Log in

View Full Version : Abortion



Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

MojoJojo
12-12-2004, 10:34 PM
People may preach "It's her body, it's her body." Yes I agree 110% with this, but the "father" (If it was agreeable sex) opinion needs to be thrown in there as well.

It's a shame that there is a need for abortion, but in some instances we need it.
2 cents...
If the fetus is not considered a living entity yet, then you cannot legally give the father any say....it's still the woman's body. To allow the father to have any sort of control would require the defining of the fetus as a life. Once you do that....all sorts of other problems arise.

That aside....I'm not going to be the one to try to argue with a woman that although she will be the one carrying the child for 9 months, I should have any say whatsoever in what decision she makes.

Gabe
12-12-2004, 10:58 PM
Legally.... thats a whole other issue. Shit, this debate could branch off to 1000 other topics.

If a girlfriend/bf type relationship had this circumstance, I would hope that my Girlfriend would want my opinion (for or against) and take it heavily into consideration, not just instantly react.

But of course if 100% comes down to the woman, no one can stop her from choosing to or not.

Madcap
12-13-2004, 03:00 AM
Frankenthread...

"It's alive!!"


"It's ALIVE!!"

Mercury_Deep
12-13-2004, 05:56 AM
I am in no position to say whether aboriton is right or wrong, but I strongly feel that it should be an available option... I have know people who had to make that decision and I would not want to live in a society that would not allow them that freedom... I have yet to deceide my personal position, but I definately agree with an individual's body, is their choice to do what and when...

VenusGoddess
12-14-2004, 11:25 AM
The whole fetus yawning thing. What's with that? People yawn because they are tired and require more oxygen. Fetuses don't require oxygen, don't have oxygen available to them, and would simple be "inhaling" fluid. This looks suspiciously like they are humanizing fetal behaviour to me - trying to make the fetus look like a real, sleepy baby - which is misleading, no matter what your convictions on the topic.

Medical studies have shown that the fetus yawning is it preparing it's lungs for breathing air. It's true that the fetus would only be "inhaling" fluid, but it's the fluid that gets the lungs ready for air.

It's not humanizing anything that isn't already human. It's not misleading...it's fact. Whether you choose to let it help you make your choice one way or the other is a whole other topic.

Jenny
12-14-2004, 06:41 PM
Medical studies have shown that the fetus yawning is it preparing it's lungs for breathing air. It's true that the fetus would only be "inhaling" fluid, but it's the fluid that gets the lungs ready for air.

It's not humanizing anything that isn't already human. It's not misleading...it's fact. Whether you choose to let it help you make your choice one way or the other is a whole other topic.
I'm just going to disagree with you on that - fetal matter contracting to prepare lungs for air is very different than sleepy babies yawning. There is a reason they use the expression yawning (even when it is put in quotation marks) instead of more precise terminology, and it is not that the terminology is hard to understand.

VenusGoddess
12-15-2004, 09:45 AM
So, what do you say about a baby sucking it's thumb? Or about stretching? Playing with it's toes?

Sure...you say whatever you want to help yourself feel better. Medical research says one fact, a fetus is a baby (fetus in latin means "little person"). So, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Gabe
12-15-2004, 10:13 AM
I'm not to sure, maybe one you can answer it correctly, but if someone kills a pregnant mother (For example shoots the mother in the stomach) doesn't the murderer get 2 counts of murder? hence, killing 2 people?

Bridgette
12-15-2004, 10:32 AM
Why can't everyone just be content to make their own decisions for themselves, and let others do the same?

:-X for this topic.

discretedancer
12-15-2004, 01:37 PM
In theory, that sounds great. BUT, then someone could "make their own decision" when picking a victim, same thing with Murder1, Manslaughter, etc. Clearly, society needs lines of acceptable and unacceptable behavior...and Abortion currently (maybe forever) is near enough to the line to cause debate.

hardkandee
12-15-2004, 01:41 PM
I'm not to sure, maybe one you can answer it correctly, but if someone kills a pregnant mother (For example shoots the mother in the stomach) doesn't the murderer get 2 counts of murder? hence, killing 2 people?
That is the new "Laci's" Law.

VenusGoddess
12-15-2004, 04:28 PM
^ I haven't read that full law, yet...so don't quote me on this. But, I believe that the law is only for pregnant women who are past their first trimester (where the baby becomes more viable). Maybe one of our law boys can help us out here. Of course, the law could be written for ANY pregnant woman and it does depend on the state.

