BabyRider wrote: Geeze, don't people find it aggravating that they cannot form an original thought on their own? That would drive me nuts.....
You asked me what I did not understand. I posted what I did not understand. And you know what? Your constant unwarranted, unfounded, ill-advised remarks are not even worth the effort of me trying to understand you anymore. Buh-bye, Stupid.
BR, I'm sure you had an opinion coming in. What is it?
What?!?!?!?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
What?!?!?!?
BabyRider wrote: Geeze, don't people find it aggravating that they cannot form an original thought on their own? That would drive me nuts.....
You asked me what I did not understand. I posted what I did not understand. And you know what? Your constant unwarranted, unfounded, ill-advised remarks are not even worth the effort of me trying to understand you anymore. Buh-bye, Stupid.
Con-TROLL yourself....thats all your doing. (Trolling)
If that is what you were doing you were clairvoyant in my posting. Thats amazing! :wah: I didnt friggin remark to you sweetheart......
You asked me what I did not understand. I posted what I did not understand. And you know what? Your constant unwarranted, unfounded, ill-advised remarks are not even worth the effort of me trying to understand you anymore. Buh-bye, Stupid.
Con-TROLL yourself....thats all your doing. (Trolling)
If that is what you were doing you were clairvoyant in my posting. Thats amazing! :wah: I didnt friggin remark to you sweetheart......
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
What?!?!?!?
StupidCowboyTricks wrote: Baby,Baby, Baby, are you being "OBTUSE"?:sneaky:
That is not the reply I made to Acc before you called for the question....catch up!
This one you ask for is a full 10 minutes later
not the original question.
(the original post you asked for was made at 3:33PM)
Yo, bubblehead....you did remark to me. (See above quote in case you're confused.)
Stupid wrote:
Con-TROLL yourself....thats all your doing. (Trolling)
If that is what you were doing you were clairvoyant in my posting. Thats amazing! :wah: I didnt friggin remark to you sweetheart......
Believe it or not, I really don't need you to clarify THIS post. I got what you were implying by your "oh-so-clever" play on words. You can't use a contraction correctly, but you sure can think up a hell of a pun when you really, really try!! Good for you, Stupid!!
Go pick nits with someone else, you're boring, obvious, not real bright, and I'm amazed that a person of your age acts the way you do. Are you bored? Going senile? Missed a dose of meds?
And one last thing: why don't you go learn the definition of "Troll" before you continue to toss it around where I'm concerned. If you think I'm trolling, report my posts to administration. It's the little red and white triangle in the corner to your left. If you think I'm trolling, why do you continue to respond to me?
That is not the reply I made to Acc before you called for the question....catch up!
This one you ask for is a full 10 minutes later
not the original question.
(the original post you asked for was made at 3:33PM)
Yo, bubblehead....you did remark to me. (See above quote in case you're confused.)
Stupid wrote:
Con-TROLL yourself....thats all your doing. (Trolling)
If that is what you were doing you were clairvoyant in my posting. Thats amazing! :wah: I didnt friggin remark to you sweetheart......
Believe it or not, I really don't need you to clarify THIS post. I got what you were implying by your "oh-so-clever" play on words. You can't use a contraction correctly, but you sure can think up a hell of a pun when you really, really try!! Good for you, Stupid!!
Go pick nits with someone else, you're boring, obvious, not real bright, and I'm amazed that a person of your age acts the way you do. Are you bored? Going senile? Missed a dose of meds?
And one last thing: why don't you go learn the definition of "Troll" before you continue to toss it around where I'm concerned. If you think I'm trolling, report my posts to administration. It's the little red and white triangle in the corner to your left. If you think I'm trolling, why do you continue to respond to me?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote: BR, I'm sure you had an opinion coming in. What is it?
My opinion no longer matters in this thread. It's become, yet again, a crap-stirring thread for Stupid to futilely attempt to get under my skin. :yh_eyerol
My opinion no longer matters in this thread. It's become, yet again, a crap-stirring thread for Stupid to futilely attempt to get under my skin. :yh_eyerol
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
BabyRider wrote: My opinion no longer matters in this thread. It's become, yet again, a crap-stirring thread for Stupid to futilely attempt to get under my skin. :yh_eyerol
I can't agree with ya there, BR. It was warm in here but on point until your post.
Did you come here with an opinion?
I can't agree with ya there, BR. It was warm in here but on point until your post.
Did you come here with an opinion?
What?!?!?!?
BabyRider wrote: Try telling that to a married couple who doesn't want children. "Nope, sorry, you can't have sex, too great a risk!!" Let me tell you, at the very least, the husband is GONNA get laid. By a living breathing woman, whether it's his wife or not.
That was my first post in the thread.
Accountable wrote: I can't agree with ya there, BR. It was warm in here but on point until your post.
Did you come here with an opinion?
That sounds like an opinion to me, but since apparently it doesn't fit your criteria as worthy of the thread, I'll just excuse myself.
That was my first post in the thread.
Accountable wrote: I can't agree with ya there, BR. It was warm in here but on point until your post.
Did you come here with an opinion?
That sounds like an opinion to me, but since apparently it doesn't fit your criteria as worthy of the thread, I'll just excuse myself.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
BabyRider wrote: That was my first post in the thread.
That sounds like an opinion to me, but since apparently it doesn't fit your criteria as worthy of the thread, I'll just excuse myself.
I completely missed that post. Sorry.
But that was in response to me. The one that I was referring to was this one:
BabyRider wrote: Then can we get a woman in here who does understand and can explain it to me? I'm a woman, and I don't get it either.
I'm done with this side conversation if everybody else is. I just think the subject's right at the top of the 'most important' list & would like to get back to it.
That sounds like an opinion to me, but since apparently it doesn't fit your criteria as worthy of the thread, I'll just excuse myself.
I completely missed that post. Sorry.
But that was in response to me. The one that I was referring to was this one:
BabyRider wrote: Then can we get a woman in here who does understand and can explain it to me? I'm a woman, and I don't get it either.
I'm done with this side conversation if everybody else is. I just think the subject's right at the top of the 'most important' list & would like to get back to it.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote:
I'm done with this side conversation if everybody else is. I just think the subject's right at the top of the 'most important' list & would like to get back to it.
Now wait just a damn second....YOU asked for clarification on EXACTLY the same thing! Why can you ask for it, but I can't?????
I'm done with this side conversation if everybody else is. I just think the subject's right at the top of the 'most important' list & would like to get back to it.
Now wait just a damn second....YOU asked for clarification on EXACTLY the same thing! Why can you ask for it, but I can't?????
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
~Darrel Worley~
[/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
We won't be punished for our sins, but BY them.
-
StupidCowboyTricks
- Posts: 1899
- Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:51 pm
What?!?!?!?
BabyRider wrote: Now wait just a damn second....YOU asked for clarification on EXACTLY the same thing! Why can you ask for it, but I can't?????
LOL:wah:
LOL:wah:
Someone asked me why I swear so much. I said, "Just becuss.":)
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What?!?!?!?
Based on whether it was capable of independent existance.
I realize I'm entering the conversation late, but can someone tell me when a child is capable of independent existance? 3 yrs? 5yrs? 7 yrs? Certainly not at a day old. Why do we prosecute women who throw newborns in the trash? I don't get it.
I realize I'm entering the conversation late, but can someone tell me when a child is capable of independent existance? 3 yrs? 5yrs? 7 yrs? Certainly not at a day old. Why do we prosecute women who throw newborns in the trash? I don't get it.
What?!?!?!?
