[ARCHIVED THREAD] - Abortion (Page 1 of 3)
Posted: 8/17/2009 6:18:48 PM EDT
|
I was just reading this thread. The current process for abortion may be unconstitutional since it violates equal protection under the law. With the current system the woman has the right to choose but the man does not. The man however can be legally compelled to care and provide for the child. In my opinion (and disregarding any personal feelings I may have on the subject) there are several options. I do not think that any of the below are necessarily the "right" thing to do but they are "fair": 1. Abortion should be illegal except for medical reasons. 2. The man should be able to compel an abortion to be performed. 3. The man should be able to legally opt out of the child's future. |
|
Quoted:
2 and 3 get a huge WTF Why 3? A woman can legally opt out of the childs future(abortion). If she can why shouldn't the father be able to? If the father wants an abortion but the mother says no why should he be involved in the child's life any more at that point? |
|
Quoted: Abortions should be mandatory... people should have to pass a parenting test, get a license, and prove they can support a child financially before they're allowed to bring one into the world. Not this way, but the EGG VALVE should be closed until responsibility is proven. Abortion is not the solution. Prevention is. |
|
haha - that's Channel 10 CBS news here in Columbus and IBTSS |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 and 3 get a huge WTF Why 3? A woman can legally opt out of the childs future(abortion). If she can why shouldn't the father be able to? If the father wants an abortion but the mother says no why should he be involved in the child's life any more at that point? Never thought about it that way, ya got a point, but ABORTION!? 
My brother and I both were adopted. My nephew's mother didn't even see the boy, she had him and left the hospital! How crazy is that? He is a cool little dude though! With adoption being a option there is no reason for abortion unless the mother's life is on the line. The decision should include the father. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 and 3 get a huge WTF Why 3? A woman can legally opt out of the childs future(abortion). If she can why shouldn't the father be able to? If the father wants an abortion but the mother says no why should he be involved in the child's life any more at that point? Never thought about it that way, ya got a point, but ABORTION!?
My brother and I both were adopted. My nephew's mother didn't even see the boy, she had him and left the hospital! How crazy is that? He is a cool little dude though! With adoption being a option there is no reason for abortion unless the mother's life is on the line. The decision should include the father. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% against abortion, I am just pointing out the double standard. |
|
Either way the baby is getting zip protection under the law. I guess something unscientific happens when it emerges and it turns form a tissue blob instantly into a human being within a few seconds. Amazing, must be the witchery, magic voodoo stuff that's part of the constitution. 50 million US babies since 1973 say, "WTF about us?! How about we all agree not to take a blender or caustic chemicals to murder us little ones? Dismemberment hurts and doesn't buff out." |
|
Quoted: I was just reading this thread. The current process for abortion may be unconstitutional since it violates equal protection under the law. With the current system the woman has the right to choose but the man does not. The man however can be legally compelled to care and provide for the child. In my opinion (and disregarding any personal feelings I may have on the subject) there are several options. I do not think that any of the below are necessarily the "right" thing to do but they are "fair": 1. Abortion should be illegal except for medical reasons. 2. The man should be able to compel an abortion to be performed. 3. The man should be able to legally opt out of the child's future. AHHHHH HAHA HHAHAHAH HAHAHA.... wheeeewww.... lol... heh... wow. HAHAHAH HHHAHAHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA. no, no, no... really... thats funny. Good luck with that one. "Compel an abortion to be performed". I had to write it for myself. I think you need to re-think that one. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
2 and 3 get a huge WTF Why 3? A woman can legally opt out of the childs future(abortion). If she can why shouldn't the father be able to? If the father wants an abortion but the mother says no why should he be involved in the child's life any more at that point? Never thought about it that way, ya got a point, but ABORTION!?
