Gunslinger08
Lifer
- Nov 18, 2001
- 13,234
- 2
- 81
You sleep with a woman without knowing her well enough to know how an unplanned pregnancy would be handled, and a real "winner" of a woman on top of that. You get her pregnant, then sit by while she harms your child by drinking and smoking through the pregnancy. Then you do nothing to try to get custody of your child from this obviously lousy mother. Then you come onto ATOT and whine about not having any rights. Boo f'ing hoo. If she's so lousy and you don't want the child, turn her in to CPS and get the child removed from her care. Like it or not, your first child has a brother or sister. You have TWO children. What kind of person are you to leave your own child in this situation?
You are the one who spelled your situation out, not me. Whatever. I don't wish you ill, I just don't understand your feelings where your youngest child are concerned. I'm sorry you are going through this, it'll be hard for you financially. I feel sorry for the child for having to be raised by the woman you described, knowing that his/her father doesn't want anything to do with him/her. Women like that sometimes get boyfriends who harm the child, you hear about it all the time. 
Anyway, back on topic.
If people approach sex as a recreation with consequences, and clarify their intentions before hitting the sack, then nobody would need to sue women to make them carry an unwanted child to term in order to give it to a father. Likewise, nobody would be feeling like they're helpless when they get court papers 9 months later. You say that the man has no say in the matter, but I don't agree. He needs to clarify his decisions before, not after, sex. Now in the situation where somebody changes his or her mind after the fact....I don't know what to say on that.
Try to put yourself in a woman's shoes. You're pregnant and your boyfriend or husband decided he doesn't want a child, but you couldn't live with yourself if you ended a pregnancy. Or you are pregnant and do not want to be, but your bf/ex-bf/whatever does want to keep it. What if your boyfriend/ex/whatever is not someone you want to have for your baby's father? This is a hypothetical situation that does not involve your ex-gf.
One situation that I think the courts ignore is situations where a person, man or woman, intentionally causes a pregnancy by messing up birth control, knowing the other person would not have sex knowing the increased risk of pregnancy. It's one thing if it's just failed birth control (accident), but what should happen when there is proof or admission that it wasn't an accident? I think there should be repercussions for this behavior.
I'm sorry I got on you about your situation. It's your problem, not mine. I'm a mom with two kids, and was really upset thinking about that child being raised by the woman you described, and by hearing someone say that a pregnant woman should be pushed down stairs to force a miscarriage.**
Edit 1: ** I read that from another poster in the other thread.
Edit 2: On second read, I see that you *are* the poster who suggested it.
"Convince her to get an abortion. If she refuses, push her down the stairs or punch her in the gut. You might spend a little time in jail, but it saves you a lifetime of headache. Right now I'd gladly trade a year or two in the slammer to avoid the next 18 years of sh!t I'm going to be subjected to." BobberFett http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=1147945&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=3
Edit 3: I take it back, I'm not sorry I got on you.
Anyway, back on topic.
If people approach sex as a recreation with consequences, and clarify their intentions before hitting the sack, then nobody would need to sue women to make them carry an unwanted child to term in order to give it to a father. Likewise, nobody would be feeling like they're helpless when they get court papers 9 months later. You say that the man has no say in the matter, but I don't agree. He needs to clarify his decisions before, not after, sex. Now in the situation where somebody changes his or her mind after the fact....I don't know what to say on that.
Try to put yourself in a woman's shoes. You're pregnant and your boyfriend or husband decided he doesn't want a child, but you couldn't live with yourself if you ended a pregnancy. Or you are pregnant and do not want to be, but your bf/ex-bf/whatever does want to keep it. What if your boyfriend/ex/whatever is not someone you want to have for your baby's father? This is a hypothetical situation that does not involve your ex-gf.
One situation that I think the courts ignore is situations where a person, man or woman, intentionally causes a pregnancy by messing up birth control, knowing the other person would not have sex knowing the increased risk of pregnancy. It's one thing if it's just failed birth control (accident), but what should happen when there is proof or admission that it wasn't an accident? I think there should be repercussions for this behavior.
