Abortion

About 5-6 years ago, one of JayBea's nieces decided to adopt a child because she was physically unable to conceive. She borrowed part of her inheritance from her parents in order to do so. They went though two years of Hell to finally adopt a little boy.

I never thought about the money they had to pay until I read this article I'm trying to link to. Now it occurs me what the problem really was ... they only had $10,000, so they had to settle for one of those cheap Korean models instead of a Primo Lily White American boy!

I wonder who you have to be, and how much money you have to pay to get the Primo Lily White Boy Model???

Don't worry though, they cherish that child as much as if he was their own flesh and blood ... even if he was one of the cheap models.

You people make me want to puke!

Anon

0 Replies

Wy wrote:

States used to regulate it. Women from all over the country used to travel to New York and other places where the laws were more liberal. This is discriminatory against women who cannot afford the money and time to travel. Unless you mean it to be like Ireland, where it is illegal to leave Ireland to obtain an abortion. (Illegal to leave Illinois for a medical procedure???)

The "pro-abortion crowd" isn't trying to force anybody to do anything, or change anybody's mind on having their own abortion. The anti-freedom crowd, on the other hand, is trying to forbid me from doing what I believe is morally correct and responsible behavior -- to not bear an unwanted child.

The anti-freedom crowd? Hmmm. Well, I guess I would be one of that particular group. It's not morally correct or responsible behavior that anyone wants to forbid. Quite the contrary. My problem lies with the women who have multiple abortions for convenience sake and an obvious lack of responsible behavior on their part. Where was there responsible behavior when having sex? Surely they know that pregnancy might be a consequence? I find it highly selfish of any woman having an abortion for convenience sake (if she took no steps whatsoever to prevent the pregnancy). I do realize that there are times that even prevention doesn't work.

I can UNDERSTAND an abortion in some cases, i.e., rape, incest, medical necessity. I can understand it but I still don't like it. However, I cannot understand someone getting an abortion because the pregnancy is inconvenient. A mother animal (cat, dog, bear, etc.) will protect their young to the death. I thought women used to feel that way about their babies whether in the womb or not and it seems more and more often the conceived child is the last to be considered. I find that a very sad commentary.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Debra writes

Quote:
You can discuss potential life and what it means to you with respect to your emotions and to your morals all you want. It's when you take that discussion a step further and IMPOSE your views on others that causes a problem and violates the civil rights of people who don't agree with you.

To accept your conclusion about what I do and do not want about IMPOSING my views on others, I have to accept your opinion that an unborn baby is not a life. I don't. Nor do I hand it over to the Congress or the judicial system to define what is and what is not life.

But, you WOULD hand it over to YOURSELF to define what is and what is not existing or potential life--and you WOULD impose your views on others through the operation of state laws if you COULD--wouldn't you?

Be honest now. If it was in your power to impose your views on others, wouldn't you vote to approve a state law that would prohibit the termination of all pregnancies (even early-term pregnancies) with very few exceptions? And what exceptions would you allow?

Quote:

I think it perfectly appropriate to IMPOSE my views on other people as to whether than can neglect, abuse, injure, or kill their born children. I see those children as human beings.

I would certainly hope that you favor protecting existing life from harm. But where do you draw the line between imposing your views on others and allowing others the independence to think for themselves and make their own decisions? You can't protect every potential human life and every existing human life from every possible harm that you can imagine, so where do you draw the line between imposing your views and allowing people to think for themselves?

0 Replies

So,it all boils down to a womans right to her own body?

So,then it goes both ways.
I cannot be forced to pay support for a child I didnt want.After all,its not my body.

I can decide who gets to use my frozen sperm if I donate to a sperm bank,because its from my body.

I can stand on the corner and masturbate if I want,because its my body.

I can do whatever I want to,and the govt cannot say anything,as long as I do it to MY BODY,right?
After all,ITS MY BODY,and I am the only one allowed to say anything about what I do with it,right?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Point accepted that this could infer an insult if this was not your intent. It was not meant as an insult but was meant as an acknowledgement that you think abortion should be legal at any time for any reason and that is based on your belief in the woman's right to choose. How that SOUNDS to somebody like me is that you do not think the woman's choices that resulted in pregnancy should be any kind of factor nor is the unborn child entitled to any consideration in the decision. Is that not what you said when you said abortion should be legal whenever?

