I'm speechless.

[Silk]

There is definately a trend for people who are just being careless with their contraception, or careless in general to just pop in and get it aborted. Surely im not being a sexist pig implying that an abortion of a perfectly healthy baby in a perfectly healthy mother should not be aborted because you "dont want it"

Whole new can of worms. What if the contraception was used but burst? What if the guy bought sub-standard condoms?

What if through no fault of her own the girl is pregnant?

Noone on this earth should have the right to force her to carry that baby to term. It is her body.. it is her future. No one forces a guy to become a Dad (as in having to spend the next 16+ years of his life devoted to a child, when he can just run off and ditch the girl instead), so why should a girl be forced to become a Mum? I'm even of the mind that a girl should be well within her right to abort even after unprotected sex. I mean obviously she should have taken a morning after pill in that case, but if for whatever reason she doesn't (probably fear of parents finding out if she has to go to doctors to get the pill), then you can't force her to grow something inside her for 9 months and throw the rest of her life away.

Lets look at things differently. In a perfect, idealistic world, childbirth never goes wrong. You can only get pregnant through intercourse with your partner.. not through rape from a stranger or worse, your family. The Dad always supports the child no matter the circumstance, he won't leave the mother alone to cope. Alternatively the mother would be guaranteed to be able to give the child up for adoption if she knew she wasn't going to be able to cope with it. The mother wouldn't be viewed as a slut, or something equally derogatory should she be under a certain age. The mother's career wouldn't suffer, she wouldn't lose her job or chance at career progression, or face demotion. Her place had a free creche and daycare so she could carry on persuing her ambitions and dreams..

..If all that were true then my views would change. I would argue abortion in some cases is wrong.

But that's not the world we live in. In forcing a girl to become a mother you are forcing the weight of the world upon her shoulders, and taking her entiure future away, if it's something she doesn't want.

 

[Nanor]

A girl gets pregnant and she has two choices; Abort the baby or give birth to it. This girl doesn't want the baby and, from what I gather, you're saying she should be able to abort the child because she doesn't want it.

Children are created out of love. The mother endures 9 months of discomfort culminating in "OH MY GOD AAAAAAAAH I'M ALL SWEATY AND MY VAGINA IS STRETCHING". This is fine for a baby created out of love, because after you have a good time stretching your sleeve to a wizard's sleeve you have something created out of love to love. Love love love love, love love! Also, while the mother endures the 9 months she has a good feeling inside her because she's giving birth to her own love formed baby created by her lovely love machine husband called McLovin.

Now, say a girl is raped. The baby is created out of pain. She endures 9 months of physical discomfort culminating in childbirth reinforced by the feeling this thing growing inside me was because I got raped. The baby is born and she may look at it and suddenly fall in love, or equally as possible, not be able to look at it beacuse it reminds her of the ordeal. She should have the choice to abort because of the harm it will cause her. She can keep it, abort it or give it away.

Point 3. You have your promiscous girl running around humping anything with a hardon and woopsie, she gets pregnant. Should she be able to abort? No! It's her fault. You gotta take responsibility for your actions. If you're stupid enough to have unprotected sex when not in a relationship or not trying for a baby then you can't take that baby's life due to your foolishness. You can give birth to it and give it up for adoption, but not kill it.

What if the contraception was used but burst? What if the guy bought sub-standard condoms?

In an ideal world sex should not occur outside of a relationship. We all know the risks of condoms. There is a margin that burst. If you're not prepared for the chance of a child you shouldn't be having sex, should you? Of course people know this but do it anyway. The same way people say you shouldn't binge drink. Most do it and a few end up with liver disease. They knew the risks.

Some cases merit abortion but if it's the fault of the mother, or indeed parents, it does not.

 

[BiG D]

Noone on this earth should have the right to force her to carry that baby to term. It is her body.. it is her future. No one forces a guy to become a Dad (as in having to spend the next 16+ years of his life devoted to a child, when he can just run off and ditch the girl instead), so why should a girl be forced to become a Mum?

So, in the case of an accidential pregnancy, if the mother chooses to keep the child the father should have no say? Why can't he choose to have it aborted? He's the one who will be paying child support, saying he can "just run off" is rather naive...

 

[Silk]

...Some cases merit abortion but if it's the fault of the mother, or indeed parents, it does not.

