Vanity - A couple questions about abortion

[sarasmom]

"In an age of a woman’s unfettered access to abortion, why does the state require a man provide child support when the baby is born?"

No "state" "requires" child support payments from anyone to anyone.
Various states have codified laws and regulatory policies that deal with the sadly ever increasing and recurring issue of liability in civil suits for "financial impact" obligations.

Males need to understand that indiscriminately "procreating" is not an act devoid of consequences.

Not so very long ago, only the female participant, and any progeny, were socially punished for her immoral extramarital sexual activities.

Are you advocating that we turn back to those times?


Should females wear veils so they don't "tempt" men to fornicate?

[opticks]

"I have a physics test that I must study for."

Just remember, if you get stuck, everything can be derived from First Principles. A little humor from a physics grad student.

[Sisku Hanne]

We live in a magical fairy tale legal world, where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.

Wow. That hits like a two-by-four right to the heart.

[Laz711]

I know that I am going to get flamed for this, and I really do regret that, but I want to put my (il)logic into this.

A woman (by law) has the right to abort a baby, all by herself, without consulting her husband/boyfriend/fiancee/partner/one night stand, leaving men out of it altogether.

Why don't we turn it around. Let's say, for instance, that I am in a "relationship" with a woman, using protection every time, but we all know that isn't 100% effective. This woman, after only 3 months of this relationship, gets pregnant. She wants to keep the baby, therefore putting me in a predicament where I only wanted sex, not 18 years of raising a child with a woman I have only known for a few months, or paying for the baby for 18 years, whichever you want. Why can't I (hypothetically, I am not advocating this) be the one with the choice for abortion. She wants it, I don't, and I want the baby aborted?? Shouldn't the law (equal rights) give me the option to abort that baby which is 1/2 of my DNA???

Now, I know that is a horrible thought, and I can't believe that I thought of it, but that is what happens when you are crazy. And all of the arguments (such as the baby is in the woman, a man wants to abort the baby in a woman, therefore the woman is essentially the man's slave, or something like that) are purely hypothetical and in no way my endorsement on this kind of situation, but it is hypocritical to the Nth degree.

Of course, like another poster said on here, and I will paraphrase, is the best protection is no sex, that is my philosophy.

Cringing for the flames.

[jim-x]

We live in a magical fairy tale legal world, where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.

Ping.

Excellent quote. Thanks.

[de Buillion]

"Now there is no denying that hundreds of unborn children are killed every day in the guise of a women’s right to choose."

Yeah, like approx 3600, back in 1999. See my tagline.

[RunningWolf]

We live in a magical fairy tale legal world, where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.

TRUTH..

And it speaks very poorly for our culture.

Wolf

[Mears]

bttt

[RunningWolf]

yes there is no safe sex thats a myth

Wolf

[JudgemAll]

All men should have a moral obligation to support their children despite what evils others may commit. IMO
-----
I am for representation of the taxpayer. If the man pays, he has to see the child for representation. If he cannot see the child because she does not want to, he should not have to pay.

We do not pay booty to hostage takers, then why should men pay for kids taken hostage / kidnapped by women from men?

Enough of scapegoating men in this.

America is a nation of justice, not of social justice. This run on "deadbeat" dads ignores the deadbeat women who exploit kids for money and keep them away from men. It also attacks protectors of the family, so conveniently because the state simply loves to handle dum or vulnerable single mothers, as it is much easier to do than men.

This society selectively prosecutes whoever puts a threat to a power hungry state, and that is men.

[JudgemAll]

Abortion is giving up on life. This means people give up on themselves. It is a most vicious thing. No father should ever have the power to promote abortion through such schemes of not wishing to pay support.

Meanwhile, women's privacy and men's lack thereof is a criminal discrimination and imbalance of power in favor of women. Since when men cannot know who they sleep with? But women have the right to know where they work or how much money they make?

Unlimited privacy is disgusting anyways but male and female feminists want it, it helps pass things like AIDS and not be liable.