There was a guy (forget what state) that shot his pregnant girlfriend. She lived, but the baby died and the state decided not to prosecute for the death of the baby because the mom was already going to get an abortion (she was still in her first trimester).

In the Hacking case in Utah, I believe that the state is only going to go after Mark Hacking for killing Lori Hacking even though she was *rumored* to be 5 weeks pregnant. Since the pregnancy was not past the stage of "natural abortion/expulsion"...and also since her body was so badly decomposed that they probably couldn't prove she was pregnant without a witness, past pregnancy test, or a doctor stepping forward with results. :shrug:

Anywho...

Jenny
12-15-2004, 10:04 PM
So, what do you say about a baby sucking it's thumb? Or about stretching? Playing with it's toes?

Sure...you say whatever you want to help yourself feel better. Medical research says one fact, a fetus is a baby (fetus in latin means "little person"). So, whatever helps you sleep at night.
Okay, thank you. This (just incidentally) has nothing to do with my sleeping. The etymology of fetus is singularly unimportant in the conversation - it is not proof, or even indicative of anything. The english word fetus does not mean little person. Again, a baby sucking its thumb is cute, but I don't see the relevence. If you don't mind me saying so, you seem to be taking this topic very personally. If you are doing this because you are perceiving some sort of animosity or something, you're not. I just disagree with you. That's all.

bigteninch
12-15-2004, 10:19 PM
this is really a deep topic. i just want to say that for a woman who decides to carry full term, but does not want to keep the child for whatever reason, i am glad society is beginning to accept that and allow the child to be left with an amnesty type thing. I know this far from a perfect world, but it seems to be a better chioce than to force a woman into worse fates.... I found this thread to be very enlightening... thx

VenusGoddess
12-16-2004, 11:02 AM
Okay, thank you. This (just incidentally) has nothing to do with my sleeping. The etymology of fetus is singularly unimportant in the conversation - it is not proof, or even indicative of anything. The english word fetus does not mean little person. Again, a baby sucking its thumb is cute, but I don't see the relevence. If you don't mind me saying so, you seem to be taking this topic very personally. If you are doing this because you are perceiving some sort of animosity or something, you're not. I just disagree with you. That's all.

The point of fact is that there IS no english word "fetus". It is a latin term. I am annoyed that people, instead of saying, "I do/do not believe in abortion...blah, blah, blah" have to find "excuses" with which to "support" that belief. Not everything needs a reason. Maybe I am touchy because I've just been lambasted by a Pro-Lifer. I am really ticked off though. I believe in choice. I am not pro-life or pro-"death" (as was put so nicely to me). I am pro-choice. No matter what anyone wants to say (extremists on either side) women have a choice. It may not be the choice they would choose to make, but it's still a choice. No matter what anyone says, the DNA of that "fetus" or "baby" or "parasite" is still of the genetic make-up of a human being. It doesn't change the fact that those clump of cells become a human being within the 9 months of gestational growth.

I don't have a reason for being pro-choice. Other than it is simply my choice. I don't need an excuse for giving someone else the freedom to do what is best for them.

I guess that is all I was trying to get across (ineffectively it seems). There are just some things that you do not need "back-up info" for...this is one of those things.

LauraLove
12-16-2004, 11:22 AM
Pro choice. Whatever the woman wants or needs to do. It's her body. The father has no rights until the child is born when it comes to abortion.

Pamela
I agree and voted sometimes right in the poll.

:flower: Proud to be pro CHOICE :peace:

discretedancer
12-17-2004, 12:23 PM
<<playing devil's advocate, sure to get my ass kicked from here to California>>

PLEASE keep in mind I'm pro-choice, and how I posted earlier in this thread.


The father has no rights until the child is born when it comes to abortion.

so, the father has no rights until he is needed again (for financial/emotional/parenting support)? I think NO rights is a bit unfair, to say she has veto power is one thing, but NO rights implies NO responsibility later

hardkandee
12-17-2004, 02:20 PM
<<playing devil's advocate, sure to get my ass kicked from here to California>>

PLEASE keep in mind I'm pro-choice, and how I posted earlier in this thread.

so, the father has no rights until he is needed again (for financial/emotional/parenting support)? I think NO rights is a bit unfair, to say she has veto power is one thing, but NO rights implies NO responsibility later
pro-choice here too!
But to answer (or just comment on the above), if you are in a relationship where the guy's opinion doesn't matter that much, I believe the child, if born, wouldn't be growing up in a very healthy household anyway.

vern
03-06-2005, 09:52 PM
i'm happy my mom gave me the chance to experience this

kitana
03-07-2005, 12:43 AM
2 cents...
If the fetus is not considered a living entity yet, then you cannot legally give the father any say....it's still the woman's body. To allow the father to have any sort of control would require the defining of the fetus as a life. Once you do that....all sorts of other problems arise.

