Just so I understand you, you're saying that despite the fact that it takes both the man and the woman to initially make the baby, because the woman has sole rights to unmaking the baby, anything that follows from her continue pregnancy/abort pregnancy decision is her responsibility 100%?
Yes. Because the decision belongs solely to the woman (and not at all to the man), I think it logically and should legally follow that the consequences OF that decision also belong to the woman (and not at all to the man).
Doing anything else is flatly unjust and plainly hypocritical. And the only way to put those scales back into balance would be for the decision to keep/abort to be a shared one, and given the nature of pregnancy I think that would be less of a good idea than otherwise.
This ignores the fact that for a lot of women, the 'option' to abort the baby isn't one at all - lots of people really do believe abortion is evil and would never do it. It's unfair to say to those women that since they don't want an abortion, the guy who knocked them up bears no further responsibility.
Æthelred on
pokes: 1505 8032 8399
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Just so I understand you, you're saying that despite the fact that it takes both the man and the woman to initially make the baby, because the woman has sole rights to unmaking the baby, anything that follows from her continue pregnancy/abort pregnancy decision is her responsibility 100%?
Yes. Because the decision belongs solely to the woman, and not at all to the man, I think it logically and should legally follow that the consequences OF that decision also belong to the woman and not at all to the man.
Doing anything else is either flatly unjust, or suggesting that the decision to carry the baby shouldn't entirely be the woman's decision.
The man's decision comes earlier. Like, in wearing a condom etc. He still carries responsibility.
My name is Francis Dee and I'm new to this forum. Fornication is a sin, but niggers do it all the time. Fuckin hell I mean they have more kids than we used to make stereotypes about the Irish. Fuckin hell if the blacks had any more kids they would be more numerous than their ant cousins, although i am confused as to which underdeveloped race has the larger brains.
That's why fornication should be banned, but only outside of Canada because when I was in my youth I had so many women you wouldn't believe how many bints I had. Oh the hilarity of it all, I remember this last bird, Janice, she had an extra toe I think, but wasn't she a stunner. I did her in the tub, the rocketship and even at the GLTA Community Center.
analcunt on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The man's decision comes earlier. Like, in wearing a condom etc. He still carries responsibility.
I thought were were all in a hypothetical situation wherein everyone agreed to use birth control, did so, and it didn't work or didn't work properly? Those decisions were made, and something went wrong. Because, as you all discussed (and I read) earlier, nobody just hops into an abortion center simply because the mall was full and no good movies were playing on a sunday.
This ignores the fact that for a lot of women, the 'option' to abort the baby isn't one at all - lots of people really do believe abortion is evil and would never do it. It's unfair to say to those women that since they don't want an abortion, the guy who knocked them up bears no further responsibility.
Doesn't this same stroke ignore the fact that if a man believes an abortion is wrong, that this woman would be killing his child, he still has no say and is legally forced into a position of being guilty in what he considers to be conspiracy to murder? It cuts both ways deep enough to be fair.
Sarcastro on
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
Would this same hypothetical world be the one where partners are mutually respectful, and talk seriously about this sort of shit?
Disagreements happen even respectfully. I thought the debate was about how to civilly solve an impasse, not so suggest that an impasse would not be approached by reasonable, intelligent, mutually respectful folk.
EDIT: (Goddammit, I have to edit again). I'm arguing a point that I don't personally like. I'm also arguing a position that doesn't match my personal set of morals.
But sometimes, there is a difference between what I think is "right" and what I think should be "legal," and this is one of those. (I also think that wearing your pants in any way other than "all the way up and covering your underwear" is "wrong," but I don't want a law enforcing or condemning that, either).
I think this is the way things should be legally, because I don't like the idea that legally, someone can force me to comply - for longer than some prison sentences - with the aftermath of a choice they made that I had no say in whatsoever. Yes, raising a child is hard, and I'm more than well aware of that. Yes, it is expensive. No, it is in NO WAY ideal to have to do it alone. But I don't think the answer, legally, is to punish people for 18 years because they got laid once and then were forced NOT to have a say in the methods involved in cleaning up the resultant mess.
