Abortion

I believe in 100% choice in all matters that do not affect anybody else once a person has reached the age of majority. I believe all choice that affects others must be tempered by law, regulation, ethics, morality, or some other criteria lest society dissolve into undisciplined anarchy.

In my opinion, in all cases the needs of the children who neither chose to be here nor who have any real power over their lot in life should trump the selfish wants of the adult whether the adult made great choices or screwed up royally. I do not see that as either debatable or negotiable.

So for me it still comes back to whether the baby growing inside the womb is a human being worthy of consideration, protection, nurture, and opportunity or it is not. If it is, then both people who started him/her on the way should share the responsibility for the child's welfare from the time conception is known until the child reaches the age of majority.

If it is not, then I think the debate changes significantly. It just seems to me that a new life merits far more consideration than does something that is seen as dispensible, disposable, and of no value.

0 Replies

A lot of presumptions there. First, you presume that "the selfish wants of the adult" are what result in abortion. I've seen "the selfish wants of the adult" result in children. Many children, which couldn't be cared for but were cute and cudly while they were babies and gave the mother instant adult status and monthly checks. Second, you seem to be implying that people who choose abortion see the potential life as "dispensible, disposable, and of no value". How do you know that is the case? Isn't it more likely that they know the value (and the corresponding cost) of raising children and know they are not able to do it correctly? Your position is almost entirely based on your negative judgment of people and situations you know nothing about. All of your criteria and judgments will be very handy for you and for those you love who have to make this difficult decision, but there's no reason whatsoever to make it law.

0 Replies

Momma Angel wrote:

I CANNOT believe you said that to Echi! It's just a discussion! Calm down, ok?

LOL!!! Awww, man... I missed it! Crap. What did he say? What happened? Did our exchange get removed?? (Awesome!) LOL!!!

0 Replies

LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)

Quote:

The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.

Simply stated, if a man has a casual sexual encounter with a woman and simply walks away from it and makes no effort to determine if that encounter resulted in a pregnancy or makes no effort to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock or makes no effort to comply with state registry laws with respect to putative fathers, the Constitution is not going to afford him power to veto an adoption that has taken place. A child needs responsible parents from the moment it is born.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

A lot of presumptions there. First, you presume that "the selfish wants of the adult" are what result in abortion. I've seen "the selfish wants of the adult" result in children. Many children, which couldn't be cared for but were cute and cudly while they were babies and gave the mother instant adult status and monthly checks. Second, you seem to be implying that people who choose abortion see the potential life as "dispensible, disposable, and of no value". How do you know that is the case? Isn't it more likely that they know the value (and the corresponding cost) of raising children and know they are not able to do it correctly? Your position is almost entirely based on your negative judgment of people and situations you know nothing about. All of your criteria and judgments will be very handy for you and for those you love who have to make this difficult decision, but there's no reason whatsoever to make it law.

And again Freeduck you read into what I said other issues that are different discussions. Focus on exactly what I said in the context in which I said it, and debate that. And I will be happy to debate your other issues.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)

Quote:
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.

Simply stated, if a man has a casual sexual encounter with a woman and simply walks away from it and makes no effort to determine if that encounter resulted in a pregnancy or makes no effort to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock or makes no effort to comply with state registry laws with respect to putative fathers, the Constitution is not going to afford him power to veto an adoption that has taken place. A child needs responsible parents from the moment it is born.

Then wouldnt the same hold true if she makes no effort to contact him,no effort to notify him of the child,and then years later tells him he has a child?
Why should he pay support when she went years on her own,making no effort to find or notify him?

0 Replies

Debra,

Thanx for the link. I want to read it very carefully and will get back with you!

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)

Quote:
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.
Simply stated, if a man has a casual sexual encounter with a woman and simply walks away from it and makes no effort to determine if that encounter resulted in a pregnancy or makes no effort to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock or makes no effort to comply with state registry laws with respect to putative fathers, the Constitution is not going to afford him power to veto an adoption that has taken place. A child needs responsible parents from the moment it is born.