I'm sorry I got on you about your situation. It's your problem, not mine. I'm a mom with two kids, and was really upset thinking about that child being raised by the woman you described, and by hearing someone say that a pregnant woman should be pushed down stairs to force a miscarriage.**
Edit 1: ** I read that from another poster in the other thread.
Edit 2: On second read, I see that you *are* the poster who suggested it.
"Convince her to get an abortion. If she refuses, push her down the stairs or punch her in the gut. You might spend a little time in jail, but it saves you a lifetime of headache. Right now I'd gladly trade a year or two in the slammer to avoid the next 18 years of sh!t I'm going to be subjected to." BobberFett http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.cfm?catid=38&threadid=1147945&FTVAR_MSGDBTABLE=&STARTPAGE=3
Edit 3: I take it back, I'm not sorry I got on you.
Not to get personal or anything how would any of us even know your personal situation if you had stuck to the topic yourself ?
On the other hand I'm sure there is a difference between the way you feel about your child, and discussing the frustration you feel about the unfairness that you have pointed out, so I don't think people should confuse the two things and attack you.
On the other hand I'm sure there is a difference between the way you feel about your child, and discussing the frustration you feel about the unfairness that you have pointed out, so I don't think people should confuse the two things and attack you.
Cerb
Elite Member
- Aug 26, 2000
- 17,484
- 33
- 86
Different assumptions are being made at every turn...so it devolves to flames.
To start: yes, I think the kid is in there and alive. But I've known neglected and abused people...it ain't so bad in many circumstances. The rich ones are almost always neglected, poor more likely abused. My parents worked 40+hr jobs until I was into high school, and I don't feel I was neglected or abused.
Situations
1: Irresponsible people, she gets an abortion. No big deal, as far as arguments are concerned. Neither wanted it, or she didn't believe she could manage it.
2: Irresponsible father. Child support. If he's not working totally legal, well, you don't get it. But you know, how can you feel too sorry for the mother? It's her fault it happened, and she shouldn't have been dealign with him. Boo hoo. If he pays the child support, or is otherwise around enough to not make it a major worry, OR if the mother (or in the case of one of my friends, the child) would rather not deal with him, even for getting money, well...it works out, even if not great.
3: Irresponsible mother with some sense, abort.
4: Irresponsible mother w/o sense: attention-seeking child, in the best case scenario.
5: Responsible father, at least partially, who can't manage a kid: child support and limited visiting. Yes, it can work out, but as any case where it works out well, both people have to be very clear on it before the baby is born and the sh!t reaches the fan.
6: Responsible, caring father, irresponsible or unstable mother: PITA for the families. It taxes both sides.
7: Responsible, caring father and mother, no abortion: they figure something out. Happens every day. Even w/o government help, people find ways to live.
8: Responsible but not caring, or irresponsible parents: attention-seeking child, as #4.
9: Responsible, caring father, mother, who, for whatever reasons, gets abortion: hope he manages to live (watch some news, people...it may be rare, but it happens and there have been suicides).
Really, if you've seen people from the entire spectrum, abortion doesn't seem as bad as the alternative life--especially when you know even very small bits of what has happened to them, even if you do believe the child is being murdered. However, really, #9 is the one that needs to change from the laws. The rest either work themselves out or don't, but whether or not is dependent on the people involved and their friends and families, not the judicial system. The perfect solution to all of them is to make your feelings perfectly clear before you get into the mess.
It's about the people, not the system, not the religion...the would-be mother and father.
While I braved the main subject, I'm not touching the rest in here, with personal insults flying around already.
To start: yes, I think the kid is in there and alive. But I've known neglected and abused people...it ain't so bad in many circumstances. The rich ones are almost always neglected, poor more likely abused. My parents worked 40+hr jobs until I was into high school, and I don't feel I was neglected or abused.
Situations
1: Irresponsible people, she gets an abortion. No big deal, as far as arguments are concerned. Neither wanted it, or she didn't believe she could manage it.
2: Irresponsible father. Child support. If he's not working totally legal, well, you don't get it. But you know, how can you feel too sorry for the mother? It's her fault it happened, and she shouldn't have been dealign with him. Boo hoo. If he pays the child support, or is otherwise around enough to not make it a major worry, OR if the mother (or in the case of one of my friends, the child) would rather not deal with him, even for getting money, well...it works out, even if not great.
