Abortion: Poll and Discussion

[Timber Loftis]

Your story is not uncommon, Hunter. And yes, you would have paid forever. Once you enter an order of parentage, the State has someone on the hook and will not bother to seek other fellas. Yours is a situation men certainly need to be educated about.

At the hospital with your girlfriend when the kids born - good for you. Sign the consent to parentage? - no way. No matter how much you trust your girlfriend, just know that if you sign that paper and later find out she was cheating and the kid's not yours - you will nevertheless be on the hook forever. Think about it.

[NiceWorg]

1. Pro choice (or rather case sensitive).
2. I´m generally for pro choice, but also point out our own responsibility to prevent unwanted pregnancies happening.
3. I´m officially lutherian, but more of an atheist, so no.
4. Raped women should not be given another punishment in form of having to give birth to rapers child. Same thing applies if mother is in danger. Giving birth isn´t something you should risk your life for.
5. I´m for death penalty. If you have taken someones life in purpose, death is the only right price to pay for it.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

Timber - I was basing my earlier statements on an example that occurred with a friend of my wife and her ex-husband. She saw her friend in the store one day and they got to talking about the child (which was around 2 at the time). That's when her friend told my wife that she had gotten her husband to "sign away his rights". According to her, that meant that he would no longer been responsible for paying child support (which he wasn't paying anyway) and he would also forfeit ALL rights for visitation.

Granted, the waiver of child support could have been a mutually-agreed upon stipulation between mother and father - I don't know. I'm just relating the information as I heard it.

BTW, this occurred in North Carolina (in case you were interested).

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Sorry, as a hopefully will-be father one day these parentage issues concern me. Relating it back to abortion, the father who disagrees with the mother in a pregnancy situation faces one of the following situations: 1. (He wants child/ she doesn't): he has to watch his unborn child be taken away, no matter his beliefs whatsoever; or 2. (He doesn't want it/ she does): he has had his constitutional right to procreate/not procreate (See Baird and Yoder Supreme Court cases) cut off, and must pay child support for 18-25 years, no matter his choice whatsoever.

Yes I agree, it seems very unfair that the man, ultimately, has NO say in what happens to his baby, yet must support it if the mother decides that SHE wants to keep it and he does not. There's no option for the father to make the mother carry the baby then hand it over to him and pay to support them if she doesn't want it. It seems to be integral to a mother having control over her body, that she can choose what happens to the baby, that she is the one who must make the final decision. I'm sure most women who are faced with the situation do consult the father, but how does he have a right to decide for her whether she will be pregnant or not, let alone whether she will keep the baby? Adoption may seem like an reasonable option, and for some, it is, but I think only those who have the experience of pregnancy could understand how difficult a choice that would be. I know I can't judge those who choose not to go through that.

[Moiraine]

1. I voted "pro-choice". "Pro-choice" as opposed to "pro-life" is a little weird choice of terms - does "pro-choice" mean "against life" ?

2. Two main reasons. The first is that I believe that a child needs two loving parents - and since children feel very well when their parents are unhappy, even at an early age, even maybe in the womb, if the first feeling a child gets is that of being rejected, that doesn't bode well for his future happiness. So I feel that if for whatever reason one of his parents, but mainly his mother, doesn't feel he/she is up to raising the child, the abortion choice should be available. For no woman can the decision of abortion be taken lightly. It means always deep pain and loss.

Why mainly the woman ? Because getting pregnant happens INSIDE her body. Not wanting a child and feel it use YOUR body is probably a very distressing feeling. And what if the woman's feelings about her unwanted child turn, not to love, but to hate ? I read your story, Yorick, and I find it possible that love comes out of it, but I believe that sadly hate is more probable.

About the opinion that abortion is akin to murder - there is one big difference. When a child comes, he asks a lot of things from you. That you give your body to him for the first nine months. That you love him, care for him, make sacrifices for him for many years, and that applies to fathers too. The child CANNOT live without your help. So it seems fair that you be given a choice whether you are ready to give him what he needs or not.

