Pro-Choice and Anti-Capital Punishment?

Preferably with weighted keys. The Xtreme also has a tube!

I like this idea in principle, but remeber, that even if the fetus is aborted the cost is more than just financial. There is also the physical pain and danger from having a medical proceedure performed as well as the potential for emotional pain.

I think the requirements should be:
1. the man needs to compensate the woman for the costs she has to bear (how much is mental angish going for these days?).
2. The man's decision should occur well before the end of the first trimester in order to give the woman enough time to consider her options and take action before the end of the first trimester.

Again you look at it from the mother-father angle. Remember, at some point the foetus will be a baby, and that baby is entitled to support and a father. There are mechnisms under the law by which a father can give up parental rights, and thus not owe support. This is strongly discouraged by policy, and of course is prohibited wher ethe mother is on welfare. In the case of a mother on public support child support payments are paid first to the state.

Someone really needs to make a concerted effort to derail this thread. All this abortion talk is making me hungry.

I seriously thought Korg would be here by now.

Maybe the sample banks are being revised.

I don't understand why the mother should deserve anything for pain and suffering etc. It's not like the man raped her. If there is a requirement to pay extra, beyond the cost of an abortion, it should be split by both parties. Anything he would owe her would be canceled out, as she would owe him, as he would also suffer mental anguishing over his decision.

Would this be more PC for you?
"Ya don't want a baby, get it snipped or go have your ovaries removed."

It seemed to be pretty fair to me; telling both women and men to be responsible.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA

I see it perfectly well (seeing as how it's completely obvious). That's what makes it such a complicated issue all the way around, as is the right to die debate. As I said earlier, I don't in any way pretend the issue is about anything other than ending a human life, or potential human life. The moral tenets are simple. Their application often is not so simple because either choice has consequences that go far beyond the life or death of a child. I'm not advocating killing kids for sport.

Yeah, it's a real bitch. Ya have to lead 'em way out to get a clean shot. Fast little buggers.

It would depend on the stated intentions of both parties and who instigates the separation:

1. Mutual, split the $ cost and move on
2. Man instigates the separation, he pays $ + compensation (this goes even if she then decides to go ahead with the abortion, since his decision can be an important factor in her decision)
3. Woman wants the abortion. Now this is the tricky one. If she is required to compensate him, then she may end up coerced into not having the abortion by financial concerns. So, if she then goes ahead with the pregnancy against her wishes, she incurrs additional costs (here including mental anquish as well as physical suffering). The most practical solution would be to let her go ahead with the abortion and not require any compensation. Although this may not be completely balanced and fair, it avoids some potentially devestating abuses. (Unless you can think of a better way to balance this. Maybe the man would need to provide proof of her "ability to pay" before recieving anything?)

The point is... if we are going to have reproductive rights (the choice to be a parent or not) it should be for everyone. I don't understand why women (who just fought to stop discrimination based on gender) would want to deny people their reproductive choice based on gender.

In the United States your life can be taken away in its entirety by lethal injection.

A 'right that can be taken away' is not a fundamental right at all.

If you are carrying tuberculosis, if you are mentally unstable, just watch how fast any society will do what they want to your body.

Society's control over the individual's body is prevalent, accepted and generally condoned.



Abortion laws now control medical procedures done to an individual's body.

The question is: are the laws applied with compassion and humanity in all cases.

Ok everyone, I realize this is a highly emotional subject, but I wanted to remind everyone to PLEASE maintain respect for one another and refrain from inflammatory attacks.

If a woman tells a man she does not want to have a baby, why would he want to impregnate her if he wanted one? Chances are pretty good the couple would split up, since she doesn't want one and he does. There are also other ways for men to have children that they want - surrogacy, adoption, even fostering. I'm not sure the denial of reproductive choice applies here.

Well, because the burden isn't equal. If the guy wants to have the child and the woman doesn't it's not like he's got a womb and can take over. If she wants it and he doesn't he's not the one who has to go get the abortion performed. I get where you're coming from and if the burdens were equal I'd agree completely, but I don't think parental rights should be considered equal until after the child is born. Until then I think it's the woman's call and if the father isn't getting what he wants, tough.

huh? Did you read and understand my statements? Also, read Joy and Chip's response. If you still don't understand plese restate your question, because I'm not sure what you're saying.

Kevn does neither.

~Ulrika~

Again without reading all of the long winded posts I confess I could care less about what a man wants me to do with my body. All of you males and female Bush type supporters are just blowing hot air in my opinion. My body is MINE!!!!!! GET IT?

Yes, I read it, and theirs. I'll try to make my point more clear.

Can we agree it takes two people to make a baby?

Can we agree the result of having to support a child for 18 years is an equal burden to both parents?

Can we agree that we want equality of the sexes?

If we can agree on these things, then we can agree the man has as much to win or lose in the deal. The only thing the father doesn't do is carry and deliver the child.

Now, if the mother wants the child, she gets to keep the child, no question, and if she wants it dead, nothing dad can do. So her benefit in the deal is she gets to make the decision of life or death. For that benefit she has to carry the child or abort it.

If the father wants the child but the mother doesn't, no matter what he says, no matter how torn up he is over it, she gets to say whether his daughter gets to live or die.

If the father doesn't want to be a father, but ended up impregnating a girl even after taking all the precautions, then he should at least be able to opt-out. Give her his share of the abortion money. Then if she decides to abort she can pay her half. If she wants the child she gets to actually choose to keep it, so her benefit is.. for carrying the child she gets to keep it. Where as the father doesn't get to keep it, even if he is willing to pay every last penny. Even if he would be an excellent dad. Even if the child isn't "unwanted".

So, for the trouble of carrying the child, she gets the life or death decision, which reimburses her the trouble/risk etc.

I have asked Jeska for clarification since I do not understand why my post was edited. It is a perfectly valid opinion that if you want to have sex but don’t want to take responsibility for your actions if you get pregnant that you should either abstain or get fixed whether you are male of female.

Ulrika, I just do not get your hostility towards what I said. It is as valid an opinion than any here in this thread. I had figured you to be one to support freedom of speech. I assume someone disagreed with my post and complained about it… thus the edit… but the fact that it was edited simply because you or someone else does not agree is what is totally unacceptable.

I addressed no one specifically, it was not aimed at any particular individual. I was not speaking to a woman even but to Chip and clarified that I was referring to both men and woman when questioned . Disagreeing with my opinion and editing it for that sole reason is censorship and unacceptable. If politically correct opinions are all that are allowed on these forums Jeska, please tell me now and I will never post here again because my opinions are far from politically correct.

misogynistic... far from it Ulrika. I am married, have a daughter, my only sibling is a sister my dogs are even female, and absolutely adore women.

No, this isn't sufficient. Look at the individual cases I presented. Perhaps in an ideologial sence it is "fair" but what about a practical implementation?