Not true Mojo. The father has his personal DNA inside that fetus, so legally he has right's to his DNA, weather it be protecting it, or terminating it. It's still his biological matter and he has just as much right to it as the mother.

Now with that said, I am a "sometimes right" girl. In the sense that sometimes it's the right thing to do and sometimes it's the wrong thing to do.

As for Father's rights; I think a father has just as many rights as the mother. Plain and simple.

My husband was dating this girl in HS (well before me and him), and she got preggers. He told her he would be there and proposed to her. He took her to all the Dr.'s appts, and sit with her every morning (he would get up early and go to her house and be there when she woke up) while holding her hand and her hair through the morning sickness. He loved this girl and loved the thought of being a Daddy. Two weeks after they went and found out they were having a boy, and named him she went and had an abortion. He was devastated. He went into severe drepression (grief), and was admitted into the hospital for observation for 3 days. He was never sucidal thank goodness, but why weren't his feeling considered? She said it was HER body and she could do whatever she wanted to with it. Well the baby wasen't technically her body, it's just IN her body. That baby was 1/2 his too.

I think it is very inconsiderate and rude and downright bitchy for a woman to say something like that. Just because it's in your body DOES NOT give you the right to do whatever the hell you wan to do with it without at least talking to the father about it first. It's just as much his decision as yours; government fits in to this equation nowhere.

Kitana

Nurse Betty
03-07-2005, 10:56 AM
Women should not be made to live in terror of their own bodies; that's why we need pro-choicers. Abortion is a form of infantcide and a tragedy; this is why we need pro-lifers. This thread will drive us all into hating each other.

I believe abortion should be legal until the seventy-first trimester. Then if the kid turns out to be a little punkass you can get rid of it.

Now you can all hate me most of all.

Jay Zeno
03-07-2005, 12:19 PM
Damnit, I gave up on reading this thread after my last posting, but then got sucked in again.

Whether you're pro- or anti-abortion is just fine with me. I would just caution against the use of the argument, "The fertilized egg won't want to develop in an unwanting, poor place anyway." I was an unwanted pregnancy and grew up in a low-income place, and I'm glad I got my shot at it.

Jenny
03-07-2005, 07:15 PM
^^^
Well, of course you are (as are we all, I'm sure). But if you didn't, you would hardly be able to contemplate your own non-existence.

Jay Zeno
03-07-2005, 08:59 PM
No, of course, Jenny. I'm merely saying that one shouldn't assume that a child born to unfortunate circumstances is better off not having ever existed. It doesn't address the real issues. I'm just offering my empirical/anecdotal refutation of what I consider to be a pretty weak argument in the whole debate.

merely_lurking
03-08-2005, 03:46 PM
I wouldn't want to get involved in somebody else's decision to abort, but now that my girlfriend is pregnant, and I am going to be a father for the first time, I couldn't even conceive of aborting our child. If my girlfriend decided to have an abortion without telling me, I would feel very wronged. I would at least demand some kind of convincing explanation in order to agree with it.

Jenny
03-08-2005, 08:19 PM
^^^
Yeah, but how would you feel if she told you and then did it? Ultimately it HAS to be her decision, because otherwise we would be giving control of her body to someone else - therefore the father's rights/privileges are simply moot. Saying the guy has a right to know doesn't mean anything unless the guy has a right to stop her; what is the point of him just knowing?

vern
03-08-2005, 09:30 PM
thats bullshit. dont you realize that you're just a damn incubator. yeah, yeah, its your body. a vegetable lying in a hospital shitting himself has more rights than my unborn son. fuck that.

Nurse Betty
03-08-2005, 10:07 PM
I personally feel that all vegetables taking up space in hospital wards should be tossed into the pot and stewed, if you know what I mean. But I just want to let those interested know of some possible female reasons to abort.