If the father were forced to raise the child and also throw his future away I might agree with some of your points. But that is not the case. You seem to think a girl can give the child away at birth. This is also not the case. It's isn't a guarantee.

I'm afraid if the girl goes through with the pregnancy, she'll probably be a single mum with no future. Not that you care, you're a bloke and will never, ever be in that situation.

When a girl gives birth she is responsible for the child. Where's the father? He doesn't have to be there. This country is messed up and until things change I'm pro-abortion. It isn't fair that the woman has to do it all. Yes I know some guys out there do give a damn, do support the woman even if things aren't working out relationship-wise, but I'm not talking about that right now.

Also you seem to have skipped my point about childbirth not being risk free. In an ideal world it would be completely safe.. but again, this is not the case.

Lastly, why must a woman be punished for being promiscous? Guys run around having unprotected sex too you know. Yet again, they are not forced to take responsibility for any caused pregnancies - so WHY should a woman be!? Indeed the guy will often get away without having to pay any childcare support either (such is the thing of drunken one night stands, she probably wouldnt remember him letalone his name and/or address!).

 

[Silk]

So, in the case of an accidential pregnancy, if the mother chooses to keep the child the father should have no say? Why can't he choose to have it aborted? He's the one who will be paying child support, saying he can "just run off" is rather naive...

Having to pay a few quid a month or having to devote 16 years (minimum) of your life to a child, likely giving up your own hopes and dreams (and, additionally, paying more to support the child than the father is proividing).

Gee, tough choice.

I'm not naive. There is no law forcing a father to spend any time/effort on his child(ren).

 

[Huung]

Not that you care, you're a bloke and will never, ever be in that situation.

Criticising the traits of people you don't know is a really bad idea if you want your points to be taken seriously...

 

[Nanor]

Alright, I'm a man so that's indicitive of me leaving the woman I just impregnated to pick up the pieces? I can't help but feel your misandric nature is influencing your posts somewhat. There are a few men that if they get a girl pregnant will run away and not face up to the consequences in the same way there are a few people that bludgeon their girlfriend to death with a rusty shovel.

If the father were forced to raise the child and also throw his future away I might agree with some of your points. But that is not the case. You seem to think a girl can give the child away at birth. This is also not the case. It's isn't a guarantee.

Having to pay a few quid a month or having to devote 16 years (minimum) of your life to a child, likely giving up your own hopes and dreams (and, additionally, paying more to support the child than the father is proividing).

What the flying fuck. Throw away his future? Maximum you'd have to wait is 6 years. After that the child spends the day in primary school leaving you to pursue your life long dream. Even less than that. At the age of about 2-3 you can get a nanny to look after the child while you work.

A jibba jibba jibba money jibba costing lots I hear you cry.

Well, yes, but your dream career pays money, I assume?

Lastly, why must a woman be punished for being promiscous? Guys run around having unprotected sex too you know. Yet again, they are not forced to take responsibility for any caused pregnancies - so WHY should a woman be!?

The lad plays just as big a part as the woman. They are both to blame. Both go into eachother (giggidy) knowing full well the consequences of what might happen. Together they can decide to have a shotgun wedding or give the baby up for adoption. You think it's just the woman who's life is affected? The man's life is changed too.

(such is the thing of drunken one night stands, she probably wouldnt remember him letalone his name and/or address!).

And that's his fault?

 

[decky101]

Daaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaamn, It took you guys a loooong ass time to get around the point of adoption? Who's to say you cannot give birth and put the baby up for adoption immediately? I mean, I know you want to spend 16 years of your life raising this child and all, but isn't it a viable option to give birth to the child, and give it to someone who really wants it? There are literally thousands of couples out there who would give anything for a child, and you (theoretically) could give it to them! I am not saying by any means that it's easy to keep a child after you've been raped, I'm very aware of how horrible an experience this is, but destroying this being inside you, what good will it do? Adoption is one of the most noble things a person can do, and I am also one of those people who believes that abortion is yet another act of violence against the woman's body, and in reality, although it removes the short term problem of the baby, in the long term it does more harm than good.
Abortion has always been a delicate issue, and always will be, but it's very subjective to the circumstances in which it occurs, sometimes it is a necessary evil, but it is often abused.

 

[PsiSoldier]

If the father were forced to raise the child and also throw his future away I might agree with some of your points.

