.
Play it however you want. Either my previous suggestion, or make it so that its illegal for a woman to get an abortion if the father wants the child. That's the only way you can have a fair law regarding this.
Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%. What about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her?
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%. What about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her? Yes. :| That's the thing about fatherhood and child support.That exactly is my problem right there. You say the man is also responsible but then how come he doesnt get a choice in whether or not she has a child? You keep saying on and on that both people made the baby, but the woman can unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. Both people created the child, but that doesnt seem to matter to the law when it comes to abortion.
If you wanna pull that "both people created the child" card then you have to be 100% fair. If the father wants the child, and the woman doesnt, she still has to have the child, and then give it to the father. That's the only way that you can be 100% fair about this, because I dont see the fairness in forcing a man to take care of a child he doesnt want because a woman wants it, but giving the woman the option of unilaterally getting an abortion of a child the man wants.
And you say this woman has to carry the baby for 9 months? well the man has to give her money for 18 years. Id rather carry a baby for 9 months than spend the next 18 years paying for a child I never even wanted. And on another hand, why cant this woman just find someone who actually wants to have a baby with her? You make it seem like the man raped her. She could have kept her legs shut too. Or told the man to wear a condom. Its not about being callous, its about being fair. You dont think it would be callous if a woman got knocked up and the man was super excited about the child and the woman just went out and got an abortion on her own? You don't think that's callous?
If you want to play that "it takes 2 to make a child" card, then it should equally take 2 to make a decision regarding abortion, but the truth is it doesnt. If the woman can shoulder the responsibility of unilaterally making a decision that affects not just her but someone else, she should be able to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child on her own.
Play it however you want. Either my previous suggestion, or make it so that its illegal for a woman to get an abortion if the father wants the child. That's the only way you can have a fair law regarding this.
deeliman
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%. What about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her? Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.That exactly is my problem right there. You say the man is also responsible but then how come he doesnt get a choice in whether or not she has a child? You keep saying on and on that both people made the baby, but the woman can unilaterally decide whether or not to keep the child. Both people created the child, but that doesnt seem to matter to the law when it comes to abortion.
If you wanna pull that "both people created the child" card then you have to be 100% fair. If the father wants the child, and the woman doesnt, she still has to have the child, and then give it to the father. That's the only way that you can be 100% fair about this, because I dont see the fairness in forcing a man to take care of a child he doesnt want because a woman wants it, but giving the woman the option of unilaterally getting an abortion of a child the man wants.
And you say this woman has to carry the baby for 9 months? well the man has to give her money for 18 years. Id rather carry a baby for 9 months than spend the next 18 years paying for a child I never even wanted. And on another hand, why cant this woman just find someone who actually wants to have a baby with her? You make it seem like the man raped her. She could have kept her legs shut too. Or told the man to wear a condom. Its not about being callous, its about being fair. You dont think it would be callous if a woman got knocked up and the man was super excited about the child and the woman just went out and got an abortion on her own? You don't think that's callous?
If you want to play that "it takes 2 to make a child" card, then it should equally take 2 to make a decision regarding abortion, but the truth is it doesnt. If the woman can shoulder the responsibility of unilaterally making a decision that affects not just her but someone else, she should be able to shoulder the responsibility of taking care of the child on her own.
Play it however you want. Either my previous suggestion, or make it so that its illegal for a woman to get an abortion if the father wants the child. That's the only way you can have a fair law regarding this.
deeliman
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%.LJS9502_basicWhat about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her? Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.
What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="deeliman"] What about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her?deeliman
What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
Only if you can prove that the baby contains God's DNA.[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.Engrish_Major
What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
Only if you can prove that the baby contains God's DNA. Or that the baby was immaculately conceived.[QUOTE="Engrish_Major"][QUOTE="deeliman"]Only if you can prove that the baby contains God's DNA. Or that the baby was immaculately conceived. Oh yeah, true.What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
Makhaidos
Wow...Im not that extreme lol. I think you need to be more specific what you mean by "late term" If its like in the 3rd trimester, I dont agree with it. Because at that stage organogenesis has been completed the CNS is pretty much in place and some premature babies at that stage are able to survive. Which means the baby is no longer 100% dependent on the host body for survival. Also, any woman that decides after 6 months to have an abortion has some serious issues. No, I dont have any quotations or special laws to help support my claims, those are just my thoughts on the matter. The only time late term abortions should be allowed is if the mother is at risk.I think having a law this way is the best way to meet both sides at the middle. A woman will still have the right to decide what to do with her body and get rid of the pregnancy but at the same time, after a certain amount of time has passed and the baby has developed to the point that it is able to survive (with a lot of luck and medical assistance) without a host, abortions should be disallowed. I think 6 months is ample time for any woman to decide whether or not she wants to have a child.
