Of course money isn't the only concern for a man in this situation, but I was responding to your question about what happens to a man who abandons the wife and child.

There is no argument that there are bad people out there. There are men who will say they want to help the mother and child and then disappear. I just don't agree that that is a rationale for aborting the child.

Heck, if that's the case we should just abort all the underpriviledged children because they are going to have a hard life...

I don't think underpriviledged children will have a hard life. Money isn't everything. Many underpriviledged children have wonderful childhood memories.

I don't think a kid needs a 2,000 dollar bike to have a "good life."

Hey! We agree! I don't think underpriviledged kids necessarily have a hard life either!

Better scroll up in the thread though because that kind of thinking is EXACTLY the rationale some on the thread are using to support abortion.

Half these libs are just pez dispensers of liberal ideas and talking points. Chris Matthews or the New York Times say it, it instantly sees their lips...Yes, one of the most common rationales for abortion, other than the lie of 'reproductive rights' (as if anti-aborts are advocating sterilization) is the liberal Tarot card readings that prove conclusively the unborn child would better be dead via scalpel and vaccuum, than alive with a chance.

As much as it pains me deeply to admit this, I have agreed with you 100% in this thread.

Ok, it's out now, never to be admitted again.

:)

One comment though.......are you sure they meant "underpriviledged" or did they mean "unwanted?"

That's a good question CC, I don't know whether they think of these kids as unwanted or underpriviledged. Here is the original quote from the thread, specifically talking about kids who are poor or "cramp mama's style". Does that mean the kids were unwanted while the mother was pregnant or that they are now unwanted because of the financial/emotional/social impact they are having on the mother's life?

I don't know, but either way I don't buy it as a rationale for aborting that child.

i would have avoided the entire debate when the kid asked me about abortion by replying..........."son an abortion is a FORD PINTO, an AMC GREMLIN, FORD MERKUR etc" and let him figure it out in sex-ed class!

I actually agree with you in this. However you're using an ideal situation to justify a policy that would apply to people in far less ideal situations. Ideally, the father IS involved in the pregnancy by supporting his wife/partner and helping them cope with the stress, anxiety, difficulty, etc. Probably 99% of people do this. I know I would. HOWEVER, for that 1% that doesn't - do you really want to give the guy "veto power" over the woman's body? The question really is, "whose child is it?" As far as I'm concerned, it's the woman's. From what I know of divorce settlements/custody battles this seems to be borne out in the courts as well (that doesn't make it right, but it seems to be validated by our society's interpretation of these types of situations).

Yes the guy should be financially responsible (at LEAST 50%) if she decides to raise the child. Most guys would gratuitously do this - some (the "deadbeats") would opt not to. If you want to say the burden (financially, in terms of time, etc.) should be divided 50/50, I guess I'm okay with that although personally I think it should be more on the guy than on the girl. The woman has to do all the work during the pregnancy and delivery. She is the one that has to nurse, and that typically ends up with HER career, earning potential getting screwed up (not to mention her body, schedule, etc.) Typically it isn't the guy. Hence the traditional role of the guy being the "breadwinner". However, in this day and age when two salaries are critical just for survival, this is not so cut-and-dry. Since she's giving up more than he is in order to have the kid, isn't it reasonable to expect a larger contribution on the part of the man? I tend to think so and really don't have a problem with this.

I believe in being responsible too. I'm 35, I've been married almost nine years and don't have any kids. Think that's by accident? Nope. However if my wife were to get pregnant and didn't want to have the kid for her own reasons, I might disagree or try to persuade her to reconsider, although the decision is ultimately hers and I'd support it. If she decided she DID want to have the kid, I'd support that decision too. And I'd suck it up and put the time and money behind it. That's called "being responsible".

This just exposes one of my biggest problems with the whole "abortion debate". First, it isn't really a debate, it degenerates into a pissing contest more often than not. Second, it tends to focus on peoples' differences rather than what they have in common. If you actually look at what I've posted here, you'll probably find that we actually agree on a fair amount - just not on everything. Why pursue and harp on something that's ultimately more divisive than anything else? Does any good REALLY come of that?

