abortion or no abortion?

[Sister Fracas 5]

Funny how that is..... LOL

Yes...another inequity. But at least this one is not caused by government interference in peoples' lives.

No.... God's.....

LOL

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Well, again, my focus here is on a parallel and equitable choice for men, that's all. I have no interest at all in preventing or limiting the choice of women to do whatever they want with their body and its contents. Merely, given that women have the choice whether or not to abort, giving men the parallel and equivalent choice to abort financial and parental consequences. That's all...no real magic to it. It's straightforward.

For obvious reasons, there can't be a completely equitable parallel choice for men. I do understand your position. One of my best friends (male) now has a lifelong connection with a psycho-hosebeast he knocked up 11 years ago (she pulled the good ol' "don't worry, I'm on the pill" trick). I thought a lot about this issue at the time, thinking how unfair it was that she pretty much held all the cards, but that's the way it is. I know that children suffer for their parents' misdeeds all the time, but it doesn't seem right that the man can just slip out of the picture, financially speaking, because he was hoping the woman would make a decision in line with his wishes. Your position doesn't consider the child at all, which is why this type of legislation hasn't been seriously considered.

Edited September 25, 2008 by Big Agnes!

[akdiver 3]

Your position doesn't consider the child at all, which is why this type of legislation hasn't been seriously considered.

I freely admit, I could not care less about the child. Even so, I fail to see why a child's rights should supercede those of a tax paying adult.

Essentially, you're arguing that, in effect, SOMEONE has to get screwed, so it should be the man. I simply disagree. If anyone gets screwed, it should be the child - and if the child is getting screwed, then it's because the mother had a child that she could not afford and was unable to secure a voluntary financial arrangement with a man.

If someone can't afford to properly take care of the child, give it to someone who can.

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[akdiver 3]

Consider the following:

A man and woman get married. Woman has affair - gets pregnant. Leads husband to believe child is his. Three years later, husband gets child DNA tested, learns that, in fact, child is NOT his. Repeat, NOT his child. No doubt about it!! Man files for divorce, gets divorced. Judge rules man must pay child support, even though it is not his child. Because, why? It's in the best interest of the child. The reasoning is that it's not the child's fault its mother had an affair. The child shouldn't suffer as a result.

In other words - someone gets screwed - so screw the man. The women gets off scott free and is laughing all the way to the bank.

This is where your logic goes. And yes, this very thing has actually happened. Just one example of many:

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/0...ews/342094.html

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[Sister Fracas 5]

Your position doesn't consider the child at all, which is why this type of legislation hasn't been seriously considered.

I freely admit, I could not care less about the child. Even so, I fail to see why a child's rights should supercede those of a tax paying adult.

Essentially, you're arguing that, in effect, SOMEONE has to get screwed, so it should be the man. I simply disagree. If anyone gets screwed, it should be the child - and if the child is getting screwed, then it's because the mother had a child that she could not afford and was unable to secure a voluntary financial arrangement with a man.

If someone can't afford to properly take care of the child, give it to someone who can.

I can't agree with you there.

[Emancipation 2]

In other words - someone gets screwed - so screw the man. The women gets off scott free and is laughing all the way to the bank.

I don't agree with you there.. how exactly does the woman get off scott free if she's taking care of a child 24-7? Sure there are abuses of the system. And we currently live in a situation where 1/2 of my husbands take home salary goes to child support payments.. we of all people should feel "screwed"..

Child support payments generally don't cover "frivolities".. it's food, shelter.. things a child must have.. that's not "laughing all the way to the bank" IMO.

[DeadPoolX 9]

Consider the following:

A man and woman get married. Woman has affair - gets pregnant. Leads husband to believe child is his. Three years later, husband gets child DNA tested, learns that, in fact, child is NOT his. Repeat, NOT his child. No doubt about it!! Man files for divorce, gets divorced. Judge rules man must pay child support, even though it is not his child. Because, why? It's in the best interest of the child. The reasoning is that it's not the child's fault its mother had an affair. The child shouldn't suffer as a result.

In other words - someone gets screwed - so screw the man. The women gets off scott free and is laughing all the way to the bank.

This is where your logic goes. And yes, this very thing has actually happened. Just one example of many:

http://www.arkansasnews.com/archive/2007/0...ews/342094.html

Another reason a judge would probably rule in favor of child support payments is that the young boy or girl has already identified with the man as his or her father. Whether or not he is biologically is a moot point for the child. That kid would call the man "daddy" in this case over his or her biological father.

I believe there was a case some time ago where a physician donated sperm to a lesbian couple and then proceeded to act as a "father figure" of sorts to the child for some time. Later on, the women demanded monetary support from him for college tuition (or so they claimed). The judge -- as far as I know -- ruled in favor of the two mothers since the child (now a teenager) had grown to think of this doctor as his "dad" or at least some sort of "male role model" within the family.