3. No religion stance

4. No.

5. Strongly against death penalty.

[*\Conan/*]

Jumping in late as normal Timber-

1.Undecided.
2.Each case is different, like an individual.
3.I am not religous.
4.No change
5.Yes, I support the death penalty but that is not relative to abortion.

Recently, we have had alot of talk on this subject in my area. Also a very well organized march on Washington to speak of pro-life. Read this;


Political Climate Energizes Abortion Foes
GOP's Gains Help Attract Thousands to 'March for Life'

At an evening antiabortion vigil and counterdemonstration sponsored by Silent No More, dozens of women told the stories of their experiences.

By Caryle Murphy and David A. Fahrenthold
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, January 23, 2003; Page B01

Tens of thousands of antiabortion demonstrators marched to the U.S. Supreme Court yesterday, expressing hope that their 30-year struggle to overturn the court's landmark decision legalizing abortion would gain ground now that the Republican Party firmly controls the White House and both houses of Congress.

The protesters braved freezing temperatures and icy winds as they gathered on the northern side of the Washington Monument for a pre-march rally. Many held banners and signs -- "Abortion is a Weapon of Mass Destruction" said one, and another read, "Osama Wants U.S. Citizens Dead. So Do Abortionists and Their Supporters."

"I feel we're closer this year than ever before" to overturning the 1973 abortion ruling, said Mary Stevens, 62, a retired day-care center director from Falls Church who attended the march with 48 other parishioners of St. Philips Catholic Church.

The crowd was estimated by U.S. Capitol Police Chief Terrance W. Gainer at 50,000. Calls placed to march organizers seeking their estimate were not returned. Accurate crowd counts at large-scale demonstrations on the Mall are difficult to conduct without aerial reconnaissance, and estimates by police on the ground have often been disputed.

The rally and the subsequent March for Life down Constitution Avenue, held each year on the anniversary of the court's Roe v. Wade ruling, unfolded in a peaceful, upbeat atmosphere. For several blocks, enthusiastic crowds on both sides of the historic boulevard cheered the marchers. Police reported no arrests.

President Bush, who has championed "compassionate alternatives" to abortion, addressed the antiabortion rally by telephone from St. Louis.

"I admire your perseverance and your devotion to the cause of life," Bush said, adding that he hoped the U.S. Senate would pass a ban on late-term abortions. If a ban on this "abhorrent procedure" were passed, Bush said, he would sign it into law.

At the start of the rally, young people dressed in orange parkas stacked small white coffins in two piles on the stage as a bell tolled and protest organizer Nellie Gray read aloud the years since the 1973 court decision. Each coffin represented the more than 1 million abortions performed during each of those years.

Many participants remarked on the large number of young people at the event. Among them was Christopher Ladner, 14, of Vienna, who was there with his parents, his brother, Ian, and sister, Grace. "I believe in the cause," said Christopher, who is home-schooled and attends Our Lady of Good Counsel Catholic Church in Vienna.

"I come every year," he added, smiling through his braces. "I'm more hopeful this year."

Many groups were from Catholic parishes and schools across the country. And more than 30 U.S. Catholic bishops -- including Washington Cardinal Theodore E. McCarrick and Arlington Bishop Paul S. Loverde -- were on the stage to show their support for the antiabortion cause. Philadelphia Archbishop Anthony Bevilacqua read a letter of support from Pope John Paul II.

The head of the Eastern Orthodox Church in America also attended, and several U.S. representatives and senators promised the crowd they would push antiabortion measures.

Abortion rights groups have expressed alarm at the new political climate in Washington, which they fear will lead to new restrictions and eventually to appointments of Supreme Court justices with antiabortion views.

"People realize that this past election has resulted in a real threat to our reproductive rights," said Kate Michelman, president of NARAL Pro-Choice America.

Jatrice Martel Gaiter, president and chief executive of Planned Parenthood of Metropolitan Washington, cited about 25 bills being proposed in the Virginia General Assembly that she described as putting "a chill on a woman's right to an early, safe abortion."

