Anti-Abortion Motion 312

[zedex]

I am with you, Foxglove. Not all circumstances are "ideal" for a child to brought into and for that seem to think the child should be brought into the world and placed for adoption, think again. There are millions of kids waiting for adoption right now. They are not flying out the doors to make room for more.

In today's economy, adoptions have slowed considerably and financially, fewer people qualify. The "unwanted" kids become wards, thus responsiblity, of the state. As it is, budgets are being sliced if not butchered. Funding is being depleted so how are these kids being cared for properly? They ain't.

Also think how these kids feel: they are raised in an institution, no parents to guide them, no siblings to fuss and fight with, no aunts to bake a birthday cake, no uncles that can take them fishing or sneak them their first drink of beer, no grandparents to cuddle and coddle them. It is just the kid and many other institutional kids. Depressing, ain't it? But it is fact.

Sure, some of them get farmed out to "host" families. But, the reality behind these is that host families do it for money. Not all, but 99%. Some kids will be adopted by the host family, most will not. These kids will be shuffled from home to home to home. They are not treated like a member of a family or even a member of the human race. They are paychecks; nothing more, nothing less. They are given bare essentials of life. Many run away, some are sexually abused if not additionally physically abused or mentalty tortured.

Next to consider is when does "life" begin? I cannot understand why the great debate. It is clear and simple: life begins when the baby can seperate, and live without assistance, independently from its mother. By without assistance, I refer to being able to breath. So, at what point does this take place?

What was the youngest a preemie was able to live on its own? Was that a normal occurance? At what point does the infant survival rate routinely reach about 80%? Answer those questions and you have the answer to the major question: at what point does an unborn infant become a self sustaining human?

Of course the gov't could impose a law against sex for recreational purposes and impose a law stating sex is only for re-creation. But, I feel like even if they did that, it just ain't gonna happen.

So, as long as there is sexual activity for recreation and not just re-creation, there will be "mistakes". Safe sex has helped, but more for STD's than anything else. Once that "comfort zone" has been reached, risky behaviour begins.

I also believe that men do have some sort of opinion on the matter as well. If the woman does not want the kid and the man is willing to take the sole responsibility, maybe they should discuss the possibility of her giving birth and signing over her rights.

A mutual agreement must be mandated on this matter moreso than "when does life begin"?

If the woman wants the kid and the man does not, she has every right to screw up a man's life. But, the man cannot force the woman to carry, to term, his kid if he wants it and she does not. It took two to tango, but one way or the other, one person gets screwed over and it is usually the man.

My opinion in this matter is the scale must balance and the law should reconize that. Before the child is born, each should be asked what they want. In most cases, the woman wants the kid and the man does not. If this is the case and the woman is advised while abortion is still an option, she should be made to sign off stating she cannot and will not pursue the man for support. She knew that she would be alone in this and she made the decision.

If the man wants the kid and the woman does not, she should be made to carry the kid and sign over her rights and the man not be permitted to pursue her for support as he knew he would be alone in raising the kid. Now, alot of women will say that they should not be forced to distort her body for this. But, I also think that they knew the risks before, during and after sex. Because she will be out of work and taking meds, seeing docs and such, the man,as he wanted the child, must be forced to pay her expenses during her "down time".

Because of the above outlined issues, there will never be sexual equality between men and women. It sounds nice, yes, but only in theory will it ever happen.

If anyone can offer a reasonable solution to this, please do. I don't have all the answers--I wish I did.

[Foxglove]

Here is a fantastic article written by a progressive man, Vincent Martin. Such a refreshing perspective.

http://thefeministwire.com/2012/04/t...ive-mans-view/

[kittahmunhaPromotions]

I am with you, Foxglove. Not all circumstances are "ideal" for a child to brought into and for that seem to think the child should be brought into the world and placed for adoption, think again. There are millions of kids waiting for adoption right now. They are not flying out the doors to make room for more.

In today's economy, adoptions have slowed considerably and financially, fewer people qualify. The "unwanted" kids become wards, thus responsiblity, of the state. As it is, budgets are being sliced if not butchered. Funding is being depleted so how are these kids being cared for properly? They ain't.

Also think how these kids feel: they are raised in an institution, no parents to guide them, no siblings to fuss and fight with, no aunts to bake a birthday cake, no uncles that can take them fishing or sneak them their first drink of beer, no grandparents to cuddle and coddle them. It is just the kid and many other institutional kids. Depressing, ain't it? But it is fact.

