Person or property?

Nevada · #61 01/22/11, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tinknal

I would imagine such a scenario would only involve unmarried people.

That would actually take rights away from people when they got married. I don't know why they would do that.

JanS · #62 01/22/11, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonshine

Again with the double standard? Women can choose whether or not to use birth control. IF she chooses not to, then she can expect to get pregnant. So, where is the baby's right to choose life?

Again with putting words in my mouth. I did not post my views on abortion either way.

tinknal · #63 01/22/11, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

That would actually take rights away from people when they got married. I don't know why they would do that.

Nevada, seems like a red herring to me. Surely protections against such a thing could be put in place. Of course I don't see it ever happening anyway so moot point.

chickenslayer · #64 01/22/11, 05:34 PM

Years ago I dated a woman for about a year. She became pregnant, had an abortion and didn't tell me until after it was done, that's the closest I ever came to hitting a woman.

tinknal · #65 01/22/11, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chickenslayer

Years ago I dated a woman for about a year. She became pregnant, had an abortion and didn't tell me until after it was done, that's the closest I ever came to hitting a woman.

Unless you had "the discussion" beforehand, you are every bit as much to blame as she.

deaconjim · #66 01/22/11, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

The question of abortion ISNT who is going to pay for what IF.

Its about "is a woman capable enough to decide if she is ready for parenthood". (more times than not, she will be doing it as a single parent).

The argument on not making men pay for their children if they didnt want them....is a non argument. THEY DONT PAY ANYWAY.

we dont need to make that legislation..the ineffectiveness of child support collection speaks volumes.

What I find strange is the prolifers are typically the biggest gun advocates. i guess the lives of those taken from guns dont count as much when its at the expense of your rights.

Actually, the question is whether or not it is right to murder an unborn child. The answer is 'no'.

Both the man and the woman are free to make their own choises. The only one that isn't is the child. Once the child has been conceived, both parents have already made their choice. At that point, their choice is whether or not to become murderers.

willow_girl · #67 01/23/11, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Once the child has been conceived, both parents have already made their choice. At that point, their choice is whether or not to become murderers.

I see things a little differently. IMO, both parents have a choice for the extent of the procreative process.

The man's participation (and his ability to prevent the birth of a child) ends at ejaculation. For the woman, however, the process continues for 9 months, and thus she can choose to get off the bus (so to speak) a bit further down the road.

tinknal · #68 01/23/11, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

I see things a little differently. IMO, both parents have a choice for the extent of the procreative process.

The man's participation (and his ability to prevent the birth of a child) ends at ejaculation. For the woman, however, the process continues for 9 months, and thus she can choose to get off the bus (so to speak) a bit further down the road.

Ahhh, but she can also prevent the man from getting off the bus too. This is the double standard.

deaconjim · #69 01/23/11, 05:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

I see things a little differently. IMO, both parents have a choice for the extent of the procreative process.

The man's participation (and his ability to prevent the birth of a child) ends at ejaculation. For the woman, however, the process continues for 9 months, and thus she can choose to get off the bus (so to speak) a bit further down the road.

There is a difference between "participation" and "choice". The woman certainly invests more time as a result of the decision she has made, but only once she has made her choice. It still remains a fact that the child isn't given a choice.

willow_girl · #70 01/23/11, 08:07 AM

Quote:

There is a difference between "participation" and "choice". The woman certainly invests more time as a result of the decision she has made, but only once she has made her choice.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

||Downhome|| · #71 01/23/11, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nevada

It sounds good in theory, but I don't see how it could be implemented. Every father would secretly swear-out a notarized affidavit saying that he wanted to terminate the pregnancy, then hide it somewhere. In the event of a divorce he would present the affidavit to the court to circumvent child support. If the mother denies that they even discussed it, he'll just testify that she's lying just to get money out of him.

why could it not be required to be made record at the court house?
same as notice of the pregnancy?

one problem would be women could just get some one to say they are daddy and are ok with a termination. but a dna test could be required post op and if daddy is not daddy then they both should be held liable and punished for circumventing the law.

if momma is not sure who daddy is then all possible fathers need to be notified and they exercise there right.

should the father not be given the chance to say yes or no then he should not be tasked with any obligation, not by law at least.

deaconjim · #72 01/23/11, 08:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by willow_girl

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

That sounds good on paper, but it loses it's luster when you realize how many babies are being killed while we continue to agree to disagree.

John Carter · #73 01/23/11, 09:19 AM

Maybe, just may be if the guys could keep their pants zipped up a and the mommies would teach their girls to keep their legs crossed to every guy that comes along then it wouldnt be as much a problem.

I have three adult children an no "mistakes" among them ever........

How exactly can we consider our selves a moral country when we have now killed more people legally than Adolf Hitler did?

lilmizlayla · #74 01/23/11, 09:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deaconjim

Actually, the question is whether or not it is right to murder an unborn child. The answer is 'no'.

Both the man and the woman are free to make their own choises. The only one that isn't is the child. Once the child has been conceived, both parents have already made their choice. At that point, their choice is whether or not to become murderers.

if it only was THAT easy. What about later? I thought those in your camp would like to cut the welfare budget?

Guns kill innocent people too...everyday. So you are willing to give your right to own a deadly weapon? Are we going to all work together to make this country weapon free like the japanese?

lilmizlayla · #75 01/23/11, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ||Downhome||

if momma is not sure who daddy is then all possible fathers need to be notified and they exercise there right.

should the father not be given the chance to say yes or no then he should not be tasked with any obligation, not by law at least.

What right? The only right they have is the right to pay child support. yet again...this is a moot point. Because many just DONT.

We arent even talking about the long term affects of not having a father does to children. The emotional harm done.

I am against making it legal for fathers to do what most already do..walk away.

deaconjim · #76 01/23/11, 09:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

if it only was THAT easy. What about later? I thought those in your camp would like to cut the welfare budget?

Not by killing babies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

Guns kill innocent people too...everyday. So you are willing to give your right to own a deadly weapon? Are we going to all work together to make this country weapon free like the japanese?

Sorry, guns don't kill people, they are just the tool. If outlawing the tool would work, should we ban scissors to stop abortion?

||Downhome|| · #77 01/23/11, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lilmizlayla

What right? The only right they have is the right to pay child support. yet again...this is a moot point. Because many just DONT.

We arent even talking about the long term affects of not having a father does to children. The emotional harm done.

I am against making it legal for fathers to do what most already do..walk away.

you are so wrong on so many levels, but I digress.

so if the only right we have is to pay child support then whats the point to hang around to be abused told that what you envision for your child is not going to happen.

women want equal rights until its not favorable.

takes two to make a baby, should take two to make any decisions related to it.

I have no issue supporting my children, I was there for everything until Wifey decided she wanted someone else warming her bed, now my children have to contend with her life choice as do I.

prior to that though she terminated 3 pregnancy, I imagine now because they belonged too someone else. what I proposed would have prevented those terminations unless she wanted to produce the actual father.
though if she had not followed that route, I would be due to pay on those children,even if they where not mine. they would have been considered a product of my marriage and there fore my responsibility.

the courts effectively remove more fathers from the childrens lives, that and the women that worry more about them selfs and their satisfaction.
how many women use the children as a tool to get even or maintain a level of control in a mans life.

men deserve as much say in these matters if not more if we are expected to foot the bill in it entirety.

I think if a woman had to have the father agree to terminate there would be many less abortions.