Ny Times article on Abortion Debate....

Tikker · Post by **Tikker** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 4:00 pm

Yeah but if the woman decides to keep the baby, or abort against the man's wishes, there's not a fucking thing the guy can do

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 5:44 pm

And that is exactly my point!

The man in the situation is irrelevent, the choice is solely on the woman because of that back-asswards bullshit "it's her body"

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:45 pm

Do you even read all the replies? Or just the one's that suit your position. She went home and told her boyfriend and he beat her. Not his choice? Sounds like he made his choice very clear.

And while we are on the subject. What kind of asshole beats his girlfriend because THEY got pregnant? Did he beat himself as well?

Phlegm · Post by **Phlegm** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:47 pm

The Kizzy wrote: Did he beat himself as well?

I think if his girlfriend is smart, he has been beating himself since then :wink:

.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:03 pm

She's with an abusive boyfriend, what level of intelligence could there possibly be?

Captain Insano · Post by **Captain Insano** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:17 pm

Agree with harrison...

They sound like your typical used-trailer family who saves money on baby milk so they can afford nascar tickets.

Let me ask you this... If a women decides to have an abortion and the boyfriend disagrees and somehow the law is changed to give his opinion some legal weight in the matter, how would that work if she wants to keep the baby and he wants to get rid of it?

Tuggan · Post by **Tuggan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 8:22 pm

She arrived at the clinic with a cut on her nose and bruises on her forehead and lip, which she suffered after telling her boyfriend she was pregnant. "He flipped out because he wasn't ready," she said. She had thought, upon learning of the pregnancy, that she "was about to get married," she said. She came in with two fellow sergeants, who wore their uniforms. Her boyfriend was in jail, she said.

thats probably the reason she got her ass whooped.

Post by **Gidan** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:32 pm

The one problem I do have with abortion and the woman’s right to choose is the whole part about the guy having no say. Sure in a good loving relationship, the guy may have equal say in what is going happen but he doesn't have any legal say.

Basically you are giving the woman the choice of whether or not the guy will be paying her for the next 18 years. If she doesn't want the kid and the guy does, she can have the abortion, its her body that’s going through the pregnancy, I can see the reasoning behind that. How about when the guy doesn't want it but the girl does, he is now going to be forced to support it. If the woman can afford to support the child she has a way out, if the guy cant he doesn't. He is at the mercy of the woman. Just imagine the woman who has the kid out of spite for the guy who got her pregnant. The kid gets raised in a shitty environment, the guy is forced to pay child support that doesn't even go to the kid (yes lots don’t pay it but that doesn't change the fact that by law he has to pay).

Unfortunately there really is no good way to fix the situation except to not get pregnant unless you actually want to have the kid.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Mon Sep 19, 2005 11:35 pm

I say if the bitches want equality, fucking give it to them.

Allow them to be hit just like a man, if they get pregnant and the man doesn't want it and they do...tough titties, if the man wants it and she doesn't tough titties, give it to him and YOU pay child support.

Darcler · Post by **Darcler** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:28 am

I agree with giving it to the man.

Post by **Gidan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 3:55 am

I completely agree with you Harrison.

If a woman can up and decide to have the child and then force the man who wants nothing to do with the kid to pay child support. The man should be able to do the same thing if the woman doesn't want to have the child, have her pay the child support.

Another option would be to have all abortions require the consent of both parents (There would of course have to be exceptions for when a father is not able to be located or in the cases of rape). Should 1 parent should refuse consent, that parent receives full custody of the child, no child support given. The parent that does give consent has absolutely no legal relationship to that child. They have no say in how the child is raised.

You will still have woman bitching about the right to choose whether to have the child or not, but at some point the father needs to be considered in some way.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:01 am

That is nice in theory, Gidan. YOu can not FORCE a woman to tell you who she may have gotten pregnant by. Even with DNA testing, you have to have a subject to compare it to.

Post by **Gidan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:00 am

I bet if you tell a women that if the father is not determined in time for an abortion then she is not eligable for child support. They will be damn quick to get a list together and determin who the father is.

Its very simple, you dont want to say who the father is to avoid giving him any say, then you lose any child support that you would be entitled to.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:08 am

Then they would do it in backrooms. It isnt worth it.

Post by **Gidan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:20 am

My idea about determining the father to be eligable for child support should include all women, not just those planning to have an abortion. There should be no, "I am going to hide this from him until its born then BAM hit him for child support". Make it a rutine part of pregnancy. The only people this will effect are those who dont know who the father is or know who it is but are keeping it a secret for whatever reason. Then you need to ask the simple question. Why dont they know who the father is? or Do they know but dont want to tell anyone and why?

One of the major reason for abortions has always been the financial burden of having a child. This would be removed 100%. If the father doesn't consent to the abortion and the mother does, then he is 100% financially responsible for that child. If the mother consents but the father doesn't then she is. If they both consent no child, if neither consent they are both responsible.