But does not the woman, by that same token, have rights against the man, in terms of support?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

FreeDuck wrote:
A lot of presumptions there. First, you presume that "the selfish wants of the adult" are what result in abortion. I've seen "the selfish wants of the adult" result in children. Many children, which couldn't be cared for but were cute and cudly while they were babies and gave the mother instant adult status and monthly checks. Second, you seem to be implying that people who choose abortion see the potential life as "dispensible, disposable, and of no value". How do you know that is the case? Isn't it more likely that they know the value (and the corresponding cost) of raising children and know they are not able to do it correctly? Your position is almost entirely based on your negative judgment of people and situations you know nothing about. All of your criteria and judgments will be very handy for you and for those you love who have to make this difficult decision, but there's no reason whatsoever to make it law.

And again Freeduck you read into what I said other issues that are different discussions. Focus on exactly what I said in the context in which I said it, and debate that. And I will be happy to debate your other issues.

I'm not sure where you are saying I'm deviating. I've addressed exact things that you said. The things you say reflect your judgment, which is all any of us have -- our own judgment. I am speaking directly to what you've said and in the context in which you said it. Perhaps you could show me how I'm wrong or how I've misinterpreted your words.

My point is that your judgment, whether it is reasonable or not, should not be the basis for anyone else's decisions.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
A lot of presumptions there. First, I've seen "the selfish wants of the adult" result in children. Many children, which couldn't be cared for but were cute and cudly while they were babies and gave the mother instant adult status and monthly checks. Second, you seem to be implying that people who choose abortion see the potential life as "dispensible, disposable, and of no value". How do you know that is the case? Isn't it more likely that they know the value (and the corresponding cost) of raising children and know they are not able to do it correctly? Your position is almost entirely based on your negative judgment of people and situations you know nothing about. All of your criteria and judgments will be very handy for you and for those you love who have to make this difficult decision, but there's no reason whatsoever to make it law.

And again Freeduck you read into what I said other issues that are different discussions. Focus on exactly what I said in the context in which I said it, and debate that. And I will be happy to debate your other issues.

I'm not sure where you are saying I'm deviating. I've addressed exact things that you said. The things you say reflect your judgment, which is all any of us have -- our own judgment. I am speaking directly to what you've said and in the context in which you said it. Perhaps you could show me how I'm wrong or how I've misinterpreted your words.

My point is that your judgment, whether it is reasonable or not, should not be the basis for anyone else's decisions.

You changed what I said to be what you apparently want me to have said.

For example, I said:
"In my opinion, in all cases the needs of the children who neither chose to be here nor who have any real power over their lot in life should trump the selfish wants of the adult whether the adult made great choices or screwed up royally."

You extrapolate that to be:'
"First, you presume that "the selfish wants of the adult" are what result in abortion."

You don't see your statement as completely changing the context of mine? If you do then we start over. If you don't then there is no way to have a rational conversation.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)

Quote:
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.

Simply stated, if a man has a casual sexual encounter with a woman and simply walks away from it and makes no effort to determine if that encounter resulted in a pregnancy or makes no effort to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock or makes no effort to comply with state registry laws with respect to putative fathers, the Constitution is not going to afford him power to veto an adoption that has taken place. A child needs responsible parents from the moment it is born.

Then wouldnt the same hold true if she makes no effort to contact him,no effort to notify him of the child,and then years later tells him he has a child?
Why should he pay support when she went years on her own,making no effort to find or notify him?

I don't know, MM. Why wouldn't she hunt him down? Maybe it was a one-night stand and she couldn't remember his name? After all, he forgot all about her the moment he left the sexual encounter and never looked back to see if . . . oops . . . a pregnancy resulted.

This seems to be a common theme with you, MM. Those darn conniving women are always up to no good so why should the man pay support?

State laws may or may not be more protective of the unwed father than the United States Constitution. Here. This report of a West Virginia Supreme Court case outta put a smile on your face:

Quote:

The state Supreme Court on Wednesday upheld a predecent-setting jury verdict granting $7.8 million in damages to a man because his former girlfriend, her family and lawyer gave up his child for adoption without his consent.

http://www.deltabravo.net/custody/adopt.php

Are you happy now? HE doesn't have to pay; she pays. Smile

0 Replies

Fox,

Why don't you tell me how "in my opinion, in all cases the needs of the children who neither chose to be here nor who have any real power over their lot in life should trump the selfish wants of the adult whether the adult made great choices or screwed up royally", in a thread whose topic is abortion, means something other than people having abortions for "the selfish wants of the adult". Why don't you tell me what you meant? I'm certainly willing to admit it if it turns out I've misinterpreted you. Were you talking about something other than abortion when you were speaking of "selfish wants and needs"? Are you saying that, the main point of my post, which you seem to grasp, that you base your position solely on your own negative judgment of people who would choose abortion, is false? Please, just point it out if that's so.

