what do u think?

on the topic of abortion, i dont know if this has been done b4..but i know its a womans choice, or it should be, on whether they have one or not, and it s their right to do what they want with their bodies....if this is about the liberation of females in mostly male-dominated society, where does the female embryo fit into this? a potential woman with the right to be born, but robbed of that right because of a contradicting female right to have the abortion...hopefully iv articuated myself properly...wat do u think...just something iv been thinking about...

 

I think it should be up to the woman.

I'd like it to be up to the man too (no enforced paternity) but that'll never happen.

 

It should be up to the woman but if she is in a meaningful relationship with the person she would be having the child with, then she should have enough respect for the guy to tell him about it. I hate to say it but guys have rights too. No, not to the woman's body but to the being inside that is half of his genetic material. What if the woman didn't want the kid but the man did?

With a topic as complicated as abortion, there are never any clear answers it all depends on the situation.

My personal beliefs are that only women who are heroin/meth/crack addicts, have been raped or molested in an instance which would result in a child, or are in a case where they would die if the fetus was not removed should it be allowed. I do not believe that abortion should be a 'quick fix' for anything. I don't think a woman should have an abortion for reasons like "I'll get fat" or because she isn't ready for a child now. Well she certainly was ready for the sex, why not the consequences. Condoms don't work all the time and neither does birth control.

And if I offend anyone or anything I apologize, it is just that this is a free speech forum so I am using that right to speak my mind.

Peace,
Shary

 

They should let me decide for them, but since that'll never happen, we can think of a compromise. I agree with Shary. I think it should be the womans choice, because the baby will be in her body. Shes selfish and stupid if she got pregnant and wants an abortion because "She will get fat" or "she doesn't want to take care of the baby" because she got pregnant and didn't think about it. I think if she should only have an abortion if

A) Somethings wrong with her/her body.
B) She got raped.
C) She can't afford to take care of the baby.

I am sure there is more, and it varies from situation to situation. The world is already overpopulated, so this is not a big issue. I don't think it should be illegal because then all the wemon who really should get a abortion can't.

It would be a little hypocritical of the US to make it illegal anyway, seeing as how minors have no rights.

 

"Well she was ready for sex, why not the consequences"

So if I went out driving in my car, wearing my seatbelt, and got involved in a major accident, should I just have to "deal" with the consequences? Should I be refused medical care because I knew the risk I was taking with driving and did it anyway?

And really,if a woman is selfish enough to want to abort because pregnancy will "make her fat", do you really think she'll be responsible enough to take care of a child?

 

As for the topic, I believe the sex of the fetus is irrelevant. Let's worry about the women and children who already exist.

 

Take this another step. What if they came up with a way to grow these unwanted fetuses invitro. Do you think all the people that are dead set against abortion would want to take them all and raise them well?

If you are pro-choice and found yourself in the unfortunate position of having an unwanted PG, would you opt to let the fetuses go that way,or would you rather abort.

 

You guys can carry on. I am SOOOOOOOOO tired of this subject, personally. No one who is prochoice is going to change a prolifers mind and no prolifer is going to change the mind of someone who is prochoice.

 

im 100% pro choice

 

That's one inequality I don't have a problem with.

Think about it.

If you're a girl and you don't want it, you can "get rid of it."

If you're a guy and never wanted it (even in a "oops! I took a flintstones vitamin instead of my pill by mistake, tee hee hee" scenario) and she does TOO BAD. The courts WILL take your money and give it to HER. Not to the kid, to HER.

Wouldn't it be very interesting if they made a rule that BEFORE BIRTH a man who said he wanted nothing to do with a child could not be held responsible for its upkeep in any way, and the woman choosing to carry it to term is basically assuming 100% financial responsibility for the kid?

Now, I have kids so I cannot even begin to think of doing something so vile. Kids need food money and affection, so don't take your crap out between the two of you out on them.

However it would be VERY interesting to see the societal results.

Which country was it that decided to make sperm donors (I don't mean guys who have sex, I mean people who donate it at medical clinics) liable for child support? And they wondered after why literally NOBODY was donating sperm anymore?

 

I thought that was the USA

 

I too am tired of the same old same old around the abortion question.That's why I made an attempt to parse it out some,into areas where either side of the traditional divide could see a different angle on it.

I was thinking a while ago that if there was a way to raise a fetus outside the mom,if I would even be comfortable mmaking that choice over an abortion.The anti-abortion side would make the argument that the fetus should live,but a part of me is uncomfortable with the idea that someone else would be raising my offspring.It gives me the creeps to think of factory raised kids.Yet at the same time I think there is some valididty to the idea that it's wrong to dispose of a fetus just because you can't/won't/aren't in a position to properly raise it yourself.


To me the idea of raising every fetus into a child brings up nightmarish visions of thousands of factory grown babies that nobody wants.I don't really believe that the anti-abortion people are prepared or willing to take on the masses of unwanted children,when many of them are already on the same political side as anti-welfare and anti-immigration,lower taxes arguments that lead me to believe that they wouldn't be wild about a huge new social welfare program of adopting thousands of parentless babies.I'm sort of relieved that this isn't possible to do.

 

There are plenty of animals in the world that abort their pregnancies when the conditions aren't right. I don't see why it should be any different for humans.

We are smart creatures, and if we can exercise more control over our situations, why not? Why shouldn't we be able to chose to only bring children into the world under optimal conditions?

I understand that some feel it is murder - the blocking of a potential life, but how far are you going to take this murder thing? Is a man that has a wet dream a murderer because all the potential lives lost? Is every womans period killing the potential for life? Is it involuntary manslaughter when a woman miscarries?

I personally feel that just because there may be potential of life that doesn't mean is should or has to be life. And that doesn't mean that the person who is building that life inside her shouldn't be in charge or control of it.

 

keepin' on - no, it was in Europe. We're talking about medical sperm donors, not one night stands. People who give their DNA to a lab for resale. Who were recruited with the understanding here's some cash, no strings attached, years ago.

 

http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Patriot_News_Sperm_donor_loses_appeal_child_support_23JUL04.htm

Looks like Pennsylvania to me.Last time I knew that was in the USA

 

PA's doing that too?

Next thing, people'll be complaining they have to go abroad for sperm.

Dirty little secret - we're rapidly losing our fertility.

 

Can't they just terminate the father's parental rights so he has no right to the child-then he wouldn't have to pay support? Then if the woman ever meets a man and gets married, he could adopt her child too? Or am I off base here?

 

RE: Can't they just terminate the father's parental rights so he has no right to the child-then he wouldn't have to pay support?

You're off base.

The idea is the woman buys the material from the lab, and then decides later she wants help with the bills, so contacts the lab to get info as to where the guy is and who he is via subpoena, and then she files for child support.

 

Even though the guy signed off his paternal rights, he did NOT sign off his rights to have to pay for a child for 18 years, and there's no way to do so.

 

Oh, I wasn't talking about the woman receiving sperm from the bank-I was talking about the scenario of woman gets pregnant, man doesn't want child and she does-if they terminated his parental rights so the child could be adopted by a future step-father (hypothetically of course) then he wouldn't have to pay support.

On the subject of sperm donors, I don't think they should have to pay any support at all! That is just ridiculous!