II_Seraphim_II
By late term I mean I'd be fine with it even after the baby is born since he still has no relation with the world around him. If not even his parents want him he'd depart with no tear being shed by anyone, not even him, since he still wouldn't be self conscious. Not a matter of survival or parasitism imo.
Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="deeliman"] What about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her?deeliman
What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
What religious people don't believe pregnancy involves men and women?By late term I mean I'd be fine with it even after the baby is born since he still has no relation with the world around him. If not even his parents want him he'd depart with no tear being shed by anyone, not even him, since he still wouldn't be self conscious. Not a matter of survival or parasitism imo.
N30F3N1X
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.LJS9502_basic
What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
What religious people don't believe pregnancy involves men and women? The Christians do not necessarily believe that, otherwise they wouldn't believe in virgin Mary. And plenty of religious folks tell me I was created by god, yet he hasn't payed my mom any child support. So that means he is a dead beat father and therefore scum.[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"]Wow...Im not that extreme lol. I think you need to be more specific what you mean by "late term" If its like in the 3rd trimester, I dont agree with it. Because at that stage organogenesis has been completed the CNS is pretty much in place and some premature babies at that stage are able to survive. Which means the baby is no longer 100% dependent on the host body for survival. Also, any woman that decides after 6 months to have an abortion has some serious issues. No, I dont have any quotations or special laws to help support my claims, those are just my thoughts on the matter. The only time late term abortions should be allowed is if the mother is at risk.
I think having a law this way is the best way to meet both sides at the middle. A woman will still have the right to decide what to do with her body and get rid of the pregnancy but at the same time, after a certain amount of time has passed and the baby has developed to the point that it is able to survive (with a lot of luck and medical assistance) without a host, abortions should be disallowed. I think 6 months is ample time for any woman to decide whether or not she wants to have a child.
N30F3N1X
By late term I mean I'd be fine with it even after the baby is born since he still has no relation with the world around him. If not even his parents want him he'd depart with no tear being shed by anyone, not even him, since he still wouldn't be self conscious. Not a matter of survival or parasitism imo.
Please let this be sarcasm....[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="deeliman"]What religious people don't believe pregnancy involves men and women? The Christians do not necessarily believe that, otherwise they wouldn't believe in virgin Mary. And plenty of religious folks tell me I was created by god, yet he hasn't payed my mom any child support. So that means he is a dead beat father and therefore scum. Uh no Christians believe in mom and dad. One specific incident does not mean they believe otherwise. How foolish. Second....you do know that if mom has custody she IS supporting that child.What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
deeliman
What if you're religious and believe god created it? Should god pay child support?
What religious people don't believe pregnancy involves men and women? The Christians do not necessarily believe that, otherwise they wouldn't believe in virgin Mary. And plenty of religious folks tell me I was created by god, yet he hasn't payed my mom any child support. So that means he is a dead beat father and therefore scum. I'm a Christian and I necessarily believe that men and women create children. I also believe that God gives life, and that may be where you get confused on some Christian viewpoints. How young are you?[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%.LJS9502_basicWhat about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her? Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum. This is what I dont get. Its a cyclic argument. Yes it his child, he created it, yet a woman can unilaterally decide to abort a child. Yes its her body, but its his child too. So I dont understand this double standard. When a woman wants to throw away a child I want its no longer "my child" but when she wants to keep a child I dont want, its suddenly my child. And that spiel about condoms and all that stuff could equally be applied to women. Why did she let this man ejaculate in her and then decide to keep a child if she clearly knew she wasnt capable of supporting the child on her own? You act like having sex is the guys fault. The woman can keep her legs closed too. How about women try sleeping with men who actually want to have children with them? Or atleast insist they wear condoms before intercourse.