This ignores the fact that for a lot of women, the 'option' to abort the baby isn't one at all - lots of people really do believe abortion is evil and would never do it. It's unfair to say to those women that since they don't want an abortion, the guy who knocked them up bears no further responsibility.
Doesn't this same stroke ignore the fact that if a man believes an abortion is wrong, that this woman would be killing his child, he still has no say and is legally forced into a position of being guilty in what he considers to be conspiracy to murder? It cuts both ways deep enough to be fair.
He does have a say - he can ask her not to. Anything beyond that is forcing his own beliefs on her. It's not a great situation any way you cut it, but the woman gets the final choice due to biology.
He does have a say - he can ask her not to. Anything beyond that is forcing his own beliefs on her. It's not a great situation any way you cut it, but the woman gets the final choice due to biology.
If he has no say, he should not be legally forced to pay the price of that decision beyond the initial medical cost of birth or abortion.
Why is no one advocating adoption? Its a perfectly acceptable option.
Except that it's not.
I mean, adoption may be a sort of middle ground that both sides of the debate will grudgingly agree to in theory. But the problem is that we have an abundance of kids that aren't getting adopted. Throwing more on the pile isn't going to solve the issue, although it may help the pro-life crowd shrug off the cognitive dissonance, because as was mentioned earlier in the thread: pro-life usually means you have some sort of divinely-inspired right to be born and breed, and other than that, you're on your own.
The problem is that there are too many people in the world for the resources available and the way they're distributed. Adoption isn't a viable substitute for abortion.
This ignores the fact that for a lot of women, the 'option' to abort the baby isn't one at all - lots of people really do believe abortion is evil and would never do it. It's unfair to say to those women that since they don't want an abortion, the guy who knocked them up bears no further responsibility.
Doesn't this same stroke ignore the fact that if a man believes an abortion is wrong, that this woman would be killing his child, he still has no say and is legally forced into a position of being guilty in what he considers to be conspiracy to murder? It cuts both ways deep enough to be fair.
He does have a say - he can ask her not to. Anything beyond that is forcing his own beliefs on her. It's not a great situation any way you cut it, but the woman gets the final choice due to biology.
And yet, she is supported in a position that allows her to force her beliefs on him. No, not a good situation at all. Technically abortion is an option, but more often it is only the illusion of an option. The law seems built on technicalities though, I'm surprised no one has run this up through the courts yet. Too much stigma? (willing to fight child support = deadbeat dad?)
Because in real-life that means taking the choice back out of the woman's hands.
I don't follow. Are you saying that people should not be held individually responsible for thier choices?
No, I'm saying that excusing men from child-support for their child on the grounds that they don't want it will remove choice from the equation and require many women to have abortions whether they want to or not. But then I'm still talking about the real world, not the mythical nation of fantasy-land where economic hardship only occurs as a sentence handed down to people who have been found guilty of crimes by a court.
I mean, adoption may be a sort of middle ground that both sides of the debate will grudgingly agree to in theory. But the problem is that we have an abundance of kids that aren't getting adopted.
Actually, I was under the impression that the waiting list one has to get on to adopt is, as a national average, about thirty couples deep. If this is true, and I had no reason to doubt the person who told me as she works for an adoption service, then this strongly suggests a deficit of children to be adopted, not the opposite.
The problem is that there are too many people in the world for the resources available and the way they're distributed. Adoption isn't a viable substitute for abortion.
Not that I'm against abortion, at all.
I think the point is, if a woman wants out of the decision to raise a child, there are options. None of them are ideal, the entire situation is not idea, but the decision to keep and raise a child is a different decision from whether or not she has or aborts a child.
And I think that legally, a man should only be involved in the latter, as the former is something else entirely.
Actually no, the government is supported in a position that allows it to force people to contribute support to babies they create.
I guess this is fundamentally where we differ. I think if you remove my choice in the matter, I haven't created anything. I haven't even helped create anything. Someone else is using my DNA to create something and then trying to stick me with the bill against my will. (Figuratively... I've never been in this situation myself).
