# Men to get final say over abortion in proposed Ohio law



## Amaretti (Aug 6, 2007)

Link removed



> *Abortion law would give fathers a say*
> 
> 
> Several Ohio state representatives who normally take an anti-abortion stance are now pushing pro-choice legislation - sort of.
> ...



This bill has been proposed by pro-life folk, so obviously the agenda behind this law is obvious. Let's make no mince-meat about it... it's not about giving fathers equal rights to mothers where children are concerned (which would be a commendable effort), it's about controlling women.

Giving men a say in abortion =/= Giving men the final word and ultimate control over proceedings.

Ohio, if this law passes, planet Earth is disowning you.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Aug 6, 2007)

ugh, haven't men had a say in what women do long enough? We have more of a say then men do, men don't have to carry the child, men don't have to give birth. many men are more likely to run off before or after the child is boprn, what the fuck is this the goddamn dark ages? Women need to have the last say, don't get me wrong it's great if the couple discusses it and decides what to do in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, but the point of the fact is, it's in our bodfiesm, notn yours. Damn religious right, they need to learn bthat the only thinbgb they need to control is themselves not everyone else.


----------



## Orochimaru-sama Sannin (Aug 6, 2007)

Fuck, there go the sexist bastards all over again. These people should try switching places with the women in their own housholds for once to see how it feels to be constantly subdued, and try to have a kid themselves to see what thery have to go through (unfortunately they can't due to, ahem, obvious biological reasons). How come they whine about laws regulating male power over women, but then turn around and shove this shit on women's heads?


----------



## Toby (Aug 6, 2007)

"This is important because there are *always* two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said Adams, a Republican from Sidney."

Utter lie.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2007)

AmethystFox said:


> ugh, haven't men had a say in what women do long enough? We have more of a say then men do, men don't have to carry the child, men don't have to give birth. men are more likely to run off before or after the child is boprn, what the fuck is this the goddamn dark ages? Women need to have the last say, don't get me wrong it's great if the couple discusses it and decides what to do in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, but the point of the fact is, it's in our bodfiesm, notn yours. Damn religious right, they need to learn bthat the only thinbgb they need to control is themselves not everyone else.


 

QFT

Though I give them points for ingenity (then am forced to take more for underhandedness)


----------



## lucky (Aug 6, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> it's not about giving fathers equal rights to mothers where children are concerned (which would be a commendable effort), it's about controlling women.



?  i'm a lil confused here.  giving the father a say in what they helped do means controlling women?


if i have a kid there's no fucking way i'm letting ANYONE do anything to him/her unless i have a word in it. 


dude.... "controlling women"?  wth are you talking about?!?


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 6, 2007)

lucky said:


> ?  i'm a lil confused here.  giving the father a say in what they helped do means controlling women?
> 
> 
> if i have a kid there's no fucking way i'm letting ANYONE do anything to him/her unless i have a word in it.
> ...



Did you actually read the article?


----------



## Lindsay (Aug 6, 2007)

> We have more of a say then men do, men don't have to carry the child, men don't have to give birth. men are more likely to run off before or after the child is boprn, what the fuck is this the goddamn dark ages? Women need to have the last say, don't get me wrong it's great if the couple discusses it and decides what to do in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, but the point of the fact is, it's in our bodfiesm, notn yours.


But that isn't true in ALL cases. My father had to work 23 hours a day, 7 days a week for a whole year to pay off the hospital so my mother could have me. Why shouldn't he have a say? You'd put your own beliefs against the child and the father for yourself, rather than to hear them out??


> Fuck, there go the sexist bastards all over again.


So i'm sexist for believing against abortion cause i think it kills a child???


> These people should try switching places with the women in their own housholds for once to see how it feels to be constantly subdued, and try to have a kid themselves to see what thery have to go through (unfortunately they can't due to, ahem, obvious biological reasons).


I would like to switch places, it might open people up to BOTH sides.
They are both two different expierences for men and women.


----------



## Red Viking (Aug 6, 2007)

AmethystFox said:


> ugh, haven't men had a say in what women do long enough? We have more of a say then men do, men don't have to carry the child, men don't have to give birth. men are more likely to run off before or after the child is boprn, what the fuck is this the goddamn dark ages? Women need to have the last say, don't get me wrong it's great if the couple discusses it and decides what to do in the event of an unexpected pregnancy, but the point of the fact is, it's in our bodfiesm, notn yours. Damn religious right, they need to learn bthat the only thinbgb they need to control is themselves not everyone else.



You're _really_ not helping your cause if you're willing to write us all off so easily.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2007)

There's a difference between having a say and having the final say.

I think ideally both the man and the woman would agree on the decesion. But in reality there are far too many variables to take account for.

What happens if a relationship was just a 1 night stand and the man forces the woman to take time from her life to have the child?

And that's just for starters.


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 6, 2007)

^ In any adult relationship, there should be dialogue between a man and a woman over a potential abortion where the man's thoughts are considered.

But you can't legislate this. If one is for an abortion and the other is against, only one of them will get their own way. And frankly, the final say should always be up to the woman since it's her body and her life that is on the line, not his. This proposed law would make it so that in every case of abortion the wishes of men (even one-night stands) trump the wishes of the women involved. It's swapping one extreme for another.

The most worrisome is that women only get a say if they have been raped/incested, but to do that they have to prove it through police reports. Since only about 16% of rapes are ever reported, this is disastrous.

Not to mention that submitting men to random paternity tests seems like a blast on men's rights as much as it as women's rights.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2007)

^I do agree Amaretti,If it sounded like I didn't my bad.You shouldn't try to legistrate this behavior and decesion. Like you said in a disagreement unless someone changes thier mind someone will lose. The rape/i*c*st part is worrisome but just as worrysome is that women would be forced to carry childern. I had thought we'd progressed past that but I guess not.


----------



## Lindsay (Aug 6, 2007)

> I think ideally both the man and the woman would agree on the decesion. But in reality there are far too many variables to take account for.


look down


> What happens if a relationship was just a 1 night stand and the man forces the woman to take time from her life to have the child?


Well people need to grow up a little, and take some responsibility. One night stands aren't healthy. Just take things seriously, and don't have sex at the worng moments.


> In any adult relationship, there should be dialogue between a man and a woman over a potential abortion where the man's thoughts are considered.


This is part of the only solution. 


> But you can't legislate this. If one is for an abortion and the other is against, only one of them will get their own way. And frankly, the final say should always be up to the woman since it's her body and her life that is on the line, not his. This proposed law would make it so that in every case of abortion the wishes of men (even one-night stands) trump the wishes of the women involved. It's swapping one extreme for another.


I agree that you can't regulate this. The situations involved are too extreme.

The only REAL solution, is to make wise desicions about your sex partners and have dialouge in a commited relationship were you discuss your options.
If you don't like what your partner says of if he or she refuses to listen to you, then leave.


----------



## Toby (Aug 6, 2007)

lucky said:


> ?  i'm a lil confused here.  giving the father a say in what they helped do means controlling women?



It's giving the father the final say that bogs people down. The woman carries the child, which in itself is stressful, but she also has to give birth to the child. So if she does not want to and the man forces her, she no longer has a choice.

Don't you think it is monstrous if your girlfriend would have to give birth to a child she doesn't want? 



lucky said:


> dude.... "controlling women"?  wth are you talking about?!?



Final say is like vetoing the decision no matter what the woman thinks. No, it is vetoing whatever the woman thinks. That is control over somebody else's body, a completely unacceptable thing for those pro-choice.


----------



## thedisturbedone (Aug 6, 2007)

Normally I'm against abortion, but this is just a big pile of BS. Why the hell should the *man have the final say in this? They didnt carry the child, they practicaly force the woman to do so. They could walk out at any point in time, and what if she isnt financialy prepared for it?*


----------



## Adonis (Aug 6, 2007)

The problem with the legislation isn't that it's trying to give fathers a say; the problem is that it's giving them ALL of the say. How is this a fair compromise when it's simply shifting the responsibility of the decision from one party to the other? This law, whether you admit it or not, is a misogynistic attempt to ban abortion by passing the right of choice from women. That, to be blunt, is the reason why so many people will support it. Sure, it's rendering women submissive to their own body but at least my own agenda succeeds! Am I wrong here?

Like it or not, abortion should be a woman's choice because it's her burden. "What about the father! He had a part in it! He's going to be the one paying for and supporting it! He loves it!" I'd love to think we live in a world where every father is responsible and caring but the reality is that there are, and always will be, fathers who bail on the kid. In that case, who's left with the child? The Mother. That is why it should be her choice. It's like my dad says, "There's a lot of fathers running around knocking people up; there are few dads raising them." In the end, you're willing to trap mothers with unwanted children on the off-chance all fathers want to, and will, step up. Such fancifulness is better suited for abstinence-only seminars. I'll step back into reality.

Here's the funny thing, though: how many of these "fathers" you're fighting for are married to the woman in question? I couldn't give an exact number (I never do) but Ive seen stats ranging from 18-20%. Married people don't go through abortion fiascos often: normally, they discuss each other's desire for a kid (as in if Susan doesn't want a kid, yet, Stan will be told about it and will know what Susan will want to do if she accidentally gets pregnant [abortion].) At that point, if he still stays with her, and the situation comes up, there's no room for this buyer's remorse "I change my mind! I love our unborn child" crap. That leaves that likely group affected by this law: unmarried couples.

Essentially, what supporters of this law are hoping for is when two unmarried have sex, and the woman gets pregnant, it should be assumed that the male participant is not only responsible enough to make the decision of whether to keep it for her but that he'll definitely stick around and support it. If he can't be found (because he flaked like many do) tough cookies for the girl. You're telling me that the male participant who had 1/2 the fun and none of the obligation to stay has all of the parental rights? That's ludicrous. The girl HAS to deal with the baby; the man can say, "Fuck it!" and leave anytime he wants to. Again, that's why she should have the choice.


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 6, 2007)

drache said:


> ^I do agree Amaretti,If it sounded like I didn't my bad.You shouldn't try to legistrate this behavior and decesion. Like you said in a disagreement unless someone changes thier mind someone will lose. The rape/i*c*st part is worrisome but just as worrysome is that women would be forced to carry childern. I had thought we'd progressed past that but I guess not.



My comment was more in response to UC. XD 500 errors slowed me down.


----------



## Red (Aug 6, 2007)

Change a few things there i.e the final say part and it's a pretty good bill.

I don't see why fathers should not have a say in whether their child lives or dies.



			
				Dark adonis said:
			
		

> The girl HAS to deal with the baby; *the man can say, "Fuck it!" and leave anytime he wants to*


 No he can, and when he is caught, which isn't as hard to do as you imagine, he's forced to pay 18 years worth of child support.

in my state thats 1500 a month. for 18 years. Thats not the definition of scott free.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 6, 2007)

I keep hearing people say the father should have a say.

I agree with this to an extent, he should have a say and be able to provide input.  But in the end you can't have a partial abortion, you either have one or you don't.  Which means that any legislation will give the final decision to one party or the other.

The final decision really needs to go to the woman, this thing will be growing inside of her for 9 months and she will have to go through the very long painful process of labor.  The man just has to sit back and wait for it to happen.

Thats the problem with this legislation, is it gives almost absolute control to the man (notice I say almost, absolute control would be if he could force her to get one against her will).


----------



## Casyle (Aug 6, 2007)

Sweet, that made my day!  GOOD!  

Dear God, how horrible.  The father would actually have a say in what happens to his kid!  Unthinkable! :amazed


----------



## DragonHeart52 (Aug 6, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> This bill has been proposed by pro-life folk, so obviously the agenda behind this law is obvious. Let's make no mince-meat about it... it's not about giving fathers equal rights to mothers where children are concerned (which would be a commendable effort), it's about controlling women.
> 
> Giving men a say in abortion =/= Giving men the final word and ultimate control over proceedings.
> 
> *Ohio, if this law passes, planet Earth is disowning you.*



  You mean we failed to disown them after the last presidential election??

IMHO, a man's reproductive rights ends with the tip of his penis.  Keep it in your pants or reserve your amorous adventures for little Ms. Right (or Left, depending on your handedness) if you want zero pregnancy risk.  A man should certainly have no final say in what happens to the body of another adult (meaning the pregnant woman in this case) if she disagrees with his decision.

All the research potential in this country and we still haven't made it possible to transplant fetuses to the abdomens of male right-to-lifers.  It just goes to show how serious they really are about the whole thing.  

At least no one need ask me again why I left my "precious" home state and have no desire to return.


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 6, 2007)

Red said:


> Change a few things there i.e the final say part and it's a pretty good bill.
> 
> I don't see why fathers should not have a say in whether their child lives or dies.
> 
> ...



Actually, it is pretty easy for men to skip out on child support. My uncle did it/is doing it. He simply moved away and changed his last name and he's never paid a single penny to his old family. And he's hardly the craftiest man you'll ever meet.



> Sweet, that made my day! GOOD!
> 
> Dear God, how horrible. The father would actually have a say in what happens to his kid! Unthinkable!



Actually read the article, pls. The father isn't getting a 'say', he's getting THE final say and women are essentially having their 'say' abolished completely.


----------



## Casyle (Aug 6, 2007)

I did read the article, thank you, and I'm glad.  

It takes two to tango.  If you don't want a kid, take fuggin' precations!!!!!  Women don't normally just *POOF* find themselves pregnant.  It's about damn time that the father can do more than stress out and hope that his wife/gf doesn't want an abortion.

It's a little thing called R-E-S-P-O-N-S-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y.  If you want to play f***Y-sucky, be prepared to take responsibility if you end up getting pregnant and your bf/husband doesn't like killing unborn children.


----------



## LittleBlondePunk (Aug 6, 2007)

Well, if this passes, ohio will be the cut out state in the US...


----------



## Solid Snake (Aug 6, 2007)

When is killing a baby considered murder? When it is conceived, when it is born, or when it becomes an infant? Just out of sheer curiosity.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 6, 2007)

So what are they gonna do if the soon-to-be-father disagrees? Are they gonna chain her on a bed and force her to give birth to the baby?

Amazing how a single law could make centuries of fight for equality go null and void...


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 6, 2007)

Grevane said:


> When is killing a baby considered murder? When it is conceived, when it is born, or when it becomes an infant? Just out of sheer curiosity.



In my opinion when it's born, the law says from the 25th week on it's illegal. (Google is your friend)

Go to the philosophical forum if you want to discuss this further.


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 6, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Link removed
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, and  this thread has been created by pro-abortion folk, so obviously the agenda behind this thread is obvious.

I believe abortion should be an equal choice behind the mother and father. The "its the womans body" excuse is a bad excuse, imo. The child is equally the fathers as it is the mothers. 

Of course, if the father just ditched the mother while she was pregnant, he is obviously forfeiting all rights to the child. 

Amaretti, I've been slammed for slamming Atheists for using this "because of their stance, they must be...." claim. So because you can get away with doing it, can I make similar generalizations/claims?

Edit: Why is it Pro-lifers are being generalized as controlling women? Controlling abortion perhaps but all pro-life means is they consider abortion to be murder. I am pro-life and I don't believe in controlling women. wtf is with this generalization anyway?

Edit: Why is it Pro-lifers are being generalized as controlling women? Controlling abortion perhaps but all pro-life means is they consider abortion to be murder. I am pro-life and I don't believe in controlling women. wtf is with this generalization anyway?


----------



## Vicious-chan (Aug 6, 2007)

damn.. at first I was excited that it wasn't final word but just that men would get a say (as I think they should.. the fathers that is) but the final say? that's just bs :| 

but let's not go claiming all men (or many) want control over women (well not women exactly) and let's not deny that there are many "feminists" that don't really want equal rights, they want power over others too... It's the lure of power :\ I love a quote by Abraham Lincoln "Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power." (and I take man as being "human" for now-a-days ). Bit off topic but a cool quote


----------



## Juubi (Aug 6, 2007)

I do agree with giving men some rights when it comes to abortions, but more so in the area of when a woman is having a pregnancy that he would like terminated. There should be some type of discussion about that started--so that men across the country don't always resort to the "drop her on her stomach" approach.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2007)

MartialHorror said:


> Wow, and this thread has been created by pro-abortion folk, so obviously the agenda behind this thread is obvious.
> 
> I believe abortion should be an equal choice behind the mother and father. The "its the womans body" excuse is a bad excuse, imo. The child is equally the fathers as it is the mothers.
> 
> ...


 
Would you like it if I had the final say in anything involving your body?

I don't think so. It's called freedom.

This law gives the men *the final say* not *a say*. And that's what wrong with this law, if it gets passed I hope it gets laughed out of court.

Sure it took both sexes to create the embroyo but who has more to deal with? That's right the woman and god forbid they have to put thier lives on hold not to mention what if there's a medical risk? They seemed to forget that one.

This law is riddled with more holes then swiss cheese and my stance against it has nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## Dark_wolf247 (Aug 6, 2007)

Ohio sucks. I have to say this thread makes me ashamed to be an Ohioan. 



			
				drache said:
			
		

> This law gives the men the *final say* not *a say*. And that's what wrong with this law, if it gets passed I hope it gets laughed out of court.
> 
> Sure it took both sexes to create the embroyo but who has more to deal with? That's right the woman and god forbid they have to put thier lives on hold not to mention what if there's a medical risk? They seemed to forget that one.



You fucking pwn. If you hadn't have already said this, I would have. You stole my words. >;


----------



## Adonis (Aug 6, 2007)

You honestly believe that a man, who is only burdened with the child if he chooses to man up and stick around, should have all of the say? Over a woman's body, no less? Are you fucking retarded? It's like someone having control of the lease to MY apartment because he may want to move in and think he has the right to. It's lunacy.

Let's be blunt and get it out into the open. The only reason people are supporting this law is A) they realize people sympathize with the "poor" dad who watches helplessly as his baby-killer girlfriend opts for adoption and B) they want to use this sympathy in hope that fathers everywhere will "take a stand" and stop the abomination of abortion. You want to talk about agendas, MH? Don't get me started (continued, honestly) on this crock of shit legislation. 

Grow the fuck up, people. When two people have sex and a fetus results (without them trying to make it, no less) and the father all of a sudden wants to play daddy, the woman doesn't, and shouldn't, have to oblige. You're telling me that some douchebag who A) couldn't use protection and B) didn't have the sense to discuss his feelings on having children with the woman who will be squeezing the bastard out her snatch nine months down the road has the right to say, "I want it! Deal with it!" You're out of your fucking mind.

You want to talk responsibility on the woman's part? What about the men? Here's an idea: if you want a kid and will fall in love with every fetus--excuse me--"unborn child" how about you TALK IT OVER WITH THE FUCKING WOMAN AND NOT HOOK UP WITH SOMEONE WHO DOESN'T WANT KIDS, YET! Crazy, I know. To slip up and accidentally knock someone up, then claim to have parental rights and want to raise it, is irresponsible and inconsiderate to the woman. That's entrapment. As drache and many others have said, "Who has to deal with the child, more? Who will have to put their life on hold?" That's the person who should have the say if anyone.

And as Tsukiyomi pointed out, there really is no middle ground on this issue: either the woman gets an abortion or she doesn't. Regardless of how much you think mutual input is important, and it _is_ ideal, in the end, there will have to be a final say. Why should that say not go to the woman?


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 6, 2007)

Praise Christ! I think this is a great thing. Lets be serious here. It isn't about giving rights to fathers or taking rights away from mothers. It is about decreasing the chances that the unborn children will be murdered.

Even in the sick liberal mindset, a father should have equal rights. If you take the "its her body" fallacy, then you must admit that it is also the father's body as well. At least 50%, since it takes two to tango.

So what do you do when 1 wants the kid to live and the other wants the kid to die? Flip a coin? No, you obviously allow the human life to live and have a chance in life. Logical choice to an illogical mindset.

This is a step in the right direction.


----------



## Red Viking (Aug 6, 2007)

thedisturbedone said:


> Normally I'm against abortion, but this is just a big pile of BS. Why the hell should the *man have the final say in this? They didnt carry the child, they practicaly force the woman to do so. They could walk out at any point in time, and what if she isnt financialy prepared for it?*


*

Just because we can doesn't mean we will.*


----------



## Casyle (Aug 6, 2007)

Amen @ Martial Horror and Believe It!.

@ DarkAdonis - Whoa, so no fault lies with the woman who didn't make sure the guy had protection on?  In that scenario, both people are being fools, in my opinion.  Even with protection, you can still get pregnant.  The only way to gaurantee that you won't get pregnant is for one of the two to have a very permanent operation.  

Sex can equal a child.  If you want to have sex, you need to deal with the fact that it may happen!  If you don't want the risk, get an operation, or stock up on cucumbers!


----------



## Yakushi Kabuto (Aug 6, 2007)

I do not approve of this at all. While yes, am pro-life and I believe in exceptions in cases of the mother being endangered/rape/i*c*st...giving the father the last word on whether or not the child will be born feels wrong somehow. I suppose it is the idea that the man may not be thinking about what would be best for the mother, not just about what he would want.


----------



## Red Viking (Aug 6, 2007)

thedisturbedone said:


> Normally I'm against abortion, but this is just a big pile of BS. Why the hell should the *man have the final say in this? They didnt carry the child, they practicaly force the woman to do so. They could walk out at any point in time, and what if she isnt financialy prepared for it?*


*

Just because we can doesn't mean we will.*


----------



## Casyle (Aug 6, 2007)

Seriously... ^ Assuming no life-threatening problems, rape, or i*c*st, what is best for the mother that's worth destroying a life?  Have we gotten to the point where we care more about whether someone is uncomfortable for 9'ish months than we care about an unborn child?


----------



## Adonis (Aug 6, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> Praise Christ! I think this is a great thing. Lets be serious here. It isn't about giving rights to fathers or taking rights away from mothers. *It is about decreasing the chances that the unborn children will be murdered.*



No shit, Sherlock. Did you make that big boy deduction all on your own, champ? That's exactly what makes this law dishonest and a crock. If you want to ban or limit abortion, try to pass a law for that purpose. To attempt that goal under the guise of "parental rights" is underhanded and downright corrupt. If you anti-abortion laws don't pass, fucking deal or try again. Don't try to sidestep it with bullshit legislation.

Regardless of intent, the bottom line is that the end result will be men being able to force a woman to have a baby and put her life on hold for it. All for a fetus, a lump of cells with human DNA (like a tumor) that will eventually be a child. Until that fetus develops consciousness, which is 3-4 months at the earliest, to kill it is not murder. There's a difference between killing and murder. In order to be murder, in addition to being premeditated, the victim must be human. A fetus is not human any more than a tumorous cell. 



> Even in the sick liberal mindset, a father should have equal rights. If you take the "its her body" fallacy, then you must admit that it is also the father's body as well. At least 50%, since it takes two to tango.



What? You clearly don't understand the "it's her body" claim. "Her body" isn't referring to the fetus but rather her body (shocking, really) which the fetus is growing inside. If the man had to carry the pregnancy, we'd be fighting for his right to choose. But alas, he doesn't so we aren't. There is no 50% it's either the mothers choice or the father's choice and the latter is illogical.



> So what do you do when 1 wants the kid to live and the other wants the kid to die? Flip a coin? No, you obviously allow the human life to live and have a chance in life. Logical choice to an illogical mindset.



The fetus is a human life, like a tumor, but not A human life. That difference seems to escape mosts grass. The fetus is no more human than my head flakes (I really should look into Head & Shoulders, btw.) Skin cells fit the criteria of life and have human DNA yet I don't see any "Save my dandruff!" T-shirts.



> This is a step in the right direction.



Yeah. It's the yellow brick road to bastards and coat hangers and forced miscarriages, oh my.

I've realized what I tend to dislike about religious (yes, I'm singling you guys out even though not all pro-lifers are religious) ideas. They're to idealistic. You'd rather take the "high road" with the most casualties. In the end, this law, if passed, will only succeed in increasing the rate of at-home abortions (bad) and unwanted children with incapable parents (bad) and subjugate women to the man's will despite it being her body. Sorry if I'm not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.









			
				 Casyle said:
			
		

> Amen @ Martial Horror and Believe It!.
> 
> @ DarkAdonis - Whoa, so no fault lies with the woman who didn't make sure the guy had protection on? In that scenario, both people are being fools, in my opinion. Even with protection, you can still get pregnant. The only way to gaurantee that you won't get pregnant is for one of the two to have a very permanent operation.
> 
> Sex can equal a child. If you want to have sex, you need to deal with the fact that it may happen! If you don't want the risk, get an operation, or stock up on cucumbers!



You do realize that agreeing with Believe It! at any point in a debate negates your argument, right? Often, if not always, it means your as full of shit as he is.

No, I'm not saying that no fault lies on the woman. I'm saying that not ALL of it does. If your head wasn't shoved so far up your ass you'd have seen that I was calling out the people saying the man had NO blame, not what you're accusing me off.

Your claim that anyone who has sex should be prepared for a child is fallacious. Contraception has gotten to the point where it's virtually guaranteed to work if you follow directions. Unfortunately, they're not foolproof and there are many fools. My point is, to say that one should be prepared for a child because it's a risk of sex is the equivalent of saying I shouldn't drive my car unless I'm prepared to die in a fiery wreckage. Auto accidents are a likely risk, afterall, no? 

You'd rather trap a bunch of people you deem as foolish and irresponisble (the same people you shouldn't want raising a child) with a child than abort the fetus before it becomes said child. Right. Makes sense.



Red Viking said:


> Just because we _can_ doesn't mean we _will_.



Right, because it's better to base such a decision on the naive assumption that fathers will step up rather than the reality that they don't have to and many don't. 



			
				 Casyle said:
			
		

> Seriously... ^ Assuming no life-threatening problems, rape, or i*c*st, what is best for the mother that's worth destroying a life? Have we gotten to the point where we care more about whether someone is uncomfortable for 9'ish months than we care about an unborn child?



If you really viewed a fetus as a human life, you wouldn't condone its killing regardless of rape or i*c*st. Hypocritical, much?


----------



## Vandal Savage (Aug 6, 2007)

The father should definitely have a say but his word shouldn't be the thing that completely decides this kind of situation.


----------



## drache (Aug 6, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> Praise Christ! I think this is a great thing. Lets be serious here. It isn't about giving rights to fathers or taking rights away from mothers. It is about decreasing the chances that the unborn children will be murdered.
> 
> Even in the sick liberal mindset, a father should have equal rights. If you take the "its her body" fallacy, then you must admit that it is also the father's body as well. At least 50%, since it takes two to tango.
> 
> ...


 
Apparently you missed the point, this isn't about *some *or *equal* rights but about *greater rights*. I've yet to hear anyone say the father shouldn't have any input the sticking point is when you give the man the final say.

And I'd remind you that you're using loaded words (though you probably know that) by law and by science it's an embroyo to a certain point and then and only after that time is it considered an unborn child. So you're not protecting anything but a bundle of biological material that _could_ become life.

Since you don't mind taking away rights for 'the greater good' why don't we start sterlizing the people we think shouldn't have the ability to procreate?


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 7, 2007)

drache said:


> Would you like it if I had the final say in anything involving your body?
> 
> I don't think so. It's called freedom.
> 
> ...




I believe it should be half and half. Of course, this will still cause issues. If one wants an abortion and another doesn't, I'm not really sure. 

Then again, if someone has an abortion they were probably stupid and didn't have sex with a condom. If so, I dont feel any pity for the person. If the condom broke, then it shows condoms aren't perfect.

If they were raped, then I'm more lenient towards the abortion.

If it gives the men more power, then I guess you have a point. Regardless, apparently Amarreti didn't get this because he is saying its like that only because pro-lifers are behind it(which was my main point in this post, was the bad generalization).

Sure, if its a choice between the woman and child, I dont consider that murder. I consider most forms of abortion to be straight up murder.

It's funny now that I think about it. Most of the people who are pro-choice are the ones bitching about God murdering in the Bible. 

Anyway, I became mostly pro-life after seeing some woman(who was concieved from a rape and was adopted) say if she ever met her mother, she would thank her for giving her  a chance at life(instead of an abortion). Her comments alone made me decide I dont believe the Mother should just throw someone elses life away because they dont want them. It's selfish.

But regardless, this is only my opinion and not the topic of the thread....

SO final say: If the law is bs, its bs but NOT because its done by pro-lifers. Most of the guys who say the woman should have 100% control over the matter are simply ignorant or naive to the subject. I am willing to guess none of you have ever been in this situation. If you want a kid, but she aborts it, you won't feel the same way you do now. Regardless, the reasons are either of ignorance or selfishness on either side.


----------



## Red (Aug 7, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Actually, it is pretty easy for men to skip out on child support. My uncle did it/is doing it. He simply moved away and changed his last name and he's never paid a single penny to his old family. And he's hardly the craftiest man you'll ever meet.


Nowadays it's hard to run out on child support. It's hard wired into your SS# and drivers license. You get pulled over for a ticket the officer sees it on your record, you are serving time in jail You can't buy a home, you can't do anything involving a background check skimping out on child support is like cutting off your entire body. The only way to get out of it is to become a hermit and live in the mountains.

I know I side tracked a bit, but this thread is full of the notion that the men have it easy. As it stands now (at least in some states) If my significant other wants to have an abortion and abort my child I have no say. Why?

And the whole notion that women go it alone in the nine months that they are pregnant is somewhat narrow minded. The husband takes part of those nine months and isn't exempted from anything except the physical discomfort and the final labour(which can be dulled with medication and such.). Anyone who has taken care of a pregnant woman ca vouch for this.

While I don't agree with the bill i it's entirety I agree that men should have a decent amount of mouth in what happens to the child.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Aug 7, 2007)

Red Viking said:


> You're _really_ not helping your cause if you're willing to write us all off so easily.



you didn't read my post did you? I said how many guys, I did not say all guys. I also said I am all for couples making the decision together. I know many men who are awesome dads, and many men and women who suck as parents in general. I am not writing all men off easily, sorry if it came out that way.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Aug 7, 2007)

lemme put it this way they are trying to make it so that the woman cannot have an abortion without the guy's permission. and that;s a load of bull.


----------



## GrimaH (Aug 7, 2007)

Casyle said:


> Amen @ Believe It!.



I lol'ed because I realised Casyle wasn't being sarcastic.


----------



## Red Viking (Aug 7, 2007)

AmethystFox said:


> you didn't read my post did you? I said how many guys, I did not say all guys. I also said I am all for couples making the decision together. I know many men who are awesome dads, and many men and women who suck as parents in general. I am not writing all men off easily, sorry if it came out that way.



Yeah, I'm calling you out on that one.  You said men.  As in all of us.


----------



## Vanity (Aug 7, 2007)

Well, I'm against abortion personally, I'll never get an abortion unless proceeding with the pregnancy would threaten my life.

However, I think it's kind of crazy how they're having men decide here. I mean, I know that some fathers really want to have the kid, and it's their kid too, but that law sounds really just totally against women almost.


----------



## Jagon Fox (Aug 7, 2007)

Red Viking said:


> Yeah, I'm calling you out on that one.  You said men.  As in all of us.



ohh, so I have. I meant to put many sometmes my fingers get ahead of my brain.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 7, 2007)

I don't see how Men have ''greater'' rights in the situation, rights they possibly should have is debatable but I don't see how they have more rights.

Scenario 1: If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't the child has to be born.

Scenario 2: If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the child has to be born.

Scenario 3: They both wish not to have a child, the child will get terminated.

Scenario 4: They both wish to keep the child.

It would be unequal if the man could force the abortion upon the woman, but I don't think he is able to.


----------



## Fojos (Aug 7, 2007)

If you're fucking stupid enough to have unprotected sex without protection it's your fault really. 

(No, I'm not talking about girls who have been raped, but the kind that have had sex willingly, without thinking of the damn consequenses of having it unprotected)


But if I'd agree to abortion, it would be like this.

If the man doesn't want the child and the woman wants the child, it shouldn't be born.

If the woman doesn't want the child and the man wants the child, it shouldn't be born.

Because: If the man has to have a child he doesn't want, his life is basically ruined because he has to pay a huge lot of money, especially if he's not living with the woman. If the woman has to have a child she doesn't want she'll have to give birth to it, and most likely lose her career options. (atleast for the first years)

But I still go by the first thing.


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 7, 2007)

Personally, I believe a father should only have some (and mind you, I say _some_) say if-- and _only_ if-- he is willing to actually be a father and take some responsibility for his own half of the equation. Though I will be the first to confess that this is nearly impossible to formulate into legislation.

I seldom dare to stick my foot into the bear-trap of abortion discussion anymore, but I guess I'm the kind of person who can't help calling a red herring such when I see one. While some involved with the bill may have had less malicious intentions, for some men do care about the offspring they helped conceive, the intention of the bill is irrelevant to me compared to its result: rewinding the clock and reverting women (and children, too) back to the legal status of luggage or cattle-- property. The fact that it gives a woman no way out, even forces her to drag herself through the mud while her rapist is nowhere to be found, tells me everything I need to know about the _true_ purpose of the bill.

As a person who has friends and acquaintances who have been raped or abused, including for "religious" reasons, I find everything from the bill's supporters' oblique deflections, to their self-righteous tone, disgusting. I wish they would just get a life, get a hobby, get laid. Something.

I've said my piece, feel free to disagree with me, but all I see are social and psychological mechanisms of control, and a one-sided stranglehold on personal freedom.


----------



## Toby (Aug 7, 2007)

Jio said:


> Scenario 2: If the woman wants the child and the man doesn't, the child has to be born.
> 
> It would be unequal if the man could force the abortion upon the woman, but I don't think he is able to.



But 'scenario 2' is impossible if this law passes. The man gets final say. Not just a say. The result is basically the same as if the woman had no say to begin with because her say doesn't have any merit in comparison to what the father thinks.

I agree that couples should talk this out between each other and come to an agreement, but the fact of the matter is that the woman carries the child and if she ends up not wanting it, I am willing to accept that. It is her body and possibly even her life which is on the line.

So, Believe It, you are wrong when you assume you know the liberal mindset. Hell, this is the basic principle of personal freedom: My freedom ends where yours begins.

The man cannot force the woman to have a child. Hard as that is to accept, how would you feel if you were forced to have a child born which you don't want?

Now I am not trying to reduce the population in the world. I certainly want more children born in those nations where the population is decreasing, but you are going to scare away women from the nations where abortion is forbidden, or where they cannot decide. If you look at sociological reasons for why people immigrate and emigrate, the laws of the country concerned rate pretty high. And for the last time, this is not the man's body, so why does he have a say at all? Because it is their child, but not his body to carry it within.

Fojos: Your example of justice is a bit flawed since the same does not apply for the woman in the first instance. Because of that, there is no equal justice in giving a man the final say.


----------



## Fojos (Aug 7, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> Fojos: Your example of justice is a bit flawed since the same does not apply for the woman in the first instance. Because of that, there is no equal justice in giving a man the final say.



Where I live if a woman decides to make an abortion she can do it, but if the man doesn't want to have a child he doesn't have any say in it whatsoever. THAT is flawed.


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 7, 2007)

> If it gives the men more power, then I guess you have a point. Regardless, apparently Amarreti didn't get this because he is saying its like that only because pro-lifers are behind it(which was my main point in this post, was the bad generalization).



Then you didn't read my other posts in this thread.

My comment in the OP shouldn't have been that hard to understand. It was a pro-choice bill put forward by anti-choice people, designed to make it difficult for women to get an abortion simply by taking their choice and giving it to men, forcing a lot of women who would otherwise get an abortion to give birth.

There was no generalisation. All I said essentially was that a pro-choice bill put forward by pro-lifers obviously is not really a pro-choice bill at all.

If you construed anything else from that, I don't care. Don't put words in my mouth.


----------



## ViЯaL (Aug 7, 2007)

the women must endure labor amongst other things. So this law is Bull, In giving one adult a say(the Final) in another persons life. Though the man should have some say since he helped.

Its like 2 people plan on building something(a car) but One builds it, While the other cheers on. The Builder gets tired and gives up, but the one who cheers on says "hell no get back to work". Its becomes slavery from there just to finish the project.
But then the cheerer has some right to do so since they Bought some materials(sperm) and a contract was already signed(Biological Stature[Men donts gots no Uterus ])

 What happens when the project is finished though is for a different debate....

 I would actually aprove of this law if The human species lay eggs, but we dont. So tough Cookies. If we did, Sex would no longer be as recreationally fun.


----------



## drache (Aug 7, 2007)

MartialHorror said:


> SO final say: If the law is bs, its bs but NOT because its done by pro-lifers. *Most of the guys who say the woman should have 100% control over the matter are simply ignorant or naive to the subject. I am willing to guess none of you have ever been in this situation.* If you want a kid, but she aborts it, you won't feel the same way you do now. Regardless, the reasons are either of ignorance or selfishness on either side.


 

Sorry but I have to disagree with the bold. In fact it's a fallacy, as you're implying that any opnion that doesn't agree with yours is flawed simply becasue you think we've not had to deal with this.

In point of fact I've had to deal once with a potentially unexecpted pregancy. It turned out to be a scare only. But regardless of rather or not people have been in the position of an unexpected pregenacy that in and of itself doesn't  invalidate anyone's opnion here; if it did I'd expect you'd have to invalidate alot of opnions on BOTH sides.

Further when the law takes away freedom I will voice my disagreement. I don't care if I personally agree or not. Even if I thought abortion was the most stupidest choice in the history of the world it's still a choice and I'll still defend someone's right to make that choice.


----------



## Ero_Sennin (Aug 7, 2007)

I know I am stealing someone's catchphrase here, but:

"I would like to hear Killa Cam's input on this topic."


----------



## Rastignac (Aug 7, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> "This is important because there are *always* two parents and fathers should have a say in the birth or the destruction of that child," said Adams, a Republican from Sidney."
> 
> Utter lie.



Those motherfuckers make me sick....last time I checked it was the women that get pregnant, comparing a "mere sperm contribution" to carrying a child in your belly for 9 months with all the effect that it have on the body, on work etc... it's just plain ridiculous.

If a woman wants an abortion it's obviously because she didn't want to have a child with the man she's been with.....and no matter what that dude could think it's not him that will carry the child, sure life it's unfair if you want because only women can carry a child....but that not a reason for imposing them to carry a child that they don't want when it have such a impact on their body, carreers etc....


----------



## Mizura (Aug 7, 2007)

Here's what I have to say:



> *In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say."*


Pass a *legislation* that simultaneously:
1. *forces* the father to assume full parental responsibility, including full care of the kid if the mother initially chose abortion (not just paying child support, which is often insufficient) and
2. *full financial support*, not just "most cases if father agrees to."  By the way, I'd include college in that.

Otherwise, we'd just end up with teenage dads who are too chicken to sign the form in time then find a way to skip child support and leave the teenage mom on her own. Maybe if he were forced to take care of the kid himself after the kid is born (as opposed to ditching the mom), he'd think twice.

If you pass a legislation forcing the women to have the kid unless the guy says otherwise, then you might as well make it fair and force the guy to assume full legislative responsibility as well, not just "maybe if he agrees."

Oh and yeah. And they should pay the mother in full for the 9 months of lost productivity + hospital fees, especially if they're the only ones who are against the abortion.


----------



## DragonHeart52 (Aug 7, 2007)

Rastignac said:


> Those motherfuckers make me sick....last time I checked it was the women that get pregnant, comparing a "mere sperm contribution" to carrying a child in your belly for 9 months with all the effect that it have on the body, on work etc... it's just plain ridiculous.
> 
> If a woman wants an abortion it's obviously because she didn't want to have a child with the man she's been with.....and no matter what that dude could think it's not him that will carry the child, sure life it's unfair if you want because only women can carry a child....but that not a reason for imposing them to carry a child that they don't want when it have such a impact on their body, carreers etc....


Indeed.  It's like I said in a post in another thread: men and "uterus envy".  Women can bear children without a man being present after his contribution (which is sometimes anonymous in a doctor's office), but men cannot do the same.  Even a postmenopausal woman can give birth to a donor egg-donor sperm child, as has been evidenced by the recent news of women in their late sixites finally having the child they have always wanted.

The idea that one gender (male) is entitled to rule what occurs to the body of the other gender (female) is more reminiscent of slavery than citizens of a free country.  I think this attempt to force women (and I am becoming increasingly suspicious that the focus is white women) to have children they don't want is a reflection of aging white males looking at US demographics and realizing they aren't going to be ruling the roost much longer and no one wants to give up power.  Ever notice who the majority of picketers are at abortion clinics?  Yep - paunchy older white males who have probably never been intimately involved in raising any children they may have fathered.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 7, 2007)

> But 'scenario 2' is impossible if this law passes. The man gets final say. Not just a say. The result is basically the same as if the woman had no say to begin with because her say doesn't have any merit in comparison to what the father thinks.


I didn't really see metion to that in the article, if that is the case the balance is unequal in the mans favour.



> I agree that couples should talk this out between each other and come to an agreement, but the fact of the matter is that the woman carries the child and if she ends up not wanting it, I am willing to accept that. It is her body and possibly even her life which is on the line.


That's not the issue for me. I am discussing the balance not whether it is right or wrong. 



> So, Believe It, you are wrong when you assume you know the liberal mindset. Hell, this is the basic principle of personal freedom: My freedom ends where yours begins.






> The man cannot force the woman to have a child. Hard as that is to accept, how would you feel if you were forced to have a child born which you don't want?


I am going to be blunt and ask you what the fuck you are talking about ( assuming you are refering to me). Where did I say that it was right for a man to force a woman into having a child?



> And for the last time, this is not the man's body, so why does he have a say at all? Because it is their child, but not his body to carry it within.


I am not discussing the issue of whether it is right or wrong, I do hold my own opinion on the matter but that is neither here nor there. I am discussing the balance from what I see the law makes things balance ( assuming he cannot force her to have an abortion) whether you beleive it should be balanced like that is debatable.


----------



## Toby (Aug 7, 2007)

Jio said:


> I didn't really see metion to that in the article, if that is the case the balance is unequal in the mans favour.





			
				Article said:
			
		

> *
> ...As written, the bill would ban women from seeking an abortion without written consent from the father of the fetus.* In cases where the identity of the father is unknown, women would be required to submit a list of possible fathers. The physician would be forced to conduct a paternity test from the provided list and then seek paternal permission to abort...
> 
> ...Simply put: no father means no abortion...



It is a final say, not an equal fifty-fifty say. That is why those who are pro-choice here believe this is wrong, since the woman doesn't actually have a choice any more except not to have sex. So abstinence is the only abortion they can guarantee for themselves. Which is ludicrous, stupid and mad. 



Jio said:


> That's not the issue for me. I am discussing the balance not whether it is right or wrong.



Right or wrong to have an abortion? In this discussion? Ok, but it is actually about the law being proposed. I am not interested in that debate right now.



Jio said:


>



Ah, you see, this is a liberal saying. Believe It, the member, was implying that liberals should be happy about this law because it gave the man a say and that is good for liberals because we want equality. Well, yes, we want equality, but not final say. I don't know if he read the article since he said this was an equal balance, which it isn't.

The argument for pro-lifers is therefore that my right to say I want the child ends where it concerns the woman's right to say whether she wants the child or not, since the man's choice can burden the woman. That would be an infraction, or intrusion on the woman's rights from the liberal point of view.



Jio said:


> I am going to be blunt and ask you what the fuck you are talking about ( assuming you are refering to me). Where did I say that it was right for a man to force a woman into having a child?


 You weren't. I was responding both to Believe It and Fojos later on in my post. I believe I quoted you on one occasion, but not to discuss that. It was probably Fojos's post since it mentioned those scenarios.



Jio said:


> I am not discussing the issue of whether it is right or wrong, I do hold my own opinion on the matter but that is neither here nor there. I am discussing the balance from what I see the law makes things balance ( assuming he cannot force her to have an abortion) whether you beleive it should be balanced like that is debatable.



Again, this is not me trying to call you out on something you haven't written. It is directed at another member.


----------



## drache (Aug 7, 2007)

I'd point out that it's not just pro choice people. There have been people on this thread that explictly stated there are against abortion and also against this law.


----------



## Gunners (Aug 7, 2007)

> It is a final say, not an equal fifty-fifty say. That is why those who are pro-choice here believe this is wrong, since the woman doesn't actually have a choice any more except not to have sex. So abstinence is the only abortion they can guarantee for themselves. Which is ludicrous, stupid and mad.


It is equal choice as if she wants to keep the child the man cannot in turn force the abortion upon her. Unless the man can force her to abort the child?



> You weren't. I was responding both to Believe It and Fojos later on in my post. I believe I quoted you on one occasion, but not to discuss that. It was probably Fojos's post since it mentioned those scenarios.


Ah ok, I apologise.


----------



## drache (Aug 7, 2007)

That's a lame arguement, and what if she doesn't want to take 9 months out of her life, go though labor for a child she doesn't want?

Do you think *forcing* her to do will make her a good mother?


----------



## Hi Im God (Aug 7, 2007)

As a soon to be father of a child most of these responses are very very sad.  

Already in hospitals fathers are not even allowed to sit in for all the apt like the ultrasounds.  

Combine this thread with artificial sperm thread and you'll have an extinct society they way things keep going.

When it comes to this topic men do have VERY little say regardless whether or not some think they should have a say at all.  Rape cases, divorce cases, visitation rights, child support, all sorts of issues are heavily slanted towards women’s rights not the fathers.  Although I don't necessarily agree with this law, it is time men were allowed more of a say when it comes to _THEIR_ children. Yes it's a man's child too just because he's not carrying doesnt make it any less his.


----------



## Toby (Aug 7, 2007)

Jio said:


> It is equal choice as if she wants to keep the child the man cannot in turn force the abortion upon her. Unless the man can force her to abort the child?



A clever turn of the scales, but no cigar. Remember this law is granting abortion, and not equalizing the measures to attain one. Since your scenario does not reflect on the law being discussed, it doesn't really apply, does it?



Jio said:


> Ah ok, I apologise.



No problem. It doesn't bother me the slightest.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 7, 2007)

I will post my opinion on this regardless of what some of the females will think of me. When you're having a baby, it's not just your baby; you would never even become pregnant if it wasn't for a male. Hence, males should get a say in abortion too. 

Seriously though, why have sex if you can't handle responsibilities? This is why we have marriages.


----------



## Shiron (Aug 7, 2007)

Mizura said:


> Here's what I have to say:
> 
> 
> Pass a *legislation* that simultaneously:
> ...