If you don't wish to continue there is nobody who will force you to do so. And taking that parental and authoritarian tone with me isn't going to cow me into submission. I reserve the right to respond to any and all of your posts if I so choose.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:
LEHR v. ROBERTSON, 463 U.S. 248 (1983)

Quote:
The significance of the biological connection is that it offers the natural father an opportunity that no other male possesses to develop a relationship with his offspring. If he grasps that opportunity and accepts some measure of responsibility for the child's future, he may enjoy the blessings of the parent-child relationship and make uniquely valuable contributions to the child's development. If he fails to do so, the Federal Constitution will not automatically compel a State to listen to his opinion of where the child's best interests lie.

Simply stated, if a man has a casual sexual encounter with a woman and simply walks away from it and makes no effort to determine if that encounter resulted in a pregnancy or makes no effort to establish paternity of a child born out of wedlock or makes no effort to comply with state registry laws with respect to putative fathers, the Constitution is not going to afford him power to veto an adoption that has taken place. A child needs responsible parents from the moment it is born.

But does not the woman, by that same token, have rights against the man, in terms of support?

The right of support does not belong to the custodial parent, it belongs to the child. A parent may not negotiate away the child's right to support--at least, not in my state they can't.

In my state, to obtain an order for support against the putative father, paternity must first be established by clear and convincing evidence. Usually, a DNA test will presumptively establish or preclude paternity. If a putative father is hit with a paternity and support action, he generally has the right to admit paternity and counterclaim for custody of the child and support from the mother. This might explain why some unwed mothers might be unwilling to go after the unwed father to enforce the child's right to support. She's probably afraid of losing custody of her child.

The unwed father, in a LOT of cases, is aware of the child but has threatened the mother that he will seek custody if she tries to get support. That might explain why she might wait years before she takes any action because, during those years, she is establishing continuity and stability with the child. Courts generally do not find it in the best interests of the child to remove the child from the only home/ only parent that the child has ever known.

0 Replies

FreeDuck wrote:

Fox,

Why don't you tell me how "in my opinion, in all cases the needs of the children who neither chose to be here nor who have any real power over their lot in life should trump the selfish wants of the adult whether the adult made great choices or screwed up royally", in a thread whose topic is abortion, means something other than people having abortions for "the selfish wants of the adult". Why don't you tell me what you meant? I'm certainly willing to admit it if it turns out I've misinterpreted you. Were you talking about something other than abortion when you were speaking of "selfish wants and needs"? Are you saying that, the main point of my post, which you seem to grasp, that you base your position solely on your own negative judgment of people who would choose abortion, is false? Please, just point it out if that's so.

If you don't wish to continue there is nobody who will force you to do so. And taking that parental and authoritarian tone with me isn't going to cow me into submission. I reserve the right to respond to any and all of your posts if I so choose.

Parental and authoritarian tone? You've got to be kidding. You accuse me of saying all manner of ('offensive') things which I've never said nor implied and extrapolate what I do say into something that I very much didn't say, and I'm the one taking the parental and authoritarian tone?

I'm not the one who misquoted you or drew inferences that you neither said nor intended. When you protested how I referenced one of your earlier posts, I offered an apology if I misread it and offered you a chance to correct it. You didn't.

When I say something, I try very hard to say exactly what I mean. And in the phrase I referenced, as well as all the other phrases in that post, I meant exactly what I said. And I certainly did not suggest you had no right to respond, nor was I attempting to 'cow you' into submission or anything else.

I did then state that I had been misquoted and mischaracterized, and I think I have the right to point that out. And I have the right to choose not to debate those who insist on debating in that manner.

And I am exercising that choice.

Happy now?

0 Replies

Debra,

Quote:

I don't know, MM. Why wouldn't she hunt him down?

You ask the question,then you answer it...

Quote:

The unwed father, in a LOT of cases, is aware of the child but has threatened the mother that he will seek custody if she tries to get support. That might explain why she might wait years before she takes any action because, during those years, she is establishing continuity and stability with the child. Courts generally do not find it in the best interests of the child to remove the child from the only home/ only parent that the child has ever known.