No, I'm saying that excusing men from child-support for their child on the grounds that they don't want it will remove choice from the equation and require many women to have abortions whether they want to or not.
That's absurd. It does make some things more difficult, but I don't think it even possible to force an abortion on someone. That would be a violent crime. Sometimes it may be the best choice, despite the wishes of the pregnant woman, but you know, sometimes I have to make hard choices and lose important things too. I wish it weren't so, but legislating otherwise is, I think, a hypocritical move that causes more problems than it solves.
This ignores the fact that for a lot of women, the 'option' to abort the baby isn't one at all - lots of people really do believe abortion is evil and would never do it. It's unfair to say to those women that since they don't want an abortion, the guy who knocked them up bears no further responsibility.
It's still an option, regardless of belief. There's still a choice being made, nothing is being forced on her (unless we want to argue that people raised with religious belief have no choice in the matter and as such are "forced" to choose keeping the child)
Why is no one advocating adoption? Its a perfectly acceptable option.
Accept that it's not.
I mean, adoption may be a sort of middle ground that both sides of the debate will grudgingly agree to in theory. But the problem is that we have an abundance of kids that aren't getting adopted. Throwing more on the pile isn't going to solve the issue, although it may help the pro-life crowd shrug off the cognitive dissonance, because as was mentioned earlier in the thread: pro-life usually means you have some sort of divinely-inspired right to be born and breed, and other than that, you're on your own.
The problem is that there are too many people in the world for the resources available and the way they're distributed. Adoption isn't a viable substitute for abortion.
I mentioned this in another thread but the kids in the US not getting adopted are the ones who are, overwhelmingly, black. There is a significant desire for parents to adopt children of the same race as they are. Since there are pay disparities between races with whites on top, it is more likely for white parents to have the financial resources necessary to adopt a child. It is a bit strange that there are lots of black babies available for domestic adoption, but people are willing to take children from halfway around the world just to make sure they're the same race (or a race that's more palatable.....say, an adopted Asian baby like me! though we are the cutest:P )
Same goes for children who are a bit older, have any kind of developmental disorder, etc etc. Adoption is a completely separate issue from abortion.
Edit: What's above is exactly true. There is an imbalance in the supply and demand. All babies are not created equal, so to speak. Some are highly prized commodities (young, white, healthy babies) for which demand outstrips supply and others essentially unwanted (old, black, and/or developmentally disabled babies/children).
Actually no, the government is supported in a position that allows it to force people to contribute support to babies they create.
I guess this is fundamentally where we differ. I think if you remove my choice in the matter, I haven't created anything. I haven't even helped create anything. Someone else is using my DNA to create something and then trying to stick me with the bill against my will. (Figuratively... I've never been in this situation myself).
No, I'm saying that excusing men from child-support for their child on the grounds that they don't want it will remove choice from the equation and require many women to have abortions whether they want to or not.
That's absurd.
So you're claiming the "all sex is rape" argument except with the roles reversed, and you live in fantasy-land. Excellent.
So you're claiming the "all sex is rape" argument except with the roles reversed, and you live in fantasy-land. Excellent.
I'll have some of what you're having, because I think heavy drugs are the ONLY things that would enable you to make that kind of jump.
I think you are so emotionally charged that you've flown off the handle completely. If this is not so, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what the hell you think you're talking about?
Actually, I was under the impression that the waiting list one has to get on to adopt is, as a national average, about thirty couples deep. If this is true, and I had no reason to doubt the person who told me as she works for an adoption service, then this strongly suggests a deficit of children to be adopted, not the opposite.
I don't have any kind of source on this, but my understanding is that there is a deficit of healthy, white children with tall, attractive parents and solid gold teeth.
There isn't a whole lot of demand for most of the babies who would be aborted.
Why is no one advocating adoption? Its a perfectly acceptable option.
Except that it's not.
I mean, adoption may be a sort of middle ground that both sides of the debate will grudgingly agree to in theory. But the problem is that we have an abundance of kids that aren't getting adopted. Throwing more on the pile isn't going to solve the issue, although it may help the pro-life crowd shrug off the cognitive dissonance, because as was mentioned earlier in the thread: pro-life usually means you have some sort of divinely-inspired right to be born and breed, and other than that, you're on your own.
