Loren Pechtel

In a perfect world the man would have a 50% say. However, the world isn't perfect--the reality is that you have two people voting and deadlocks must be resolved by some means. Giving him a 50% vote simply isn't practical as it simply throws the issue to whatever the deadlock resolution system is.

Julie

Nope I agree, women should kep their legs crossed just as much as men should keep it in their pants...But we all know thats not goingto happen. What needs to happen is Better more effective forms of birth control

I dont think I'll ever have an answer to your question, we'll just have to butt heads on this one.


Again thats where better more effective forms of birth control comes in. But as it stands even useing birth control pregnancies will happen, If your having sex you need to take responicibility for that .

Only if your willing to lock women up and fource them agains their will.

I dont know I look upon it as more of a good thing than bad...but I like kids....

So says you...I do not agree




They have the choice to
1. Not have sex
2. Wear a condom knowing its not 100% effective and therfor choosing to risk a pregnancy and all its risks and responcibilities
3. Be permantly sterilized if they wish, but still knowing there is a small risk of pregnancy

See above

Right raising another human is no responcibility.....

Your right it is.

You know if more men were willing to step up to the plate and take responcibility for their offspring then I bet more women would have the children. Its the fact that women have to often bear all the financial and emotional (and time and sweat and tears andlack of sleep...) alone that we should have the right to decide. As the ones that even in a normal relationship end up doing at least 60% if not more of the child care we are the ones that should and do have the final say in the matter.

I agree adoption sounds like a great solution...but look into it...its very hard to adopt (my husband and I at this stage of our lives are not able to adopt, we're young and able to have our own kids ergo we cant have anyone elses) plus its almost impossible to adopt outside of your race unless you go to a different country, and have a spare 20-50 thousand dollars around. There are many many children given up for adoption as it is that are not adpoted out..



par·a·site ( P ) Pronunciation Key (pr-st)
n.

1. Biology. An organism that grows, feeds, and is sheltered on or in a different organism while contributing nothing to the survival of its host.


[quote]What about the rights of a child? [quote]

where back to the old question of when is it a child? I think you and I have very different oppinions of what a "Child" is

Please for further discussion what is your defination of "Child"

To me a child is only a child once born (and a live birth at that) untill then its just a potential child

Birth control is fallible Some times pregnancy. And under the conditions you propose it would never be safe to get pregnant and expect the support of the man...That would be the end of the human species...is that your goal?





And untill men are responcible (or held accountable, try gettign child support after a divorse froma man that dosnt not want to pay) than what you want is an unrealistic goal.

I too would rather see people act responcible. And I'd like to enable then to do that with better sex education and more reliable birth control. Untill there is a 100% effective 100% reversible form of birth control for both Men and Women then abortion should be legal (and even then it should, rape and insist adn poor deformed children will always happen)


*edited to fix format mistakes..I give up on the speeling ones..

themistocles

Then wouldn't it be best if pregnant females did what was most fair, most moral, most responsible, and most practical and put up their baby for adoption? Abortion either denies or compromises all of those facets.

themistocles

Small children inevitably will irritate their parents, but it doesn't excuse the parents from drowning them. You can play your best hand at a table of poker, but if you lose, you can't demand your money back. If people are going to take risks, they should be held responsible for the outcomes of those risks. Killing a fetus seems like a rather crass way to hide "an accident".


If responsibility means not killing a fetus, sending a baby to adoption, or becoming a responsible parent, then I agree.

Abortion is abortion no matter how it's done. If a woman isn't solely responsible for the pregnancy, then she is not solely responsible for the consequences, is my point.


Agreed. But this is equal (well, where female equivelant is appropriate) to women as it is to men. I maintain that women do not have to get pregnant in order to have a "choice".

So do you think anyone who has a baby has the right to abandon the child, or conduct experiments with the child, or exact physical and even fatal punishment on the child?


