abortion or no abortion?

[Sister Fracas 5]

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

I DO understand what you are saying.

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

[Oosie 1]

I don't see this reducing abortions but cutting down on unwanted pregnancies. If you don't know for sure that you have taken steps to prevent pregnancy then don't have sex. If you agree to the risk of a pregnancy then fine but you make your mind up first. If couples agreed this in advance then maybe they would both be in agreement about what to do when a pregnancy happens. If a man uses condoms and a woman also uses contraception the number of accidental pregancies will decline. If you don't see her using contraception then you know you are taking a chance. That's when it's time to walk away.

This head in the sand issue is ignoring the central argument here.

Fact: In the U.S., women have been granted the right to choose an abortion.

Now, GIVEN this fact, not trying to CHANGE this fact, what we are now discussing is providing an equitable and parallel choice for men.

In this case, as women have the option to abort the baby, men should have the option to abort having to pay for her decision.

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

You will never get total equity in this unless you share the cost of reproduction. Men can't share in the cost to a woman's body of carrying a pregnancy to term so can't expect to have a say in it.

When you have a uterus you can decide who gets to stay in there.

[akdiver 3]

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

She still gets to choose whether or not to have the baby. My proposal does nothing to take away that choice.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Free contraception needn't be a socialist policy. If targeted to lower income groups as it was in America in the late 80's it can be a tool for right wing eugenicists. At least that's the only reason I can come up with for the overuse of contraceptive implants in teenage black girls in some US cities. From a conservative viewpoint cutting the birth rate in lower income groups can lead to a cut in taxes with fewer children to support on welfare.

I was only kidding...

But WHOA...that's a whole other kettle of fish...

[Oosie 1]

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

I DO understand what you are saying.

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

I would be interested to know just how an abortion can be detrimental to women's health (excepting coathangers of course).

Free contraception needn't be a socialist policy. If targeted to lower income groups as it was in America in the late 80's it can be a tool for right wing eugenicists. At least that's the only reason I can come up with for the overuse of contraceptive implants in teenage black girls in some US cities. From a conservative viewpoint cutting the birth rate in lower income groups can lead to a cut in taxes with fewer children to support on welfare.

I was only kidding...

But WHOA...that's a whole other kettle of fish...

[akdiver 3]

When you have a uterus you can decide who gets to stay in there.

I have no interest in deciding who gets to stay in there. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

My interest is in who pays for what comes out. Using your logic, I can argue, "Woman's uterus. She decides who comes in. She decides who stays. She pays for what comes out. It's her uterus."

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[Empress of Groovy 373]

Laws regarding child support are written to protect and provide for the child. One parent's (often the man's) reluctance to provide for the child financially is irrelevant. I understand the frustration men feel that they have no choice in the matter, but that's biology. There is little room for compromise when one person wishes for the pregnancy to continue and the other does not. Once the seed is planted, so to speak, the legal choice is out of the man's hands.

The idea behind the default of both parents being financially responsible is that the child should be provided for so as not to burden society (clearly, this isn't always put into practice). Most societies' laws don't allow for the man to simply throw up his hands and say, "I didn't want the kid, why should I have to pay for it?" The pregnancy still resulted from the man's sperm, and no modern laws are going to give the guy a free pass because he let the ####### fly at the wrong time and possibly w/ the wrong person. Not to be coarse.

[Sister Fracas 5]

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

I DO understand what you are saying.

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

I would be interested to know just how an abortion can be detrimental to women's health (excepting coathangers of course).

I dunno... just playing devil's advocate...

I'm sure there must be some instances, maybe cardiac type cases.

[Oosie 1]

When you have a uterus you can decide who gets to stay in there.

I have no interest in deciding who gets to stay in there. I thought I made that abundantly clear.

My interest is in who pays for what comes out. Using your logic, I can argue, "Woman's uterus. She decides who comes in. She decides who stays. She pays for what comes out. It's her uterus."

But it's not the woman who puts it in there. Remember the birds and the bees.

[akdiver 3]

Laws regarding child support are written to protect and provide for the child.

Yes, I know. My argument is that the law needs to change.

But it's not the woman who puts it in there. Remember the birds and the bees.

As I said - she decides who comes in.......or whether anyone comes in at all. Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[Emancipation 2]

akdiver - do you have children?

[akdiver 3]

akdiver - do you have children?

None that I know of.

[Oosie 1]

Both parties involved have an "out":

a]. Women have a chance to get out from having a baby

b]. Men have a chance to get out from the cost of the woman's choice to have a baby

I DO understand what you are saying.

How do you account for cases where an abortion might be detrimental to a woman's health?

I would be interested to know just how an abortion can be detrimental to women's health (excepting coathangers of course).

I dunno... just playing devil's advocate...

I'm sure there must be some instances, maybe cardiac type cases.

A woman with a heart condition takes a bigger risk carrying a pregnancy to term than she does having an abortion.

I was hoping maybe you had some facts that I didn't. I know pro lifers sometimes argue that abortion harms womens mental health but the only solid reasearch on this actually disproves that theory.

Laws regarding child support are written to protect and provide for the child.

Yes, I know. My argument is that the law needs to change.

But it's not the woman who puts it in there. Remember the birds and the bees.

As I said - she decides who comes in.......or whether anyone comes in at all.

That's generally a joint decision, men are hard to force. Or rather if you try to force them it's generally not hard enough.

[akdiver 3]

That's generally a joint decision

No, a woman decides who comes in (except in cases of rape). A man only gets to decide whether to go in once approval has been granted.

There are TWO decisions being made, not one.

Edited September 25, 2008 by akdiver

[Sister Fracas 5]

A woman with a heart condition takes a bigger risk carrying a pregnancy to term than she does having an abortion.

I was hoping maybe you had some facts that I didn't. I know pro lifers sometimes argue that abortion harms womens mental health but the only solid reasearch on this actually disproves that theory.

Nah...just wasting time here at my desk... LOL

Still digesting akdiver's proposal... hmmmm

Edited September 25, 2008 by Sister Fracas