The problem is that there are too many people in the world for the resources available and the way they're distributed. Adoption isn't a viable substitute for abortion.
And besides that - you guys do realize that pregnancy is a long, tough nine months - nine months that can have a pretty severe effect on Mommy's life. It takes a huge toll on the body, and it can cost her career opportunities (or romantic ones, for that matter). If it's a rough pregnancy (like my mom's were) you can end up laid up on your back for most of the time, because you know if you're at all active that fetus is a goner.
So yeah, you can advocate adoption if you want. But let's not pretend that if the woman opts out of aborting, she goes through her life as normal nine months and then a baby springs out of her forehead fully formed or something so she can hand it off (without any emotional conflict, of course) to total strangers.
Yeah, if you're not a baby anymore, you're pretty much stuck in the foster care system until you can become independent.
My brother was lucky; my parents wanted siblings and I was still only a year old when they saw my picture. They passed over other siblings who were both over 2 (he was about 3 1/2 years old when they chose us). He probably would have been stuck in foster care for a long, long time and based on my very vague memories of it (enhanced through my brother's more developed memories), it was a not a cheerful time in any way.
So you're claiming the "all sex is rape" argument except with the roles reversed, and you live in fantasy-land. Excellent.
I'll have some of what you're having, because I think heavy drugs are the ONLY things that would enable you to make that kind of jump.
I think you are so emotionally charged that you've flown off the handle completely. If this is not so, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what the hell you think you're talking about?
I don't want to be the one to give you "the talk", but it seems like you missed out on something if you imagine that when having intercourse with a woman, and pregnancy occurs, that she is "using your DNA to make something". She isn't doing shit, the laws of nature are. She's just making the decision whether or not to let this kid gestate in her womb, or not.
Be assured, you bare as much responsibility for that initial conception as she does (barring certain extreme cases)
I don't want to be the one to give you "the talk", but it seems like you missed out on something if you imagine that when having intercourse with a woman, and pregnancy occurs, that she is "using your DNA to make something". She isn't doing shit, the laws of nature are. She's just making the decision whether or not to let this kid gestate in her womb, or not.
And the MOMENT that decision becomes ENTIRELY hers? So should the legal consequences. That "decision" she is making is the Action I refer to when I say "using [my] DNA to make something", even if I expressed it unclearly.
Be assured, you bare as much responsibility for that initial conception as she does (barring certain extreme cases)
Conception? Yes. I'll go the extra mile and say a man bears as much responsibility for the delivery, no matter what method (or time frame) is decided upon for said delivery.
But the buck should stop there, because deciding to raise a new person is a different decision from the decision to abort or allow a fetus to come to term. And I believe it more detrimental for society as a whole, and a child in particular, when a parent is forced to contribute to that child's development in any way, shape, or form if they do not wish to help out.
Actually, I was under the impression that the waiting list one has to get on to adopt is, as a national average, about thirty couples deep. If this is true, and I had no reason to doubt the person who told me as she works for an adoption service, then this strongly suggests a deficit of children to be adopted, not the opposite.
I was thinking on a global scale, not just nationally. It's kind of moot, anyways; we import kids to adopt already.
That said, I don't buy the 30-family average even for a second. I did some volunteer work at a local shelter and saw all sorts of kids that weren't be adopted; mostly pre-teen and teenagers, predominantly black (even though the region is overwhelmingly white).
Not that I'm against abortion, at all.
I think the point is, if a woman wants out of the decision to raise a child, there are options. None of them are ideal, the entire situation is not idea, but the decision to keep and raise a child is a different decision from whether or not she has or aborts a child.
And I think that legally, a man should only be involved in the latter, as the former is something else entirely.
I don't disagree, either. Adoption should be an alternative. But I also think we need to step down off our pedestal and stop all this magical the-fetus-needs-rights crap.
We have institutionalized slaughter of all sorts of species that demonstrate a higher level of cognition than a fetus or even a newborn. What makes us so special? It's nothing but arrogance.
would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what the hell you think you're talking about?