First, I know how devastating it is for a man to be legally powerless over his own child's right to live. Don't even get me started on custody cases. I do not take this lightly at all. But on the woman's end, carrying a pregnancy through can do devastating things to the body, during the pregnancy and quite possibly ever after, and many women, including myself, regard this with horror. We know on the most primal level that bringing life into the world is a miracle, and an honor, and should bring us the most profound joy that life has to offer, but the thought of pregnancy and its consequences puts ice in our veins. While I never have aborted, I loathe myself a great deal for feeling this way. I feel defective as a woman. It's tragic, its unfair, but there do exist forces and reasons strong enough to compell a women to destroy her own offspring. Believe me, I am sorry for that.

tootsie
03-09-2005, 04:51 AM
I said always right...as in its always the womans choice....she can have an abortion if she wants to. its her call.



Thank you! I really wish more men thought like you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! it is our choice, but i love how most men are like blah blah fucking blah don't do it, well you know you don't get pregnant, so you don't know what it's like, we're not the only ones who spread our legs, you do too, but hey if we get pregnant, and don't want it, we are the bad guys?!?!?!?!?!? give me a break!

kitana
03-09-2005, 08:49 AM
^^^
Yeah, but how would you feel if she told you and then did it? Ultimately it HAS to be her decision, because otherwise we would be giving control of her body to someone else - therefore the father's rights/privileges are simply moot. Saying the guy has a right to know doesn't mean anything unless the guy has a right to stop her; what is the point of him just knowing?

Sorry Jenny, but this is BULLSHIT! Since that baby is INSIDE of the woman (and BTW is not a part of the woman), he has just as much right to it as she does.

A father's right (if he's a good father) are never moot. That baby is 1/2 his DNA too, and he still has the legal right to his biological property as much as she does.

Kitana

kitana
03-09-2005, 08:52 AM
thats bullshit. dont you realize that you're just a damn incubator. yeah, yeah, its your body. a vegetable lying in a hospital shitting himself has more rights than my unborn son. fuck that.

AMEN!!! I couldn't have said it better myself. :highfive:

It takes two to make a baby, it should take two to destroy a baby.

Kitana

Amethyst
03-09-2005, 10:13 AM
^^ Agreed. In addition, if I chose to have a baby that the father is against having, I would not look to him for anything. He's made his choice, and so have I.

I chose "Never Right" on the poll because there was no choice for "Rarely Right". I am not about to sit on a throne and cast judgment on anyone who has had to go through making and carrying out this painful choice (I have seen the devastating effects it has on people, as well as those who were able to pick up and move on from it), but I completely disagree with advocating abortion as a means of birth control. With the exception of incest, RU-486 (haven't determined whether or not that is an abortion) and when the mother's life is in jeopardy, I am against abortion procedures.

If someone came to me for advice, I would definitely not advocate an abortion, and would offer alternatives, but if she was dead set on having one, I would hold her hand through the procedure. Again, it's not my place to judge her - I don't have to like it, but I'm no angel and I don't have the right to cast stones.

LilSweetVixen
03-09-2005, 11:36 AM
thats bullshit. dont you realize that you're just a damn incubator. yeah, yeah, its your body. a vegetable lying in a hospital shitting himself has more rights than my unborn son. fuck that.

first of all how are you so sure it's a son? I find it VERY TELLING that you said "my unborn son". No wonder women don't want to keep kids. They feel they're just being used to pass on the male heir like it's the 1600s.
also women are not incubators. incubators aren't forced to gain 35+ pounds, develop stretch marks, and endure immense pain in different forms. incubators don't wake up every hour of the night. incubators don't fall in love.
and of course vegetables have more rights! they're more sentient and they're not as big of a burden. your "unborn son" is a group of cells, that's why two weeks later "he" could turn out to be two "hes" or "a he and a she" or "three shes" and so on.
I agree that fathers should get to help make the decision but I don't believe in jumping to conclusions.

Jenny
03-09-2005, 12:30 PM
Sorry Jenny, but this is BULLSHIT! Since that baby is INSIDE of the woman (and BTW is not a part of the woman), he has just as much right to it as she does.

A father's right (if he's a good father) are never moot. That baby is 1/2 his DNA too, and he still has the legal right to his biological property as much as she does.

Kitana

No problem. However I am bewildered by this reply on a number of levels. The first of which involves you referring to the "baby" that doesn't yet exist. The second of which involves you referring to the "baby" as "property". Sort of humanizing and dehumanizing at the same time? I'm not really referrring to a father's rights, so a father's rights are actually irrelevant to this discussion. I am referring to a man's rights in a pregnancy - which must, necessarily, be subordinate to that of the woman. Another level would be you saying that the "baby" is not part of the woman's body - where in the world do you think it comes from then? The tissue is MADE of the woman's tissue, and the blood of her blood - it doesn't just appear in there, you know. In terms of biology - perhaps one of our medical students could illuminate us as to the difference between genetic "property" and biological "property".