In Maryland, Gov. Robert L. Ehrlich Jr. (R) has said he would consider bills on late-term abortions and parental consent, but he would face opposition in the Democratic-controlled General Assembly.

The Republican Party has dominated Washington's political landscape in recent decades but not as strongly as now. In 2001, Republicans controlled the House of Representatives, but the Senate was evenly split between the two parties, with Vice President Cheney holding the tie-breaking vote.

Forces on both sides of the abortion issue held several other events yesterday, some of them more contentious than the march.

Before an evening rally sponsored by the National Organization for Women in support of abortion rights, hundreds of people in an antiabortion group called Silent No More demonstrated nearby on the steps of the Supreme Court. About 50 women held signs saying "I Regret My Abortion," and some told personal stories about having the procedure.

As the NOW rally kicked off, small groups of antiabortion demonstrators tried to break into its ranks, shouting: "Pro-choice -- that's a lie. You don't care if babies die." About 40 police officers stood by with batons.

Last night, the Religious Coalition for Reproductive Choice, which supports abortion rights, held an interfaith convocation at New York Avenue Presbyterian Church in Northwest Washington "to celebrate thirty years of reproductive freedom."

This year's March for Life took place as the national abortion rate and the number of U.S. abortion providers fell to their lowest levels in three decades. Many antiabortion marchers said they sensed a national shift toward their viewpoint and that with Washington's new political configuration, their voices would now be heard.

"This has been a long time coming," said Falls Church resident Jeanne Nollen, 52, who was carrying an 18-inch statue of the Virgin Mary. "Hopefully, we'll reverse Roe v. Wade."

..And this-



Tuesday, January 28, 2003; Page B04

Committee votes yesterday sent to the House floor several bills that would restrict abortion. These bills won committee approval.

HB 1541, sponsored by Del. Robert G. Marshall (R-Prince William)

Would establish as a felony "partial birth infanticide," in which a person partially delivers a fetus for the purpose of killing the fetus and then causes the death.

HB 1402, sponsored by Del. Richard H. Black (R-Loudoun)

Would require a physician to obtain parental consent before performing an abortion on most minors. Under current law, the parents of the minor must be notified of the abortion, but their consent is not required.

HB 1580, sponsored by Del. Mark L. Cole (R-Fredericksburg)

Would remove a woman's mental health from consideration as a condition that would allow for an abortion after the second trimester. Virginia law allows an abortion after the second trimester, provided the operation is performed in a licensed hospital and the physician and two consulting physicians have determined that the continuation of the pregnancy is likely to result in the death of the woman or substantially impair the mental or physical health of the woman.

HB 1741, sponsored by Del. Kathy J. Byron (R-Lynchburg)

Would allow any health care professional who is asked to dispense any birth control pill or other medication for the purpose of performing an abortion to invoke a conscience clause, under which the health professional could decline to provide the service, without fear of disciplinary or legal action.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

I know this is a long post but it means alot to me for everyone to know that the tide is changing in local laws and personal views. I'm not sure what's going on in your local area's but true love for life itself, if nothing else, is surging from the people here.

For me it really comes down to the 2 individuals involved and only imediate family to have full knowledge of whats going on. In case's of rape... well that choice should be givin to the woman... and the person who did it a castration.
Adoption laws should be revised and mixed into this whole scene making it quicker and easier for willing family's. So many of them out there.

Hope this wasn't a grenade and wish you all the best in your familys choice's.

[Thoran]

Originally posted by Aelia Jusa: Yes I agree, it seems very unfair that the man, ultimately, has NO say in what happens to his baby, yet must support it if the mother decides that SHE wants to keep it and he does not. There's no option for the father to make the mother carry the baby then hand it over to him and pay to support them if she doesn't want it. It seems to be integral to a mother having control over her body, that she can choose what happens to the baby, that she is the one who must make the final decision. I'm sure most women who are faced with the situation do consult the father, but how does he have a right to decide for her whether she will be pregnant or not, let alone whether she will keep the baby? Adoption may seem like an reasonable option, and for some, it is, but I think only those who have the experience of pregnancy could understand how difficult a choice that would be. I know I can't judge those who choose not to go through that.[/QB]

I agree Aelia Jusa that it's difficult to accept the idea of a father being able to force a mother to carry a baby to term, but that is one of the only ways I can imagine true equity being reached (the other being if abortion were illegal, in which case both parents get to live up to their responsibilities, no choice involved). IMO the more plausable option than "abortion veto" is to allow a father to have a "virtal abortion" and sign away his rights to the unborn child... this addresses half the inequity (the forced child support without representation) but doesn't address the fathers who would choose to keep thier children when the mothers decide to abort.