My issue is that the woman gets a get out of jail free card. If she wants the baby, she can decide to keep it knowing she is gonna be getting money for it. If she feels she isnt ready for the child she can just abort it and go on with life like nothing happened. A man doesnt get that choice If he wants the child, screw him, the woman can still get an abortion. If he doesnt want the child and doesnt feel ready to take care of a child screw it, the woman can still go on and have the child and force him into the situation. Either way, the woman always comes out on top. Its like she bares less responsibility, as if she had no choice but to open her legs and have intercourse without a condom and let the man ejaculate in her.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="deeliman"] What about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her?II_Seraphim_IIYes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum. This is what I dont get. Its a cyclic argument. Yes it his child, he created it, yet a woman can unilaterally decide to abort a child. Yes its her body, but its his child too. So I dont understand this double standard. When a woman wants to throw away a child I want its no longer "my child" but when she wants to keep a child I dont want, its suddenly my child. And that spiel about condoms and all that stuff could equally be applied to women. Why did she let this man ejaculate in her and then decide to keep a child if she clearly knew she wasnt capable of supporting the child on her own? You act like having sex is the guys fault. The woman can keep her legs closed too. How about women try sleeping with men who actually want to have children with them? Or atleast insist they wear condoms before intercourse.
it's your child regardless. Life isn't fair
This is what I dont get. Its a cyclic argument. Yes it his child, he created it, yet a woman can unilaterally decide to abort a child. Yes its her body, but its his child too. So I dont understand this double standard. When a woman wants to throw away a child I want its no longer "my child" but when she wants to keep a child I dont want, its suddenly my child. And that spiel about condoms and all that stuff could equally be applied to women. Why did she let this man ejaculate in her and then decide to keep a child if she clearly knew she wasnt capable of supporting the child on her own? You act like having sex is the guys fault. The woman can keep her legs closed too. How about women try sleeping with men who actually want to have children with them? Or atleast insist they wear condoms before intercourse.[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes. It is his child. He created it. And frankly dead beat dads are scum.lostrib
it's your child regardless. Life isn't fair
I know life isnt fair, that's why in my initial post I said that if we truly want equality and then i went on to explain my point of view. The law states that a man has to pay child support and if, God forbid, I ever have a child with a woman that I dont want, I will pay child support and do my part because that is what the law dictates. My point was that I do not believe the law is just in this regard and was just sharing my views on how it could be amended.[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] This is what I dont get. Its a cyclic argument. Yes it his child, he created it, yet a woman can unilaterally decide to abort a child. Yes its her body, but its his child too. So I dont understand this double standard. When a woman wants to throw away a child I want its no longer "my child" but when she wants to keep a child I dont want, its suddenly my child. And that spiel about condoms and all that stuff could equally be applied to women. Why did she let this man ejaculate in her and then decide to keep a child if she clearly knew she wasnt capable of supporting the child on her own? You act like having sex is the guys fault. The woman can keep her legs closed too. How about women try sleeping with men who actually want to have children with them? Or atleast insist they wear condoms before intercourse.II_Seraphim_II
it's your child regardless. Life isn't fair
I know life isnt fair, that's why in my initial post I said that if we truly want equality and then i went on to explain my point of view. The law states that a man has to pay child support and if, God forbid, I ever have a child with a woman that I dont want, I will pay child support and do my part because that is what the law dictates. My point was that I do not believe the law is just in this regard and was just sharing my views on how it could be amended. The law is just....creating a baby takes two....and both should pay support. Not one. Seems you want your fun without any of the responsibility. Tough. Actions create consequences.I know life isnt fair, that's why in my initial post I said that if we truly want equality and then i went on to explain my point of view. The law states that a man has to pay child support and if, God forbid, I ever have a child with a woman that I dont want, I will pay child support and do my part because that is what the law dictates. My point was that I do not believe the law is just in this regard and was just sharing my views on how it could be amended.II_Seraphim_II
Its a simple concept that keeps flying over your head, so let's break it down.
1) When a man has sex with a woman its implied consent to raise and help any child that may result from the sex. Â This is why he is forced to pay child support by law.
