To all the pro-lifers with the signsFollow

Actually, guys, you are both putting far too much effort into determining whether or not the father was consulted. The point of the story is that the woman was effectively left on her own to make her decision, because whether or not the man was able to be located, he was a non-functional alcoholic and thus incompetent to make life-altering committments. Therefore, even if he wanted the baby, she could not trust that he would be able to honor that committment and the decision was left solely up to her.

In fact, this is the exact rationale the real person the scenario was based upon (who actually had the baby, because she's Catholic) used to obtain an annullment so that she could remarry. Addiction is a mental illness classified in the DSM-4, and her contention when she applied for an annulment was that he was incompetent to make his marriage vows to begin with.

And it turns out, she was right. The man was so unstable that when the state snapped up his tax return for his child support obligations and sent it to her, he called their teenage daughter and blamed her for it.



Edited, Thu Jun 30 13:15:54 2005 by Ambrya

This I will agree with. I am not obsolving men of responsibility for the children they create, but like I said before, unless and until men can shoulder the havoc that being pregnant (not just the baby afterward) can wreak upon a woman's life, a woman quite appropriately SHOULD have the final say.

I will say, more often than women not consulting men, men leave the women to make the decision on their own. Think about it; these women aren't just considering abortion, they are also at least contemplating keeping the baby. No one in their right mind is going to shoulder the burden of raising a child alone if she can share it, so of course they are going to tell the father. But that conversation doesn't always result in a situation where the father helps her make the decision.

I mean, how many times have we all heard about a woman who told her husband/boyfriend/one-night-stand she was pregnant and asked him what he wants her to do, and he says, "it's up to you, I will support you either way." This lukewarm response is pretty much code for, "not crazy about the idea of having a kid, but I don't wanna be the bad guy and suggest an abortion."

In the statistics on page 3 of this thread, it said:

25.5% of women deciding to have an abortion want to postpone childbearing.
21.3% of women cannot afford a baby.
14.1% of women have a relationship issue or their partner does not want a child.

Of that cumulative 60.9% of women having abortions, I am willing to bet that most of those women consulted the father, and either the choice to have an abortion was made together, or the father up and abandoned ship and told her she was on her own (probably a large portion of the ones who say they can't afford a baby have this problem) or the father gave some mealy-mouthed platitude about how it's HER choice becase he didn't want to be the bad guy and suggest an abortion, but he doesn't really want the kid either.

It would be interesting if there were some statistics on how many women who have abortions do so having consulted the father, and what the father's response was. Unfortunately, I don't have time to go digging to see if they exist.

Animals, such as dogs, eat their own shi[b][/b]t too.

A Modest Proposal?

This is the stupidest argument I have yet seen shown to me to promote abortions. Thankyou for proving my point that people don't want to have to deal with the responsibility of their actions. These people described in your "scenario" both did not want to claim responsibility for what happened. So your argument is that because their future lives will be ruined, abortion is now okay. Since when is having a child NOT life altering? You are an idiot. You could have a child at any point in time and it will have a huge impact on your future. Like I said, people are too weak to own up to their own actions and make excuses to make another wrong one.

Let me give you a hypothetical situation alright?
"Scenario 1"
A woman is pregnant at the beginning of her second trimester. The father, develops a relationship with a dumb hoe from outside of town and decides he wants to leave his wife and get with her. But thats not easy and he can't really afford a divorce and the whole emotional/legal process. So he plans to kill her and dump her body in a lake, say near Modesto, CA, and claim that he went fishing that weekend. Ring any bells? This is the Scott Peterson trial with the death of his wife Laci Peterson and their unborn child. Now, in the trial, he was prosecuted on double murder charges.

Tying into the abortion issue, should someone be charged with murder of an unborn child if he kills the mother and the child dies in response to the mother's death? If abortion is entirely legal and okay in your mind, it should be certainly resonable for this to be so. Should Peterson have been charged on two counts of murder or no? If you say no, then that means that people can run around killing babies inside of mothers by punching them in the stomach, and should not have any moral regret right? You should feel absolutely no compassion for this unborn child that is now dead because it is not fully human yet correct? I am all ears for you to explain your position on this one.

Redundant much?

Murderers should be executed, as they had their chance to live their lives in harmony with everyone else, yet blew it. Society is far too compassionate towards pathetic animals. If I have the restraint not to kill on impulse, then so should everyone else, or they don't deserve the comfort of living around myself and other sane individuals. Abortion is the same issue, simply those failing to take responsibility for what they've done. You kill someone, you should be killed. You rape someone, you should be raped. You rush into a **** without a condom or birth control, you should raise the kid.

The only argument holding up Pro-BabyKilling is the issue of rape. A despicable crime, which whence committed against the weak of mind tends to destroy a lot more than their confidence. The true fault here is the rarity of this case, which is the forefront for the reason abortion is legal in the first place. In the Wade vs. Roe hearing, Roe testified that she had been raped and gotten pregnant, and thus did not want the child. Some 20 years after the hearing, and some 20 million innocent deaths later, "Jane Roe" (Norma McCorvey) revealed she had fabricated the rape story to gain sympathy for her case. Just one more notch in the ceaseless line of pathetic females appealing to male protective sympathies for women, and them bending where they shouldn't.

But these unwanted children won't have a home, and thus will end up degenrating society anyway? Bad news: There are a surplus of foster families waiting to adopt children in the United States, what is really lacking is the children. Where do they all go? Well, the total number of abortions performed in the United States from 1973-2001 equals 42,036,175. Worldwide, it's well over a billion. Thus, globablly, abortion is a great aid in preventing over-population. Yet, if the United States wishes to regain the dominance slowly slipping through its fingers due to population surges in rival nations, it is going to have to buckle down and do things that are uncomfortable... Like take away the "right" to kill children before they're born.

At no point in US History has a right been successfully taken away from the people. Thus, the damage is done, women are too blind to ever give up abortion, et le deluge shall continue.

Just look at our god damn president. He has given more aid to Africa than any other president in US history. He has wasted MY money fighting wars for people I could give no less of a **** about. And how do liberals thank him? They call him an oil-snatcher (Look at gas prices ********), a warmonger (Yeah, going to war sure skyrocketed his approval rating), and an idiot (He's got to be AT LEAST smarter than average to have gotten through Yale AND become president.)

So why not abort? Because it's unjust, and this world has enough illegal injustice already, so why condone the legal. Women (and the ***-kissing men that support them) that harm their own are no better than common murderers. Not enough money for a baby right now? Well that black guy didn't have enough money for his baby either, so he ******* shot your dad and took his wallet. Stop being so damn selfish and be a man, do the right thing. That is what women want, right? Well with the business suit comes the responsibility, ********, now start taking it.

Edited, Sat Jul 2 15:47:17 2005 by DungeonK

Am I good at math? You have signified your complete ignorance on the topic, you are a ******. The first trimester is month 1-3, the second trimester is month 4-6, the third is month 7-9. You are a complete idiot. Hence the beginning of the second trimester is about month 4-5. Thankyou for making me laugh on Saturday morning.

This is totally false. The petitioner did have a change of heart regarding her stance on abortion many years after the fact, but she never testified that she had been raped. Quit making sh[i][/i]it up.



I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Quell

Further proof that Roe vs. Wade was based on false testimony

Probably

I didnt actually read it, i just assumed she wanted attention

Edited, Sat Jul 2 16:45:50 2005 by proofeleven

Communication error