Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next

It is amazing how peoples lives are cut short by every reason and way one can think of . It also makes me wonder what it is which causes groups to form for antiabortion cause . Is it the cute little innocence or are they really representing whole life like they should . I know abortion is only one little way in which children die in the massive stock pile of ways there are , but I believe it is mostly the womans choice and men are stuck with the decision women will make whether it is fair or not , "as it should be" because even if the law threw in a statutory slider scale of manslaughter , and 1st and 2nd degree murder of a fetus you would see less women getting pregnant than the damage to reproduction through abortion . literally blowing the message of prolife all to hell ...besides even making physician performed abortion illegal can be just as incompassionate to the mother as the extermination of fetus or termination of the pregnancy ...

...Just the same,
if it is not a life and death situation or forced pregnancy and to support your Blog and be politically incorrect , I will say to all those who abort pregnancy to post willing or undecisive conception ; "Athough you are murdering a fetus just the same you are a murderer and in some cases a serial murderer " (of a living "breathing" being)

Someone once told me that the reason why we have children is to continue on living physically (our children are our personal spirit and soul including raised/reared by that soul and a perfect replica of our own genes not exempting the father and mostly of the father ) long after we have perished .

   

Veto no...the final decision is the womans right.To object to it, by all means ne has a right to have his thoughts on the matter heard.

   

Hmmm... Epiphany's posted twice here. This one, and one railing against the Status of Women folks, also linking to bluewavecanada.blogspot.com.

Something tells me that Epiphany is only here to try to get more hits on their blog.

   

You still haven't made your point clear I guess. To whom is he allowed to object or have his thoughts on the matter heard? And of what consequence would it be anyway? Would a woman have to give notice to the man of her intention?

My guess is that you're trying to instill a bit of fairness to an abortion, but unfortunately, the sole power rests with the woman. To fetter her decision in anyway is both wrong and unfair.

   

Thankfully, Canada doesn't agree with your position. Science either. However, I'll say to you and others who would limit the rights a woman has on her own body, "Hands off."

   

You would be wrong! What i am saying is as a man and as a father to be, you have the right to try and sway the decision ....if you feel in your heart it is the right thing to do.
Abortion has it's place(used as birth controll is not one of them) and this is not about the morality of the choice, it's about consiquences of peoples actions.
It takes two to make one, why should one make the decision for two?

   

Your comment raises the following argument:

Shouldn't a father have the right to have an abortion performed even against the mother's wishes? The mother, after all, can have an abortion against the father's wishes.

Further, if the father wants to have the child aborted and the mother doesn't then shouldn't he be absolved of responsibility for a child he didn't want to begin with? Why should a father be forced to spend eighteen years in servitude for a woman and a child he has no interest in?

   

From http://www.ncpa.org/pd/social/spjan98a.html



Tomorrow will mark the 25th anniversary of the Supreme Court's decision in Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortions in the U.S. Aside from the controversy still surrounding the decision, some observers say abortion has had a significant demographic impact on American society -- although no one knows how many of the terminated pregnancies were replaced by later births.

Over the past 25 years, there have been 35 million abortions and the annual abortion rate now is 1.5 million.

Without those 35 million abortions, the average age of the American population as of 1995 would have been 33.1 years, rather than an actual 35.9 years.

Since 1973, Americans have aborted 75 percent more potential citizens than have immigrated here legally since 1970.

The abortion rate per 1,000 women by race is 18 for whites, 54 for blacks and 38 for other groups.

How would these additional children have affected American society? If only one- third of those aborted were available to start work at age 18, the demise of Social Security would be put off for decades and there would already be 2.7 million additional workers. Also, without abortions, there would be 30 percent more young people, suggesting crime rates would be higher.

The 35 million additional children would have required states and localities to come up with an additional $50 billion in educational funds this year. A kindergarten through 12th grade education for those potential children would have cost more than $1 trillion.

By the time the peak of the baby boom generation reaches retirement age, the number of abortions since Roe vs. Wade will equal the number of births during the baby boom.

   

That doesn't seem very fair, either have an abortion or go it alone? In the end the only real choice a potential father has is to use a condom. What about after the child is grown and everyone is more mature, now the father wants a relationship with this adult child. Should he be forced to pay backpay before their can be a relationship? Any way you look at it a potential father has limited choices, but it's a womans body, and she should always have control over that.

   

So the father has absolutely no voice in the existence or non-existence of the child but he can be forced by a court to support that child for eighteen to twenty-three years. Seems to me that if you're going to demand that the father has to have more responsibility for the life of the child than he would in most jurisdictions for <i>killing it</i> then he should have a veto on abortion as well.

   

Sirejoe wrote: Its just one of those things in life that the white man has no control over

Pist Sire, haven't you heard the phrase "No glove no Love" ergo no pregnancy.

   

He did already have input into the process. He didn't have to sleep with her, and, if he's in that position, odds are that he decided he didn't want to use a condom, either. Maybe he should have thought about that beforehand.

   

There's lots of truth that should be known. Why should we trust you?

   

and the woman, in not refusing sex, had her input as well, no? If she didn't want a child maybe she should have thought about that beforehand.

This obviously doesn't apply to woman who've been assaulted, but I don't see why your logic is so one sided.

   

Fatbasturd,

Okay, I thought you were trying to have some legal relief provided for a would-be father. If he wants to try and sway the decision, go for it. However, in the end, only the woman has the choice.

Why does one get to make the decision for the pair? It's her body. Ultimately, the fetus isn't growing inside the man, just the woman. It boils down to a simple biological fact.

To answer Bart's query, why would the father have more say about what goes on in a woman's body than the woman herself? How come you would have the woman lose control of her own body and have it placed in the hands of the man who fathered the child with a legal system supporting him? Right now, it's beyond comprehension.

And with regards to the issue of child support, the money is about supporting the child; not punishing the father. Is that always the reality? I don't think any of us need evidence that fathers pay outrageous sums of child support money well beyond evidentary needs and into the punitive realm.

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  5 ... 7  Next