It's perfectly possible to have children and not become a house-dwelling careerless baby-sitter, y'know.

You seem to think a girl can give the child away at birth. This is also not the case. It's isn't a guarantee.

Maybe so, but if you're incapable of caring/unwilling to care for a child you should have never gotten pregnant in the first place.

I'm afraid if the girl goes through with the pregnancy, she'll probably be a single mum with no future.

Possibly. On the other hand, like alot of teenage parents do, they can rely on family and friends to help out.

Not that you care, you're a bloke and will never, ever be in that situation.

Yes... It's possible for a bloke to be in that situation; the mother could disapear and leave him with the child.

When a girl gives birth she is responsible for the child.

So is the father, unless I have something wrong here?

Where's the father? He doesn't have to be there.

After the birth, neither does the mother.

This country is messed up and until things change I'm pro-abortion. It isn't fair that the woman has to do it all.

Yes, it is messed up; people get paid tax-payers' money as they are unable to support their own offspring because they didn't think before procreating and/or use contraception.

Also you seem to have skipped my point about childbirth not being risk free.

It will never be risk-free, what do you want done about it?

Lastly, why must a woman be punished for being promiscous? Guys run around having unprotected sex too you know. Yet again, they are not forced to take responsibility for any caused pregnancies - so WHY should a woman be!?

Are you familiar with child support payments? It's not the promiscuity (sp?) of it, it's the fact they didn't use contraception.

Indeed the guy will often get away without having to pay any childcare support either

Rarely will they actually get away with it if the mother persues it.

such is the thing of drunken one night stands, she probably wouldnt remember him letalone his name and/or address!.

Whos fault is it for getting themself drunk and putting themself in that position?

 

[DocBot]

I haven't got the time to write something really interesting here, but I have to agree with Silkth. Abortion is a women's right issue. It goes a long way towards equality to give women control over their own bodies. And yes, there are problems with it, and nothing is black or white. I was wondering about you who are talking about how there are "too many" abortions, for "the wrong reasons". Is that something you actually have any numbers on, or are you just making it up to justify your positions?

 

[Ronin Storm]

Hmm, I find I both agree and disagree...

One agreement side, I believe that the ultimate say in what happens to a woman's body is with that woman. After all, it's their body, their life on the line in a direct sense as childbirth carries risks for both child and mother.

Conversely, I do have sympathy for the position that both parents should have influence over the outcome of a pregnancy. Note, I choose the word influence. In a partnership, for the health of that relationship and environment, I would expect that both partners discuss and agree the outcomes of pregnancy and arrive at an agreement that is suitable for all, anticipating that compromises will probably have to be made.

However, if it comes down to the line and there's no agreement to be had, I would take the stance that the pregnant woman has the final veto.

If you will, there's three separate problems here:

1. What happens leading up to conception.
2. What happens during pregnancy.
3. What happens after childbirth.

All of these should be open for discussion and negotiation between consenting adults. At the point consent is removed from one of those previous steps, I would offer up the woman's right to veto as being paramount for everything up to "after childbirth", where the biological risk to the woman has now taken a back seat (acknowledging post natal depression and such but not treating that as a front line life-or-death issue) and there are three independent human beings in the picture.

Prior to childbirth, the baby is not independent of its mother, and after conception the mother is not independent of her baby. This, for me, is a key distinction for who chooses what can happen. The mother can survive without the baby, the baby cannot survive without its mother. Again, I'm sidestepping artificial wombs and such as being insufficiently available to be a prime factor in these considerations. Thus, when making a choice of life and death, I choose the mother as the independently surviving organism.

It does seem a shame to polarise this issue, however, with "you're a man so because it'll never happen to you, you should have no say" (I paraphrase for impact). In a consenting relationship, to arrive at that position is unacceptable to me; child rearing is a thing that affects me, as a man, assuming I consented to bring a baby into the world, and as it affects me I have rights to influence the outcome of that. But influence is not the same as making in autocratic decision.

I sense a lot of fear around this issue. On the one hand, women don't want to be told to be birthing machines at the beck and call of men. On the other hand, men don't want to engage in a partnership where his agreement to help bring a baby into the world is thrown back in his face (either way round). For me, to have arrived at either situation is unacceptable, but the more unacceptable situation is for a woman to be forced to have babies.