Sounds good to me. It's only fair, after all. If they're going to force mothers to have children that they themselves don't want, and it's only the father that wants it, then the father should take full responsibility for it. After all, the mother didn't want it, so why give her any of the burden of raising it? Since the father wants it so bad, give him the full burden of raising it and then perhaps he'll think again.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> I will post my opinion on this regardless of what some of the females will think of me. When you're having a baby, it's not just your baby; you would never even become pregnant if it wasn't for a male. Hence, males should get a say in abortion too.
> 
> Seriously though, why have sex if you can't handle responsibilities? This is why we have marriages.


Yes. However, this law is giving men the *entire* say on the matter, not just *a* say in it. That's why there's so much objection to it.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 7, 2007)

Shiron said:


> Yes. However, this law is giving men the *entire* say on the matter, not just *a* say in it. That's why there's so much objection to it.



This is not giving a father an entire say in the matter considering a women wouldn't have abortion if she didn't want to either.

edit:



Mizura said:


> Here's what I have to say:
> 
> 
> Pass a *legislation* that simultaneously:
> ...



 This probably would be a better proposition than the bill itself. If the father doesn't consent to abortion, he should take responsibility for it.

An easy alternative: Just be patient and get married.


----------



## MoBunshin (Aug 7, 2007)

If I was married, I would be loyal to my husband and respectful. I would not get an abortion without his consent. I mean, what kind of relationship could that be?

Plus they brutally murder the child, so basically I wouldn't think of having an abortion even if there was a 100% I would die. If the baby had any chance of living, then I will give birth to him/her. Period. They would have to club me in the head, drag me to the 'clinic/slaughter house' and do the 'abortion'.


----------



## drache (Aug 7, 2007)

Hi Im God said:


> As a soon to be father of a child most of these responses are very very sad.
> 
> Already in hospitals fathers are not even allowed to sit in for all the apt like the ultrasounds.
> 
> ...


 
I wouldn't disagree that it's heavily slanted to favor women but this isn't the way to change that. 

If you really want to change things go for equalizing visitation and who gets custody in a divoce case (till very recently women were heavily favored) but you shouldn't force women to carry childern. That's not going to end well for all involved.

And I'd point out that in rape cases women are victims not consenting partners. Thus men should not be rewarded for violating another person.

As to the the ultrasound, I'm curious is it they're not allowed peroid? (which is news to me) or it's the women's choice?


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 7, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> This is not giving a father an entire say in the matter considering a women wouldn't have abortion if she didn't want to either.



Yes, it's giving a father the _entire say_ in the matter, as this is a matter of abortion. It is not considered a choice to offer women only one option, and if she doesn't want that option she has to surrender the choice to someone else. That's what we call an ultimatum.

ie. Sure, you can do whatever you want madam, as long as you choose to have the baby. If you want to choose to abort, sorry, but that's not up to you; that's up to your husband/boyfriend/the guy you met at that bar six weeks ago who doesn't remember your name because he was very drunk at the time / or that guy who raped you who you, like 60-80% of women, didn't report because you couldn't face up the indignity and humiliation of the reporting process.

Like I said, this is not about granting equal rights. This is about making it as difficult as possible for women seeking an abortion to get that abortion by taking away their choice under the guise of 'equal rights'.

Blowing a load doesn't make someone a father. Being ready to commit to full time parenting makes you a father. At that point in a pregnancy, the woman has everything to lose and the man very little, and the decision should always be made by the one who will be most affected by the end decision... because nature is not fair and equal, and as much as people like to pretend it is, making a child is not a 50/50 effort in humans. We are not fish who randomly squirt eggs and sperm around - _that_ would a 50/50 effort. We are mammals whose onus for gestating, producing and raising children lies primarily with the female gender. To use legislation to dictate control of women's bodies because nature failed to grant us this one superiority over our females is nothing short of obscene.



> Already in hospitals fathers are not even allowed to sit in for all the apt like the ultrasounds.



I don't think that's true.  If men are barred because of the woman's wishes, that is because she is a patient entitled to confidentiality, not because she is female.


----------



## Hi Im God (Aug 7, 2007)

drache said:


> And I'd point out that in rape cases women are victims not consenting partners. Thus men should not be rewarded for violating another person.
> 
> As to the the ultrasound, I'm curious is it they're not allowed peroid? (which is news to me) or it's the women's choice?



This 'law' covers rape so... I don't really think thats an issue to dwell on as it's only a small part of the problem.  Most people in this thread I assume are talking about morning after pill type girls or drop your baby in the dumpster and go back to the prom situations where the girl is being selfish or was unprepared cause she was high/fcuked up.  *insert more generalizations for abortion other then rape* 

Anyhoo.  The hospital does not allow anyone else in the examing area while my wife is getting checked up, even for the ultrasound I had to sit in the waiting room for two hours and was allowed in for the last 5mins to see the baby on the screen then usured back out asap.  No chance to ask questions, no chance to meet the doctor, nothing, thats hospital policy.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 7, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Yes, it's giving a father the _entire say_ in the matter, as this is a matter of abortion. It is not considered a choice to offer women only one option, and if she doesn't want that option she has to surrender the choice to someone else. That's what we call an ultimatum.
> 
> ie. Sure, you can do whatever you want madam, as long as you choose to have the baby. If you want to choose to abort, sorry, but that's not up to you; that's up to your husband/boyfriend/the guy you met at that bar six weeks ago who doesn't remember your name because he was very drunk at the time / or that guy who raped you who you, like 60-80% of women, didn't report because you couldn't face up the indignity and humiliation of the reporting process.
> 
> ...



You fail to see my point. If a father didn't want to have a kid and the mother did, she would have the kid anyway. Likewise, if the mother wanted to have the kid and the father didn't, according to this bill, she would have to have the child too, hence making it equal for both men and women. Hope it cleared up your confusion.


----------



## Adonis (Aug 7, 2007)

MoBunshin said:


> If I was married, I would be loyal to my husband and respectful. I would not get an abortion without his consent. I mean, what kind of relationship could that be?
> 
> Plus they brutally murder the child, so basically I wouldn't think of having an abortion even if there was a 100% I would die. If the baby had any chance of living, then I will give birth to him/her. Period. They would have to club me in the head, drag me to the 'clinic/slaughter house' and do the 'abortion'.



Is it drafty up there? On your high horse, I mean?

My God, hate to be a dick but no one cares how gung ho against abortion you are but you. Fact. Thus, there's no reason to post a post such as yours that A) contributes nothing relevant to this thread and B) has so much smug and pious that my eyes almost imploded upon glazing over such pretentious dribble.


----------



## mister_manji (Aug 7, 2007)

Mizura said:


> Here's what I have to say:
> 
> 
> Pass a *legislation* that simultaneously:
> ...



yeah, I'm agreeing with this guy/gal/whatever. 

the guy wants the kid? he can raise and pay for it, and for the financial impact 9 months of pregnancy has on a woman's career. If he wont, guess what? she does what she wants with it!

abortion is not, and should never be used as, a form of contraception! take the pill and wear your raincoat boys and girls!


----------



## Casyle (Aug 7, 2007)

I don't condone it, Adonis.  However, I understand that to get bills like this past, sometimes you have to give some ground.

And do me a favor Adonis, before you use big, long words, understand their meaning, ok?  To be a hypocrite, I'd have to have stated that I'm completely against abortion, and would never support it, which I haven't said.  

There, you learned something new!  Congratulations!  This lesson is free, this time at least.

I'll say it again.  If you don't want a kid, take precations!  However, understand that there's only a very few ways to guarantee that you never get pregnant.  If you 100% never want a kid, either get a very permanent operation or stock up on cucumbers.  Or make sure your bf/husband doesn't care if you have an abortion.

I mean, we wouldn't dare think of expecting women to take responsibility if they get *gasp* pregnant!


----------



## MartialHorror (Aug 7, 2007)

drache said:


> Sorry but I have to disagree with the bold. In fact it's a fallacy, as you're implying that any opnion that doesn't agree with yours is flawed simply becasue you think we've not had to deal with this.
> 
> In point of fact I've had to deal once with a potentially unexecpted pregancy. It turned out to be a scare only. But regardless of rather or not people have been in the position of an unexpected pregenacy that in and of itself doesn't  invalidate anyone's opnion here; if it did I'd expect you'd have to invalidate alot of opnions on BOTH sides.
> 
> Further when the law takes away freedom I will voice my disagreement. I don't care if I personally agree or not. Even if I thought abortion was the most stupidest choice in the history of the world it's still a choice and I'll still defend someone's right to make that choice.



Perhaps I'm wrong. But regardless, theory and practice are two different things.

Many women have regretted having abortions in the past, others regretted not doing so.


In truth, I agree it should be a choice. I figure if anyone wants to have an abortion, they will regardless of the law(same with Prostitution). I believe a moral choice and a legan choice are two different things. But regardless, I still think most people only are for these laws until they are affected by them.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 7, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Is it drafty up there? On your high horse, I mean?
> 
> My God, hate to be a dick but no one cares how gung ho against abortion you are but you. Fact. Thus, there's no reason to post a post such as yours that A) contributes nothing relevant to this thread and B) has so much smug and pious that my eyes almost imploded upon glazing over such pretentious dribble.



Thanks for contradicting yourself by replying to her post, dumbass.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 7, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> That's exactly what makes this law dishonest and a crock.



It isn't dishonest. It simply has a beneficial side effects.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> If you want to ban or limit abortion, try to pass a law for that purpose.



It won't work. There are too many sick in the head liberals who want to screw like rabbits and don't want to take responsibility for their actions.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> To attempt that goal under the guise of "parental rights" is underhanded and downright corrupt.



It is perfectly fair. Like I said, this is a bill that focuses on granting rights that fathers should have, and the extra benefit is that it gives kids a better chance at living.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> If you anti-abortion laws don't pass, fucking deal or try again. Don't try to sidestep it with bullshit legislation.



Nah, I think we should do whatever we can to protect human life.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Regardless of intent, the bottom line is that the end result will be men being able to force a woman to have a baby and put her life on hold for it.



Well all the more reason for women not to put themselves in that situation. Remember, it isn't the man putting her life on hold, it is the WOMAN doing it to herself! Believe it!



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> All for a fetus, a lump of cells with human DNA (like a tumor) that will eventually be a child. Until that fetus develops consciousness, which is 3-4 months at the earliest, to kill it is not murder.



It is a living, growing, separate human life. It has the right to live and be born.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> There's a difference between killing and murder. In order to be murder, in addition to being premeditated, the victim must be human. A fetus is not human any more than a tumorous cell.



Well I can't argue with someone who doesn't understand simple human biology and medicine. A tumor grows into nothing but something that hinders the one with it. A baby grows into a human being, a higher life form that you, and leaves the woman's body through natural processes. Also the origins of both are clearly different. Get an education before you debate with me.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> What? You clearly don't understand the "it's her body" claim. "Her body" isn't referring to the fetus but rather her body (shocking, really) which the fetus is growing inside.



That is a load of crap, which shows that you don't even know your own side's argument. If it is referring to the woman's body then she would terminate herself not the baby. Also, I would like to point out that if a woman were to die while pregnant, the baby would continue to live for a short time. This is proof that the two bodies are not the same or directly connected.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> There is no 50% it's either the mothers choice or the father's choice and the latter is illogical.



No, you are illogical. You are completely cutting the father out of the picture even though it is just as much his child as it is the mother's. But if the woman wants to have the kid, guess where she goes beggin' for child support money.

You are hypocrites, and here's why. You say that the woman should have the choice because it is her body, and she should be the one to decide to have the kid or not. You say no one can force her to carry the child for nine months. Okay, then why is it suddenly okay to force the father to pay money out of his pocket for 18 years? Because men should act like men? Take responsibility for their actions? Not be deadbeats that don't care for the child? The women who abort their children don't care for their children! They are deadbeats! They won't take responsibility for their actions. Forcing them to carry a child for 9 months and be pampered ain't no punishment at all compared to what the fathers have to endure.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> The fetus is a human life, like a tumor, but not A human life.



Well if one of the parents considers their child to be a human life, then their's is the only one that matters. How's that?



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> The fetus is no more human than my head flakes (I really should look into Head & Shoulders, btw.) Skin cells fit the criteria of life and have human DNA yet I don't see any "Save my dandruff!" T-shirts.



Well that is your uninformed ignorant opinion and you're entitled to it.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Yeah. It's the yellow brick road to bastards and coat hangers and forced miscarriages, oh my.



Which would be made illegal, considered murder, and punished as such and that is IF the stupid female didn't bleed to death internally.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> I've realized what I tend to dislike about religious (yes, I'm singling you guys out even though not all pro-lifers are religious) ideas. They're to idealistic.



Excuse us for having higher expectations and goals for humanity than the immoral liberals.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> You'd rather take the "high road" with the most casualties.



Amazing. Are you now ready to prove that the number of coat-hanger abortions and the like will replace the thousands of abortions that take place in Ohio every year?

See this is the kind of liberal insanity that I am talking about. You don't have any proof or facts, you just make a baseless claim and hope people will be swayed by what they FEEL from your argument. "Oh, we can't have high casualties because of this law that will protect thousands of lives and give fathers a say in whether their child lives or dies!" So prove that the casualties will be higher than the abortion number.

I say that this law will lead to lower unwanted pregnancy rates and higher rates of contraception usage. My logic? Remove the process that allows people to have sex irresponsibly and not deal with the consequences of doing so and you will increase and encourage responsibility among sexually active adults.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> In the end, this law, if passed, will only succeed in increasing the rate of at-home abortions (bad) and unwanted children with incapable parents (bad)



Wrong moron. If one of the parents wants the kid then that parent will be responsible for that kid. Read the article.
It will increase the number of at home abortions but that number will be a small fraction of the number of lives that would have been aborted. Further laws prohibiting and punishing such actions will deter those numbers.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> and subjugate women to the man's will despite it being her body. Sorry if I'm not seeing the light at the end of the tunnel.



Well that is because you are blind. The fact is that it's not her body, it's the child's body. The woman has no right over the child's life. Moreover, a woman's body is designed to nurture and carry children. If she didn't want to carry or have a child then she should have been responsible. They need to take responsibility for their actions. They should not be let off the hook, especially when that means killing an innocent life.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 7, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> You do realize that agreeing with Believe It! at any point in a debate negates your argument, right? Often, if not always, it means your as full of shit as he is.



Like everything, you have that backwards. If you disagree with me then it means you're full of it.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> No, I'm not saying that no fault lies on the woman. I'm saying that not ALL of it does.



You're saying the woman should be able to get the abortion even if the man wants to raise the child, and that it is her choice alone, yet if she wants to keep the child then she is free to hustle the father for money if he does not want to raise the kid. That means you say no fault lies on the woman. Why? Because she is the one who has to carry the child for a measly nine months?





			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Your claim that anyone who has sex should be prepared for a child is fallacious. Contraception has gotten to the point where it's virtually guaranteed to work if you follow directions.



He said those who choose to have sex must be prepared to prevent birth if they do not want children.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, they're not foolproof and there are many fools. My point is, to say that one should be prepared for a child because it's a risk of sex is the equivalent of saying I shouldn't drive my car unless I'm prepared to die in a fiery wreckage.



No, it is saying that you shouldn't drive unless you know how to drive without causing a fiery wreck.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> You'd rather trap a bunch of people you deem as foolish and irresponisble (the same people you shouldn't want raising a child) with a child than abort the fetus before it becomes said child. Right. Makes sense.



Strawman. No one said they had to raise the child. They could put it up for adoption. Stop with this anti-pro-life argument. It is ridiculous.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Right, because it's better to base such a decision on the naive assumption that fathers will step up rather than the reality that they don't have to and many don't.



Those that don't want to care for the kid will want the abortion, and thus it will be carried out. Moron.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> If you really viewed a fetus as a human life, you wouldn't condone its killing regardless of rape or i*c*st. Hypocritical, much?



I agree. That is hypocritical. I do not condone abortion in the case of rape or i*c*st. The woman should be forced to have the child. If she does not want to raise it, she can put it up for adoption and she would be in her full right to do so.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Apparently you missed the point, this isn't about some or equal rights but about greater rights. I've yet to hear anyone say the father shouldn't have any input the sticking point is when you give the man the final say.
> 
> And I'd remind you that you're using loaded words (though you probably know that) by law and by science it's an embroyo to a certain point and then and only after that time is it considered an unborn child. So you're not protecting anything but a bundle of biological material that could become life.



It is a human life as soon as the sperm hits the egg. Believe it!



			
				drache said:
			
		

> Since you don't mind taking away rights for 'the greater good' why don't we start sterlizing the people we think shouldn't have the ability to procreate?



Seeing as how no one has the right to murder in this country, I don't see this as taking away anyone's right. Those who do nothing but make babies, mostly for welfare money, should have sterilization forced on them. Teenagers should be fined and sentenced to community service for having sex period, let alone getting pregnant.



			
				Jio said:
			
		

> I don't see how Men have ''greater'' rights in the situation, rights they possibly should have is debatable but I don't see how they have more rights.
> 
> Scenario 1: If the man wants the child and the woman doesn't the child has to be born.
> 
> ...



That is correct. Thank you for the post. I see others are trying to lie and say you're wrong, so I will prove that you are right for you.

“As written, the bill would *ban women from seeking an abortion* without written consent from the father of the fetus.”

Done. It would ban them from seeking an abortion without written consent of the father, not choosing to have the child if the father wants an abortion, and not just the father but the REAL father. This bill would require a paternity test or tests in the case of a father list. That's right, the slut... er, female... would have to give a list of possible fathers if no father is present. No father, no abortion. I say good for them. This will be effective in finding the real father and forcing him to own up to his responsibilities!!! This is a great bill.

Lets look a little more in depth at the facts that the liberals don't want you to know.

“In addition, women would be required to present a police report in order to prove a pregnancy is the result of rape or i*c*st.”

Now what will this do? It will ensure that justice comes to rapists and rednecks. You see, many females get raped or screw their family member and get pregnant. Then they get an abortion without telling anyone, and you know what happens when you do that? The rapists and redneck get let off the hook because there is no evidence of the crime.

So this is a GREAT bill in every respect. It isn't the full ban of baby murder, but it is a step in the right direction.



			
				MoBunshin said:
			
		

> If I was married, I would be loyal to my husband and respectful. I would not get an abortion without his consent. I mean, what kind of relationship could that be?



You are a true lady, as well as a responsible woman. You are the type of woman I am looking for in a wife actually.



			
				MoBunshin said:
			
		

> Plus they brutally murder the child, so basically I wouldn't think of having an abortion even if there was a 100% I would die. If the baby had any chance of living, then I will give birth to him/her.



 What grace! What bravery! What a perfect example of motherhood and selflessness! I am in love.



			
				MoBunshin said:
			
		

> Period. They would have to club me in the head, drag me to the 'clinic/slaughter house' and do the 'abortion'.



And I would protect my wife and child from such a thing with my life! Which leads me to ask you only one thing...


*Spoiler*: __ 



*Will you...*​​*...bear my child?*​






			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Is it drafty up there? On your high horse, I mean?
> 
> My God, hate to be a dick but no one cares how gung ho against abortion you are but you.



I care. So your claim is false and ignorant as usual.



			
				TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> Thus, there's no reason to post a post such as yours that A) contributes nothing relevant to this thread and B) has so much smug and pious that my eyes almost imploded upon glazing over such pretentious dribble.



I wish they had. You should feel honored to even be a part of the same forum as that woman! She is moral and right in her conviction. You are just an ignorant jackass with baseless opinions and typical liberal illogic. Believe it!


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 7, 2007)

No one has actually answered the real problem here.

In the end, if there is a dispute, one person is not going to get what they want.  A woman can't get HALF an abortion.  She either gets one or she doesn't.  If she wants one and he doesn't or he wants one and she doesn't then one of them isn't going to get their way.

In the case that one of them has to be overridden by the other the choice should go to the woman.

If a man wants a baby and his girlfriend/wife wants an abortion then he can either find another woman who wants to have his children, or adopt a child.  A woman who doesn't want to have a baby and is forced to doesn't have such options.  She loses 9 months of her life to this not to mention an extremal painful child birth.  Its her body, in the end she should have absolute control over what goes in it and stays in it.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 8, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> No one has actually answered the real problem here.
> 
> In the end, if there is a dispute, one person is not going to get what they want. A woman can't get HALF an abortion. She either gets one or she doesn't. If she wants one and he doesn't or he wants one and she doesn't then one of them isn't going to get their way.



That isn't a problem actually. The bill is clear on this. The one who wants the child to live wins. Simple as that. All it is saying is that both parties must be in agreement. Thus, both have equal rights. Jio outlined this perfectly above.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> In the case that one of them has to be overridden by the other the choice should go to the woman.



El wrongo. In the case that one must be overridden by the other, the choice should go to the one who wants the child to live. See, you're being discriminatory here based on gender, which is what the bill will abolish. You know how much you liberals like equality and everything right? Well there ya go.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> If a man wants a baby and his girlfriend/wife wants an abortion then he can either find another woman who wants to have his children, or adopt a child.



You're saying he can do this while his child is murdered? What if people went to your house and murdered your child, and as an excuse they tell you that you can just go have another one or adopt?



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> A woman who doesn't want to have a baby and is forced to doesn't have such options. She loses 9 months of her life to this not to mention an extremal painful child birth.



That's a load of crap. They can work up to six months at least. Then work is forced to give her that time off to have the child. And don't give me the pain/burden of child birth speech. If she can't take the pain she can get a c-section. Also, women are biologically wired to deal with and manage that pain. Lets not forget that an abortion can be more harmful to a woman's health than child birth and more often is.

Oh and then there is the irrefutable argument that it was her CHOICE to get pregnant in the first place! So she should be forced to deal with the consequences of her actions. Abortion is nothing but a murderous way for women to avoid taking responsibility for their actions.

In the case of rape or i*c*st the child is a victim as well, so there is no justification for killing the baby in that case either.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Its her body, in the end she should have absolute control over what goes in it and stays in it.



And she made her choice when she chose to let a man's penis inside of it. pwned! If a pregnancy results, she has no control over the body that is living inside of her! Believe it!


----------



## Casyle (Aug 8, 2007)

*Sighs*  I expected better from you, Believe It.  Jesus, do me a favor and learn the definition of hypocrite, people!  It's someone who says one thing but does or believes another.  I never fuggin' said I was against all abortions or/and taking life!  Had I said so, and then turned around and said I'd agree in certain situations, THEN I'd be a hypocrite.

Cripes, jimeny....

@Tsukiyomi - True, it's her body.  However, it's also HIS kid.  I'm sorry, but... if it comes between choosing between a father who wants to raise his child and a mother who wants to destroy the child....

And don't gimme that 9 months and pain crap.  My sister worked for dang near the entire time that she was pregnant with my neice.  As did my mom, thru 3 pregnancies. They didn't "lose" 9 months of their lives.  They continued doing what they normally did.  

As to pain... You'll get no sympathy from me there.  I deal with more pain in a morning than most can imagine.  However, I could easily, jokingly easily, deal with even more for 9 months if I was female and pregnant.

*Added*  Oh, as to suffering.. Seriously, who do you think will suffer more?  The mother who goes thru 9 months of discomfort, and some pain, or the father who loses his unborn child 'cause his opinion meant jack in the end?


----------



## neko-sennin (Aug 8, 2007)

I'm with Dark Adonis. Much as I expected, this thread, like all abortion-related threads, has largely become an all-you-can-eat troll-feed, with food for thought becoming an all-out food-fight. That's why it's so rare for me to bother with this topic anymore, and why I wash my hands of self-righteous posturing, deliberately obtuse arguments, _flame_-baiting rather than _de_bating, and attempting to address a law that was meticulously crafted to make addressing its true inequity (one-sided Ø=Ø equal rights) nearly impossible as intended.


----------



## Toby (Aug 8, 2007)

*whistle*

BI, what part about the final say in this law makes it equal? I know that the father getting a say just as the woman has a say would have made this law something like a happy larry's "we're all equal ladida"-law. 

But the other shoe dropped and you are not even listening to the echo of the essential word here: Final.

The man decides whether the woman can have an abortion. It is not fair in saying that the woman gets to keep the child if she wants it. That is not even the issue at hand.

The issue is the right to use abortion, and how it shall be attained. Not how the child shall be ensured a right to live. If it was, then both parents would have to sign in order to get an abortion.


----------



## Fojos (Aug 8, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> You weren't. I was responding both to Believe It and Fojos later on in my post. I believe I quoted you on one occasion, but not to discuss that. It was probably Fojos's post since it mentioned those scenarios.



You need to learn to read, I was only discussing one side. The side where one person doesn't want the child. The child should only be born if both parents wants it. At least in the cases where a court tries to force heavy fees onto the man.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 8, 2007)

Casyle said:


> Tsukiyomi - True, it's her body.  However, it's also HIS kid.  I'm sorry, but... if it comes between choosing between a father who wants to raise his child and a mother who wants to destroy the child....



His kid?  The thing isn't even a kid yet.  Its a mass of cells.  Like I said, if he wants a kid let him find someone who WANTS to carry his child.  Or adopt a child.



Casyle said:


> And don't gimme that 9 months and pain crap.  My sister worked for dang near the entire time that she was pregnant with my neice.  As did my mom, thru 3 pregnancies. They didn't "lose" 9 months of their lives.  They continued doing what they normally did.



Depends entirely on what their job is.  There are quite a few jobs you cannot do while in the later stages of pregnancy.



Casyle said:


> As to pain... You'll get no sympathy from me there.  I deal with more pain in a morning than most can imagine.  However, I could easily, jokingly easily, deal with even more for 9 months if I was female and pregnant.



Deal with more pain in the morning than most can imagine....care to englihten us?



Casyle said:


> *Added*  Oh, as to suffering.. Seriously, who do you think will suffer more?  The mother who goes thru 9 months of discomfort, and some pain, or the father who loses his unborn child 'cause his opinion meant jack in the end?



Boo fucking whoo, he doesn't get to force a woman into a having a baby 9 months down the line.

I'll say it again, if he wants a child that badly, then find SOMEONE ELSE who WANTS TO CARRY HIS CHILD.

What about that is so difficult to comprehend?  There are plenty of women out there who want to have children, let him find one of those.  Or let him adopt a child.


----------



## Toby (Aug 8, 2007)

Fojos said:


> You need to learn to read, I was only discussing one side. The side where one person doesn't want the child. The child should only be born if both parents wants it. At least in the cases where a court tries to force heavy fees onto the man.



This is what you posted:



			
				Fojos said:
			
		

> But if I'd agree to abortion, it would be like this.
> 
> If the man doesn't want the child and the woman wants the child, it shouldn't be born.



Your scenario is an impossibility because the woman has no say according to this law, though. And that was my point, which you misunderstood. The fault in reading skills is not mine.


----------



## Fojos (Aug 8, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> This is what you posted:
> 
> 
> 
> Your scenario is an impossibility because the woman has no say according to this law, though. And that was my point, which you misunderstood. The fault in reading skills is not mine.



But I wasn't even talking about the law, I was discussing with other people who said men should have no say whatsoever.


----------



## Kitty (Aug 8, 2007)

Um, what's going to stop a pregnant woman from getting some random dude to pretend to be the father? Sup unenforcable law


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 8, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:
			
		

> This message has been deleted by TheDarkAdonis45. Reason: Too fucking long, BI. I can't leave half a post and don't have the energy to reply to it all...



That's fine. It isn't like you're able to refute me anyway.



			
				Casyle said:
			
		

> *Sighs* I expected better from you, Believe It.



What? I didn't say anything to you. What are you talking about? I made DunkAdounuts45 quit, I refuted Tsukudumi, and I have Toby_Christ on the ropes. What did I do wrong?



			
				Casyle said:
			
		

> Jesus, do me a favor and learn the definition of hypocrite, people! It's someone who says one thing but does or believes another. I never fuggin' said I was against all abortions or/and taking life! Had I said so, and then turned around and said I'd agree in certain situations, THEN I'd be a hypocrite.



Look, I didn't call you a hypocrite. I just said that I agree that it is hypocritical to say abortion is murder of innocent life except in the case of rape or i*c*st. If you happen to be of that belief then you are a hypocrite, but that's not my fault.



			
				Casyle said:
			
		

> And don't gimme that 9 months and pain crap. My sister worked for dang near the entire time that she was pregnant with my neice. As did my mom, thru 3 pregnancies. They didn't "lose" 9 months of their lives. They continued doing what they normally did.



That's correct.



			
				Casyle said:
			
		

> As to pain... You'll get no sympathy from me there. I deal with more pain in a morning than most can imagine. However, I could easily, jokingly easily, deal with even more for 9 months if I was female and pregnant.



Most pregnant females get pampered.



			
				Casyle said:
			
		

> *Added* Oh, as to suffering.. Seriously, who do you think will suffer more? The mother who goes thru 9 months of discomfort, and some pain, or the father who loses his unborn child 'cause his opinion meant jack in the end?



Right, and not only that, but I don't see the equality between 9 months of pregnancy/labor/child birth and 18 years of child support payments.



			
				neko-sennin said:
			
		

> I'm with Dark Adonis. Much as I expected, this thread, like all abortion-related threads, has largely become an all-you-can-eat troll-feed, with food for thought becoming an all-out food-fight. That's why it's so rare for me to bother with this topic anymore, and why I wash my hands of self-righteous posturing, deliberately obtuse arguments, flame-baiting rather than debating, and attempting to address a law that was meticulously crafted to make addressing its true inequity (one-sided Ø=Ø equal rights) nearly impossible as intended.



Translation: "I'm not smart enough to argue my own stance on the issue so I'll just falsely label everyone else and then act like I am too smart for the topic so I won't have to post and show everyone that I'm not."



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> BI, what part about the final say in this law makes it equal?



"Final say" is liberal spin, and it does not appear in the bill. They say it is a final say because they want people to think that robs women of free will. The father does not get a "final say" that is the be all end all of a situation. It is just a say that comes last. It is the last say, not the final say. If that makes sense.

The bill is equal because if the father wants the kid and the mother doesn't, the kid lives. If the mother wants the kid and the father doesn't, the kid lives. That is equal.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I know that the father getting a say just as the woman has a say would have made this law something like a happy larry's "we're all equal ladida"-law.



Your post is starting to make even less sense now.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> But the other shoe dropped and you are not even listening to the echo of the essential word here: Final.



Of course I'm listening to it. It is irrelevant to the issue and the bill.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> The man decides whether the woman can have an abortion. It is not fair in saying that the woman gets to keep the child if she wants it. That is not even the issue at hand.



No, you need to read the article. The law would give the father the right to prevent an abortion from happening, not force one on a mother who wants to give birth and keep the child. It will also prevent a woman from aborting her baby without showing who the father is and getting his consent. This ensures that the father is known and is forced to pay should the woman want to have the baby.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> The issue is the right to use abortion, and how it shall be attained. Not how the child shall be ensured a right to live. If it was, then both parents would have to sign in order to get an abortion.



That is what they would have to do. They both have to sign in order to get one. Again, read the article, not just what other uninformed members here posted.



			
				Fojos said:
			
		

> You need to learn to read, I was only discussing one side. The side where one person doesn't want the child. The child should only be born if both parents wants it. At least in the cases where a court tries to force heavy fees onto the man.



That's stupid. Why should the woman be forced to kill her child just because the man doesn't want to be a father and pay up? In that case why not just pardon the man from paying support? Why is killing something always your solution?



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> His kid? The thing isn't even a kid yet. Its a mass of cells.



Well then its his mass of cells. How's that?



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Like I said, if he wants a kid let him find someone who WANTS to carry his child. Or adopt a child.



Or lets kill your child and then tell you to just go have another or adopt one. Answer this point please.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Depends entirely on what their job is. There are quite a few jobs you cannot do while in the later stages of pregnancy.



Oh well. That's all a part of being a woman.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Boo fucking whoo, he doesn't get to force a woman into a having a baby 9 months down the line.



But she can force him to pay out of his pocket for 18 years? You're sexist.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> I'll say it again, if he wants a child that badly, then find SOMEONE ELSE who WANTS TO CARRY HIS CHILD.



No we can come over to your house and take your kid away. Then tell you to make or find another one. How you like that?



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> What about that is so difficult to comprehend?



My guess would be the part regarding someone else killing your child and telling you to just go make or adopt another.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> There are plenty of women out there who want to have children, let him find one of those. Or let him adopt a child.



Until that woman says that she wants an abortion as well, and the adoption agency tells the man that he can't be a single parent to a child. Oh... unless he's gay of course.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Your scenario is an impossibility because the woman has no say according to this law, though.



Yes she does. She can say that she wants the child to live and that will overrule the man if he wants the child to die.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And that was my point, which you misunderstood. The fault in reading skills is not mine.



It is, just not over his post.



			
				Kitty said:
			
		

> Um, what's going to stop a pregnant woman from getting some random dude to pretend to be the father? Sup unenforcable law



A paternity test. Sup dee dee dee?

And now I would like to dare everyone in this thread to watch the following videos. Especially those who say that the babies are just “masses of cells” or “lumps of flesh that are the same as tumors” in order to make themselves feel better about murdering babies.

bookmark this page

bookmark this page

These are Quicktime movies. Old school. So I dare you all to watch these all the way through then post your impressions in this thread. If you don't watch them then I will just declare victory over you and ignore your arguments. Believe it!


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 9, 2007)

Kitty said:


> Um, what's going to stop a pregnant woman from getting some random dude to pretend to be the father? Sup unenforcable law



The law is unenforceable for more reasons than just that.  There is nothing to stop a woman from getting in her car and driving to another state or even to another country where she can get an abortion.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 9, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> The law is unenforceable for more reasons than just that. There is nothing to stop a woman from getting in her car and driving to another state or even to another country where she can get an abortion.



Yes there is. You can let it be known to other countries that preforming an abortion for an American/Ohioen woman will result in criminal charges being filed against the woman and all those who helped in the abortion, including nurses but especially the doctor. The only country close enough to allow such a thing for a non-national is Mexico since they don't have a health care system at all really, but their clinics suck because... well they don't really have a health care system. So if the woman wants to go down to Mexico rather than have the child and put it up for adoption, then I say go ahead, but she'll probably wind up losing a few organs of her own while shes down there.

Ohhhh btw...

ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU!!!


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 9, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> Yes there is. You can let it be known to other countries that preforming an abortion for an American/Ohioen woman will result in criminal charges being filed against the woman and all those who helped in the abortion, including nurses but especially the doctor. The only country close enough to allow such a thing for a non-national is Mexico since they don't have a health care system at all really, but their clinics suck because... well they don't really have a health care system. So if the woman wants to go down to Mexico rather than have the child and put it up for adoption, then I say go ahead, but she'll probably wind up losing a few organs of her own while shes down there.
> 
> Ohhhh btw...
> 
> ANSWER THE QUESTIONS I ASKED YOU!!!



You're not much familiar with law are you? You realise that it would be impossible to prosecute people for doing something that is perfectly legal in the place where they do it?

Women in Ireland frequently take a short 'vacation' in the UK to get abortions. Medical procedures are confidential. How can you be sure that a woman taking a holiday to another state really has had an abortion? And since she has done it in a state where it is legal, you can't prosecute her anyway, even when she returns to the state where it is illegal. That's not how the law works.

Even if you could, there is nothing to stop the woman from staying in a state where abortions are legal. If returning home means she'll get charged with abortion fraud, why the hell would she return home? Ohio's laws can't reach beyond Ohio's borders. So what you'd then find is that Ohio's female population starts dwindling as they move away to escape oppressive laws.


----------



## Toby (Aug 9, 2007)

Fojos said:


> But I wasn't even talking about the law, I was discussing with other people who said men should have no say whatsoever.



Which is my point. You were illustrating your personal choice, and I am showing how this law conflicts with even your preference, which is still pro-choice.

Believe It:

What part about written confirmation appears to you to be something granted?

Like getting drugs from a doctor, you must ask for his medical opinion. What is wrong with this case is that a guy's personal ethical opinion is to decide for the woman's better. That is just plain wrong. 

I think that if we are going to have abortion at all, the woman needs to have the full say. It is very unfortunate, but there we are, because the woman is the only one who can carry the child, and even if they split the votes fairly amongst the couple, what should they do if the father votes pro-life and the woman votes pro-choice?

Squat diddly, that's what. This cannot be solved by equality laws, and certainly not by political rights for men since it actually does not concern their person. I think that is a boundary between the individuals which we simply must respect, and then, do as I do, ask the girl on an earlier point during the relationship whether she wants to have kids. 

Can it get simpler? Don't think so. And as far as I am concerned, I won't waste my time with the woman who, by the way, ought to be allowed to decide what to do with her own body. Prostitution is forbidden for a moral reason after all, and not because women can't do what they want with their bodies. But that is the result of it anyway.


----------



## Nunally (Aug 9, 2007)

> I'll say it again, if he wants a child that badly, then find SOMEONE ELSE who WANTS TO CARRY HIS CHILD.
> 
> What about that is so difficult to comprehend? There are plenty of women out there who want to have children, let him find one of those. Or let him adopt a child.



Agreed. 

And if we're talking about one night stands mainly: Lol, who has a one night stand for the purpose of getting a child?

Especially with a stranger you know nothing about.


----------



## Kitty (Aug 9, 2007)

BI, how do you imagine they'll be able to fund all these paternity tests? Besides, the law says paternity tests will be performed in cases where the woman isn't sure who the father is. Any woman can grab a random male friend and say "I'm sure he's the father." C'mon man, think stuff through.

Oh btw I've seen those videos, LOL'd and kept on going.


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Aug 9, 2007)

I like this rule.

Woman shouldn't have abortions anyway.


----------



## Robotkiller (Aug 9, 2007)

Kenpachi said:


> I like this rule.
> 
> Woman shouldn't have abortions anyway.



I believe the stupidity of this post proves otherwise.

Note: Please direct neg rep at TheDarkAdonsi45.


----------



## GrimaH (Aug 9, 2007)

Ballstick should know


----------



## amazingfunksta (Aug 9, 2007)

Hananoshi said:


> Agreed.
> 
> And if we're talking about one night stands mainly: Lol, who has a one night stand for the purpose of getting a child?
> 
> Especially with a stranger you know nothing about.



See, I'm afraid that this law can be abused in some way or form. IF they passed a law such as this, there would have to be some built in safeguards so that the woman does not become victimized. 

What if the father opts to have the child and then abandons it, leaving the mother to raise the child on her own. I think that this law is not fair and unjust in such terms. In such a law, the father must take full responsibility for raising the child if the mother does not want it. Children need to have caring parents, and if the mother does not want such a child, then how can she be expected to give her full attention to it? Not only this, but it puts stress on the woman for at least 3 months of her life.

What if the father decides to force the woman to have a child on less than desirable terms (i.e. revenge or malice). This is why I belive the woman should have much more say as to whether or not an abortion should be carried out.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 9, 2007)

Amaretti said:
			
		

> You're not much familiar with law are you? You realise that it would be impossible to prosecute people for doing something that is perfectly legal in the place where they do it?



Well as far as the states go, we can. So that's that. As far as other countries go, you're right. It would be almost impossible to prosecute foreigners. However, if the woman leaves the country pregnant and comes back not pregnant and doesn't have a baby with her, then there will be an interrogation at the airport or at the check point.

Realistically, all we would have to take care of is Canada. Tell them that no American is to receive an abortion, then make them an offer they can't refuse.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Women in Ireland frequently take a short 'vacation' in the UK to get abortions.



You mean the abortion boat? Or do you mean going to the UK? Well that we can't do anything about so it is irrelevant. Also irrelevant but still worth saying, the abortion boat thread came up a while back. Zabuzalives introduced it I think. The boat takes women from whatever country they're from and performs abortions for them since their home country does not allow it. The catch is that it takes place in international waters, thus the laws don't apply. My solution to that was the U.S. Navy taking a battleship out to intercept them, board them, take the women hostage, send the medical staff back to their country on a row boat, sink the main ship, detain the woman by strapping them to hospital beds and binding their arms and legs so they can't inflict harm to themselves or the babies, wait until they have the babies and deliver them, and then release the women by throwing them overboard for their country's coast guard to rescue. The babies would then be put up for adoption in the United States.

What do you think of that plan? Just curious.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Medical procedures are confidential. How can you be sure that a woman taking a holiday to another state really has had an abortion?



Because she leaves pregnant and comes back thiner?



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> And since she has done it in a state where it is legal, you can't prosecute her anyway, even when she returns to the state where it is illegal. That's not how the law works.



That is how it should work! That's what I'm saying. This Ohio law is great, but it needs additional laws to help it along and tie up any loose ends.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Even if you could, there is nothing to stop the woman from staying in a state where abortions are legal.



Well I propose having another bill to prevent that, however, even as it stands now, the cost of moving to another state and becoming a citizen there would be more costly than putting the child up for adoption. However, Ohio will have its law and that will be good for them. From there, all the other states may adopt the same thing.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> If returning home means she'll get charged with abortion fraud, why the hell would she return home?



She won't, and she will abandon her life, family, and friends there, but the chances are that she wouldn't leave to get the abortion in the first place because she'll know that she will have to give all those things up.



			
				Amaretti said:
			
		

> Ohio's laws can't reach beyond Ohio's borders. So what you'd then find is that Ohio's female population starts dwindling as they move away to escape oppressive laws.



Right, because all females are heartless monsters rather than caring mothers or responsible adults that know how to keep their legs closed.

See, this is the problem with you liberals. You want to make it, not only possible, but EASY for people to act irresponsibly and then not have to deal with the consequences. Moreover, you're willing to sacrifice innocent life to do this. I say punish those who take innocent life, force people to take responsibility for their actions, and encourage people to think about the consequences of their actions! Make them think their lives through and use their brains, so that they will make the right choices in life and not have any regrets.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> What part about written confirmation appears to you to be something granted?



You're not making sense again. The granted right is that the father has the option of saving the child and giving him or her a chance at life. That is a right that every true father has.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Like getting drugs from a doctor, you must ask for his medical opinion. What is wrong with this case is that a guy's personal ethical opinion is to decide for the woman's better. That is just plain wrong.



You're just plain wrong. The FATHER, not "the guy", the father will be deciding the CHILD'S better, not the woman's.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I think that if we are going to have abortion at all, the woman needs to have the full say.



Well in that case outlaw abortion. It is a violation of the Hippocratic oath anyway. Believe it!



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> It is very unfortunate, but there we are, because the woman is the only one who can carry the child, and even if they split the votes fairly amongst the couple, what should they do if the father votes pro-life and the woman votes pro-choice?



Stop with this pro-life/pro-choice bull crap. I am pro-choice, but I am also pro-life. The choice comes when the woman chooses to have unprotected sex or not. The life part of it comes if the former choice is made. Believe it!



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> This cannot be solved by equality laws, and certainly not by political rights for men since it actually does not concern their person.



It concerns their CHILD!!! What the hell is wrong with you?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I think that is a boundary between the individuals which we simply must respect, and then, do as I do, ask the girl on an earlier point during the relationship whether she wants to have kids.



And when she says "yes" before sex and then "no" after getting pregnant? What then? Are you going to be like Tsukuyomi and tell the father "better luck next time"?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Can it get simpler? Don't think so.



Yes. How about give the father his right as a dad?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And as far as I am concerned, I won't waste my time with the woman who, by the way, ought to be allowed to decide what to do with her own body.



Okay, prove that it is her own body. Prove that going in, cutting a baby apart, crushing his or her skull, and then sucking all the pieces out can be called a procedure done to the woman's body. Time to put up or shut up.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Prostitution is forbidden for a moral reason after all



Right, reducing the risk of STD transmission, other crimes related to prostitution, and the decrease of property value aren't desirable to the logical thinking person at all. FAIL!!!



			
				Hananoshi said:
			
		

> Agreed.



So you agree that a woman should have her child killed and then told to just go have another one huh?



			
				Hananoshi said:
			
		

> And if we're talking about one night stands mainly: Lol, who has a one night stand for the purpose of getting a child?



Irresponsible morons, and you want them to keep being morons. Way to better society Hana.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 9, 2007)

Kitty said:
			
		

> BI, how do you imagine they'll be able to fund all these paternity tests?



With the mother's and/or father's money.



			
				Kitty said:
			
		

> Besides, the law says paternity tests will be performed in cases where the woman isn't sure who the father is. Any woman can grab a random male friend and say "I'm sure he's the father." C'mon man, think stuff through.



"With the proposal, men would be guaranteed that voice under penalty of law. First time violators *would by tried for abortion fraud*, a first degree misdemeanor. *The same would be the case for men who falsely claim to be fathers* and for medical workers who knowingly perform an abortion without paternal consent."

C'mon girl, read stuff through.



			
				Kitty said:
			
		

> Oh btw I've seen those videos, LOL'd and kept on going.



Uh huh... so a frightened baby writhing in pain while it is being torn apart piece by piece is amusing to you. Is that what you're saying? You watched the ultrasound abortion video and you laughed at it?



			
				Kenpachi said:
			
		

> I like this rule.
> 
> Woman shouldn't have abortions anyway.



Yes, it is a step in the right direction.



			
				Robotkiller said:
			
		

> I believe the stupidity of this post proves otherwise.



Not even your stupidity proves otherwise.



			
				amazingfunksta said:
			
		

> See, I'm afraid that this law can be abused in some way or form. IF they passed a law such as this, there would have to be some built in safeguards so that the woman does not become victimized.



It will protect victims of rape by forcing rapes to be reported.



			
				amazingfunksta said:
			
		

> What if the father opts to have the child and then abandons it, leaving the mother to raise the child on her own.



That happens already. You would do what you do now. You go after the father legally and force him to pay. This wouldn't happen though. If a male doesn't want to take care of a child, then they will allow the abortion to proceed. It doesn't make sense to have the child be born if you don't want to raise the child. Guys like that wouldn't prevent the abortion. Why would they? To play a prank?



			
				amazingfunksta said:
			
		

> In such a law, the father must take full responsibility for raising the child if the mother does not want it. Children need to have caring parents, and if the mother does not want such a child, then how can she be expected to give her full attention to it?



We aren't asking for her full attention, we are asking her to give birth and pay child support if the father must raise the child.



			
				amazingfunksta said:
			
		

> Not only this, but it puts stress on the woman for at least 3 months of her life.



That's all a part of being a woman. If she didn't want the inconvenience then she shouldn't have gotten pregnant. Lets also not forget that if the woman has the child, then it is the man who must be "inconvenienced" for 18 YEARS.



			
				amazingfunksta said:
			
		

> What if the father decides to force the woman to have a child on less than desirable terms (i.e. revenge or malice).