Again? Fine. Once again, women don't make babies by themselves, they only carry them to term alone. She is the only one stuck with any bill at all if you decide to just up and ditch, and is invariably stuck with a substantial bill no matter what she decides to do about the pregnancy. And again, again, without child-support many women will be unable to provide for an unplanned child on their own, making her choice "starve with your starving child or abort", which is a false-choice. 17% of your gross income isn't even remotely crippling, except in cases where you're exempt from payments because you fail to meet the "able to pay" criteria. You're arguing "I shouldn't have to pay any penalty at all because I didn't want it, so what if the woman has to pay substantial penalties either way it's her fault for being easy".
some of you all treat having sex like shaking hands I swear... when did the notion of being responsible for your actions dissappear out the window? I'm all for choice in the debate but having sex makes babies. Sure, abortion can be an option for not going through with pregnancy but my god, it isn't some grand conspiracy for random women to entangle random guys into a prison sentence and unending financial responsibility.
Legally, I can see both sides to these situations but I could not, in good form, side with the argument of "you choose to keep the baby, I'm out of here" -- not even legally.
Adoption CAN be an option sometimes but is totally different and dependant on so many other factors
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
My feeling is, the man's choice comes at the beginning of the issue, way back at conception. After that, he's stuck with whatever choice he made then.
So you agree with the thread title? Because personally I just don't see why the guy should escape all consequences when the woman can't escape any. And I'm sure they don't mandate child-support payments if the dad stays with the mom and helps support her and the child, so the first person to try to pull the "poor innocent boy castrated by the evil wymynists" card can stick their dick in a toaster. He already gets off scott-free if the woman has an abortion, while she has to go through all manner of trauma and bullshit put in place by people like hesthefastest who think girls who get knocked up are guilty of whoredom until proven innocent.
Posts
Yes. Because the decision belongs solely to the woman (and not at all to the man), I think it logically and should legally follow that the consequences OF that decision also belong to the woman (and not at all to the man).
Doing anything else is flatly unjust and plainly hypocritical. And the only way to put those scales back into balance would be for the decision to keep/abort to be a shared one, and given the nature of pregnancy I think that would be less of a good idea than otherwise.
The man's decision comes earlier. Like, in wearing a condom etc. He still carries responsibility.
If people don't mind waiting, I could start a topic later in the evening. I'm in class right now, so I can't do it just yet.
That's why fornication should be banned, but only outside of Canada because when I was in my youth I had so many women you wouldn't believe how many bints I had. Oh the hilarity of it all, I remember this last bird, Janice, she had an extra toe I think, but wasn't she a stunner. I did her in the tub, the rocketship and even at the GLTA Community Center.
I thought were were all in a hypothetical situation wherein everyone agreed to use birth control, did so, and it didn't work or didn't work properly? Those decisions were made, and something went wrong. Because, as you all discussed (and I read) earlier, nobody just hops into an abortion center simply because the mall was full and no good movies were playing on a sunday.
EDIT: Lighten Up, Francis.
Doesn't this same stroke ignore the fact that if a man believes an abortion is wrong, that this woman would be killing his child, he still has no say and is legally forced into a position of being guilty in what he considers to be conspiracy to murder? It cuts both ways deep enough to be fair.
Would this same hypothetical world be the one where partners are mutually respectful, and talk seriously about this sort of shit?
bottom'd
Jesus Christ.
Disagreements happen even respectfully. I thought the debate was about how to civilly solve an impasse, not so suggest that an impasse would not be approached by reasonable, intelligent, mutually respectful folk.
EDIT: (Goddammit, I have to edit again). I'm arguing a point that I don't personally like. I'm also arguing a position that doesn't match my personal set of morals.
But sometimes, there is a difference between what I think is "right" and what I think should be "legal," and this is one of those. (I also think that wearing your pants in any way other than "all the way up and covering your underwear" is "wrong," but I don't want a law enforcing or condemning that, either).