Interestingly, I really wouldn't have a problem with a situation where people were told to not have babies; not in the sense of forced abortions, but in the sense where people were required to not conceive. In a nutshell, I believe there are already too many people in the world and I'd like to see a marked decline in population, not a rapid (and accelerating?) increase.

 

[Gizmo-5]

ayaiyaiyai, this argument she does twist and turn

For a start people should try and remember that were all supposed to be friends, i cant help but detect some bitterness and unnessecary sarcasm in some of these posts

I agree that our ladyfriends should be treated with incredible respect. I myself at the age of 6 realised that life is indeed sweet without the burden of having to pop a baby out of my crotch, and for that i have the utmost respect for them

I still think most people are ignoring the underlying problem though which is...

It is dehumanising human beings and makes the execution of "unwanted" babies more acceptable

Even some of the more feeble arguments presented to why women should have abortions atleast have a few shreds of legitimacy behind them. Id just be worried that in giving control to normal people, who no longer have the respect for human life that we have, we'd be dropping our babies left right and centre because they have asthma, theyre the wrong gender, theyre nose isnt the right size or its a thursday.

Think of it this way, if you were born with the mind age of 20 by your parents and your parents through magic womb telephone told you that you were gonna be aborted what would you say.

"what about my rights as a human being?"

Yes, the baby does grow inside the woman, but it is not part of her, and to believe such is just false and scewing the lines of morality. The baby, after conception is a seperate entity, who says you should have the "right" to exterminate him without fair trial, or for that matter, at all.

also stats here:Linky note

"Thirty-six percent of North Carolina women having abortions during 1997 reported at least one previous abortion."

if anyone can find better stats that would be great, these were the most relevant i could find. and surely docbot youve met plenty of people who have had abortions when they werent medically nescessary, i know i have.

EDIT: Arg, just realised that site is a little.... biased. so feel free to disregard those results or at most take them with an incredibly large grain of salt.

 

[decky101]

A lot of what Gizmo said is true, the dehumanisation of babies is a very sad, yet it is an omnipresent problem in modern culture, in a nutshell, people are being far too promiscuous and having far too much sex for their own good, resulting in unwanted pregnancies, and subsequently, many abortions. To say a baby/foetus (whichever you care to use) is not a human being is to say that you yourself were once not human.

Think about it though, remove the factor of this being a horrible incident in which I believe the abortion to be acceptable, but how many of you have any health problems? How many of you have green eyes? What if your parents had wanted a baby with blue eyes, and had had the opportunity to abort you and replace you with a blue eyed baby instead. How does that make you feel? Just because a baby when it's in the womb has no appreciation/ concept of how things work doesn't mean it never will, it will eventually learn all these things, and it is our ability to learn such things which makes us human. Abortion, for me, is such a head melting topic, as there are so many people out there who straight up believe that abortion is fine in all it's forms, to kill a foetus is fine because the woman was irresponsible enough to allow herself get pregnant (setting aside the issue of incestual/rape cases, which are a separate issue altogether) and then there are those who are absolutely unshakable in their resolution that abortion is entirely wrong and morally incorrect in all of its forms, even in cases of rape and incest, who believe it is the moral obligation of those raped/impregnated to carry this burden, this constant reminder of this horrible traumatic experience in their life for 9 months just because "this guy said it's wrong to have an abortion."

As can be seen by my line of thought, I am very much of the view that abortion is very subjective, as I previously mentioned, and that no two cases are similar, none are black and white. No-one can judge with absolute confidence whether an abortion is the right or wrong answer for each and every case, we must have faith in the mother/father to have the strength of character, and sound judgment to make the right decision (however many people there are out there with the inability to make such decisions due to their mental incapacity)

 

[Ronin Storm]

See, what you guys are referring to as dehumanisation, I see as being a choice one makes as where to draw the line. I acknowledge you've drawn the line that a foetus is a human being as valid and much so as after birth. So, then, how many cells does it take 'til something is human? Is the morning after pill also abortion and therefore wrong, in your opinion?

Ultimately, I disagree with where you appear to be drawing the line. I have blue eyes. If my parents had wanted me to have green eyes then they've missed that boat a long time ago. Indeed, though extremely unlikely, perhaps they had been trying for that and it just never worked out and they've never told me? The effect? I'm still here, as I am. Would I feel betrayed if they said "hey, you were just whatever turned up"? No, not really. Because I'm still me, regardless of whatever they may have done or not done.