Then he will have to care for the child. You think he'll want to do that just to get revenge? Highly unlikely. Near impossible actually.



			
				amazingfunksta said:
			
		

> This is why I belive the woman should have much more say as to whether or not an abortion should be carried out.



And what do you think now that I have answered your concerns?


----------



## Toby (Aug 9, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> Well as far as the states go, we can. So that's that. As far as other countries go, you're right. It would be almost impossible to prosecute foreigners. However, if the woman leaves the country pregnant and comes back not pregnant and doesn't have a baby with her, then there will be an interrogation at the airport or at the check point.



Where in the bill does it say that?



Believe It! said:


> You're not making sense again. The granted right is that the father has the option of saving the child and giving him or her a chance at life. That is a right that every true father has.



Every father who can impregnate a woman. Right. The right to save lives.

I'm sorry, I don't know of the right to save lives. I think it is an honourable thing to do, but I know it is not a right.

Also, you are not responding to my point about the unfairness that the man gives written permission.

Sure would suck if he died now, wouldn't it? How's the woman to get an abortion then? Does she not get one because the father is dead, or is she allowed to decide for herself without a father?

Oh great, now what it actually takes is just for women to get artificially impregnated. They can just check for sperm donors who are already dead, which shouldn't be too hard. Then the right is theirs, right? 



Believe It! said:


> You're just plain wrong. The FATHER, not "the guy", the father will be deciding the CHILD'S better, not the woman's.



So how is it for the child's better if the woman has to bring the child into the world but won't take responsibility for it? Are you actually going to make the woman pay child-support if she didn't want the kid in the first place? That is wrong. One of the reasons for why abortions on women's premises are fairer is that this is less likely to happen with the mothers. Guys shouldn't be having unsafe sex with people who they don't know if they want children or not. That is irresponsible, I agree, but therefore abortions must be allowed as a precaution even if something two drunk teenagers do should occur.

They don't have the finances to look after the child, you see.



Believe It! said:


> Well in that case outlaw abortion. It is a violation of the Hippocratic oath anyway. Believe it!



... You just favoured it a moment ago.



Believe It! said:


> Stop with this pro-life/pro-choice bull crap. I am pro-choice, but I am also pro-life. The choice comes when the woman chooses to have unprotected sex or not. The life part of it comes if the former choice is made. Believe it!



You are both? And *you* refer to the Hippocratic oath?



Believe It! said:


> It concerns their CHILD!!! What the hell is wrong with you?



Me? I'm just a guy looking out for women's rights to decide over their own bodies. Nice to meet you, Believe It.

Now, I do think that couples should be more careful and only engage in unprotected sexual activity when they want a child. But when accidents happen, the couple need the ability to be flexible and decide how they wish to act: Do they want the kid? Can they have it? Do they have the resources and time to look after it?

We can't just bring every child we want into this world. That causes over-population. And we know that we cannot prevent teenage pregnancies and pregnancies in general in all parts of the world with just abstinence, so we need what is both a fail-safe and personal security.

And you are now debating with a person who was pro-life but has become pro-choice, by the way. 



Believe It! said:


> And when she says "yes" before sex and then "no" after getting pregnant? What then? Are you going to be like Tsukuyomi and tell the father "better luck next time"?



In the unlikely event that such happens then I can easily back out. What responsibility do I have if I have told her I don't want the kid? She must think about whether she wants the child, and then if she can support it. If she can't support it without me, she should try to convince me.

Maybe I'd be convinced, maybe not. But at least I would have my stance clear to her. And since you make this an example for me I can tell you that I would support my girlfriend if she wanted a child this very moment. 

Of course, not all guys want kids when they are going to college, but they must be more responsible when having sex, just as you and I agree on.



Believe It! said:


> Yes. How about give the father his right as a dad?



Technically you are not a dad until there is a child in question, but I am going to look away from that for now. What are a father's rights for the un-born child?

Please, I know you are very good at citing laws. Throw some at me, please. I am not that good with U.S. laws. I live in Norway, after all.



Believe It! said:


> Okay, prove that it is her own body.



Now you must be kidding me. It is her body because she is pregnant. Men can't get pregnant. 

I don't want to have to do this, BI, but you give me no choice.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Pregnancy is the carrying of one or more offspring in an embryonal or fetal stage of development by female mammals, including humans, inside their bodies, between the stages of conception and birth. In a pregnancy, there can be multiple gestations (for example, in the case of twins, or triplets). Human pregnancy is the most studied of all mammalian pregnancies.
> 
> Childbirth usually occurs about 38 weeks from fertilization, i.e. approximately 40 weeks from the start of the last menstruation. Thus, pregnancy lasts about nine months, although the exact definition of the English word “pregnancy” is a subject of controversy. The medical term for a pregnant female is gravida, although this term is rarely used in common speech. The term embryo is used to describe the developing human during the initial weeks, and the term fetus is used from about two months of development until birth. A woman who is pregnant for the first time is known as a primigravida or "gravida 1", while a woman who has never been pregnant is known as "gravida 0". Similarly, the terms "para 0", "para 1" and so on are used for the number of times a woman has given birth.
> 
> In many societies' medical and legal definitions, human pregnancy is somewhat arbitrarily divided into three trimester periods, as a means to simplify reference to the different stages of fetal development. The first trimester period carries the highest risk of miscarriage (natural death of embryo or fetus). During the second trimester the development of the fetus can start to be monitored and diagnosed. The third trimester often marks the beginning of viability, or the ability of the fetus to survive, with or without medical help, outside of the mother's womb.





Ok? The part about it occurring in the woman's womb? Yeah, that part proves that it is the woman's body in question. Next.



Believe It! said:


> Prove that going in, cutting a baby apart, crushing his or her skull, and then sucking all the pieces out can be called a procedure done to the woman's body. Time to put up or shut up.



Que? That sounds very brutal. Are we still debating about abortion?

Use of prostaglandin and a curette is very different, Believe It, and crushing the child's skull is not carried out in a proper abortion.

But you know, that method sounds very barbaric, and maybe they do use that in a part of the world where abortion is illegal. But please prove that by supplying me with a source.




Believe It! said:


> Right, reducing the risk of STD transmission, other crimes related to prostitution, and the decrease of property value aren't desirable to the logical thinking person at all. FAIL!!!



Actually, if you'd look into how prostitution as a business is carried out, you'd learn that STDs can be avoided by routine checks and proper medical procedures.

Decrease of property value is a very unusual point to bring up, and I'd hate to think that you are referring to the woman, so I guess you mean something else. Please tell me how prostitution lowers any form of property value.

And logic has nothing to do with banning prostitution. Catholicism funded prostitutes' brothels in old Rome. 

But if you don't trust me, trust these chaps. They enjoy finding out the truth about taboo subjects. 



Believe It! said:


> So you agree that a woman should have her child killed and then told to just go have another one huh?



How would she even have a child if she had it aborted? Oh right, she wouldn't. 

She is welcome to have as much sex as she wants in my world. If you ever had sex, Believe It, you might get my point.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 9, 2007)

Toby_Christ, why do you even waste your time taking him seriously.  I started ignoring him a long time ago.  Either he is the most hypocritical moron on earth or he's a troll who purposefully tries to piss people off by taking controversial sides and backing them with purposefully faulty logic.

Its a waste of your energy my friend to even engage in an argument with him, let alone attempt a serious debate.  Just save your energy for more worthy people.


----------



## Toby (Aug 9, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Toby_Christ, why do you even waste your time taking him seriously.  I started ignoring him a long time ago.  Either he is the most hypocritical moron on earth or he's a troll who purposefully tries to piss people off by taking controversial sides and backing them with purposefully faulty logic.



For me it is a past-time. I have nothing more pressing on my hands at the moment, since its 02:41 AM here in Norway right now. I am actually having fun when discussing with him.

I do entertain that he might be a troll, and if he is, well, at least my desire to debate forever on this forum will be granted. 

By the way, I don't take him seriously. I do however debate him seriously because it is fun to prove every single thing he writes to be wrong, and when people read the counter-arguments, that makes them think.

And I like making people think.  



Tsukiyomi said:


> Its a waste of your energy my friend to even engage in an argument with him, let alone attempt a serious debate.  Just save your energy for more worthy people.



I would normally prefer a more polished debater, but there is nothing else right now that I am into. I do wish we had some more interesting debates in the debate section. 

Maybe I'll go there and start one right now.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 9, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> For me it is a past-time. I have nothing more pressing on my hands at the moment, since its 02:41 AM here in Norway right now. I am actually having fun when discussing with him.
> 
> I do entertain that he might be a troll, and if he is, well, at least my desire to debate forever on this forum will be granted.
> 
> ...



Ah, I see.

I used to have the same motivation, but eventually I just got tired.  I've been here since before the debate corner was created (and on 3 forums before this one was made/came back, and my critical thinking classes in college) and have engaged in innumerable debates and encountered a lot of serious debaters and a lot of trolls, it just wore me down too much.

I still enjoy a debate anytime, but at this point I work three jobs and it eats most of my time.  I try to avoid meaningless or circular arguments that I feel are a waste.



Toby_Christ said:


> I would normally prefer a more polished debater, but there is nothing else right now that I am into. I do wish we had some more interesting debates in the debate section.
> 
> Maybe I'll go there and start one right now.



We've done all the biggest debate topics, some multiple times.  If you've got any ideas for a new one I'm game.


----------



## Casyle (Aug 9, 2007)

hehe ^ I actually try to avoid debates anymore, since... Well... In all the debates I've ever been involved in, online that is, nothing ever seems to change.  Ya never convince anyone to your side, and vica versa.  They usually end up turning into insult wars is all.

Oh, and sorry Believe It, I was in a bad mood that night.  I assumed, which only makes an ass outta the assumer, that you were agreeing with Adonis, who called me a hypocrite.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 9, 2007)

Casyle said:


> hehe ^ I actually try to avoid debates anymore, since... Well... In all the debates I've ever been involved in, online that is, nothing ever seems to change.  Ya never convince anyone to your side, and vica versa.  They usually end up turning into insult wars is all.



I've actually had quite a few debates where I've changed peoples positions, and I can very clearly remember a few cases where someone changed my point of view on something.

What I notice more often is not that nothing changes, its just that when someones position changes after 20 pages of ranting and fighting, they're too embarrassed to sit down and write out a "oh, I guess I was wrong" message.


----------



## Casyle (Aug 9, 2007)

That could well be it too.  Nobody likes admitting that they were wrong, or feel like they were 

As to pain...  *Shrugs*  I've got 3 diseases, one of which continually destroys my body from the inside out, second after second, day after day, year after year.  I've also got a permanently, badly torn patelur tendon and badly fractured petular bone, which will never heal thanks to my diseases.  

Just to be able to get by each day I have to take hospice+ level pain medication.  Hospice, of course, is where people go to die.  

So... I have a lot of trouble feeling any sympathy for others complaining about pain, or using it as a reason for something.

Doesn't make it right.. probably makes me look like a jerk, but...


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 9, 2007)

Casyle said:


> That could well be it too.  Nobody likes admitting that they were wrong, or feel like they were
> 
> As to pain...  *Shrugs*  I've got 3 diseases, one of which continually destroys my body from the inside out, second after second, day after day, year after year.  I've also got a permanently, badly torn patelur tendon and badly fractured petular bone, which will never heal thanks to my diseases.
> 
> ...



Interesting, as a matter of curiosity what diseases do you have?  Or is that too personal?  I wouldn't presume to dig into your personal business, i'm just curious.

Granted you may be in more pain than most people ever go through, that doesn't mean you can invalidate the argument of pain on anyone else's end.  If someone doesn't want to go through with something because its more pain than they can bear, thats entirely valid.  The fact that you could bear it or are in more pain isn't really relevant.


----------



## Toby (Aug 9, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Ah, I see.
> 
> I used to have the same motivation, but eventually I just got tired.  I've been here since before the debate corner was created (and on 3 forums before this one was made/came back, and my critical thinking classes in college) and have engaged in innumerable debates and encountered a lot of serious debaters and a lot of trolls, it just wore me down too much.
> 
> I still enjoy a debate anytime, but at this point I work three jobs and it eats most of my time.  I try to avoid meaningless or circular arguments that I feel are a waste.



I am extremely naive when on the internet when it comes to debating, but back down on earth whenever I am having a real debate, I take things down to Pandemonium.

So whilst I am here you won't see me easily get annoyed with people who post stuff I strongly disagree with. I will of course debate more fiercely with people now as the situations demand it. I told myself to do that earlier, and I haven't just had the energy to start reducing arguments to ash. But I remember back when we were debating death penalty and the selfishness of suicide that I used to spend time building up proper arguments.

That was the time when you, Dionysus, Baconbits and Vash would debate in the corner. I really miss those days, and I will start a couple of debates right now in the debate corner to get the wheels moving again. There must be other great debaters on this forum who simply haven't shown themselves yet, and some old veterans who need to vent their lungs.

By the way: *Three* jobs? What kind of jobs are they? 



Tsukiyomi said:


> We've done all the biggest debate topics, some multiple times.  If you've got any ideas for a new one I'm game.



It's a promise. I am going to start a new debate on the topics of legalising marijuana, the selfishness of suicide, the societal effect of death penalty, whether the US deserved the 9/11 attacks, whether burning a flag is ok and whether the US is becoming a police state or just very neo-conservative.

I'll be busy making these threads now, but I promise to have them up and running ASAP.


----------



## Casyle (Aug 9, 2007)

On a level, I understand.  *About invalidating other peoples' pains*

Well... I have a very bad case of Lupus.  Like polio, lupus attacks your body.  However, instead of a virus, your own white blood cells are attacking your muscles, bones, cells, et cetera.  

I honestly can't remember the name of the other two...  I'll try to remember to ask.  They're both tied into my busted right knee.  Both developed around the conditions created after I tore my tendon and fractured my knee, but couldn't get help for years.  

You know... I'm not trying to be sexist on this issue.  I love women, think they're the greatest, but...  I just have a helluva hard time disagreeing with a law that'd save lives over such reasons as some invonvenience and pain...  I dunno...


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 9, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:


> That was the time when you, Dionysus, Baconbits and Vash would debate in the corner. I really miss those days, and I will start a couple of debates right now in the debate corner to get the wheels moving again. There must be other great debaters on this forum who simply haven't shown themselves yet, and some old veterans who need to vent their lungs.



That was the prime of the debate corner.  We used to have a lot of high profile debaters (I took pride in being a respected debater, not the most respected by a significant degree, but respected to a small degree at least).

The forum as a whole was better in those days, much better, but those days are past.  We can only hope it one day regains that former glory.



Toby_Christ said:


> By the way: *Three* jobs? What kind of jobs are they?



I teach Flash Actionscript Programming and soon to be teaching php (hopefully) at the college I used to go to.

I work at a design studio in beverly hills as a web designer and programmer.

And I run my own design studio (I'm hoping to build this up enough to eventually only have one job, maybe two since I like teaching).

These keep me working 7 days a week.



Toby_Christ said:


> It's a promise. I am going to start a new debate on the topics of legalising marijuana, the selfishness of suicide, the societal effect of death penalty, whether the US deserved the 9/11 attacks, whether burning a flag is ok and whether the US is becoming a police state or just very neo-conservative.
> 
> I'll be busy making these threads now, but I promise to have them up and running ASAP.



Lol, all debates that have been done here, but if you can make them interesting I'm totally game.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 9, 2007)

LOL.


This is why America is fucked up.


----------



## GrimaH (Aug 9, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> What I notice more often is not that nothing changes, its just that when someones position changes after 20 pages of ranting and fighting, they're too embarrassed to sit down and write out a "oh, I guess I was wrong" message.



Hey hey I'm one of those people 
*shameless attention whoring*
I don't take 20 pages of deep and thought-provoking arguments though  I follow the basic debating rules pretty well because of my lack of faith-based conviction and beliefs towards anything, but I don't possess the intelligence nor the conviction required to learn debating as a serious subject.
I haven't been looking at unfinished arguments in forgotten threads either...oh well. I wonder where that Esponer trap thread went.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 10, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> That was the prime of the debate corner.  We used to have a lot of high profile debaters (I took pride in being a respected debeathter, not the most respected by a significant degree, but respected to a small degree at least).
> 
> The forum as a whole was better in those days, much better, but those days are past.  We can only hope it one day regains that former glory.
> 
> ...



My cousin works 3 jobs and goes to college, I have to say I have nothing but respect for you, I find it hard to manage school and a single job at the same time.


----------



## fireofthewill (Aug 10, 2007)

I think there's a clear solution that somebody already probably said, but I'm too lazy to look up. First of all, this doesn't give the father the final say, because if either parent, the mother or the father, decide against the abortion, then the abortion will not be allowed. I don't know why all of you are saying that this gives the father all the power.

Ok, after clearing this up, I think the father should be able to stop the abortion if, and only if, he is willing to take custody of the child. It is ludicrous to allow the father to stop the abortion, yet force the mother to raise the child. However, if a father feels that passionately about it, then he should have the ability to stop the abortion, regardless of the mother's wishes, if he's willing to take responsibility. After that, the mother's ties to the child can be cut off completely, much like what they do when they give the child up for adoption.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2007)

fireofthewill said:


> Ok, after clearing this up, I think the father should be able to stop the abortion if, and only if, he is willing to take custody of the child. It is ludicrous to allow the father to stop the abortion, yet force the mother to raise the child. However, if a father feels that passionately about it, then he should have the ability to stop the abortion, regardless of the mother's wishes, if he's willing to take responsibility. After that, the mother's ties to the child can be cut off completely, much like what they do when they give the child up for adoption.



I'll say it again, if he wants a baby, let him find someone who WANTS TO HAVE HIS CHILD, instead of forcing an unwilling woman into having his child.


----------



## Morwain (Aug 10, 2007)

WTF since when do men get the only say in the matter....abortion deals with a woman's body and her life if she has the abortion or the baby the man's life would not be as effected as the womans so it clearly should be her choice and her choice alone in the end.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 10, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> I'll say it again, if he wants a baby, let him find someone who WANTS TO HAVE HIS CHILD, instead of forcing an unwilling woman into having his child.



When you have sex you should well realize its repercussions, and acknowledge the possibility (even if minute) of pregnancy. Even undermining that, you should know the consent of your partner and his intentions for sex. If it was just for pleasure then I'm sure both parties involved would consent to abortion, if not then the male/female should get to have a say regarding his/her child as it would become his/her intention for sex. 

The only circumstance where your scenario would be plausible is in the case of rape or forced sex (which is rape. I'm being redundant, I know). No one would have sex with an unwilling female.


----------



## Onyx Porktron (Aug 10, 2007)

^^ In an ideal world, none of those things would happen, but it's not fair to make laws based on ideals when the reality of situations can be much different. 

The problem I see with such a bill is that most relationships that would resort to such arguments like "You can't do that because I said so" are NOT normally healthy relationships to begin with. Children should not be brought into those sorts of relationships in the first place. 

In a loving and caring relationship between two people, options are discussed in an open and respectful manner, with both parties empathizing with one another's perspective. If I ever got pregnant, I would WANT to come to a decision with both my feelings and my boyfriends feelings in mind. I respect his opinions and I know he respects mine, even if they were to differ in some areas. 

For example, a man should understand that pregnancy is not simply walking around with a baby gently and lovingly growing inside a woman. This is a long and often painful process with a LOT of side effects.

-Weight gain can be traumatic for a woman in such societies as these. It is not easy to lose after the pregancy is finished. 
-No alchohol/drugs should be taken during pregnancy, so there could be serious withdrawal symptoms on top of the stress of being pregnant. 
-Sleeping becomes increasingly difficult after a few months. By the seventh or eighth month, many pregnant women I've known have said that theu get about two hours of sleep a night due to the discomfort of the big belly, awkward positioning, and sickness.
-Morning sickness- NOT A JOKE to feel sick all the time, as anyone undergoing chemo could tell you. 
-Serious heartburn whenever you eat. 
-Labour itself. Hours and hours of pain during it, a complete lack of privacy, which can be traumatic for shy and modest individuals. 
-Being out of commission for weeks, possibly months depending on how torn your vagina is after giving birth, or whether you had a C section or not. 
-The stress of figuring out how to support a baby, or the stress of giving up a baby you spent nine months developing in your own body. 

If a man doesn't respect everything that goes into a pregnancy, then he doesn't deserve to have a say. If he can still support his arguments with a genuine empathy to what is involved here, then he does. 

If either party refuses to listen to one another's view on this, then this is not a mature relationship to begin with, and a child should not be forced into such a life. 

For the cases where a father genuinely cares about this developing child and is not just interested in getting his own way, he should be willing to go the extra mile and fight for special exceptions. But this shouldnt be an accepted norm and law for ALL fathers to exercise, because a lot of them might have completely different motives that will not benefit Mom and Baby. 

And seriously, people who view forcing a woman to have a child as a punishment for stupid behaviour are the OPPOSITE of pro-lifers. That's cruelty for both the mother and the child. Children deserve to be more than a punishment for a mistake, and deserve to be born into as best a life as a person can give for them. If the mother is not physically, financially, or emotionally ready to have a child, and has no support system, then forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want is just plain cruel. 

And the rape exceptions- god, can they hear themselves? They actually think it's acceptable to expect a woman who, through no fault of her own, got pregnant forcibly, to undergo investigations to be sure of rape? To be reminded over and over of what happened, to be questioned and judged,  just to be sure it really was rape, and not just her being silly? A lot of women would find that even more traumatic than the actual rape. Im sorry, I would rather give an abortion to a woman who might not have "deserved" it then to force a woman who does deserve one to undergo such investigations.


----------



## Shiron (Aug 10, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> When you have sex you should well realize its repercussions, and acknowledge the possibility (even if minute) of pregnancy. Even undermining that, you should know the consent of your partner and his intentions for sex. If it was just for pleasure then I'm sure both parties involved would consent to abortion, if not then the male/female should get to have a say regarding his/her child as it would become his/her intention for sex.
> 
> The only circumstance where your scenario would be plausible is in the case of rape or forced sex (which is rape. I'm being redundant, I know). No one would have sex with an unwilling female.


So, in other words... the women should be punished for her recklessness (even if it wasn't her fault, but the man's) by being forced to give childbirth if she does indeed become pregnant and the man decides that he wants to keep the child? Sorry, not really lking that idea...

If the man wants a child, but the woman doesn't, then the man should either adopt or leave and find someone who is willing to have his child, while the woman gets an abortion. Forcing the woman to have a kid that resulted from an unwanted pregnancy simply because he wants one though? No, at least not while there are other options open for him if he wants a kid.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 10, 2007)

Shiron said:


> So, in other words... the women should be punished for her recklessness (even if it wasn't her fault, but the man's) by being forced to give childbirth if she does indeed become pregnant and the man decides that he wants to keep the child? Sorry, not really lking that idea...
> 
> If the man wants a child, but the woman doesn't, then the man should either adopt or leave and find someone who is willing to have his child, while the woman gets an abortion. Forcing the woman to have a kid that resulted from an unwanted pregnancy simply because he wants one though? No, at least not while there are other options open for him if he wants a kid.



First of all, by saying the woman is being reckless you are denoting it's her fault. Second, if both did not want to have a baby and they did, it was their fault for being reckless, not just his or hers. Third, if you read my post you would  understand that if both parties did not want to have sex there really shouldn't be any objection regarding abortion. And I also said you should know your partners intentions (weather he/she wants to have a kid or not) so there is no confusion in the future. I know I have told this twice already but, instead of being reckless, why not just wait and get married? That is the most easiest solution to unwanted pregnancies and keeping the relationship stable and strong.


----------



## Saufsoldat (Aug 10, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> I know I have told this twice already but, instead of being reckless, why not just wait and get married? That is the most easiest solution to unwanted pregnancies and keeping the relationship stable and strong.



Cause sex is fun and why wait until you signed a paper saying that you have an official relationship with someone... Also being married doesn't mean that you want to have a child.


----------



## Shiron (Aug 10, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> First of all, by saying the woman is being reckless you are denoting it's her fault. Second, if both did not want to have a baby and they did, it was their fault for being reckless, not just his or hers. Third, if you read my post you would  understand that if both parties did not want to have sex there really shouldn't be any objection regarding abortion. And I also said you should know your partners intentions (weather he/she wants to have a kid or not) so there is no confusion in the future. I know I have told this twice already but, instead of being reckless, why not just wait and get married? That is the most easiest solution to unwanted pregnancies and keeping the relationship stable and strong.


In other words...
"If you're going to have sex, you must accept that pregnancy is a possible result of this. Therefore, if the woman does indeed become pregnant and the father decides to keep the kid but the woman doesn't want to keep, then she'll just have to deal, since she shouldn't have been having sex at all in that case."

Yeah, that's nice... If everyone had a sex=for kids and only for kids mentality. But since people don't and also have it just for pleasue, such ideals don't really work.

People have sex simply for pleasure. This is a fact and one that really doesn't seem to have a good chance of changing. However, because of this, accidental pregnancies sometimes occur, even if it wasn't the fault of either party involved. And during such an event, the woman may decide that she is unready to give birth for a child and wants to get an abortion.

Now, should the man be able to override this and prevent her from getting an abortion simply because he wants a kid? Of course not. Why should the man be able to force that woman through the pains of childbirth and such, for a kid that she doesn't believe she's ready to support/give birth to, just because the man wants it, when the man has other options available to him in that case (adoption, getting in a relationship with a woman who is ready to have kids) that would still result in him getting a kid, without forcing that woman through childbrith? Answer: he shouldn't.

Sorry, but telling the woman that she shouldn't have been having sex if she wasn't ready for a possible pregnancy isn't going to work, since that would only accomplish anything if people would stop having sex just for pleasure, which isn't going to happen. So, I don't know about you, but forcing this woman through pregancy because of some rediculously impossible ideal seems to be a bit unfair for me, and thus I just can't support such logic.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 10, 2007)

Saufsoldat said:


> Cause sex is fun and why wait until you signed a paper saying that you have an official relationship with someone... Also being married doesn't mean that you want to have a child.



because when you don't wait you become reckless like someone so eagerly pointed out. You give yourself up to strangers (yes, I say strangers because when you don't even know if you're partner wants kids or not and you sleep with him anyway, that's like sleeping with a stranger and taking a big risk), end up pregnant and regretting it later.

Instead just get married and have all the sex you want. Even if due to some accident you do become pregnant, guess what, you're married, whats there to lose? You have a husband to support the family anyway. And believe me if a guy is willing to marry you (commitment), it is much better than being with someone who thinks marriage is nothing more than a legal binding.

Ladies? What are your thoughts on this? I would like to hear your input as well.

Edit:



Shiron said:


> In other words...
> "If you're going to have sex, you must accept that pregnancy is a possible result of this. Therefore, if the woman does indeed become pregnant and the father decides to keep the kid but the woman doesn't want to keep, then she'll just have to deal, since she shouldn't have been having sex at all in that case."
> 
> Yeah, that's nice... If everyone had a sex=for kids and only for kids mentality. But since people don't and also have it just for pleasue, such ideals don't really work.



No one said you had to have sex only for kids, I said when you have sex you SHOULD know there will always be a possibility that you will become pregnant. If the father decides to keep the child, he should also support it. That is my issue with the bill, if a father should decide to keep the baby, he should be held accountable for it.

Your sex for pleasure will kill unborn children, you are not really in a position to point fingers at anyone's morality issues then.

Edit #2:




Shiron said:


> Sorry, but telling the woman that she shouldn't have been having sex if she wasn't ready for a possible pregnancy isn't going to work, since that would only accomplish anything if people would stop having sex just for pleasure, which isn't going to happen. So, I don't know about you, but forcing this woman through pregancy because of some rediculously impossible ideal seems to be a bit unfair for me, and thus I just can't support such logic.



People should be held accountable for their actions. You did something wrong? Pay the price for it and think twice before doing it again. Married people also have sex for pleasure too, hell, in many Asian communities both male and female remain virgins till they get married, you think they don't feel sexual urges? Just because you are weak willed does not mean everyone is too. Everyone has sex for pleasure -- everyone. However, some are more modest and actually think about their future before taking, for a lack of better wording, any idiotic steps.


----------



## GrimaH (Aug 10, 2007)

> Your sex for pleasure will kill unborn children



Oh noes masturbation 
Should we all sentence ourselves to death?


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 10, 2007)

GrimaH said:


> Oh noes masturbation
> Should we all sentence ourselves to death?



What do you mean should you all sentence yourselves to death? Care to elaborate please?

Just a note for the ladies: pregnancy, abortion and all such things will always have a lot more backlash for you then it will ever have for us guys. If you ever let guy tool you around and, God forbid, anything bad happens, trust me when I say you will always be the one to pay the price.


----------



## GrimaH (Aug 10, 2007)

Think of all the poor sperm! It's way worse than the worst human massacre. Billions of 'em, every time. They're our unborn babies after all!

Oh, and to the last part of your post: blackmail by the girls. Otherwise I do agree that women have it pretty much worse than guys.


----------



## Unnamedpoet (Aug 10, 2007)

GrimaH said:


> Think of all the poor sperm! It's way worse than the worst human massacre. Billions of 'em, every time. They're our unborn babies after all!
> 
> Oh, and to the last part of your post: blackmail by the girls. Otherwise I do agree that women have it pretty much worse than guys.



Medically, I could give you a good response to it regarding how bad it is to your health, forget your future kids, but it would just be a waste of time. Just out of curiosity though, have you ever seen a sonogram of a woman while abortion?


----------



## GrimaH (Aug 10, 2007)

To be honest, no. I heard things about it though.


----------



## Toby (Aug 10, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> Medically, I could give you a good response to it regarding how bad it is to your health, forget your future kids, but it would just be a waste of time. Just out of curiosity though, have you ever seen a sonogram of a woman while abortion?



What kind of crap are you going to pull now? Did you even read my post? There are many kinds of abortions, and they are not crazed brutal acts of violence like BI made them sound like.

Yes, I have seen a 'sonogram'. It is a picture created when using ultrasound. What's the big deal? Are you referring to the method in which they decompose the head of the foetus?


----------



## Caitlyn Jenner (Aug 10, 2007)

Morwain said:


> WTF since when do men get the only say in the matter....abortion deals with a woman's body and her life if she has the abortion or the baby the man's life would not be as effected as the womans so it clearly should be her choice and her choice alone in the end.



No, woman don't know how to act during pregnancy thats why the man should have the final say over abortion.If I was married I would only allow my wife to have an abortion unless shes in really really really really really really bad pain.Other than that shes having the baby.


----------



## Cirus (Aug 10, 2007)

Well I like the aspect of the father haveing a say in it, but I don't like the father having the final say.  

Also, if that gets passed into law the US suprem court will knock it down because it infrenges on a persons rights to privacy and several others.  The reason is the government is taking a position where they have to seperate from the church, and if this does get put into law and the court takes it out, then the US Gov is taking a stand on what it thinks (which is over due).


----------



## Masaki (Aug 10, 2007)

An internet friend of mine who is on this forum lives in Ohio.  I hope this doesn't screw her up later in life.


----------



## Nunally (Aug 10, 2007)

> An internet friend of mine who is on this forum lives in Ohio. I hope this doesn't screw her up later in life.



 You jinxed her.


----------



## Mizura (Aug 10, 2007)

> And don't gimme that 9 months and pain crap. My sister worked for dang near the entire time that she was pregnant with my neice. As did my mom, thru 3 pregnancies. They didn't "lose" 9 months of their lives. They continued doing what they normally did.


And some people vomit nearly every day and can barely do anything during pregnancy. It was so hard on my mom that she's decided never to have another kid again.

It varies from person to person. Some women actually die. 3 months + 6 of reduced productivity (especially for women who must go through physically stressing tasks such as constant traveling or others) can actually be a wreck on a person's career (and if you want to belittle this aspect, well not everybody's dream is to be a baby-making machine. Some actually have other dreams).

I've said it already on page 4, I'll say it again. Men want the final say? Fine as long as you pass a *legislation* that states that in the event where the woman does not want the child, but the man does, then the man:
- should assume full burden of raising the child, meaning full adoption of the kid upon birth (this is actually a more equal-opportunity ruling: it'd grant men the legal right to their kid) + financial burdens
- pay the woman for any lost productivity due to her basically serving as his baby-making machine during this time. Medical costs must be covered as well.

It's only fair. Otherwise the burden of child-bearing + raising is nearly solely on the shoulders of the woman, who'd otherwise have a perfectly legal means of getting on with her life. The dad is the only one who wants the kid? Let him assume full burdens then. =\


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 10, 2007)

Unnamedpoet said:


> When you have sex you should well realize its repercussions, and acknowledge the possibility (even if minute) of pregnancy. Even undermining that, you should know the consent of your partner and his intentions for sex. If it was just for pleasure then I'm sure both parties involved would consent to abortion, if not then the male/female should get to have a say regarding his/her child as it would become his/her intention for sex.
> 
> The only circumstance where your scenario would be plausible is in the case of rape or forced sex (which is rape. I'm being redundant, I know). No one would have sex with an unwilling female.



Ok and what happens when both parties are doing it for pleasure (not to create a child) then once the woman is pregnant the man changes his mind and decides he wants a child even if she doesn't?

And suppose they aren't being reckless.  Suppose they used birth control, and wore condoms, but were in the minority of people who still get pregnant?

She took every precaution against becoming pregnant, she wasn't reckless.  You still punish her by forcing her to carry a child that she doesn't want?


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 11, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Where in the bill does it say that?



I wasn't talking to you. Stick to the parts where I am.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Every father who can impregnate a woman.



I said every true father. That does not include rapists, which the bill states.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Right. The right to save lives. I'm sorry, I don't know of the right to save lives. I think it is an honourable thing to do, but I know it is not a right.



So if someone came to your house and tried to kill someone precious to you, then you're saying that you would not have the right to protect their life?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Also, you are not responding to my point about the unfairness that the man gives written permission.



That is not a point. That is a CLAIM. To have a point you must prove how it is unfair in the first place. Example. I say that things are unfair without this bill. The father has no say in whether his child lives or dies. That is NOT FAIR! That is a point that backs up a claim. Your turn.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Sure would suck if he died now, wouldn't it? How's the woman to get an abortion then? Does she not get one because the father is dead, or is she allowed to decide for herself without a father?



The bill probably covers that by allowing the only surviving parent to make the choice. If the bill doesn't cover it, then it wouldn't really concern me. So what? They are forced to have the child because the father's wishes are unknown and the kid gets put up for adoption. No big deal.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Oh great, now what it actually takes is just for women to get artificially impregnated. They can just check for sperm donors who are already dead, which shouldn't be too hard. Then the right is theirs, right?



Uh... women go to sperm banks because they WANT to have a baby. Or are you trying to say that women who don't want to name the real father will pick one out of a sperm donor list, which is kept completely confidential?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> So how is it for the child's better if the woman has to bring the child into the world but won't take responsibility for it?



Some chance is better than no chance at all.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Are you actually going to make the woman pay child-support if she didn't want the kid in the first place? That is wrong.



That's a bold statement seeing as how the father is forced to pay child-support even if he doesn't want the kid. No, that is fair.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> One of the reasons for why abortions on women's premises are fairer is that this is less likely to happen with the mothers.



What is less likely to happen with mothers? That they will pay child-support? How would you know that when in almost all cases the mothers are the ones who have custody of the kids?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Guys shouldn't be having unsafe sex with people who they don't know if they want children or not.



And women should be? Your argument makes no sense at all. Why are men punished while women are let off the hook? She could have told him to put a condom on. She could have said “no”. If she gets pregnant because of her stupidity then neither the male nor the child should be punished. The male should get his rights as a father, and the child should get his or her rights as a human being.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> That is irresponsible, I agree, but therefore abortions must be allowed as a precaution even if something two drunk teenagers do should occur.
> 
> They don't have the finances to look after the child, you see.



And in that case the teenage father will give permission for the abortion. So what is your problem with the bill?

As for abortions as a separate issue, if the teens cannot afford it then they can put the kid up for adoption.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> ... You just favoured it a moment ago.



No, I favor a bill that takes a step toward no abortion.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> You are both? And you refer to the Hippocratic oath?



What does my reference to the oath have to do with the fact that I am both pro-life and pro-choice?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Me? I'm just a guy looking out for women's rights to decide over their own bodies. Nice to meet you, Believe It.



No, you are a guy looking to eliminate consequences for irresponsible people who make significant mistakes by sacrificing the innocent life that those people brought into the world.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> [lip service omitted]
> 
> We can't just bring every child we want into this world. That causes over-population.



Overpopulation of what? The millions of hospitable square miles of the Earth that currently uninhabited?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And we know that we cannot prevent teenage pregnancies and pregnancies in general in all parts of the world with just abstinence, so we need what is both a fail-safe and personal security.



I don't see how abortion plays into that. They can have the kid and then put it up for adoption. There are people on a waiting list a mile long to adopt children.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And you are now debating with a person who was pro-life but has become pro-choice, by the way.



Yeah right. So then what was it that changed your belief? Brainwashing or a severe blow to the head?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> What responsibility do I have if I have told her I don't want the kid?



No, we were talking about men who WANT to have children, impregnate a woman who says she wants a child, and then being told by the woman that she wants an abortion after having already been impregnated.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I can tell you that I would support my girlfriend if she wanted a child this very moment.



And then after getting pregnant if she told you that she didn't want to have the child anymore because she doesn't want to... get fat or something, then you would support her in aborting your child that would be growing inside of her?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Of course, not all guys want kids when they are going to college, but they must be more responsible when having sex, just as you and I agree on.



But what you do not agree on is that this should be true for women as well, and that if they are irresponsible then they should be adults and face the consequences of their actions.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Technically you are not a dad until there is a child in question, but I am going to look away from that for now. What are a father's rights for the un-born child?



There is a child after conception takes place. His right is to preserve his own child's life. Why? Because it is his child. Or if you want to see the child as some collection of cells that are a part of someone's body, then half of those cells are of the father. Therefore half of that child is the father's body and the woman does not have a right to extinguish it.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Please, I know you are very good at citing laws. Throw some at me, please. I am not that good with U.S. laws. I live in Norway, after all.



I don't care where you live. I am talking about universal laws. So this applies to Norway as well.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Now you must be kidding me. It is her body because she is pregnant. Men can't get pregnant.



Her being pregnant does not prove that what she is pregnant with is a part of her body.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I don't want to have to do this, BI, but you give me no choice.



Well I know that you don't want to post evidence that you are right because you can't find any, and that is why I give you no choice other than to post irrelevant information that ends up proving you wrong in the end.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Pregnancy is the *carrying of one or more offspring* in an embryonal or fetal stage of development by female mammals, including humans, *inside their bodies*, between the stages of conception and birth.



So thank you for proving yourself wrong so that I didn't have to. As your source states, the woman carries a separate being inside of her body. It is not a part of her body.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Ok? The part about it occurring in the woman's womb? Yeah, that part proves that it is the woman's body in question. Next.



I didn't ask you to prove that the womb is a part of the woman's body though. I asked you to prove that the fetus was.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Que? That sounds very brutal. Are we still debating about abortion?



Yes we are. That brutal action I told you about is what an abortion is.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Use of prostaglandin and a curette is very different, Believe It, and crushing the child's skull is not carried out in a proper abortion.



Did you even watch the two videos that I posted?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> But you know, that method sounds very barbaric, and maybe they do use that in a part of the world where abortion is illegal. But please prove that by supplying me with a source.



Well I guess that answers the question above. So here you are... AGAIN... the two video sources I posted.

here

here

Here's mine for starters.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Actually, if you'd look into how prostitution as a business is carried out, you'd learn that STDs can be avoided by routine checks and proper medical procedures.



Avoided? Is that right? There is no chance of getting one at all?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Decrease of property value is a very unusual point to bring up, and I'd hate to think that you are referring to the woman, so I guess you mean something else. Please tell me how prostitution lowers any form of property value.



Because prostitutes stand out on street corners to get business.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 11, 2007)

Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> For example, a man should understand that pregnancy is not simply walking around with a baby gently and lovingly growing inside a woman. This is a long and often painful process with a LOT of side effects.



And women should realize that such things are all a part of being a woman. They should also realize that what they are carrying around inside of them is human life, and that the normal amount of pain that women must endure during pregnancy and child birth do not justify destroying that human life.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> -Weight gain can be traumatic for a woman in such societies as these.



Weight gain is not the same thing as being pregnant. No one looks down on weight gained from a pregnancy.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> It is not easy to lose after the pregancy is finished.



Actually, yes it is with diet and exercise.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> -No alchohol/drugs should be taken during pregnancy, so there could be serious withdrawal symptoms on top of the stress of being pregnant.



Good. Alcohol and drugs are bad, mkay?



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> -Sleeping becomes increasingly difficult after a few months.



For the father who gets kicked in the ribs and back at night. Mothers have a harder time sleeping, but it is never bad enough to where they can't sleep. It also depends on the woman and if she is a light or heavy sleeper.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> By the seventh or eighth month, many pregnant women I've known have said that theu get about two hours of sleep a night due to the discomfort of the big belly, awkward positioning, and sickness.



And how many hours of sleep did they get during that afternoon? How many the next night?



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> -Morning sickness- NOT A JOKE to feel sick all the time, as anyone undergoing chemo could tell you.



It isn't all the time. It is at certain points, and not every woman gets sick.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> -Serious heartburn whenever you eat.
> -Labour itself. Hours and hours of pain during it, a complete lack of privacy, which can be traumatic for shy and modest individuals.



That's a load of crap. What did these women do, eat chili dogs and give birth in a taxi cab in the middle of Time Square?



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> If a man doesn't respect everything that goes into a pregnancy, then he doesn't deserve to have a say.



The fact that it's his kid gives him a say. I don't care if he is the most chauvinistic pig on the face of the Earth, he has a say regardless.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> If he can still support his arguments with a genuine empathy to what is involved here, then he does.



And will you also need to deem his argument empathetic in order for him to have his right as a father?



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> If either party refuses to listen to one another's view on this, then this is not a mature relationship to begin with, and a child should not be forced into such a life.



The child was already forced into that life when he or she was conceived. The parent wanting the child should get the kid if he or she is able and willing to raise him or her.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> For the cases where a father genuinely cares about this developing child and is not just interested in getting his own way, he should be willing to go the extra mile and fight for special exceptions. But this shouldnt be an accepted norm and law for ALL fathers to exercise, because a lot of them might have completely different motives that will not benefit Mom and Baby.



Ability to raise a child is measured by the social service workers. If the father cannot raise the child effectively and the mother does not want the child, then the child will be adopted by parents that can and do.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> And seriously, people who view forcing a woman to have a child as a punishment for stupid behaviour are the OPPOSITE of pro-lifers. That's cruelty for both the mother and the child.



No, it is the natural course of life. How is that the opposite of pro-life? You're saying that wanting women to take responsibility for their actions and learning why they should have protected sex or no sex at all is pro-death?



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> Children deserve to be more than a punishment for a mistake, and deserve to be born into as best a life as a person can give for them.



Okay well now you're just contradicting yourself. They deserve lives that are as best as possible. Abortion does not give them their lives. So why are you for abortion? If a child is born to a couple that does not want the child, then he or she can be put up for adoption where that child will receive the best life possible.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> If the mother is not physically, financially, or emotionally ready to have a child, and has no support system, then forcing her to have a baby she doesn't want is just plain cruel.



Well guess what happens if we do force her to have the child. The next time she has a lover who asks her to have sex with him without the use of contraception she will remember her ordeal in bearing a child and she will tell the man that no contraception = no sex.

Now, if we give abortions to women who screw around recklessly then they will never learn their lesson until they end up with an STD.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> And the rape exceptions- god, can they hear themselves? They actually think it's acceptable to expect a woman who, through no fault of her own, got pregnant forcibly, to undergo investigations to be sure of rape?



The bill allows women who were raped to have abortions of their own choice and no one else's. As for abortion in general, I say that the woman who was raped is a victim but I say the child that was created was also a victim. The child should not be punished for the sins of the father. What happens to women who are raped is a terrible thing and they should be given help especially if a baby results from the crime. However, they should be helped to carry the baby to term and give birth. From that point they should be allowed to choose on whether to raise the baby or give him or her up for adoption, and no one should blame women who choose the later. However, the child should be given a chance at life. The crime does not give the woman an excuse to commit a crime herself.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> To be reminded over and over of what happened, to be questioned and judged, just to be sure it really was rape, and not just her being silly?



No, that is to make sure the rapist is caught and prosecuted.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> A lot of women would find that even more traumatic than the actual rape.



No woman would find that more traumatic than rape.



			
				Onyx Porktron said:
			
		

> Im sorry, I would rather give an abortion to a woman who might not have "deserved" it then to force a woman who does deserve one to undergo such investigations.



And you would let the rapist go free with no consequences of his crime, just as you would for the murderous women who kill their own helpless children.



			
				Shiron said:
			
		

> If the man wants a child, but the woman doesn't, then the man should either adopt or leave and find someone who is willing to have his child, while the woman gets an abortion. Forcing the woman to have a kid that resulted from an unwanted pregnancy simply because he wants one though? No, at least not while there are other options open for him if he wants a kid.



You don't seem to understand that the kid he had with the woman, who was a willing participant in the making of the kid, is HIS CHILD. No one has the right to say that HIS CHILD should die. No one has the right to tell him to go have another child and trust that woman not to stab him in the back as well.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> I know I have told this twice already but, instead of being reckless, why not just wait and get married? That is the most easiest solution to unwanted pregnancies and keeping the relationship stable and strong.



Because marriage and fidelity represents slavery and oppression of women to the sick liberals who argue for abortion. They want women to be able to screw around as much as they want without having to deal with or worry about the consequences.



			
				Saufsoldat said:
			
		

> Cause sex is fun and why wait until you signed a paper saying that you have an official relationship with someone... Also being married doesn't mean that you want to have a child.



See what I told you. I called this right off that bat. Not only does this person think of marriage as a simple paper signing, but he thinks of sex as some kind of casual recreation rather than an act of commitment and perfect love.



			
				Shiron said:
			
		

> People have sex simply for pleasure. This is a fact and one that really doesn't seem to have a good chance of changing.



The reason is because people can get abortions and don't have to deal with the consequences.



			
				Shiron said:
			
		

> However, because of this, accidental pregnancies sometimes occur, even if it wasn't the fault of either party involved. And during such an event, the woman may decide that she is unready to give birth for a child and wants to get an abortion.