Adam Zapple wrote: I realize I'm entering the conversation late, but can someone tell me when a child is capable of independent existance? 3 yrs? 5yrs? 7 yrs? Certainly not at a day old. Why do we prosecute women who throw newborns in the trash? I don't get it.
a child in the womb neither breathes, eats is incapable of reproducing (having children of its own) or doing anything other than growing.
it is not dead but not alive in the scientific sense, if you wish to apply morals too everything and call it alive then thats your right and your oppinion.
since it can do none of the above, besides grow that is, it is part of the mother and not an independant being of itself.
while a child that is one day old can't provide for itself it still eats with its own mouth, breathes with its own lungs its definately more alive than a foetus could ever be in the womb.
a child in the womb neither breathes, eats is incapable of reproducing (having children of its own) or doing anything other than growing.
it is not dead but not alive in the scientific sense, if you wish to apply morals too everything and call it alive then thats your right and your oppinion.
since it can do none of the above, besides grow that is, it is part of the mother and not an independant being of itself.
while a child that is one day old can't provide for itself it still eats with its own mouth, breathes with its own lungs its definately more alive than a foetus could ever be in the womb.
-
Adam Zapple
- Posts: 977
- Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 3:13 am
What?!?!?!?
but not alive in the scientific sense
Are you a scientist? If not, can you provide scientific evidence to back this up? Btw, perhaps babies in the womb "don't breath" because they are in water. Since neither you nor I can go underwater for nine months and pop out to tell the tale, perhaps we are the lower life form.
But let's get back to that breathing thing. You better call these scientists and tell them they are wasting their time because unborn babies don't breathe:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/sh ... DB?order=8
a child in the womb neither breathes,
False
eats
It eats what it is offered through the umbilical cord. It has no other option.
is incapable of reproducing (having children of its own)
Yes I know what reproducing means. Now tell me if you are just yanking my chain. Are you suggesting a fetus isn't alive because it can't reproduce? You couldn't either until you reached puberty. Are you really serious with that argument?
doing anything other than growing.
What would you prefer it do in the womb - play volleyball? It does the same thing in the womb it will do for the first few months of life: eat, breathe, poop, sleep, and stare at its surroundings.
Are you a scientist? If not, can you provide scientific evidence to back this up? Btw, perhaps babies in the womb "don't breath" because they are in water. Since neither you nor I can go underwater for nine months and pop out to tell the tale, perhaps we are the lower life form.
But let's get back to that breathing thing. You better call these scientists and tell them they are wasting their time because unborn babies don't breathe:
http://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct/gui/sh ... DB?order=8
a child in the womb neither breathes,
False
eats
It eats what it is offered through the umbilical cord. It has no other option.
is incapable of reproducing (having children of its own)
Yes I know what reproducing means. Now tell me if you are just yanking my chain. Are you suggesting a fetus isn't alive because it can't reproduce? You couldn't either until you reached puberty. Are you really serious with that argument?
doing anything other than growing.
What would you prefer it do in the womb - play volleyball? It does the same thing in the womb it will do for the first few months of life: eat, breathe, poop, sleep, and stare at its surroundings.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Alfred wrote: a child in the womb neither breathes, eats is incapable of reproducing (having children of its own) or doing anything other than growing.
it is not dead but not alive in the scientific sense, if you wish to apply morals too everything and call it alive then thats your right and your oppinion.
since it can do none of the above, besides grow that is, it is part of the mother and not an independant being of itself.
while a child that is one day old can't provide for itself it still eats with its own mouth, breathes with its own lungs its definately more alive than a foetus could ever be in the womb.
But you didn't answer his question. Why do we prosecute women who throw newborns in the trash? It seems you are giving him more justification to ask the question. Do you believe a woman should have the choice to throw a newborn in the trash?
it is not dead but not alive in the scientific sense, if you wish to apply morals too everything and call it alive then thats your right and your oppinion.
since it can do none of the above, besides grow that is, it is part of the mother and not an independant being of itself.
while a child that is one day old can't provide for itself it still eats with its own mouth, breathes with its own lungs its definately more alive than a foetus could ever be in the womb.
But you didn't answer his question. Why do we prosecute women who throw newborns in the trash? It seems you are giving him more justification to ask the question. Do you believe a woman should have the choice to throw a newborn in the trash?
What?!?!?!?
This is such an old argument! Which came first... the chicken or the egg? We could go back & forth for hours.
I think the point is more that we don't tell women to GET abortions, who's right is it to tell us NOT to get an abortion?
I think the point is more that we don't tell women to GET abortions, who's right is it to tell us NOT to get an abortion?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
observer1 wrote: This is such an old argument! Which came first... the chicken or the egg? We could go back & forth for hours.
I think the point is more that we don't tell women to GET abortions, who's right is it to tell us NOT to get an abortion?
Until the child is acknowledged as a citizen upon pregnancy, it is my right to tell you that you shouldn't get an abortion. It is my obligation to tell you that you should consider other options. It is my duty to beg you to consider the life - lives - abortion damages or destroys. It is my responsibility to point out the irresponsibility of abortion.
But you're right. In our current society, no one has the right to tell you not to get an abortion.
I think the point is more that we don't tell women to GET abortions, who's right is it to tell us NOT to get an abortion?
Until the child is acknowledged as a citizen upon pregnancy, it is my right to tell you that you shouldn't get an abortion. It is my obligation to tell you that you should consider other options. It is my duty to beg you to consider the life - lives - abortion damages or destroys. It is my responsibility to point out the irresponsibility of abortion.
But you're right. In our current society, no one has the right to tell you not to get an abortion.
What?!?!?!?
This thread is really interesting, imo, in that it approached the issue from a less usual perspective focusing on the rights of the fathers. I think men are really abandoned by the current laws regarding child support and custody. I believe the system was arranged to protect against the worst case scenario where men, who do have the majority of power in the world, may be hurting or abandoning the women and children but, in doing so, they have injured the rights of the men who are not abusive.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
What?!?!?!?
Far Rider wrote: Why dont men and women love each other, stay together and raise a child properly....
Then we can avoid all this legislation.
Seems simple to me.
The amount of time spent sexually active and unmarried has more than doubled as age
at first intercourse has become progressively younger, and age at first marriage has become
progressively older. Over four-fifths of unmarried persons are sexually active before leaving
their teens and the proportion unmarried at ages 25-29 has more than doubled since 1970
(Bumpass, 1994). This extended period of risk contributes to high levels of unintended
pregnancy among unmarried women, and the resolution of half of these by abortion accounts
for 1.2 of the annual 1.5 million abortions
source
This could be a partial answer to your why question. Another part would be that we don't leave in Leave It To Beaver land.
Then we can avoid all this legislation.
Seems simple to me.
The amount of time spent sexually active and unmarried has more than doubled as age
at first intercourse has become progressively younger, and age at first marriage has become
progressively older. Over four-fifths of unmarried persons are sexually active before leaving
their teens and the proportion unmarried at ages 25-29 has more than doubled since 1970
(Bumpass, 1994). This extended period of risk contributes to high levels of unintended
pregnancy among unmarried women, and the resolution of half of these by abortion accounts
for 1.2 of the annual 1.5 million abortions
source
This could be a partial answer to your why question. Another part would be that we don't leave in Leave It To Beaver land.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote: Until the child is acknowledged as a citizen upon pregnancy, it is my right to tell you that you shouldn't get an abortion. It is my obligation to tell you that you should consider other options. It is my duty to beg you to consider the life - lives - abortion damages or destroys. It is my responsibility to point out the irresponsibility of abortion.
But you're right. In our current society, no one has the right to tell you not to get an abortion.
