Conservative Men and Abortion

Im a consertive man (cough cough) I mean teenager,and my attitude on abortion is that it should be illegal.I see no extrodanary diffrence between a fetus and a new born or toddler.As to my views on women,and their responsibility or whatever you said,I belive it takes two people to make a baby and it should be up to the same two people to decide what to do with the child.Now I can think of two exceptions two this I think maybe it MIGHT be ok for a woman to have an abortion if she has been raped,ill have to think about that some more.The second reason is if a doctor has two choose between the mother or the baby,but that is a diffrent kind of abortion.
 
Originally posted by snow
Im a consertive man (cough cough) I mean teenager,and my attitude on abortion is that it should be illegal.I see no extrodanary diffrence between a fetus and a new born or toddler.As to my views on women,and their responsibility or whatever you said,I belive it takes two people to make a baby and it should be up to the same two people to decide what to do with the child.Now I can think of two exceptions two this I think maybe it MIGHT be ok for a woman to have an abortion if she has been raped,ill have to think about that some more.The second reason is if a doctor has two choose between the mother or the baby,but that is a diffrent kind of abortion.

Yeah, yeah... the same old discussion that pertains to 1% of all abortions. The other 99% are caused by the child just being unwanted. I don't "like" abortion, but it must remain illegal.

What are your opinions on conservative men's attitude towards abortioin and women. I think that conservatives want all women to be "barefoot and pregnant." But they claim that's not what they are for. :rolleyes: I'm slightly confused about your statements.

First, you say abortion should be illegal. Then you say that the mother and father should "decide what to do with it." ???
 
Decisions

When she told me she thought she was pregnant, I looked at her in disbelief. Not because she was pregnant, but because she was telling me in the middle of a fight after we had just gotten plowed on Guinness and Tullamore Dew.

I asked her to go to the doctor to find out.

Come Monday morning, she collapsed at work. Inasmuch as I thought I might be getting a quick and cheap route out of fatherhood, the situation was still disturbing.

But, at the hospital, they told her she definitely was pregnant. She enrolled in their prenatal program on the spot.

Point being: I was left out of the decision to keep or abort the child.

As much as it bugged me ... This is the way it should be.

That she lied about contraception is another story entirely. But you don't really think I'm going to leave my offspring to such sinister devices, do you?

The sad thing is, that after all of the politics and pride, because of some of state law, while I could intervene in an adoption (not an abortion, though) I am not presently the legal father of my own child.

I love the law as pertains to reproduction. It's so screwed up. And largely because of conservative men who demonstrably don't understand the issues involved.

Remember--you need a license to have a pet, and any two twits can have children.

Men--if you are considering reproducing, make sure her divorce is finalized. Otherwise you get to roll on the floor in the hospital in front of a social worker laughing like Jesus just tripped on someone's liver and landed on his holy ass. I have no idea who's responsible for this ridiculous law.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
Tiassa:

The law is even more ridiculous than you describe. In some states, a divorced father is required to continue paying child support even if a DNA test proves he is not the biological father of the child. Even if he can prove who the father actually is. I guess it's supposed to be "in the best interest of the child", but it seems like there should be a better solution.

Did you have a DNA test done in your case?
 
What are your opinions on conservative men's attitude towards abortioin and women. I think that conservatives want all women to be "barefoot and pregnant." But they claim that's not what they are for. :rolleyes: I'm slightly confused about your statements.

hmmn I believe that while the pregency does take two people only the mother can actually have the abortion the male has no say whatsoever unless the woman asks him and still she dosent have to take his advice.I wouldent treat any woman who's had an abortion any diffrent from a woman who hadent but to myself i'd have less respect for her.


First, you say abortion should be illegal. Then you say that the mother and father should "decide what to do with it." ??? [/B][/QUOTE]

Yes I think abortion should be illegal but as of right now it isnt ,sorry for the confusion but what I meant was since right now abortion is legal both parents should have a say in whats going to happen
 
Yes and no--how's that for an answer?

Did you have a DNA test done in your case?
Yes and no. The mother and I both had our chromosomes scanned for various possible birth defects and diseases (cystic fibrosis, Down's syndrome, &c.) and they've done the same for Emma Grace to make sure there's nothing they've missed, but we've never put the three together because, as the social worker advised, it doesn't matter. Overwhelming physical evidence that this is my daughter changes nothing in the eyes of the law until the husband in absentia (MIA for five years and counting) is located and signs a piece of paper waiving his right to call himself a father to this child. And yes--even though they've been separated for years before Emma Grace arrived, he is still liable for child support. Once we find him, getting his hancock on the waiver shouldn't be a problem.

But, yes, we know this is my offspring.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
 
You know, I think the "spirit of the law" is usually lost to the letter. It's amazing to me Tiassa, that you are in the situation you're in. I'm lucky the chick I knocked up hadn't been married, or I'd likely find myself is a similar situation. I really dug her (and still do) but when I found out she was preggers.. I really kind of wanted here to do the bad deed... cuz I was NOT into the idea of chillens. Then she passed some badness if you follow and I though I too had found the quick road to a responsibility free life. Turned out.. not.

It was interesting though that when she almost accidentally lost the baby, I actually started thinking "no fucking way I can ask her to abort this punkin". I personally think abortion is wrong, but should be a matter of choice for the chicka. If the girl is lucky, she'll recieve wise council and be able to make the appropriate decision for herself. I personally think adoption is a better route especially considering all the parents who can't do it but want children... however... I don't have that female thing where you connect with the child and don't wish grown women (whom society already has quite an investment in) to die in the alleys with shoddy doctors performing shoddy procedures... or however you say that where it sounds better than what I just said.

Regardless... I can't believe how amazing my girls are and I'm SO freakin glad they were not aborted. Precious Precious punkins... so much more so than I could have possibly conceived before looking into their amazing little eyes... *hugs his girls*

Eh, I was really only writing to say, wow, I can sort of relate from a "near miss" kind of perspective... I'm sorry to hear of the crappy crap. Oh.. wait, I had a point. That was: Why can't a judge intepret the law on a case per case basis such that it makes sense for that case? I'm sure sometimes there is no lattitude such that they might be able to do so, but other times it seems that the cases become mechanical to the judges, and the result given a particular scenario.. preordaned... THAT is fucking sad. Short sighted laws lead to a pissed off populous.
 
Originally posted by John Mace
In some states, a divorced father is required to continue paying child support even if a DNA test proves he is not the biological father of the child. Even if he can prove who the father actually is. I guess it's supposed to be "in the best interest of the child", but it seems like there should be a better solution.

A man accepts joint financial responsibility with his spouse when he gets married. A husband is responsible to his wife’s children until maturity unless another man takes over that responsibility. The non-biological father cannot prove who the real father is without the consent of the real father, who otherwise will not be forced by a judge to submit to a paternity test when the non-biological father has been called “Dad” for years. As it should be I think.
 
Back
Top