I think this is the way things should be legally, because I don't like the idea that legally, someone can force me to comply - for longer than some prison sentences - with the aftermath of a choice they made that I had no say in whatsoever. Yes, raising a child is hard, and I'm more than well aware of that. Yes, it is expensive. No, it is in NO WAY ideal to have to do it alone. But I don't think the answer, legally, is to punish people for 18 years because they got laid once and then were forced NOT to have a say in the methods involved in cleaning up the resultant mess.
Oof.
What is that smell... it smells like.. like banning.
Interesting tactic, death by threadlock? Weird. People like that amaze me.
He does have a say - he can ask her not to. Anything beyond that is forcing his own beliefs on her. It's not a great situation any way you cut it, but the woman gets the final choice due to biology.
If he has no say, he should not be legally forced to pay the price of that decision beyond the initial medical cost of birth or abortion.
I mean, adoption may be a sort of middle ground that both sides of the debate will grudgingly agree to in theory. But the problem is that we have an abundance of kids that aren't getting adopted. Throwing more on the pile isn't going to solve the issue, although it may help the pro-life crowd shrug off the cognitive dissonance, because as was mentioned earlier in the thread: pro-life usually means you have some sort of divinely-inspired right to be born and breed, and other than that, you're on your own.
The problem is that there are too many people in the world for the resources available and the way they're distributed. Adoption isn't a viable substitute for abortion.
And yet, she is supported in a position that allows her to force her beliefs on him. No, not a good situation at all. Technically abortion is an option, but more often it is only the illusion of an option. The law seems built on technicalities though, I'm surprised no one has run this up through the courts yet. Too much stigma? (willing to fight child support = deadbeat dad?)
No, I'm saying that excusing men from child-support for their child on the grounds that they don't want it will remove choice from the equation and require many women to have abortions whether they want to or not. But then I'm still talking about the real world, not the mythical nation of fantasy-land where economic hardship only occurs as a sentence handed down to people who have been found guilty of crimes by a court.
Actually no, the government is supported in a position that allows it to force people to contribute support to babies they create.
Uh.
Actually, I was under the impression that the waiting list one has to get on to adopt is, as a national average, about thirty couples deep. If this is true, and I had no reason to doubt the person who told me as she works for an adoption service, then this strongly suggests a deficit of children to be adopted, not the opposite.
Not that I'm against abortion, at all.
I think the point is, if a woman wants out of the decision to raise a child, there are options. None of them are ideal, the entire situation is not idea, but the decision to keep and raise a child is a different decision from whether or not she has or aborts a child.
And I think that legally, a man should only be involved in the latter, as the former is something else entirely.
I guess this is fundamentally where we differ. I think if you remove my choice in the matter, I haven't created anything. I haven't even helped create anything. Someone else is using my DNA to create something and then trying to stick me with the bill against my will. (Figuratively... I've never been in this situation myself).
That's absurd. It does make some things more difficult, but I don't think it even possible to force an abortion on someone. That would be a violent crime. Sometimes it may be the best choice, despite the wishes of the pregnant woman, but you know, sometimes I have to make hard choices and lose important things too. I wish it weren't so, but legislating otherwise is, I think, a hypocritical move that causes more problems than it solves.
It's still an option, regardless of belief. There's still a choice being made, nothing is being forced on her (unless we want to argue that people raised with religious belief have no choice in the matter and as such are "forced" to choose keeping the child)
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
I mentioned this in another thread but the kids in the US not getting adopted are the ones who are, overwhelmingly, black. There is a significant desire for parents to adopt children of the same race as they are. Since there are pay disparities between races with whites on top, it is more likely for white parents to have the financial resources necessary to adopt a child. It is a bit strange that there are lots of black babies available for domestic adoption, but people are willing to take children from halfway around the world just to make sure they're the same race (or a race that's more palatable.....say, an adopted Asian baby like me! though we are the cutest:P )
Same goes for children who are a bit older, have any kind of developmental disorder, etc etc. Adoption is a completely separate issue from abortion.
Edit: What's above is exactly true. There is an imbalance in the supply and demand. All babies are not created equal, so to speak. Some are highly prized commodities (young, white, healthy babies) for which demand outstrips supply and others essentially unwanted (old, black, and/or developmentally disabled babies/children).