A difficult problem, but right now a man is basically an open pocketbook to any woman who can get her hands on his semen, and IMO this needs to change.

[Aelia Jusa]

Originally posted by Thoran: I agree Aelia Jusa that it's difficult to accept the idea of a father being able to force a mother to carry a baby to term, but that is one of the only ways I can imagine true equity being reached (the other being if abortion were illegal, in which case both parents get to live up to their responsibilities, no choice involved). IMO the more plausable option than "abortion veto" is to allow a father to have a "virtal abortion" and sign away his rights to the unborn child... this addresses half the inequity (the forced child support without representation) but doesn't address the fathers who would choose to keep thier children when the mothers decide to abort. A difficult problem, but right now a man is basically an open pocketbook to any woman who can get her hands on his semen, and IMO this needs to change.

I agree that a 'virtual abortion' could be a workable solution. It's unfair that the woman can say 'I don't want this baby' and that's that. Yet the man can say 'I don't want this baby' but unless that is the woman's opinion too, it's tough luck. Even more unfair that he can say 'I do want this baby' and it's tough luck. However the problem is that so long as one person in the partnership is totally responsible for bringing the child into the world, then there can never be true equality. If the woman is forced to have the child because the father wants it, she is giving up control of her own body, which the man is not. Being pregnant is a huge undertaking. Especially with a baby you don't want, and with a man you don't care about. Therefore her preferences (IMHO) must be able to 'trump' those of the man because her contribution is substantially more.

One of the more... adventurous ideas from the extreme feminist camp I have read recently is that we need to have some sort of incubator system where the woman no longer has to be pregnant. This was as I understood it, so women are no longer viewed primarily as 'caregivers', 'mothers', 'messy emotional creatures' and so on. This type of setup is the only way I see true equality between father and mother, and therefore true equality of their choices. Unless, of course, as you say, abortion is illegal.

[Lady Aberdene]

1)Prolife
2)equal to murder
3)no conflict
4)Ultimatly prolife. If mother is at risk it should be up to the parents (both) to decide, not the government.
5)anti death penalty

This is a tough topic. We had an ultrasound last week. I am 20 weeks pg. Its a BOY!! We saw his hands and feet move. He has his daddy's big wide feet. I have felt him moving for over a month.
In a perfect world sex is for mature responsible adults who know the consequences and will deal with them responsibly, which is raising a baby.
Back to reality it should be up to both parents to decide. It seems a tough topic to agree on and someone has to have the ultimate decision, obviosly the woman. To make a woman have the baby when she doesn't want it can be so cruel if the mother won't take care of herself. Wouldn't it be better to not have the baby than have an addict or fetal alcohal syndrome baby? No the baby deserves a chance but a fair chance I think. Such a touchy subject.

[ 01-29-2003, 01:41 AM: Message edited by: Lady Aberdene ]

[wellard]

Originally posted by Melusine:

That's a very good point Timber. It's considered very bad taste for a man not to want the child if the woman does, but when it's the other way around, he has no say in the matter either. It must be heartwrenching when the guy really wants to have the baby and the woman has it taken away.
I agree we should pay more attention to their point of view.[/QB][/QUOTE]

__________________________________________________ ___________________________

Well said.. and lets not start on the bias of divorce laws which hopefully i'll never know (goes and hugs wife...) but in Australia there has been 2 cases where a husband has succesfully sued a man for maintanance of the child, after it came out that he had been rearing a "cuckoo".

[ 01-29-2003, 03:35 AM: Message edited by: wellard ]