Political Crossfire Forums

[mathurin]

i just want to start with my basic opinion of abortion, its not my business, in fact for quite some time i had no opinion whatsoever on the subject, im a man what business is it of mine

now i have found out the vast number of inconsistencies in the laws governing children, childbirth and parenting, so i have some propositions to simplify them, clean them up

first off, underage kids, they arent legally allowed to make any decisions regarding anything else in life themselves, yet for some reason they dont have to tell their parents they got pregnant, i dont like this and i see no harm in making her tell her parents, minors cant even make medical appointments themselves. its insane, im not saying she must get parental approval, though it wouldnt bother me either way, but the parents should know, how do you expect them to help her through what must be a trying time if they dont know

second, abortion and child support, my biggest beef is here
this is some pretty screwed up laws here, i dont even want to start on the problems really

so, consentual adult sex occurs, the woman has no obligation to inform the man if she wants to abort it, if she intends to carry it to full term she must notify him within a specific time frame if she wants to collect child support, lets say one month, he in turn has one month from that time to declare his intentions, they can either both marry(if both agree of course), or figure out a child support and custody system, or the man can give up his rights and declare he is unwilling to pay child support, and then he is not responsible
if the man is not told he is not responsible for child support, he was never able to consent, in the cases where the woman is not certain of the father, she must notify each candidate and a later DNA test will determine the father

in this way both the mother and father of a child will be able to decide if they want to deal with the life changing event of a child, as it is only the woman has that decision, the most common argument i receive in opposition to this is that the man consented when he had sex, but that doesnt work, in that case the woman also would have consented and the option of an abortion could be denied to her

i am also curious, while carrying a child does a woman have any responsibility towards her own body, is she obligated to do as much as possible to prevent harm to her unborn child _if_ she intends to carry it to term, things like drinking and smoking would cause extreme harm to the fetus, which of course means nothing if she is going to abort it
granted, im certain women will get mad if we start putting limits on what they can do while pregnant, but hell, its not totally their body if they intend to have the child, its more like a rental body, the fetus deserves some rights, i dont want to stop abortions in anyway, if she wants to abort it then fine its nothing, but if she intends to carry it to full term then shouldnt the fetus be given certain rights

how about my ideas?

[Coral]

mathurin wrote: i just want to start with my basic opinion of abortion, its not my business, in fact for quite some time i had no opinion whatsoever on the subject, im a man what business is it of mine

now i have found out the vast number of inconsistencies in the laws governing children, childbirth and parenting, so i have some propositions to simplify them, clean them up

first off, underage kids, they arent legally allowed to make any decisions regarding anything else in life themselves, yet for some reason they dont have to tell their parents they got pregnant, i dont like this and i see no harm in making her tell her parents, minors cant even make medical appointments themselves. its insane, im not saying she must get parental approval, though it wouldnt bother me either way, but the parents should know, how do you expect them to help her through what must be a trying time if they dont know

second, abortion and child support, my biggest beef is here
this is some pretty screwed up laws here, i dont even want to start on the problems really

so, consentual adult sex occurs, the woman has no obligation to inform the man if she wants to abort it, if she intends to carry it to full term she must notify him within a specific time frame if she wants to collect child support, lets say one month, he in turn has one month from that time to declare his intentions, they can either both marry(if both agree of course), or figure out a child support and custody system, or the man can give up his rights and declare he is unwilling to pay child support, and then he is not responsible
if the man is not told he is not responsible for child support, he was never able to consent, in the cases where the woman is not certain of the father, she must notify each candidate and a later DNA test will determine the father

in this way both the mother and father of a child will be able to decide if they want to deal with the life changing event of a child, as it is only the woman has that decision, the most common argument i receive in opposition to this is that the man consented when he had sex, but that doesnt work, in that case the woman also would have consented and the option of an abortion could be denied to her

i am also curious, while carrying a child does a woman have any responsibility towards her own body, is she obligated to do as much as possible to prevent harm to her unborn child _if_ she intends to carry it to term, things like drinking and smoking would cause extreme harm to the fetus, which of course means nothing if she is going to abort it
granted, im certain women will get mad if we start putting limits on what they can do while pregnant, but hell, its not totally their body if they intend to have the child, its more like a rental body, the fetus deserves some rights, i dont want to stop abortions in anyway, if she wants to abort it then fine its nothing, but if she intends to carry it to full term then shouldnt the fetus be given certain rights

how about my ideas?