Too bad. She should have thought of that before having sex. Perhaps a pregnancy and child birth will help her remember next time.



			
				Shiron said:
			
		

> Now, should the man be able to override this and prevent her from getting an abortion simply because he wants a kid?



Simply? Simply because he wants his child to live so he can raise his child, watch his child grow up, love his child, teach his child about morality and good values, see his child go to school, and see his child mature into an adult? You call that simple?


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 11, 2007)

Shiron said:
			
		

> Why should the man be able to force that woman through the pains of childbirth and such, for a kid that she doesn't believe she's ready to support/give birth to, just because the man wants it, when the man has other options available to him in that case (adoption, getting in a relationship with a woman who is ready to have kids) that would still result in him getting a kid, without forcing that woman through childbrith? Answer:



Because it is HIS CHILD. So now that I have answered your question, now answer mine. Why should the public be able to force a father to give up his child's life?



			
				Shiron said:
			
		

> So, I don't know about you, but forcing this woman through pregancy because of some rediculously impossible ideal seems to be a bit unfair for me, and thus I just can't support such logic.



How is it impossible? You're saying that women are compelled to have unprotected sex? Wake up. Forcing her to carry the pregnancy will teach her to make better choices the next time. The ideal of having safe sex is only impossible if you keep letting irresponsible people off the hook by taking away the consequences of their actions.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Instead just get married and have all the sex you want.



And why would any woman want to do that if she can just go get an abortion whenever she gets pregnant? Now do you see my point? Abortion must be banned in all cases except those that definitely threaten the life of a mother.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Even if due to some accident you do become pregnant, guess what, you're married, whats there to lose? You have a husband to support the family anyway. And believe me if a guy is willing to marry you (commitment), it is much better than being with someone who thinks marriage is nothing more than a legal binding.



It is weird how you can make no sense at all and then post intelligent things right after it.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Ladies? What are your thoughts on this? I would like to hear your input as well.



Here is a real lady's opinion.

THE SAW!



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> If the father decides to keep the child, he should also support it.



Uhh... the father should support his child whether he want to keep the child or not.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> That is my issue with the bill, if a father should decide to keep the baby, he should be held accountable for it.



That is common sense though. Both parents should be held accountable.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> People should be held accountable for their actions. You did something wrong? Pay the price for it and think twice before doing it again.



Well before this you were fine with abortions for women where either parent wanted the child. Why are they exempt from accountability for being even more irresponsible?



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Just because you are weak willed does not mean everyone is too.



See? This is what I'm talking about. You make a ridiculous argument then you make a brilliant one. I am at a loss for words. It seems you have the right mindset but the wrong arguments.



			
				GrimaH said:
			
		

> Oh noes masturbation
> Should we all sentence ourselves to death?







			
				GrimaH said:
			
		

> Think of all the poor sperm! It's way worse than the worst human massacre. Billions of 'em, every time. They're our unborn babies after all!



So now someone who doesn't even know that a fetus is a human life is going to tell us that sperm are human lives. Moron.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Just out of curiosity though, have you ever seen a sonogram of a woman while abortion?



I posted one. Though you should know that liberals won't watch it because they don't like to deal with reality.



			
				GrimaH said:
			
		

> To be honest, no. I heard things about it though.



See? The liberal will just take other people's word for it rather than watch it an form his own opinion.



			
				Kenpachi said:
			
		

> No, woman don't know how to act during pregnancy thats why the man should have the final say over abortion.If I was married I would only allow my wife to have an abortion unless shes in really really really really really really bad pain.Other than that shes having the baby.



I am sure you would also allow it in the case of the pregnancy threatening her life, but yes I think you're right. The choice of having an abortion should not be on the woman alone. Such a choice is one hell of a burden to put on a woman's shoulders to carry alone. In essence, they are forced to play God, and that situation can have adverse effects on a woman's psyche. Therefore I think that the government should step in and make the choice for women by outlawing abortion and funding adoption. The law in Ohio is a step in the right direction in that it puts some of the burden on the males. So that way the women do not stand alone in this kind of situation.



			
				Cirus said:
			
		

> Well I like the aspect of the father haveing a say in it, but I don't like the father having the final say.



The father doesn't have a final say. Stop going by what other people tell you to think! Read the article for yourself. They would only have the ability to prevent an abortion, not force one.



			
				Cirus said:
			
		

> Also, if that gets passed into law the US suprem court will knock it down because it infrenges on a persons rights to privacy and several others.



HA! You think the Supreme Court, which is conservative in majority, is going to knock down a law that grants rights to fathers?



			
				Cirus said:
			
		

> The reason is the government is taking a position where they have to seperate from the church, and if this does get put into law and the court takes it out, then the US Gov is taking a stand on what it thinks (which is over due).



Separate from church or not, the law states that murder is a crime. Abortion is murder, and that is even according to doctors and medical curriculum.



			
				Masaki said:
			
		

> An internet friend of mine who is on this forum lives in Ohio. I hope this doesn't screw her up later in life.



And I hope this protects her boyfriend/husband's rights later in his life.



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> And some people vomit nearly every day and can barely do anything during pregnancy. It was so hard on my mom that she's decided never to have another kid again.



Good! Maybe women that have sex without a care in the world will think again before having unprotected sex if they were forced to go through nine months of vomiting! This is a PLUS for the bill.



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> It varies from person to person. Some women actually die. 3 months + 6 of reduced productivity (especially for women who must go through physically stressing tasks such as constant traveling or others) can actually be a wreck on a person's career (and if you want to belittle this aspect, well not everybody's dream is to be a baby-making machine. Some actually have other dreams).



All the more reason for them to use contraceptives and not be morons when it comes to sex.



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> I've said it already on page 4, I'll say it again. Men want the final say? Fine as long as you pass a legislation that states that in the event where the woman does not want the child, but the man does, then the man:
> - should assume full burden of raising the child, meaning full adoption of the kid upon birth (this is actually a more equal-opportunity ruling: it'd grant men the legal right to their kid) + financial burdens



Fine! I think that is what the man would want anyway. However, the woman should be forced to pay child support, just as the man would be forced to if it were he who didn't want the kid and it were the woman who did.


----------



## Aldrick (Aug 11, 2007)

The irony is that this is in California.

What happens if the man is pregnant?


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 11, 2007)

Mizura said:
			
		

> - pay the woman for any lost productivity due to her basically serving as his baby-making machine during this time. Medical costs must be covered as well.



Medical costs would obviously be paid since those services would go toward care of the child. However, loss of time at work is the woman's problem. The man can't be expected to pay up just because child bearing and birth is all a part of being a woman. Plus, what is lost productivity? It is undefined. It would open the door for the woman to abuse such things and claim money that she doesn't deserve.



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> It's only fair. Otherwise the burden of child-bearing + raising is nearly solely on the shoulders of the woman



Not if she put the kid up for adoption. In that case she wouldn't have to pay child support.



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> The dad is the only one who wants the kid? Let him assume full burdens then.



That's dumb. Not full burden, just most of it. He should be the one to raise the child and be the guardian. He should be responsible for meeting all the needs of the child. However, the mother should be forced to pay child support. Believe it!



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Ok and what happens when both parties are doing it for pleasure (not to create a child) then once the woman is pregnant the man changes his mind and decides he wants a child even if she doesn't?



The child goes to him and he is responsible for that child. The woman is responsible for child support.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> And suppose they aren't being reckless. Suppose they used birth control, and wore condoms, but were in the minority of people who still get pregnant?



Adoption. Neither parent is responsible for child support.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> She took every precaution against becoming pregnant, she wasn't reckless. You still punish her by forcing her to carry a child that she doesn't want?



It wouldn't be punishment, it would just be bad luck for her. According to this bill however, neither parent would likely want the child in that case and both would want an abortion. Thus one would be granted. However, ideally (the way things should be everywhere) the birth would still take place and the child would be put up for adoption if after birth neither parent wanted to take care of the child. Forcing the woman to carry the baby in the ideal situation would be for her benefit as well as the baby's because in the ideal situation abortion would be a crime equal to murder.


----------



## Mizura (Aug 11, 2007)

> The man can't be expected to pay up just because child bearing and birth is all a part of being a woman. Plus, what is lost productivity? It is undefined. It would open the door for the woman to abuse such things and claim money that she doesn't deserve.


Good! Then maybe the Man would think twice before banging women left and right!

Why should all the blame of carelessness be pinned on the woman?



> That's dumb. Not full burden, just most of it. He should be the one to raise the child and be the guardian. He should be responsible for meeting all the needs of the child. However, the mother should be forced to pay child support. Believe it!


Why should she? She didn't want the kid! The man doesn't want full responsibility? Fine! Let her get her abortion then!


----------



## Aldrick (Aug 11, 2007)

> The man can't be expected to pay up just because child bearing and birth is all a part of being a woman.



Julia Gillard doesn't want children. >_>

She's a politician in Australia in case you want to know.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 11, 2007)

Mizura said:
			
		

> Good! Then maybe the Man would think twice before banging women left and right!



Cute. However you are forgetting that in the scenario we were discussing the man is already paying his part by raising the child.



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> Why should all the blame of carelessness be pinned on the woman?



Who said all of it would be? Not I. Again, I said this in reply to a case where the man would be the one raising the child. You must have skipped that part... as well as the... next part which you had to have read in order to quote it... 



			
				Mizura said:
			
		

> Why should she? She didn't want the kid! The man doesn't want full responsibility? Fine! Let her get her abortion then!



She should because it is her responsibility to help pay for the needs of her child. The fact that she did not want the child is irrelevant. Also, would this work the other way around for you? If it were the man that did not want the child and the mother who did, would you let the man skip out on child support just because he didn't want the child and wanted the child aborted?


----------



## krickitat (Aug 11, 2007)

there is one other thing

people find a way...the minute abortions are banned for good? youll have girls in the hospital because they threw themselves down the stairs, or with ruptured utureses because they stuck a coat hanger up there till blood came out

and they cant prosecute them either because they could justs ay it was an accident. you would have a hard time proving a girl threw herself down some stairs on purpose 

this is one of the main reasons abption was legalized in the first place people, girls and women were DYING. killing themselves in order not to have a baby. Then there are girls who feel they cant have a baby and then what do they do? leave them in garbage cans or exposed where living breathing fully developed babaies DIE alone out in the cold.

dont drive people to desperation they do much worse things then you think a human is capable of.

and in the case of this legislation... if the girl decides not to have a baby and the father steps in and OVERRIDES her and forces her to have it...does that mean he has to take it once she has the baby?

notice this legislation doesnt talk about what happens after these women have their babies....it doesnt talk about responsibility.
I agree with the people who said that it is only to control women


----------



## Mintaka (Aug 11, 2007)

It's official ohio is retarded.

That is all.


----------



## SleepingDisaster (Aug 11, 2007)

abortion is crime, no matter what the reason, it is killing human

and father don't have right to say abortion, cuz men don't know how it feels pregnant for 9 months

this law is wrong, this is just like give permission on rapist and men that can't stop their sex to do what they want and women are the victim


----------



## Toby (Aug 11, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> I wasn't talking to you. Stick to the parts where I am.



I normally tend to, Believe It, but how about you just answer that one point anyway?



Believe It! said:


> I said every true father. That does not include rapists, which the bill states.



What about in vitro fertilization then? 


Believe It! said:


> So if someone came to your house and tried to kill someone precious to you, then you're saying that you would not have the right to protect their life?



Make no mistake, Believe It, I would defend my loved ones and my property, but as far as I know I only have the right to defend my property. I don't know of a right to protect life or people, which is why I would like you to tell me just what that is apart from a principle.


Believe It! said:


> That is not a point. That is a CLAIM. To have a point you must prove how it is unfair in the first place. Example. I say that things are unfair without this bill. The father has no say in whether his child lives or dies. That is NOT FAIR! That is a point that backs up a claim. Your turn.



Fair enough. The woman has no say according to this bill because the only one who can issue an abortion is the father. All they've done is move the authority over to the man, which does not make sense to me since he is not the one carrying the child. If we keep talking about this however, we will just go in circles.

If, however, we add the requires social responsibility which many other members have suggested, this bill would be more equal, which is apparently one of the arguments for this bill to begin with.



Believe It! said:


> The bill probably covers that by allowing the only surviving parent to make the choice. If the bill doesn't cover it, then it wouldn't really concern me. So what? They are forced to have the child because the father's wishes are unknown and the kid gets put up for adoption. No big deal.



No big deal? If the woman doesn't want to carry the baby she doesn't have the right to decide, despite the father being dead? So you are saying that abortion actually is the father's right to decide whether to have or not. How can you even make your argument about what is fair to begin with?

And what is this 'probably' nonsense? The bill doesn't seem to cover it, now does it? Read it again.


Believe It! said:


> Uh... women go to sperm banks because they WANT to have a baby. Or are you trying to say that women who don't want to name the real father will pick one out of a sperm donor list, which is kept completely confidential?



I am saying that if the woman wants to have a child but also the right to abort if she changes her opinion, she will choose sperm from a donor who is dead so that she would get to decide for herself.

And strange though it may sound, some women who do get sperm donors to help them have abortion in mind in case they should change their mind.

I know it sounds strange, but people are fond of being able to choose since it is what they perceive as their right.


----------



## Toby (Aug 11, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> Some chance is better than no chance at all.



Certainly is for the child, aye, but I am also considering what this would be like for the mother. If the child is given up for adoption and gets a nice home, that would be good for the child. But the woman is going to spend nine months with the child inside her, most likely taking away her ability to work. That requires there to be a significant say on the mother's behalf in this debate.


Believe It! said:


> That's a bold statement seeing as how the father is forced to pay child-support even if he doesn't want the kid. No, that is fair.



Well then, I think you understand at least where I am coming from when I said that this is an issue which the couple have to have spoken about on before-hand. But my point here is that mutual responsibility must be taken somehow, and I do not support that men should pay for child-support when a child is born which they never wanted.

I support it only when the father chooses to abandon the mother and born child, and likewise if the mother abandons the father and the born child.



Believe It! said:


> What is less likely to happen with mothers? That they will pay child-support? How would you know that when in almost all cases the mothers are the ones who have custody of the kids?



It is less likely that the mother will abandon a child if they have the choice to remove it or not. Making abortion as distant as this isn't giving the woman a lot of faith in the system since it is not entirely equal.

Just on a side-note, Believe It, please use the specific post-quote so that I can jump to the original post. In this debate I had to go back several pages to find this post of mine. It makes it easier for both of us if we just use the post-code.



Believe It! said:


> And women should be? Your argument makes no sense at all. Why are men punished while women are let off the hook? She could have told him to put a condom on. She could have said “no”. If she gets pregnant because of her stupidity then neither the male nor the child should be punished. The male should get his rights as a father, and the child should get his or her rights as a human being.



That came out wrong from my side. No one should be having so much unsafe sex as it is today. But when I wrote guys there I was reading into the situation in which this bill is passed, because in that world the man has the power to decide. Hence if he has a lot of irresponsible sex, it wouldn't be setting a good example now would it?

I agree that people should say no to un-protected sex more often, but abortion should be an option at first for the woman seeing as it is very possible that the father just buggers off if it is a one-night stand.


Believe It! said:


> And in that case the teenage father will give permission for the abortion. So what is your problem with the bill?
> 
> As for abortions as a separate issue, if the teens cannot afford it then they can put the kid up for adoption.



That the teenage father is going to be able to bug down the woman and himself in making a silly decision. I have problems with the child-support laws as mentioned earlier, but you didn't know that, and it makes the case quite different for me.

They can, but would they agree to it? I know a lot of teenagers aren't prone to think of the establishment as good enough. But yes, that is a side-issue.


Believe It! said:


> No, I favor a bill that takes a step toward no abortion.



So you support this one because it is meant to be equalising?


Believe It! said:


> What does my reference to the oath have to do with the fact that I am both pro-life and pro-choice?



You are both in favour of aborting and in favour of saving the child's life. How does that make sense at all, is my point, and I thought it ironic since you accused others of being hypocrites.


Believe It! said:


> No, you are a guy looking to eliminate consequences for irresponsible people who make significant mistakes by sacrificing the innocent life that those people brought into the world.



Hm, so abortion is about always killing the child? Interesting. I thought it was an alternative for those who don't want the child, for those who can't have the child and for those uncertain.



Believe It! said:


> Overpopulation of what? The millions of hospitable square miles of the Earth that currently uninhabited?



The planet. There is no problem with people having a lot more children in modern industrialised countries with declining birth-rates such as Japan. In fact, it is needed.

But in developing countries the last thing they need is to have too many people in an already poor nation.


Believe It! said:


> I don't see how abortion plays into that. They can have the kid and then put it up for adoption. There are people on a waiting list a mile long to adopt children.



And I agree to that, but there are those who don't want to give birth to a child and give it up.


----------



## Toby (Aug 11, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> Yeah right. So then what was it that changed your belief? Brainwashing or a severe blow to the head?



I saw and read enough about people's lives who had been ruined because they could not support the child. But mainly it was because I discovered that the couple which wants the child provides the best home. Those who don't want it should not be forced to have it.


Believe It! said:


> No, we were talking about men who WANT to have children, impregnate a woman who says she wants a child, and then being told by the woman that she wants an abortion after having already been impregnated.



Like I said, they can try to convince me. But I see that as a conflict of interests, and given the child cannot be transferred to another woman, I would accept that she wants the abortion.



Believe It! said:


> And then after getting pregnant if she told you that she didn't want to have the child anymore because she doesn't want to... get fat or something, then you would support her in aborting your child that would be growing inside of her?



Given it cannot be transferred, yes. What right do I have to say that she cannot do with her body as she pleases? It's not as if this would always happen, Believe It, and it can work the same way if the woman doesn't want a child, has sex with a man who doesn't either, and then decides that he wants one.

This is an issue of respecting each other as well as the wish to have a child, and then the child. As far as I know, unborn children don't have many rights.



Believe It! said:


> But what you do not agree on is that this should be true for women as well, and that if they are irresponsible then they should be adults and face the consequences of their actions.



Oh, I do think this should apply for women as well. But the woman is the one stuck with the kid inside her, and as I mentioned earlier, the guy might wander off, and then she cannot have an abortion without knowing who he is and having his consent. 



Believe It! said:


> There is a child after conception takes place. His right is to preserve his own child's life. Why? Because it is his child. Or if you want to see the child as some collection of cells that are a part of someone's body, then half of those cells are of the father. Therefore half of that child is the father's body and the woman does not have a right to extinguish it.



Well I don't agree with that there is a child immediately after having sex, so I cannot even treat that scenario.

In any case however, it is their child. Not the father's alone, nor the mother's alone, but their child.

At such an early point however I believe it would be interesting to see if the child could be transferable. I doubt that is possible, though. Anyway, this leads back to my rule before going into a sexual relationship. Make it clear that you want children or not.


Believe It! said:


> I don't care where you live. I am talking about universal laws. So this applies to Norway as well.



There are universal laws for this? Fascinating. 

Ok, in Norway the woman has all the say when having an abortion. Do you want me to cite and translate that for you?

This law applies for the U.S. only. Therefore I want to debate this on the U.S. laws.

Also, don't avoid the point I made. Post the law I requested.


Believe It! said:


> Her being pregnant does not prove that what she is pregnant with is a part of her body.



Do you know what the blastocyst is?



Believe It! said:


> Well I know that you don't want to post evidence that you are right because you can't find any, and that is why I give you no choice other than to post irrelevant information that ends up proving you wrong in the end.



Really? What part of the article about pregnancy proved that I am wrong, since I was to prove that it was the woman's body, and the article stated it takes place in the womb, which the man does not have, but the woman does.

Elaborate on my lack of evidence in contrast to yours. Please, this is enhancing everything I have just posted and sealing it.


Believe It! said:


> So thank you for proving yourself wrong so that I didn't have to. As your source states, the woman carries a separate being inside of her body. It is not a part of her body.



Who was going to prove the child was part of her body? Not me, I was going to prove it was her body, which is what you requested.

Be careful about what you post.



Believe It! said:


> I didn't ask you to prove that the womb is a part of the woman's body though. I asked you to prove that the fetus was.



Then you should have stated that. It was a mistake you made and you can now admit it.



Believe It! said:


> Yes we are. That brutal action I told you about is what an abortion is.



Then you don't know the difference between the many kinds of abortions there are.


Believe It! said:


> Did you even watch the two videos that I posted?



I probably didn't since I can't recall seeing them. Rest assured I will see them if the links still work. 



Believe It! said:


> Well I guess that answers the question above. So here you are... AGAIN... the two video sources I posted.
> 
> here
> 
> ...



Interesting videos. I actually watched one of them when I did biology, and my teacher told us first to watch the various videos about abortion and then judge what we thought about the procedure.

Then he asked what we thought about them as sources. Needless to say, we all saw the one you showed as fairly subjective, although not biased, it did not introduce the woman's reasons for abortion. Steering away from this however, I am glad to now know the source of these videos, because they comes from silentscream.org, whose interesting introduction message was, and I quote



			
				Silentscream.org said:
			
		

> WARNING: THIS WEBSITE GRAPHICALLY SHOWS AN ABORTION 11 WEEKS AFTER CONCEPTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY CHILDREN.
> 
> IF YOU ARE A YOUNG PERSON AND HAVE ANY DOUBTS ON WHETHER YOU SHOULD VIEW THIS SITE OR NOT, PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR PARENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER.
> 
> ...



I was really hoping that the part bolded would not show up, Believe It. I really did. But there it was, and I thought to myself that I don't want to debate the information of this source as much as its validity, because resorting to use of a religious mission is not scientific.

But this is what disturbed me:


			
				Silentscream.org said:
			
		

> PLEASE, IF YOU THINK YOU ARE PREGNANT OR KNOW SOMEONE WHO MIGHT BE PREGNANT. CONTACT  FOR ASSISTANCE. THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN THIS MATTER.



Huh. I don't think that my pregnant friend would be too happy if I did this on her behalf, but I let my personal doubts go into a pocket of "I'll get back to you later" and checked the link out.

Lifecall.org, the organisation's mission, is also very religious. It quoted Matthews 19:14, which is neither scientific reason for me to listen to them. It is not reason either. None of your sources are based solely on science and or reason.

How can you expect me to compare my sources, which are at least updated and allow for different points of view, to your sources, which are, in their entirety, biased?

I find that offensive, Believe It. I really do. And I think I don't need to carry on with this any more since you just quoted these people as your source. 

Thank you for proving your cause to be based neither on religion nor reason.


----------



## Draffut (Aug 11, 2007)

Wait, this article wasn't to specific on some stuff.

If a father wants the abortion, but hte mother refuses.  what happens.  If it is forces, i see this law as horrible.

If on the other hand, the law is basicaly saying both mother and father support is required for an abortion, I dont see how it is wrong or about controlling women.

Though I think having to provide a report in the case of i*c*st is alittle much.  The government should not have to put people who have been victimized like that, into a potentially worse situation.


----------



## Kage (Aug 11, 2007)

urg. well isn't that a kick in the ovaries.
so if the father decides he doesn't want the baby and the mother decides to keep it can he _make_ her get an abortion? and if he can't will he be excused from any child support? what a load of garbage.


----------



## Toby (Aug 12, 2007)

Draffut said:


> Wait, this article wasn't to specific on some stuff.
> 
> If a father wants the abortion, but hte mother refuses.  what happens.  If it is forces, i see this law as horrible.
> 
> ...



Yeah, the article and the bill are far from complete. But then, this might just be a bill in the making and not one which is done amended. Still, if this reaches a higher branch of parliament, the Democrats should look to their policy and stop mucking about as though they were ignorant.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 12, 2007)

krickitat said:
			
		

> people find a way...the minute abortions are banned for good? youll have girls in the hospital because they threw themselves down the stairs, or with ruptured utureses because they stuck a coat hanger up there till blood came out



That would be an attempted murder charge then. They would go to prison for quite a few years for that, and I say that if the child lives and is born, the woman who tried such a thing should also be forced to have her ovaries removed. The kid is given to the father or put up for adoption and the woman is sent to prison for attempted murder. If the murder is carried out however, then she gets life in prison or the death penalty depending on the state's laws regarding capital punishment.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> and they cant prosecute them either because they could justs ay it was an accident.



Well you're innocent until proven guilty of course, but an attempt on a child's life while still in the womb has its characteristics. Plus, the first attempt isn't always successful. Multiple tries will definitely set off red flags.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> you would have a hard time proving a girl threw herself down some stairs on purpose



Even so, I doubt there would be an epidemic. Those who would do that are an insignificant fraction. The main problem in doing something like that is that the woman gets hurt badly in the process. Plus, when you compare the number of successful baby killings to the number of abortions preformed every day, well it is a huge plus for those who want to protect the lives of children.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> this is one of the main reasons abption was legalized in the first place people, girls and women were DYING. killing themselves in order not to have a baby.



Well I don't know about that. It seems like a huge stretch to me. I think it had more to do with women leaving babies on church doorsteps.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> Then there are girls who feel they cant have a baby and then what do they do? leave them in garbage cans or exposed where living breathing fully developed babaies DIE alone out in the cold.



Again, that is a possible situation and outcome and it is horrible. However, the number of those cases is an insignificant fraction compared to the number of abortions that are performed. Also, I would say that nunber is so insignificant that it is in the hundreds. Now, even 1 is too much, but this is where adoption agencies come into play. They need to make it known that all babies are wanted by someone and that the women can put their unwanted babies up for adoption.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> dont drive people to desperation they do much worse things then you think a human is capable of.



Yes but the number of people involved is much less. Also, there are women who do this already even when adoption and abortion are legal. So it isn't like banning abortion is going to stop them. Perhaps making abortion a crime with deter these women from ever getting pregnant in the first place.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> and in the case of this legislation... if the girl decides not to have a baby and the father steps in and OVERRIDES her and forces her to have it...does that mean he has to take it once she has the baby?



Yes.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> notice this legislation doesnt talk about what happens after these women have their babies....it doesnt talk about responsibility.



No, the article doesn't. This bill is consistent with present custody laws. If the father is the one who wants the child born then he will obviously get custody as long as he is a fit parent. If not, then the child will be born anyway but put into foster care.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> I agree with the people who said that it is only to control women



Instead of doing that why not just explain how this law would control women?



			
				SleepingDisaster said:
			
		

> abortion is crime, no matter what the reason, it is killing human
> 
> and father don't have right to say abortion, cuz men don't know how it feels pregnant for 9 months
> 
> this law is wrong, this is just like give permission on rapist and men that can't stop their sex to do what they want and women are the victim



Well you stated off all right, but you went downhill from there. You're right that abortion should be banned, but this bill is not wrong. It is a step toward banning abortion. Rapists won't have any rights. Fathers who want their children to live will have rights.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> In any case the point I was trying to make was if you saw sonogram of a woman during abortion, you would realize it is killing of an unborn child.



Bah. He would probably say it was trick photography or something.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Regardless, whether the fetus has life or not, by destroying the fetus you are destroying a child-to-be. Hence, it is murder.



Well the fetus does have life. I think they are arguing that it is not A life though. However, anyone with a medical background knows that it is a life because of brain function, nerve responses, and other life signs.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> I agree that abortion should be banned except in cases where it is life threatning to the mother.



Oh. Well then maybe I misread something...



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> The reasoning behind my statement was that in case the woman has a child because the father decided against abortion, and later decided it was a bad decision on his part and failed to support the child or says he does not want to support the child anymore. What would the woman do then?



She would be approached and asked if she wanted to take full custody and care of the child, and if she says no then the child would be put in a foster home. From that point I think the woman would not have to pay child support anymore.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> In this case a woman should have at least this much right as to hold the father accountable.



Yeah well she can do that, but not at the child's expense. If the child would be better off in the care of foster parents then that is where the child should go. A child shouldn't be forced on a father who cannot take care of him or her just because the mother wants to hold the father accountable.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> A law that says a father should get a say in abortion and does not hold such fathers to be accountable for such actions would clearly be harmful towards the female.



Well this bill doesn't do that. So...



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> Say some nutjob wants to take revenge on his girlfriend for an unknown reason, he makes her pregnant, then makes her go through with it and bear the child. Later he says he will not support their children, then what?



Then if the mother wants to take care of the child the father will be forced by law to pay child support. If the woman does not want to take care of the child then the child goes to a foster home. These are presently existing laws for present situations. This bill has nothing to do with those policies really, but these policies ensure that the laws of this bill will not be misused.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> The woman can not do anything; she did not want the baby (regardless if it is right or wrong) and she will have no choice but to either raise the child by herself or give it to foster care.



Right, and in the case of the first choice the father would be forced to pay up. I don't see the problem here.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> This not only affects the mother, but it also affects the upbringing of the child as well.



But you're missing the point. No male would do such a thing because if he did then he would be shooting himself in the foot.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> If it were that common, then it would be in the bill. Feel free to correct any misunderstandings I may have regarding this.



The fact that they are not in the bill is proof that it is common sense. The laws regarding child support, custody, and adoption already exist. Those laws would apply to every case that would pass through the laws of this proposed bill. So the laws of the bill are not going to be misused. It's impossible.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> I have cousin sisters, a mother and aunts in my family too, if I wouldn't want this to happen to them, why would I want this to happen to you?



I don't understand how that answers the question I asked. Before you said you were for abortion where neither parent wanted the child and that was a reason for being against the bill. I don't understand your logic on that one. However, if you say that you are against abortion then I will take your word for it and that is what I will believe when it comes to your opinion. However, I can't see how someone who is against abortion cannot be for this bill, which in everything that it is reduces the chances that an abortion will take place.



			
				Unnamedpoet said:
			
		

> To each, his own. I just look at the general consensus of my audience. My goal is not to prove semeone right or someone wrong. It is to create a better understanding between people (though sometimes I fail to keep my emotions in check which creates rifts). Just a helpful tip, you will not change anyone by telling them they are wrong.



I won't change those debating against me here, that's for sure, but that's because those debating against me either refuse to read and reply to my facts or they simply delude themselves.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I normally tend to, Believe It, but how about you just answer that one point anyway?



Amaretti and I were talking about additional laws that would be needed in order to prevent women from dodging the bill by say... going to Canada or something. The solutions I gave are not in the bill, nor should they be, since such laws would need to be passed at the federal level as they involve foreign governments.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> What about in vitro fertilization then?



What about it?


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 12, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Make no mistake, Believe It, I would defend my loved ones and my property, but as far as I know I only have the right to defend my property. I don't know of a right to protect life or people, which is why I would like you to tell me just what that is apart from a principle.



Children can be considered property though. If you are their legal guardian then you are responsible for them and their safety. Plus, in America we do have the right to protect other people's lives. In fact, in some states you will get penalized if you see a fight and don't break it up. It has to do with good Samaritan laws.

Now, back to the relevant issue. You would defend your loved ones from a murderer (who is not going after property but rather your loved ones) huh? Then why doesn't the same logic apply to a father and his unborn child?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Fair enough. The woman has no say according to this bill because the only one who can issue an abortion is the father.



Thanks for posting your point. Now I will retort. You are incorrect because the woman has the SAME say that the man does. She can say that she wants the baby aborted, as can the man. However, if the other parent does not want the baby aborted, the abortion does not take place. Thus, both parents have equal say in the matter.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> All they've done is move the authority over to the man, which does not make sense to me since he is not the one carrying the child.



Human biology is no excuse, and it does not grant extra rights to the woman. In America, we are not supposed to discriminate based on gender. The point here is that the child that was created belongs to both the woman and the man. Therefore, each should have the right to preserve their child's life.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> If we keep talking about this however, we will just go in circles.



Right. So what you need to do is agree with me, since I am right, and then we can move on.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> If, however, we add the requires social responsibility which many other members have suggested, this bill would be more equal, which is apparently one of the arguments for this bill to begin with.



Child custody, child-support payments, and adoption are all present laws that make sure the parents of a child are held responsible.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> No big deal? If the woman doesn't want to carry the baby she doesn't have the right to decide, despite the father being dead?



Yeah, so? The father may have wished the child to live because of personal beliefs.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> So you are saying that abortion actually is the father's right to decide whether to have or not.



No. This stems from my desire to prevent murder in my own country.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> How can you even make your argument about what is fair to begin with?



Logic.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And what is this 'probably' nonsense? The bill doesn't seem to cover it, now does it? Read it again.



I don't know if it does because the bill is not laid out in its entirety in the article. However, you don't know that it doesn't. Thus, I said probably.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I am saying that if the woman wants to have a child but also the right to abort if she changes her opinion, she will choose sperm from a donor who is dead so that she would get to decide for herself.



Dead or not, the donor is unknown so it's the same either way. I say the woman would not be allowed to get the abortion since the father cannot be named. However, this is a stupid example. Women who go to sperm banks to get pregnant do so because they want to have a kid, not because they want to have an abortion.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And strange though it may sound, some women who do get sperm donors to help them have abortion in mind in case they should change their mind.



That's messed up. Well... asses to them I say. I think sperm banks should be shut down in America anyway. Just a side note.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I know it sounds strange, but people are fond of being able to choose since it is what they perceive as their right.



Tough titties. People perceive a lot of things to be their rights, but they aren't.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Certainly is for the child, aye, but I am also considering what this would be like for the mother. If the child is given up for adoption and gets a nice home, that would be good for the child. But the woman is going to spend nine months with the child inside her, most likely taking away her ability to work. That requires there to be a significant say on the mother's behalf in this debate.



No it doesn't. I don't care if she pukes the whole time, it is just a situation that she'll have to deal with. Her discomfort is not a reason to execute another's life. And for someone so concerned about the mother you certainly are a tad hard on her don't you think? I mean, the decision to kill a life is quite a massive responsibility, wouldn't you agree? To the woman, it would be like telling her that she has to play God and decide whether the baby will live or die, and not only that but also that the choice is hers and hers alone to make, which means she is the one who is responsible for any physical or mental repercussions of aborting the baby. Now, that's one hell of a burden to put squarely on the woman's shoulders. At least this bill alleviates some of that weight by having the man share the load and stand with the woman. But forget that, I say the government should make the choice for her and have the baby live.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Well then, I think you understand at least where I am coming from when I said that this is an issue which the couple have to have spoken about on before-hand. But my point here is that mutual responsibility must be taken somehow, and I do not support that men should pay for child-support when a child is born which they never wanted.



Of course not, because you are an illogical liberal with no clue on how a civilization works. You think that people should be allowed to create problems and then not take responsibility for them. You think society as a whole must pay for those problems. Your ideals lead to the destruction of civilization and the family unit.

A man who has a child with a woman is bound to that child. It is his responsibility to make sure that child is taken care of. Child-support payments help to ensure this when the man is not around. The child should not suffer because the father does not want to deal with the consequences of his actions. You would allow him to just go on his jolly old way and keep getting women pregnant wouldn't you? You would allow him to just keep making more kids who would not be supported. That is a regressive element to a society because it creates unstable families. Which create unstable communities, and lead to an unstable country.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I support it only when the father chooses to abandon the mother and born child, and likewise if the mother abandons the father and the born child.



Then your argument makes no sense. How is his wanting an abortion not an abandonment of the child? All a man would have to do to get out of paying up is say that he wanted the abortion but the woman didn't?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> It is less likely that the mother will abandon a child if they have the choice to remove it or not.



Uh yeah, because they'll get it aborted since that is legal and abandonment is not. This is a moot point. Of course they are more likely to abandon the child if they are forced to give birth, but the point is that choosing abortion is an abandonment of the child as well as murdering the child. So abandonment is actually better than the alternative. Also, if laws are put in place to punish women who abandon their children, which there are, then that will reduce the chances that a child will be abandoned. Another thing is to have adoption agencies step up and offer programs for women who want to give their kids up for adoption rather than abandoning them.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Making abortion as distant as this isn't giving the woman a lot of faith in the system since it is not entirely equal.



It is perfectly equal. I proved this above.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Just on a side-note, Believe It, please use the specific post-quote so that I can jump to the original post. In this debate I had to go back several pages to find this post of mine. It makes it easier for both of us if we just use the post-code.



That is too troublesome. Just go back to each page and use the ctrl+f search function in the browser.

Also, if you want me to post a certain way then you should say so at the beginning of your post, not toward the end. I copy/paste everything and read it as I reply then proof read it once.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> No one should be having so much unsafe sex as it is today.



Well at least you admit that. Now you just need to learn to hold people who do responsible for their reckless actions.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Hence if he has a lot of irresponsible sex, it wouldn't be setting a good example now would it?



No, but I was just pointing out that women should be held to the same standard. Also that the man's irresponsibility is not a reason to give any woman full say in whether the child lives or dies. It is still the man's choice as well.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I agree that people should say no to un-protected sex more often



More often? More like ALWAYS.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 12, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> but abortion should be an option at first for the woman seeing as it is very possible that the father just buggers off if it is a one-night stand.



Why should it be an option for her if she made a terrible mistake in saying yes to unprotected sex? There you go again, trying to take away the consequences of a mistake so that people don't learn their lesson and thus repeat the same mistake.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> That the teenage father is going to be able to bug down the woman and himself in making a silly decision. I have problems with the child-support laws as mentioned earlier, but you didn't know that, and it makes the case quite different for me.



What do you mean that the teen father won't be able to bug down? You don't think his parents will make him bug down?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> So you support this one because it is meant to be equalising?



I just told you why I support the bill.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> You are both in favour of aborting and in favour of saving the child's life. How does that make sense at all, is my point, and I thought it ironic since you accused others of being hypocrites.



I already explained it to you. I am pro-choice, as in the choice to have sex or not. However, if the choice to have sex is made and a baby results from it, then I am pro-life. And I think you are mixing hypocrisy up with the Hippocratic Oath, which is a doctors oath that is to do no harm.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Hm, so abortion is about always killing the child? Interesting. I thought it was an alternative for those who don't want the child, for those who can't have the child and for those uncertain.



Wrong. It is not an alternative. An alternative is adoption. Abortion is about killing the child, unless it is done to save the mother life which would be threatened by the birth. Then it is an alternative to the mother's death.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> But in developing countries the last thing they need is to have too many people in an already poor nation.



Well if they are poor then how would they afford abortions anyway?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And I agree to that, but there are those who don't want to give birth to a child and give it up.



If they don't want to give birth then they're only option should be a cesarean. What do you mean they don't want to give it up? If they wanted the abortion then they wanted to give it up. Moot point.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I saw and read enough about people's lives who had been ruined because they could not support the child. But mainly it was because I discovered that the couple which wants the child provides the best home. Those who don't want it should not be forced to have it.



Flawed logic. Those who don't want it should not be forced to RAISE it. The child does not have to be murdered for them to not raise it. Like you said, the couple that wants the child provides the best home. There are millions of couples on the waiting list to adopt and give children a good home.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Like I said, they can try to convince me. But I see that as a conflict of interests, and given the child cannot be transferred to another woman, I would accept that she wants the abortion.



So you would just shrug off the fact that she told you that she would have your baby but then stab you in the back after your child was conceived and demand it be aborted and you would support her choice?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Given it cannot be transferred, yes.



... and this proves that...


*Spoiler*: __ 



Liberalism is a mental disorder!!!






			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> What right do I have to say that she cannot do with her body as she pleases?



If she told you that she would have a child with you before you tried, what right does she have to change her mind after getting pregnant? Don't you think you and other men should have rights as fathers? The baby is not her body, and she can't do whatever she pleases with her body whether she is pregnant or not. We have laws that punish people who do certain things with their bodies. Pregnant women especially cannot do whatever they want with their bodies because it affects the child as well.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> It's not as if this would always happen, Believe It, and it can work the same way if the woman doesn't want a child, has sex with a man who doesn't either, and then decides that he wants one.



No it can't because the man cannot force the woman to get the abortion. This kind of thing happens a lot. That is why the reps in Ohio introduced this bill.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> This is an issue of respecting each other as well as the wish to have a child, and then the child. As far as I know, unborn children don't have many rights.



But they should have all the same rights as a born child.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Oh, I do think this should apply for women as well. But the woman is the one stuck with the kid inside her, and as I mentioned earlier, the guy might wander off, and then she cannot have an abortion without knowing who he is and having his consent.



It doesn't matter if the guy wanders off. If he does then he is forced to pay child support! So why shouldn't the same apply to women who wander off or don't want to have the child after he or she is conceived? Didn't want to get fat? Didn't want to puke all the time? Didn't want to give birth? Shouldn't have gotten pregnant! The woman should be forced to give birth and honor her commitment to the father who wants the child.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Anyway, this leads back to my rule before going into a sexual relationship. Make it clear that you want children or not.



But you just said that didn't matter to you. You said that if both want and child and create one and then the woman changes her mind, you said she has the right to abort the baby. So then why should the father make it clear that he wants children when the woman can simply disregard his wishes?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> There are universal laws for this? Fascinating.



Yeah, like the universal laws that say stealing is wrong, slavery is wrong, murder is wrong, etc.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Ok, in Norway the woman has all the say when having an abortion. Do you want me to cite and translate that for you?



Well then Norway has a big problem. Fathers have no say in the matter.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> This law applies for the U.S. only. Therefore I want to debate this on the U.S. laws.



But you admitted that you don't know the U.S. laws. So we are talking about how the unborn should be seen by humanity as well as what rights they and fathers should have.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Also, don't avoid the point I made. Post the law I requested.



What law?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Do you know what the blastocyst is?



No Toby, you tell me.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Really? What part of the article about pregnancy proved that I am wrong, since I was to prove that it was the woman's body, and the article stated it takes place in the womb, which the man does not have, but the woman does.



I did right after this part. You should delete parts of your reply that are answered later in the post.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Who was going to prove the child was part of her body? Not me, I was going to prove it was her body, which is what you requested. Be careful about what you post.



Be careful about what you argue. Now that I have made you backpedal and give up your argument that the woman has a right over the baby's body, I can crush your silly argument like a bug. The woman has no right over a body that is not hers or is even a part of her own. She only has a right over her own body, and even then she only has a right over the parts that DO NOT AFFECT THE BODY OF THE BABY. Therefore she cannot terminate the baby's life, nor can she damage that baby by consuming harmful elements into her own body.

So there goes your argument along with the woman's “right” to have the only say in the matter of life or death for the baby, out the window!



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Then he asked what we thought about them as sources. Needless to say, we all saw the one you showed as fairly subjective, although not biased, it did not introduce the woman's reasons for abortion.



Typical liberals. Thinking that such a thing as abortion as birth control could be justified by a reason.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 12, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Steering away from this however, I am glad to now know the source of these videos, because they comes from silentscream.org, whose interesting introduction message was, and I quote
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Silentscream.org
> WARNING: THIS WEBSITE GRAPHICALLY SHOWS AN ABORTION 11 WEEKS AFTER CONCEPTION AND THEREFORE SHOULD NOT BE VIEWED BY CHILDREN.



Oh sorry, are you a child?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> IF YOU ARE A YOUNG PERSON AND HAVE ANY DOUBTS ON WHETHER YOU SHOULD VIEW THIS SITE OR NOT, PLEASE CHECK WITH YOUR PARENTS BEFORE PROCEEDING ANY FURTHER.
> 
> IF YOU ARE RESEARCHING THE TOPIC OF ABORTION OR POSSIBLY CONTEMPLATING AN ABORTION WE URGE YOU TO VIEW THE SITE SLOWLY AND CAREFULLY BEFORE PROCEEDING.
> 
> ...



Wow. You are one sick puppy Toby. You're actually trying to tell me that the REAL ultrasound of a living baby being torn to pieces and then sucked out of the womb should be dismissed because the website that hosts the videos has a religious tone to it? That is irrelevant to the fact that this is a real abortion procedure that is done in the world today, that it is cruel and barbaric, and that it should be banned. Your hatred of religion is irrelevant to this discussion and it does not refute the fact that abortion is a terrible thing that women have no right to force on a baby.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Huh. I don't think that my pregnant friend would be too happy if I did this on her behalf, but I let my personal doubts go into a pocket of "I'll get back to you later" and checked the link out.
> 
> Lifecall.org, the organisation's mission, is also very religious. It quoted Matthews 19:14, which is neither scientific reason for me...



SHUT UP!!! I only asked you to watch the videos and the abortion and tell me your thoughts on whether that should be allowed in the world. Don't try to spin this into some anti-religious argument because it makes no difference to this issue. Stop ignoring the fact that babies are being murdered and that you are condoning it by allowing women to have the sole choice in whether a baby lives or dies!



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> If a father wants the abortion, but hte mother refuses. what happens. If it is forces, i see this law as horrible.



In that case the child is born and the father must pay-child support if he doesn't stick around to help raise the child.



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> If on the other hand, the law is basicaly saying both mother and father support is required for an abortion, I dont see how it is wrong or about controlling women.



That is what it says.



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> Though I think having to provide a report in the case of i*c*st is alittle much. The government should not have to put people who have been victimized like that, into a potentially worse situation.



Yes they do because they have to catch the rapist responsible and punish them.



			
				kageneko said:
			
		

> so if the father decides he doesn't want the baby and the mother decides to keep it can he make her get an abortion? and if he can't will he be excused from any child support? what a load of garbage.



No no no. I don't know where you're getting this from. The bill doesn't say anything like that.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 12, 2007)

Oh Believe It! I just love seeing baby's die.

In fact, me and my Atheist friends (because you know, we eat children) go out every Saturday, going after small children and babies to devour.

Mmm, the succulent taste and sound of a baby's skull between my teeth, breaking it and eating the delicious goodness inside.

I just LOVE it.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 12, 2007)

Honestly, this bill is a load of bull. If the man wants a kid, why doesn't he go find a women who also wants one? This. Law. Is. Bull. Shit.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 12, 2007)

mot abprtions these days are chemical 

I think if you are going to use a video you need one that isnt at least 20 years old
Find a newer source 
I say any source more then ten years old is nil


----------



## Jin-E (Aug 12, 2007)

I agree that the father should have a voice on the matter(if he is commited to the relationship or have proven resources and qualities to take care of the child)But i dont think he shold have the right to force his decision on the women.

I think these questions needs to be addressed individually. Suppose a guy and a girl have a onenight stance and the result of this is a pregnancy. The guy later finds another women and have a stable relationship with her, while the pregnant women is somehow unable to rear a child. Assuming that he(together with his new wife/girlfriend) wants the child and have the resources to raise the kid, then i would see serious problem in regards to the women aborting it, because the widely used excuse about the father possibly bailing out wouldnt hold true. In that case, the child could live with his/her father while living with the biological mother on weekends.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 12, 2007)

it should be a case by case basis i think 

I say that if a woman get pregnant and choses to have an abortion there should be a waiting period then the man has a week to respond or not.
Then if he has seious cause to want the child to live he should have to take it to court.
It would of course need to work fast but if the guy really wants his child shouldnt he have to take that extra effort?
Then it WOULD be seen as a case by case basis giving the mother a chance herself to state why a child is just not possible.