Ok P-o-P point taken, however you are also doing the same thing. You are using the 1% who are not "ideal" to justify your policy which affects the other 99% of the population.

I think if I were making legislation I would worry about the 99% first and the 1% second.

And I'm not saying the male should have some sort of control over the woman's body, I am just refuting your assertion that the male should have NO say in the issue. I believe your words were something like "Once he has shot his wad his decision was made". You could just as easily turn that around on the woman as well. She is the one who knows her menstrual cycle, she is the one who may have felt physical clues that she was ovulating, yet she still opened her legs for the man with no birth control. Is her decision made as well once she makes THAT decision? Apparently not in your world. Double standards.

And I do think it is important and helpful to talk about the differences in opinion, especially when those differences shape public policy. For example, when asked about third trimester abortion, you said that you supported it but didn't like those sort of "hair splitting" examples.

I would say that those hair splitting examples are EXACTLY what we should be talking about because those examples are what shape policy.

I asked a few posts back what the real difference was between a late term abortion and stabbing the infant to death immediately after birth. The child has not changed except for its position. You might consider this hair splitting, but I would say it is precisely the point you must consider if you are going to support late term abortion.

Because a woman cannot be compelled to have an abortion.

If sexual intercourse is consensual, both parties are financially responsible for the outcome. It's shared risk. Don't like it? Use a condom.

I'm always amused by men that seek to indemnify themselves from contacts signed by their penises.

You've just described elective abortion.

P-o-P, Nathan's_dad, I think we're being unrealistic here with the 99%-1% figure.


And Nathans_dad, you said this:

I think if I were making legislation I would worry about the 99% first and the 1% second.

If 99% of the population were ideal, we wouldn't be discussing legislation. How is banning this worrying about this 99% of the population?

Absolutely. In other words, abortion provides a woman an "escape clause" for her bad judgement. Nature and the Supreme Court have made no such allowance for men.

First, P-o-P came up with the 1%/99% thing. I agree it's probably unrealistic, but it's his number so I ran with it.

Second, I'm not talking about banning abortion. I'm talking about a reasonable policy towards elective abortion. I don't think third trimester abortions should be legal unless it is for medical reasons. If you can't make up your mind by the time that kid can survive outside your uterus then it's too late.

I don't think that first trimester abortions should be illegal, I disagree strongly with any abortion unless it is for medical reasons, but it isn't my job to force my will on everyone else. I'm honestly on the fence about second trimester abortion and I'm not sure exactly where I stand on that yet.

And I'm not talking about legislation to protect the 99% of adults who take their reproductive responsibility seriously, I'm talking about protecting the 100% of babies who die from abortion.

I'm not sure that Roe v Wade set out specific guidelines but I haven't read the decision personally so I can't say.

I'm not against Roe v Wade because it allows abortion, I'm against Roe v Wade because I think the Constitutional basis for the decision isn't there. Abortion should be a state's issue, just like all the other issues not spelled out in the Constitution. It's that line about "all other powers not granted to the federal government shall be reserved for the states".

I can't wait until you talk to your son about terrorism... Let's see you make sense out of that.

I defer these conversations with my kids until they get a little older. While I support the "treating them like adults" doctrine to some degree, I do not believe in introducing and trying to explain such complex issues as abortion, terrorism, war and religion.

War / Terrorism I can explain and have "...its just a different way to wage war. Years ago when two countries fought, they would race at each other with swords and spears then years later they would line up and shoot at each other then use tanks and big guns now they just try to do it on the cheap..."

Religion, no problem.

Abortion? Right up there with rape, incest and child molesters. For the life of me I can't understand it. How can anyone expect a 7 year old to even come close to understanding it? Still, you have to try.

Abortion is wrong.

And aren't we glad to live here, where you can say that without fear of reprisal.