My brother and I both were adopted. My nephew's mother didn't even see the boy, she had him and left the hospital! How crazy is that? He is a cool little dude though! With adoption being a option there is no reason for abortion unless the mother's life is on the line. The decision should include the father. Don't get me wrong, I am 100% against abortion, I am just pointing out the double standard. I knew what you meant and I agree. I just worded my post wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Either way the baby is getting zip protection under the law. I guess something unscientific happens when it emerges and it turns form a tissue blob instantly into a human being within a few seconds. Amazing, must be the witchery, magic voodoo stuff that's part of the constitution. 50 million US babies since 1973 say, "WTF about us?! How about we all agree not to take a blender or caustic chemicals to murder us little ones? Dismemberment hurts and doesn't buff out." No Shit! couldn't have said it better! |
|
Quoted: Either way the baby is getting zip protection under the law. I guess something unscientific happens when it emerges and it turns form a tissue blob instantly into a human being within a few seconds. Amazing, must be the witchery, magic voodoo stuff that's part of the constitution. 50 million US babies since 1973 say, "WTF about us?! How about we all agree not to take a blender or caustic chemicals to murder us little ones? Dismemberment hurts and doesn't buff out." Adoption is the best option here. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Abortions should be mandatory... people should have to pass a parenting test, get a license, and prove they can support a child financially before they're allowed to bring one into the world. Not this way, but the EGG EGG AND SPERM VALVES should be closed until responsibility is proven. Abortion is not the solution. Prevention is. FIFY 
|
|
A man has no say in what a woman can or cannot do with a grouping of cells in her body, that same woman cant tell that same man that he cannot have something on his body removed or altered. Its about FREEDOM OF CHOICE, this is my body I can do with it as I please. I can smoke, drink, eat red meat, drive fast, and fap till my arm falls off, but I have no right to force you to do or not do anything you dont want to do. The same style of argument persist on this board all the time with liberals and gun control, I can answer any of you with the line of reasoning we give them, If you dont want one dont get one, BUT you cannot tell me that I cant.
edited for missed words |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Either way the baby is getting zip protection under the law. I guess something unscientific happens when it emerges and it turns form a tissue blob instantly into a human being within a few seconds. Amazing, must be the witchery, magic voodoo stuff that's part of the constitution. 50 million US babies since 1973 say, "WTF about us?! How about we all agree not to take a blender or caustic chemicals to murder us little ones? Dismemberment hurts and doesn't buff out." Adoption is the best option here. Who is going to care for these children? Have you adopted a child? There are plenty now that cant get into families now imagine 50 million more taxing the system. |
|
Quoted: A man has no say in what a woman can or cannot do with a grouping of cells in her body, that same woman cant tell that same man that he cannot have something on his body removed altered. Its about FREEDOM OF CHOICE, this is my body I can do with it as I please. I can smoke, drink, eat red meat, drive fast, and fap till my arm falls off, but I have no right to force you to do or not do anything you dont want to do. The same style of argument persist on this board all the time with liberals and gun control, I can answer any of you with the line of reasoning we give them, If you dont want one dont get one, BUT you cannot tell me that I cant. He should be able to when that "grouping of cells" will quickly become a PERSON that he will be legally bound to provide for! |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Who is going to care for these children? Have you adopted a child? There are plenty now that cant get into families now imagine 50 million more taxing the system.Quoted: Adoption is the best option here.Either way the baby is getting zip protection under the law. I guess something unscientific happens when it emerges and it turns form a tissue blob instantly into a human being within a few seconds. Amazing, must be the witchery, magic voodoo stuff that's part of the constitution. 50 million US babies since 1973 say, "WTF about us?! How about we all agree not to take a blender or caustic chemicals to murder us little ones? Dismemberment hurts and doesn't buff out." I was always under the impression that there was a shortage of children ready for adoption. Am I mistaken? |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