It creates a record and insures responsibility on the part of both parents. If a guy has to fight in court not to have his child aborted there she be no way he could get out of custody 

on the other hand it has always been my belief that if we need licenses for driving, and for doing certain high risks jobs were someones life is at stake then why not for parenting?
How come there is no license to be a parent? isnt that something that she have just a few more strictures then if you know how to operate a fork lift correctly?
just makes sense to me


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 12, 2007)

krickitat said:


> I say that if a woman get pregnant and choses to have an abortion there should be a waiting period then the man has a week to respond or not.
> Then if he has seious cause to want the child to live he should have to take it to court.
> It would of course need to work fast but if the guy really wants his child shouldnt he have to take that extra effort?
> Then it WOULD be seen as a case by case basis giving the mother a chance herself to state why a child is just not possible.



I'll say it again since no one has really countered the argument.

If he wants a child badly enough to go to court and sue about it, why not just FIND A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO HAVE HIS CHILD.

What this law boils down to is this.

*Man wants an abortion, woman doesn't:*

Man:  This is what I want for your body
Woman:  This is what I want for my body, too bad

Conclusion:  man is overridden, woman has control over her body


*Woman wants an abortion, man doesn't:*

Woman:  This is what I want for my body
Man:  This is what I want for your body, too bad

Conclusion:  woman is overridden, man has control over her body

Thats not right, thats never right.  You can't write a law that lets one person regulate the body of another regardless of their wishes.


----------



## muishot (Aug 12, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> Jam (Preview)
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I wonder where are the women rights activists?  This bill is so sexist that it'll effectively bring our country backward 50 something years.  Then all the progress that we made about women's rights are all for not.  If some of those supporters of this bill are women then all I have to say that they are so stupid to be manipulated into supporting such a sexist legislation that have a hidden agenda of limiting women's rights.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 12, 2007)

yes and as a woman i agree with you 
i would hate to think that someone would make that decision for me

then again it would never be an option because for me any child would be wanted. then again i practice obsessively safe sex, im not christian or uptight i just am not dumb.

there is honestly NO REASON why a woman should have unwanted pregnancies anymore. ESPECIALLY not in one night stands.

you want to know what the 72 hour pill is? its just three doses of your regular contraceptive. you dont need to call a hotline or worry about finding a pharmacy in your town thats allowed to sell it.

I am pro-choice, i would never want a woman to have her choices taken away from her.

BUT i also think that women have become far to permissive, abortion has become the first answer instead of the last answer. despite this country trying to teach safe sex the efforts haven't done well enough because people are just to damn ignorant


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 13, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> I'll say it again since no one has really countered the argument.



I refuted the argument. You refuse to admit defeat.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> If he wants a child badly enough to go to court and sue about it, why not just FIND A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO HAVE HIS CHILD.



How do you know the woman he got pregnant didn't tell him that she wanted to get pregnant, have his child, and then demanded an abortion after getting pregnant? Her wanting to or not wanting to is irrelevant. The fact is that she got pregnant, thus a child was created. The father has every right to protect that life if he wants the child to be born. The woman has no right to say that the life should be terminated. Believe it! It is the father's child, and a woman cannot kill someone else's child in America. You need to wake up from this fantasy land that you live in and get a grip on reality.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> What this law boils down to is this.
> 
> Man wants an abortion, woman doesn't:
> 
> ...



Correction. Man: This is what I want for the thing growing inside you.
Woman: This is what I want for our child.

Mother and child win, man must pay child-support for 18 years. Man has no control over his paychecks.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Woman wants an abortion, man doesn't:
> 
> Woman: This is what I want for my body
> Man: This is what I want for your body, too bad
> ...



Correction. Woman: This is what I want for the thing growing inside me.
Man: This is what I want for our child.

Father and child win, woman must endure pregnancy and child birth and must pay child support for 18 years. Woman has no control over child's body.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Thats not right, thats never right. You can't write a law that lets one person regulate the body of another regardless of their wishes.



Ha ha ha!!! In that case we must abolish abortion and Roe v Wade, since it allows the woman to regulate the body of another regardless of his or her wishes.

How can you say this isn't right? It is equal rights for equal people who are equal parents. You cannot just take away the man's right to his child. What are you some kind of sexist feminazi?



			
				muishot said:
			
		

> I wonder where are the women rights activists? This bill is so sexist that it'll effectively bring our country backward 50 something years.



Things were better 50 years ago. Unborn babies were respected as life.



			
				muishot said:
			
		

> Then all the progress that we made about women's rights are all for not.



Women are not losing any rights because of this bill. Women will not lose any other rights that they have earned over the years.



			
				muishot said:
			
		

> If some of those supporters of this bill are women then all I have to say that they are so stupid to be manipulated into supporting such a sexist legislation that have a hidden agenda of limiting women's rights.



That's crap. This is giving equal rights to fathers and it is giving unborn children a better chance at life. Women don't have the right to kill innocent life.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> yes and as a woman i agree with you
> i would hate to think that someone would make that decision for me



The decision to either kill life or preserve it? Funny, most women would not want to have to make that decision.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> then again it would never be an option because for me any child would be wanted. then again i practice obsessively safe sex, im not christian or uptight i just am not dumb.



Why would any child be wanted? What makes you say that before you have actually been pregant or had kids?



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> there is honestly NO REASON why a woman should have unwanted pregnancies anymore. ESPECIALLY not in one night stands.



Correct, but they still happen because some women are stupid and they get pregnant anyway. Perhaps forcing them to carry the child and give birth will teach them not to be dumb the next time.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> I am pro-choice, i would never want a woman to have her choices taken away from her.



Women should not have the choice to kill an unborn child unless it threatens their life. Besides, this bill is not taking away a woman's choice, it is merely sharing it with the man in order to make things equal.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> BUT i also think that women have become far to permissive, abortion has become the first answer instead of the last answer. despite this country trying to teach safe sex the efforts haven't done well enough because people are just to damn ignorant



And you want them to stay ignorant by allowing them to avoid the consequences of their mistakes.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 13, 2007)

ITT BI showing that he will never have a girl.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Besides, this bill is taking away a woman's choice, as it is giving men the authority of women instead of allowing the couple to make an agreement together that they both accept



fixed



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Correct, but they still happen because some women are stupid and they get pregnant anyway.



BI has a point here.

All it takes is a condom or, god forbid, being on the pill. Yes, it isn't that difficult. A small little pill that you need to take once a day. Not hard.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> That's crap. This is giving equal rights to fathers and it is giving unborn children a better chance at life. Women don't have the right to kill innocent life.


Is your logic so fucking deluded that you believe that?

The man has the FINAL say. It isn't equal, the advantage is in the man's side of things.



			
				Believe It! said:
			
		

> Correction. Woman: This is what I want for the thing growing inside me.
> Man: This is what I want for our child.
> 
> Father and child win, woman must endure pregnancy and child birth and must pay child support for 18 years. Woman has no control over child's body, or their own body for that matter.


Fixed


----------



## Toby (Aug 13, 2007)

Believe It, the fact that you will not address your sources' absolute lack of constructive argument is just fuelling my fire. 

I supplied proper sources for information whilst you couldn't even get anything else but a set of educational videos hosted by religious causes' websites to augment your argument, ironically enough this deteriorated it to mush.

And you have not countered Tsukiyomi's argument because you still won't just accept that there is no such thing as a father's true right to protect life. There is no such right, no such law, and this bill is the only thing reminiscent of it, and even it won't grant father's that right. It simply gives them the right to decide whether the child will live or not. That is so separate from abortion that it is half-assed to say that this is anything but a biased and half-assed solution trying to compromise on an issue where conservatives just won't give up the one view they have fostered in the U.S.

Look to any other model democratic state in the world ie Britain or any Scandinavian nation and you'll see what conservatives have come to agree upon.


----------



## muishot (Aug 13, 2007)

Believe It, your argument on how precious a human life is and that is why you support this bill that gives the father a final say WHETHER THE BABY LIVE OR DIE".  Can you see the irony in your "logic"?  This bill simply take the decision over a life away from a woman and put it in the hands of a man.  

Forget about the equal right or women right for now, let predict whether this bill will save or kill more lives?  I say more lives will be kill because many men don't want to have baby unless the absolutely want to.  Like you said, we don't want to pay child support.  In terms of love for the unborn child, who would love that child more a mother who carry it within her body or a father who has no attachment to it and doesn't want to pay child support?


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 13, 2007)

Believe It!, you are unbelievably sexist. Whether or not the woman wants the kid, she has to have it?

I think you need to visit a shrink. Did a girl bully you in elementary school, and are you now afraid of all of them? What ever it is, you have no respect for women and need to get over it.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 13, 2007)

according to most religion isnt the ideology that most babies dont have souls until they are born and shriven?
I thought all babies went to purgatory or hell depending on the sins of the parents if it died if it isnt baptized before it dies

that kinda for me negates all of BIs arguments

again i say...he needs to come up with something better if he is going to convince me. for whatever religious text he finds anyone here can find one to negate that so its absolutely worthless 
we have all been saying that


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 13, 2007)

Any person who tries to use religion as an excuse to do anything besides worship deserves to have their dick/vagina removed.

Really, they're the dumbest people on Earth. Religion is a set of beliefs, not a reason to do anything.


----------



## That NOS Guy (Aug 13, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:


> Any person who tries to use religion as an excuse to do anything besides worship deserves to have their dick/vagina removed.
> 
> Really, they're the dumbest people on Earth. Religion is a set of beliefs, not a reason to do anything.



What's the point of beliefs if you don't act on them?


----------



## Draffut (Aug 13, 2007)

Point set and match NOS  



Tsukiyomi said:


> I'll say it again since no one has really countered the argument.
> 
> If he wants a child badly enough to go to court and sue about it, why not just FIND A WOMAN WHO WANTS TO HAVE HIS CHILD.



Good call, i'm just going to walk down the street saying "hey ladies, who wants a baby and will promise to sign this binding contract here saying you will not change your mind later and kill my potential child?"

It's not always as easy as you seam to believe.



> What this law boils down to is this.
> 
> *Man wants an abortion, woman doesn't:*
> 
> ...



Woman has control of the baby inside of her.  The man should have accepted this possibility when he had sex.  Child goes with Mother, and Father pays child support.



> *Woman wants an abortion, man doesn't:*
> 
> Woman:  This is what I want for my body
> Man:  This is what I want for your body, too bad
> ...



The man has control of the baby inside of her.  The baby itself is as much his as hers.  She should have accepted this possibility when he had sex.  THough in this case, having to carry a child for 9 months is enough, and I believe proceeding to force her to pay child support would be ludicris.  Child goes with father, and thats that.  



> Thats not right, thats never right.  You can't write a law that lets one person regulate the body of another regardless of their wishes.



It's simple cause and effect, and understanding consequences.  You have sex without the proper defenses against accidental pregnancy (Which as someone said above, isn't hard anymore), you take the burdon of having to carry the child.  The child which is as much the man's as the womans.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 13, 2007)

this convo is so hard because you can see the validity of both points 

i dont think it should be so very arbitrary that a woman has to have a father sign off on any abortion but i do think that if the father has a real problem (which most dont) with the idea then he should be able to petition

come on its not like birth control isnt alost solely controlled byt the woman

you play you pay...they KNEW when they had unprotected sex that pregnancy was a large factor. thats the POINT of sex thats all its FOR in the first place. I just think that women cant take a stance of irresponsiblity in this 

no one is going to make them raise an unwanted child
i go back to the idea that if a guy really is willing to fight for it then he should be able to take it to court.


----------



## Draffut (Aug 13, 2007)

I like the court idea, but court always moves slow, and one side could easily delay everything until it is to late.  The woman could easily go get the abortion while the courts squable over it, and the clinic claim ignorance.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 13, 2007)

Draffut said:


> Good call, i'm just going to walk down the street saying "hey ladies, who wants a baby and will promise to sign this binding contract here saying you will not change your mind later and kill my potential child?"
> 
> It's not always as easy as you seam to believe.



I see, I'm sorry you're right.  "Hey baby, I know I got you a little tipsy last night so you had sex with me because you weren't in the right of mind, but not quite drunk enough to constitute rape, but guess what!  I'm going to force you to have my baby even though you don't want to".

Thats a much better scenario.

If a man can't find a woman out of all the billions in the world willing to date him and have his child, then thats entirely his own issue.



Draffut said:


> Woman has control of the baby inside of her.  The man should have accepted this possibility when he had sex.  Child goes with Mother, and Father pays child support.
> 
> The man has control of the baby inside of her.  *The baby itself is as much his as hers.*  She should have accepted this possibility when he had sex.  THough in this case, having to carry a child for 9 months is enough, and I believe proceeding to force her to pay child support would be ludicris.  Child goes with father, and thats that.



Is it?  Because last I checked until it comes out of her its still attached to her body, feeding off her natural resources, using her immune system and is in essence a part of her body.  Sounds like until its born its more hers than his.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 13, 2007)

That NOS Guy said:


> What's the point of beliefs if you don't act on them?



Well, let me reword a bit, my original statement was a little faulty. Religion shouldn't be used as an excuse to do something, or used as evidence. If you really believe in something, back in up with more than "the Bible/Quran/Etc. say so"


----------



## Draffut (Aug 13, 2007)

I have lived in Panama City, FL for the last 3 years and seen the shit that goes on during Spring Break far to much.  But tell you what, if they arn't taking 72 hour pills, or mornign after pills, or if they are drinking themselves to that degree with no defense against pregnancy going on, then the man should not be held responsible for that.  

Beyond this, how many men that are going to get you pregnant on a one night stand, sloppy drunk, are goign to insist on having the child.  Almost all will wish to be out of your life before a pregnancy test can even be taken, never to be heard from again.  Now I dont follow this law fully (In this case, the female should not need the man's support, or have to submit this list BS the law mentioned)

And the small percentage that would stay, I highly doubt would wish for some responsibility ofthat level to come out of it.  So we have a very small percentage of pregancies concieved tha way, where the man would even want to keep the child, minus all the ones that are prevented by the females.  You are left with a remotly small number of women who would be left in this predicament, which I can say, is nothing more then thier own fault.

AS for the second part of your post, even if it is more hers then his, as you tryign to insinuate that he has no claim over his own progency at all?  we'll say it's 80% her's then, whatever.  it's still partially his own, and being able to kill it without his consent is beyond me.  If the child actually poses any sort of harm to her, that is a given, as it is no longer in his hands.  But unless the females wellbeing is at risk, I dont see the problem with letting a father have say over if hiw own child is killed or not.

(Pardon my grammar, spelling, any typo's.  I am posting in a small trailer in the middle of baghdad, with little light, on a crappt laptop.  Hard to fully pay attention or see what I am doing.)


----------



## Kyo no danna (Aug 13, 2007)

Believe it!, your arguments for an incredibly Byzantine system to protect unborn lives have convinced me. However, I still saw some loopholes! Let me close them for you so there can never be a murder of an unborn child again!

So first, of course, abortion would be banned. Those white Protestant males had it right in the mid-1800's when they decided that abortion should be illegal so the damned Catholic immigrants that were flooding the country could not pop out more babies than the people who were here first. But they did not realize the true purpose of banning abortion- saving countless unborn lives in a time when there was no reliable form of birth control besides abstaining (and anyway it's not like the one purpose of our species is to propagate, and all those unsavory biological urges can be cleansed with enough time in church!).

Then we would have to start investigating miscarriages. We would have to interrogate women who came into hospitals with miscarriages to make sure that they were not deliberately caused- we'd have to especially insure that accident caused miscarriages were truly accidental- no more throwing oneself down the stairs for the little sluts who can't keep their pants on! We could set up special training for counselors who saw women who miscarried- first comforting them, then slowly becoming more and more invasive as the session went on, questioning them about how their miscarriage happened so we could be sure that there was no deliberate cause of it.

But then women might stop coming to the hospital in the case of a miscarriage because of the emotional trauma, so it would be necessary to make not coming to hospital a felony if a woman suspected that she was having a miscarriage or had had one.

But then women who didn't want children would just induce miscarriage at home in the early stages of pregnancy without ever going to a doctor. So then we would have to make it necessary for every woman to have to go to a gynecologist at regular intervals. A month is too much time; a unwanted pregnancy might be ended in that time without notice, so every week would be the best. Every week, a woman would go to the doctor and take a pregnancy test. If a woman's test one week was positive, and the next was negative, and she had not gone to the hospital to report a miscarriage, she would be arrested.

Of course, when unsafe and illegal abortions are preformed, death often occurred; in the pre- Roe v. Wade days, up to one out of every five illegal abortions ended in death of the mother, and today up to 13% of maternal deaths are probably caused by unsafe abortions. So if a pregnant woman died, it would be necessary to make sure it was not the result of an illegal abortion, and if it was to fine the grieving family and to track down the doctor, nurse, or person who preformed the abortion if it was not self preformed. If they were a doctor, their degree would be stripped, and no matter what their profession, they would be sentenced to jail.

This regime would have to start at menstruation, so that teenagers could claim not to have gotten their period yet and conceal abortions that way. So it would be necessary to make concealing menstruation a crime.

Meanwhile teenagers would be taught only to abstain from sex until marriage. Minors caught having sex would be fined and humiliated.

Also, women might leave the country to have an abortion, so at airports leaving for international flights, a pregnancy test would have to be administered, and if a woman was pregnant she could not leave the country if her destination was a country where abortion was legal. Unfortunately, Believe it!, your idea of monitoring women's weight gain/loss is juvenile at best. Most abortions are preformed before the woman even starts to show. And women might conceivably lose a considerable amount of weight in a foreign country- for example if the water or food is bad, they might catch a virus that leaves them many pounds lighter from constant vomiting. If a woman came back after a long amount of time, she would be examined for signs of anything but a penis entering her vagina, and if found she would be questioned until sufficient explanation was attained.

Of course, this would probably lead to a huge increase in children left in foster care, but as we all know, foster care is perfect, not at all overloaded or filled with people who prey on children, right?

Believe it, if you found yourself agreeing with any of this past, oh... let's see, the second paragraph, you're an utter monster with no regard for a woman's privacy. I was sickened by myself as I wrote this.

Wake up. No matter how much you do to trap women into unwanted pregnancies, they will always find a way to get an abortion, legally or not. They have a lot more invested in their own lives than you do in some ridiculous ideal. You are so short sighted and ignorant of what it means to be a woman faced with a pregnancy that will literally ruin her life that I almost feel sorry for you. Almost. I do, in fact, feel sorry for any woman who ends up married to you, because I don't believe anyone, no matter how much I dislike or even hate them, deserves to be shackled to you until death.


grammar

grammar
grammar
grammar
grammar

here



Some sources on therapeutic and unsafe abortions, why abortions happen, and other related subjects. Enjoy.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 13, 2007)

Kyo no danna said:


> Believe it!, your arguments for an incredibly Byzantine system to protect unborn lives have convinced me. However, I still saw some loopholes! Let me close them for you so there can never be a murder of an unborn child again!
> 
> So first, of course, abortion would be banned. Those white Protestant males had it right in the mid-1800's when they decided that abortion should be illegal so the damned Catholic immigrants that were flooding the country could not pop out more babies than the people who were here first. But they did not realize the true purpose of banning abortion- saving countless unborn lives in a time when there was no reliable form of birth control besides abstaining (and anyway it's not like the one purpose of our species is to propagate, and all those unsavory biological urges can be cleansed with enough time in church!).
> 
> ...


----------



## muishot (Aug 13, 2007)

Kyo no danna said:


> Believe it!, your arguments for an incredibly Byzantine system to protect unborn lives have convinced me. However, I still saw some loopholes! Let me close them for you so there can never be a murder of an unborn child again!
> 
> So first, of course, abortion would be banned. Those white Protestant males had it right in the mid-1800's when they decided that abortion should be illegal so the damned Catholic immigrants that were flooding the country could not pop out more babies than the people who were here first. But they did not realize the true purpose of banning abortion- saving countless unborn lives in a time when there was no reliable form of birth control besides abstaining (and anyway it's not like the one purpose of our species is to propagate, and all those unsavory biological urges can be cleansed with enough time in church!).
> 
> ...



Wow.  That is one hell of a system we might have to impose?


----------



## forkandspoon (Aug 13, 2007)

If the man can has a say in it, I think possible guardians should have a say in it too, like the pregnant woman's parents, or the fathers parents, maybe even the brothers and sisters of the would be parents.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 13, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Believe It, the fact that you will not address your sources' absolute lack of constructive argument is just fuelling my fire.



Your opinion that they lack an argument is not fact. It is delusion that you use to avoid answering to the content of the videos.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I supplied proper sources for information



Information to an irrelevant subject that I never asked you about. You fail.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> whilst you couldn't even get anything else but a set of educational videos hosted by religious causes' websites to augment your argument, ironically enough this deteriorated it to mush.



My argument is that abortion is a barbaric process that attacks the baby's body, not the woman's, and that it affects the child negatively. The videos prove that. Your anti-religious, anti-Christian, anti-God attitude does not refute the content of the videos. Your baseless accusations that the videos were made by religious people for religious purposes are irrelevant. Just because the site they are hosted on has verses from the Bible does not invalidate the scientific proof and medical information presented in the videos.

You are using an ad homminid attack against these videos. You are bashing religion and the source of these videos rather than refuting the true information presented in the videos. You are wrong for doing so, you cannot refute my argument or my proof, and you cannot win because you are wrong on this issue.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> And you have not countered Tsukiyomi's argument because you still won't just accept that there is no such thing as a father's true right to protect life.



There was no such thing as a woman's right to kill life, but you are all too willing to protect that. Fathers do have the right to protect their children, but the abortion laws take this right away from fathers by revoking it in the case that the child is still in the womb rather than outside of it.

Tsukiyomi's argument is that a father is SOL if he and a woman create a child willingly and then the woman changes her mind and decides she wants to abort the father's child. The solution to this? For the man to find a woman who won't do this, but what about his existing child, and what about the fact that he thought he had found a woman who was willing to give birth to his child? Tsu's entire argument is messed up and that's because his mindset is backward and queer.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> There is no such right, no such law, and this bill is the only thing reminiscent of it, and even it won't grant father's that right.



Well then you have not read the bill, because that is exactly what the bill protects.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> It simply gives them the right to decide whether the child will live or not.



No, it protects their right to protect their child's life. It also gives them the right to agree with the woman in getting an abortion.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> That is so separate from abortion that it is half-assed to say that this is anything but a biased and half-assed solution trying to compromise on an issue where conservatives just won't give up the one view they have fostered in the U.S.



Well now you're disconnecting from reality again, because this bill goes hand in hand with the abortion issue and parental responsibility.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Look to any other model democratic state in the world ie Britain or any Scandinavian nation and you'll see what conservatives have come to agree upon.



Those are not models of democracy, which tells me that you have disconnected from reality once again. So I will say goodbye and let you go back to la-la land where nonsense is law and God does not exist.



			
				muishot said:
			
		

> Believe It, your argument on how precious a human life is and that is why you support this bill that gives the father a final say WHETHER THE BABY LIVE OR DIE". Can you see the irony in your "logic"? This bill simply take the decision over a life away from a woman and put it in the hands of a man.



No, it puts the decision over the child's life in BOTH the hands of the woman and the man. This bill makes things fair for both parents and bring equality to the situation. Are you trying to say that men are not equal to women?



			
				muishot said:
			
		

> Forget about the equal right or women right for now, let predict whether this bill will save or kill more lives? I say more lives will be kill because many men don't want to have baby unless the absolutely want to.



Wrong. That only means that the SAME number of lives will be lost, since the man's say on abortion only comes if the woman wants to have an abortion as well. Well, if the woman wants abortion now, she gets it. Therefore the addition of a man's ability to preserve the child's life will only have a decreasing effect on the number of abortions, since some men would choose to preserve the child's life rather than agree with the woman in aborting the child.



			
				muishot said:
			
		

> Like you said, we don't want to pay child support. In terms of love for the unborn child, who would love that child more a mother who carry it within her body or a father who has no attachment to it and doesn't want to pay child support?



Obviously the mother. But in that case the child would be born and the father would still be forced to pay child support. The man cannot force the abortion on the mother who wants to have the baby. He can only prevent one if the woman wants the abortion. So this works well for the unborn children, since many fathers would want the child to live even if the woman wants the abortion. Therefore it saves more lives.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> Believe It!, you are unbelievably sexist. Whether or not the woman wants the kid, she has to have it?



Yes, father's should have a say in whether their child lives or dies. How terribly sexist of me to want equal rights for fathers.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> I think you need to visit a shrink. Did a girl bully you in elementary school, and are you now afraid of all of them? What ever it is, you have no respect for women and need to get over it.



You have no respect for women. You want to force a massive burden on them. You want them to be the only ones to decide in whether a child lives or dies, and you would have them bear the burden alone. I want fathers to share that burden with the women and help them in making the choice. I want fathers to have the right to protect their child's life be applied to their unborn children. You are the sexist moron here. You want fathers to have no say in their own children's lives.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> according to most religion isnt the ideology that most babies dont have souls until they are born and shriven?



I don't know about religions, but Christianity says they have a soul when they are conceived. In fact, it states that God knew all of us before we were even formed in the womb.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> I thought all babies went to purgatory or hell depending on the sins of the parents if it died if it isnt baptized before it dies



Nah you're getting into those crazy Catholic beliefs that are not based on anything scriptural.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> that kinda for me negates all of BIs arguments



Why does an irrelevant religion that I have no part of negate any of my arguments which are all completely secular?



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> again i say...he needs to come up with something better if he is going to convince me.



How about the fact that fathers have a right to protect the lives of their children? How about the fact that unborn babies show life signs even at the most basic form of fetal development? How about the fact that woman have a massive burden placed on them by the pro-abortion laws that place full responsibility on them? I have no made a single religious or faith-based argument against abortion or in favor of this law. The fact that you think I did only proves that you have not read my posts and that you have allowed Toby to brainwash and fool you into thinking that I did. Please wise up and read things for yourself. If none of my actual arguments convince you, then I challenge you to quote them and tell me why they don't.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> for whatever religious text he finds anyone here can find one to negate that so its absolutely worthless
> we have all been saying that



Again, I have not used any religious texts.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> Any person who tries to use religion as an excuse to do anything besides worship deserves to have their dick/vagina removed.



So our founding fathers should have been castrated for creating laws based on the Bible's Ten Commandments of thou shalt not murder, thou shalt steal, etc.?



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> The man has control of the baby inside of her. The baby itself is as much his as hers. She should have accepted this possibility when he had sex. THough in this case, having to carry a child for 9 months is enough, and I believe proceeding to force her to pay child support would be ludicris. Child goes with father, and thats that.



Why is that? Why should the child have to go without child support from the mother? Why should the child suffer? I say the woman should have to pay child support just as the man would have had to.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> I see, I'm sorry you're right. "Hey baby, I know I got you a little tipsy last night so you had sex with me because you weren't in the right of mind, but not quite drunk enough to constitute rape, but guess what! I'm going to force you to have my baby even though you don't want to".
> 
> Thats a much better scenario.



And why would a guy want to do that? If he does then he will be forced to pay child support for 18 years. Your argument makes no sense at all.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 13, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> If a man can't find a woman out of all the billions in the world willing to date him and have his child, then thats entirely his own issue.



According to you, so is his finding one that wants to then changes her mind after getting pregnant. How is that fair?



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Is it? Because last I checked until it comes out of her its still attached to her body



The child is attached through the umbilical cord but that does not mean that the child is a part of the woman's body. In fact, even after the child comes out he or she is still attached to the mother. Nothing changes in the baby between the time of being inside the woman or out except for how he or she is viewed by the government.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> feeding off her natural resources, using her immune system and is in essence a part of her body.



Well at least you don't make the false claim that the child is a part of her body. You have to say "in essence", but you're still wrong. The child has his or her own immune system along with the fluid that surrounds him or her in the womb. The child does get nutrition from the mother but that does not detract from her own health since the food she eats also nourishes her body. Also, if the mother's body dies the child's body will continue to live for a short time. This is proof that the woman's body and the child's body are separate lives.



			
				Tsukiyomi said:
			
		

> Sounds like until its born its more hers than his.



The child is half of his genetic material, therefore the parents have equal rights.



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> Beyond this, how many men that are going to get you pregnant on a one night stand, sloppy drunk, are goign to insist on having the child. Almost all will wish to be out of your life before a pregnancy test can even be taken, never to be heard from again. Now I dont follow this law fully (In this case, the female should not need the man's support, or have to submit this list BS the law mentioned)



That is the best thing about this law. No father, no abortion. Period. This is great because the stupid drunk slut will be forced to give birth. That will teach her not to be a stupid drunk slut the next time. But you let her get an abortion and she learns nothing. Besides, it isn't like she will be forced to raise the child as well. She would still be able to put the kid up for adoption.



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> You are left with a remotly small number of women who would be left in this predicament, which I can say, is nothing more then thier own fault.



Correct. I hope your argument convinces these illogical liberals, though I doubt it will. They don't pay attention to arguments that make sense. Believe it!



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> But unless the females wellbeing is at risk, I dont see the problem with letting a father have say over if hiw own child is killed or not.



Well the problem they have is that stupid drunk sluts would not be able to continue to be stupid drunk sluts without facing the consequences of being stupid drunk sluts.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Believe it!, your arguments for an incredibly Byzantine system to protect unborn lives have convinced me. However, I still saw some loopholes! Let me close them for you so there can never be a murder of an unborn child again!
> 
> So first, of course, abortion would be banned. Those white Protestant males had it right in the mid-1800's when they decided that abortion should be illegal so the damned Catholic immigrants that were flooding the country could not pop out more babies than the people who were here first.



Stop with the lame attempt at being clever. No one is entertained by it. You couldn't be witty if you tried. So just post your concerns or disagreements and stop wasting time.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Then we would have to start investigating miscarriages. We would have to interrogate women who came into hospitals with miscarriages to make sure that they were not deliberately caused-



That is already done, and it isn't through interrogation. It is through medical diagnosis. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> we'd have to especially insure that accident caused miscarriages were truly accidental- no more throwing oneself down the stairs for the little sluts who can't keep their pants on!



That is also done to ensure that there was no domestic violence involved. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> But then women might stop coming to the hospital in the case of a miscarriage because of the emotional trauma, so it would be necessary to make not coming to hospital a felony if a woman suspected that she was having a miscarriage or had had one.



Women who have nothing to worry about will go to the hospital to get treated for their injuries. Those who do have something to worry about won't throw themselves down the steps in the first place because they know that going to the hospital in that case is out of the question. So your point is moot.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> But then women who didn't want children would just induce miscarriage at home in the early stages of pregnancy without ever going to a doctor.



In which case the father could just rat them out if they are mad enough about it, or if the induction of miscarriage causes damage on the woman she will have to go to the hospital to be treated. Most self-induced miscarriages result in fatal injuries. So whether they bleed internally or go to the hospital where it is found that they killed their child and then get sent to prison or are executed, justice is served. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> So then we would have to make it necessary for every woman to have to go to a gynecologist at regular intervals.



Stupid and unneeded policy, and here you are just trying to take things to the extreme in an attempt to set up a strawman. Moving on.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Of course, when unsafe and illegal abortions are preformed, death often occurred; in the pre- Roe v. Wade days, up to one out of every five illegal abortions ended in death of the mother, and today up to 13% of maternal deaths are probably caused by unsafe abortions.



An insignificant number compared to the number of aborted babies since Roe v Wade. More lives are preserved than lost, therefore it is the better law. The woman dying from the illegal abortion gets what she deserves. This death also serves as evidence convicting the doctor who performed the abortion illegally. Thus it leads to the capture and conviction of the doctor, who is charged with double homicide. This fact will deter doctors from taking the risk. The cost of getting an abortion compared to simply have the child will prevent a black market from forming. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> So if a pregnant woman died, it would be necessary to make sure it was not the result of an illegal abortion, and if it was to fine the grieving family and to track down the doctor, nurse, or person who preformed the abortion if it was not self preformed.



An autopsy would tell if it was self preformed or done with medical instruments by someone else. The family wouldn't be fined unless they had a hand in the abortion. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> If they were a doctor, their degree would be stripped, and no matter what their profession, they would be sentenced to jail.



Or death depending on the state's capital punishment laws. Real doctors would never take the risk. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> This regime would have to start at menstruation, so that teenagers could claim not to have gotten their period yet and conceal abortions that way. So it would be necessary to make concealing menstruation a crime.



Stupid idea. Stop with the strawmen.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Meanwhile teenagers would be taught only to abstain from sex until marriage. Minors caught having sex would be fined and humiliated.



No, just sentenced to a number of hours of community service as well as mandatory classes teaching abstinence as well as what it means to be a parent. Possibly some short jail time as well, in which they do nothing but study their school subjects from their cells.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Also, women might leave the country to have an abortion, so at airports leaving for international flights, a pregnancy test would have to be administered, and if a woman was pregnant she could not leave the country if her destination was a country where abortion was legal.



No, she should have an updated medical file along with her passport to state if she is pregnant or not along with her general health conditions before traveling to another country. This ensures her health and well being in the other country as well as ensures that she is not carrying some kind of sickness to another country. Of course the health thing should apply to men as well. Next.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, Believe it!, your idea of monitoring women's weight gain/loss is juvenile at best. Most abortions are preformed before the woman even starts to show.



Which is why I had presented the idea of medical information being included with passport info.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> And women might conceivably lose a considerable amount of weight in a foreign country- for example if the water or food is bad, they might catch a virus that leaves them many pounds lighter from constant vomiting.



Everyone knows there is a difference between fat and pregnant. No strawmen.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> If a woman came back after a long amount of time, she would be examined for signs of anything but a penis entering her vagina, and if found she would be questioned until sufficient explanation was attained.



No, she would just have to confirm with her doctor that she was still pregnant with the same child. If returning after the remaining months have passed then she would have to prove that the child is alive and well.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 13, 2007)

Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Of course, this would probably lead to a huge increase in children left in foster care, but as we all know, foster care is perfect, not at all overloaded or filled with people who prey on children, right?



No, foster care needs to be improved, especially for when abortion is finally banned again.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Believe it, if you found yourself agreeing with any of this past, oh... let's see, the second paragraph, you're an utter monster with no regard for a woman's privacy. I was sickened by myself as I wrote this.



Well you should be, since most of what you wrote was garbage or strawmen.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Wake up. No matter how much you do to trap women into unwanted pregnancies



They trap themselves in unwanted pregnancies. I only hold them accountable for their actions.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> they will always find a way to get an abortion, legally or not.



Then they will be punished to the full extent of the law! Believe it!



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> They have a lot more invested in their own lives than you do in some ridiculous ideal.



In that case they should do well not to have unprotected sex.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> You are so short sighted and ignorant of what it means to be a woman faced with a pregnancy that will literally ruin her life that I almost feel sorry for you.



Well don't, because I am the one who sees every aspect. You are the one who is too incompetent and blind to realize the truth of the issue, which is that the woman created a life and that she has no right to kill that life except if giving birth will definitely claim her life.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Almost. I do, in fact, feel sorry for any woman who ends up married to you, because I don't believe anyone, no matter how much I dislike or even hate them, deserves to be shackled to you until death.



Rest assured the woman I marry will be a REAL woman and a real lady, not a stupid drunk slut that thinks it is okay to screw around and then kill innocent life to avoid the consequences of her reckless actions.



			
				Kyo no danna said:
			
		

> Some sources on therapeutic and unsafe abortions, why abortions happen, and other related subjects. Enjoy.



I did, especially since they all prove you wrong. Therapeutic abortions are done to save the life of the mother, yet the source states that these types of abortions are extremely rare. Almost all abortions in the U.S. are elective, meaning they are done simply because the woman does not want to carry the child or give birth. They do it for no reason other than selfishness.

So thanks for hindering your own stupid argument.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 13, 2007)

Those two posts were utter fail. You have really shown what a dumb, ignorant, conservative fool you are BI. You don't see the whole thing, all you see is bullshit your own mind has made up.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 14, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> They do it for no reason other than selfishness.



Prove it, unless you're capable of mind reading, you don't know why they do it. So shut the fuck up mmk?


----------



## se7venF0LD (Aug 14, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:


> Those two posts were utter fail. You have really shown what a dumb, ignorant, conservative fool you are BI. You don't see the whole thing, all you see is bullshit your own mind has made up.


surprised you didn't say neocon


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 14, 2007)

Draffut said:


> I have lived in Panama City, FL for the last 3 years and seen the shit that goes on during Spring Break far to much.  But tell you what, if they arn't taking 72 hour pills, or mornign after pills, or if they are drinking themselves to that degree with no defense against pregnancy going on, then the man should not be held responsible for that.



Thats kind of bullshit reasoning.  In a lot of areas its almost impossible for a woman to get her hands on the morning after pill.  Some pharmacies refuse to dispense them, some doctors refuse to give that kind of stuff out (even in cases of rape).

I fail to see how getting taken advantage of while you're drunk grants someone else the right to FORCE you to have their child.  Because make no mistake, these men would be FORCING these women to bear their children.



Draffut said:


> Beyond this, how many men that are going to get you pregnant on a one night stand, sloppy drunk, are goign to insist on having the child.  Almost all will wish to be out of your life before a pregnancy test can even be taken, never to be heard from again.  Now I dont follow this law fully (In this case, the female should not need the man's support, or have to submit this list BS the law mentioned)



Probably not that many, but there WILL be men who do this.  Suppose a man is obsessed with a woman, and finally gets a chance to take advantage of her while she's drunk at a party or something.  You can bet your ass he would force her to have the child, it would allow him control over her.



Draffut said:


> And the small percentage that would stay, I highly doubt would wish for some responsibility ofthat level to come out of it.  So we have a very small percentage of pregancies concieved tha way, where the man would even want to keep the child, minus all the ones that are prevented by the females.  You are left with a remotly small number of women who would be left in this predicament, which I can say, is nothing more then thier own fault.



Nothing more than their own fault?  Awesome reasoning.

"Its your fault, so I'm going to force you to bear my child against your will, good luck sweetie."



Draffut said:


> AS for the second part of your post, even if it is more hers then his, as you tryign to insinuate that he has no claim over his own progency at all?  we'll say it's 80% her's then, whatever.  it's still partially his own, and being able to kill it without his consent is beyond me.  If the child actually poses any sort of harm to her, that is a given, as it is no longer in his hands.  But unless the females wellbeing is at risk, I dont see the problem with letting a father have say over if hiw own child is killed or not.



Nope, until its out of her body he has no claim to it.  Once its born its his child, until that point its effectively a part of her body.

Its the equivalent of if he donated a kidney to her.  The kidney is in her body, its hers.  He can't suddenly demand it back.  The baby is effectively a part of her body and until that is not the case he doesn't have any real claim to it.


----------



## se7venF0LD (Aug 14, 2007)

I can never watch Inuyasha with a straight face again


----------



## Draffut (Aug 14, 2007)

TIme constraints make my post brief, but here it is.

Believe it.  I do not agree with you on just about anything.  I am very much pro-choice (in first trimester)  I do not agree with 90% of the shit you spew, so please do not lump me in with your crazy baseless ideaologies.  ANd the things you seam to agree with me on are for a compeltely different and retardedly radical reason.

Thats about it for now.


----------



## Revenge (Aug 14, 2007)

Hmmm. It's true that men should get some say in the matter - But women should also be allowed to have a say
After all, it's the women having the baby - Not the men.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 14, 2007)

i almost just now said something really horrible but i didnt *sigh* i have alot of self constraint i hope people appreciate that 

bob saget has alot of really dirty jokes if you ever really listen to him

and draffut...i have decided to make it my life goal to have your babies whether you agree or not.
I will get your seed my precious, there will be no stopping me


----------



## drache (Aug 14, 2007)

as this has gotten into beliefs more commonly held by the religious right and by certain religions in general, I thought I would give you all the history of abortion in the Christian Church, abridged.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 14, 2007)

You fuck a man: He owns you.


----------



## Cel3stial (Aug 14, 2007)

Our sperm..our say...I guess thats how it goes there....


----------



## Toby (Aug 14, 2007)

Since nothing new has come to this debate, I call that it is closed, and especially because of the ad hominem attacks made by Believe It which only erode the actual meaning of this debate. Those who want to read the article can still do so, but they shouldn't have to read through all this discussion.



Believe It! said:


> Your opinion that they lack an argument is not fact. It is delusion that you use to avoid answering to the content of the videos.



Your so-called sources are presenting abortion from a slanted point of view. They don't mention any other kind of abortion, and claim therefore that this is all there is to abortion. Not once do they look at the medical benefits for the mother, and that is biased, Believe It. My sources aren't, and because of that, your sources are invalid for this debate.

You must equal what I have presented to you, and you can't do that, because medicine will not deny the medical benefits for the mother, and that her life too is on the line. "Saving a life" sort of argument is therefore instantaneous fail because it will only protect one form of life and place the other in mortal peril. Hypocrisy, in other words.

That is not opinion. That is based on observation and results. The content of your videos are therefore debunked based on their purpose and limited information.



Believe It! said:


> Information to an irrelevant subject that I never asked you about. You fail.



When will you learn from your mistakes? Won't you even admit this failure of your own?

Read for yourself. You asked this of me:



Believe It! said:


> Okay, prove that it is her own body. Prove that going in, cutting a baby apart, crushing his or her skull, and then sucking all the pieces out can be called a procedure done to the woman's body. Time to put up or shut up.



I proved it was her own body. I proved that she was pregnant. The other members in this thread proved that the larger part of the baby is the woman's, and because the baby does live off the mother's own resources and is connected, this concerns more her body than the man's. Since her life is on the line too, the entire saving a life falls to the lowest layer of the dust.



Believe It! said:


> My argument is that abortion is a barbaric process that attacks the baby's body, not the woman's, and that it affects the child negatively. The videos prove that.



Ok, the limitation of your knowledge has annoyed me for the last couple of pages now. When will you ever refer to it as a foetus? When somebody crams a biology class up in your face and make you listen to medical experts? Stick to the actual knowledge on the subject and avoid seeking out biased sources. Then you might have an argument on your hands.

Of course the abortion has a negative effect on the foetus. It is removed. The woman on the other hand has a very positive effect on having got her will and safety. If she does not want the child in her, what is she to do? 



Believe It! said:


> Your anti-religious, anti-Christian, anti-God attitude does not refute the content of the videos. Your baseless accusations that the videos were made by religious people for religious purposes are irrelevant. Just because the site they are hosted on has verses from the Bible does not invalidate the scientific proof and medical information presented in the videos.



Again, fuck your assumptions. Anti-God? I am not opposed to him, I no longer believe in religion. Religion happens to be completely irrelevant base for medical argumentation on a subject that is medical. The ethics of medicine are what apply here, and the patient is not the baby, contrary to what those posers on the videos claim it is. The pregnant woman is the patient, and she asks them to remove the child. It is not that hard to understand.

Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the man on your videos, is also a man who's change of heart makes him a very unreliable sort of man for me to trust. How can I take his word for truth when he is a catholic who before conversion divorced no less than three times? If your references to morales are to count, why not judge your great medical expert on this issue? He is hardly the best example I have seen of an advocate for pro-life.



Believe It! said:


> You are using an ad homminid attack against these videos.



"Ad homminid" is not an attack. It isn't anything. Spell it correctly so I know what you mean.



Believe It! said:


> You are bashing religion and the source of these videos rather than refuting the true information presented in the videos. You are wrong for doing so, you cannot refute my argument or my proof, and you cannot win because you are wrong on this issue.



Bashing religion? I refute its revelance, and you call it bashing? Your extraordinarily unfit to be debating at all, boy. You don't know the difference between a counter-attack and an accusation. Give it up. People are not fooled by that incrimination tactic of yours.



Believe It! said:


> There was no such thing as a woman's right to kill life, but you are all too willing to protect that. Fathers do have the right to protect their children, but the abortion laws take this right away from fathers by revoking it in the case that the child is still in the womb rather than outside of it.



Who here said they were for "a woman's right to kill life"? That's right, nobody. A straw-man if I ever saw one. 

Again, prove this so-called "right to protect their children" which fathers apparently have. Cite it to me. Show me it. 

But you cannot. Because there is no such thing, you know this, and you continue to ignore me when I called you out on it ages ago because you are so lost right now that you grasp for the lowest straw. You try to incriminate me. Well why don't you spend all that energy on answering every post directed at you with actual evidence. Stop beating about the bush with slanted views on ethics and a lack of evidential support to back them up. 



Believe It! said:


> Tsukiyomi's argument is that a father is SOL if he and a woman create a child willingly and then the woman changes her mind and decides she wants to abort the father's child. The solution to this? For the man to find a woman who won't do this, but what about his existing child, and what about the fact that he thought he had found a woman who was willing to give birth to his child?...



What about the current child, you ask? Well, I'll tell you. The father will learn that the mother will abort it. And it will hurt him, perhaps even devastate him if he is truly attached to it.

But he will have to move on, and learn from his mistake that he did not talk to the woman and make it certain that she would have the child. 

Also, I call you out on ad hominem for these comments:



Believe It! said:


> ...Tsu's entire argument is messed up and that's because his mindset is backward and queer.



Answer to him. Apologise or beat it. Your lack of a qualified debater's etiquette has made your post nothing but slander of your opponents.



Believe It! said:


> Well then you have not read the bill, because that is exactly what the bill protects.



I have read the bill, and it does not cite a single right which the father has to protect life. You cannot cite it either, because they don't exist.


----------



## Kitty (Aug 14, 2007)

It really doesn't matter guys since there's no chance of this becoming law.


----------



## Toby (Aug 14, 2007)

Kitty said:


> It really doesn't matter guys since there's no chance of this becoming law.



The debate this creates is what matters, then. I consider this to have two possible scenarios:

A - The law passes, as was the submitters' intent.
B - The law does not pass, but the issue that men deserve an equal say becomes a controversy, as was the submitters' intent.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 14, 2007)

^agreed

recently in my state anti-gay marriage sects banded together and tried to pass a legislation that would force couples to have children within two years of getting married.

a so called family first initiative

everyone knew it wasnt going to pass the idea was to get people shocked into thinking about it. Then people start saying "yea a guy really should have some rights"

is tarted to think that and its not an opinion i ever held before, but i certainly dont want to give a guy, maybe even one i just met or never want to meet again, the right to say i cant or can have something like an abortion no matter what my opinion is.

i dont think that abortion should stand as it is with out the true opinion of the father being taken into account, but how do you do that without taking rights from the woman?