To urge not to do something is vastly different than making a law forbidding me to do something. This, IMO, is a personal matter.
But you're right. In our current society, no one has the right to tell you not to get an abortion.
To urge not to do something is vastly different than making a law forbidding me to do something. This, IMO, is a personal matter.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
koan wrote: This thread is really interesting, imo, in that it approached the issue from a less usual perspective focusing on the rights of the fathers. I think men are really abandoned by the current laws regarding child support and custody. I believe the system was arranged to protect against the worst case scenario where men, who do have the majority of power in the world, may be hurting or abandoning the women and children but, in doing so, they have injured the rights of the men who are not abusive.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
Mark the calendar. Koan and I are in complete agreement on an issue!
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
Mark the calendar. Koan and I are in complete agreement on an issue!
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote: But you didn't answer his question. Why do we prosecute women who throw newborns in the trash? It seems you are giving him more justification to ask the question. Do you believe a woman should have the choice to throw a newborn in the trash?
because newborns are legally classified as being alive while a foetus is not.
we charge people who stab a pregnant woman in the gut and 'abort' the child because its a disgusting crime to commit and anyone who commits it should get the chair.
congratulations to adams zapple because i'm now having to rethink the definition of life for myself, again.:-5 :-5
i sill think that the baby is more apart of the mother than it is an individual and is the mothers right to do with it as she so thinks.
because newborns are legally classified as being alive while a foetus is not.
we charge people who stab a pregnant woman in the gut and 'abort' the child because its a disgusting crime to commit and anyone who commits it should get the chair.
congratulations to adams zapple because i'm now having to rethink the definition of life for myself, again.:-5 :-5
i sill think that the baby is more apart of the mother than it is an individual and is the mothers right to do with it as she so thinks.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
observer1 wrote: To urge not to do something is vastly different than making a law forbidding me to do something. This, IMO, is a personal matter.I agree. I would not vote for a law prohibiting abortion. I would prefer the fetus be given citizen status.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Alfred wrote: [...]
congratulations to adams zapple because i'm now having to rethink the definition of life for myself, again.:-5 :-5
[...]
YAAAAYYYY ADAM!! :yh_clap
congratulations to adams zapple because i'm now having to rethink the definition of life for myself, again.:-5 :-5
[...]
YAAAAYYYY ADAM!! :yh_clap
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Far Rider wrote: *Far rushes in and sees ACC in the floor, checks heart, and respiration*.. no pulse! not breathing! You go call 911, *pauses...... um anybody know CPR?:wah:
I think I'll be fine. Just help me to the Pub for some , um, medicinal embibement.
I think I'll be fine. Just help me to the Pub for some , um, medicinal embibement.
What?!?!?!?
Woman compensated for failed abortion
Thursday Mar 2 14:39 AEDT
A Melbourne woman has been awarded $100,000 towards the cost of raising a child she originally tried to abort.
Eight years ago the woman known only as Elizabeth went to the Royal Women's Hospital in suburban Parkville to have an abortion.
Elizabeth, who was on a pension at the time, had taken the step after her partner told her he would not support the child.
Three weeks after her hospital visit she went to her doctor only to be told she was still pregnant.
She had an ultrasound and decided she had to keep the child.
"There it was, yeah, my little boy on the scan sucking his thumb and there was no way I could change my mind then," she told the ABC on Wednesday.
This week, a County Court judge exonerated the hospital but found the doctor in the case had been negligent.
The doctor has since retired.
In a first in Victoria, the court awarded Elizabeth $100,000 towards the cost of raising the child.
Her lawyer Brad Cunningham said the figure was based on her income.
"It's the first case decided in Victoria relating to a claim for the cost of raising a child arising out of someone else's negligence," Mr Cunningham told the ABC.
"A person who is on a larger income would have got a bigger result."
Elizabeth said she went to court to receive justice.
"I did get money, yes, I got money, but that's just enough to help me and my kids," she said.
"For me to help my kids makes me feel better.
"It's not enough to buy a house, so I guess I'll put it here and there and let it grow."
Elizabeth has two other children.
Comment was being sought from the Royal Women's Hospital.
This article appeared in yesterdays paper, and I'm still undecided as to how I feel about it. Just wanted to see what you guys think?
Thursday Mar 2 14:39 AEDT
A Melbourne woman has been awarded $100,000 towards the cost of raising a child she originally tried to abort.
Eight years ago the woman known only as Elizabeth went to the Royal Women's Hospital in suburban Parkville to have an abortion.
Elizabeth, who was on a pension at the time, had taken the step after her partner told her he would not support the child.
Three weeks after her hospital visit she went to her doctor only to be told she was still pregnant.
She had an ultrasound and decided she had to keep the child.
"There it was, yeah, my little boy on the scan sucking his thumb and there was no way I could change my mind then," she told the ABC on Wednesday.
This week, a County Court judge exonerated the hospital but found the doctor in the case had been negligent.
The doctor has since retired.
In a first in Victoria, the court awarded Elizabeth $100,000 towards the cost of raising the child.
Her lawyer Brad Cunningham said the figure was based on her income.
"It's the first case decided in Victoria relating to a claim for the cost of raising a child arising out of someone else's negligence," Mr Cunningham told the ABC.
"A person who is on a larger income would have got a bigger result."
Elizabeth said she went to court to receive justice.
"I did get money, yes, I got money, but that's just enough to help me and my kids," she said.
"For me to help my kids makes me feel better.
"It's not enough to buy a house, so I guess I'll put it here and there and let it grow."
Elizabeth has two other children.
Comment was being sought from the Royal Women's Hospital.
This article appeared in yesterdays paper, and I'm still undecided as to how I feel about it. Just wanted to see what you guys think?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Santanico wrote: Woman compensated for failed abortion
Thursday Mar 2 14:39 AEDT
A Melbourne woman has been awarded $100,000 towards the cost of raising a child she originally tried to abort.
Eight years ago the woman known only as Elizabeth went to the Royal Women's Hospital in suburban Parkville to have an abortion.
Elizabeth, who was on a pension at the time, had taken the step after her partner told her he would not support the child.
Three weeks after her hospital visit she went to her doctor only to be told she was still pregnant.
She had an ultrasound and decided she had to keep the child.
"There it was, yeah, my little boy on the scan sucking his thumb and there was no way I could change my mind then," she told the ABC on Wednesday.
This week, a County Court judge exonerated the hospital but found the doctor in the case had been negligent.
The doctor has since retired.
In a first in Victoria, the court awarded Elizabeth $100,000 towards the cost of raising the child.
Her lawyer Brad Cunningham said the figure was based on her income.
"It's the first case decided in Victoria relating to a claim for the cost of raising a child arising out of someone else's negligence," Mr Cunningham told the ABC.
"A person who is on a larger income would have got a bigger result."
Elizabeth said she went to court to receive justice.
"I did get money, yes, I got money, but that's just enough to help me and my kids," she said.
"For me to help my kids makes me feel better.
"It's not enough to buy a house, so I guess I'll put it here and there and let it grow."
Elizabeth has two other children.
Comment was being sought from the Royal Women's Hospital.
This article appeared in yesterdays paper, and I'm still undecided as to how I feel about it. Just wanted to see what you guys think?Wow. I don't know how much 100K is in your country but it's not alot here. I hope it's enough. I hope the kid makes something of himself, getting a literal second chance like that.
Thursday Mar 2 14:39 AEDT
A Melbourne woman has been awarded $100,000 towards the cost of raising a child she originally tried to abort.
Eight years ago the woman known only as Elizabeth went to the Royal Women's Hospital in suburban Parkville to have an abortion.