3: Irresponsible mother with some sense, abort.
4: Irresponsible mother w/o sense: attention-seeking child, in the best case scenario.
5: Responsible father, at least partially, who can't manage a kid: child support and limited visiting. Yes, it can work out, but as any case where it works out well, both people have to be very clear on it before the baby is born and the sh!t reaches the fan.
6: Responsible, caring father, irresponsible or unstable mother: PITA for the families. It taxes both sides.
7: Responsible, caring father and mother, no abortion: they figure something out. Happens every day. Even w/o government help, people find ways to live.
8: Responsible but not caring, or irresponsible parents: attention-seeking child, as #4.
9: Responsible, caring father, mother, who, for whatever reasons, gets abortion: hope he manages to live (watch some news, people...it may be rare, but it happens and there have been suicides).
Really, if you've seen people from the entire spectrum, abortion doesn't seem as bad as the alternative life--especially when you know even very small bits of what has happened to them, even if you do believe the child is being murdered. However, really, #9 is the one that needs to change from the laws. The rest either work themselves out or don't, but whether or not is dependent on the people involved and their friends and families, not the judicial system. The perfect solution to all of them is to make your feelings perfectly clear before you get into the mess.
It's about the people, not the system, not the religion...the would-be mother and father.
While I braved the main subject, I'm not touching the rest in here, with personal insults flying around already.
I'm all for choice. We should be able to decide where to live, what job we want to take, who to marry, what religion we want to practice and all the rest.
I'm not a big admirer of women who kill the unborn babies in their wombs or people who encourage them to do so.
Maybe that's just me.
I'm not a big admirer of women who kill the unborn babies in their wombs or people who encourage them to do so.
Maybe that's just me.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
still waiting for the pro lifers to adopt the millions of currently orphaned children in africa thanks to war and aids.
priorities.. priorities. they don't give a sh*t for you after you are born.
same people are ussually against gay couples adopting too. thats just seriously f*cked.
they are also against homosexuality in general. wtf? who's less likely to have an abortion then a homo?
personally i don't believe you have a right to complain about abortions at all unless you've adopted children.
priorities.. priorities. they don't give a sh*t for you after you are born.
same people are ussually against gay couples adopting too. thats just seriously f*cked.
they are also against homosexuality in general. wtf? who's less likely to have an abortion then a homo?
personally i don't believe you have a right to complain about abortions at all unless you've adopted children.
Great sig. Thomas Jefferson would probably say that unborn baby is a citizen of the United States, and due all the protection citizenship brings with it. Doesn't matter how unwanted the child is, or who would be able or willing to adopt, or pay for it's upbringing. It simply can't be deprived of life without due process, the same as you or I. If you can follow the logic of a newborn being entitled to those rights, it isn't a stretch to extend those rights to a kid 2 days before it's born.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
following that logic all my sperm rightfully deserve half the rights and protections bestowed upon every american.
and a dead man, two days after death deserves to keep his full rights as a citizen too after all, two days after he dies, he's still alive..by that logic. he has not changed, even after 9 months he is ever the same, no distinctions can be made. after all, if he was the same 9 months before, why not 9 months after. one must turn a blind eye to rational thought.
and two days before one becomes 18, one should be allowed to vote
hell, children should be allowed to vote, even babies and fetus. there are no differences! woopee!
and remember, there are no distinctions between terrorists and soldiers either
and btw jefferson was a diest. not exactly one to spend his time imposing religious beliefs on others through law.
Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning
?Point for point, the Founding Fathers? argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans? argument for dictatorship ? but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being ? not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action, either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man?s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
?This, in substance, was the American argument for man?s inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom.?
?Leonard Peikoff, ?Religion vs. America,?
and a dead man, two days after death deserves to keep his full rights as a citizen too
after all, two days after he dies, he's still alive..by that logic. he has not changed, even after 9 months he is ever the same, no distinctions can be made. after all, if he was the same 9 months before, why not 9 months after. one must turn a blind eye to rational thought.and two days before one becomes 18, one should be allowed to vote
hell, children should be allowed to vote, even babies and fetus. there are no differences! woopee!
and remember, there are no distinctions between terrorists and soldiers either
and btw jefferson was a diest. not exactly one to spend his time imposing religious beliefs on others through law.