I'm going to have to ask you to quote me on that. You and I apparently are not great at unerstanding one another so I want to make sure of what you're referencing when you say that I think that abortion should be legal whenever. I have said that I take the extreme view that a woman's right to her body trumps that of the baby, is that what you're thinking of?

But you are right that I don't think that the woman's choices that resulted in pregnancy should be any kind of factor any more than the man's actions should be. I don't think that "how" a woman got pregnant has any bearing at all. It has no effect on the outcome. Pregnant is pregnant, no matter how one got that way, and one's options at that point should be the same regardless of the path that got them there.

Quote:

If you DID intend to say that abortion should be legal whenever, are you also saying that abortion should not be restricted no matter how irresponsible a woman might be?

I'm just not sure how such judgments come to mean anything. Should children be born to women who are excessively irresponsible? How would you mark such people so that providers know not to give them abortions? Should they be refused abortions but then forced to give the children to responsible parents?

Quote:

If you do not believe that, then why would you say that abortion should not be restricted under any circumstances? You said that after my comments re personal responsibility.

I did? That is a very interesting interpretation of my words.

Quote:

Having an abortion IS accepting responsibility not only for her (and her partner's) actions but for the life of the potential child. She is responsible for deciding if the time and place are right for bringing children into this world.

Did you interpret that to mean that abortion should not be restricted under any circumstances? The intent was to show that choosing to have an abortion is a way to accept responsibility. Ignoring the pregnancy until birth and then leaving the baby in a dumpster would be an example of not accepting responsibility. Obviously there are many choices in between and on either end of the responsibility spectrum.

Quote:

I did NOT say that you do not believe in personal responsibility in any other instance. You projected that from what I did say.

Well, after a long conversation where we did not talk about a woman's responsibility at all up until that moment you said:

Quote:

I accept your view that the woman has no responsibility whatsoever for her actions and that despite any irresponsibility on her part, she should not be held accountable for the new life she has helped create but wishes to destroy even in the moments before birth.

If I believe that a woman has no repsonsibility whatsoever for her actions, how is that not implying that I don't believe in personal responsibility? But if that's not what you meant, then I accept that.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,it all boils down to a womans right to her own body?

So,then it goes both ways.
I cannot be forced to pay support for a child I didnt want.After all,its not my body.

I can decide who gets to use my frozen sperm if I donate to a sperm bank,because its from my body.

I can stand on the corner and masturbate if I want,because its my body.

I can do whatever I want to,and the govt cannot say anything,as long as I do it to MY BODY,right?
After all,ITS MY BODY,and I am the only one allowed to say anything about what I do with it,right?

Don't you ever get tired of forwarding this tired argument that gets ripped apart every time you forward it? At the point that a child is born it is no longer in the woman's body. You cannot claim you have no responsibility for a child you conceived just because the woman has veto power.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

So,then it goes both ways. I cannot be forced to pay support for a child I didnt want.After all,its not my body.

that would work for me - it also means no rights to access to the child - which also works for me

mysteryman wrote:

I can decide who gets to use my frozen sperm if I donate to a sperm bank,because its from my body.

mmm - you can't donate it and retain control - but you can sell it independently

mysteryman wrote:

I can stand on the corner and masturbate if I want,because its my body.

as long as you're not an overly devout Christian, sure.

0 Replies

Freeduck,
Yes I can continue to make that argument.
The last time I checked,it takes 2 people to make a baby.
That means that in MOST cases,and I stress MOST,the woman made the choice also.
If she then chooses to abort that baby,then the father should be allowed to have a say.
If he is not allowed,then how can he be expected to pay for that child.

Now,what about those women that get pregnant only to get or keep their man.
Why should the father be forced to pay for a child he didnt want or know about?
It goes both ways.
If she doesnt want it,she will abort it.
If he didnt want or know about it,then he chouldnt have to pay for it.