A man has no say in what a woman can or cannot do with a grouping of cells in her body, that same woman cant tell that same man that he cannot have something on his body removed altered. Its about FREEDOM OF CHOICE, this is my body I can do with it as I please. I can smoke, drink, eat red meat, drive fast, and fap till my arm falls off, but I have no right to force you to do or not do anything you dont want to do. The same style of argument persist on this board all the time with liberals and gun control, I can answer any of you with the line of reasoning we give them, If you dont want one dont get one, BUT you cannot tell me that I cant. He should be able to when that "grouping of cells" will quickly become a PERSON that he will be legally bound to provide for! Wrap your dick, you can prevent this from ever happening, I am by no means an advocate for abstinence or waiting until married for sex, but if you are so scared of this happening than you have every power to prevent it from happening in the first place. My wife and I were active for 8 years before we conceived, and we NEVER had one accident/whoopsie ever. No broken condoms, no missed pills. Its not that hard, and for a group of people who value meticulous preparation I dont see how this is a problem |
|
Quoted: Quoted: Wrap your dick, you can prevent this from ever happening, I am by no means an advocate for abstinence or waiting until married for sex, but if you are so scared of this happening than you have every power to prevent it from happening in the first place. My wife and I were active for 8 years before we conceived, and we NEVER had one accident/whoopsie ever. No broken condoms, no missed pills. Its not that hard, and for a group of people who value meticulous preparation I dont see how this is a problemQuoted: He should be able to when that "grouping of cells" will quickly become a PERSON that he will be legally bound to provide for!A man has no say in what a woman can or cannot do with a grouping of cells in her body, that same woman cant tell that same man that he cannot have something on his body removed altered. Its about FREEDOM OF CHOICE, this is my body I can do with it as I please. I can smoke, drink, eat red meat, drive fast, and fap till my arm falls off, but I have no right to force you to do or not do anything you don't want to do. The same style of argument persist on this board all the time with liberals and gun control, I can answer any of you with the line of reasoning we give them, If you don't want one don't get one, BUT you cannot tell me that I cant. This isn't a matter of my being "scared" that it will happen to me. I just see it as a unconstitutional law that needs to be addressed in some way. A woman should not be able to opt out of raising and providing for a child if the man cannot! |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Who is going to care for these children? Have you adopted a child? There are plenty now that cant get into families now imagine 50 million more taxing the system.Quoted:
Adoption is the best option here.
Either way the baby is getting zip protection under the law. I guess something unscientific happens when it emerges and it turns form a tissue blob instantly into a human being within a few seconds. Amazing, must be the witchery, magic voodoo stuff that's part of the constitution. 50 million US babies since 1973 say, "WTF about us?! How about we all agree not to take a blender or caustic chemicals to murder us little ones? Dismemberment hurts and doesn't buff out." I was always under the impression that there was a shortage of children ready for adoption. Am I mistaken? 126,000 children are currently available for adoption. More than 20,000 children each year never leave the system — they remain in foster care until they "age out." Source |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wrap your dick, you can prevent this from ever happening, I am by no means an advocate for abstinence or waiting until married for sex, but if you are so scared of this happening than you have every power to prevent it from happening in the first place. My wife and I were active for 8 years before we conceived, and we NEVER had one accident/whoopsie ever. No broken condoms, no missed pills. Its not that hard, and for a group of people who value meticulous preparation I dont see how this is a problemQuoted:
He should be able to when that "grouping of cells" will quickly become a PERSON that he will be legally bound to provide for!