As decky says, it's subjective. I'd go so far as to say everything is subjective and that's really part of the problem.

 

[Bradstreet]

Docbot asked for some statistics. According to the WHO, abortion rates are falling worldwide (http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/b...all-in-worldwide-abortion-rates-13483697.html), though that may not actually be a good thing, given increasing conservatism about women's rights in a number of countries. In Britain, abortion rates have been rising, but, as the graph at the bottom of this article shows, the rise has been in earlier-term terminations (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7412118.stm). The Independent says that abortions are rising fastest among the under-16s (http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...e-hits-record-high-among-under16s-851030.html). What is interesting here is that this is also connected to lower rates of conception among teenagers. So rather than this being about gangs of lustful teenagers refusing to take responsibility for their own promiscuity, is is more about teenagers being aware of the consequences of early pregnancies; valuing the idea of planned rather than accidental parenthood; and being concerned about 'good enough' parenting, i.e. being in a position to care appropriately for their child once it is born. The highest number of abortions continues to be among women aged 20-24, and in affluent areas where health care provision is good. These women are often in stable or long-term relationships. In other words, this is again about society valuing family planning; increased ambiguity among women about the desirability of having children at all; and middle-class women placing a premium on their personal and professional development before they choose to start a family.

I am alarmed at some of the comments here that seem to suggest that if a woman has sex she should be prepared to carry a child to term. The sexual revolution of the sixties was all about the idea that medical science allows us to separate sexual activity from conception, while the feminist movement has fought very hard to establish that women have options and that biology is not destiny. In some comments there also seems to be a distinct lack of sympathy to the idea that people's circumstances may be complex (and that a pregnant 16-year old may be naive / frightened / under immense pressure / misinformed about the full consequences of her choices / not fully consensual / tricked or bullied into using faulty or no contraceptives).

Also, let's not state as fact that foetuses are children from the moment of conception. That is a belief connected to a great many other values, and other people are fully entitled to the reasonable alternative belief that a foetus is not a child until it would be viable outside the womb, and that, until that point, a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body is more important than the imagined future rights of a potential human being.

On a lighter note, The Onion, as always, is pretty good -- in my view -- at bringing out some of the absurdity of the debate. I don't think this should offend anyone, but apologies if it does. NB -- this is a video, with sound: be careful at work.
http://www.thedailytube.com/video/1584/onn-report-new-abortion-bill-to-require-fetal-consent

 

[Gizmo-5]

words

Also, let's not state as fact that foetuses are children from the moment of conception. That is a belief connected to a great many other values, and other people are fully entitled to the reasonable alternative belief that a foetus is not a child until it would be viable outside the womb, and that, until that point, a woman's right to choose what happens to her own body is more important than the imagined future rights of a potential human being.

more words[/url]

i would say that is more ignorance of accepted facts than belief, a baby is concieved in the womb, it is alive as its own entity, it is born, and through life experience forms memories and from memories forms personality. What you are saying is that as it has no experience/memories/personality and thus it should not be classed as human, So technically the same argument could be applied to vegetables, the infirm and the mentally handicapped.

But you are again missing the point. This is not about individual women, this is not about individual men, this is not about individual babies, its is the psycho conditioning of the human race that killing our own kind can be excused for such feeble reasons.

The argument all you liberals use is "where do we draw the line" This is your mistake, we should draw no lines, by drawing no lines we give people no free ground in this horrible grey area, so that the idea of abortion "never becomes acceptable" it will be necessary, yes. And many are still within their rights to have it performed, but by making it "acceptable" to kill a human being after we eschew and deform its humanity in our collective mind is a very dark path indeed.

Not to Godwin here, but it took only 10 years for the german government to convince the people that slaughtering of un-arians was completely practical and desirable, human nature does not change.

Also, try not to praise the 60's too much, as alot of their progress has caused the modern problems we have today.

Conversely though, as abortions will almost indefinately continue i rigidly believe that stem cell research is fine, atleast they are not sacrificed in vein, however the trend of US companies "paying" for aborted feotai i do not condone at all, as it creates supply and demand, and encourages us to unethics.