----------



## Toby (Aug 14, 2007)

krickitat: I don't know of a fair solution other than a solution which the medical experts consider fair. Since the woman is the patient, she gets to decide, and that is what I support.

I am not supporting that women get to decide something I don't, because that would be implying that I have some form of a say on the matter. It is not just about ethics.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 14, 2007)

The lady should be able to just decide...as said before, if the man wants a kid, there's a thing called marriage.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 14, 2007)

but each situation is different 

you cant just accept one thing on a broad term because there are so many different extenuating circumstances
you cant just say that if the guy wants a baby he should just go find as woman who wants one too.

there are guys who never even thought about kids who suddenly hear their girl friend is pregnant and its the best news in the world. They didnt set out to get any one pregnant it just happened as a natural consequence of an anct that is MEANT to produce children 

So can i as a girl truly get rid of a baby without taking THIS guys feelings and beliefs into account?
Im not saying he should be able to just tell me i cant and thats it, but he should be able to FIGHT instead of just being told there is nothing he can do and he can find some other girl to get pregnant


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 14, 2007)

Well, I'd say you'd have every right to have the abortion, if you wanted too. You could have him make the decision, but it should be up the individual, not the state to decide.


----------



## Toby (Aug 14, 2007)

I say we pass laws which make couples having children pay fifteen times as much tax as the richest person in their community.

HAHA.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 14, 2007)

I say we go communist (economically), but keep the rest of our government and make everybody truly equal. But some people say this is a bad idea, mostly the rich people.


----------



## Karin Maaka (Aug 14, 2007)

The Pink Ninja said:


> You fuck a man: He owns you.



 Until you get a divorce and make him pay child support.


----------



## ryne11 (Aug 14, 2007)

My State fucking sucks


----------



## krickitat (Aug 14, 2007)

my state has very open abortion laws 

underage girls can go in and get abortions without parental consent 

which i am actually ok with although its one more reason why other forms of birth control need to be part of the lesson plan then abstinence. Abstinence education is a joke...everyone knows how NOT to have sex thank you.


----------



## The Pink Ninja (Aug 15, 2007)

zonic the hedgehog said:


> Until you get a divorce and make him pay child support.



Well actually this law requires no marriage.

And if a man doesn't want a child he should take more care while having sex.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 15, 2007)

in America you dont need to be married to owe child support

so lets just assume that by divorce they meant 'separate'


----------



## Diamed (Aug 15, 2007)

This issue is so complicated all I can say is: it depends.  If a girl is raped or it is likely to do harm to her health, then yes she can have an abortion no question.  If the baby is retarded or deformed it should be mandatory she gets an abortion, that's a burden on the state and cruelty to the child, it would be better he never even existed than live a life like that.  If the child is perfectly healthy and the mother is perfectly healthy and she consensually had the sex knowing the risks of pregnancy, however slim--what gives her the right to just kill it out of hand for her own pleasure?  What about the child?  What about the father?  Suppose he says he'll pay her whatever recompense the pregnancy costs her in pain + suffering plus inability to work plus the cost of the procedure--there goes the whole 'it's me doing the work so I decide' part.  Even married guys who fully expect their wives to bear them children have to sit by helplessly as the girl decides, 'nah, I don't feel like it. ::kills::'  how is that in any way just?  Furthermore a healthy baby once made does have an interest in the outcome, if the father wants him and he's healthy, it's likely said child could live a happy life if only you let it--in that case it's wrong to kill him, and if you're recompensed then you have no reason to complain.  For instance if the government passed a law saying, 'so long as the father wants the child and it's healthy and the sex was consensual, you can not abort it, we will pay you one million for all the burdens of pregnancy involved.'  That law seems more fair and kind than 'women can kill children and deny the hopes and dreams of men at random, whimsically, for no reason but selfish irresponsibility for their own choices.'


----------



## Toby (Aug 15, 2007)

Diamed: I am sorry if you find this insulting or anything, but I would really like to debate the issue of whether people with genetic diseases should be allowed to procreate. Would you be interested in joining, since you suggest mandatory abortions for children with serious disorders?


----------



## Diamed (Aug 15, 2007)

They should be allowed to procreate, they should just have to abort each time it results in a mutant monstrosity baby that will cost the state 10 million to keep alive and cared for across its lifetime.  Try, try again you know?


----------



## Robotkiller (Aug 15, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> ^ In any adult relationship, there should be dialogue between a man and a woman over a potential abortion where the man's thoughts are considered.
> 
> But you can't legislate this. If one is for an abortion and the other is against, only one of them will get their own way. And frankly, the final say should always be up to the woman since it's her body and her life that is on the line, not his. This proposed law would make it so that in every case of abortion the wishes of men (even one-night stands) trump the wishes of the women involved. It's swapping one extreme for another.
> 
> ...



I wholeheartedly agree with you on all accounts.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 15, 2007)

in washington state women with severe mental dissability are not allowed to get married until the age of forty 

and i do believe the state has severe penalties for pregnancy 
i dont think there is any way for you to MANDATE that people with a deformed child are required to have an abortion
for some families even if the child has muscular dystrophy it is still a being to be loved and cherished.
i have met people who were seriously deformed and they are STILL PEOPLE who still have something to promote and give to society
and they still deserve love
while the decision to keep a child who is shown to have a severe disability is a hard one and can be devastating it is still the personal decision of the parents whether they wish to make the decision to abort or not.

you cant just write off children with disabilities as nothing and worth flushing down the toilet. such broad statements make you look like an ignoramus

and i dont think there are any women who find "pleasure" in going to get an abortion. give me an example of one woman who gets abortions as a recreation. 

disabled children can be a drain....but imagine if someone said that about steven hawking? im not saying every child is going to be the next genius but i am also saying for some people it is a burden they will bear and in the long run it doesnt even affect you very much whether i choose to keep my child with downs syndrome or not


----------



## Diamed (Aug 15, 2007)

kricket, I think I actually like you.  I find it funny how often we're attacking each other.  The drain on the state's resources makes it a state issue not a parental issue.  Even then you have to consider how painful that person's life will be compared to another child they could've had and devoted the same love to.  Why not just wait a year and have a real kid who can live and function as a real human?  It's true that any life is more valuable than none (almost), but a real live boy is better than pinocchio, you're not making the right comparison.
      You're right that it would be extremely strange if the wife of a rich and loving husband out of the blue said, "I'm having an abortion, I just don't feel like it today."  But suppose she did?  Should the father have any right at all?   Should the father have any say, legally, that can stop this sick fuck of a girl?  My point is girls should have many grounds for abortion, but after a certain point they are just child abusers and my sympathy for them drains out and is replaced with disgust.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 15, 2007)

Diamed said:


> If the baby is retarded or deformed it should be mandatory she gets an abortion, that's a burden on the state and cruelty to the child, it would be better he never even existed than live a life like that.



Thats a terrible idea.  Why not start a mandatory eugenics program while we're at it, control who can breed and with whom to minimize chances of 'defects'.

How much of a deformity does it need to be to warrant an abortion?  If a baby is going to be born with a slightly malformed finger, does that count?

My main problem with your suggestion is the word mandatory, I completely support the right of a woman to choose.  You're taking away the choice in the opposite direction, and that is equally if not more wrong.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 15, 2007)

i have been saying throughout this piece that the man should have SOME say over it just not the ultimate say 
If a girl wants to get an abortion and the father truly truly TRULY has a problem with it i feel its his right to be able to have a say in that 

despite the fact that a woman has to carry a baby in her body for nine months she wont be THAT bad off. the idea behind it is that sex is the natural act of reproduction.....recreation will always come second to that.

in fact the orgasm is just natures trick on you to make SURE you have as many babies as possible. 

welfare drains the state more then disabled children, perfectly capable people who stay on the program as an excuse to stay home and not have to work. people who chose to think that the life of a child is important shouldnt be told that they have to get rid of their child

plus to even say that they should is silly, werent we talking about parental licensing? you said any government that instated parental licensing would turn totalitarian and that it just wouldnt work out especially the way women feel about reproduction and their bodies

a law like this would work out even less! 

besides most women dont find out if their child even has potential for birth defects until five months and most women dont want to do the required test for most of them because they need to penetrate the womb and take a sample of the fluid to be able to tell. which has potential of harming the child.

so saying that women should be required to abort disabled babies is just silly since they wont do abortions after 12 weeks. past that an abortion becomes a health risk for the mother too much

and i don't mind arguing with you 
sometimes i think your as extreme as possible because you want to draw me out


----------



## Diamed (Aug 16, 2007)

Mostly I had a deeply formative moment when my psychology class took a field trip to a mental clinic.  In there I saw a lot of horrors.  People who had never learned to move or eat.  People who couldn't think nearly as well as dogs or pigs.  People draped in torturous unnatural positions who shook or what have you.  It was a gallery of wrecked lives, and then the health care people would state proudly how it only cost a million dollars per person per year to keep them alive.  Think how much that same money could help real people.

If the cure damages more children than the disease, you're right it would be pointless, I think testing technology is improving though.  Like you can detect certain birth defects through piss?  oh well anyway if it does improve then that objection will go to the wayside.

I think the baby is the woman's property, and the constitution says you can not deprive people of their property without due compensation, right?  In that case if some adoptive parents want your child, you don't want it, but it poses no health risk and the sex was consensual, they should be able to pay you for the pregnancy costs  ((maybe based on how much surrogate mothers are paid?)) and there you go, everyone's happy.  A happy healthy baby has loving parents.  An infertile couple has their precious darling child, and you have a lot of money from basically a mistake, and the knowledge that your genes have spread at no cost to yourself.  This is a lot better than, 'eww I don't wanna be fat--::kills::'

You're right I don't have any of these views set in stone, they just kinda swirl around in my head.  I'd prefer to try these things out on the state level and see how they work before they're adopted nation wide, everything looks good in theory but usually falls apart in application.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 16, 2007)

yes you can use urine to determine some deficiencies but it still isnt done till after 4 months and thats still past the cut off date 

yes health care wards are awful but in turn you need to spend some time in a special eds class or at the special Olympics. there are people there who no one thought would have a chance and they can in the end do all these things most people cant.
plus alot of the people who end up in the wards usually happen later, like severe head trauma or diseases that got progressively worse.

you cant do a test in the womb for parkinsons or lou garigs,


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 19, 2007)

Draffut said:
			
		

> Believe it. I do not agree with you on just about anything. I am very much pro-choice (in first trimester) I do not agree with 90% of the shit you spew, so please do not lump me in with your crazy baseless ideaologies.



Well there's your answer to why you are wrong 90% of the time.



			
				Draffut said:
			
		

> ANd the things you seam to agree with me on are for a compeltely different and retardedly radical reason.



I don't agree with you per se, we simply believe the same thing sometimes. However, unlike you I believe it for logical and rational reasons. Believe it!



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> i almost just now said something really horrible but i didnt *sigh* i have alot of self constraint i hope people appreciate that



That would be restraint, not constraint.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> as this has gotten into beliefs more commonly held by the religious right and by certain religions in general, I thought I would give you all the history of abortion in the Christian Church, abridged.



No thanks. Religion has nothing to do with this thread.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Since nothing new has come to this debate, I call that it is closed, and especially because of the ad hominem attacks made by Believe It which only erode the actual meaning of this debate. Those who want to read the article can still do so, but they shouldn't have to read through all this discussion.



Sure, call a close to it now that you have been completely refuted. If you don't want to defend your absurd ideas then I won't blame you, but I will still expose them as insane and contradicting ideas.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Your so-called sources are presenting abortion from a slanted point of view.



Wrong. The videos are my sources, not the website that hosts them. The videos show a real abortion procedure that is still in practice today. You try to dodge this issue by attacking the religious tone of the website that hosts the videos rather than addressing the actual procedure. So here is another one for you to dodge.

Do you think the procedure shown in the videos should be banned or should be allowed? Yes or no.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> They don't mention any other kind of abortion, and claim therefore that this is all there is to abortion.



That was never said in the videos. This is one common type of abortion. If you say there are other types then why don't YOU post them? The only other that I know of is chemical injection, which is not done after about 11 weeks, and the abortion pill which is like the chemical method except its a pill and it has long term side effects rather than short term.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Not once do they look at the medical benefits for the mother, and that is biased, Believe It. My sources aren't, and because of that, your sources are invalid for this debate.



The videos only serves the purpose to show what one commonly practiced abortion procedure looks like. It is not biased just because you don't like the information presented in it.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> You must equal what I have presented to you, and you can't do that, because



Because you posted nothing. All you did was post some Wikipedia article about how women are the ones who carry unborn children. An irrelevant issue that no one asked you to talk about.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> the medical benefits for the mother



There are no medical benefits for the mother unless it is done to save her life.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> and that her life too is on the line.



No, her life*style* is on the line. Her days as a single young tramp are on the line. Her days of thinking all about herself are on the line. That is not the same thing as her actual life.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> "Saving a life" sort of argument is therefore instantaneous fail because it will only protect one form of life and place the other in mortal peril.



Strawman. Everyone accepts abortion in the case of saving the mother's life. Stop lying about our side just so you can have something to write in reply to my posts.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> That is not opinion. That is based on observation and results.



What about abortions that have lead to women being barren for the rest of their lives? What about abortions that caused the women who had them to suffer depression and other negative psychological effects over the guilt? What about the women who have DIED from an abortion procedure? You don't present that side of the story, therefore according to your illogic, you are biased and all your sources and arguments must be disregarded as irrelevant because you didn't do my job for me in refuting your own argument.

The content of your posts are therefore debunked based on their purpose and limited information.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> When will you learn from your mistakes? Won't you even admit this failure of your own?
> 
> Read for yourself. You asked this of me:
> 
> ...



Learn to read first of all. Once you do, read the bold part. Her being pregnant does not prove that the abortion is done to the woman's body rather than the baby's body.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> The other members in this thread proved that the larger part of the baby is the woman's, and because the baby does live off the mother's own resources and is connected, this concerns more her body than the man's.



Ah but what if the man supports the woman by giving her food to eat? Doesn't that make the resources being used in her body his resources? Then doesn't that make the baby's body more his than hers? If you're going to claim that the baby's body, which is no one's body except the baby's in reality, belongs to the one who gives the most resources to it then you must admit that the body could arguably be the father's... or anyone's who treats the woman to lunch for that matter.

This argument over resources is weak though, since the amount of resources depleted from the woman is insignificant and easily replaced.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Since her life is on the line too, the entire saving a life falls to the lowest layer of the dust.



Her life is not on the line. If it is on the line, in that having the child will KILL HER, then it is her choice to either have the child and hope for the best or terminate the pregnancy to save her own life and possibly try to have another child.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Ok, the limitation of your knowledge has annoyed me for the last couple of pages now. When will you ever refer to it as a foetus?



LOL! Maybe when you learn how to spell the word fetus. What is a foetus?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> When somebody crams a biology class up in your face and make you listen to medical experts?



A rose by any other name...



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Stick to the actual knowledge on the subject and avoid seeking out biased sources. Then you might have an argument on your hands.



So my entire argument is null because I don't call a child a fetus. I thought you said that you were part of a debate team in school or something. So were you laughed out in the first week or was this the special ed debate program? Or was it both?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Of course the abortion has a negative effect on the foetus. It is removed. The woman on the other hand has a very positive effect on having got her will and safety.



Irrelevant. You admitted that the abortion is performed on the “fetus”, which I assume you meant to write, therefore you admit that the procedure is not done on or to the woman's body. You admit she has no right to terminate the separate life inside of her except in the case that the life threatens her life. She has no right to harm a body that is not hers. I win. Believe it!



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> If she does not want the child in her, what is she to do?



Child?!?!? How dare you call it that? Seriously though, if she does not want the child inside her then she should give birth to the child. Just a thought.
Of course if you want to ask me what a woman who didn't want the child in her in the first place is to do, then I suggest you remember who you're talking to and take a wild guess what my answer to that would be.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Again, fuck your assumptions. Anti-God? I am not opposed to him, I no longer believe in religion.



Right, you are against religion, which is why you attacked it.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Religion happens to be completely irrelevant base for medical argumentation on a subject that is medical.



Then why did you bring it up?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> The ethics of medicine are what apply here, and the patient is not the baby, contrary to what those posers on the videos claim it is.



Oh so just because you don't like the video and think it is religious, that means those in the video are fake doctors? The doctor in that video refers to a medical handbook which clearly states that the unborn child is a patient. Do you have any idea what an obstetrician does? He or she makes sure the pregnant mother and her child are healthy, and cares for them.

According to the ethics of medicine the unborn child is the second patient. Surely you're not going to dismiss the fact that obstetricians exist are you? And since when can someone dismiss a factual source just because he or she isn't satisfied by the facts contained in that source? Learn how to debate.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 19, 2007)

Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> The pregnant woman is the patient, and she asks them to remove the child. It is not that hard to understand.



It is very easy to understand. The pregnant woman is the patient, and she asks them to kill the child who is the second patient. You still have not refuted this. Until you can prove that the unborn child is a part of the woman's body, which she has control over, your argument has no basis. The medical world does see the unborn child as a patient. That is a fact.

Go ahead, dismiss the entire medical world now because they allow hospitals to be called “Saint [whatever]” and thus are bias in favor of religion.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Dr. Bernard Nathanson, the man on your videos, is also a man who's change of heart makes him a very unreliable sort of man for me to trust.



Well maybe people aren't allowed to change their minds in your world of stubborn ignorance, but in the real world good and smart people change their beliefs when presented with the facts.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> How can I take his word for truth when he is a catholic who before conversion divorced no less than three times?



Maybe because he PROVED his words were correct by showing you the underlined quotes in the medical book as well as the REAL abortion procedure. Or are you saying that the good doctor is an expert in Photoshop and special effects?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> If your references to morales are to count, why not judge your great medical expert on this issue? He is hardly the best example I have seen of an advocate for pro-life.



His affiliation is irrelevant. There you go with the strawman factory again. Don't attack him just because he presents facts that you cannot refute.

Do I believe that he is right about the book and procedure? Yes, because he showed them both. Do I believe he is telling the truth in saying that the doctor who preformed the abortion quit aborting babies after seeing the video editing and that the nurse stopped being a feminazi when it came to abortion rights? No, because he doesn't prove it. By the same token that doesn't mean he is lying about it either.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> "Ad homminid" is not an attack. It isn't anything. Spell it correctly so I know what you mean.



This coming from the guy who doesn't know how to spell “fetus”. I mean, I know you people have weird misspelling for words like “flavor” and “color” which you misspell as “flavour” and “colour”, but really, what the heck is a fetous?



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Bashing religion? I refute its revelance, and you call it bashing?



You refute its relevance? Then why did you bring it up in the first place? You are the one who made it relevant in order to discredit the real information in the video. You blew off the video showing the murder and destruction of a defenseless baby by trying to tie it to irrelevant religious messages outside of the source, and that makes you a very sick person.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Your extraordinarily unfit to be debating at all, boy. You don't know the difference between a counter-attack and an accusation. Give it up. People are not fooled by that incrimination tactic of yours.



This is great to read. It tells me that I have won. I called you out on your attack of religion and now you have been exposed as having no argument against me. I win the debate.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Who here said they were for "a woman's right to kill life"?



All those who support abortion in cases other than to save the life of the mother, which includes you.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Again, prove this so-called "right to protect their children" which fathers apparently have. Cite it to me. Show me it.



Not only is it a right, it is a responsibility. For this we need to look at two relevant laws.



“All states define an "age of majority", usually 18. *Persons younger than this are considered minors*, and *must be under the care of a parent* or guardian unless they are emancipated. Minors are treated differently from adults for many legal purposes including privacy of official records, punishment in criminal matters, or the ownership or transfer of property.”



“The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes a "child in utero" as a legal victim, if he or she is injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. *The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."*”

Now, the UVoVA excludes aborted babies from this due to the Roe v Wade ruling, which is not rooted in any existing laws btw, however this does match up with the Ohio bill that they are trying to pass. The unborn child is defined as a person by the UVoVA, and the laws on parental/guardian responsibility clearly state that all persons under the age of 18 years must be under the CARE of a parent or guardian. Now, if the woman does not care and wants the abortion, then it is by law up to the father to care for the child or not. If not then then the abortion takes place. However, these two laws prove that at least one parent the mother or father have the right to protect their child's life, and therefore this bill must be passed in order to ensure that the current laws of the land are followed. Believe it!



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> But you cannot. Because there is no such thing, you know this, and you continue to ignore me when I called you out on it ages ago because you are so lost right now that you grasp for the lowest straw.



Ha! That was just a trap that I set for you, and you walked right into it. Tsk tsk.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> You try to incriminate me.



I didn't have to try. Your posts spoke for themselves.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Well why don't you spend all that energy on answering every post directed at you with actual evidence.



Why so you can ignore the actual evidence again? That is the reason why I first have to focus on getting you to recognize the facts, rather than dismissing them because they prove you wrong.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Stop beating about the bush with slanted views on ethics and a lack of evidential support to back them up.



Well that is why I did just that by posting the laws I found above.



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> What about the current child, you ask? Well, I'll tell you. The father will learn that the mother will abort it. And it will hurt him, perhaps even devastate him if he is truly attached to it.
> 
> But he will have to move on, and learn from his mistake that he did not talk to the woman and make it certain that she would have the child.



And then it came to pass that Toby contradicted his own argument. This is awesome. My job is just about done. In fact, this will be the last post I make to you in this topic because you just contradicted the last part of your argument for me. Allow me to explain.

You first argued that forcing the woman to carry the child to term would be detrimental to the woman's mental health as well as physically. Thus your conclusion was to give the woman the choice to murder the baby. On the other hand, when it comes to the man's role in all this, he just has to suck it up and deal with it, even though the thoughts of being powerless to save the child that his woman promised him as well as the fact that his baby will be murdered will likely be detrimental to his mental and thus physical health. So you have just stated your double standard rather blatantly, proving that you do not want to protect laws or rights, but rather want to give women special privileges over men that they are not entitled to in the first place. Believe it!



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> Also, I call you out on ad hominem for these comments:
> 
> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Believe It!
> ...



I did answer him. In fact I refuted him. He has ignored all of my posts. In fact, he probably has me on his ignore list. Some moderator he is. I also beat it (his argument).



			
				Toby_Christ said:
			
		

> I have read the bill, and it does not cite a single right which the father has to protect life. You cannot cite it either, because they don't exist.



I still can't get over the fact that you walked right into that trap. Ha ha. Classic.

Well, I guess this is where we part ways eh Toby? I have won. You have suffered a devastating and humiliating, yet humorous, defeat. The right of fathers is upheld as true and correct. Abortion is exposed as a barbaric and terrible act of murder.



			
				Kitty said:
			
		

> It really doesn't matter guys since there's no chance of this becoming law.



Because of fascist liberals who do not represent anyone or anything except themselves and their own interests.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> recently in my state anti-gay marriage sects banded together and tried to pass a legislation that would force couples to have children within two years of getting married.



Whoa whoa whoa, are you sure you don't mean PRO-gay marriage (or anti-marriage as I call them) sects?

Win


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 19, 2007)

krickitat said:
			
		

> everyone knew it wasnt going to pass the idea was to get people shocked into thinking about it. Then people start saying "yea a guy really should have some rights"
> 
> is tarted to think that and its not an opinion i ever held before, but i certainly dont want to give a guy, maybe even *one i just met or never want to meet again*, the right to say i cant or can have something like an abortion no matter what my opinion is.



Oh but you would have sex with him and let him get you pregnant in the first place? What an ignorant thing for you to say! You are so brainwashed that you don't even know up from down!



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> i dont think that abortion should stand as it is with out the true opinion of the father being taken into account, but how do you do that without taking rights from the woman?



With this bill. If the woman doesn't want to have the man's child and doesn't want him to have a say in the matter, then she shouldn't get pregnant in the first place. That is HER right and her right alone. It is also the man's right and his right alone to not get the woman pregnant. However, if they choose to create a child, then the man should have the right to protect his child's life from the woman, as should the woman have the same right to protect her child's life from the man. That is a fair and equal law! Believe it!



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> The lady should be able to just decide...as said before, if the man wants a kid, there's a thing called marriage.



Marriage would not protect the father's rights either. Don't you even research issues before you comment on them?



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> So can i as a girl truly get rid of a baby without taking THIS guys feelings and beliefs into account?
> Im not saying he should be able to just tell me i cant and thats it, but he should be able to FIGHT instead of just being told there is nothing he can do and he can find some other girl to get pregnant



You know what the problem is but you have no solution. If he cannot protect his child then he has no rights, and there is no fight to be had... at least, not legally that is.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> Well, I'd say you'd have every right to have the abortion, if you wanted too. You could have him make the decision, but it should be up the individual, not the state to decide.



You fool. The woman's choice to get an abortion only came about because of the state's meddling. I say it is high time that the state make up for that mistake by making coldblooded murder illegal again.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> underage girls can go in and get abortions without parental consent



Even if she was raped. Which means the rapist gets away without punishment.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> which i am actually ok with although its one more reason why other forms of birth control need to be part of the lesson plan then abstinence. Abstinence education is a joke...everyone knows how NOT to have sex thank you.



It is a joke because it is taught as a joke. Teachers do not teach it seriously. They make it so that kids want to have sex that much more because they never teach kids why they should not have sex.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> This issue is so complicated all I can say is: it depends. If a girl is raped or it is likely to do harm to her health, then yes she can have an abortion no question.



What about the fact that doing so would be destroying the evidence that a rape took place? What about the fact that it in itself would be a crime to “solve” another crime?



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> If the baby is retarded or deformed it should be mandatory she gets an abortion, that's a burden on the state and cruelty to the child, it would be better he never even existed than live a life like that.



Well it definitely should NOT be mandatory. Many parents do have the strength to take care of mentally disabled kids and even when they grow into adults. Also, many retarded people have special gifts that regular people do not. Kim Peek for example has an outstanding memory. Also, many of those people are the most pure and loving people in the world. The concepts of cruelty and malice don't register in their minds. However, you have hit me at a point of uncertainty. I have thought about this and I must admit that I don't know if I could handle a child who was mentally disabled. Therefore I would say to leave that option open for parents. It would still be killing a life, but I think the fact that the kid would not have a normal life would be a good enough justification.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> If the child is perfectly healthy and the mother is perfectly healthy and she consensually had the sex knowing the risks of pregnancy, however slim--what gives her the right to just kill it out of hand for her own pleasure?



Nothing.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> What about the child? What about the father?



They say the child is not a human life and that the father has no right over the woman's body, which is what they think the child is.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> Suppose he says he'll pay her whatever recompense the pregnancy costs her in pain + suffering plus inability to work plus the cost of the procedure--there goes the whole 'it's me doing the work so I decide' part. Even married guys who fully expect their wives to bear them children have to sit by helplessly as the girl decides, 'nah, I don't feel like it. ::kills::' how is that in any way just?



I doubt you'll be able to get through to them. They have ignored these points time and time again.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> Furthermore a healthy baby once made does have an interest in the outcome, if the father wants him and he's healthy, it's likely said child could live a happy life if only you let it--in that case it's wrong to kill him, and if you're recompensed then you have no reason to complain.



They think that your argument is worth less than the one stating that women should not have to get fat and be out of work for three or so months, even if it is caused by her own stupid choices in life.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 19, 2007)

You know BI! I think you'd make a great Republican.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 19, 2007)

im beginning to get that feeling as well


----------



## Diamed (Aug 19, 2007)

I've thought of another objection to men not having a say in abortions.  Basically a marriage should give co-ownership of everything, so why does that not extend to babies?  Just because it's in the woman, it's still joint ownership.   Morally speaking, once you've pledged yourself that should extend to your womb too, being able to just back out and abort the baby is a betrayal of that promise.  There is something symbolic about giving yourself to someone when you make love--it's supposed to be unconditional, a true opening up and surrender.  That it means you have to respect the wishes of the father seems like a natural follow up of the act you just involved yourself in.


----------



## Vegitto-kun (Aug 19, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I've thought of another objection to men not having a say in abortions.  Basically a marriage should give co-ownership of everything, so why does that not extend to babies?  Just because it's in the woman, it's still joint ownership.   Morally speaking, once you've pledged yourself that should extend to your womb too, being able to just back out and abort the baby is a betrayal of that promise.  There is something symbolic about giving yourself to someone when you make love--it's supposed to be unconditional, a true opening up and surrender.  That it means you have to respect the wishes of the father seems like a natural follow up of the act you just involved yourself in.



Dude, its just sex, not talking to god


----------



## krickitat (Aug 19, 2007)

i think that the person who marries someone who would have an abortion against their wishes....didnt think things through and didnt as enough questions

and really shouldnt have married that person, cause obviously they didnt know each other well enough


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 19, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I've thought of another objection to men not having a say in abortions.  Basically a marriage should give co-ownership of everything, so why does that not extend to babies?  Just because it's in the woman, it's still joint ownership.   Morally speaking, once you've pledged yourself that should extend to your womb too, being able to just back out and abort the baby is a betrayal of that promise.  There is something symbolic about giving yourself to someone when you make love--it's supposed to be unconditional, a true opening up and surrender.  That it means you have to respect the wishes of the father seems like a natural follow up of the act you just involved yourself in.



Dude, when you're married, you kind of WANT kids. I've never heard of anybody wanting an abortion, and was married. At least, not between the two that are married. But if it was a married couple, they'd likely talk it over first or just have the kid. So it's a moot point in most cases. It doesn't require any laws.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 19, 2007)

i watched a docudrama about this 

it showed many different women who wanted abortions and the hardships and reasons whether good or bad.

one of the stories was about a married couple that already had 4 children and not enough money for another.

but again thats very rare


----------



## Diamed (Aug 19, 2007)

I think it might be a good principle for later court cases like how women always get full custody of children despite what the father wants after they divorce.  ((which is like most of the time these days)).  Men should get some chance in court, it's really a terribly biased system right now.  The law as written is piss-poor, but there needs to be Some law giving men a say in babies.  Believe it or not both sexes want kids, it's not just restricted to half the species.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 19, 2007)

my sisters EX has custody of their daughter 

we helped him get custody too even tho we never see her now 
it isnt that biased most men just aren't willing to work hard enough 

they SAY its unfair but it sounds a whol lot like whining to me, most women just get the kids because they fight harder when it comes down to the wire


----------



## Gunners (Aug 19, 2007)

Meh, if I were to divorce my wife I would prefer her to have custody of the child so long as I can see the child. In general I trust my future wife to be a more appropriate nuturer than my self :S. I guess in some situations that isn't the case and the law screws up when they give the child to the mother. Situations where the child gets abused by some new boyfreind.


----------



## drache (Aug 19, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I've thought of another objection to men not having a say in abortions. Basically a marriage should give co-ownership of everything, so why does that not extend to babies? Just because it's in the woman, it's still joint ownership. Morally speaking, once you've pledged yourself that should extend to your womb too, being able to just back out and abort the baby is a betrayal of that promise. There is something symbolic about giving yourself to someone when you make love--it's supposed to be unconditional, a true opening up and surrender. That it means you have to respect the wishes of the father seems like a natural follow up of the act you just involved yourself in.


 
This will sound really really harsh but I couldn't think of a nicer way to say it.

If you get married without making it clear were you stand on childern (yes no ) then you're making your own probelm. Plus anyone that would go behind thier supposed life partner/companion's back and have an abortion isn't ready for marriage nor should they be married.

Sorry but in general this isn't really valid and the few times it might be is not enought really to make a difference either way.

BI, wow so know that you've offically ruled that I guess I need to put away all my 'Keep religion out of abortion' posters? Further despite what you may think I'm not just writing for you, that post was for everyone,  I'm always happy to have people respond to my posts though


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 20, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> You know BI! I think you'd make a great Republican.



They have become too left for me. No really, I am being serious. Not because I am far right, but because the party itself has shifted left. I consider myself an Independent conservative.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> I've thought of another objection to men not having a say in abortions. Basically a marriage should give co-ownership of everything, so why does that not extend to babies? Just because it's in the woman, it's still joint ownership. Morally speaking, once you've pledged yourself that should extend to your womb too, being able to just back out and abort the baby is a betrayal of that promise.



Nah, they'll just argue that the man doesn't have the right to take a kidney out of the woman if he needs it, or that she should be able to force her to get a breast enlargement. Remember, they say that the baby is a part of the woman's body. This is false so they have no argument. It isn't like we need to make extra arguments against them.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> There is something symbolic about giving yourself to someone when you make love--it's supposed to be unconditional, a true opening up and surrender. That it means you have to respect the wishes of the father seems like a natural follow up of the act you just involved yourself in.



The days of treating sex as something sacred are over. Society is too corrupt and blind to hold these traditional ideals. All we can do is teach these morals to our kids and try to set laws to protect future generations.



			
				Vegitto-kun said:
			
		

> Dude, its just sex



You have no idea what sex is.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> i think that the person who marries someone who would have an abortion against their wishes....didnt think things through and didnt as enough questions
> 
> and really shouldnt have married that person, cause obviously they didnt know each other well enough



Yeah but that doesn't mean the child should suffer, nor does it mean that the father should have his rights taken away from him.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> Dude, when you're married, you kind of WANT kids. I've never heard of anybody wanting an abortion, and was married. At least, not between the two that are married. But if it was a married couple, they'd likely talk it over first or just have the kid. So it's a moot point in most cases. It doesn't require any laws.



No it still requires a law. Women can get the abortion without notifying the husband, and that is wrong. Even if it only happens rarely, that is far too much and it should stop. Believe it!


----------



## Vegitto-kun (Aug 20, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:


> Dude, when you're married, you kind of WANT kids. I've never heard of anybody wanting an abortion, and was married. At least, not between the two that are married. But if it was a married couple, they'd likely talk it over first or just have the kid. So it's a moot point in most cases. It doesn't require any laws.



When im married I don't want kids, not in the first 5 years atleast


----------



## krickitat (Aug 20, 2007)

lol waiting five years dosnt mean you dont want kids....just that you want to wait 
so you still think you want to 

and as a single guy not in a committed relationship its kinda hard to decide at this point isnt it?

plus i think its wrong to be in a relationship with someone and not let them know what your goals are for children. if you dont and never would want children that should be one of the first things you say.

me i would know not to get emotionally invested ina  guy who doesnt want children because i DO want children.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

I'm pro-choice, but the reason is kind of dumb.  I want to make absolutely sure I have the right to abort deformed babies.  I want a large family, five kids if I can help it, and if I have even one deformed baby it will occupy all my time and money and ruin my dream, it will just become a black hole that sucks up my life while producing nothing in return.  For this reason I'll defend every slut, whore, and prick who aborts their babies for fun, just so I'm not in a small easily destroyed minority.  But I really do despise abortions, you're killing babies, you could've given them up for adoption, you got yourself pregnant, and you refuse to accept responsibility, become an adult, and join the cycle of life which nature had laid out for you.  There's no reason to abort except saving yourself the inconvenience of carrying a child, an inconvenience you brought upon yourself, when there's tons of infertile couples who would love to raise your kids for you.  Talk about generous.  In this world you can be a slut and be rewarded for it by spreading your genes for free.  But no that's not good enough, they Still have to carve their baby up and vacuum the body parts away, it's disgusting.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 20, 2007)

Vegitto-kun said:


> When im married I don't want kids, not in the first 5 years atleast



Yeah, I'd rather have a few years of peace first. But I'll have talked with my wife about what we will do if we have one before we planned on it. We don't need any laws telling us what to do. 

@ BI!: On the Republican thing, you have no sarcasm detector.
On the topic, no, we don't need a law invading how a woman takes care of herself. Talk to a girl one day about your ideas. Tell me how many time you get smacked. Your ideas are stupid, and worse than many of the Soviet Union's in terms of human rights.

@ Daimed: You know, you should get to know a retarded or a deformed person. They might not be your idea of a good person, but they are almost always very nice. They are never asses. You should take that into account.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 20, 2007)

well im pro choice but i really dont see the need for most women to get one

not when couples are willing to pay you huge money for the adoption, pay your medical bills and sometimes give you a place to live if thats a problem.

when my sister had her first baby in highschool one of the nurses found out she was going to give it up for adoption and offered her ten thousand dollars right there


----------



## drache (Aug 20, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> They have become too left for me. No really, I am being serious. Not because I am far right, but because the party itself has shifted left. I consider myself an Independent conservative.


 
So it's the party's fault not yours? That sounds familiar. If anything Repubilcans  have gotten more conservative in the last couple years so there goes that theory.

(yes it's off topic but it jumped out at me)


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

Kricket:  you have a really interesting sister. O.o.  But it looks like we're on the same side like usual.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 20, 2007)

the same side arguing different point lolz 
at each others throats too

diamed i am beginning to think this was a match made in heaven


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 20, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> @ BI!: On the Republican thing, you have no sarcasm detector.



I got the joke, but then I replied to the idea.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> On the topic, no, we don't need a law invading how a woman takes care of herself. Talk to a girl one day about your ideas. Tell me how many time you get smacked. Your ideas are stupid, and worse than many of the Soviet Union's in terms of human rights.



I got almost all of my ideas on abortion FROM women. Now, most of these women were mothers, and mothers understand what a human life is. That is their motherhood instinct kicking in there. What females are for abortion? Bitches who hate men and sluts who get drunk and puke on themselves in public at 4 in the morning.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> well im pro choice but i really dont see the need for most women to get one
> 
> not when couples are willing to pay you huge money for the adoption, pay your medical bills and sometimes give you a place to live if thats a problem.



Correct. There is no need for an abortion unless there is a medical or life threatening issue. Thus, you are not pro-choice in the sense that it exists nowadays. I would say you're pro-choice in the way that I am, which is that the choice part comes when the choice to have unprotected sex or not is made.



			
				krickitat said:
			
		

> when my sister had her first baby in highschool one of the nurses found out she was going to give it up for adoption and offered her ten thousand dollars right there



Yeah, but I don't think women should be paid for their babies either. I mean, I see the point you're making. There are women out there who would pay anything just for the chance to raise and care for a child. But to take that one step further, we should only offer to take the child and put him or her in a loving home. If we paid women to have babies then that is all some would do. Plus, it would be like making babies things to be sold.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> So it's the party's fault not yours?



Of course it's their fault. I haven't changed.



			
				drache said:
			
		

> That sounds familiar. If anything Repubilcans have gotten more conservative in the last couple years so there goes that theory.



They've gone more left, which is why Democrats took control of both houses in the last election. People figured, "what's the difference?" And you can't deny the fact that Bush, McCain, and a bunch of other "Republicans" wanted amnethsty for illegals. That is not a Republican ideal.

And lets also not forget how many RINOs are running for President; McCain, Fred Thomson, Romney, Tootie Fruity el a Rudy, and of course Con Paul!


----------



## krickitat (Aug 20, 2007)

> Yeah, but I don't think women should be paid for their babies either. I mean, I see the point you're making. There are women out there who would pay anything just for the chance to raise and care for a child. But to take that one step further, we should only offer to take the child and put him or her in a loving home. If we paid women to have babies then that is all some would do. Plus, it would be like making babies things to be sold.



we actually felt the same way and turned her down 
the baby got adopted to a very nice family in florida

i have never seen her nor am i likely too, i would even recommend that if she wanted to find my sister not to....whatever life she leads now is better then the disappointments she would get after meeting my sis.

and god the idea of amnesty and ANOTHER workers visa for illegals just.....JUST SETS ME ON FIRE

dumbasses anyways 
but that doesnt belong here


----------



## Orochimaru-sama Sannin (Aug 20, 2007)

MartialHorror said:


> Then again, if someone has an abortion they were probably stupid and didn't have sex with a condom. If so, I dont feel any pity for the person. If the condom broke, then it shows condoms aren't perfect.
> 
> If they were raped, then I'm more lenient towards the abortion.



So, is the child a "punishment" for the parents? Why should the child be used as the parents' 'just reward" when it is the child that will suffer for being born into a world that they weren't ready for?




> It's funny now that I think about it. Most of the people who are pro-choice are the ones bitching about God murdering in the Bible.


\

That's because an embryo/early fetus isn't a conscious being, it is just about as human as a tumor. And after all, tumors have human DNA, and can become people if you use cloning technologies. Quick, save the tumors! Your God, on the other hand, supposedly killed people due to his own ego problems and had them condemmed to burn in a giant grill for eternity. Big difference. Don't make this into a religious movement against atheists, buddy, or you'll be biting off more than you can chew.




> Anyway, I became mostly pro-life after seeing some woman(who was concieved from a rape and was adopted) say if she ever met her mother, she would thank her for giving her a chance at life(instead of an abortion). Her comments alone made me decide I dont believe the Mother should just throw someone elses life away because they dont want them. It's selfish.



Nice to round off your arguments with the "appeal to emotions". The trouble is, have you ever seen a person who wants to have never lived? At least, not when they were adopted successfully? But in reality, the situation is rarely like that. The child isn't always put up for adoption, or even adopted by good parents in the first place. And foster homes aren't always provided by nice people. Usually that child is in a state of not being wanted, or lives with very irresponsible parents. Usually the parents (usually the mother) is under pressure from her morally-rigid family to keep the child and raise him/her herself. That child often feels the bite of poverty and violence, as well as later turning to drugs. 

And when it comes to children of rape: It's not selfish to end a pregnancy if you are the mother and you know you are not ready for the birth of the child and the problems that come later. Saying that such a mother is selfish is like saying that everybody in general must have as many children as possible because not doing so is denying the right of every random egg cell produced in the ovaries to live as a human. If the embryo never progresses from a tumorlike lump of stem cells to an organism with any consciousness, then it never lived as a person in the first place. 

It is quite different from giving birth to a child and then euthanizing it, though many pro-lifers like to think that.



Sorry for randomly bringing up something from the very beginning of the thread, but after digging through the early pages, I found that I really needed to respond to this.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 20, 2007)

You think that's bad... this will really burn you up.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 20, 2007)

obama needs to learn how to talk 

i hate how he stutters, if you have something to then say it 

anyways MAJOR off topicness


----------



## drache (Aug 20, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> You think that's bad... this will really burn you up.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 20, 2007)

its not we just got into a side tangent about immigration laws 

so sorry


----------



## Orochimaru-sama Sannin (Aug 20, 2007)

BI! are you kidding me? Burn me up? Barak was right on the money, as was Hillary. I'm glad that there are intelligent people in the world. You put that clip there to show idiocy? If you really want to show idiocy at its finest, put on a Republican debate, Bill O'Reilly, or a recording or Hannity or Limbaugh.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

Immigration is conquest is war, we are french surrender monkeys for not driving them out.  Troy would never put up with this shit, when a bunch of greeks decided to live and work in Turkey for 10 years, they fucked shit up and created the best book ever. <3


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 20, 2007)

BI!, you're a dumb fuckin shit. The women who want abortion hate men? Somebody's a test tube baby.

The whole reason they're in the position is because they're in is because they love men too much, and now they're pregnant because of it. Dumb fuck.

Oh and BTW, most of the women I've ever spoken to about the subject of abortion say that they believe a woman should have the choice, and that it should be legal. So I guess the "women" you've spoken to are really just men with man boobs.


----------



## Moogle101 (Aug 20, 2007)

I think the father should get a say too, I mean, the woman didn't make the baby alone, it's his child too.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 20, 2007)

Meh, I'm a male, and while I think men should have a say in abortion, I really don't think they should have the *final word *on whether or not a woman gets to have an abortion, since it's their body after all.

If this law goes through it better include the man paying for the testing, with *full support* for the child, and the mother while she is pregnant/recovering from pregnancy. I don't care if some mothers are capable of working through their pregnancies, not all are.

Otherwise, there'd be no point at all since the woman can and will just go to another state and have an abortion, it'll just be a little more of a hassle. But even then, it'd be much more easier on them and their bodies, especially if the other option would basically force them to work while pregnant with a baby that they don't even want.


----------



## Believe It! (Aug 20, 2007)

krickitat said:
			
		

> obama needs to learn how to talk
> 
> i hate how he stutters, if you have something to then say it



The thing is, Obama is thinking about what he should say to where no one disagrees with him. That is why he came up with that compromise idea. Secure the border but grant amnesty. Americans want a secure border AND they want the illegals gone! His tactics don't work, and anyone who actually listens to what he says rather than assume that what he says is good, knows that he is an empty suit who tries to appeal to everyone.



			
				Orochimaru-sama said:
			
		

> BI! are you kidding me? Burn me up? Barak was right on the money, as was Hillary.



About what? Giving people who broke the law the chance to become legal citizens? That's crap and you're stupid if you buy it.



			
				Diamed said:
			
		

> Immigration is conquest is war, we are french surrender monkeys for not driving them out.



There is nothing wrong with immigration or immigrants. The problem is that it is being done illegally and it is endangering the lives of Americans.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> BI!, you're a dumb fuckin shit. The women who want abortion hate men?



Some are, sure. They want to feel like they have the power over men. Whatever they decide, they have the power. They decide if his child lives or dies, and if she chooses life, then the man is forced to pay child support. Meanwhile the woman raises the kid to hate the father. It's a control issue.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> The whole reason they're in the position is because they're in is because they love men too much, and now they're pregnant because of it. Dumb fuck.



Sex does not equal love. Retard.



			
				Sexta Espada said:
			
		

> Oh and BTW, most of the women I've ever spoken to about the subject of abortion say that they believe a woman should have the choice, and that it should be legal. So I guess the "women" you've spoken to are really just men with man boobs.



No, it's that the "women" you have spoken to are sluts with empty souls. The women I have spoken to are true women, respectable ladies, and real mothers.



			
				Bamboocha said:
			
		

> I think the father should get a say too, I mean, the woman didn't make the baby alone, it's his child too.



Ohh! That is too logical of an argument. You're going to have to go to a different thread with that please.



			
				Longcat is Long said:
			
		

> Meh, I'm a male, and while I think men should have a say in abortion, I really don't think they should have the final word on whether or not a woman gets to have an abortion, since it's their body after all.



Then what say do they have? If they cannot effect the outcome then they have no say. Also, the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body.



			
				Longcat is Long said:
			
		

> If this law goes through it better include the man paying for the testing, with full support for the child, and the mother while she is pregnant/recovering from pregnancy.