Elizabeth, who was on a pension at the time, had taken the step after her partner told her he would not support the child.
Three weeks after her hospital visit she went to her doctor only to be told she was still pregnant.
She had an ultrasound and decided she had to keep the child.
"There it was, yeah, my little boy on the scan sucking his thumb and there was no way I could change my mind then," she told the ABC on Wednesday.
This week, a County Court judge exonerated the hospital but found the doctor in the case had been negligent.
The doctor has since retired.
In a first in Victoria, the court awarded Elizabeth $100,000 towards the cost of raising the child.
Her lawyer Brad Cunningham said the figure was based on her income.
"It's the first case decided in Victoria relating to a claim for the cost of raising a child arising out of someone else's negligence," Mr Cunningham told the ABC.
"A person who is on a larger income would have got a bigger result."
Elizabeth said she went to court to receive justice.
"I did get money, yes, I got money, but that's just enough to help me and my kids," she said.
"For me to help my kids makes me feel better.
"It's not enough to buy a house, so I guess I'll put it here and there and let it grow."
Elizabeth has two other children.
Comment was being sought from the Royal Women's Hospital.
This article appeared in yesterdays paper, and I'm still undecided as to how I feel about it. Just wanted to see what you guys think?Wow. I don't know how much 100K is in your country but it's not alot here. I hope it's enough. I hope the kid makes something of himself, getting a literal second chance like that.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote: Wow. I don't know how much 100K is in your country but it's not alot here. I hope it's enough. I hope the kid makes something of himself, getting a literal second chance like that.
100,000 not a lot here either, I think that's why she said she's putting it aside. I feel really sorry for the child, knowing his whole life that he wasn't wanted. She did say in another article that she loves him and doesn't regret having him, but still. This court case has been going on since before he was born, he has to know that he was a huge mistake. I agree, it will be great if he does something productive with his life. Let's hope he does, and doesn't use his beginning in life as an excuse to be a screw-up, like so many people do. "Oh, I couldn't help being a drug addict/murderer/armed robber etc because my parents didn't love me enough" I guess that's one thing you & I are in total agreement about Acc, people need to take responsibility for their actions. That's whats wrong with the world today!
Sorry if this doesn't belong on this thread, I just thought it was interesting given the subject matter.
100,000 not a lot here either, I think that's why she said she's putting it aside. I feel really sorry for the child, knowing his whole life that he wasn't wanted. She did say in another article that she loves him and doesn't regret having him, but still. This court case has been going on since before he was born, he has to know that he was a huge mistake. I agree, it will be great if he does something productive with his life. Let's hope he does, and doesn't use his beginning in life as an excuse to be a screw-up, like so many people do. "Oh, I couldn't help being a drug addict/murderer/armed robber etc because my parents didn't love me enough" I guess that's one thing you & I are in total agreement about Acc, people need to take responsibility for their actions. That's whats wrong with the world today!
Sorry if this doesn't belong on this thread, I just thought it was interesting given the subject matter.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Santanico wrote: 100,000 not a lot here either, I think that's why she said she's putting it aside. I feel really sorry for the child, knowing his whole life that he wasn't wanted. She did say in another article that she loves him and doesn't regret having him, but still. This court case has been going on since before he was born, he has to know that he was a huge mistake. I agree, it will be great if he does something productive with his life. Let's hope he does, and doesn't use his beginning in life as an excuse to be a screw-up, like so many people do. "Oh, I couldn't help being a drug addict/murderer/armed robber etc because my parents didn't love me enough" I guess that's one thing you & I are in total agreement about Acc, people need to take responsibility for their actions. That's whats wrong with the world today!
Sorry if this doesn't belong on this thread, I just thought it was interesting given the subject matter.
How he feels about himself will depend in large part on how the mum explains it to him. I tried to think of a way to put it into words, but a mom could do it so much better than I.
Any takers?
Sorry if this doesn't belong on this thread, I just thought it was interesting given the subject matter.
How he feels about himself will depend in large part on how the mum explains it to him. I tried to think of a way to put it into words, but a mom could do it so much better than I.
Any takers?
What?!?!?!?
To me it’s simple.
If a woman wants to have a termination then that should be her right. It should also be the right of anyone who doesn’t want to be involved in the act not to be.
People should simply either help or get out of the way.
Just as a person such as myself who believes that it is a woman’s absolute right to have a termination has neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone, so those who believe that termination is wrong have neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone.
Communicate them, fine. Spell out options, fine. But to impose their morality or their beliefs? Big time NO.
Especially where those beliefs are based on nothing more than the interpretation of the imagined witterings of ‘prophets’ of some archaic mythical deity.
If a woman wants to have a termination then that should be her right. It should also be the right of anyone who doesn’t want to be involved in the act not to be.
People should simply either help or get out of the way.
Just as a person such as myself who believes that it is a woman’s absolute right to have a termination has neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone, so those who believe that termination is wrong have neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone.
Communicate them, fine. Spell out options, fine. But to impose their morality or their beliefs? Big time NO.
Especially where those beliefs are based on nothing more than the interpretation of the imagined witterings of ‘prophets’ of some archaic mythical deity.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
golem wrote: To me it’s simple.
If a woman wants to have a termination then that should be her right. It should also be the right of anyone who doesn’t want to be involved in the act not to be.
People should simply either help or get out of the way.
Just as a person such as myself who believes that it is a woman’s absolute right to have a termination has neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone, so those who believe that termination is wrong have neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone.
Communicate them, fine. Spell out options, fine. But to impose their morality or their beliefs? Big time NO.
Especially where those beliefs are based on nothing more than the interpretation of the imagined witterings of ‘prophets’ of some archaic mythical deity.
Nice 'shot' you got in there at the last.
So she has no obligation to the father? The father has no right whatsoever? A married woman can get pregnant with her husband and get an abortion without any other consideration?
If a woman wants to have a termination then that should be her right. It should also be the right of anyone who doesn’t want to be involved in the act not to be.
People should simply either help or get out of the way.
Just as a person such as myself who believes that it is a woman’s absolute right to have a termination has neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone, so those who believe that termination is wrong have neither right nor duty to impose their beliefs on anyone.
Communicate them, fine. Spell out options, fine. But to impose their morality or their beliefs? Big time NO.
Especially where those beliefs are based on nothing more than the interpretation of the imagined witterings of ‘prophets’ of some archaic mythical deity.
Nice 'shot' you got in there at the last.
So she has no obligation to the father? The father has no right whatsoever? A married woman can get pregnant with her husband and get an abortion without any other consideration?
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Scrat wrote: I don't think your wrong in your thoughts of fathers rights in this AC. It's a well known fact that this society has been warring on the rights of fathers for decades. What to do about it?, I don't know and I don't devote my time to changing it.
The answer lies in the decisions we (as men) make.
You say people should be responsible, that's true. Responsibility comes in many different forms and is enacted in many different ways under all kinds of conditions and circumstances.
I'm glad we agree. I'm sad that you don't think it's important enough to try to change it.
I assume the rest of your post is rhetorical.
The answer lies in the decisions we (as men) make.
You say people should be responsible, that's true. Responsibility comes in many different forms and is enacted in many different ways under all kinds of conditions and circumstances.
I'm glad we agree. I'm sad that you don't think it's important enough to try to change it.
I assume the rest of your post is rhetorical.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
What?!?!?!?
As a woman, I just gotta love those laws that were written and approved by MEN. And, as much as I hate to say it - ACC, you sound like a typical MAN.