That's the slippery slope. Can't smoke, can't drink, perhaps choco bars are out, someone heard that orange juice causes this and that so that's off the list as well. Women aren't to be slaves for the righteous. It is her body. Two people can't have control of one body. Only one has the authority. That goes to the born person.

[mathurin]

thats the question though, is it really her body if the fetus will truly become a human being, or at least has a very good chance of it (meaning she does not intend to abort it) i have a problem with women who know they are pregnant abusing their unborn fetuses, i mean i really dont care if they want to abort so you can lay off the my body thing, if you want to keep it your body fine, abort, but if you intend to have the child then its not totally your body, the unborn child shares it and all you consume

do you want a child to go through life retarded because someone else needed the choice to do drugs and drink during a pregnancy they intended to carry to full term

who said slaves to the rhiteous? whats righteous about preventing birth defects, dotn want to deal with quitting smoking or drinking? abort the fetus i dont care.
am i slave to the righteous because i dont beat children, or pregnant women

who said chocolate or orange juice? there would have to be some pretty serious proof for that to even be considered, proof which i doubt would ever exist, to my knowledge both of those are quite healthy, or at least not harmful. i am not talking about possibly damaging stuff, we KNOW that alcohol drugs and smoking damages the fetus

what i am saying is that if a woman intends to keep the fetus and carry it to full term then it should be considered a child with some rights, you go to jail for abusing a child why shouldnt their be laws against abusing one you intend to keep. if nothing else think of the money we would save lessening the number of special ed kids we have to educate, call me cold all you want im just trying to be practical
in the end it just means most women accused of this will elect to abort their fetuses claiming thats what they always meant to do, rather than face jail

is that the only problem you have with my proposals?

[Coral]

mathurin wrote: thats the question though, is it really her body if the fetus will truly become a human being, or at least has a very good chance of it (meaning she does not intend to abort it) i have a problem with women who know they are pregnant abusing their unborn fetuses, i mean i really dont care if they want to abort so you can lay off the my body thing, if you want to keep it your body fine, abort, but if you intend to have the child then its not totally your body, the unborn child shares it and all you consume

do you want a child to go through life retarded because someone else needed the choice to do drugs and drink during a pregnancy they intended to carry to full term

who said slaves to the rhiteous? whats righteous about preventing birth defects, dotn want to deal with quitting smoking or drinking? abort the fetus i dont care.
am i slave to the righteous because i dont beat children, or pregnant women

who said chocolate or orange juice? there would have to be some pretty serious proof for that to even be considered, proof which i doubt would ever exist, to my knowledge both of those are quite healthy, or at least not harmful. i am not talking about possibly damaging stuff, we KNOW that alcohol drugs and smoking damages the fetus

what i am saying is that if a woman intends to keep the fetus and carry it to full term then it should be considered a child with some rights, you go to jail for abusing a child why shouldnt their be laws against abusing one you intend to keep. if nothing else think of the money we would save lessening the number of special ed kids we have to educate, call me cold all you want im just trying to be practical
in the end it just means most women accused of this will elect to abort their fetuses claiming thats what they always meant to do, rather than face jail

is that the only problem you have with my proposals?

I agree with you. If the intent is to carry to term there is personal responsibility to do so in a manner that will give the child the best chance at life. Someone who creates physical and mental problems for the child as a result of neglect during the fetal period should be help accountable. This is in essence abuse, if it is done with criminal intent.

That is a different set of circumstances than a woman who does not want to give birth. To force her against her will to carry to term is slavery. It isn't just an abortion issue it is a fundamental right to liberty.

I simply can't understand how many on the right see everything in black in white. It's impossible to legislate an abortion ban without creating more problems and complications. Women are generally pretty good at knowing what's best for them and their families. They are in a better position to understand and assess the grey areas of their situation than any politician pandering to electorate. They are also quite capable of acting responsibly during a wanted pregnancy.

[mathurin]

Coral wrote: mathurin wrote: thats the question though, is it really her body if the fetus will truly become a human being, or at least has a very good chance of it (meaning she does not intend to abort it) i have a problem with women who know they are pregnant abusing their unborn fetuses, i mean i really dont care if they want to abort so you can lay off the my body thing, if you want to keep it your body fine, abort, but if you intend to have the child then its not totally your body, the unborn child shares it and all you consume

do you want a child to go through life retarded because someone else needed the choice to do drugs and drink during a pregnancy they intended to carry to full term

who said slaves to the rhiteous? whats righteous about preventing birth defects, dotn want to deal with quitting smoking or drinking? abort the fetus i dont care.
am i slave to the righteous because i dont beat children, or pregnant women