Sure, some of them get farmed out to "host" families. But, the reality behind these is that host families do it for money. Not all, but 99%. Some kids will be adopted by the host family, most will not. These kids will be shuffled from home to home to home. They are not treated like a member of a family or even a member of the human race. They are paychecks; nothing more, nothing less. They are given bare essentials of life. Many run away, some are sexually abused if not additionally physically abused or mentalty tortured.

Next to consider is when does "life" begin? I cannot understand why the great debate. It is clear and simple: life begins when the baby can seperate, and live without assistance, independently from its mother. By without assistance, I refer to being able to breath. So, at what point does this take place?

What was the youngest a preemie was able to live on its own? Was that a normal occurance? At what point does the infant survival rate routinely reach about 80%? Answer those questions and you have the answer to the major question: at what point does an unborn infant become a self sustaining human?

Of course the gov't could impose a law against sex for recreational purposes and impose a law stating sex is only for re-creation. But, I feel like even if they did that, it just ain't gonna happen.

So, as long as there is sexual activity for recreation and not just re-creation, there will be "mistakes". Safe sex has helped, but more for STD's than anything else. Once that "comfort zone" has been reached, risky behaviour begins.

I also believe that men do have some sort of opinion on the matter as well. If the woman does not want the kid and the man is willing to take the sole responsibility, maybe they should discuss the possibility of her giving birth and signing over her rights.

A mutual agreement must be mandated on this matter moreso than "when does life begin"?

If the woman wants the kid and the man does not, she has every right to screw up a man's life. But, the man cannot force the woman to carry, to term, his kid if he wants it and she does not. It took two to tango, but one way or the other, one person gets screwed over and it is usually the man.

My opinion in this matter is the scale must balance and the law should reconize that. Before the child is born, each should be asked what they want. In most cases, the woman wants the kid and the man does not. If this is the case and the woman is advised while abortion is still an option, she should be made to sign off stating she cannot and will not pursue the man for support. She knew that she would be alone in this and she made the decision.

If the man wants the kid and the woman does not, she should be made to carry the kid and sign over her rights and the man not be permitted to pursue her for support as he knew he would be alone in raising the kid. Now, alot of women will say that they should not be forced to distort her body for this. But, I also think that they knew the risks before, during and after sex. Because she will be out of work and taking meds, seeing docs and such, the man,as he wanted the child, must be forced to pay her expenses during her "down time".

Because of the above outlined issues, there will never be sexual equality between men and women. It sounds nice, yes, but only in theory will it ever happen.

If anyone can offer a reasonable solution to this, please do. I don't have all the answers--I wish I did.

im not sure if you're male or female, but you sure sound like a male.

if you really believe this, the male wants the baby and the female does not - wouldnt the male have to pay her to compensate for hell she has to go through? last i checked going through labour isnt a walk in the park. the weight gain on the body takes a toll. would he pay her to miss work for morning sickness? pay the dentist bills for vomit messing up her teeth? pregnancy isnt easy, its one of the hardest thing a woman can endure in her lifetime. a male can never know what it feels like to be in her shoes, so i dont think if a male wants to keep it and she doesnt isnt very equal.

[Foxglove]

The only solution I would see in a situation where the father wants the baby and the woman does not. Would be for him to pay the medical bills to have the egg removed and put in a surrogate mother. If the woman was willing to go through with that kind of procedure.

I do not think it is fair to make someone sign a contract that they may change their mind about in the future. If you start making people sign legal documents than that will just make women stop telling their partners that they are pregnant and they will then deal with the issue on their own. I do not think it is fair to force someone into that kind of position.

I would like to believe that people in serious relationships have made it quite clear what their stance is on having children. (this is assuming a healthy and loving relationship)

As an example. I do not want kids. I will make that very clear to anyone whom I am considering a serious relationship with. If an unwanted pregnancy happens, because accidents happen and contraceptives fail, I would tell my partner because it is the right thing to do. I would then tell him I am going to have an abortion (if that was my decision at the time). If he has a problem with that, he should have thought about that before getting into a relationship with someone who does not want children.

[click]

I must say, I'm glad I'm out of the baby business now.

After 4 incredible children and 3 abortions (partners, I'm male) I can testify there is more rational for abortion than against. Enough said.



And don't judge me lest I kick your ass.

Click

[zedex]

im not sure if you're male or female, but you sure sound like a male.

if you really believe this, the male wants the baby and the female does not - wouldnt the male have to pay her to compensate for hell she has to go through? last i checked going through labour isnt a walk in the park. the weight gain on the body takes a toll. would he pay her to miss work for morning sickness? pay the dentist bills for vomit messing up her teeth? pregnancy isnt easy, its one of the hardest thing a woman can endure in her lifetime. a male can never know what it feels like to be in her shoes, so i dont think if a male wants to keep it and she doesnt isnt very equal.