Just shy of 21 years ago, I had sex with a man and even though procautions were taken, I got pregnant. That child is now 20 years old, attending college and driving her mother insane. The man never spoke to me again and to this day doesn't know about this daughter.
Shortly before I had the aforementioned child, I married a different man. He knew I was pregnant and didn't care. He was insistant that she was OUR child and made sure that his name was put on her birth certificate. What a stand-up guy! We went on to have a child together, were married for 11 years and haven't spoken in the last couple of years.
When I filed for my divorce, I was working a full time job, attending college full time and taking care of two children in elementary school. I hired a lawyer to make sure that my interests were served.
It only took a year, through Friends of the Court and the court system to actually get any child support. Temporarily (about 6 months), I collected food stamps so that I could feed the girls. When things got really tight and I was looking at losing my home - I tried to get Aid for Dependant Children. According to the state, my housing cost more then an apartment for me and the children should cost (my house payment was a whopping $450) so the support that they could give me would be less then the child support that I was getting - but they wanted to garnish my child support payments. So, that was less help then the child support. I dropped out of school and got a second job.
While I was working two jobs, my ex decided that the job he had was too hard to maintain while HE now went to school so he got a different job that paid less and decided he could no longer afford to pay child support. It took ANOTHER year to get him back into FOC to get that straightened out.
It is now 10 plus years later. He is more then $9,000 behind in his support but it is being taken from his military retirement (of which I am supposed to be getting half of - I have to hire yet another lawyer to take care of that) and sent directly to me. It took TWO YEARS to get this done as he moved back in with his mother, who lives in another state.
Now. When I got pregnant with my son - which was intentional, btw, one of the preliminary blood tests came back positive for Trisome 18. While chances were he would not have lived for more then a few hours after birth, there was a possiblity that if he was born with this, he could live for many years. Trisome 18 babies have serious mental and physical defects. The genetic specialist that we talked to knew of a 12 year old trisome baby that had no comprehension at all and was missing more then one limb. In order to take care of a baby with this type of disability, I would have had to quit BOTH of my jobs and ignore my other children. Fortunately, I didn't have to make that decision - amniocentisis showed that my son was normal and healthy.
The fact of the matter is this - not all MEN are willing to step up to the plate and accept the responsiblities of being a father no matter what the reason for sex. Many men in monogamous marriages have children and when they get divorced decide that they want to move on, start another family and not help pay for the children they already have. I have talked to more divorced women that have nightmare stories about trying to get child support from their ex's then I have talked to women who have no problems getting money from the ex.
While a woman may want to let the father of her fetus tell her his opinion of what she should do - NO - he doesn't have the right to tell her WHAT to do. Unless, of course - the men who make the rules are willing to hold men more accountable then they do now.
Just shy of 21 years ago, I had sex with a man and even though procautions were taken, I got pregnant. That child is now 20 years old, attending college and driving her mother insane. The man never spoke to me again and to this day doesn't know about this daughter.
Shortly before I had the aforementioned child, I married a different man. He knew I was pregnant and didn't care. He was insistant that she was OUR child and made sure that his name was put on her birth certificate. What a stand-up guy! We went on to have a child together, were married for 11 years and haven't spoken in the last couple of years.
When I filed for my divorce, I was working a full time job, attending college full time and taking care of two children in elementary school. I hired a lawyer to make sure that my interests were served.
It only took a year, through Friends of the Court and the court system to actually get any child support. Temporarily (about 6 months), I collected food stamps so that I could feed the girls. When things got really tight and I was looking at losing my home - I tried to get Aid for Dependant Children. According to the state, my housing cost more then an apartment for me and the children should cost (my house payment was a whopping $450) so the support that they could give me would be less then the child support that I was getting - but they wanted to garnish my child support payments. So, that was less help then the child support. I dropped out of school and got a second job.
While I was working two jobs, my ex decided that the job he had was too hard to maintain while HE now went to school so he got a different job that paid less and decided he could no longer afford to pay child support. It took ANOTHER year to get him back into FOC to get that straightened out.
It is now 10 plus years later. He is more then $9,000 behind in his support but it is being taken from his military retirement (of which I am supposed to be getting half of - I have to hire yet another lawyer to take care of that) and sent directly to me. It took TWO YEARS to get this done as he moved back in with his mother, who lives in another state.
Now. When I got pregnant with my son - which was intentional, btw, one of the preliminary blood tests came back positive for Trisome 18. While chances were he would not have lived for more then a few hours after birth, there was a possiblity that if he was born with this, he could live for many years. Trisome 18 babies have serious mental and physical defects. The genetic specialist that we talked to knew of a 12 year old trisome baby that had no comprehension at all and was missing more then one limb. In order to take care of a baby with this type of disability, I would have had to quit BOTH of my jobs and ignore my other children. Fortunately, I didn't have to make that decision - amniocentisis showed that my son was normal and healthy.
The fact of the matter is this - not all MEN are willing to step up to the plate and accept the responsiblities of being a father no matter what the reason for sex. Many men in monogamous marriages have children and when they get divorced decide that they want to move on, start another family and not help pay for the children they already have. I have talked to more divorced women that have nightmare stories about trying to get child support from their ex's then I have talked to women who have no problems getting money from the ex.
While a woman may want to let the father of her fetus tell her his opinion of what she should do - NO - he doesn't have the right to tell her WHAT to do. Unless, of course - the men who make the rules are willing to hold men more accountable then they do now.
Sandi
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
LilacDragon wrote: [...]
While a woman may want to let the father of her fetus tell her his opinion of what she should do - NO - he doesn't have the right to tell her WHAT to do. Unless, of course - the men who make the rules are willing to hold men more accountable then they do now.
I hope you feel better, now that you've gotten that off your chest. I read every word of your post an applaud you for not abandoning your responsibilities. I'm certain right now you're screaming at the computer that you had no choice, but the fact is you did have a choice. You chose well. Many men and some women would not have chosen the same. Many men and most women would have.
As I said, I agree with every word in your post, especially the last sentence. I believe my posts throughout this thread have reflected your sentiments - that what is is not what should be.
While a woman may want to let the father of her fetus tell her his opinion of what she should do - NO - he doesn't have the right to tell her WHAT to do. Unless, of course - the men who make the rules are willing to hold men more accountable then they do now.
I hope you feel better, now that you've gotten that off your chest. I read every word of your post an applaud you for not abandoning your responsibilities. I'm certain right now you're screaming at the computer that you had no choice, but the fact is you did have a choice. You chose well. Many men and some women would not have chosen the same. Many men and most women would have.
As I said, I agree with every word in your post, especially the last sentence. I believe my posts throughout this thread have reflected your sentiments - that what is is not what should be.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote:
So she has no obligation to the father? The father has no right whatsoever? A married woman can get pregnant with her husband and get an abortion without any other consideration?
The man’s rights?
Simply to express a wish.
NOTHING more.
It’s not the man who will have top carry the child for 9 months, face the pain for childbirth, have his life utterly and irrevocably changed, he can walk away, that’s always an option. It’s not the mans life that is at risk, and it’s not the mans body or necessarily his future life that’s involved.
No, the man usually has a role and usually responsibility in the upbringing of a child, he has no right to tell a woman be they married or otherwise, if she should or should not terminate a pregnancy.
To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.
So she has no obligation to the father? The father has no right whatsoever? A married woman can get pregnant with her husband and get an abortion without any other consideration?
The man’s rights?
Simply to express a wish.
NOTHING more.
It’s not the man who will have top carry the child for 9 months, face the pain for childbirth, have his life utterly and irrevocably changed, he can walk away, that’s always an option. It’s not the mans life that is at risk, and it’s not the mans body or necessarily his future life that’s involved.