I call it a "male abortion".
Dont try to force me to pay because you kept a baby I didnt want or know about,and I wont try to force you to keep a baby you dont want,ok.

Now,we have this...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/03/30/health/main683903.shtml

"Beginning Friday, sperm and egg donors in Britain will no longer have the shield of anonymity. Under a new law, any children conceived after that date will be able to learn their donor's identity when they turn 18."

Should the donor have to pay for these kids also?

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Freeduck,
Yes I can continue to make that argument.
The last time I checked,it takes 2 people to make a baby.

Yes, it takes two people to make a baby, so don't go crying the blues about having to pay child support. It takes only one person to gestate and birth a baby, therefore that person gets a veto. It's really not that complicated. If Congress passes a really bad law, and the president fails to veto it, is the Congress no longer responsible for the law since the president didn't veto it?

0 Replies

Sorry,
If a woman can kill a baby she doesnt want,even 5 seconds before it is born,and call that an abortion,then a man should be able to refuse to pay support for a child he neither wanted or knew about.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

A mother animal (cat, dog, bear, etc.) will protect their young to the death. I thought women used to feel that way about their babies whether in the womb or not and it seems more and more often the conceived child is the last to be considered. I find that a very sad commentary.

You're rewriting both nature and history. Child-birth was the leading cause of death and infanticide was common.

Quote:

Infanticide has been practiced on every continent and by people on every level of cultural complexity, from hunters and gatherers to high civilization, including our own ancestors. Rather than being an exception, then, it has been the rule.

http://www.infanticide.org/history.htm

In this day and age, women don't live in rent-free caves nor are they able to forage in the vast outdoors for free food to feed their children. It's a sad commentary when people spend time grieving over the days of yore and the potential life that was never born when we put forth so little effort to take care of the millions of poverty-stricken children in this nation who do indeed exist and are suffering.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Sorry,
If a woman can kill a baby she doesnt want,even 5 seconds before it is born,and call that an abortion,then a man should be able to refuse to pay support for a child he neither wanted or knew about.

That's your opinion.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Momma Angel wrote:
A mother animal (cat, dog, bear, etc.) will protect their young to the death. I thought women used to feel that way about their babies whether in the womb or not and it seems more and more often the conceived child is the last to be considered. I find that a very sad commentary.

You're rewriting both nature and history. Child-birth was the leading cause of death and infanticide was common.

I agree. I have witnessed a mother rabbit stomp to death an entire litter of bunnies because they were born too soon after her first litter and she knew she couldn't produce enough milk to feed them all.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Debra writes

Quote:
You can discuss potential life and what it means to you with respect to your emotions and to your morals all you want. It's when you take that discussion a step further and IMPOSE your views on others that causes a problem and violates the civil rights of people who don't agree with you.

To accept your conclusion about what I do and do not want about IMPOSING my views on others, I have to accept your opinion that an unborn baby is not a life. I don't. Nor do I hand it over to the Congress or the judicial system to define what is and what is not life.

But, you WOULD hand it over to YOURSELF to define what is and what is not existing or potential life--and you WOULD impose your views on others through the operation of state laws if you COULD--wouldn't you?

Sure. If I had/have the chance to vote for the life of an unborn baby over the convenience of the mother, I would vote for the life of the baby. I would also vote for any other laws protecting the life of the innocent of any age as opposed to those who do not give much or any consideration to that life. Wouldn't you? Would you think that imposing your will to override the freedom of others? Or would you consider it ethics and justice?

Be honest now. If it was in your power to impose your views on others, wouldn't you vote to approve a state law that would prohibit the termination of all pregnancies (even early-term pregnancies) with very few exceptions? And what exceptions would you allow?

No, actually I think what happens in the first few weeks of a pregnancy must be between the doctor and the patient, and my moral convictions about abortion are overridden by other concerns. I am not going to make personal judgments about anyone who is struggling with the results of rape, incest, or with a badly deformed fetus. But these days we have the technology to determine whether a baby is probably developing normally fairly early in the pregnancy. So at some point, I would like to see a court order be in order to terminate a pregnancy and I would like for the reason to be other than the convenience of the mother. I honestly have not formed an opinion on what that point in the pregnancy that should be.