I am a male, yes. I do not know what changes a woman goes through to have a mini-primate, no. Where do you suggest the compromise be placed? Suppose he thought they were in a serious, committed relationship and she decides she is not and aborts?? Is the baby soley hers to do with? Does he have no say in the matter?

How about a scenario? She is pregnant, he is happy. He later finds she has been running around on him and not sure the baby is his. But, he quits the relationship due to her affairs. Being vindictive, she decides to keep the baby just for spite. Is this right? Should a woman have the exclusive privledge to do this to someone?

[zedex]

The only solution I would see in a situation where the father wants the baby and the woman does not. Would be for him to pay the medical bills to have the egg removed and put in a surrogate mother. If the woman was willing to go through with that kind of procedure.

I do not think it is fair to make someone sign a contract that they may change their mind about in the future. If you start making people sign legal documents than that will just make women stop telling their partners that they are pregnant and they will then deal with the issue on their own. I do not think it is fair to force someone into that kind of position.

I would like to believe that people in serious relationships have made it quite clear what their stance is on having children. (this is assuming a healthy and loving relationship)

As an example. I do not want kids. I will make that very clear to anyone whom I am considering a serious relationship with. If an unwanted pregnancy happens, because accidents happen and contraceptives fail, I would tell my partner because it is the right thing to do. I would then tell him I am going to have an abortion (if that was my decision at the time). If he has a problem with that, he should have thought about that before getting into a relationship with someone who does not want children.

I have decided not to poke around where I may not want to hang around

[All Ages Music Concerts]

I have to say my 2 cents.

If a woman absolutely does not want kids and she is firm on this, then she has two choices before engaging in sex.

1: get your tubes tied
2: obstain from having sex.

I also believe if she decides to have sex for which there is always a chance to become pregnant; then she in turn should have to pay the total cost of the abortion.

Abortion laws need to be amended accordingly. We need to eliminate the cost of irresponsible actions placed on our health system that taxpayers are paying for.

[Foxglove]

I have to say my 2 cents.

If a woman absolutely does not want kids and she is firm on this, then she has two choices before engaging in sex.

1: get your tubes tied
2: obstain from having sex.

I also believe if she decides to have sex for which there is always a chance to become pregnant; then she in turn should have to pay the total cost of the abortion.

Abortion laws need to be amended accordingly. We need to eliminate the cost of irresponsible actions placed on our health system that taxpayers are paying for.

So by your answer does this mean you do not believe in birth control?

Why should a woman have to get an invasive surgery to get her tubes burned just so she does not get pregnant? That surgery is not reversable. I am only 25 and I do not want kids, what happens in 10yrs if I decide that maybe I do want kids? I would not be able to choose that as an option if I got my tubes burned at 25yrs old. I think that is unfair for a woman to have to make a permanant decision like that when they are so young. What about teenagers? Should people just stop having sex unless they are married and want kids?

There is always a chance of getting pregnant when you have sex. No matter how much birth control you use. You could use, condoms, birth control and a spermicide and still get pregnant because contraceptives are not 100% effective. Accidents happen and that is the bottom line.

Why should a woman have to obstain from sex just so she does not get pregnant? Men don't obstain from sex to not get a woman pregnant. Men don't get their balls snipped so they don't get a woman pregnant.

[Foxglove]

I am a male, yes. I do not know what changes a woman goes through to have a mini-primate, no. Where do you suggest the compromise be placed? Suppose he thought they were in a serious, committed relationship and she decides she is not and aborts?? Is the baby soley hers to do with? Does he have no say in the matter?

How about a scenario? She is pregnant, he is happy. He later finds she has been running around on him and not sure the baby is his. But, he quits the relationship due to her affairs. Being vindictive, she decides to keep the baby just for spite. Is this right? Should a woman have the exclusive privledge to do this to someone?

I am going to go out on a limb and guess in that situation, if he thought committed relationship and she did not, I am going to guess that she never would have told him she was pregnant and just dealt with it on her own.

In your second scenario I would say if she was fooling around and was vindictive and kept the baby. If she was going after him for child support or something, their would need to be a paternity test, if it ended up being his I am sure he would have a chance in court to win his case and not have to pay her. As I imagine the only reason for her to keep the baby is to go after his money. But I'm not a lawyer so I do not know how a court case like that would work, lol.