2) Abortion is legal in this country as the bodily rights of the woman supersede that of the growing fetus/embryo.  This is why she can terminate the pregnancy if she chooses to, ITS HER BODY NOT THE GUYS.
Its fairly simple, the man has no say because its not his body, and he must pay child support because he consented to sex in the first place. If the man wants a say then he can come up with a way to take the fetus out of a woman and implant it in himself. Â The fact that the fetus may have half his DNA is irrelevant.Â
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Simple fact.....reason abortion is legal is because it deals with the woman's body. Hence she has ultimate say. Not the man who isn't going to carry the baby. If you take away the woman's choice then there is no reason for abortion to be legal in the first place. If you don't want a surprise announcement.....avoid sex. Or at least use a condom to lessen the odds. Note: they are not 100%.MakhaidosWhat about if the woman decides to keep it but the man doesn't want that? Should he be forced to help raise/pay for him/her? Yes. :| That's the thing about fatherhood and child support.
Â
What if she secretly pricked holes in the condoms and lied about being on the pill. I suspect that probably accounts for at least some of the less than 1% of the time where 'contraception isn't totally effective'.
Â
[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] What religious people don't believe pregnancy involves men and women?lowkey254The Christians do not necessarily believe that, otherwise they wouldn't believe in virgin Mary. And plenty of religious folks tell me I was created by god, yet he hasn't payed my mom any child support. So that means he is a dead beat father and therefore scum. I'm a Christian and I necessarily believe that men and women create children. I also believe that God gives life, and that may be where you get confused on some Christian viewpoints. How young are you? If it takes a man and a woman to make children, then how did Mary give birth to Jesus (I don't believe this story myself btw)? Just asking this because I am curious what Christians think about this. And I'm 15, but I don't really see why my age matters.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="deeliman"] The Christians do not necessarily believe that, otherwise they wouldn't believe in virgin Mary. And plenty of religious folks tell me I was created by god, yet he hasn't payed my mom any child support. So that means he is a dead beat father and therefore scum.deelimanUh no Christians believe in mom and dad. One specific incident does not mean they believe otherwise. How foolish. Second....you do know that if mom has custody she IS supporting that child. It means that it should be possible for a child to be created without a father and mother, if you believe in that story of course. And second, I was talking about how god never payed my mom child support, even though he supposedly created me.
God didn't create you
It means that it should be possible for a child to be created without a father and mother, if you believe in that story of course. And second, I was talking about how god never payed my mom child support, even though he supposedly created me.[QUOTE="deeliman"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Uh no Christians believe in mom and dad. One specific incident does not mean they believe otherwise. How foolish. Second....you do know that if mom has custody she IS supporting that child.lostrib
God didn't create you
That's why I said supposedly....[QUOTE="lostrib"][QUOTE="deeliman"] It means that it should be possible for a child to be created without a father and mother, if you believe in that story of course. And second, I was talking about how god never payed my mom child support, even though he supposedly created me.deeliman
God didn't create you
That's why I said supposedly....Then stop bringing it up. Â It's just asinine
[QUOTE="II_Seraphim_II"] I know life isnt fair, that's why in my initial post I said that if we truly want equality and then i went on to explain my point of view. The law states that a man has to pay child support and if, God forbid, I ever have a child with a woman that I dont want, I will pay child support and do my part because that is what the law dictates. My point was that I do not believe the law is just in this regard and was just sharing my views on how it could be amended.HoolaHoopMan
Its a simple concept that keeps flying over your head, so let's break it down.
1) When a man has sex with a woman its implied consent to raise and help any child that may result from the sex. Â This is why he is forced to pay child support by law.
2) Abortion is legal in this country as the bodily rights of the woman supersede that of the growing fetus/embryo.  This is why she can terminate the pregnancy if she chooses to, ITS HER BODY NOT THE GUYS.
Its fairly simple, the man has no say because its not his body, and he must pay child support because he consented to sex in the first place. If the man wants a say then he can come up with a way to take the fetus out of a woman and implant it in himself. Â The fact that the fetus may have half his DNA is irrelevant.Â
You know the way you broke it down did help. Thanks, while I do still feel its a bit unfair, I certainly now do realize the rationale behind the law and I can see where its coming from. Good post.Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment