Ny Times article on Abortion Debate....

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

I guess you missed the whole point of my post, which does not surprise me in the least.

Trielelvan · Post by **Trielelvan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:51 pm

Haylo wrote: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.

I almost agree with this, but not quite.

I believe that if the woman wants the child and the man does not, the woman should get the child, he should legally sign away his rights as a father, not pay child support, and have a court restraining order ordering him to stay away from the baby for at least 15 years. He should have NOTHING to do with the baby at all.

If the man wants the child and the woman does not, the man should get the child, she should legally sign away her rights as a mother, not pay child support, and have a court restraining order ordering her to stay away from the baby for at least 15 years. She should have NOTHING to do with the baby at all.

This, of course, does not pertain to couples who agree to keep the baby, then split up later, or to married couples in general (the discussion regarding children should have been done well ahead of time before getting married). Whoever gets the kid should be paid child support.

I made it very clear to Jj, when we got together, that if I got pregnant, he gets one get-out-of-jail-free card if he didn't want the baby and wasn't ready to be a dad - he was to sign away his rights as a father, was never to contact me again, and we would go our seperate ways.
Later in life, it would be the child's choice whether or not to go looking for their dad.
If, however, he agreed to keep the baby and be daddy, and then later left, I would seek maximum child support from his ass if he tried to relieve himself of responsibility.
I was ready to be a mom and was prepared to take on the responsibility on my own if necessary. Even with my ex husband of 6 years, I never let myself get pregnant, and once I realized I never wanted kids with him, I left.
Why? a) I don't like the idea of abortion with regards to myself, and b) I hate and loathe the idea of adoption worse than abortion (carry for 9 months, squeeze a watermelon out something the size of an orange, then just give it away? Not just no, but hell no).
The resolution? Don't get pregnant until I am confident and ready to do it all on my own.

Women fight for equality and argue "it's my body." Quite right, but specifically because of what our bodies are capable of doing, it is OUR responsibility mainly to ensure that we don't end up pregnant and not knowing what to do about it. Like it or not, that's how nature made us.
This is why it's the woman's responsibility to be on birth control. If you want to have lots of sex, but don't want to have kids, go to the doc, get an IUD/pill/deposhot/whatever combo meal you want, and/or MAKE the guy buy and use condoms. If he doesn't want to use them, no sex. Most assuredly, there will be guys who will agree to use them. If you never want kids, get sterilized (that goes for both parties).

I think if the laws were set up as above, perhaps a lot fewer women would be so inclined to spread like peanut butter so often. This doesn't give either party any more say than the other and is equal to both. It's not perfect, but I get sick and tired of always hearing about "his fault/her fault" blah blah blah. Women don't take enough responsibility for themselves too often, and they should.
Then again, I also believe that most people ought to be sterilized... that would solve a lot of problems too.

3 abortions by age 26? Cut and burn!

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 5:59 pm

3 abortions by age 26? Cut and burn!

I agree with this. A bit extreme

Post by **Gidan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:16 pm

Any system that removes the womans ability to

"This is my baby, you have no say" before birth and then "Where do you think you are going, this is our baby fork over the money to support it"

If woman demand support for the child, they need to give the father a choice in it being born, if the man has no choice, then he shouldn't be required to pay a dime.

Haylo · Post by **Haylo** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 6:41 pm

Trie in theory saying hey let the guy have the right to sign away his rights and not pay support my sound great, but there are a lot of dead beat guys out there. I'm talking about situations where people are in a committed relationship, and whatever birth control they were practicing fails. The woman in the relationship is against abortion and wants to raise her child. In no way should she be the only one having to be financially responsible for a situation that took two to make. Both parties need to step up to the plate and handle the results. In the same vein, no woman should be able to wake up pregnant and be able to casually decide that because a child doesn't fit what she wants, damn what the father wants and get an abortion. I realize people don't agree with that, but in a perfect world I would love to see a system that gave fathers equal rights to deciding wether their child lived. Notice I did not say lived or died, because no one parent should have the right to terminate a life without the other's consent.

Trielelvan · Post by **Trielelvan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 7:58 pm

Haylo wrote:Trie in theory saying hey let the guy have the right to sign away his rights and not pay support my sound great, but there are a lot of dead beat guys out there.

Precisely! So if the women don't allow themselves to get pregnant, they won't have to worry about the "dead beats" getting the best of them.
Notice though, it's not just the guy who has the right to sign away his rights as a parent. The woman does as well.
Not letting yourself get pregnant really isn't that hard if all the precautions are taken. The problem is, MOST women are content to throw caution to the wind and only use *1* form of BC. If you KNOW you don't want to get pregnant, then don't.

Haylo wrote:I'm talking about situations where people are in a committed relationship, and whatever birth control they were practicing fails. The woman in the relationship is against abortion and wants to raise her child. In no way should she be the only one having to be financially responsible for a situation that took two to make.

Again, both parties should have already discussed the idea of children and whether or not they want to have any. See, here is the problem with most of the people in this country: they have sex without discussing a damn thing first. Not about pregnancy, or STDs, or what it means. They wait until after the act has been performed, and THEN worry about it. This is not only irresponsible, but stupid practice.

I should have elaborated a bit to include committed relationships where pregnancy is indeed discussed and wanted by both, but then one party changes their mind after it happens. This situation should be in writing and signed, and then proper compensation made to the party keeping the baby by the party not wanting the baby.
So yeah, in this situation, I agree. The ones I have the biggest problems with are the ones who sleep around going from guy to guy, get pregnant, and expect whoever the father is to pay up (read: around 70% of the girls I knew in college).

Haylo wrote:I realize people don't agree with that, but in a perfect world I would love to see a system that gave fathers equal rights to deciding wether their child lived. Notice I did not say lived or died, because no one parent should have the right to terminate a life without the other's consent.

I totally agree with you here.

Harrison · Post by **Harrison** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 8:36 pm

For once you guys are making sense...

I think I'm going to implode...

The Kizzy · Post by **The Kizzy** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:03 pm

Noone is saying that abortion is right, but sometimes it is the best thing to do for the parents (not for the child)in a circumstance. We have some great scenarios here, but we must remember that these are just scenarios. Every situation is different. Two irresponsible people have sex, and make a child. Neither want that child, it isn't always that one parent does and one doesn't. More often than not, neither do.

I still maintain that abortion is a personal choice, and should be noone else's business. Who are we to judge? Although 3 abortions by age 26? Someone should introduce her to the coaster method of birthcontrol. What is the coaster method of birth control you ask? That is when you take a coaster, stick it to the side of one knee, and hold it in place with the other knee. I.E. Keep your legs shut, and you won't get pregnant.

Trielelvan · Post by **Trielelvan** » Tue Sep 20, 2005 9:46 pm

LOL @ The coaster method

I still think grinding her reproductive organs into malt-o-meal is a good idea though :devil:

Minrott · Post by **Minrott** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:14 am

Don't be too hard on adoption. I know for a fact that I have a better life than I would have had my biological parents "kept" me. Sometimes it's in the child's best interest, regardless of whether or not you feel you have earned some degree of entitlement for carrying it to term.

Bigrozz · Post by **Bigrozz** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:35 am

Abortion is murder plain and simple. Just becuase the child can't defend itself or speak for itself is no excuse.

There are thousands of people out there that cannot have children that would give everything they have just for the chance to have a child. Yet here you have women killing baby after baby becuase they are to irresponsible to enusre they don't get pregnant. Granted there are some women who get pregnant by accident (and they could easly find parents that would arrange a surrogate contract), but with a condom and BC pills its like a 99.7% chance. So if the cum dumpster that is on her third abortion way using both the rubber and bc pills, she either had sex about 100,000 times or she needs to play the lottery.

As for abortion being a personal choice, so is just about any choice you make in life, its just that some of those have reprecussions.

mofish · Post by **mofish** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:38 am

"Founded in 1967, the Clergy Consultation Service on Abortion was a network of clergy who referred women to safe (though still illegal) abortions. There were 26 ministers and a rabbi at the founding of the network, and more than a thousand when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court Decision made the organization unnecessary."

Look at that. It was CLERGY that initially pushed for the legalization of abortion.

Go ahead, overturn Roe v Wade. Then the rich and powerful will get abortions while the poor and unconnected dont. What else is new.

However, I bet you see far, far more than a thousand people in an underground organization like the one above this time around.

Bigrozz · Post by **Bigrozz** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 7:49 am

Just because some one claims to be Clergy does not make them Christian.

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:00 am

Bigrozz wrote:Abortion is murder plain and simple. Just becuase the child can't defend itself or speak for itself is no excuse.

There are thousands of people out there that cannot have children that would give everything they have just for the chance to have a child. Yet here you have women killing baby after baby becuase they are to irresponsible to enusre they don't get pregnant. Granted there are some women who get pregnant by accident (and they could easly find parents that would arrange a surrogate contract), but with a condom and BC pills its like a 99.7% chance. So if the cum dumpster that is on her third abortion way using both the rubber and bc pills, she either had sex about 100,000 times or she needs to play the lottery.

As for abortion being a personal choice, so is just about any choice you make in life, its just that some of those have reprecussions.

Your right, there are thousands of women out there that cant have kids that would love to. There are also thousands of kids out there that would love a home but dont have one. How about we get the children who are already in foster homes into perminent homes before we start preaching about how many women out there would love to have a child but cant.

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:01 am

Bigrozz wrote:Just because some one claims to be Clergy does not make them Christian.

Just becasue somone is Christian does not make them any more right or better then anyone else.

Maeya · Post by **Maeya** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:08 am

There are thousands of people out there that cannot have children that would give everything they have just for the chance to have a child.

Yeah ... it's not like there's any shortage of children to adopt. A bit crude, but that's like your mom telling you to eat everything on your plate because there are starving people in China.

mofish · Post by **mofish** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:22 am

Bigrozz wrote:Just because some one claims to be Clergy does not make them Christian.

God has only been a republican since like 1980.

Bigrozz · Post by **Bigrozz** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:39 am

I agree the adoption process as it currently stands is a mess of red tape and BS. But there would be a better chance of reforming the adoption process if there was no alternative.

Bigrozz wrote:
Just because some one claims to be Clergy does not make them Christian.

Just becasue somone is Christian does not make them any more right or better then anyone else.

I was responding to Mofish's comment that impled religion was pro abortion

Post by **Gidan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:42 am

He wasn't implying that religion as a whole was pro abortion. I believe he was implying that even some religios groups saw the benefit of abortion.

kaharthemad · Post by **kaharthemad** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:02 am

Darcler wrote:Maybe I just have more self control than her, but after the first one I would REALLY bulk up my protection against pregnancy. After the second one, I would stop having sex until I was ready to have a child. There is little excuse to have 3.

Having said that, I am pro-choice. But I am anti-abortion-as-a-form-of-birth-control.

3 times man...WOMAN!!! Its a vagina not a clown car!

kaharthemad · Post by **kaharthemad** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:05 am

Captain_Insano wrote:I know some faggot is going to say "BUT NO USE TEH CONDUMZ!"... Condums break, slip off and are only partially effective... There needs to be something better and more permanent.

There is it is called Abstinence and if you can keep the trouser snake in...get snipped

Zanchief · Post by **Zanchief** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:07 am

kaharthemad wrote:Its a vagina not a clown car!

HAHAHA

Trielelvan · Post by **Trielelvan** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:20 am

Minrott wrote:Don't be too hard on adoption. I know for a fact that I have a better life than I would have had my biological parents "kept" me. Sometimes it's in the child's best interest, regardless of whether or not you feel you have earned some degree of entitlement for carrying it to term.

Sorry Min. If you were referring to what I said, I meant what I said specifically for myself. For me, it was never, ever an option, and that holds true to this day.
I'm glad you wound up with wonderful parents that loved you well.

Bigrozz · Post by **Bigrozz** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 9:21 am

kaharthemad wrote:
Its a vagina not a clown car!

Best line ever!

Zancheif beat me, I was just about to put it in my sig. Although I think you need the sentance beofre it to get the full effect.

Adivina · Post by **Adivina** » Wed Sep 21, 2005 12:33 pm

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

No one else takes offense to this bullshit comment? Maybe this is the first time this occured, and she is leaving him. Or maybe she is too scared to leave, perhaps even for her life. Instead of calling her stupid maybe you should realize that the poor thing needs some guidance and help?