So you're claiming the "all sex is rape" argument except with the roles reversed, and you live in fantasy-land. Excellent.
I'll have some of what you're having, because I think heavy drugs are the ONLY things that would enable you to make that kind of jump.
I think you are so emotionally charged that you've flown off the handle completely. If this is not so, would you do me the favor of explaining exactly what the hell you think you're talking about?
I don't have any kind of source on this, but my understanding is that there is a deficit of healthy, white children with tall, attractive parents and solid gold teeth.
There isn't a whole lot of demand for most of the babies who would be aborted.
And besides that - you guys do realize that pregnancy is a long, tough nine months - nine months that can have a pretty severe effect on Mommy's life. It takes a huge toll on the body, and it can cost her career opportunities (or romantic ones, for that matter). If it's a rough pregnancy (like my mom's were) you can end up laid up on your back for most of the time, because you know if you're at all active that fetus is a goner.
So yeah, you can advocate adoption if you want. But let's not pretend that if the woman opts out of aborting, she goes through her life as normal nine months and then a baby springs out of her forehead fully formed or something so she can hand it off (without any emotional conflict, of course) to total strangers.
My brother was lucky; my parents wanted siblings and I was still only a year old when they saw my picture. They passed over other siblings who were both over 2 (he was about 3 1/2 years old when they chose us). He probably would have been stuck in foster care for a long, long time and based on my very vague memories of it (enhanced through my brother's more developed memories), it was a not a cheerful time in any way.
I don't want to be the one to give you "the talk", but it seems like you missed out on something if you imagine that when having intercourse with a woman, and pregnancy occurs, that she is "using your DNA to make something". She isn't doing shit, the laws of nature are. She's just making the decision whether or not to let this kid gestate in her womb, or not.
Be assured, you bare as much responsibility for that initial conception as she does (barring certain extreme cases)
And the MOMENT that decision becomes ENTIRELY hers? So should the legal consequences. That "decision" she is making is the Action I refer to when I say "using [my] DNA to make something", even if I expressed it unclearly.
Conception? Yes. I'll go the extra mile and say a man bears as much responsibility for the delivery, no matter what method (or time frame) is decided upon for said delivery.
But the buck should stop there, because deciding to raise a new person is a different decision from the decision to abort or allow a fetus to come to term. And I believe it more detrimental for society as a whole, and a child in particular, when a parent is forced to contribute to that child's development in any way, shape, or form if they do not wish to help out.
EDIT: Copied to new thread
I was thinking on a global scale, not just nationally. It's kind of moot, anyways; we import kids to adopt already.
That said, I don't buy the 30-family average even for a second. I did some volunteer work at a local shelter and saw all sorts of kids that weren't be adopted; mostly pre-teen and teenagers, predominantly black (even though the region is overwhelmingly white).
I don't disagree, either. Adoption should be an alternative. But I also think we need to step down off our pedestal and stop all this magical the-fetus-needs-rights crap.
We have institutionalized slaughter of all sorts of species that demonstrate a higher level of cognition than a fetus or even a newborn. What makes us so special? It's nothing but arrogance.
Again? Fine. Once again, women don't make babies by themselves, they only carry them to term alone. She is the only one stuck with any bill at all if you decide to just up and ditch, and is invariably stuck with a substantial bill no matter what she decides to do about the pregnancy. And again, again, without child-support many women will be unable to provide for an unplanned child on their own, making her choice "starve with your starving child or abort", which is a false-choice. 17% of your gross income isn't even remotely crippling, except in cases where you're exempt from payments because you fail to meet the "able to pay" criteria. You're arguing "I shouldn't have to pay any penalty at all because I didn't want it, so what if the woman has to pay substantial penalties either way it's her fault for being easy".
Legally, I can see both sides to these situations but I could not, in good form, side with the argument of "you choose to keep the baby, I'm out of here" -- not even legally.
Adoption CAN be an option sometimes but is totally different and dependant on so many other factors
stout's Amazon Wishlist | my lastFM
Do no misrepresent me.
I won't.