I have no problem with this sentiment other then the defense of so-called "rights" women have with whether they can kill a fetus. My entire argument, my entire detestation with abortion is centered around the idea of responsibility. Killing a fetus is not an appropriate response to irresponsibility of a father. Obviously, women who kill their unborn are reluctant to raise their children, so why not send them for adoption? We agree that women, by having sex, risk pregnancy. They can either avoid the risk, or be responsible. Why should women act irresponsibly because some men might. Personally, I think it's a good thing that men are not legally allowed to kill children because they don't want to be fathers. Don't you?


It's a step up from killing a fetus.

If everyone aborted every pregnancy, for any reason, that would be the end of the human species. I think the woman's so-called "right" to kill their fetus is analagous to a man's right to decide whether or not he's "ready" to be a father. I don't favor abortion, so I don't favor a father being arbitrary in his responsibilities.

Being a dead beat dad is against the law, but abortions still happen all the time. You're not implying that abortion creates responsible men? If being a deadbeat dad and abortion were illegal, then responsibility would be sanctioned by law. But I see the statement that a deadbeat dad as a jerk and a pregnant woman as a person "with heavy decisions to make" as a hypocrisy because it excuses one person from responsibility while acknowledging that responsibility is important at the same time. Janus-faced, talking out both sides of the mouth hypocrisy, in my opinion.

And I hate to harp on this because it's mostly associated with the religious, which inherently gives the point a taboo-stink about it, but I don't understand why people snear at the idea of teaching abstinence. It's not like many women get pregnant when abstinent. And it's not as if teaching it means "do it" (and by all means, ignore it!). But women don't need to get pregnant to make "choices".

Grad Student Humanist

Because abstinence programs teach that one should abstain from sex until marriage which is nothing but a religious concept. There is nothing immoral about two adults choosing to have sex.

Nor does premarital sex always carry with it bad consequences. I had sex for the first time eleven years ago, and pretty regularly since then and I've yet to contract ANY STD's and I haven't gotten anyone pregnant.

I believe teens should abstain. But that's it. No reason a 25 year old man and a 21 year old woman shouldn't have sex, just because religious morality dictates that sex outside of marriage is wrong.

Loren Pechtel

And adoption doesn't?

There is *NO* solution that makes everyone happy.

Since the woman is the most impacted she should have the most say. However, that doesn't mean the man should be obligated to support the child.

boneyard bill

Claudia writes:

If there's a mother, then there's a child. And if there's a child, then abortion is the killing of a child.

Bad Kitty

I'd say the baby is significantly more impacted than the mother -- of course, my definition of a baby is different than yours.

I heartily agree with you here. Internally, I continue to struggle with all the implications of pro-choice and pro-life stances. Neither is perfect and both have serious ethical issues.

I hate that about today's abstinence programs as well. I would prefer that sex education programs focus on defining the serious consequences of having sex and promoting the use of protection/birth control in the CORRECT way (my understanding is that many birth controls failures can be chalked up to the improper/incomplete use of the product [typical use vs. perfect use]). In fact, I wish the programs would actually teach that intercourse isn't the only way to express sexuality. I do think promoting abstinence has a place in the program -- it is certainly a valid choice that I would encourage young people in particular to consider -- but it has nothing to do with marriage in my mind. It has to do with waiting until one is mature enough to handle all the possible consequences and responsibilities of sex.

Regards,

Michelle

themistocles

Big deal, teaching that abstinence will prevent unwanted pregnancy is patently true, and just because it's taught doesn't mean those who listen have to buy into it.

Nope. Abortion does not compromise or destroy the facets I mentioned to any degree (if at all) comparable to that of abortion.

Since slaveowners are most impacted by abolition, they should have the most say in the legality of slavery. So you do now support the idea that since men have least say in parenthood or abortion, they have little obligation?

Grad Student Humanist

Well it matters to me. Children should not be taught that sex before marriage is immoral, because it's not. It's a religious belief, nothing more.

Teaching teens that sex has some potentially serious consequences and that it may be better to wait until they are adults is one thing. Teaching them that one MUST wait until marriage because premarital sex is immoral is a whole different story and based soley on religious belief.