No, the man usually has a role and usually responsibility in the upbringing of a child, he has no right to tell a woman be they married or otherwise, if she should or should not terminate a pregnancy.
To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
golem wrote: The man’s rights?
Simply to express a wish.
NOTHING more.
It’s not the man who will have top carry the child for 9 months, face the pain for childbirth, have his life utterly and irrevocably changed, he can walk away, that’s always an option. It’s not the mans life that is at risk, and it’s not the mans body or necessarily his future life that’s involved.
No, the man usually has a role and usually responsibility in the upbringing of a child, he has no right to tell a woman be they married or otherwise, if she should or should not terminate a pregnancy.
To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.I'm sure you meant 'compel' not 'influence', based on the rest of your post.
So without rights, there is no responsibility, do you agree? If the man has no rights regarding the pregnancy, beyond wishful thinking, he should not be legally responsible to support the child in case the woman gives birth, or to pay for the abortion in case the woman gives death. You must agree with that, right?
Simply to express a wish.
NOTHING more.
It’s not the man who will have top carry the child for 9 months, face the pain for childbirth, have his life utterly and irrevocably changed, he can walk away, that’s always an option. It’s not the mans life that is at risk, and it’s not the mans body or necessarily his future life that’s involved.
No, the man usually has a role and usually responsibility in the upbringing of a child, he has no right to tell a woman be they married or otherwise, if she should or should not terminate a pregnancy.
To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.I'm sure you meant 'compel' not 'influence', based on the rest of your post.
So without rights, there is no responsibility, do you agree? If the man has no rights regarding the pregnancy, beyond wishful thinking, he should not be legally responsible to support the child in case the woman gives birth, or to pay for the abortion in case the woman gives death. You must agree with that, right?
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote: I'm sure you meant 'compel' not 'influence', based on the rest of your post.
So without rights, there is no responsibility, do you agree? If the man has no rights regarding the pregnancy, beyond wishful thinking, he should not be legally responsible to support the child in case the woman gives birth, or to pay for the abortion in case the woman gives death. You must agree with that, right?
A child affects soo very much more then just a bank account. A woman with a child can not make a single decision for the rest of her life without taking her child/children into account. Every thing that she does affects her children.
Why is it so hard for a man to write a check every month to help the woman out?
So without rights, there is no responsibility, do you agree? If the man has no rights regarding the pregnancy, beyond wishful thinking, he should not be legally responsible to support the child in case the woman gives birth, or to pay for the abortion in case the woman gives death. You must agree with that, right?
A child affects soo very much more then just a bank account. A woman with a child can not make a single decision for the rest of her life without taking her child/children into account. Every thing that she does affects her children.
Why is it so hard for a man to write a check every month to help the woman out?
Sandi
What?!?!?!?
LilacDragon wrote:
Why is it so hard for a man to write a check every month to help the woman out?
because they're deadbeats.
Why is it so hard for a man to write a check every month to help the woman out?
because they're deadbeats.
Get your mind out of the gutter - it's blocking my view
Mind like a steel trap - Rusty and Illegal in 37 states.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote:
I'm sure you meant 'compel' not 'influence', based on the rest of your post.
No, I wrote what I intended.
Accountable wrote: So without rights, there is no responsibility, do you agree?
No.
Accountable wrote: If the man has no rights regarding the pregnancy, beyond wishful thinking, he should not be legally responsible to support the child in case the woman gives birth, or to pay for the abortion in case the woman gives death. You must agree with that, right?
Not at all.
If a man engages in sex with a woman then there is the possibility of pregnancy. If they use contraception then the likelihood is reduced but the possibility still exists. If a pregnancy does occour then the matter of who pays is irrelevant. The issue is right that a man has to influence the woman. In my opinion he has NONE.
Personally I would like to see the situation exist whereby in the event of a child being born who was significantly deformed or handicapped that the woman had the right to request that it should be euthanised. That is not to be deliberately inflammatory but simply being practical.
I'm sure you meant 'compel' not 'influence', based on the rest of your post.
No, I wrote what I intended.
Accountable wrote: So without rights, there is no responsibility, do you agree?
No.
Accountable wrote: If the man has no rights regarding the pregnancy, beyond wishful thinking, he should not be legally responsible to support the child in case the woman gives birth, or to pay for the abortion in case the woman gives death. You must agree with that, right?
Not at all.
If a man engages in sex with a woman then there is the possibility of pregnancy. If they use contraception then the likelihood is reduced but the possibility still exists. If a pregnancy does occour then the matter of who pays is irrelevant. The issue is right that a man has to influence the woman. In my opinion he has NONE.
Personally I would like to see the situation exist whereby in the event of a child being born who was significantly deformed or handicapped that the woman had the right to request that it should be euthanised. That is not to be deliberately inflammatory but simply being practical.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Why does it seem that everyone wants to disregard the choice of having sex in the first place????
Golem, you write "if a man engages in sex with a woman" as if the woman is inconsequential in the act. In consentual sex, both adults are taking the risk of pregnancy - equally. Therefore, both should have to deal with the consequences - equally. That means both should have equal say in the decision.
You think that places undue and unequal burden on the woman? Tough. Sue God. I'd love to see a deadbeat be forced to go through pregnancy. That'd be great!
Until that happens, abstinence works 100% of the time. So does masturbation.
Tell me why that's unrealistic for consenting adults.
Golem, you write "if a man engages in sex with a woman" as if the woman is inconsequential in the act. In consentual sex, both adults are taking the risk of pregnancy - equally. Therefore, both should have to deal with the consequences - equally. That means both should have equal say in the decision.
You think that places undue and unequal burden on the woman? Tough. Sue God. I'd love to see a deadbeat be forced to go through pregnancy. That'd be great!
Until that happens, abstinence works 100% of the time. So does masturbation.
Tell me why that's unrealistic for consenting adults.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
koan wrote: This thread is really interesting, imo, in that it approached the issue from a less usual perspective focusing on the rights of the fathers. I think men are really abandoned by the current laws regarding child support and custody. I believe the system was arranged to protect against the worst case scenario where men, who do have the majority of power in the world, may be hurting or abandoning the women and children but, in doing so, they have injured the rights of the men who are not abusive.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
I want all you self-righteous people bent on prohibiting a man's right to fatherhood to address this post, please.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
I want all you self-righteous people bent on prohibiting a man's right to fatherhood to address this post, please.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote:
Why does it seem that everyone wants to disregard the choice of having sex in the first place????
As a realistic and self confessed old reprobate I’ve come to terms with many aspects of life. The way that common sense, morality, and even best intentions fly straight out of the window when both lights and underwear are down low is one such.
Accountable wrote: Golem, you write "if a man engages in sex with a woman" as if the woman is inconsequential in the act. In consentual sex, both adults are taking the risk of pregnancy - equally. Therefore, both should have to deal with the consequences - equally. That means both should have equal say in the decision.
Not at all. There have been remarkably few cases of men becoming pregnant. Seriously, consider that point. It’s the woman who gets knocked up, who has to face the distressing symptoms of morning sickness, the discomfort, the gears for the future ranging from the health of the child that she will produce if she goes full term, the effect it will have on her life, and all the rest that comes with motherhood. I do agree that both should deal with the consequences of a pregnancy but that does not mean that both have equal say in any decision,
I repeat that the man should have NO say in her decision. Not one iota under any circumstances.
Accountable wrote: You think that places undue and unequal burden on the woman? Tough. Sue God. I'd love to see a deadbeat be forced to go through pregnancy. That'd be great!