who said chocolate or orange juice? there would have to be some pretty serious proof for that to even be considered, proof which i doubt would ever exist, to my knowledge both of those are quite healthy, or at least not harmful. i am not talking about possibly damaging stuff, we KNOW that alcohol drugs and smoking damages the fetus

what i am saying is that if a woman intends to keep the fetus and carry it to full term then it should be considered a child with some rights, you go to jail for abusing a child why shouldnt their be laws against abusing one you intend to keep. if nothing else think of the money we would save lessening the number of special ed kids we have to educate, call me cold all you want im just trying to be practical
in the end it just means most women accused of this will elect to abort their fetuses claiming thats what they always meant to do, rather than face jail

is that the only problem you have with my proposals?

I agree with you. If the intent is to carry to term there is personal responsibility to do so in a manner that will give the child the best chance at life. Someone who creates physical and mental problems for the child as a result of neglect during the fetal period should be help accountable. This is in essence abuse, if it is done with criminal intent.

That is a different set of circumstances than a woman who does not want to give birth. To force her against her will to carry to term is slavery. It isn't just an abortion issue it is a fundamental right to liberty.

I simply can't understand how many on the right see everything in black in white. It's impossible to legislate an abortion ban without creating more problems and complications. Women are generally pretty good at knowing what's best for them and their families. They are in a better position to understand and assess the grey areas of their situation than any politician pandering to electorate. They are also quite capable of acting responsibly during a wanted pregnancy.

while i disagree that they are so capable, there is a great deal of study on the effects the hormones have on a pregnant woman, and its pretty well known amongst men that women are insane when pregnant, and when breathing (sorry, i couldnt resist) but i really dont care, if they want to abort its not my business, and frankly i think that a woman who would choose that route would be a bad mother, so the world is saved from another bad kid, not like we dont have enough young criminals already

[Coral]

mathurin wrote: Coral wrote: mathurin wrote: thats the question though, is it really her body if the fetus will truly become a human being, or at least has a very good chance of it (meaning she does not intend to abort it) i have a problem with women who know they are pregnant abusing their unborn fetuses, i mean i really dont care if they want to abort so you can lay off the my body thing, if you want to keep it your body fine, abort, but if you intend to have the child then its not totally your body, the unborn child shares it and all you consume

do you want a child to go through life retarded because someone else needed the choice to do drugs and drink during a pregnancy they intended to carry to full term

who said slaves to the rhiteous? whats righteous about preventing birth defects, dotn want to deal with quitting smoking or drinking? abort the fetus i dont care.
am i slave to the righteous because i dont beat children, or pregnant women

who said chocolate or orange juice? there would have to be some pretty serious proof for that to even be considered, proof which i doubt would ever exist, to my knowledge both of those are quite healthy, or at least not harmful. i am not talking about possibly damaging stuff, we KNOW that alcohol drugs and smoking damages the fetus

what i am saying is that if a woman intends to keep the fetus and carry it to full term then it should be considered a child with some rights, you go to jail for abusing a child why shouldnt their be laws against abusing one you intend to keep. if nothing else think of the money we would save lessening the number of special ed kids we have to educate, call me cold all you want im just trying to be practical
in the end it just means most women accused of this will elect to abort their fetuses claiming thats what they always meant to do, rather than face jail

is that the only problem you have with my proposals?

I agree with you. If the intent is to carry to term there is personal responsibility to do so in a manner that will give the child the best chance at life. Someone who creates physical and mental problems for the child as a result of neglect during the fetal period should be help accountable. This is in essence abuse, if it is done with criminal intent.

That is a different set of circumstances than a woman who does not want to give birth. To force her against her will to carry to term is slavery. It isn't just an abortion issue it is a fundamental right to liberty.

I simply can't understand how many on the right see everything in black in white. It's impossible to legislate an abortion ban without creating more problems and complications. Women are generally pretty good at knowing what's best for them and their families. They are in a better position to understand and assess the grey areas of their situation than any politician pandering to electorate. They are also quite capable of acting responsibly during a wanted pregnancy.

while i disagree that they are so capable, there is a great deal of study on the effects the hormones have on a pregnant woman, and its pretty well known amongst men that women are insane when pregnant, and when breathing (sorry, i couldnt resist) but i really dont care, if they want to abort its not my business, and frankly i think that a woman who would choose that route would be a bad mother, so the world is saved from another bad kid, not like we dont have enough young criminals already

A lot of good points there (especially the breathing :wink: )