Deism: (1) The belief in the existence of a God on purely rational grounds without reliance on revelation or authority; especially in the 17th and 18th centuries. (2) The doctrine that God created the world and its natural laws, but takes no further part in its functioning
?Point for point, the Founding Fathers? argument for liberty was the exact counterpart of the Puritans? argument for dictatorship ? but in reverse, moving from the opposite starting point to the opposite conclusion. Man, the Founding Fathers said in essence (with a large assist from Locke and others), is the rational being; no authority, human or otherwise, can demand blind obedience from such a being ? not in the realm of thought or, therefore, in the realm of action, either. By his very nature, they said, man must be left free to exercise his reason and then to act accordingly, i.e., by the guidance of his best rational judgment. Because this world is of vital importance, they added, the motive of man?s action should be the pursuit of happiness. Because the individual, not a supernatural power, is the creator of wealth, a man should have the right to private property, the right to keep and use or trade his own product. And because man is basically good, they held, there is no need to leash him; there is nothing to fear in setting free a rational animal.
?This, in substance, was the American argument for man?s inalienable rights. It was the argument that reason demands freedom.?
?Leonard Peikoff, ?Religion vs. America,?
How do you know the lives of all Pro-Lifers? How do you know they do not take in foster children? How do you see everything in the lives of all those Pro-Life? I dropped out of this discussion long ago because of the uneducated comments I noticed and the lack of logic displayed by many arguing the Pro-abortion side. Maybe I shouldn't have called any attention to your post but I am sick of people assuming they know the lives of others. Just as I don't know your life you don't know mine or any other person who is Pro-Life. Well, maybe you do know some but you get my point.
0roo0roo
No Lifer
- Sep 21, 2002
- 64,795
- 84
- 91
in general, these are the views that go together. there are always exceptions, but in general, people who are rabid pro lifers are zealously religious, and against homosexuality and everything else related, and you don't see the US with empty orphanages. ussually die hard conservatives too, with a penchant for cutting social programs so important for the "born".
are you saying that 90+% of the pro lifers you know are adoptive parents?
if you don't think this is generally true, you are niave. its like saying that some members of the taliban are feminists. overwhelmingly unlikely
or claiming republicans are generally for gun bans. unlikely.And it is very easy for the government to take ALL OF THE DAMN CHECK and leave you with a "picture" of what your check would look like, with the words "This is not a Check" written across it when you work 6-10 hours overtime!
I have actually seen this happen. And if you had to deal with Social Services on this side, you would know that the best, legal, recourse takes 2-5 years to settle - if anything is done at all!
While I do not advocate men (or women for that matter) avoiding their responcabilities, I have seen people driven to otherwise "dispicable" acts just to survive.
The fellow I am refering too, had the "this is not a check" thing happen 2 weeks in a row. When he went to Social Services to get this fixed, he was told there was nothing they could do. He was forced to quit his legit job and get an "under the table" job, just to make enough money to buy himself food.
Because of that, I have no idea what happened to him. I hope he is doing well......
Isn't this case reason enough to NOT put yourself in a situation where an unexpected child could be the result? Have we reverted back to some uncivilized race that we can no longer control our sexual urges? I have said it before but there are plenty of other ways to satisfy ones sexual needs. You have sex you take a chance. You were adult enough to have sex you should be adult enough to live up to the responsibility.
Hey conjur: Remember when I mentioned that cousin of mine in Louisville who was on COPS with the bashed-in head? Well, anyway, he finally got custody of his son after the boy turned 12. Now, he also had to remarry to do it too. His ex now pays him child support.
Meanwhile, I sit here in Texas paying child support to my ex back in KY. But, I have no regrets as I'd much rather my daughter live up in the mountains of SE KY than here in Austin. No worries..... I'll be moving back there relatively soon anyway.
"...and btw jefferson was a diest. not exactly one to spend his time imposing religious beliefs on others through law."