Bull crap. It should be shared evenly.



			
				Longcat is Long said:
			
		

> I don't care if some mothers are capable of working through their pregnancies, not all are.



Well that is up to their doctors.



			
				Longcat is Long said:
			
		

> Otherwise, there'd be no point at all since the woman can and will just go to another state and have an abortion, it'll just be a little more of a hassle.



She should be treated as a murderer when she returns then.



			
				Longcat is Long said:
			
		

> But even then, it'd be much more easier on them and their bodies, especially if the other option would basically force them to work while pregnant with a baby that they don't even want.



They can work up to the sixth month. Many can even work for the full nine months.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 20, 2007)

Believe It! said:


> There is nothing wrong with immigration or immigrants. The problem is that it is being done illegally and it is *endangering the lives of Americans*.


Er.. How? Canadian terrorists?(Lawl) Taking away jobs? 

Force equal pay, then there's no incentive to hire illegal immigrants.

The whole saying illegal immigrants are "endangering the lives of Americans" thing just sounds like a fear tactic to me. Or a report by Conservative Republican Fox News, either way.



> Some are, sure. They want to feel like they have the power over men. Whatever they decide, they have the power. They decide if his child lives or dies, and *if she chooses life, then the man is forced to pay child support. Meanwhile the woman raises the kid to hate the father. It's a control issue.*


Why would a woman who wants to abort the fetus choose to keep it? 

(Also, it kind of sounds like you have alot of issues with women since you framed them up to be so manipulative.)



> Then what say do they have? If they cannot effect the outcome then they have no say. Also, the unborn child is not a part of the woman's body.


It's a bit complicated since there's only a final say or no say on this issue. I suppose the only thing the man can do is try to talk her out of it. While I do *want* to have a 50-50 decision, it's just not possible here, and the idea of a man forcing a woman to have a child that she does not want just doesn't seem right to me. 

..What do you consider a part of a woman's body then? A fetus subsists off the mother's blood, is protected by her immune system, and gets it's nutrients from her.

What is a fetus then? An incredibly crafty parasite?



> Bull crap. It should be shared evenly.



What if she doesn't have a job then?

Anyway, that's your opinion, I can't change it.



> Well that is up to their doctors.


So if the woman can't work according to them, will the man have to pay?



> She should be treated as a murderer when she returns then.


Sorry, but you can't possibly do that with the way individual state laws apply. The only thing that can possibly be done to her is that the man sues her, but I don't see that succeeding.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 20, 2007)

He believes something that has never breathed, never spoken, never eaten, never learned, never loved, never hated and never had any life experiences should have the same rights as everybody else. That's the biggest flaw in all these anti abortion arguments. The thing you're trying to save is in no way human. He is nothing more than an empty shell, no soul. And when he is born, he'll likely be put under the care of a mother who tries to take good care of him, and his father is reluctant to pay the child support. It's the parents choice, all laws regarding it are really stupid, unless all they do is give the couple the right to choose.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

A 1 year old is dumber than the pigs we eat (or close enough), you have to be like 2 to overcome your pet dog.  It's obvious that children are valued not for their current value but their potential value.  The same for unborn children.  I know it's also the same for unimpregnated eggs, but there's a threshold at pregnancy which is the first time it could develop into a person, before then it can't.  That's why it goes from a single celled organism no different from a skin cell to a potential human and therefore a valuable member of the human race.  So long as the mother lets nature take its course it will someday become a person just like you and me, or better, or worse, who knows?  At least now it has a chance.



> No, it's that the "women" you have spoken to are sluts with empty souls. The women I have spoken to are true women, respectable ladies, and real mothers.



Gosh Believe It that really struck a chord with me.  You should tell them that, praise like that is a wonderful gift they apparently deserve.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 20, 2007)

Maybe it wasn't meant to have a chance.


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 20, 2007)

If a woman doesn't want a baby it shouldn't matter if the guy in the relationship does. He doesn't have to carry the child for 9 months, he doesn't have to breast feed it, he isn't going to be as expected to take care of it if he ever decides to walk out one day (there are a lot more single mother's raising kids then fathers). If a mother doesn't want a child chances are there'll be a reason whether it's money issues or she just doesn't feel ready to raise someone. I understand why a guy would want to have a say seeing as the child is also his but I also understand that the only thing he did was knock the girl up.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

You're speculating on how much the guy cares.

Furthermore boohoo she had unsafe sex and she got pregnant, let's all cry her a river of sympathy.  The kid is at least innocent.  also ever heard of adoption?


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 20, 2007)

Ever tried pushing a kid you don't want out of your crotch? Or getting stretch marks and gaining weight? Or having to eat and stay healthy so the baby doesn't end up being born retarded? And believe it or not you can get pregnant even if your having safe sex. You seem to have the mentality that all the woman has to do is give birth and then give the kid away. If I had a kid I would never be able to give it up. If I got pregnant by accident at some point in my life where I wasn't ready and didn't feel I could provide well for my child I would get an abortion and wait until the right time. The kid isn't even a kid yet but if it's born and ends up in the adoption system who knows where it will end up or who its parents will be. Not all kids get adopted. It isn't a perfect world full of sunshine and puppies, it's a world full of shit and I would never have a kid before I felt I could protect them from that. I don't give a damn how much the guy cares, my child would come first.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Furthermore boohoo she had unsafe sex and she got pregnant, let's all cry her a river of sympathy. The kid is at least innocent.  also ever heard of adoption?



People get pregnant all the time even with birth control. Condom tore? Pill just didn't work? Whoops.

To me, it's just a fetus until it's self aware.

Otherwise, you want to talk about potential and innocent kids? What about the extra frozen embryos from in vitro fertilization that get *thrown out all the time*? Are they not alive, and brimming with "potential" just like a fetus?

Yet I don't hear anyone complaining about them unless scientists want to actually put them to use for stem cell research, which is why I don't like your argument about the potential of the fetus. Blargh I'm getting off track, someone should start a topic about that.


----------



## Saria19 (Aug 20, 2007)

Ok, this is crap. I may be pro-life, but it should be the WOMAN'S choice. Men can have the final say when they have to carry the kid for 40 weeks before have to go through birth or having a c-section.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

So you'd rather kill a kid then give it up for adoption for its own sake.

::crickets::

You must have an extremely low value to life if you think it's better to be dead than adopted.  I'm sure in due time they can kill themselves if it's that bad, but you'll note that almost everyone no matter what their situation prefers life.  Almost as though it's better.

All sex has a chance to impregnate you.  Realize this.  Make your choice with this in mind.  Christ people grow up and take responsibility.  You want the right to kill babies so you can have slightly more pleasant orgasms inside the woman's vagina instead of in her mouth or hands or something.  Or if you're a girl provide lurid example *here* like it's better hard than springy, I don't know.

And what about 1 and 2 year olds?  Why is infanticide wrong?  They are dumber than animals.  Is it maybe because of their potential if you just don't cut them into pieces or bash their skull in to be a 'true woman, a respectable lady, and real mother.'  ?


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> So you'd rather kill a kid then give it up for adoption for its own sake.
> 
> ::crickets::
> 
> ...



When i'm close to someone at all I value their life extremely highly. I don't eat dead things I don't kill spiders and I would never kill a baby. What you don't seem to understand is that a lot of people who get an abortion don't consider a fetus a kid or a baby. Infanticide is considered wrong because it's a baby not a fetus. It's been born and it's alive. It sounds like you completely ignored my argument and just feel like obsessively ranting. People don't get abortions just so they can have better sex. Some do it to be responsible. When did I ever say having an abortion and killing a baby would make someone a true woman and mother? In fact when has anyone other then you said that?


----------



## drache (Aug 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> You're speculating on how much the guy cares.
> 
> Furthermore boohoo she had unsafe sex and she got pregnant, let's all cry her a river of sympathy. The kid is at least innocent. also ever heard of adoption?


 
There are just as many (if not more) stories of bad adoptions as there are of good adoptions.

Further you're speculating too, you're assuming that a guy *forcing* a child on a woman is doing it because he wants the child. When it's equally possible he's doing it becuase oh say the woman left him and she has a preganancy scare.


BI- You know, if you really really beleive that hate garbage you just spewed frankly I think *you* should be subjected to that. Let's arrest you as a murderer and someone that's ruining lives because you're not helping. Do you think the adoption system would handle the kids? (I'm talking USA now) Because I have as much faith in the system as I do that hippos fly. Not to mention the fact that we'd be wasting even more jail space and time and money. Just so you can try and legistrate morality? Never mind that you've offered no proof fathers even have the right to force this on another person or that the father is some how *more* qualified then the woman to have the final say on it.

Good God, if you think you're a 'true conservative' then I am glad there's no more 'true conservatives' and I  hope karma gives you what you so richly deserve.

Finally are you going to acknowledge what I posted in the our debate discussion thread or do I need to bump it again?


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 20, 2007)

drache said:


> There are just as many (if not more) stories of bad adoptions as there are of good adoptions.
> 
> Further you're speculating too, you're assuming that a guy *forcing* a child on a woman is doing it because he wants the child. When it's equally possible he's doing it becuase oh say the woman left him and she has a preganancy scare.
> 
> ...



Say it sister! Down with pretentious misogynistic assholes!


----------



## Diamed (Aug 20, 2007)

You misread what I said, so maybe I misread what you said.  You said you would prefer the baby never lived at all, than was adopted and grew up in america.  correct?  To me that's an astounding choice, first off because you must think life is worse than death, second because you think you should make that decision for your kid, instead of leaving it up to them.

I have no problem with people who have abortions for legitimate reasons.  We are now arguing about the ones who are having abortions so they can have better orgasms.  Seriously this is all they are having them for, otherwise they could just avoid the chance of pregnancy.  Or are people so swept away in lust they just shouldn't be held responsible for when they have it?  What do you mean they aren't doing it for better sex?

The last comment should have read like this:  "The reason infants are valuable is the exact same reason unborn children are valuable, their potential worth.  If you just don't bash their skulls in or cut them up, they might well develop into true women, respectable ladies, and real mothers, like believe it's description of those women he talked to.  That sounded to me like a very high potential worth preserving a life for the chance of growing into.  I wasn't referring to anything you said.


----------



## Scud (Aug 20, 2007)

It's Ohio. What do you expect from them?


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 20, 2007)

Diamed said:


> You misread what I said, so maybe I misread what you said.  You said you would prefer the baby never lived at all, than was adopted and grew up in america.  correct?  To me that's an astounding choice, first off because you must think life is worse than death, second because you think you should make that decision for your kid, instead of leaving it up to them.
> 
> I have no problem with people who have abortions for legitimate reasons.  We are now arguing about the ones who are having abortions so they can have better orgasms.  Seriously this is all they are having them for, otherwise they could just avoid the chance of pregnancy.  Or are people so swept away in lust they just shouldn't be held responsible for when they have it?  What do you mean they aren't doing it for better sex?
> 
> The last comment should have read like this:  "The reason infants are valuable is the exact same reason unborn children are valuable, their potential worth.  If you just don't bash their skulls in or cut them up, they might well develop into true women, respectable ladies, and real mothers, like believe it's description of those women he talked to.  That sounded to me like a very high potential worth preserving a life for the chance of growing into.  I wasn't referring to anything you said.



I don't think death is better then life. I think the world is TOTALLY over populated, I think going through with a pregnancy is a hard thing to do. I think parents make loads of choices for there children And I think your only thinking about the unborn child instead of the mother and any possible number of situations she might be in. You keep talking about better orgasms what are you talking about? People have been having sex forever they aren't going to stop because they might get pregnant. Why shouldn't couples who aren't ready to have a child have an abortion?


----------



## drache (Aug 20, 2007)

And yet I'll go back to a point no one on your side Diamed ever addressed.

Just how many females do you know that regularly have abortions 'just to have a better orgasm' or even more orgams?

Let me see stastics, personal stories (though those always hold less wieght as they can't be crossed checked) anything but let's see the proof of your claim.

While having an abortion isn't major surgery it's also not something you go though just because, and frankly you make it sound like most females aren't on BC when in fact my experience is the opposite. Most females I know are on BC rather or not they're having sex and rather or not they're even planning on having sex anytime soon.

Mandybear, ty though for the reccord I'm a guy I just don't like the idea of any one having ANY say over another's body. Nor do I like people legistrating morality as balantly as this, nor do I like the underhanded attempt to undermine Roe.


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 21, 2007)

drache said:


> Mandybear, ty though for the reccord I'm a guy I just don't like the idea of any one having ANY say over another's body. Nor do I like people legistrating morality as balantly as this, nor do I like the underhanded attempt to undermine Roe.



Oopsie!


----------



## genjustusninja12 (Aug 21, 2007)

it feels better for guys so it should be the womens decision


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Mandybear said:


> Oopsie!


 
  it's all good


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

With pleasure Drache, here is the evidence.

rape or i*c*st	1	(0.4-1.3)
mother has health problems	3	(2.8)
possible fetal health problems	3	(3.3)
unready for responsibility	21
is too immature or young to have child	11	(12.2)
woman's parents want her to have abortion	<0.5
has problems with relationship or wants to avoid single parenthood	12	(14.1)
husband or partner wants her to have abortion	1
has all the children she wanted or all children are grown	8	(7.9)
can't afford baby now	21	(21.3)
concerned about how having baby would change her life	16
doesn't want others to know she had relations or is pregnant	1
other	3

By my count that's 7% had abortions for a legitimate reason, 93% because they wanted stronger orgasms.  Sucks when the truth is absolutely crushingly on the side of your opponent huh.

  And I keep repeating, being on birth control does not remove your responsibility, you still have a slight chance of getting with child and you know it ahead of time, DEAL.  You chose casual sex and it has risks, as small as you make them that's still your choice and your risk.


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> With pleasure Drache, here is the evidence.
> 
> rape or i*c*st	1	(0.4-1.3)
> mother has health problems	3	(2.8)
> ...



By my calculations your 100% stupid. Responsibility is a joke! There are so many humans running this entire planet is pretty much doomed. If every country lived like the US it would take 5 earths to support us all! If people aren't reponsible enough to even recycle what the hell makes you think they should be making and raising babies? Huge things like global warming, a depleteing ozone and poverty just serve as proof that human beings are NOT responsible. You are not pregnant. And until you are I don't think you should pass judgement on what is a legitimate reason and what isn't. What the HELL is the matter with you?
93% because they wanted stronger orgasms.???
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

What I mean is the only way to get pregnant is for the dick to go in the vagina.  You can have orgasms without even doing that, so the only remaining reason is a stronger orgasm, correct?  So these people are putting dicks in vaginas in order to have stronger orgasms, while refusing to deal with the pregnancy that might follow.  They then kill an unborn child, who is innocent, has potential worth, and loved by various people like hopeful adoptive parents who would take care of it, because they can not be bothered to bring it to term, they only wanted to have stronger orgasms.  This is hedonism of the worst sort.


----------



## Mandybear (Aug 21, 2007)

I am so sick of arrogant jerks like you. If a woman wants an abortion it's her choice. It's people like you, who are incapable of seeing outside the box, that have completely fucked up this planet. Your so focused on saving unborn babies you don't seem to give a shit about the more important issues.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> With pleasure Drache, here is the evidence.
> 
> rape or i*c*st 1 (0.4-1.3)
> mother has health problems 3 (2.8)
> ...


 

Thank you for at least offering a study, as soon as I can I'm going to rep you for that. And for the fact that after examining it it appears to be an impartial one at that.

That said, it's your own personal belief that BC doesn't relieve them of responsiblity. And frankly I don't agree, they're being reponsible and using protection. What more do you want from them? No sex? I'm sure that both guys and girls would just stop right now till they're ready to have childern just because you think that due to freak chance a pregenacy occured.

That's like saying that anyone struck by lightening deserved it because it happened.

Your definition of personal responsiblity is too rigid and too unreasonable.

As to the study I saw nothing of people having an abortion to 'have better or more sex'.

edit: I already dealt with adoption Diamed, some will be able to give up thier child some wouldn't  want to. Who are you to question that choice? Have you ever had to make it? I know I can only begin to barely understand how diffiicult a choice it is. Not to mention the USA adoption system sucks badlly, it tries but it's under funded (and Bush only made it more under funded). Thus childern all the time get put into bad homes and end up getting messed up for life.

Adoption isn't some magical pill that will make it all better. It's an option, just like abortion is one, just like keeping it and dealing with it is.


----------



## Toby (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed, I am intrigued by your statistic evidence. I will look into this, but first I will comment on one thing: Using prevention means that the sex is certainly not casual. It is planned in an attempt to be safe. That is what security and prevention mean.

Otherwise, you have at least a source for a counter-argument. That is commendable.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

I think it's casual sex when you have it with a girl you wouldn't raise a child with.  Difference of opinion.  What makes it even more frustrating is that apparently they've never heard of handjobs or blowjobs which is perfectly situated for the casual crowd and just insist on doing this more dangerous in terms of pregnancy/stds, then cry about how it isn't fair what happens next.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 21, 2007)

You know, you could just shut the fuck up and let people live their lives how they want to.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I think it's casual sex when you have it with a girl you wouldn't raise a child with.  Difference of opinion.  What makes it even more frustrating is that apparently they've never heard of handjobs or blowjobs which is perfectly situated for the casual crowd and just insist on doing this more dangerous in terms of pregnancy/stds, then cry about how it isn't fair what happens next.



Preaching abstinence never works.  People in the world are going to have sex, plain as that.

Another thing you need to accept is a lot of women WILL end their pregnancies, simple as that.  Either by abortion, or throwing themselves down a flight of stairs, or poisoning themselves, or shoving a coat hanger inside of themselves, or just going to some illegal back alley abortion clinic.

Makes more sense to me to allow them to do this in a clean medically safe environment rather than in some back alley or worse.

So lets say she gets pregnant, wants an abortion, her husband/boyfriend/rapists (in the case of date rape or getting her drunk) says he doesn't want her to be able to get an abortion, then she throws herself down a flight of stairs, loses the baby and ends up permanently paralyzed.....yeah thats waaaaaaay better than just letting her get the abortion.  The "father" still loses his "baby" and now she's damaged for life or dead.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

why not let the unborn child live the life it wants to?

tsukiyomi:  You're wrong, the promiscuity of a country has varied widely and in the past most people were virgins until they were married.  Cultural acceptance and norms determines how casually people have sex.

If mothers kill or hurt themselves while trying to kill and hurt their baby, I guess that's how the cookie crumbles.  It's like if a burglar cut himself on the glass window he broke to get in.  sue! sue!


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 21, 2007)

Yeah, if the kid knew what was going on outside, I think he/she'd rather stay in his nice comfy vagina.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> why not let the unborn child live the life it wants to?



It wants to?  It doesn't want anything, its a fetus.



Diamed said:


> tsukiyomi:  You're wrong, the promiscuity of a country has varied widely and in the past most people were virgins until they were married.  Cultural acceptance and norms determines how casually people have sex.



Oh right, I forgot, no one had casual sex until the last few decades.  Thats why teen pregnancy is at an all time low NOW, no teens were having casual sex in the past.

Yeah, that also explains why prostitution is a new thing, I mean its not like its been around for thousands of years.



Diamed said:


> If mothers kill or hurt themselves while trying to kill and hurt their baby, I guess that's how the cookie crumbles.  It's like if a burglar cut himself on the glass window he broke to get in.  sue! sue!



Thats how the cookie crumbles?  You can prevent that by making abortions legal and all you can say is thats how the cookie crumbles?  In those cases the "baby" will die regardless, all you're doing is ensuring more lives will be ruined in the process and introducing the possibility that the "baby" will end up born severely damaged and lead a life of suffering.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> If mothers kill or hurt themselves while trying to kill and hurt their baby, I guess that's how the cookie crumbles.  It's like if a burglar cut himself on the glass window he broke to get in.  sue! sue!



Yeah wow, you're not a horrible person at all.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 21, 2007)

promiscuity and morality are trends....just like fashion
1700 was a time of lose morals but then that changed when france fell and then queen victoria. fabrics became heavier, busts went back up.
then in the ninteen 20's women started wearing "flapper dresses" drinking and smoking were rampant.
1940's the skirt became more conservative with darker fabrics 1950 hemline dropped again and it was no longer acceptable to drink or smoke in public

1960 women started wearing jeans and burning their bras

we just haven't swung out of this one yet but we are starting too...already fashion for young women is becoming more conservative...stores like JCpenny are sponsoring clothing lines for "modest you women who dont wish to flaunt their bodies"
saying this is an age of promiscuity is true 
but saying its the first and only is just not looking at all the facts


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

If they want to hurt themselves, that's their problem.  you realize that if we changed the law whenever people started protesting by hurting themselves due to our compassion for them we would be their hostages and they could blackmail us into anything?

"Give me free health care or I'll stab myself with a coat hanger!"
"Give me tickets to all the sports games or I stab myself with a coat hanger!"
"Become my girlfriend or I stab myself with a coat hanger!"

We've already established the come on line of 'if you leave me I'll kill myself' is not a morally acceptable one.  It's not like anything's changed.  Blackmail is blackmail, and it's really foolish to reward it because then they just do it more.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> If they want to hurt themselves, that's their problem. you realize that if we changed the law whenever people started protesting by hurting themselves due to our compassion for them we would be their hostages and they could blackmail us into anything?
> 
> "Give me free health care or I'll stab myself with a coat hanger!"
> "Give me tickets to all the sports games or I stab myself with a coat hanger!"
> ...



You make this specific law because you say your "saving lives".  You're trying to save the lives of "unborn children".  The women who really want to get abortions will get them regardless, you aren't saving anything in these cases, all your doing is motivating the mother to not only kill the fetus but harm herself in the process.


----------



## Alex Louis Armstrong (Aug 21, 2007)

TheDarkAdonis45 said:


> Grow the fuck up, people. When two people have sex and a fetus results (without them trying to make it, no less) and the father all of a sudden wants to play daddy, the woman doesn't, and shouldn't, have to oblige.



the man  shouldn't have to oblige 2....

and yeah its flipping the issue to the other extreme

heres the law they need to be passing
#1 if the woman don't want the kid she don't have to have it
#2 if the woman wants it she can keep it
#3 if the man does they have other options if im not mistaken.
#4 if the man doent want it he doent have to be around or pay(for the simple reason that if its only the woman choice then its her problem...)you know full well what i mean
you want equality you can have it..
and ohio doesn't suck the government does
edit and Believe It!
get my state out of your mouth


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 21, 2007)

fullmetal1985 said:


> the man shouldn't have to oblige 2....
> 
> and yeah its flipping the issue to the other extreme
> 
> ...



Fine, I don't see the problem with that.  I'm totally fine with men being able to head off, but in doing so they FOREVER lose any and all rights to those kids.  They can't come back once the kids are older and suddenly want to play daddy.  I've always thought men get screwed in custody battles and pretty much anything involving kids.

This is moving it in the wrong direction, instead of enabling choice on the mans part you're disabling choice on the womans side by giving the man jurisdiction over her body because he fucked her a few months back and just happened to leave some semen behind in his wake.


----------



## Alex Louis Armstrong (Aug 21, 2007)

Tsukiyomi said:


> Fine, I don't see the problem with that.  I'm totally fine with men being able to head off, but in doing so they FOREVER lose any and all rights to those kids.  They can't come back once the kids are older and suddenly want to play daddy.  I've always thought men get screwed in custody battles and pretty much anything involving kids.
> 
> This is moving it in the wrong direction, instead of enabling choice on the mans part you're disabling choice on the womans side by giving the man jurisdiction over her body because he fucked her a few months back and just happened to leave some semen behind in his wake.



and i believe that 2

about #3 if the man does they have other options if im not mistaken.

don't they have ways to get it out without destroying it i mean they have (seraget mothers not sure if its spelled right im getting the run around with spell check) now days right


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

It's cute like that isn't it, a man wants an abortion, they say, 'no, live with the consequences of your actions and take responsibility.'  then he pays child support for the next 18 years.  A girl wants an abortion, everyone is jumping hand over fist to say 'aww you poor baby here's a health clinic kill it and let's all forget what happened okay?'


----------



## Last of the Arrancar (Aug 21, 2007)

Well then I'd expect many women there to go across states to get an avortion. 

There's no way the father should have a say. You can never force a woman to carry a child and give birth to it if she doesn't want it. 

There's 2 important reasons:
- it's HER body. And that is obviously the way it is set in nature, women make the babies. Men should deal with the fact they just will never have a say in this matter. 
- The mother is still the primary caregiver, this will never change either, so the mom is the one who will have to sacrifice any carrier to raise a child and who will have to pay for the child's needs. 

Frankly this is just another example of American stupidity.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> It's cute like that isn't it, a man wants an abortion, they say, 'no, live with the consequences of your actions and take responsibility.'  then he pays child support for the next 18 years.  A girl wants an abortion, everyone is jumping hand over fist to say 'aww you poor baby here's a health clinic kill it and let's all forget what happened okay?'



You seem to be thinking "It's unfair for the men, so let's take rights away from the women", instead you might want to ask for a law to be passed that removes all consequences and responsibilities for a man who does not want to have a child, and in return he will no longer have any access to the child at all, ever.

This law would do nothing for what you want, it would only make women go to another state to get their pregnancies terminated, and if they do not have the means to do so, they will harm themselves to remove the fetus.

So what exactly would this accomplish?

More hospitalized/dead women, and Planned Parenthood losing business in Ohio? Seriously, I'm at a loss here.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 21, 2007)

No, it's true. America has been doing many stupid things these days..what ever happened to the days when all we did was mind our own fuckin business, and only stepped out to go and kick some ass?


----------



## Last of the Arrancar (Aug 21, 2007)

> and i call you flamebait





> No, it's true. America has been doing many stupid things these days..what ever happened to the days when all we did was mind our own fuckin business, and only stepped out to go and kick some ass?



Must agree, as this law shows, people have lost their collective minds.


----------



## Alex Louis Armstrong (Aug 21, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:


> No, it's true. America has been doing many stupid things these days..what ever happened to the days when all we did was mind our own fuckin business, and only stepped out to go and kick some ass?



first of all if you wanna call your self stupid you can thats your right i refuse to be lumped into the 1/4 of America thats stupid.
the fact that this bill sucks @$$ and I'm not supporting it means that I'm not stupid besides even if this bill passes it will be thrown out of court 100% of the time.

edit:and i still say flamebait


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

No, it's actually fair for the men, they had sex with her, they should pay child support.  The point is the same standard applied to the man should apply to the woman.  She had sex with him, she should have to give birth.  Feminists are hypocrites because they only want one sex to be responsible.  It shows all they ever want is free goodies.  You'll never get them to agree that men shouldn't have to pay child support if they wanted an abortion.  Ohhhhh no.  It won't work that way, that would require honesty and fairness.


----------



## Calm (Aug 21, 2007)

wow...i think its good for the men to have a say in the abortion thing... As long as they arent trying to use the child as a leash on the women ("i want this child and if you try to kill it you go to jail like the hoe you are!" etc, etc.)*tiptoes out of this battlefield now*


----------



## Last of the Arrancar (Aug 21, 2007)

> No, it's actually fair for the men, they had sex with her, they should pay child support. The point is the same standard applied to the man should apply to the woman. *She had sex with him, she should have to give birth.* Feminists are hypocrites because they only want one sex to be responsible. It shows all they ever want is free goodies. You'll never get them to agree that men shouldn't have to pay child support if they wanted an abortion. Ohhhhh no. It won't work that way, that would require honesty and fairness.



And you think the guy has sex so he can have a baby????

And you actually think there'd be guys who'd say 'oh lets have the baby so I can be a daddy!!! YAAAY'  .... yeah right.

And how about they don't have to pay child support if they approve an abortion? I'm not sure you have to pay any support if you don't recognise the child as your own.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> No, it's actually fair for the men, they had sex with her, they should pay child support.  The point is the same standard applied to the man should apply to the woman.  She had sex with him, she should have to give birth.  Feminists are hypocrites because they only want one sex to be responsible.  It shows all they ever want is free goodies.  You'll never get them to agree that men shouldn't have to pay child support if they wanted an abortion.  Ohhhhh no.  It won't work that way, that would require honesty and fairness.



Gratification of your hatred of feminism aside, how does this law do anything positive again?

It certainly won't save any unwanted pregnancies, since women can just go to another state to have it terminated, and will only end in more harm from intentional miscarriages from those who are unable to leave the state.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 21, 2007)

most states you are obliged to pay child support if the mother writes you as the father on the birth certificate and she takes steps to see that you do

a man can then ask for paternity test and it goes from there 
it doesnt matter if a man SAYS it isnt his, according to the government once the woman claims a child as belonging to a certain man the burden of proof is then on his hands.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

thank you kricket.  you keep injecting reality back into this argument. <3

oh and you're right longcat, this law would do nothing.  It would require a federal law banning stupid abortions.  *shrug*  It would raise awareness and challenge roe v. wade though, which given bush's two new supreme court nominees will probably go down this time.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 21, 2007)

fullmetal1985 said:


> first of all if you wanna call your self stupid you can thats your right i refuse to be lumped into the 1/4 of America thats stupid.
> the fact that this bill sucks @$$ and I'm not supporting it means that I'm not stupid besides even if this bill passes it will be thrown out of court 100% of the time.
> 
> edit:and i still say flamebait



Calling America stupid is more a reflection of the general populace. There's always going to be exceptions. Just because the rest of your country is stupid, doesn't make you. By challenging this law, it shows that you, and everybody else denouncing it are the smart people of America, and it's only hope.

And it's 1/4 of America that is smart. The other 3/4 are stupid.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

at least we aren't aborting all our kids and getting muslims to replace our rapidly dying out and aging population after starting two world wars that were pointless slaughters for sheer love of power. . .you guys couldn't even pacify bosnia in your own backyard and begged us to do it. . .europeons have so much to be proud of. . .


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> at least we aren't aborting all our kids and getting muslims to replace our rapidly dying out and aging population after starting two world wars that were pointless slaughters for sheer love of power. . .you guys couldn't even pacify bosnia in your own backyard and begged us to do it. . .europeons have so much to be proud of. . .


 
Dude you need some reality


And let's have another cold splash of water, Bosinia and Kosovo were united efforts (which is probably why they worked and our mission in Iraq has only been a spectular FAILURE)

Further this law sucks and would most likely be a violation of the 14th amendment.

I think men should have more input and I don't like the fact that men can be forced to pay child support. But as things stand the alternative is far worse as this law would violate another's free will and it's pretty clear that of the 2 the women have a more pressing claim.

PS I would reccomend you get some counseling as you seem to have unresolved issues with women.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

drache said:


> PS I would reccomend you get some counseling as you seem to have unresolved issues with women.



This. Seriously, did a girl reject you or something?


----------



## Deleted member 84471 (Aug 21, 2007)

Finally. I didn't read the responses understandably, but I can be sure there were some witches making posts opposing the move. Fie on those.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Snake_108 said:


> Finally. I didn't read the responses understandably, but I can be sure there were some witches making posts opposing the move. Fie on those.


 
So you support taking a person's right to make choices about thier body from them?


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

Drache, the only person who has posted evidence so far has been me, and I was right.  You were the one who thought reality was quite different from how it was.  Next off, don't give me shit about my personal life, not only is it rude, but it's not even true.  Which is generally the case when you talk about someone you know nothing about.

p.s.:  Which other part of reality are you ignorant of?  The below replacement birth rate of europe and the massive muslim immigration and muslim birth rate in europeon countries?  Or perhaps that europe started two world wars?  I'd be glad to inform you of both, though any halfway informed person already knows these things.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 21, 2007)

Muslims are moving there because it's close and it's not shitty. And I have yet to see a huge Muslim population in Europe, and I have actually been to a country in Europe not to long ago. It might be different elsewhere, but Europe is still white people factory.


----------



## Kanae-chan (Aug 21, 2007)

Amaretti said:


> This bill has been proposed by pro-life folk, so obviously the agenda behind this law is obvious. Let's make no mince-meat about it... it's not about giving fathers equal rights to mothers where children are concerned (which would be a commendable effort), it's about controlling women.
> 
> Giving men a say in abortion =/= Giving men the final word and ultimate control over proceedings.
> 
> Ohio, if this law passes, planet Earth is disowning you.


That sorta annoys me.

Well, The man shouldn't have the FINAL say. But, he should have some say. AE: "Well, I'd gladly take the child if it was born. I'd take care of it and give it a home"

And, please don't disown us off the earth! I'm not bad!


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

Kanae, you can't have some say in an abortion.  You can't give birth to half a baby.  If the father can't veto the abortion, then he has no say.  If he can veto the abortion, he has a final say.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Kanae, you can't have some say in an abortion.  You can't give birth to half a baby.  If the father can't veto the abortion, then he has no say.  If he can veto the abortion, he has a final say.



Exactly.  In the end one person will have absolute control, the final call.  And that power MUST go to the woman, the person who will actually carry and birth this child.  The one whose body is in question.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Drache, the only person who has posted evidence so far has been me, and I was right. You were the one who thought reality was quite different from how it was. Next off, don't give me shit about my personal life, not only is it rude, but it's not even true. Which is generally the case when you talk about someone you know nothing about.
> 
> p.s.: Which other part of reality are you ignorant of? The below replacement birth rate of europe and the massive muslim immigration and muslim birth rate in europeon countries? Or perhaps that europe started two world wars? I'd be glad to inform you of both, though any halfway informed person already knows these things.


 
First I apologize at one point that post you were responding to was worded entirely different then what it was and I must have missed that part when I edited everything.

I'm further seriously not giving you shit about your personal life. What I said wasn't meant to be combative or rude or mean, I really meant what I said and I really do think that if you think men have been so cruelly treated that we some how deserve the right to have control over another's body and that women can be used in the way you seem to think that there's something wrong.

*shrug* But I don't know you so maybe I'm wrong, maybe you're completely fine. I personally would think long and hard about it though becuase you seem to habor some powerful emotions about this topic.

I acknowledged that you posted a study, I even just repped you for it (I had to wait 24 hours to gain rep power back). That study though never listed 'wanted to have better sex' as a reason, the top 2 reasons were 'can't afford baby now' and 'unready for the responsiblity'

And frankly that's good news as I see it becuase those should be the most common reasons.

Again the only possible one that could be about sex is the one where people did it because they didn't want to have thier life interrupted. But frankly it could be just as likely that they didn't want to lose thier career having a baby (you do know that many women STILL have to take sick leave, or paid vaction days during they're pregant right? that's it is only been in the last couple years that here in the usa the idea that women should get time off for pregancy has started? Never mind the career they put aside).

Like it was just said, in the end someone has to have the final say and it is the woman's body here and the woman's life not the man's.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

Suppose you're a husband who has huge fertility problems, you've finally after 20 years gotten your wife pregnant, this is your one and only child you can ever hope to have.  She decides to have an abortion.  I guess since she has to give birth it's up to her huh, because the pain of giving birth outweighs the pain of losing your one and only chance at a child?

Or you know, we could leave it up to the kids, once they're five or so, we could ask all of them, "here's some cyanide, if you drink this you can die, if you don't, you'll live on for another 70 years, on average, meeting many wonderful people and experiencing many wonderful things, on average.  What do you want?"  Then we'd all learn that they in fact wanted to live, and you took that chance away from them with an abortion so that you could avoid the pain of giving birth--not even raising the kid, there's tons of people hoping to adopt.  No you're denying them this life simply because you can't be bothered to finish the pregnancy you started because 9 months of discomfort followed by a painful birth is more harm than the happiness of the child's entire life, and the adoptive parents who get to raise said child.

The study showed that 7% of them had to do it because of rape, the health of the mother, or the health of the fetus.  Everyone else did it because they wanted to have full blown sex, knowing it could lead to pregnancy, while avoiding the consequences of pregnancy.  Most disturbingly all of them replied as though adoption didn't exist, for instance 'couldn't afford a baby' pretends adoption doesn't exist.  And 'not mature enough yet,' and practically every response pretended adoption doesn't exist.  If only for the criminal stupidity of these people's reasons for aborting they shouldn't be allowed.  The only reason that remains after you factor in adoption is "didn't want to go through the hassle of carrying it to term."  So people are having sex, then aborting, because they don't want to go through the hassle, destroying a life in the meantime like it was so much garbage.  Yes this makes me deeply emotional, because I compare it to how much love a child deserves and how valuable a life really is.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Suppose you're a husband who has huge fertility problems, you've finally after 20 years gotten your wife pregnant, this is your one and only child you can ever hope to have.  She decides to have an abortion.  I guess since she has to give birth it's up to her huh, because the pain of giving birth outweighs the pain of losing your one and only chance at a child?



Too bad this is an ultimately flawed example that would never happen.



> Or you know, we could leave it up to the kids, once they're five or so, we could ask all of them, "here's some cyanide, if you drink this you can die, if you don't, you'll live on for another 70 years, on average, meeting many wonderful people and experiencing many wonderful things, on average.  What do you want?"



Are you really this stupid to even suggest this or is this a horrible attempt at humor?

Your whole damn argument is "ohhh think about the kid!"

Fact is, it is a FETUS. It is not human, not in the eyes of the law, or science. It is a developing one. You can think of it as a child, but hey, guess what. You're wrong.



> Everyone else did it because they wanted to have full blown sex


OH SHIT. FULL BLOWN SEX. SOMEONE GET THE FUCKING FBI ON THIS SHIT YO.

I MEAN JESUS FUCKING CHRIST. WHAT WERE THEY THINKING?


----------



## Cirus (Aug 21, 2007)

When it come to the possible life of another person many factors must be considered.  When giving the potential father the final say is in my opinon wrong, but so is giving the woman who will have the child the final say as well. (Don't misinterpret what I say) Also giving a gov athority the final say is also a big blunder.  
Yeah it does come down to the woman and her body. Plus parental respocibility.  But I firmly believe that any one person haveing the sole privilage to make that dicision is not right.  If my girlfriend were to become pregnant and she wanted to go through with an abortion I know I would like to have a say, because what happened happened between us, and not just her.  Of course I would not want the finnal say, but I would like a solid say in the matter.

No good answer can come of this discussion.  The discussion proposed like most political questions has only answers that people end up not liking.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

A fetus and an infant are valuable for the same reason, their potential worth.  No one talks to their friend they know is expecting and says, "so how's the fetusssss.  how long until the fetus is born?  when's the fetus due?  is the fetus a boy or a girl?"

No, the actual conversation goes like this:  "how's the baby?  how long until the baby comes out?  when's the baby due?  is the baby a boy or a girl?"  Applying a negative-connotation word so as to detach yourself emotionally is an evil tactic used to dehumanize whatever you want to hurt/kill, and a classic ploy of the nazis and such who called jews 'rats' and 'vermin' instead of people.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Senario 1: So unlikely that it approaches something you'd have to contrive to actually happen. Why did the woman change her mind? And I'd hope that as a married couple we actually talked and decided things together, but you're trying to legistrate in something that can't really be legistrated in. You're trying to legistrate morality which at best is impossible to work and at worst makes something criminal that really isn't criminal.

Are you going to acknowledge that I've responded to your adoption angle several times now and none of them you've ever dealt with. You just kept repeating 'Adoption, Adoption', jesus christ if you don't want to debate it then stop bringing it up or just tell me you don't want to cause I can do other things with my time.

3rd Medical Science says until x time it's not a life it's not human. Your analogy fails horribley and it's almost a reversed strawman because no one said anything about killing childern and I don't really know what else to say. The sheer illogic your statement showed is just mind numbing.

4th So anything other then medical is for better sex? Then I guess it could have nothing to do with people not being ready for a baby or not earning enough because god forbid people actually truthfully answer. You're injecting your own wishes and logic onto the study, which isn't valid.

Circus, how woud you step up such a system though? What would you do if/when there was disagreement? I mean it seems inevitable that eventually someone has to have the final say in the matter.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> A fetus and an infant are valuable for the same reason, their potential worth.  No one talks to their friend they know is expecting and says, "so how's the fetusssss.  how long until the fetus is born?  when's the fetus due?  is the fetus a boy or a girl?"
> 
> No, the actual conversation goes like this:  "how's the baby?  how long until the baby comes out?  when's the baby due?  is the baby a boy or a girl?"  Applying a negative-connotation word so as to detach yourself emotionally is an evil tactic used to dehumanize whatever you want to hurt/kill, and a classic ploy of the nazis and such who called jews 'rats' and 'vermin' instead of people.



That's nice. It doesn't change the fact that, in the eyes of the law and in science it isn't a human.



			
				Drache said:
			
		

> Are you going to acknowledge that I've responded to your adoption angle several times now and none of them you've ever dealt with. You just kept repeating 'Adoption, Adoption', jesus christ if you don't want to debate it then stop bringing it up or just tell me you don't want to cause I can do other things with my time.



You didn't know he did this? He did it in the "Western culture > eastern culture" thread as well.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Suppose you're a husband who has huge fertility problems, you've finally after 20 years gotten your wife pregnant, this is your one and only child you can ever hope to have.  She decides to have an abortion.  I guess since she has to give birth it's up to her huh, because the pain of giving birth outweighs the pain of losing your one and only chance at a child?



While I would understand that this would be unfair for the husband, quite frankly I'd say he's retarded for not getting in vitro fertilization.

Also, I'd find your situation a bit rare, probably even more rare than rape, and what does the proposed law say about having an unknown father?



> Claiming to not know the father's identity is not a viable excuse, according to the proposed legislation. Simply put: no father means no abortion.



Oh dear, it appears that her own hopes and dreams are screwed.



> Or you know, we could leave it up to the kids, once they're five or so, we could ask all of them, "here's some cyanide, if you drink this you can die, if you don't, you'll live on for another 70 years, on average, meeting many wonderful people and experiencing many wonderful things, on average.  What do you want?"  Then we'd all learn that they in fact wanted to live, and you took that chance away from them with an abortion so that you could avoid the pain of giving birth--not even raising the kid, there's tons of people hoping to adopt.  No you're denying them this life simply because you can't be bothered to finish the pregnancy you started because 9 months of discomfort followed by a painful birth is more harm than the happiness of the child's entire life, and the adoptive parents who get to raise said child.



Killing a child is much more different from killing a fetus. Maybe not in your view, but in many others, it is.

Also, if you're going to go the route of potential I'd suggest that you go around telling people to save the extra frozen fertilized embryos that are being thrown out. A bit hard to draw the line eh?


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

I answered your adoption argument every time, I answered it just last post:  "ask the 5 year old if they want to continue living, give them a bottle of cyanide, and let them decide."  If it's true like you say that life is so terrible for an adopted kid they'll take care of it themselves.  Otherwise, how the Fuck is it your business?  It's an effrontery no one would allow in any other case but abortion, to say YOU KNOW BEST whether someone should live or die and you can kill them for their own good.  It seems pretty self-evident to me though that an adopted baby is better off than a dead, non-existent one.  Why not just kill everyone since apparently death is better than life?


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> how the Fuck is it your business?



Oh the irony.


----------



## mystictrunks (Aug 21, 2007)

Does it really matter if it's legal or not, if someone doesn't want the kid they'll get rid of it somehow. May as well do it in a nice clinic.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

Unless you're an anarchist spectre, it's everyone's business when you hurt someone else, even an animal.  Considering a baby is worth more than an animal, yes it's very odd that you can just slice it up and vacuum it away at whim.  The law is not reaching any further than normal, in fact, it reaches much further than this regularly.


----------



## drache (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> If it's true like you say that life is so terrible for an adopted kid they'll take care of it themselves. Otherwise, how the Fuck is it your business? It's an effrontery no one would allow in any other case but abortion, to say YOU KNOW BEST whether someone should live or die and you can kill them for their own good. It seems pretty self-evident to me though that an adopted baby is better off than a dead, non-existent one. Why not just kill everyone since apparently death is better than life?


 
I never said all adoptions were bad, I said there are many that are and that the system as it is barely can keep up.

Not to mention some would never be willing to give up thier child. Yes I'm sure you think that's hypocritical but the truth is until a certain age a fetus is a fetus and it's not alive. I actually have the law, rights and the judicial system on my side, I've yet to see you or BI make a LEGAL arguement for this.

Who said I know best? Certainly not I, I'll say it again: Abortion should be a choice, adoption should be a choice, keeping it should be a choice and in the end ideally the couple chooses together. But as a decesion HAS to be made then who has the greater right to that final decesion? Why the one effected most by it, the female.


----------



## Casyle (Aug 21, 2007)

*Agrees with a lot of what Diamed has said*

I love the fetus/cell argument.  I don't have the exact stats with me, but A LOT of the "fetuses" aborted are so developed that they can survive if born!  If that doesn't qualify as life, I don't fuggin' know what does.The law considers them "fetuses" or whatever, so it's ok to abort 'em, though.  I mean, laws are perfect.

*Changed*  God, I wish I had those stats fresh in my mind.  A normal term is 9 months.  Kids have been born wweellll before that, but, dangit, it's been awhile since I found that out...  Damn my shitty memory!!!

To clarify.. I'm not against people stopping a pregnancy immediately.  I'm dead-against mid-term and late-term abortions.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

Of course a fetus is alive, you can watch its heart beat. . .christ.

No you are saying that it's okay to kill a child rather than give it up for adoption because it's life might be worse than death, instead of consulting the child and letting him/her make that decision for himself/herself.  That is absolutely unacceptable under any moral code imaginable.  "i'm killing you for your own good, you just don't know any better."  Has never gotten anyone out of jail for murder yet.  The child knows best, if it hates its life so much it can always commit suicide.  Who are you to decide for it whether it's too sad or not?  Putting aside that you are stealing the child's choice, a very critical one, the most important one: "to be, or not to be."  It's ludicrous to say even a tiny tiny fraction of them are worse off alive than dead.  Life is almost always better than death.  Again I'm confronted with how little most people must value their lives.  Are you all so desperately unhappy?

If the mother reconsiders after giving birth that she actually wants the child, isn't that her choice?  And isn't that a happy ending?  It is a very strange argument to say women can't help themselves, they are so instinctual that like robots they'll choose to keep any baby they have, and therefore they must be allowed to abort it to stop that train of thought from happening.  It is disrespectful towards the women and it also shows just how unnatural abortion really is, how drastically we are going against human nature and our instincts and basic values to do these things, when we are having to trick ourselves into making the decision against our own wish.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 21, 2007)

Casyle said:


> *Agrees with a lot of what Diamed has said*
> 
> I love the fetus/cell argument.  I don't have the exact stats with me, but A LOT of the "fetuses" aborted are* so developed that they can survive if born! * If that doesn't qualify as life, I don't fuggin' know what does.The law considers them "fetuses" or whatever, so it's ok to abort 'em, though.  I mean, laws are perfect.