BigGreenMnM
03-09-2005, 12:56 PM
I'm not really referrring to a father's rights, so a father's rights are actually irrelevant to this discussion. I am referring to a man's rights in a pregnancy - which must, necessarily, be subordinate to that of the woman.
Exactly what "rights"do you think a man has during a pregnancy??


By "subordinate"you mean "None"???

Thats what men have right now.Zilch,zero,nadda,none.

The mans legal"rights"end when his zipper drops,they magically reappear when a baby is born 9 months later in the form of legal responsibilities,with very few "rights"to the children,married or not.
Men have no rights whatsoever during that conception-birth window.
If they do,I would love to know one.

Jenny
03-09-2005, 01:13 PM
Exactly what "rights"do you think a man has during a pregnancy??


By "subordinate"you mean "None"???

Thats what men have right now.Zilch,zero,nadda,none.

The mans legal"rights"end when his zipper drops,they magically reappear when a baby is born 9 months later in the form of legal responsibilities,with very few "rights"to the children,married or not.
Men have no rights whatsoever during that conception-birth window.
If they do,I would love to know one.

By "subordinate" I mean (this is shocking) "subordinate". I mean that the man's wants and desires regarding the pregnancy - from issues ranging from smoking, seatbelts, nutrition and abortion - have to defer to the woman's or else she is (as as someone else put it so eloquently) nothing more than an incubator. But just for fun let's try this: what rights do you think a man SHOULD have over a woman's body while she is pregnant? How would you allocate equal rights and responsibilities during a pregnancy to a man and a woman when it is in fact the woman's body that is being allocated?

I also don't really know what you mean, by his "rights" reappear 9 months later - very few fit men I know have been denied access to their children by a courtroom or their mother (the mother of the children, not the man). As in "none." In fact most women rather wish their divorced partners would see more of the children, not less - many of them would love more than 2 nights a month to go out or do other things. Plus - I have no idea how much of this you know - most father's rights groups do NOT focus on more access to children, except in the most superficial PR kind of way. They DO rely on public perception of unfairness in family courts, but their mandate is really about more CONTROL and less MONEY. This refers, of course, to the the mandate of a political group, and not specific goals of specific fathers.

BigGreenMnM
03-10-2005, 05:11 AM
But just for fun let's try this: what rights do you think a man SHOULD have over a woman's body while she is pregnant?

"over a womans body"is a hook,line,and sinker,that most men get stumped on and where they start to lose the conversation and where most men start to run from the topic.Kinda like when the femmi nazi's drop the rape card in this issue.
I dont think men should have rights "OVER"a females body.Thats your choice of words.

I DO think a baby deserves rights "OVER"the female until birth.
Then,both the parents deserve equal rights "over" the child till 18.





I also don't really know what you mean, by his "rights" reappear 9 months later - very few fit men I know have been denied access to their children by a courtroom or their mother (the mother of the children, not the man). As in "none." In fact most women rather wish their divorced partners would see more of the children, not less - many of them would love more than 2 nights a month to go out or do other things. Plus - I have no idea how much of this you know - most father's rights groups do NOT focus on more access to children, except in the most superficial PR kind of way. They DO rely on public perception of unfairness in family courts, but their mandate is really about more CONTROL and less MONEY. This refers, of course, to the the mandate of a political group, and not specific goals of specific fathers.
Well over 90% of custodey cases end in favor of the female being the custodial parent,doesnt matter how "fit" the father is.
When the female is pregnant,she can decide to keep or terminate the baby.
When the female is married,she can get a divorce and in most cases,decide to keep the children from the marriage.She can also decide NOT to let the father see the child,or make it real hard for the father to see the child legaly.

The mother and the court system calls all the shots,the father calls nothing and can only suggest and go along with whatever decision is made.

We agree on most of the mens rights groups,sadly,its all about the money right now.