Until that happens, abstinence works 100% of the time. So does masturbation.
Tell me why that's unrealistic for consenting adults.
Because they are adults and adults do adult things. They also make adult decisions and pay adult fares when they travel adult routes.
For what it’s worth --- I’m not commenting from a purely theoretical standpoint in this matter.
Why does it seem that everyone wants to disregard the choice of having sex in the first place????
As a realistic and self confessed old reprobate I’ve come to terms with many aspects of life. The way that common sense, morality, and even best intentions fly straight out of the window when both lights and underwear are down low is one such.
Accountable wrote: Golem, you write "if a man engages in sex with a woman" as if the woman is inconsequential in the act. In consentual sex, both adults are taking the risk of pregnancy - equally. Therefore, both should have to deal with the consequences - equally. That means both should have equal say in the decision.
Not at all. There have been remarkably few cases of men becoming pregnant. Seriously, consider that point. It’s the woman who gets knocked up, who has to face the distressing symptoms of morning sickness, the discomfort, the gears for the future ranging from the health of the child that she will produce if she goes full term, the effect it will have on her life, and all the rest that comes with motherhood. I do agree that both should deal with the consequences of a pregnancy but that does not mean that both have equal say in any decision,
I repeat that the man should have NO say in her decision. Not one iota under any circumstances.
Accountable wrote: You think that places undue and unequal burden on the woman? Tough. Sue God. I'd love to see a deadbeat be forced to go through pregnancy. That'd be great!
Until that happens, abstinence works 100% of the time. So does masturbation.
Tell me why that's unrealistic for consenting adults.
Because they are adults and adults do adult things. They also make adult decisions and pay adult fares when they travel adult routes.
For what it’s worth --- I’m not commenting from a purely theoretical standpoint in this matter.
-
LilacDragon
- Posts: 1382
- Joined: Wed Sep 28, 2005 4:23 am
What?!?!?!?
koan wrote: This thread is really interesting, imo, in that it approached the issue from a less usual perspective focusing on the rights of the fathers. I think men are really abandoned by the current laws regarding child support and custody. I believe the system was arranged to protect against the worst case scenario where men, who do have the majority of power in the world, may be hurting or abandoning the women and children but, in doing so, they have injured the rights of the men who are not abusive.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
My ex-husband expressed a desire to have children, supported me while I was pregnant (both times), took care of medical expenses, etc. When the marriage was over he moved two miles away and NEVER exercised his right to see his daughters! In twelve years he has seen them less then half a dozen times!
My ex also has a son. His son is less then 6 months younger then my younger daughter. He begged the mother not to have an abortion - he wanted another child. Yes, I found out about the pregnancy (and didn't leave - chalk that up to young and stupid) so his paying child support was not an issue. He has NEVER seen his son, couldn't tell you anything about him and has not paid a dime towards his care.
Sorry, but in my experience and having listened to many single moms, I can't think of too many men who would be willing to do the above to have a child. And if they did, would they be handing the child back to the mother when they found out just how demanding being a single parent is?
Sorry Accountable, but I just can't see giving men the final decision of abortion.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
My ex-husband expressed a desire to have children, supported me while I was pregnant (both times), took care of medical expenses, etc. When the marriage was over he moved two miles away and NEVER exercised his right to see his daughters! In twelve years he has seen them less then half a dozen times!
My ex also has a son. His son is less then 6 months younger then my younger daughter. He begged the mother not to have an abortion - he wanted another child. Yes, I found out about the pregnancy (and didn't leave - chalk that up to young and stupid) so his paying child support was not an issue. He has NEVER seen his son, couldn't tell you anything about him and has not paid a dime towards his care.
Sorry, but in my experience and having listened to many single moms, I can't think of too many men who would be willing to do the above to have a child. And if they did, would they be handing the child back to the mother when they found out just how demanding being a single parent is?
Sorry Accountable, but I just can't see giving men the final decision of abortion.
Sandi
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote: I want all you self-righteous people bent on prohibiting a man's right to fatherhood to address this post, please.
Originally Posted by koan
This thread is really interesting, imo, in that it approached the issue from a less usual perspective focusing on the rights of the fathers. I think men are really abandoned by the current laws regarding child support and custody. I believe the system was arranged to protect against the worst case scenario where men, who do have the majority of power in the world, may be hurting or abandoning the women and children but, in doing so, they have injured the rights of the men who are not abusive.
Men have duties and responsibilities to their children but should only have such rights that the mother and / or the law permits them to have.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
Absolutely disagree. The ONLY arbiter on if a pregnancy should continue should be the pregnant person. NO ONE ELSE.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
Abortion is not murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it thus. To do so is simply to place an unnecessary further burden on a person who must already face a dramatic choice in their lives. A foetus is a potential child, it is not a child and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
Originally Posted by koan
This thread is really interesting, imo, in that it approached the issue from a less usual perspective focusing on the rights of the fathers. I think men are really abandoned by the current laws regarding child support and custody. I believe the system was arranged to protect against the worst case scenario where men, who do have the majority of power in the world, may be hurting or abandoning the women and children but, in doing so, they have injured the rights of the men who are not abusive.
Men have duties and responsibilities to their children but should only have such rights that the mother and / or the law permits them to have.
As far as the father having a right to demand the pregnancy be carried to term, I think that if a man is willing to pay for the time and duress that the woman goes through to birth a baby then they should have the right to veto an abortion. If the woman is compensated for loss of employment, medical expenses and a set amount for the duress of the birthing process then a man should be allowed to effectively claim their child. If, for some reason, the woman changes her mind and wants to keep the child at the end she must repay the father, forfeit any further payments and enter custody arrangements resulting in no less than shared custody for the father.
Absolutely disagree. The ONLY arbiter on if a pregnancy should continue should be the pregnant person. NO ONE ELSE.
I've already entered the moral debate a number of times on whether abortion is murder or not. I'm more interested in this new angle. imo, if you believe in separation of church and state then moral issues should be left to the individual not the government.
Abortion is not murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it thus. To do so is simply to place an unnecessary further burden on a person who must already face a dramatic choice in their lives. A foetus is a potential child, it is not a child and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
Behold golem, product of our more enlightened society which allows all behavior whout consequence.
golem wrote: To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.
The idea that you would limit freedom of speech to prohibit someone from even attempting to talk a woman out of having an abortion is apalling.
The idea that anyone should consider the act of sex of higher priority than the human it produces is disgusting.
golem wrote:
Personally I would like to see the situation exist whereby in the event of a child being born who was significantly deformed or handicapped that the woman had the right to request that it should be euthanised. That is not to be deliberately inflammatory but simply being practical.
While I congratulate your consistency (that of snobbery toward people of less than your ideal, including culture) your snobbery would destroy fine minds such as Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist.
golem wrote: As a realistic and self confessed old reprobate I’ve come to terms with many aspects of life. The way that common sense, morality, and even best intentions fly straight out of the window when both lights and underwear are down low is one such.
That's your defense? "Sorry judge, I lack common sense"??
That's a wonderful representation of your victim culture. Nothing is anyone's fault, right? The couple are victims of horniness. The woman is a victim of pregnancy.
The only victim is the child.
golem wrote: Because they are adults and adults do adult things. They also make adult decisions and pay adult fares when they travel adult routes
Here's an adult idea, golem: don't have sex until you're prepared to raise children. Try that one.
golem wrote: Abortion is not murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it thus. To do so is simply to place an unnecessary further burden on a person who must already face a dramatic choice in their lives. A foetus is a potential child, it is not a child and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
Abortion is murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it otherwise. To do so places a false shroud of innocense on a person who holds the responsibility of life and death in her hands. A fetus is a human being, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
golem wrote: To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.