[JoeTN]

To support abortion one must chose to be ignorant of the truth. It is impossible for any abortion law to sit on the books and not cause ripples of illogic through out the code.

Abortion is shameful and a culmination of all that is wrong in our country...

[Lizavetta]

We live in a magical fairy tale legal world, where babies are like velveteen rabbits that only become real if they are loved.

Amazing isn't it? Imagine having the protection of the law only if someone wants you.

Imagine YOUR LOCATION (in utero or ex utero) determining whether you live or die...

I remember a Dr. Laura call years ago....a distraught very young newly pregnant shack-up lamenting over whether to abort or not. The boyfriend didn't want the baby. Dr. Laura's comment was basically if the boyfriend wanted it the girl would be shopping for baby clothes right now instead of planning its demise. Kind of summed up the horrible whimisical-ness of abortion.

[de Buillion]

"Should females wear veils so they don't "tempt" men to fornicate? "

Sounds to me like you have "discovered" the problem- male fornication. Please explain to me how males can fornicate without the existence of FEMALE fornication. (Please don't get into the pervert crap, that doesn't produce offspring.)

[truthpls]

I certainly don't consider myself to be an expert on this complicated question. However, I can't help but think back to the past. Were our ancestors so stupid after centuries of going over this subject? Perhaps, the old solution of a shot-gun wedding was, after all, the best. Baby has two parents. Mother and father have to reconcile their differences for baby. Single people who do not curb their appetites know what the future can bring, and it may possibly curtail their immediate urges; or face the fact that they are making a lifetime commitment when they go ahead with the urge of the moment. Many, many people have managed to control this all-important urge in many hundreds of years in the past. Is it really all that difficult?--and if they couldn't, they did manage somehow to make the best of it, by marrying the person they thought was so great at the moment. After all, there are people who marry for reasons other than love who manage to live a civil life, and raise healthy, productive children. But, consider the alternative. Children who live with the hatred of one parent to the other, who live under substandard conditions because of the hostility between the two birth parents, or at the worst case, see the hostility of the parents broadcast over the vast spectrum of the media today? Don't forget also the interaction of the extended families that is missed by the child; the grandparents, and other family members who are deprived of the relationship of the natural parents and their child. Can an abortion solve any of these problems? Not unless both parties are completely devoid of responsibility, caring, and pride in their offspring. I believe that makes one a sociopath, doesn't it?

[de Buillion]

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

[de Buillion]

POST OF THE YEAR!!!

[jocon307]

"2. How can the American standard be an unborn fetus is a baby if it is murdered, but it is a pre-life mass if it is aborted."

I would agree with you on your first question and I'm amazed that nobody has yet litigated on abortion being discriminatory against men. I agree that in this day and age of unfettered abortion men too should be free to walk away from their children. It wouldn't be moral, but it should be legal.

On your second question, however, I would say that gets into the issue of "choice". I doubt there are too many murder, or second murder, charges brought against a person who killed a woman who was very early in her pregnancy and maybe didn't even know she herself was pregnant. These laws also don't exist in all states. They have been passed over outrage over the murders of women who are far along in their pregnancy and who obviously have not chosen to abort their children. Of course, it has also been done to get a pro-life nose under the tent, and I don't think any reasonable person would doubt or deny that and that's fine with me.

I'm a pro-life woman, as are most freeperettes, and I see your point about the unfairness of things under the current pro-death regime of the left, but of course, it is most unfair to the poor unborn children.

[Intolerant in NJ]

2. How can the American standard be an unborn fetus is a baby if it is murdered, but it is a pre-life mass if it is aborted...and why does it seem that the very same people, especially newsreaders on TV, who get all choked-up and teary-eyed when a severely premature baby manages to survive its ordeal are often the same ones who are likely to be most vociferous in supporting a woman's right to chose to destroy such a small and helpless baby as was the premie in her womb....

[beaversmom]

That is the most profound and insightful thing I have ever heard on the subject.

I really like that analogy as well.