BigGreenMnM
03-10-2005, 07:23 AM
By "subordinate" I mean (this is shocking) "subordinate".
Main Entry: [1]sub·or·di·nate
Pronunciation: s&-'bor-d&n-&t, -'bord-n&t
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English subordinat, from Medieval Latin subordinatus, past participle of subordinare to subordinate, from Latin sub- + ordinare to order —more at
Date: 15th century
1 : placed in or occupying a lower class, rank, or position :
2 : submissive to or controlled by authority
3 a : of, relating to, or constituting a clause that functions as a noun, adjective, or adverb b :
- sub·or·di·nate·ly adverb
- sub·or·di·nate·ness noun

Main Entry: [3]sub·or·di·nate
Pronunciation: s&-'bor-d&n-"At
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): -nat·ed; -nat·ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin subordinatus
Date: 1597
1 : to make subject or subservient
2 : to treat as of less value or importance



I think its sad that a father and the very life he helped create can both be described with this word,but yea,your right,for now,this is how the law looks at both.

VenusGoddess
03-10-2005, 07:50 AM
By "subordinate" I mean (this is shocking) "subordinate". I mean that the man's wants and desires regarding the pregnancy - from issues ranging from smoking, seatbelts, nutrition and abortion - have to defer to the woman's or else she is (as as someone else put it so eloquently) nothing more than an incubator. But just for fun let's try this: what rights do you think a man SHOULD have over a woman's body while she is pregnant? How would you allocate equal rights and responsibilities during a pregnancy to a man and a woman when it is in fact the woman's body that is being allocated?

I must say...pregnancy is something that should be done with an open mind. This idea that MEN cannot have say over what happens to their child is absurd! I think the real issue being played out is that a lot of women are "angry" that they have been oppressed by the men for thousands of years. They've had to be subservient by law. I think that abortion became the one main way to really "stick it" to men. I am all for Pro-Choice. I think that a woman has every right to decide what happens to her body. Although, in with that mix, I think it is also her responsbility to listen to and respect the decisions of the man. The whole, "You can't tell me what to do" line doesn't work here. No one is telling the woman she cannot get an abortion. What is happening is that women are turning a deaf ear to the men in which they decided to have sex with and thus conceive with. It's just very closed-minded to think that the very person who contributed to the conception cannot contribute of how that conception plays out. ESPECIALLY, and most importantly, in cases of marriage/long term relationships. It's a little different in the "casual" sex arena...but just because the man doesn't want to date the woman forever, doesn't mean that he wouldn't love the child.


I also don't really know what you mean, by his "rights" reappear 9 months later - very few fit men I know have been denied access to their children by a courtroom or their mother (the mother of the children, not the man). As in "none." In fact most women rather wish their divorced partners would see more of the children, not less - many of them would love more than 2 nights a month to go out or do other things. Plus - I have no idea how much of this you know - most father's rights groups do NOT focus on more access to children, except in the most superficial PR kind of way. They DO rely on public perception of unfairness in family courts, but their mandate is really about more CONTROL and less MONEY. This refers, of course, to the the mandate of a political group, and not specific goals of specific fathers.

In my experience, and I did do some legal assistance for some father's rights lawyers, your "premise" is flawed. Father's rights lawyers DO, in fact, fight for the rights of the father. It's not about more CONTROL and less MONEY...it's about what's best for the children. Very often, judges just give the custody of the children to the mother...regardless of evidence to the contrary. People are still in the "new age" thinking that children "need" their mothers more than their fathers. Fathers Rights lawyers are about changing that and getting the children into the home that will be more STABLE. They're about getting more time with the children. They're about making the mother accountable for her actions of obstruction between the father and the children. Even the political group that you are speaking of (I believe) that is about less money. I have seen divorce cases in which the father was given SUPERVISED visits every other weekend...because the mother requested that. He was ordered to pay so much money in child support and alimony that he had to move back in with his parents to make those payments. And, this was a man who made over $125,000 a year!! The wife got the house and the car...all of which were being financed...the guy got screwed. The reason the judge gave him supervised visits? Because the mother's lawyer brought in experts to say that since the husband cheated on his wife...that would make him more likely to abuse the children...2 little girls and a little boy... :shrug:

But, this is off-topic. As soon as women realize that the FATHERS have just as much right to decide what happens...this whole abortion fight will just fizzle out. MHO.

kitana
03-10-2005, 07:52 AM
Another level would be you saying that the "baby" is not part of the woman's body - where in the world do you think it comes from then? The tissue is MADE of the woman's tissue, and the blood of her blood - it doesn't just appear in there, you know. In terms of biology - perhaps one of our medical students could illuminate us as to the difference between genetic "property" and biological "property".