The idea that you would limit freedom of speech to prohibit someone from even attempting to talk a woman out of having an abortion is apalling.
The idea that anyone should consider the act of sex of higher priority than the human it produces is disgusting.
golem wrote:
Personally I would like to see the situation exist whereby in the event of a child being born who was significantly deformed or handicapped that the woman had the right to request that it should be euthanised. That is not to be deliberately inflammatory but simply being practical.
While I congratulate your consistency (that of snobbery toward people of less than your ideal, including culture) your snobbery would destroy fine minds such as Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist.
golem wrote: As a realistic and self confessed old reprobate I’ve come to terms with many aspects of life. The way that common sense, morality, and even best intentions fly straight out of the window when both lights and underwear are down low is one such.
That's your defense? "Sorry judge, I lack common sense"??
That's a wonderful representation of your victim culture. Nothing is anyone's fault, right? The couple are victims of horniness. The woman is a victim of pregnancy.
The only victim is the child.
golem wrote: Because they are adults and adults do adult things. They also make adult decisions and pay adult fares when they travel adult routes
Here's an adult idea, golem: don't have sex until you're prepared to raise children. Try that one.
golem wrote: Abortion is not murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it thus. To do so is simply to place an unnecessary further burden on a person who must already face a dramatic choice in their lives. A foetus is a potential child, it is not a child and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
Abortion is murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it otherwise. To do so places a false shroud of innocense on a person who holds the responsibility of life and death in her hands. A fetus is a human being, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
What?!?!?!?
Accountable wrote:
Behold golem, product of our more enlightened society which allows all behavior whout consequence.
Oh there are consequences as a result of our actions all right, but we do have the right to manage many of those consequences and termination of an unwanted pregnancy is one such way that a consequence can e managed!
Accountable wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.
The idea that you would limit freedom of speech to prohibit someone from even attempting to talk a woman out of having an abortion is apalling.
But to any right thinking person the idea that anyone has the right much less the duty to even attempt to influence a woman one way or another regarding an act that she alone is involved in is appalling.
At best all a person should be free to do is offer advice on the what, the how, and the options. To attempt to influence – that is a terrible thing to contemplate.
Accountable wrote: The idea that anyone should consider the act of sex of higher priority than the human it produces is disgusting.
Not to me babushka! Sex for sex’s sake is a perfectly normal thing. It’s part of being human.
Accountable wrote: While I congratulate your consistency (that of snobbery toward people of less than your ideal, including culture) your snobbery would destroy fine minds such as Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist.
Now that really is funny. As it happens I know Stephen personally.
The really funny part about your comment realtuing to my opinion that post natal termination f the severly ddeformed or handicapped is that Stephen was something of an athlete before developing has Motor Neurone Disease with the first symptoms only showing when he was at Cambridge.
Accountable wrote: (relating to accidental pregnancy) That's your defense? "Sorry judge, I lack common sense"??
That's a wonderful representation of your victim culture. Nothing is anyone's fault, right? The couple are victims of horniness. The woman is a victim of pregnancy.
LOL!
Victim culture?
Love it! :wah:
People are people. People engage in sex when they are both ‘horney’ or maybe a better word might be sexually aroused. Guess what – with consenting adults there’s nothing wring with that! If the woman does fall pregnant then the eventual outcome should be up to her alone.
There is no child involved. There might be a potential child but that is NOT the same thing.
Accountable wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Because they are adults and adults do adult things. They also make adult decisions and pay adult fares when they travel adult routes
Here's an adult idea, golem: don't have sex until you're prepared to raise children. Try that one.
Whoo Hoo! No way!
Give me a reasonably attractive and willing woman and me in the mood and a modicum of privacy and I’ll be at it like a fiddlers elbow! :wah: :wah:
Guess what --- THAT’S LIFE! and it's great!
Accountable wrote: Abortion is murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it otherwise. To do so places a false shroud of innocense on a person who holds the responsibility of life and death in her hands. A fetus is a human being, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
Balderdash. A human foetus is not a human being.
A human foetus is a potential human being. Nothing more.
Just as a pile of bricks is a potential house, or a partially built house a potential home. It really is that simple!
Behold golem, product of our more enlightened society which allows all behavior whout consequence.
Oh there are consequences as a result of our actions all right, but we do have the right to manage many of those consequences and termination of an unwanted pregnancy is one such way that a consequence can e managed!
Accountable wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
To me this is an issue that should be 100% down to the woman to decide upon. Others may express an opinion but NOTHING more. Their responsibility should simply be to assister her in whatever way is appropriate in line with the decision that she has reached.
The idea that anyone should try to influence her is appalling, the idea that law should be introduced that restricts her from terminating a pregnancy is disgusting.
The idea that you would limit freedom of speech to prohibit someone from even attempting to talk a woman out of having an abortion is apalling.
But to any right thinking person the idea that anyone has the right much less the duty to even attempt to influence a woman one way or another regarding an act that she alone is involved in is appalling.
At best all a person should be free to do is offer advice on the what, the how, and the options. To attempt to influence – that is a terrible thing to contemplate.
Accountable wrote: The idea that anyone should consider the act of sex of higher priority than the human it produces is disgusting.
Not to me babushka! Sex for sex’s sake is a perfectly normal thing. It’s part of being human.
Accountable wrote: While I congratulate your consistency (that of snobbery toward people of less than your ideal, including culture) your snobbery would destroy fine minds such as Stephen Hawking, world-renowned physicist.
Now that really is funny. As it happens I know Stephen personally.
The really funny part about your comment realtuing to my opinion that post natal termination f the severly ddeformed or handicapped is that Stephen was something of an athlete before developing has Motor Neurone Disease with the first symptoms only showing when he was at Cambridge.
Accountable wrote: (relating to accidental pregnancy) That's your defense? "Sorry judge, I lack common sense"??
That's a wonderful representation of your victim culture. Nothing is anyone's fault, right? The couple are victims of horniness. The woman is a victim of pregnancy.
LOL!
Victim culture?
Love it! :wah:
People are people. People engage in sex when they are both ‘horney’ or maybe a better word might be sexually aroused. Guess what – with consenting adults there’s nothing wring with that! If the woman does fall pregnant then the eventual outcome should be up to her alone.
There is no child involved. There might be a potential child but that is NOT the same thing.
Accountable wrote:
Originally Posted by golem
Because they are adults and adults do adult things. They also make adult decisions and pay adult fares when they travel adult routes
Here's an adult idea, golem: don't have sex until you're prepared to raise children. Try that one.
Whoo Hoo! No way!
Give me a reasonably attractive and willing woman and me in the mood and a modicum of privacy and I’ll be at it like a fiddlers elbow! :wah: :wah:
Guess what --- THAT’S LIFE! and it's great!
Accountable wrote: Abortion is murder and it is mendacious not to say wicked in the extreme to ever present it otherwise. To do so places a false shroud of innocense on a person who holds the responsibility of life and death in her hands. A fetus is a human being, and to pretend otherwise is simply wrong.
Balderdash. A human foetus is not a human being.
A human foetus is a potential human being. Nothing more.
Just as a pile of bricks is a potential house, or a partially built house a potential home. It really is that simple!
-
Accountable
- Posts: 24818
- Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 8:33 am
What?!?!?!?
I don't see a point in carrying this further, since you value recreation over life.
Would that I could inject you with some empathy, but empathy's the enemy of your culture.
Would that I could inject you with some empathy, but empathy's the enemy of your culture.