user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
Tough question.
I would think that the woman could sign over parental rights to the father after it's birth if she didnt want the child. But having to actually carry it for nine months is another situations entirely.
Is abortion ever fair? No, I don't think it ever is...
However, the choice of whether to abort or keep the child should always remain with the mother.
She alone has to carry that child for nine months of her life. She alone must make the decision.
...Personally, if I were the mother who didn't (for whatever reason) want the child, but the child had a loving father and family ready to accept the responsibility of my - our - baby into their lives and hearts, I would bring the child to term and sign over all rights.
still the womens choice, but wish what zig said could happen
What if it were possible to transplant the fetus into a surrogate mother, should the man have the right to demand that option?
Larry - That would be ideal!
Zig - I would like to think that my wife/girlfriend wouldn't have the complete right to kill my child, when I want it born.
Larry's suggestion would get around that.
A friend of my girlfriend had an abortion without telling her boyfriend - I think that is absolutely disgusting
This is what throws the women's rights idealism into fits. Consider this, if a woman decides to have a baby even though the man doesn't want the baby (as in what many NFL and other pro sports players have had to deal with), it ends up that the courts find they are responsible for gargantuan amounts of child support, sometimes in the tens of thousands per month.
However, if the father wants to keep the baby and the woman does not want to, he has no say. How fucked up is THAT?
That is a perfect example of having your cake and eating it too.
'What if it were possible to transplant the fetus into a surrogate mother'
Science hasn't advanced to that point yet, unfortunately. Detaching an attached placenta, together with umbilicus and growing fetus could result in the death of the mother and/or child. Very tricky, surgically speaking. And the shock of removal alone would probably kill the growing fetus.
Even if it were possible, such intervention would have to be the choice of the biological mother, and not at the behest of a court order, say.
'That is a perfect example of having your cake and eating it too.'
I agree that it would appear so, especially to the father of the child. But what's the alternative?
Should a woman ever be forced to carry a child to term against her wishes?
I don't think so.
I think it should be kept to full term.
If there is someone who is willing to take care of the baby, wouldn't it be a small inconvienice to the mother, to carry it to full term? As much as when people say the father is responsible for the support of the child until they are 18, mother should be responsible for the 9 month of carrying a child, if she is willing to engage in sexual intercourse.
There should be a full legal contract specifying the details of how instance of pregnancy should be handled, and it should be mounted on the bedpost of every motel room.
by LCD on Fri Apr 14, 06 11:00am
[+]
Said this before, and here it is again. When men can carry babies to full term, *then* they have a right to decide in the matter of abortion. Until then, menfolk, shut up and wait.
I know not possible zig, I was just saying if it were, should that option be available?
Larry: Yes, if that option ever becomes available, great, but it should never be enforcable by any court, imo. Too draconian.
I'm inclined to agree with Truthseeker, although (personally speaking) I side with the child's right to life and a decent future.
The baby should of course be kept. If the woman doesn't want to keep it, then please enlighten me as to why she had it in the first place ?
Great question,,its the woman's choice,it isnt always right but its more of the woman's choice since she's the one who will go through the whole birth process and the taking care of the baby,and if she doesnt like her child and doesnt show her child motherly care,its better not to have the child to that its born and suffering throught its life for not having a good mother
It most likely isn't an issue if the father has a "healthy" checkbook...
Money isn't always the answer to everything, nor should it be. (Imo.)
A men's rights group has just filed a lawsuit over that issue.
They know they won't win but they will keep bringing it up in court to keep the men's perspective in consideration.
In an unwanted pregnancy, the man has NO options.
The woman can chose to give birth, abort, or put the child up for adoption.
The man is stuck with whatever choice the woman makes.
Women can legally escape parenthood but men can't.
Money isn't always the answer to everything, nor should it be. (Imo.)
by zig on Apr 14, 2006 2:39pm
Given, but often it is (sometimes when it shouldn't be).
Given, but often it is (sometimes when it shouldn't be).
by texsue57 on Apr 14, 2006 7:24pm
A sad indictment of human frailty, then... especially if love of money has the power to determine whether a child lives or dies.
For me, money wouldn't enter into the equation.
It'd be a straight choice between right and wrong.
Frankly, I don't know the law on this, but Father's rights should be equivalent to mother's rights, unless the mother can reasonably prove a large risk of death from carrying to term. Father's rights should always be equivalent until the child is considered an adult. Anything else is unconstitutional.
Frankly, I don't know the law on this, but Father's rights should be equivalent to mother's rights from the moment a pregnancy is confirmed to be between a SPECIFIC Man and the pregant woman (in other words, once you've determined clearly who the father is)--lets not forget a woman can become pregnant by any fertile male, or even by IVF (although that's most likely NOT an unwanted pregancy). If the mother can get a doctor to prove a large risk of death from carrying to term--then abort. Father's rights should always be equivalent until the child is legally considered an adult. Anything else is unconstitutional. Get off the whole "but the mother has to carry the baby" BS. Science and its extension via bio-technolgy will remove that part of the argument within a couple decades, anyway.
The mother should be aborted for ever wanting an abortion the slut.
Jeez. 
I'd like to see any of you men put up with nine months of pregnancy, labor and lactation against your will(s).
You'd be changing the laws faster than we could wink. Sorry guys, but you don't have a clue about what's involved in bringing a child into this world...
Have some compassion for those who make mistakes.
let the father keep it
It's obviously wanted by someone
Unfortunately, the courts are not sympathetic to the fathers of these children. It is the height of selfishness for a woman who doesn't want her child to deny the father's wish to raise it. I get a little sick of hearing all about the misery of carrying a child for 9 months, etc, etc. These same women, if they choose not to abort (murder) their child will be the first one to lay financial responsibility on the father. the courts are not tuned into a father's rights but they sure are his checkbook.
|
|