Nothing to do with morals or religion. Once the Supreme Court determines that an unborn child is a ?person? under the Fourteenth Amendment, then unborn children can not constitutionally be deprived of life without due process. No mention of God, is there?
This is in no way a stretch... Scott Peterson booked on 2 counts of murder.
Nothing to do with morals or religion. Once the Supreme Court determines that an unborn child is a ?person? under the Fourteenth Amendment, then unborn children can not constitutionally be deprived of life without due process. No mention of God, is there?
This is in no way a stretch... Scott Peterson booked on 2 counts of murder.
EXman
Lifer
- Jul 12, 2001
- 20,079
- 15
- 81
I think there is more to that even though a fetus cannot communicate the lil boy or girl will be the most affected by the decision here so the Woman is making the choice to let life bloom or to snuff it out before that child can make a single choice in their short life. And yes it is life. So one person is making the choice for 3..
I've been in this situation and have mixed feelings to put it mildly but when my wife gave birth to our first child it made me wonder what would have happened if different choices were made in the past...
I do agree, how can any one deny that a "fetus" is not a life. No doubt even though it cannot communicate there is the beginning of life. I realize depending on the circumstances a pregnancy can be filled with much fear, hurt, loss of relationships, but one thing we must all remember, there is an innocent "person" who gets stuck in the middle of all this. Not an easy choice at all!
- Oct 9, 1999
- 37,562
- 9
- 81
Why do you continually put the entire responsibility on the man's shoulders? Where's the woman's role in all of this? Should she be hounded by the government and stripped of everything she owns as well?
What is so hard for you to understand? Why won't it get through that thick skull? Both parties were irresponsible, but the woman has a choice and the man does not. For that, the mans entire life is in her hands.
If Jefferson wanted to say that, why didn't he ? Do you know when abortion became illegal ?
Also the issue you haven't addressed is the rights of the woman. If you believe women are full citizens with the same rights as everyone else then even if you think the fetus also has the same rights, then you should see that there is a conflict between the two.
My guess is that Thomas Jefferson would be against late term abortions for this reason, same as many other pro choice people.
Nobody's 'rights' supersede another's right to life.
Nobody's 'rights' supersede another's right to life.
alkemyst
No Lifer
- Feb 13, 2001
- 83,769
- 19
- 81
The hard part of debating Pro Life, Pro Choice, etc is no one stays on topic.
You start talking first trimester and then some idiot starts talking things that happen in the third. Fact is most even fighting for the cause are clueless to the biology behind it all....
My views are if a man or woman had consensual (I am not discussing non-consensual) sex and there was no protection used by either party and no discussion of pregnacy ahead of time then each is on their own, with limits. If the man only wants the child, the woman is prohibited from abortion, but the man must support the child alone...vice versa for the woman wanting it...the man is financially not responsible. Both were adults going into the sex, but there was never discussion of outcome or support of a possible child. This is how is mostly happens.
Now say abortion was discussed ahead of time and the vote was no, by either party....then there is not to be an abortion and both parties are equally responsible, etc....
Now like all things of this nature, what was discussed and what wasn't are hard to prove, but I do think the laws are unfair to men in regards to the support they have to provide.
You start talking first trimester and then some idiot starts talking things that happen in the third. Fact is most even fighting for the cause are clueless to the biology behind it all....
My views are if a man or woman had consensual (I am not discussing non-consensual) sex and there was no protection used by either party and no discussion of pregnacy ahead of time then each is on their own, with limits. If the man only wants the child, the woman is prohibited from abortion, but the man must support the child alone...vice versa for the woman wanting it...the man is financially not responsible. Both were adults going into the sex, but there was never discussion of outcome or support of a possible child. This is how is mostly happens.
Now say abortion was discussed ahead of time and the vote was no, by either party....then there is not to be an abortion and both parties are equally responsible, etc....
Now like all things of this nature, what was discussed and what wasn't are hard to prove, but I do think the laws are unfair to men in regards to the support they have to provide.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
News NVIDIA and Intel to Develop AI Infrastructure and Personal Computing Products- Started by poke01
- Replies: 411
Facebook
Twitter