So it goes beyond the mere donation of sperm (no matter how it's delivered). If you act and care for a child as a parent, you could be held responsible as such at a later date.

[akdiver 3]

I don't agree with you there.. how exactly does the woman get off scott free if she's taking care of a child 24-7?

Because she gets what she wants while getting someone else to involuntarily subsidize it.

So it goes beyond the mere donation of sperm (no matter how it's delivered). If you act and care for a child as a parent, you could be held responsible as such at a later date.

The moral is: be kind to someone, get screwed - which is an incredible tragedy. Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[DeadPoolX 9]

The problem here is that there is no "winning solution." Not if the child is taken into consideration. Barring AKDiver's plan, someone has to pay for that child's care.

In relatively few cases, the man has to shoulder the burden all by himself. This might occur if the woman hasn't been working (a homemaker, for instance), but since most women have careers, that's generally not the scenario today. So let's assume that the woman is paying for half and so is the man. I realize this is a rather hefty assumption, but it makes things easier.

Off-hand, I'd say it's unfair to make the man pay for a child he either didn't want or one that isn't even his at all. However, in the former case he did contribute DNA and may have acted as a father at some point; in the latter situation, the man probably wouldn't know the child isn't his until later, by which time, the kid would have associated the man with "daddy."

Even though it's unfair to force the man to pay in those circumstances, it makes more sense to have him fork out child support than tax payers. This man would have had some direct involvement, whether or not the child shared his DNA. The tax payers in the area have no business handing over their hard-earned dollars to take care of people they neither know nor care about (and will probably never meet on any long-term basis), simply because a man and a woman couldn't discuss their positions on certain issues (such as abortion) before going to bed with each other.

[Ban Hammer 13,334]

I can think of plenty men who would say no. Not wanting to risk a baby is a great reason to only have sex with a woman you trust.

Realistically speaking I can think of a few men I would love to f**k but I wouldn't even waste my time asking as I know I'm too old and that they are into women a lot younger than me. I could always try to get some hot young guy drunk but by the time he was drunk enough he would be too drunk to perform. On top of that I think it's despicable for a man to get a woman drunk to get past her better judgement so I have to behave by the same standards myself.

are you married?

no looking for dates here, sister fracas!

[Chica Yeyé 41]

I can think of plenty men who would say no. Not wanting to risk a baby is a great reason to only have sex with a woman you trust.

Realistically speaking I can think of a few men I would love to f**k but I wouldn't even waste my time asking as I know I'm too old and that they are into women a lot younger than me. I could always try to get some hot young guy drunk but by the time he was drunk enough he would be too drunk to perform. On top of that I think it's despicable for a man to get a woman drunk to get past her better judgement so I have to behave by the same standards myself.

are you married?

no kidding.... #######!

I wonder if hubby finds that part of her charm....

[jundp 191]

Pro-life / pro-choice are idiotic labels we have stuck on a complex personal situation.

Agreed (omg hell just froze!).

I am against abortion as I believe it is taking life. However, I do believe that going back to the pre-Roe V Wade days would be a mistake in this country. More lives would be lost.

I think the key here is education. I also think counseling should be required.

Who do you think should provide the counselling?

It's such an emotive subject and the cousellor is going to have a difficult time keeping personal feelings out.

I know a lot of pro life groups offer abortion counselling and provide women with misinformation about the long term effects of abortion. I also think it's possible for pro choice advocates to be too dismissive of real concerns a women may have.

Do you think it's possible to have completely unbiased counselling available for women faced with the decision of whether to contunire with a pregnancy or not?

I do think it's possible to have unbiased counseling. It probably shouldn't be church based and perhaps the woman should have the right to choose her own counselor. I don't think the purpose of this should be to dissuade the woman, but rather to offer her a chance to consider possible repercussions (mental, emotional, etc) and to simply make sure she's fully thought this out. Two of my friends have had abortions. One, who is the more spiritual of the two, is perfectly fine with her decision (this was over 10 years ago). The other had the abortion as a senior in high school and to this day regrets that she didn't just give the baby up for adoption.

[Emancipation 2]

I don't agree with you there.. how exactly does the woman get off scott free if she's taking care of a child 24-7?

Because she gets what she wants while getting someone else to involuntarily subsidize it.

I think that's an incredibly jaded way to look at life.. not all women are looking to have an "anchor" baby.. I think that's rubbish.

[akdiver 3]

I don't agree with you there.. how exactly does the woman get off scott free if she's taking care of a child 24-7?

Because she gets what she wants while getting someone else to involuntarily subsidize it.

I think that's an incredibly jaded way to look at life.. not all women are looking to have an "anchor" baby..

It wasn't a comment about foreign women in particular - and had nothing to do with "anchor" babies....which - incidentally, strikes me as an awfully jaded term.......or is it just reality?

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

guys please tell me if you agree with abortion or not and why. just needs idea for my class debate.

God gave us free will. This includes abortions. Though I would like to think I would choose wisely.