There should obviously be ways to get around the concent required. 1 if there was a significant threat to the life of the woman. 2 abusive relationships, especially when its well documented. Some of these requirments would need to be fairly light, sure they would be abused but you stop some abortions and children would goto homes of loving fathers who wanted the kids even though the mother didn't. Of course a father would need to cover the expensis that went along with the pregnancy the same as the mother would.

There is no perfect solution to the problem, but at the same time, the fathers should have some say. Why is it fair to force a father to pay for a child he didn't want when he has no say in whether the child is born or not? Why is it that only the guy has to take responsibilty for the pregnancy? The woman can decide if she wants to or not.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:25 am

Why didn't the guy pull out? wear a condom? slip it in the backdoor? or just say no?

Post by **Gidan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:27 am

What if he did use a condom and he pulled out? What if he did both and she claimed she was on birth controle (but really wasn't)? Why is it that only the guy has to be responsible about sex and the woman can do as she pleases?

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:31 am

Why is it the woman's responsibility to be on the birth control?

xaoshaen · Post by **xaoshaen** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 10:56 am

lyion wrote:Fucking hell, can you not be anal retentive in every thread, Xao? One reply makes us think you are witty. Repeating the same boorish crap over and over ad nauseum makes you seem annoyingly obsessive compulsive and petulant. Go wash your hands or something after a few replies.

Odds aren't looking good for you there, Lyion. As long as people continue to flaunt their stupidity, chances are, I'll wind up pointing it out. I'd argue that 'snide' would be a better insult than 'boorish' though. I'd also point out that most of the time I construct an argument, it's a logically formulated position, but the concept entirely escapes Finawin. Knowing that I brightened at least one other person's day, makes it all worthwhile, though!

Haylo · Post by **Haylo** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 12:19 pm

While I agree that guys should have some say in wether a woman gets an abortion, I do not agree that guys should be able to tell a woman to get an abortion, if that makes sense. I think that if a woman is wanting to abort a child, and the male in the relationship would love nothing better than to have the right to raise that child, then a judge should not allow a woman to rid herself of that baby. At least this is my belief in theory.

I know people who have had abortions, and I prayed for them at the time, because I realized that for them it was a situation they felt they could not deal with. In all of their cases, the father point blank told them that they didn't want anything to do with the child if it was born and that they would do everything in their power to avoid any sort of support. In cases like that, you are telling me that a man should be absolved of his responsibility for said child because he decides he does not "want" the result of his own actions. I do not agree with that. On the same hand, I do not agree that a woman should be able to abort a child without a man's consent.

So I guess what I would like to see happen is a requirement for both the man and woman to give consent to perform an abortion. If the man wants the baby and the woman does not, then the man should get the child and the woman should pay support. If the woman wants the child and the man does not, then the woman gets the child and the man pays support.

Post by **Lueyen** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:28 pm

Unfortunatly the moment you give the man any say whatsoever your pretty much debunking the whole "it's her body" argument, and your also lending support to the argument that it is a child in saying that the man should have any say. Frankly while I hate the fact that the man has no say whatsoever, the reality is that to give him any say is so detrimental to the pro-choice camps stance that I simply don't see it happening unless as a society we are gravitating back toward the pro-life side of things.

As is typical extremes on both sides are the minority, the majority fall somewhere in the middle, and I believe many people see things as Haylo does, not something they would choose for themselves, but something they think others should be allowed to do. Unfortunatly this brings us to the sticky situation where we are either violating a womans right to her body or a mans right to his child, what a quandry this creates. You can't have it both ways, as it typical with the "middle of the road" the stance creates questions that are very hard to answer... and Gidan is right there is no perfect solution.

I suppose the one loophole that we have is that our current laws and reasoning for them completely contradict one another already. In the case of abortion we say a person has the right to do with thier own body what they please.... but in the case of prostitution, and drug use we say a person does not have that right. So I suppose it's not that far of a stretch to say a woman has a right to her body unless the man has an interest in the child.

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 1:35 pm

Lueyen, I agree with you. And you smell better than Gidan.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:04 pm

The Kizzy wrote:Why didn't the guy pull out? wear a condom? slip it in the backdoor? or just say no?

...

You gotta be fucking kidding me...

NO ONE is that dense...

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:06 pm

I am only trying to approach this topic with the same sense of responsibility and in the same method that you do, Harrison.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 2:13 pm

Only as responsible as the subject matter at hand...

If only I could get pregnant 3 times by the age of 21 (or 26) and abort them like a bad case of diarrhea. Maybe then I will understand responsibility!

Listen, pulling out is not birth control.

It.
Does.
Not.
Work.

THAT is the density I was addressing.