Abortion: Poll and Discussion

[Larry_OHF]

Great post Mel...and that is why I am for the mother making the decision...based on special circumstance. To put it as plain as possible...see below...(all examples are made up, and are not real at this time)

* My wife and I accidently conceive a child because she forgot to take the pill = Yes. The baby should be born.

* My wife gets raped and as soon as possible, a doctor tells her she's pregnant = No to the birth of that child. That baby is not mine...and Karen is my wife...therefore, nobody else can make her have a baby. Not even to give it away.

* My wife is told that she will die from giving birth. = No. I cannot lose my wife.

*We are told the baby will be born handicapped. = Yes. The bay should be born. We will love him/her and accept her special needs into our lives.

*We are told that the baby will die because the lungs never developed or some other severe deformity that would prevent the child from having a chance. = Unknown at this time. I do not know how to answer that one. My wife would have the final say in the matter. It would be less emotional pain for us both if we did not get to hold him/her in our hands for even a minute. Still, I cannot say at this time.

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: It would be less emotional pain for us both if we did not get to hold him/her in our hands for even a minute.

Actually the reverse is said to be true Larry. Holding a stillborn child is documented as being important in creating closure and assisting healing.

See, avoiding, erasing, or repressing an issue is not solving it. We have to face, hold, overcome and resolve our issues. Pretending they never existed does NOT work.

[Cerek the Barbaric]

RevRuby - I just wanted to let you know that I agree completely with your reasons for opposing abortion. I view it from the perspective of the unborn child, who has no control over the situation. There is nothing that breaks my heart more completely than the death of a child/toddler/infant.

Thoran - It was mentioned before (perhaps by Hunter?), but many states do have an option available where one of the parents (normally the father) can sign away ALL parental rights to the child. This relieves them from any and all obligations concerned with raising the child (including child support). It also prohibits him/her from ever having any visitation rights with the child. They will not be able to see their child at all (ever) unless the other parent agrees - or until the child becomes an adult and seeks them out on his/her own.

[Attalus]

Originally posted by Larry_OHF: I have a question. Does anyone know of a child that knows he or she is the product of a violent crime? Are they old enough to tell you what they think of their existance?

My nurse was raped and has a 7 year-old multiracial child as a result. I really haven't the nerve to ask.

[Timber Loftis]

Cerek and Hunter:

While I think we are on the same page opinion-wise as to father's rights or right-to-refuse-all-rights, I must point out what I believe is a factual error you've assumed. I know of NOWHERE that a father can sign away his rights and be relieved of all obligations. On page 3 I posted a bit of the law I know on this subject, so you might want to refer there as a primer if you haven't already.

Now, certainly he can waive all rights in many situations. But, I know of no jurisdiction in the country where he can avoid his obligation to pay child support. Now, if he and the Mom have a private contract that would apply to keep her from collecting- often the case in divorce settlements.

But, the needs of the child always trump. So, if the mom goes on public aid (which for a mother is NOT as low as poverty-line for some types of aid), the state WILL come a-knocking to collect its money. And, if the mom's financial situation changes or the child's needs change, she can modify the support order entered as a divorce settlement or otherwise.

So, no, the father cannot avoid legal obligations.

Just so you know how I know this. 1. Family Law class, as mentioned before. 2. My wife works as an Illinois State's Attorney in the Child Support Enforcement Division. I can tell you horror stories. Course I can also tell you stories that will make you laugh MagiK's ass off.

[ 01-28-2003, 01:52 PM: Message edited by: Timber Loftis ]

[Yorick]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Cerek and Hunter: I must point out what I believe is a factual error you've assumed. I know of NOWHERE that a father can sign away his rights and be relieved of all obligations.

Nowhere in America or nowhere in the world?

[Larry_OHF]

Originally posted by Yorick: Actually the reverse is said to be true Larry. Holding a stillborn child is documented as being important in creating closure and assisting healing. See, avoiding, erasing, or repressing an issue is not solving it. We have to face, hold, overcome and resolve our issues. Pretending they never existed does NOT work.[/QB]

I did not phrase my meaning well enough for you to get what I was saying. I did not refer to stillborn babies...my meaning in that post was that it would be easier than holding your baby as it died...not when it was already dead before birth. If it was absolutely positive that the child would not have a chance, due to some terrible deformity...but the deformity would not take effect until the cord was cut...then it would be harder for me to let the child die in my hands. I would beg the doctor not to cut it just yet...as I stood there holding him/her. See my meaning? I do not care what documentations say...I know that I would rather have the baby put down early than to suffer in my hands because it's little lungs could not breathe for themselves after the cord was cut. That seems more cruel than whatever happens in the womb to put him/her down before seeing the light of day.

[Timber Loftis]

Originally posted by Yorick: quote: Originally posted by Timber Loftis: Cerek and Hunter: I must point out what I believe is a factual error you've assumed. I know of NOWHERE that a father can sign away his rights and be relieved of all obligations.

Nowhere in America or nowhere in the world?[/QUOTE]Sorry about that. I meant in the USA. I would suspect this is one area of law that varies a LOT from country to country.

[The Hunter of Jahanna]

While I think we are on the same page opinion-wise as to father's rights or right-to-refuse-all-rights, I must point out what I believe is a factual error you've assumed. I know of NOWHERE that a father can sign away his rights and be relieved of all obligations.

Its all good ,TL Knowing that I was wrong makes me feel lucky. When I was in the Navy I had a girl tell me that she was pregnant and that it was mine. She had the babie and then took me to court for child support. My lawyer got the judge to order a DNA test and a "stay of support pending the results". My lawyer told me that the law in Virginia is ,that if you start to make suport payments then even if the babie isnt yours you still have to pay support for the next 18 years. It doesnt matter if it is yours or not once you make the first payment. The test was $900 something and we split the cost. Turns out it wasnt mine. At the time I was gone all the time and I was thinking about sighning away all my rights because I wouldnt be able to be a part of the childs life anyway.

EDIT!! before you all tell me how terrible I was, take into consideration that I was only 20 at the time,I could barely take care of myself, and I was gone out to sea for 18 out of every 24 months.

[ 01-28-2003, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: The Hunter of Jahanna ]

[Thoran]

Hunter this is something that has happened to many men... even in instances where the mother purposely deceived the man into paying support, he is often forced to continue. To say that this is a gross miscarriage of justice seems almost redundant.

I also am not aware of anywhere in the US where a man has any choice regarding unborn children. I understand the logic of "the child trumps all" but because of abortion it's not equally applied. A more correct term would be "the child trumps man, the woman trumps all". In the current system we're putting the needs of a father below those of a child... and since a mother can choose to abort a child then obviously her needs go above the child, thus men end up at the bottom of the pile (taxation without representation) and women on top... with all the choices.

We're starting to see a more organized approach to attacking this and other PC/liberal/feminist biases in society, but it's one heck of an uphill battle... these days it's not "PC" to fight for equal rights for men and women.

[ 01-28-2003, 02:44 PM: Message edited by: Thoran ]