Yes it is made of the woman's blood and tissue, but at the same time, it's the father's blood and tissue as well.

And since it is partially the father's tissue and blood, they have rights too.

I guess I feel this way since I am in a relationship that is lasting, but if it were a one-night stand or something along those lines I might feel different. My opinion is based on my relationship so it is biased.

Kitana

Jenny
03-10-2005, 08:31 AM
Yes it is made of the woman's blood and tissue, but at the same time, it's the father's blood and tissue as well.

And since it is partially the father's tissue and blood, they have rights too.

I guess I feel this way since I am in a relationship that is lasting, but if it were a one-night stand or something along those lines I might feel different. My opinion is based on my relationship so it is biased.

Kitana

Okay - I wasn't clear. The baby is NOT made of the father's tissue. This is not a matter of debate or contention or opinion. Equal donors of DNA - yes. Blood and tissue - no. The baby is made out of the woman's blood - in that as the baby comes into existence the tissue and blood of the baby are the woman's. This is why expectant mother's shouldn't smoke, but it doesn't matter if expectant fathers do. I'm not explaining this clearly. This might make it clearer - a woman who is acting as a surrogate, may carry a baby that is genetically not hers - the fertilized ova of another woman. The baby is still biologically hers, insofar as the baby is still made out of her body. The genes have nothing to do with her, but the baby's tissue is still made from her tissue.

Jenny
03-10-2005, 08:50 AM
Although, in with that mix, I think it is also her responsbility to listen to and respect the decisions of the man. The whole, "You can't tell me what to do" line doesn't work here. No one is telling the woman she cannot get an abortion.

See here is where I get lost - how do you work this? Supposing the man wants an abortion and the woman doesn't - how do you come to a mutual consensus about this? Supposing he thinks she ought to stop eating red meat, but she doesn't want to? Supposing she is a vegetarian and he thinks she ought to eat red meat? How does she respect his wishes while retaining automony over her body? My question is, specifically, what happens when the "father" IS telling her not to have an abortion, and she wants one? What then?


In my experience, and I did do some legal assistance for some father's rights lawyers, your "premise" is flawed. Father's rights lawyers DO, in fact, fight for the rights of the father. It's not about more CONTROL and less MONEY...it's about what's best for the children. Very often, judges just give the custody of the children to the mother...regardless of evidence to the contrary.

Alright. You and I have different anecdotal experience, and there is no point to us just running our heads together insisting that "mine is better than yours."


But, this is off-topic. As soon as women realize that the FATHERS have just as much right to decide what happens...this whole abortion fight will just fizzle out. MHO.
Precisely what I said before was that it wasn't an issue of "rights" but of biological imperative.

Jay Zeno
03-10-2005, 08:56 AM
Good on you to post the meaning of "subdordinate," BigGreen, just so you can be sure for yourself that subordinate does not not mean (as you originally stated) "None"... "Zilch,zero,nadda,none."

Jenny is, of course, correct. The amount of tissue that a man physically contributes to the making of a child is one (1) cell. That cell, yes, starts the whole process and contributes DNA. But it's the woman's metabolism and body mass that builds the human inside the woman.

However, the fact that the child is built from the woman's tissue does not negate the fact that it is a human being, whether in primal or nascent or developing or viable mode, with its own set of DNA distinct from mom and dad, with its own future lying ahead, with its own movement and digestive and neural and growth processes occurring independently.

kitana
03-10-2005, 09:04 AM
Okay - I wasn't clear. The baby is NOT made of the father's tissue. This is not a matter of debate or contention or opinion. Equal donors of DNA - yes. Blood and tissue - no.

I understand that initally the father only contributes ONE cell, but nevertheless, his whole makeup is in that cell as well.

Really? Then how do you explain that over 1/2 of children born have their father's blood type then? My youngest daughter for example has an AB- blood type. Mine is A+, her father's is AB-.

The mother might have more control over the fetus until birth (control meaning, tissure and feeding and growth), but it's is just as much the father as the mother.

You obviously took my meaning differently that I wrote it. I am saying my opinion is based on being in a RELATIONSHIP. If I were single, I am sure I would feel differently.

Take this for example, when I was preggers with Darien, Luke would get sick before I would.(During the morning sickness phase). And every time I would eat something that would normall make him sick and not me; I got sick from it as well. Take for example, I LOVE brussle sprouts, them make him sick and have to puke. I couldn't eat them my WHOLE pregnancy; every time I tried, she would get sick, and I would have to go puke as a result. Now with that in mind, doesn't that give you some idea of how a father still should have rights in-utero?