Now,you are intentionally misrepresenting my position.
I am NOT saying that support shouldnt be paid,and I have never said that,nor will I ever say that.

BUT,if a woman gets pregnant,does not tell the father,does not try to tell him,then comes back years later demanding support,then it should be his option about paying.

BTW,do you have any statistics or proof to back this up...

Quote:

The unwed father, in a LOT of cases, is aware of the child but has threatened the mother

You and I both know that there are men paying support for adult children,and we both know that there are women that demand support but wont allow the father to see the child.
If you wont let me see my child,then why should I pay support?
If you refused to tell me,for whatever reason,that you were pregnant,then why should I pay support?

If you want child support,tell me about the child,and then PROVE its mine.
If you refuse to do that,you get no support.
If you decide to abort my child,you pay for it yourself.
No govt help,no handouts,no charity,no insurance nothing.
Take it out of your wallet,not anyone else's.

0 Replies

mysteryman wrote:

If you decide to abort my child,you pay for it yourself. No govt help,no handouts,no charity,no insurance nothing.
Take it out of your wallet,not anyone else's.

Can't agree with that for number of reasons, but the one I will present here is purely pragmatic. Should such women have children because they cannot afford abortions, the children will likely, on average over time, cost the state vastly more than the cost of the abortions.

Why?

Because of the much higher chances that these children will lead an unhealthy, crime ridden life, and hence become a ward of the state, in the criminal (prison), psychological (mental health), and physiological (health care) senses.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You accuse me of saying all manner of ('offensive') things which I've never said nor implied and extrapolate what I do say into something that I very much didn't say, and I'm the one taking the parental and authoritarian tone?

Whoa nelly. Where did I say your comments are "offensive"?

Quote:

I'm not the one who misquoted you or drew inferences that you neither said nor intended. When you protested how I referenced one of your earlier posts, I offered an apology if I misread it and offered you a chance to correct it. You didn't.

Did you miss my post? I did correct what was obviously wrong and asked for quotes from you on some where it wasn't clear to me how you got what you got from my words. You didn't respond. And the places where I quote you are absolutely word for word -- one of the benefits of copy and paste.

Quote:

When I say something, I try very hard to say exactly what I mean.

Don't we all, with varying degrees of success. I won't pretend to always use exactly the correct phrases for my intended thoughts.

Quote:

I did then state that I had been misquoted and mischaracterized, and I think I have the right to point that out. And I have the right to choose not to debate those who insist on debating in that manner.

You certainly have that right, but you are also certainly mistaken. Where I quoted you I copied and pasted your words. If I misinterpreted the meaning of those words you have the opportunity to clarify or correct me. But simply saying you misunderstood me so I'm not debating you is a bit of a cop out.

Quote:

And I am exercising that choice.

Happy now?

Pleased as punch.

0 Replies

Debra,

Okay, I read that Petition as best I could. I am not good at legaleeze whatsoever. So, let me see if I have this correct? The guy was aware of the child from the very beginning but offered no financial and it seems, any other kind of support to the child or mother? But, when the woman marries another man and that man wants to adopt the child, the birth father says "Hey, wait a minute! No way!" Is that basically the gist of it?

I'll wait to hear from you about whether I am correct in what I read before I make any further comments. Thanx for that link!

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

mysteryman wrote:
If you decide to abort my child,you pay for it yourself. No govt help,no handouts,no charity,no insurance nothing.
Take it out of your wallet,not anyone else's.
Can't agree with that for number of reasons, but the one I will present here is purely pragmatic. Should such women have children because they cannot afford abortions, the children will likely, on average over time, cost the state vastly more than the cost of the abortions.

Why?

Because of the much higher chances that these children will lead an unhealthy, crime ridden life, and hence become a ward of the state, in the criminal (prison), psychological (mental health), and physiological (health care) senses.

Your observation in truth is the way it often is, yes. I understand that and I deplore that. But I can't reconcile in my mind that a child should be denied a shot at a good, happy, prosperous life because he MIGHT be a loser.

There has to be a better way.
.

0 Replies

I agree with you there, Foxfyre. I can't tell you how many stories I have heard about children starting out on the wrong foot, i.e., gangs, drugs, prison, etc., and ending up as lawyers, doctors, judges, and all around productive members of society. I don't thinking taking away anyone's chance at life is the answer.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know