Quote:
I think it perfectly appropriate to IMPOSE my views on other people as to whether than can neglect, abuse, injure, or kill their born children. I see those children as human beings.

I would certainly hope that you favor protecting existing life from harm. But where do you draw the line between imposing your views on others and allowing others the independence to think for themselves and make their own decisions? You can't protect every potential human life and every existing human life from every possible harm that you can imagine, so where do you draw the line between imposing your views and allowing people to think for themselves?

No I cannot save every child, but I believe in saving every child that I can. Would you not personally intercede on behalf of or even intervene if you saw a child being seriously harmed? What would the moral basis be for your doing that? And how do you see my moral basis for caring about the unborn to be any different?

And there is still the issue of whether it is one life or two that is under consideration here. I see two. You apparently do not. Both of us have reason to see it the way we do.

0 Replies

Anything to take the focus of the real responsibility from where it lies? C'mon, we all know mother nature has her ways. Survival of the fittest and all that. Cats smother some of their young because the mother knows they will not survive. It's not done out of malicious intent. I am talking about the WOMEN THAT HAVE ABORTION FOR CONVENIENCE SAKE. And, unfortunately, according to statistics (been posted before but I can go find them again) this is the majority of abortions performed.

I remember when having a child out of wedlock was taboo. I remember when sleeping around with a lot of guys and having babies gave a woman a bad name (and rightly so IMO). A lot of this is just common decency and consideration for life itself. You ever watch Maury? Ever see one of those shows where 37 men have been tested just to see who the baby's father was? These people aren't even the slightest bit embarrassed IMO if they would get on national TV and tell the world they slept with so many men they don't even know who the baby's father is. I at least give those women credit because they had the babies!

Is this what we call progress? If it is, I think we are in deep trouble. Nothing in life is perfect that's for sure. And I have to agree with some of what mysterman is saying. If a woman can terminate her pregnancy without the guy's input why should she expect anything from him if he didn't want a baby in the first place? Isn't that putting the rights of the woman in front of the rights of the man? Well, then why not put the rights of the child in front of everyone because the ADULTS didn't do the right thing in the first place?

0 Replies

Just so I understand where everyone is coming from let's say we have a case involving a parent punishing a 2 year old to the extent that the child dies. would this be
(1) murder?
(2) manslaughter?
(3) child abuse resulting in death?
This may be a trick question.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Sorry,
If a woman can kill a baby she doesnt want,even 5 seconds before it is born,and call that an abortion,then a man should be able to refuse to pay support for a child he neither wanted or knew about.

I would like you to show us an existing state law that allows a woman to choose to "kill a baby 5 seconds before it is born."

As far as your "I told her to get an abortion" defense to nullify your legal obligation to pay child support for an existing child, take your defense to court or ask your state legislature to pass a law that says fathers need not support their child if they told the mother to get an abortion. I'm sure the state legislators throughout the nation are willing to jump on your band wagon and pick up the tab to support your children in order to relieve you of that legal responsibility. Good luck with your lobbying efforts.

0 Replies

Who here believes that having an abortion is convenient? Where does this stuff come from?

0 Replies

Re: Abortion

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If almost half of the women having abortions are on their second abortion, in a world where contraceptives are incredibly easy to obtain, what does this tell us about the current societal application of abortion?

I am not convinced it tells us anything about the "current societal application of abortion", outside of the above, if true. Why would you think it would do otherwise?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Anyone who goes back to the abortion clinic for a second time, did not have a life altering experience with the first one.

Meaning what exactly?

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

If this statistic is accurate (and I am researching it as we post) then it has moved a Pro-Choice Conservative to the Pro-Life camp.

Why?

0 Replies

Debra_Law,

You know that I respect the heck out of you, but I am very confused on this one issue right now. If the woman has the right to terminate the pregnancy without the man's input why would the man have to pay child support if he did not want the child? In a case of a man wanting the child and a woman not wanting it, the woman gets to decide, right? I am having trouble reconciling this.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know