I call unbelievably bad bullshit.



			
				Wikipedia said:
			
		

> Abortion rates also vary depending on the stage of pregnancy and the method practiced. In 2003, from data collected in those areas of the United States that sufficiently reported gestational age, it was found that *88.2% of abortions were conducted at or prior to 12 weeks*, 10.4% from 13 to 20 weeks, and 1.4% at or after 21 weeks.



Are you going to tell me that a 3 month old fetus can be born and survive?

Maybe a few will survive at 21 weeks/after, but you can't say alot.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> No you are saying that it's okay to kill a child



Stop calling it a child or everything you say will just be ignored. It's not a child.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

I guess I shouldn't be allowed to call a jew anything but a rat either, but I think I'll go on using the common usage of the term instead of the desensitized one designed solely and only for abortion debates so that people can say they aren't killing babies.


----------



## Longcat is Long (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I guess I shouldn't be allowed to *call a jew anything but a rat either,* but I think I'll go on using the common usage of the term instead of the desensitized one designed solely and only for abortion debates so that people can say they aren't killing babies.



Wow...

Way to gain credibility there!


----------



## krickitat (Aug 21, 2007)

Casyle said:


> *Agrees with a lot of what Diamed has said*
> 
> I love the fetus/cell argument.  I don't have the exact stats with me, but A LOT of the "fetuses" aborted are so developed that they can survive if born!  If that doesn't qualify as life, I don't fuggin' know what does.The law considers them "fetuses" or whatever, so it's ok to abort 'em, though.  I mean, laws are perfect.
> 
> Off the top of my very bad memory... Urr, say 24 months is the normal birth time.  Children have been born at and survived at 10 months!  However, again, the law though only considers them "fetuses'.  I have no doubt as to why.  *To help pro-choice*



abortions are only done until three months
after that it is against the law to perform an abortion because it creates a high risk for the woman. unless of course the womens own health deteriorates tot he point where abortion is the only option or the mother will die.

and while a baby CAN live at three months its not for long and they have alot of problems. even mothers who give bith to a child one month early have alot of problems. premie babies gets ick easier and they are more likley to have defects such as lung, heart, kidney and massive internal problems and failure.

a baby at three months does not have developed lungs, or internal organs neither does it have an immune system and likely never will.

so that argument is a no go babies have been taken out as early as six months into the pregnancy due to extreme health conditions but most of them experienced horrible health problems

and diamed fetus isnt an abortion term its a medical one and widely used for things other then abortion.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I guess I shouldn't be allowed to call a jew anything but a rat either, but I think I'll go on using the common usage of the term instead of the desensitized one designed solely and only for abortion debates so that people can say they aren't killing babies.



Because I'm not.

Allow me to try to get pass this for you.

Now, unless you actually think a jew isn't human, the Jewish people are in fact human. By law and by science, they are human.

By law and by science, a fetus is NOT a child, a fetus is NOT a baby.

It is just that, a FETUS.

Do you understand this or am I wasting my time?


----------



## Diamed (Aug 21, 2007)

Conversations between real live people talk about the baby and child they are expecting.  This is the real term used for unborn children.  Scientists in biology are trying to give labels to things to help understand the progression from zygote to embryo to fetus etc.  But no one actually talks like that.  It would be like calling your dog rex  'canus' or your brother, 'hello, fellow homo sapiens sapiens.'  (yes, we are in fact sapiens sapiens, not just sapiens)  I bet even doctors come home from work after talking about fetuses and rub their wife's belly and say 'how's the baby?'

this is why even though there are legitimate reasons to call it a fetus as a scientist and such, the only reason people are insisting on it here is so they can dehumanize the object they're about to kill.  It's a classic ploy and the first step to hurting someone else is calling them subhuman, and I see no reason why I have to help them do it.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 21, 2007)

Diamed said:


> Conversations between real live people talk about the baby and child they are expecting.  This is the real term used for unborn children.  Scientists in biology are trying to give labels to things to help understand the progression from zygote to embryo to fetus etc.  But no one actually talks like that.  It would be like calling your dog rex  'canus' or your brother, 'hello, fellow homo sapiens sapiens.'  (yes, we are in fact sapiens sapiens, not just sapiens)  I bet even doctors come home from work after talking about fetuses and rub their wife's belly and say 'how's the baby?'
> 
> this is why even though there are legitimate reasons to call it a fetus as a scientist and such, the only reason people are insisting on it here is so they can dehumanize the object they're about to kill.  It's a classic ploy and the first step to hurting someone else is calling them subhuman, and I see no reason why I have to help them do it.



Okay, it just means your opinion is pretty much nullified now.


----------



## Casyle (Aug 22, 2007)

Well, the point is, the child is developed enough that it CAN survive, at least for awhile.  There are children born in the 8th/9th month that die immediately due to disease or whatnot.  Surviving isn't a requirment for being a life, is it?


----------



## krickitat (Aug 22, 2007)

the difference is that a 3 month fetus has maybe a 10% chance of living
no one even realistically tries it because it just dosnt work. 

compared to 8 or nine months where the percentage is much higher thats a big difference

when people refer to their "baby" in the womb the are refering to the baby it will be. until then it is a fetus, you cant change facts with opinions


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2007)

Casyle said:


> Well, the point is, the child is developed enough that it CAN survive, at least for awhile. There are children born in the 8th/9th month that die immediately due to disease or whatnot. Surviving isn't a requirment for being a life, is it?


 
Nice try but viablity is and without major medical science no child born at the 3 month mark would be viable.

In fact with out ventalitors and machines to take the place of all that's missing at 3 months it would be dead within seconds.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

Will you call it a fetus?  I know it will always be my baby.  But anyway it's just semantics, it changes nothing about the moral issue.  And yeah currently a womb is needed all the way till 9 months or the child will come out pretty badly on average, saving a severely premature baby is a lost cause, it takes like ten million and you end up with a sickly retarded deformed mess.

However if the technology did develop to safely deliver a baby at 3 months I wonder how many of you would continue to say it's a 'woman's choice because it's her body' and how many would be sickened by the selfishness of killing a child even with that light a burden.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

> Will you call it a fetus? I know it will always be my baby. But anyway it's just semantics, it changes nothing about the moral issue.



Sorry, wrong again, it does.

If a women wants to abort/kill a fetus that's 12 weeks old, let her. It's her choice.

If a women wants to kill a 12 month old baby, she's a fucking loony.

If you can't see the difference between the two, I have a feeling you have mild mental retardation.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

Sorry, I can't see the difference.  Aren't infants also mindless parasites that just suck at the livelihood of the mother?  They are dumber than animals we eat.  Both of them are valued for their potential worth when they grow up.  To kill unborn children you must also be willing to kill infants, or you're inconsistent.

*actually infants take more effort and hassle than when they were in the womb, my bad.  You should kill infants FIRST and fetuses next to be consistent.


----------



## Serena_Ahnell (Aug 22, 2007)

I don't really understand the incessant drive for pro-lifers to invade, as it is  an invasion, other people's personal lives.  It goes, in my mind, too well with the compulsion for various religious groups to convert me to save my eternal soul from hell.  It really isn't any of their business what I do, as I am not about to land any of them in trouble, but they insist that they know better than I do when it comes to decisions that will impact my life and the lives of those around me.  It never personally affects any of them, but they must know better because they are convinced that they have a monopoly on morality.

It also comes down to groups with pro-life agendas tending to think that the mother decides over an expresso at Starbucks to abort.  Her best friend is there, of course, to shrug off her decision and the barbaric duo of pro-choice women plan an afternoon of shopping after the subject goes away with no deliberation.

The day a clump of cells in my body has more rights than I do is the day I move to another country.  

Should the father have a say?  Sure.  If he wants a say though he has to be willing to help raise the child and financially provide for the child.  Otherwise, I don't see why his opinion would matter one bit.

Things of this nature, abortion, should be discussed before sex though and along with the use of protection to prevent pregnancy if children aren't wanted.  Discussing sexual history is usually a good idea too!  Realistically this sort of upfront honesty doesn't happen often enough and a quick lay without a thought of the consequences is what usually ends up happening.

Ultimately the woman should have the choice.  It's her body and either way she is the one who will have to answer for her actions and live with the consequences, good or bad, in this life and beyond- if there is a beyond.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

agreed serena, naturally the boy should raise/provide for the child he insisted on.  I don't think you'll find anyone arguing against that.


----------



## Serena_Ahnell (Aug 22, 2007)

I think some of the problem is that a man will not insist on a child because he wants it in some cases.

However small, there will probably be cases that a man- should the legislation pass, will refuse to consent to an abortion out of malice.  Say the woman didn't agree to something he wanted (Sexual favors, living arrangements, marriage, etc), the relationship didn't work out (She wanted to go in a different direction that did not include him), extortion, blackmail (threatening to out her to prolife family/friends/associates)... There are just too many ways to go wrong with a situation like that.  SHE has no choice to comply with his wishes, whatever they may be, unless she wants to risk going underground to get an abortion.

It might be unlikely, but I don't put something like the scenario that I described people.

Ultimately, I think legislation like this encourages underground abortions to be performed and more secrecy and shame to surround a woman who is trapped by her body in terrible circumstances.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

As for personal liberty, that interest is trumped by the life of the child.  We're talking 9 months of discomfort here for a human life, with an average lifespan of 75 years full of ups and downs and all the joys you feel.

As for a clump of cells, a baby is just a wailing puking pissing fleshbag.  What's true of both of them is that someday they'll be just like you or me, the sky's the limit.  They are likely to live long and happy and fulfilling lives.  They aren't essentially any different from you, or a person who is temporarily comatose but recovers in a couple years and regains all his friends and family and interests.  You are taking a snapshot of them at their worst, instead of looking at the whole picture.  Should we kill someone who gets into an accident and falls unconscious for a day because he's 'just a mindless vegetable?' or reserve judgment and let the fullness of his life play out before deciding his worth?  Honestly, that clump of cells is probably better than the mother bearing it, because the cells have the potential to be anything, but the mother is clearly just an amoral, thoughtless, floozy of a slut.

Giving that woman the choice neglects the choice of the child, (or in this case the choice of the father who clearly wants it to live) who almost invariably would choose to live.  If she doesn't want a child, she can make that choice---by practicing safe sex (birth control is the only effective one and only if you use it religiously though, be aware), reserving her virginity for only the man she loves, staying at only oral or handjobs with her boyfriends--all sorts of choices.  The one choice I'm taking away is killing people for nothing more than the freedom to hedonistically pleasure themselves, something boys can't do either.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> As for personal liberty, that interest is trumped by the life of the child.  We're talking 9 months of discomfort here for a human life, with an average lifespan of 75 years full of ups and downs and all the joys you feel.
> 
> As for a clump of cells, a baby is just a wailing puking pissing fleshbag.  What's true of both of them is that someday they'll be just like you or me, the sky's the limit.  They are likely to live long and happy and fulfilling lives.  They aren't essentially any different from you, or a person who is temporarily comatose but recovers in a couple years and regains all his friends and family and interests.  You are taking a snapshot of them at their worst, instead of looking at the whole picture.  Should we kill someone who gets into an accident and falls unconscious for a day because he's 'just a mindless vegetable?' or reserve judgment and let the fullness of his life play out before deciding his worth?  Honestly, that clump of cells is probably better than the mother bearing it, because the cells have the potential to be anything, but the mother is clearly just an amoral, thoughtless, floozy of a slut.
> 
> Giving that woman the choice neglects the choice of the child, (or in this case the choice of the father who clearly wants it to live) who almost invariably would choose to live.  If she doesn't want a child, she can make that choice---by practicing safe sex (birth control is the only effective one and only if you use it religiously though, be aware), reserving her virginity for only the man she loves, staying at only oral or handjobs with her boyfriends--all sorts of choices.  The one choice I'm taking away is killing people for nothing more than the freedom to hedonistically pleasure themselves, something boys can't do either.





Spectre said:


> Okay, it just means your opinion is pretty much nullified now.



And thank god not everyone thinks like you do or this world would suck.


----------



## Serena_Ahnell (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> As for personal liberty, that interest is trumped by the life of the child.  We're talking 9 months of discomfort here for a human life, with an average lifespan of 75 years full of ups and downs and all the joys you feel.



What are you talking about?  Discomfort? If it were only discomfort then I think that abortion wouldn't be as hot an issue as it is and not as many women would be choosing it as they do if it was only "discomfort." 

It's a lifetime commitment on the part of the to be mother to have a child. The father? Should the father choose to take part in the child's upbringing or how often the father is around or should he choose to leave the mother and child for good... There are a lot of "Ifs" on the part of the father because the way out is usually much easier for the father than it is for the mother once she has given birth. 




> As for a clump of cells, a baby is just a wailing puking pissing fleshbag.  What's true of both of them is that someday they'll be just like you or me, the sky's the limit.  They are likely to live long and happy and fulfilling lives.  They aren't essentially any different from you, or a person who is temporarily comatose but recovers in a couple years and regains all his friends and family and interests.  You are taking a snapshot of them at their worst, instead of looking at the whole picture.  Should we kill someone who gets into an accident and falls unconscious for a day because he's 'just a mindless vegetable?' or reserve judgment and let the fullness of his life play out before deciding his worth?



This is really ignoring the trials and tribulations... the disappointments, regrets, and miss opportunities in life.  Not that that is all life is made of, but there's gotta be the negative half to balance the positive.

There is a difference between someone who has lived a full life and is connected to the world through people who have interacted with him/her.  Someone who has lived.  A clump of cells with the possibility of becoming a child has not lived.  It does not have the same connections to the real world that someone who has gotten into an accident and gone into coma.



> Honestly, that clump of cells is probably better than the mother bearing it, because the cells have the potential to be anything, but the mother is clearly just an amoral, thoughtless, floozy of a slut.



THIS.  This is what I was talking about.  It's a very nasty assumption to make of someone simply because you, or others for that matter, do not approve of someone's decisions.  Especially since there isn't knowledge outside of intercourse, which must have occured to get a woman pregnant- ignoring the Jesus scenario, that is provided so the third party can pass judgement.  (Judgement is a very heavy word to begin with, but that is what it comes down to.)



> Giving that woman the choice neglects the choice of the child, (or in this case the choice of the father who clearly wants it to live) who almost invariably would choose to live.  If she doesn't want a child, she can make that choice---by practicing safe sex (birth control is the only effective one and only if you use it religiously though, be aware), reserving her virginity for only the man she loves, staying at only oral or handjobs with her boyfriends--all sorts of choices.  The one choice I'm taking away is killing people for nothing more than the freedom to hedonistically pleasure themselves, something boys can't do either.



Cells are running off a blueprint, a set of instructions, there isn't a conscious decision making process involved.  The child is not making a choice to live like a suicidal person would make a choice to live or someone struggling with cancer would choose to try to live.  It's not the same situation.  It can't be compared to the thought process a to be mother has to go through when she decides if she wants to keep a child.

Also, I'm not arguing that a woman shouldn't be held accountable for her actions.  Yes, safe sex should have been practiced, but that is not always 100% effective.  Yes, maybe she and her partner should have restricted thier actions to just oral and handjobs, but in the heat of the moment things don't always turn out as people plan them.  The best laid plans are the first to go to go to hell.  It holds true more often than people would like to admit.

I'm also not negating that the mother isn't responsible for anything.  There is ALWAYS going to be consequence involved.  She may face alienation from her peers/family/friends.  She may go into a breakdown because she feels she has commited some unforgivable sin against humanity/herself/god.  She may go through grief and work past it and go back to a productive life.  She may learn from her experience and take it just as that, an experience.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

serena, it's not a lifelong commitment if you give it up for adoption.  You are also legally allowed to abandon your newlyborn at a police station and never worry about it again.

almost everyone chooses to live.  that choice should be left to them, not anyone else.  Life is tough but what are your other options?  :s::

But that difference will all be made up for in time.  There is no difference between the fact that we're preserving the comatose patient for not his current worth, but his potential worth in the future.

Didn't you say so yourself that the people we're discussing are probably one night standers who didn't take two thoughts about what they were doing?  <3.

Many times children have actually found their biological parents and thanked them for not aborting them.  This is about as powerful a message that can ever be said on the issue.  I don't think children looking back will decide their choice to live or love of life is just a blueprint, not based on how much we love our own lives.

And you may be right, maybe society could make the consequences severe enough to make women rethink their decisions and be more careful to not need abortions through sheer moral pressure.  Probably by simply saying 'that was wrong and you shouldn't have done that, I'm severely mad and sad about what you did.'  And growing up in a country that did that in front of these women as they grew up as girls all the time.  Maybe that would do it.  Certainly before banning abortion by law, we should try to do it by persuasion and example.  Right now though abortion is encouraged and virtually praised as a symbol of girl power or whatever, so we can't do it like that.  Would you be okay with speaking out against abortion as a morally abhorrent choice due to a series of morally bad choices, while not banning it, and hoping persuasion and example yield fruit down the road?  Because that's what I'm doing right now.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> serena, it's not a lifelong commitment if you give it up for adoption.  *You are also legally allowed to abandon your newlyborn at a police station and never worry about it again.*




thats a state by state law and does not apply to every state 
many states still consider that against the law and will prosecute


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

my bad.  I guess drive to the correct state then ditch it?  Everyone here has said they would drive out of state and abort, 'if you can drive out of state to kill people you can drive out of state to save people.'


----------



## Oriodark178 (Aug 22, 2007)

Very intersting, in some situations i would have to say this is good thing, however for those who dont know who the father is, are forced to raise their baby alone and do not have the opition of abortion seems it could cause problems.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 22, 2007)

no actually it depends on what state your baby is born in sort of thing 

states can be funny that way 
and most teenage mothers who are afraid of getting caught and people willing to abandon a baby at a firestation dont have the option of going out of state


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

Okay does anyone know how to make my signature image big like kricket's? mine all look like thumbnails.  They don't look like that on my comp but the moment I upload them they look tiny and you can barely make them out.


----------



## NU-KazeKage (Aug 22, 2007)

well i think this is a good tihng for fathers who dont want to see thier child die i mean you have to admit it isnt just the mothers child


----------



## krickitat (Aug 22, 2007)

diamed you need to read the FAQ first and then ask us 
otherwise if you still dont get it then PM me


----------



## Reanimater (Aug 22, 2007)

First of all, I want to clearly state, I'm going to get rough on that subject.

In this society, as species, women have the power to give life and when a child is born, she might/might not take care of him, but in most cases it's the most important thing that any of us man or woman can do.
Giving a birth to a child and raising it is more important then a career, a new house or car etc. However some woman tend to refuse birth and run to a place called fear, because:
1. They fear that their beauty will fade more quick. I won't say that beauty is something inner and stuff, it's on the outside, you're right to fear becoming fat and your skin being damaged. However they are many mothers which have proved that it isn't impossible to be beautiful and to raise and have a child. Maybe you simply lack the strength of doing the same.
2. The fear of being uneducated (if university still lies ahead) or miss-treated in your workplace. This is a problem of society, but still I cannot seem to understand how can you choose money/career as a priority! Many of us had parental care and know how it feels to be a kid, in most of the cases it's great. So this fear's selfish once again. You don't want to give, you just want to "wait" or not have a child. In most cases time is limited and if you do the abort, you might not have a second chance. 
3. The third fear is that the woman sometimes does not truly love the man she's with at the moment and will be the father. Maybe she was with him in order not to be alone, or just to have some fun. Maybe there ain't grand feelings in the scheme. Maybe she or he does not love each other. But if you do not love the woman that carries your baby then you're a sick bastard. For me love and sex aren't the same but, one comes after the other. So we have another problem - we did not think.

Of course there's much more to talk on the subject of "why" to have an abortion from the woman perspective.
But let's see what the man has given to society and our human civilization, why does he have a right to discuss the matter with the female subject:
1. He's the builder. Man build and forge many of the goods which surrounds us. From roads to houses and some of the biggest wonders of the human world. It's still a physical pain, girls! Believe me you don't have to do a lot of things which man do. From ancient times, women needed to endure the greatest pain of looking after the cave and the little cavebabies, hey know what? The guy had to go out there with his fellows and those animals actually   killed many of us, while you were taking care of the home and children. It's not a big deal.
2. Man have written most of the love poems and always fought for a woman's love. Even in this typically female field, where she's supposed to give and share the most precious moments with a man (sound so stupid I know), we are once again supposed to go on and take what we want. Why are girls still frustrated, frightened to express feelings openly, FIRST. We need to chase after them and if we have luck we might get what we want. So in most cases  it's "us" that takes the prey, it's not the prey that gives itself. You might think that it was you who let the man do love to you, but indeed you're the one who's fucked and the protagonist in this love story is hm, man once again. You're again being passive. Why should you take anything? Because nature decided to fill us up with hormones until our brains blow out (understand this metaphor as you wish, perverts). Indeed, without our hormones, we would have spent more times with our dogs, then with you. We love you, but you bore us. Sometimes.
3. The Act of birth is mainly passive, once again. While a husband would need to work hard to get a hold of any kind of good in order to support the family (in most cases only, don't try to point individual or rare cases). He's working his ass off, while all a woman needs to do is lay down, have some morning sickness and stuff and endure birth pains and bring the baby to life. Just put something between and hush! Push it out.
4. I'm a sexist.



> The final decision really needs to go to the woman, this thing will be growing inside of her for 9 months and she will have to go through the very long painful process of labor. The man just has to sit back and wait for it to happen.



OK, you're fucking joking! The birth of 1 to 3 children increases the life of a woman from 8 to 14 percent. Man die quicker, because nature cares of survival, man need to have a long period of strength, then to die after being exploited on his 60th birthday. While most woman have a better chance to live till their 80s. 
I think that nature had in mind that woman has the most important role into the surviving of the species. And there's a prove of how important a woman is: western/white civilization gave a lot of freedom to woman, and since they're fucking scared of giving birth to a child and mostly still children themselves, they are running away from their biggest duty: to raise a child.
That's why there are so many old people in Western Europe, and so few kids. Is this what you want, girls? To have in the best case 1 child? The rest of the world is making babies like rabbits and it will be your fault if there isn't even one blond child left on earth after hundreds of years, ergo you failed your specie to achieve, what exactly? A career in fashion, movies and cosmetics. You make me laugh! 
Man have their strong desire to take care of a woman, to hold her, make love to her and watch their children grow together. But most white women are not encouraging the process at all. So which is most important? The abortion or the survival? Call me a nazi now, but I think that chinese people are more racist then us, since they might overwhelm the earth with their population if they keep this rate. Is it a competition? Then why are we loosing?

It's a natural way of survival, abortion is the unnatural way of suicide.

I just hope that you will find some reason in what I said. I think that most intelligent women will understand me and not get easily irritated. I think that the mother of the 21st century is a woman, that can take care of her kids and home, while working at home ( a japanese woman said this in some kind of international report, her mother and grand-mother were doing the same, she was some kind of tailor). You can work with a computer from home, can't you? You can become good tailors, designers, that work from home, can't you? I guess not, I mean one martini and one episode of "Sex and the city" is much more meaningful then that.
Just stop being afraid of having kids. It's natural, while abortion isn't. That's m y main point. And let the fathers have a word. Yeah. Peace.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

ok let's try this--::crosses fingers::


----------



## drache (Aug 22, 2007)

You know you didn't need to write all that all you really needed to say was



Reanimater said:


> 4. I'm a sexist.


 
And from there your opnion and why it sucks flows naturally.


----------



## Reanimater (Aug 22, 2007)

drache said:


> You know you didn't need to write all that all you really needed to say was
> 
> 
> 
> And from there your opnion and why it sucks flows naturally.



I'm a true democrat and liberal, I admit my flows 

And I tolerate everyones decision weather it's choosing to hate someone's skin color - racist, or being sexist 

I can tolerate but not accept! I have a sister, which is a woman, and I never pushed her my ideals 

You can decide weather to read or not to read my arguments and comments.
So sorry if anyone feels offended.


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 22, 2007)

The fetus cannot live on it's own. If it could, why would it still be using it's mama's food? A human is something that loves, thinks, feels emotions. Can a fetus do any of those?

That's why there's absolutely no problems with killing one.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> A fetus and an infant are valuable for the same reason, their potential worth.  No one talks to their friend they know is expecting and says, "so how's the fetusssss.  how long until the fetus is born?  when's the fetus due?  is the fetus a boy or a girl?"
> 
> No, the actual conversation goes like this: "how's the baby? how long until the baby comes out? when's the baby due? is the baby a boy or a girl?" Applying a negative-connotation word so as to detach yourself emotionally is an evil tactic used to dehumanize whatever you want to hurt/kill, and a classic ploy of the nazis and such who called jews 'rats' and 'vermin' instead of people.



So which word people choose to call it changes what it is?  No, last time I checked its a fetus until its born, THEN its a baby.  Those are the real names, its entirely different than the nazi's calling the jews vermin, so don't even try to make that kind of comparison.

Their value is in their potential?  Potential is MEANINGLESS unless it is realized.  Also for every potential good there is a potential bad, the baby could potentially be the next ghandi or it could potentially be the next Hitler.  But neither of those matter unless that potential is realized.


----------



## Reanimater (Aug 22, 2007)

Sexta Espada said:


> The fetus cannot live on it's own. If it could, why would it still be using it's mama's food? A human is something that loves, thinks, feels emotions. Can a fetus do any of those?
> 
> That's why there's absolutely no problems with killing one.



Hey jack-ass, watch your mouth. A little baby also cannot live on its own, most of us cannot, without society. Let me see you survive alone.
My mother actually aborted her third child, and I know from her that she would have done the same to me (second child), if it wasn't my grandma, kinda makes you love this conservative thinking individuals, doesn't it?
This is not a game! Into the world we live in many women, our mothers have had an idea what abortion is, how many of them did you think that have considered abortion, huh? I mean there's a chance that every 1/15 of us could not be born, if his/her mother took the decision to end of the life of her baby.
It's like killing to me.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

Reanimater said:


> 4. I'm a sexist.



Your opinion is now lower than the opinion of a cat on this subject. Congratulations.


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 22, 2007)

Reanimater said:


> Hey jack-ass, watch your mouth. A little baby also cannot live on its own, most of us cannot, without society. Let me see you survive alone.
> My mother actually aborted her third child, and I know from her that she would have done the same to me (second child), if it wasn't my grandma, kinda makes you love this conservative thinking individuals, doesn't it?
> This is not a game! Into the world we live in many women, our mothers have had an idea what abortion is, how many of them did you think that have considered abortion, huh? I mean there's a chance that every 1/15 of us could not be born, if his/her mother took the decision to end of the life of her baby.
> It's like killing to me.



Ah, the old 'boo hoo thank god my mother didn't abort me' schtick.

My mother had an abortion in her teens, and I have no doubt in my mind that I wouldn't have been born if she'd had that baby. She would have been a single-mother with no education and she may never have met my father (who she met at university), or he may not have been interested in taking on someone else's kid.

Abortion is why I am alive today. How does that register with you?


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 22, 2007)

Reanimater said:


> Hey jack-ass, watch your mouth. A little baby also cannot live on its own, most of us cannot, without society. Let me see you survive alone.
> My mother actually aborted her third child, and I know from her that she would have done the same to me (second child), if it wasn't my grandma, kinda makes you love this conservative thinking individuals, doesn't it?
> This is not a game! Into the world we live in many women, our mothers have had an idea what abortion is, how many of them did you think that have considered abortion, huh? I mean there's a chance that every 1/15 of us could not be born, if his/her mother took the decision to end of the life of her baby.
> It's like killing to me.


Fine, you wanna see me live all on my own ^ (not the meaning of the word "respect".)? I'll go make have show on the Discovery Channel, and you can see it right there. 

Yeah, you know what? She should have done it. And without you, there'd be one less sexist on this planet, and it'd be a better place.

It's not killing if the thing never lived.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

None of you will call it a fetus when it's your baby your wife is pregnant with.  The hypocrisy is stifling.  But I call it fetus in plenty of my posts, and if you want to call mankind _homo sapiens sapiens_  then you can do that too.  It's semantics and a distraction.

'Potential worth is meaningless unless realized'  applies to babies too.  Babies can also grow up to be hitler instead of ghandi.  Babies will also die without support from others, as will virtually everyone for that matter.  Is anyone here going to state why abortion is okay but infanticide is not?  Surely one of you is brave enough to say: "it's true, we should go back to roman law where a parent can kill their child at any time if they don't like it."  Because that's the only consistent argument.

*Amaretti it wouldn't have made it impossible to have you if she'd given it up for adoption.

* Sexta and Spectre, you are incredibly cruel and nasty people, 'she should've done it, the world would be a better place without you?'  Christ.  By revealing the character of people who hold your opinion you discredit the opinion itself.  Instead of people who seem caring and concerned, you come off as murderous thugs who just like breaking and hurting things, which is why abortion is cool for you because you can still act on your evil instincts of destruction without a legal repercussion.


----------



## Reanimater (Aug 22, 2007)

During every period of mankind history, there are strong beliefs which are taken for ultimate truths.
It's always harder to be on the other side, defending something which everybody else condemn.
And I am not really that kinda smart of a person, neither am I something special. But I still think that birth is something very important and it cannot be taken lightly or irresponsibly. 

@Amaretti,
I never considered this possibility, but hey dude, what if there were complications during the abortion? Then even if she got to be Miss Universe, no society status would bring you to life. Yes, your story is great, but it's 2-sided.
In my opinion it's better not to be done. There should be special programs to help single-mothers in our countries. And indeed single mothers get to pay half of the tuition fees in most universities, but this alone is not enough. 

Anyways, I'm probably discussing the matter with angry yaoi fangirls and cannot win  I have one for a girlfriend, and they're fearsome, rawr...


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

> * Sexta and Spectre, you are incredibly cruel and nasty people, 'she should've done it, the world would be a better place without you?' Christ. By revealing the character of people who hold your opinion you discredit the opinion itself. Instead of people who seem caring and concerned, you come off as murderous thugs who just like breaking and hurting things, which is why abortion is cool for you because you can still act on your evil instincts of destruction without a legal repercussion.



I also enjoy long walks on the beach, and eating babies.

I don't know if you're trying to insult me with your semi-inaccurate description of myself, and I don't really care. Anonymous don't give a shit.

PS. 





> , 'she should've done it, the world would be a better place without you?'



I never said that.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> None of you will call it a fetus when it's your baby your wife is pregnant with. The hypocrisy is stifling. But I call it fetus in plenty of my posts, and if you want to call mankind homo sapiens sapiens then you can do that too. It's semantics and a distraction.



You're probably right, I wouldn't call it a fetus if I wanted to keep it.  Call it what you will, its still a FETUS.

fe?tus
?noun, plural -tus?es. Embryology.
the young of an animal in the womb or egg,



Diamed said:


> 'Potential worth is meaningless unless realized' applies to babies too. Babies can also grow up to be hitler instead of ghandi. Babies will also die without support from others, as will virtually everyone for that matter. Is anyone here going to state why abortion is okay but infanticide is not? Surely one of you is brave enough to say: "it's true, we should go back to roman law where a parent can kill their child at any time if they don't like it." Because that's the only consistent argument.



The baby has reached its potential as far as becoming a human being is concerned.  The fetus has the potential to BECOME a human, a full human.  An infant has reached this potential.  You're asking us to force women to have unwanted pregnancies for the potential of the fetus within them being born.

Make no mistake it is only the POTENTIAL to become a full human, fetuses die and women miscarry all the time.



Diamed said:


> * Sexta and Spectre, you are incredibly cruel and nasty people, 'she should've done it, the world would be a better place without you?' Christ. By revealing the character of people who hold your opinion you discredit the opinion itself. Instead of people who seem caring and concerned, you come off as murderous thugs who just like breaking and hurting things, which is why abortion is cool for you because you can still act on your evil instincts of destruction without a legal repercussion.



Act on evil instincts?  Don't start preaching moral superiority.


----------



## Reanimater (Aug 22, 2007)

Spectre said:


> I also enjoy long walks on the beach, and eating babies.
> 
> I don't know if you're trying to insult me with your semi-inaccurate description of myself, and I don't really care. Anonymous don't give a shit.
> 
> ...



Don't give me that shit. You just watched a YouTube video just like everyone else. And you're nothing special. You don't eat puppies!
It does not matter if she's wrong or right, and by the way, nobody wants your shit so keep it, you can have your "shit". I agree on not giving us any of your shit = ergo = discussing matters with you is pointless.




Spectre said:


> Your opinion is now lower than the opinion of a cat on this subject. Congratulations.


Cats are quite adorable creatures, any fan of Terry Pratchet knows that, they are the sole reason for existence of many old ladies. They are even maybe more important then you, why do you consider yourself better then a cat? They are quite strong and agile, and most probably you cannot lift neither your body weight or make a jump worth 5 time the length of your body 
Cats pwn you dude.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

Reanimater said:


> Don't give me that shit. You just watched a YouTube video just like everyone else. And you're nothing special. You don't eat puppies!
> It does not matter if she's wrong or right, and by the way, nobody wants your shit so keep it, you can have your "shit". I agree on not giving us any of your shit = ergo = discussing matters with you is pointless.


What?




> Cats pwn you dude.


[YOUTUBE]http://youtube.com/watch?v=WrjwaqZfjIY[/YOUTUBE]


----------



## Reanimater (Aug 22, 2007)

Spectre said:


> What?



Nobody hooked into the web can stay anonymous, you ain't neither a group of psychos which worship lulz. Now got the idea?

Edit:
I'm watching Skull Man right now, but your videos are way funnier, keep on entertaining meow, uh me.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

Reanimater said:


> Nobody hooked into the web can stay anonymous, you ain't neither a group of psychos which worship lulz. Now got the idea?
> 
> Edit:
> I'm watching Skull Man right now, but your videos are way funnier, keep on entertaining meow, uh me.



lol if you think anonymous has only existed on youtube, lurk moar. We've been around a good 2 years prior.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

I'm sorry tsukiyomi but these people have done nothing but insult the other side with 'you're horrible, you're inferior,' etc and now they're counseling murdering their opposition they're so hateful.  It's getting on my nerves.

Why is it a human being when born but not before?  That's arbitrary.  Surely the worth of a human is when they are smarter than dolphins, before then they are worth less than animals.  Until they are interacting with others socially, intelligently taking in the world and learning from it, or appreciating the depth and breadth of the world in a way no animal can do, they can't be called worth more than an animal.  Until then they have only potential worth.  Most deliveries go extremely well in modern society so I don't think it really matters if the baby has been safely delivered or not.  you're right that a baby will have Slightly better odds to live a happy life cuz it didn't miscarry/stillbirth.  But that's almost negligible, a healthy child is unlikely to miscarry or be stillborn, and I still want unhealthy children to be aborted, so the remaining children are very likely to work out and be born.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> I'm sorry tsukiyomi but these people have done nothing but insult the other side with 'you're horrible, you're inferior,' etc and now they're counseling murdering their opposition they're so hateful.  It's getting on my nerves.



Once again, that was only Sexta, not me. Do not put words in my mouth you little piece of shit.


----------



## Diamed (Aug 22, 2007)

You've done enough insults that I figured you would wholly approve.  *shrug*  Fine I'm mad at you for all your one line insults with no backing that we are horrible and inferior and him for counseling murder, happy?


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

Diamed said:


> You've done enough insults that I figured you would wholly approve.  *shrug*  Fine I'm mad at you for all your one line insults with no backing that we are horrible and inferior and him for counseling murder, happy?



Yes. Very.


----------



## Hothien (Aug 22, 2007)

Here's my unwarranted opinions:

At the point of conception, a child is created. This is every bit human as you or me, technically speaking.

The only reasons I can see for abortion are: rape, i*c*st or potential harm to the mother.

Edit: and some circumstances, like the Irish teen girl that was going to be forced to keep the child that would day within a week of birth.


----------



## Link (Aug 22, 2007)

*dons flame-retardant suit*
Abortion harms no one, since a zygote is not a person.
And women have a right to their bodies, regardless of what your beliefs are.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

> This is every bit human as you or me, technically speaking.



Law, science and logic say nay.


----------



## Hothien (Aug 22, 2007)

Spectre said:


> Law, science and logic say nay.



How so? What is a human, technically speaking? A living being of the species Homo Sapien. It is a seperate entity, and contains the DNA of a Homo Sapien. It is, therefore, technically human.


----------



## The Internet (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> How so? What is a human, technically speaking? A living being of the species Homo Sapien. It is a seperate entity, and contains the DNA of a Homo Sapien. It is, therefore, technically human.



A human in the developing stage called the fetus. A fetus is not the same as you or I. A fetus is still developing. A fetus has not been born yet, it has not lived a life per say. If the issue was a fully developed and born human being killed, I would be against it. But that is not the case here.

GB2/10th grade biology.


----------



## Link (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> How so? What is a human, technically speaking? A living being of the species Homo Sapien. It is a seperate entity, and contains the DNA of a Homo Sapien. It is, therefore, technically human.


If I ripped a fetus out of it's womb shortly after conception (a few weeks), would it survive? No. It is not a seperate entity until it's capable of surviving outside the womb.
And according to your logic, some tumors would be considered human.


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> Here's my unwarranted opinions:
> 
> At the point of conception, a child is created. This is every bit human as you or me, technically speaking.
> 
> ...



Every bit as human?  Not really, especially if you want to get technically abotu it it doesn't have all the same "bits" we do quite yet.

A mass of cells which may or may not eventually become a human being is not "every bit as human as you or me".


----------



## Hothien (Aug 22, 2007)

But, it will be, given time. It's still a human being, even if it has not lived its life yet, who are you to kill it? So, because it has not had any experiences yet, it has no rights to live?


----------



## Sexta Espada (Aug 22, 2007)

Spectre said:


> Once again, that was only Sexta, not me. Do not put words in my mouth you little piece of shit.



Yeah, I'm the only one who has said anything insulting in this thread. Spectre is innocent.

@Daimed: Nobody would call it a fetus in a casual discussion. But if I were speaking to a doctor, I'd use the correct term of fetus. And no, I'm not a thug. I don't hurt things just for fun. I support abortion because you know what? If the woman wants the abortion, she _doesn't want the kid_ You know what that means you retard? She's not going to be a good mother too it. Or she will, but it'll be an uneasy peace type situation. Then the kid will grow up to mostly likely be a criminal or something, because his/her mom never really loved it. Now, do you really want to make abortion the choice of one man, who will otherwise disappear from the woman's life, or just let the woman make her own decision?


----------



## krickitat (Aug 22, 2007)

i kinda wish my mom had aborted my older sister

i know that makes me a horrible person but i can live with that
she was always horrible to me and my brother all our lives
she steals from family and from stores 
she has had SIX abortions, has adopted out one baby, and got married and had another child but lost custody cause she does meth 
has herpes because she hates condoms...not because SHE hates condoms but because she is so willing to please men she thinks they dont want them so she wont use them
she does meth
she lives on the street
she owes EVERYONE thousands of dollars
she mooches off my parents and my dad is unemployed and cant afford too support a partying 30 yr old
she cheated on her husband
she cheats on her boyfriends
she refuses to finish school
she thinks everyone else should help her
she always wants to be the center of attention
she has the attention span of a five yr old 

...yea...real quality there


----------



## Link (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> But, it will be, given time. It's still a human being, even if it has not lived its life yet, who are you to kill it? So, because it has not had any experiences yet, it has no rights to live?


Given time, you will be a corpse in the ground. Do I have a right not to bury you now?


----------



## Hothien (Aug 22, 2007)

I realize that I'm working against a big group of pro-choicers here, so, I'll leave it at this:


There are some circumstances in which I think abortion is OK.

However, casual abortion, I am NOT ok with.

If there are no extenuating health circumstances, or unless the child was a product of rape or i*c*st, I see no reason why it should be aborted.


It is of my opinion, note that I said opinion, that the point of conception is the "no turning back" point. You were all fetuses at one point, how would it have been if your parents had the same viewpoints as yourselves and aborted you because they didn't think they'd have enough time, etc.?

Hell, my mom's doctor tried to have my mom abort me.


There's always contraception, and in the cases where that argument wouldn't work: rape or i*c*st, I believe that its acceptable in those cases.


----------



## krickitat (Aug 22, 2007)

rape- 72 hour pill
hell you dont even have to get it FREE from planned parent hood you can just use three doses of a regular oral contraceptive 

4 if your feeling unlucky


----------



## Tsukiyomi (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> But, it will be, given time. It's still a human being, even if it has not lived its life yet, who are you to kill it? So, because it has not had any experiences yet, it has no rights to live?



No, it MAY eventually become a human being, MAY not WILL.  Its part of a human that MAY eventually become a whole human, until it does it is not a fully human.

It doesn't have any rights until it is a human being.


----------



## Link (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> I realize that I'm working against a big group of pro-choicers here, so, I'll leave it at this:


You're not working against pro choicers, we are working for the rights of women and your are working against them. I have nothing to lose by this issue.
Answer my question.


> There are some circumstances in which I think abortion is OK.


Your opinions are not a basis for the rights of others. Women have a right to their own bodies. They do not have to house another being if they don't want to.


> However, casual abortion, I am NOT ok with.


No one is. But the people that want to abort, will, regardless of the moral implications of the act. And morality can't change rights.


> If there are no extenuating health circumstances, or unless the child was a product of rape or i*c*st, I see no reason why it should be aborted.


Because it's the mothers choice.


> It is of my opinion, note that I said opinion, that the point of conception is the "no turning back" point.


And I'm calling your opinion invalid. What free women do with their own bodies is not your business, and it is of no consequence to you.


> were all fetuses at one point, how would it have been if your parents had the same viewpoints as yourselves and aborted you because they didn't think they'd have enough time, etc.?


I wouldn't think anything. Because my mind never would have existed. No gain, no loss.


> Hell, my mom's doctor tried to have my mom abort me.


Maybe it's because she was an incapable mother.


> There's always contraception, and in the cases where that argument wouldn't work: rape or i*c*st, I believe that its acceptable in those cases.


Once again, your opinions can't change women's rights. They own their bodies. If they don't want to house another creature because it's dangerous to their plans and lifestyle, they don't have to keep it.
An early fetus is not a person, it has no mind. It has no higher brain function. It's a clot of cells, wholly dependent on another body for survival. A kind of parasite. And not a separate being. We cannot throw aside women's rights because of the potential value of a nonperson parasite that may not even survive to birth.
Women's rights trump the beliefs of uninvolved parties.


----------



## Hothien (Aug 22, 2007)

Here's my justification for the "every bit as human as you or me":

The point of conception is when a new human life is created. To take away the human life after it has been created is, in my mind, the same as killing any other human life, regardless of the stage of development.

I cannot change that view, because that is how things are in my moral compass. I can, however, accept that the product of rape, i*c*st or extenuating (health) circumstances would make it acceptable. If the mother will die, or if the child is certain to die shortly after birth, then I think its OK to abort the child.


The rights of one person end where the rights of another begins. I view the developing child as a human being, and thus believe that the rights of the mother ends where the rights of the child begins.


EDIT: @Link: The reason why the doctor wanted her to abort me is due to my mother's depression, he didn't think she could deal with the post-partem depression, yet didn't take into account the depression that would be caused by the guilt of her aborting me.


----------



## Link (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> Here's my justification for the "every bit as human as you or me":
> 
> The point of conception is when a new human life is created.


Assumption 1: The purpose of sex is to create new life.
Sex serves many purposes, and it's completely possible that reproduction exists so we can have sex. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.


> To take away the human life after it has been created is, *in my mind*, the same as killing any other human life, regardless of the stage of development.


Read bolded portion. In your mind. Not reality.


> I cannot change that view, because that is how things are in my moral compass.


You could so change that view. Plenty of people make greater intellectual leaps than "A clump of unaware, dependent cells is not a person".


> I can, however, accept that the product of rape, i*c*st or extenuating (health) circumstances would make it acceptable. If the mother will die, or if the child is certain to die shortly after birth, then I think its OK to abort the child.


Then how do you feel about war? The Iraq war, specifically? How does your compass spin when you hear about 150 innocent civilians dying for an American cause? If you valued human life as much as you claim, you'd be an ardent pacifist.
If the best you can do is say "It's my opinion" then don't even speak. Because your opinions aren't a justification for removing rights, no matter how badly you want them to be.


> The rights of one person end where the rights of another begins. I view the developing child as a human being, and thus believe that the rights of the mother ends where the rights of the child begins.


A mother may not have aright to kill the fetus, but she doesn't have to keep it either. If it's too undeveloped to survive an exit from the womb, then it isn't an independent organism, is it?


----------



## Hothien (Aug 22, 2007)

Link said:


> Assumption 1: The purpose of sex is to create new life.
> Sex serves many purposes, and it's completely possible that reproduction exists so we can have sex. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
> 
> Read bolded portion. In your mind. Not reality.
> ...



Yes, sex can be recreational, and I believe everyone that wants to have sex without the possibility of having a child should use contraception.


Don't use the Iraq war in a debate on abortion.

The Iraq war was started because we gave the money and weapons that put a tyrant into power and he abused his people. We deposed him, and are trying to stabilize the system. We were responsible for Saddam's rise to power, and we took him down.


As for "clump of cells", etc., human life starts at one point, at what point is it sacred? Yes, I'm aware that a fetus at that point has no knowledge, no memory, etc. no higher brain functions. However, it is still alive, and it is unmistakably of the species "Homo Sapiens". So, should we kill 1 month olds if the mother doesn't want them, I mean, they cannot survive on their own, without someone there to feed them, etc.


----------



## Link (Aug 22, 2007)

jnec000 said:


> Yes, sex can be recreational, and I believe everyone that wants to have sex without the possibility of having a child should use contraception.


You say should too much. You should stop assuming people will live according to your wishes.



> Don't use the Iraq war in a debate on abortion.


I do what I want!


> The Iraq war was started because we gave the money and weapons that put a tyrant into power and he abused his people.


 No. If that were the case, we would have struck him down long ago.





> We deposed him, and are trying to stabilize the system. We were responsible for Saddam's rise to power, and we took him down.


The Iraq war has nothing to do with taking out a tyrant, and everything to do with military influence in the region.


----------



## Amaretti (Aug 22, 2007)

Ok, we're getting off topic now. I'm closing this thread since discussion on the news article has been pretty much exhausted.

Continue the abortion debate here: Its Kumos B-day thread


----------