 

[DocBot]

i would say that is more ignorance of accepted facts than belief, a baby is concieved in the womb, it is alive as its own entity, it is born, and through life experience forms memories and from memories forms personality. What you are saying is that as it has no experience/memories/personality and thus it should not be classed as human, So technically the same argument could be applied to vegetables, the infirm and the mentally handicapped.

Sorry, I don't quite get it, who's being ignorant? (not being sarcastic)

You are talking about babies and humans, at what point does it stop being a lump of cells and become a human being? I think you use the terms rather loosely.

But you are again missing the point. This is not about individual women, this is not about individual men, this is not about individual babies, its is the psycho conditioning of the human race that killing our own kind can be excused for such feeble reasons.

Semantics again, it feels like. You are talking about our "own kind" - again, when do you start feeling kinship? At 32 cells? 64? Is it when it starts moving?

Also, you use the word "killing". When the foetus have no chance of survival outside the womb, is it murder? Would you also say that turning the respirator off for a braindead person is murder?

The argument all you liberals use is "where do we draw the line" This is your mistake, we should draw no lines, by drawing no lines we give people no free ground in this horrible grey area, so that the idea of abortion "never becomes acceptable" it will be necessary, yes. And many are still within their rights to have it performed, but by making it "acceptable" to kill a human being after we eschew and deform its humanity in our collective mind is a very dark path indeed.

Ah, but the idea that a lump of cells in the womb is a person is a rather new one. Since you brought up the "no lines" argument, I'll take it to the extreme: how, exactly do I deform the humanity of one cell by advocating for abortion? The question, obviously, is why you think one cell has that particular quality. And if you don't, then the argument for drawing a line is obviously relevant.

Not to Godwin here, but it took only 10 years for the german government to convince the people that slaughtering of un-arians was completely practical and desirable, human nature does not change.

Saying that you don't want to godwin and then doing it anyway is cheating. You loose ;P

Also, try not to praise the 60's too much, as alot of their progress has caused the modern problems we have today.

Oh? Please elaborate (although that might be for a different thread. But let's start it here, I'm genuinely interested in hearing this).

Conversely though, as abortions will almost indefinately continue i rigidly believe that stem cell research is fine, atleast they are not sacrificed in vein, however the trend of US companies "paying" for aborted feotai i do not condone at all, as it creates supply and demand, and encourages us to unethics.

I'm not very well versed in the area of stem cell supply, could you point to some sources? As an aside, usually companies that work with stem cell research need to be more or less ethically spotless, so they usually work rather vigorously towards avoiding unethical practices.

 

[Silk]

Alright, I'm a man so that's indicitive of me leaving the woman I just impregnated to pick up the pieces? I can't help but feel your misandric nature is influencing your posts somewhat. There are a few men that if they get a girl pregnant will run away and not face up to the consequences in the same way there are a few people that bludgeon their girlfriend to death with a rusty shovel.

You missed my point.. there's nothing that forces the guy to take responsibility. For the girl on the otherhand.. well she can't really run away from the situation. Carry to term or abort - the latter wouldn't be an option if some people on this forum had their way. i.e. lets force the woman to take responsibility otherwise it's murder.

What the flying fuck. Throw away his future? Maximum you'd have to wait is 6 years. After that the child spends the day in primary school leaving you to pursue your life long dream. Even less than that. At the age of about 2-3 you can get a nanny to look after the child while you work.

6 years is a long time - if you already have a good job, it's unlikely you'd be able to go back to it after that period. Once again we're talking about the difference of being forced to be in that situation (female) rather than it being optional (male). Additionally some careers suffer even if your child is at school; having to devote more time to them and less to your career results in negative perception at work, resulting in lack of promotion or progression.

A jibba jibba jibba money jibba costing lots I hear you cry.

Well, yes, but your dream career pays money, I assume?

How many single mothers do you know who have massively successful careers? I don't know any.

The lad plays just as big a part as the woman. They are both to blame. Both go into eachother (giggidy) knowing full well the consequences of what might happen. Together they can decide to have a shotgun wedding or give the baby up for adoption. You think it's just the woman who's life is affected? The man's life is changed too.

They are equally to blame but the guy might never be seen or heard from again, letaone bear the responsbility of being is a father. The woman on the otherhand is left to carry a child to term without any say in the matter, assuming, that is, she isn't allowed to abort.

And that's his fault?