I mean it was his DNA and genes that made her not like the sprouts, not mine. And I constantly craved sushi, I at the time hated sushi. It made me sick, much as the sprouts make him sick. That was his DNA inside of me craving for something he liked.

Do you understand where I'm coming from now?

Kitana

Jenny
03-10-2005, 09:25 AM
^^
No. Not at all. I think it is perfectly clear that you are talking about a psychological sympathetic sickness that is well known and has nothing to do with me saying that a baby is made from a woman's tissue, not a man's. A fetus doesn't eat. It doesn't have tastebuds (at least none that it utilizies). Fetuses do not have cravings because they don't eat - . Father's do not experience biological changes during pregnancy, except those that have psychological roots. As sweet and gushy as it is that you and your partner are so close, it really has nothing to do with the process through which a baby is formed.

kitana
03-10-2005, 09:42 AM
As sweet and gushy as it is that you and your partner are so close, it really has nothing to do with the process through which a baby is formed.

Actually, it has EVERYTHING to do with the process in which a baby is formed. But in this day and age, people forget that. The desire to have one night stands and booty calls, outweighs the reason people are supposta have kids in the first place.

And it's not sweet and gushy, it's what actually happens when two people love each other. In today's society love is so underrated or overlooked, it's sickening.

Kitana

VenusGoddess
03-10-2005, 10:01 AM
See here is where I get lost - how do you work this? Supposing the man wants an abortion and the woman doesn't - how do you come to a mutual consensus about this? Supposing he thinks she ought to stop eating red meat, but she doesn't want to? Supposing she is a vegetarian and he thinks she ought to eat red meat? How does she respect his wishes while retaining automony over her body? My question is, specifically, what happens when the "father" IS telling her not to have an abortion, and she wants one? What then?

No one said that the right thing is the easiest thing.

If women would get off the piss pot and be more open to LISTENING to what the father says instead of just "assuming" that everything he is doing is an intent to destroy her or ruin her life...maybe the argument would be a little less "venomous".



Precisely what I said before was that it wasn't an issue of "rights" but of biological imperative.

Then, along those lines...fathers should have absolutely NO financial responsibilities to their children. If people get divorced...it's all on the mother from that point out. STOP TRYING TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT!! Biological imperative dictates that the MOTHER is the most instrumental in the role of well-being for the child...so, since the father has no "connection" during the gestation, then the same "equation" should be granted once birth occurs.

kitana
03-10-2005, 10:16 AM
Then, along those lines...fathers should have absolutely NO financial responsibilities to their children. If people get divorced...it's all on the mother from that point out. STOP TRYING TO COLLECT CHILD SUPPORT!! Biological imperative dictates that the MOTHER is the most instrumental in the role of well-being for the child...so, since the father has no "connection" during the gestation, then the same "equation" should be granted once birth occurs.

LOL, well put VG. I agree that if a mother is so adament about this, then they should give up rights to child support. Everyone knows that a child needs nurturing more than a paycheck.

Kitana

LilSweetVixen
03-10-2005, 10:27 AM
1. Father wants abortion. Mother wants kid. If mother keeps kid she shouldn't expect anything from Father because he made it clear that he was out. But he can't change his mind after that because he would be floating in and out of the kid's life.

^^That's what father's rights have a problem with because it's as if Dad is just some sex machine who implants people and walks off, when that may not be the case. He may want to be involved and she may not trust him.

2. Father wants kid. Mother wants abortion. Mother agrees to birth kid and hand him over to father. Father shouldn't expect anything from mother.

^^That's what pro-choicers have a problem with because it's as if Mom is just some incubator who doesn't get attached to baby, like she was basically used to pass on Dad's heirs.

In theory the whole joint decision thing sounds nice, but in practice if a woman wants to abort all she has to do is not tell anyone she got pregnant in the first place. What usually happens? They both agree to keep the kid and give it to grandma. So don't get pregnant!!

kitana
03-10-2005, 10:31 AM
Lil I agree with what you just said, LOL. Protection is the first defense against haveing to think about this issue at all anyway. But if either of the parents want to terminate, then the other parent should have custody and the non parent should have no rights at all.

This would eliminate tons of hours and money in the courts and legal system in the first place. it might also prevent those STUPID women from having a kid in the first place that look at their kids as a monthly paycheck.

Kitana