A man has no say in what a woman can or cannot do with a grouping of cells in her body, that same woman cant tell that same man that he cannot have something on his body removed altered. Its about FREEDOM OF CHOICE, this is my body I can do with it as I please. I can smoke, drink, eat red meat, drive fast, and fap till my arm falls off, but I have no right to force you to do or not do anything you don't want to do. The same style of argument persist on this board all the time with liberals and gun control, I can answer any of you with the line of reasoning we give them, If you don't want one don't get one, BUT you cannot tell me that I cant. This isn't a matter of my being "scared" that it will happen to me. I just see it as a unconstitutional law that needs to be addressed in some way. A woman should not be able to opt out of raising and providing for a child if the man cannot! In the eyes of the law and the medical community the woman is opting to have a procedure preformed. Any law forcing someone to do or not do something against their will is unconstitutional. Is she hurting you or infringing on your rights by having an abortion, I didnt think so. |
|
When we can calmly chat about the brutal dismemberment and chemical burning, and brain sucking of live human babies as "clinical procedures" then we have lost any humanity worth saving. Abortionists are allowed to kill babies in ways so horrid that they would be jailed if performed on animals or the most fiendish murderers. There is no "medical treatment" involved. This is killing of the most brutish and cold hearted fashion imaginable. We all will pay dearly eventually, or already are, for our culture of death. Just as prior civilizations that embraced human sacrifices for the wealth and comfort of the survivors. Aztecs, Incas, etc. The blood of innocents will cry from the earth itself at this outrage. Future generations will look back on us and ask how an entire civilization could delude themselves about killing babies being OK, just as we look back with shock and horror about the Nazis and Aztecs. Enjoy the bling you get from not having those innocents to feed. Blame the mother and father but don't punish torture the babies for your perceived hardships. The cries of these young martyrs are heard by God and we will reap his wrath. |
|
Quoted:
When we can calmly chat about the brutal dismemberment and chemical burning, and brain sucking of live human babies as "clinical procedures" then we have lost any humanity worth saving. Abortionists are allowed to kill babies in ways so horrid that they would be jailed if performed on animals or the most fiendish murderers. There is no "medical treatment" involved. This is killing of the most brutish and cold hearted fashion imaginable. We all will pay dearly eventually, or already are, for our culture of death. Just as prior civilizations that embraced human sacrifices for the wealth and comfort of the survivors. Aztecs, Incas, etc. The blood of innocents will cry from the earth itself at this outrage. Future generations will look back on us and ask how an entire civilization could delude themselves about killing babies being OK, just as we look back with shock and horror about the Nazis and Aztecs. Enjoy the bling you get from not having those innocents to feed. Blame the mother and father but don't punish torture the babies for your perceived hardships. The cries of these young martyrs are heard by God and we will reap his wrath. 
|
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
When we can calmly chat about the brutal dismemberment and chemical burning, and brain sucking of live human babies as "clinical procedures" then we have lost any humanity worth saving. Abortionists are allowed to kill babies in ways so horrid that they would be jailed if performed on animals or the most fiendish murderers. There is no "medical treatment" involved. This is killing of the most brutish and cold hearted fashion imaginable. We all will pay dearly eventually, or already are, for our culture of death. Just as prior civilizations that embraced human sacrifices for the wealth and comfort of the survivors. Aztecs, Incas, etc. The blood of innocents will cry from the earth itself at this outrage. Future generations will look back on us and ask how an entire civilization could delude themselves about killing babies being OK, just as we look back with shock and horror about the Nazis and Aztecs. Enjoy the bling you get from not having those innocents to feed. Blame the mother and father but don't punish torture the babies for your perceived hardships. The cries of these young martyrs are heard by God and we will reap his wrath. http://www.omegacall.org/STREET16.JPG When one runs out of arguments..they resort to name calling. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
When we can calmly chat about the brutal dismemberment and chemical burning, and brain sucking of live human babies as "clinical procedures" then we have lost any humanity worth saving. Abortionists are allowed to kill babies in ways so horrid that they would be jailed if performed on animals or the most fiendish murderers. There is no "medical treatment" involved. This is killing of the most brutish and cold hearted fashion imaginable. We all will pay dearly eventually, or already are, for our culture of death. Just as prior civilizations that embraced human sacrifices for the wealth and comfort of the survivors. Aztecs, Incas, etc. The blood of innocents will cry from the earth itself at this outrage. Future generations will look back on us and ask how an entire civilization could delude themselves about killing babies being OK, just as we look back with shock and horror about the Nazis and Aztecs. Enjoy the bling you get from not having those innocents to feed. Blame the mother and father but don't punish torture the babies for your perceived hardships. The cries of these young martyrs are heard by God and we will reap his wrath. http://www.omegacall.org/STREET16.JPG When one runs out of arguments..they resort to name calling. My argument is sound, it is based only in logic with no moral, religious or emotional skew. Also I called no names I merely used a picture to make a point. More people have died in the name of god than abortions anyways. |