Oh they're as bad as each other, but he doesn't have a burden to carry afterwards. They'd probably never see each other again.


To summise; it's all about choice. The guy never really has to opt to be a father. But from what I'm reading here, in any given situation we should force the woman to become a mother? I don't see how that's fair. Like I said, if things in the world were different I'd probably be anti-abortion.

 

[Ronin Storm]

On the subject of child rearing after birth:

Once again we're talking about the difference of being forced to be in that situation (female) rather than it being optional (male).

I'd completely agree that, prior to child birth, a woman is in a situation where they either carry their baby to term or abort and that this is a situation that she and only she can have final say in as, fundamentally, she is directly linked to the baby.

However, after child birth, this fundamental physical connection has been severed. At that point, it is over to child rearing, which there are many different models for. Some American Indians share (shared?) mothering responsibilities among the females of their tribe such that a single mother isn't solely responsible. In some families, the father actually takes the brunt of the child rearing, leaving the mother to work (my uncle was that way). The point, there, is that choices return to both parents. Sure, there's a huge consideration about what is to be done to ensure the baby's wellbeing and development, but it isn't as one-sided as you suggest.

(Unless I'm also missing your point?)

Additionally some careers suffer even if your child is at school; having to devote more time to them and less to your career results in negative perception at work, resulting in lack of promotion or progression.

A lot of focus on successful career here. No figures to hand, but I understand that there's an unfortunate byproduct of women focusing on careers and then deciding to have babies later in life (mid to late thirties rather than early to mid twenties). Miscarriage is more common in older women. That biological consideration complicates the matter for women when balancing career with the wish to have children.

And that makes me wonder something that I always hit in these discussions: it seems to me that people, in a pretty general sense, seem to feel obligated to have children. Some, of course, have always wanted that, but others just seem to have children "just because"... but why? Is having children a right? Shouldn't we actually question whether we really should be having children at all, given the strain we humans put on our planet already?

I'm not talking forced abortion here. I'm talking a rational decision to not have children.

(For the record, that is my choice; no children for me, thankyouverymuch.)

 

[Gizmo-5]

I'm not talking forced abortion here. I'm talking a rational decision to not have children.

(For the record, that is my choice; no children for me, thankyouverymuch.)

This is kind of a part answer to docbots verbal BEATING! that he just enduced, i may need to rally my PR team and come up with some fancy pie charts to subdue him (on a sidenote, who fancies a THN presidential campaign for lols?)

The 60's were great for the freedom of the human individual, the problem is that although freedom is great, it also shook of a lot of responsibilities that being a person entails.

My point being that i accept mr storm, along with all people ive met so far on this forum to be of acceptable intelligence and moral standing, ok were arguing about an extreme here but if i was to say to you "is stealing wrong?" is "conventional murder wrong?" or is "racial hate wrong?" im sure that you would all come back with the right answer.

Unfortunately the 60s has spawned a great deal of irresponsible people, and thus irresponsible parents. If you live in the UK it certainly seems that the more lethargic of our citizenry who to be honest are lazy amoral scum (and you cant condem me, im sure youve all met some) are having more children. and passing on their "lack of" responsibilities and "lack of" teachings to their children.

Try not to view this argument as a tyraid on the lower classes, as although a majority of whom i describe are quite poor, there are plenty of poor people who treat themselves and others with respect and responsibility, and to shame them would be very unfair.

Meanwhile people who would create upstanding citizens are not having children, children who would grow up obeying the law and not leeching of the society of decent people around them (that grows smaller year by year).

So what we have is a reverse darwin effect. The responsible hard working people drowned out by the methodical advantage takers, which will slowly kill society and all its achieved.

Of course this all comes back to the argument of whether mr storm should be forced to have children, which is absurd. If he has no control over his own seed (Giggidy!) then what can he truly have control over. He is a responsible person, and would in most likelyhood create a future model citizen to replace him, unlike the baby pumpers who neglect their children and collect 5 lots of wellfair cash for it.

Case in point- That recent false kidnapping case scandal (which i forget the name of) if someone could link to that story that would be great. The mother had 8 children to about 5 fathers, and came across like she couldnt care less about them. EDIT: Story here, you can research her on wiki for more background

Todays parents are the product of 60's parenting, which cast of the shackles of society oppression only to drown in its own selfish irresponsibility.