Page 3 of 4 [ 52 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,301

04 Jan 2013, 3:57 pm

unknowjondoe wrote:

Apparently you haven't heard of open adoption. And even that has many layers.


I'd heard of it. It wasn't given to me as an option and I wouldn't have taken it if it was. I never wanted kids.

The adoptive parents did send pictures and letters through the agency a few times in early years though.



unknowjondoe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Provo, UT

04 Jan 2013, 3:59 pm

visagrunt wrote:
Adoption is certainly a viable option for a woman who opts to carry her pregnancy to term.

But for all that, it is in no way an adequate answer to a woman's inherent right to life, liberty and security of the person. Even if every bill is paid, and every loss during the course of her pregnancy is made good, still, at the end of the day, she is the one whose body is put through the pregnancy.

I applaud those women who opt to carry their children to term and give them up to parents who will love and care for them. But that in no way suggests that it is an appropriate course of action for any other women who find themselves pregnant.


Right to life, liberty and security? What about the child's right to life? If you take that then they don't have any liberty. And not to mention security.

If the mother is medically incapable of caring the child then I agree with abortion. But considering the mother already made a choice to put herself in that situation why not follow through? I mean if you are pro choice what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

04 Jan 2013, 4:00 pm

It isn't given to you as an option because it is considered communism to have 2 mothers.



unknowjondoe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Provo, UT

04 Jan 2013, 4:03 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
It isn't given to you as an option because it is considered communism to have 2 mothers.


Open adoption is not having 2 mothers. It means that the birth mother has the right to see the child (with the adoptive parents permission) and in some cases she has the right to have a say in the child's raising.



androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

04 Jan 2013, 4:10 pm

So you think a divorced man should be allowed to see his ex-wife?



unknowjondoe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Provo, UT

04 Jan 2013, 4:14 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
So you think a divorced man should be allowed to see his ex-wife?


I don't entirely understand the example. But in a divorce you can say that you want to have a no contact order as well. I have a friend who got divorced and they both choose the no contact order. I also know people that are divorced where they still talk with each other very frequently. So in that sense I can see a similarity but I don't think your example helps you at all.



The_Walrus
Forum Moderator
Forum Moderator

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 25
Gender: Male
Posts: 7,265
Location: Reading, England

04 Jan 2013, 4:52 pm

unknowjondoe wrote:
what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.

These things are not fool proof.



unknowjondoe
Tufted Titmouse
Tufted Titmouse

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2012
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 41
Location: Provo, UT

04 Jan 2013, 5:00 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
unknowjondoe wrote:
what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.

These things are not fool proof.


And that is why we should not let fools procreate. Most the birth prevention out there is 99% and considering there are billions of people using it that means your chances of being the 1% are extremely slim.



hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,301

04 Jan 2013, 5:03 pm

unknowjondoe wrote:

And that is why we should not let fools procreate. Most the birth prevention out there is 99% and considering there are billions of people using it that means your chances of being the 1% are extremely slim.


I personally wasn't responsible enough to reliably use birth control or afford it until I had an opportunity to get Norplant for free. The 2 guys that knocked me up didn't take any responsibility either, probably figuring they could just take off if I got pregnant which they did.



Vexcalibur
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 17 Jan 2008
Age: 35
Gender: Male
Posts: 5,398

04 Jan 2013, 5:10 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
Yes, abortion is not a nice process once you get past a certain point. .

the solution is to encourage abortion to happen as early as possible.

Include "week after" pills as a bonus bundle with pregnancy tests.


_________________
.


visagrunt
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Age: 53
Gender: Male
Posts: 6,118
Location: Vancouver, BC

04 Jan 2013, 5:51 pm

unknowjondoe wrote:
Right to life, liberty and security? What about the child's right to life? If you take that then they don't have any liberty. And not to mention security.


No such right exists except in the imagination of those who believe that so-called, "natural law," has any standing in law.

A right is an interest that can be enforced at law. Period. If it can't be enforced, it's not a right.

In order to enforce an interest at law, one must first be a legal person. In the legal environments of the Common Law world, a human being does not become a legal person until it has passed, in a living state, entirely from the body of its mother. A human being who is not yet a legal person has no ability to enforce any interests. Consequently, that human being has no rights. End of legal argument. (There may be a significant moral and ethical argument yet to be made, but until the law changes to accommodate those morals and ethics, there is nothing further to say on the legal front).

Now, the child does have a legal interest in its own life. But that interest is wholly and entirely coincident with its mother's interest until the limit of viability. It is only at that point that the child has any possibility of survival outside the uterus--a child that cannot survive outside the uterus cannot demonstrate an interest distinct from the woman in whose uterus it lives. And thus, I argue, that the interest only becomes relevant separate from the mother's rights and interests at that point (roughly 21 weeks gestational age).

So, balancing a mother's right to life, liberty and security of the person, against her fetus' coincident interest in its own life, I think that the balance is a no-brainer. But the second that the fetus develops an independent interest in its own life, separate and apart from its interests in its mother's health, it's a whole new argument. At twenty one weeks, and one day gestational age, I stop being pro-choice. Only a threat to maternal health is sufficient to sway my view once there is any possibility of fetal viability.

Quote:
If the mother is medically incapable of caring the child then I agree with abortion. But considering the mother already made a choice to put herself in that situation why not follow through? I mean if you are pro choice what about the choice to use birth control or a condom they are not that hard to find.


Already made a choice? No form of contraception is 100% effective.

What of the woman who finds herself pregnant notwithstanding the use of contraception?
What of women who genuinely believe themselves to be infertile due to an improperly performed ligation? Or due to an erroneous belief in the onset of menopause?
What of the women who have been abandoned by their partners and disowned by their parents?
What of the women who face non-life threatening complications from pregnancy that prevent them from continuing to work?

You have a very simplistic view of the circumstances of women who may--for myriad reasons--find themselves pregnant in circumstances that were neither voluntary, nor are sustainable.


_________________
--James


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

04 Jan 2013, 6:12 pm

Conservatives are opposed to birth control.



Giftorcurse
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 13 Apr 2009
Age: 26
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,887
Location: Port Royal, South Carolina

05 Jan 2013, 9:40 am

androbot2084 wrote:
Is open adoption like an open marriage?

You could say that. :twisted:

Personally, I don't believe that a government, religion, or special interest group should have a say about what a woman should do with what comes out of her vagina. I find it thoroughly distasteful. Also, the unilateral adoption/abortion schtick from both sides of the issue makes me want to vomit. There are LOTS of cons to both solutions, people.

Adoption is universally seen as a boon by some people for children or infants who need a home that can support them. I find this a little hard to swallow, for three reasons.

1. There's no guarantee that the adoptive parents are fit/willing to take in a child that is not of their blood, despite what psychological evaluations can tell you. Abuse and neglect could be possible, and the kid might be put in foster care before they're out of diapers.
2. The sheer amount of legalese (which boggles my mind) could be worked around for the wrong ends.
3. There's also no guarantee the kid will be happy with being adopted.


_________________
Yes, I'm still alive.


androbot2084
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 23 Mar 2011
Age: 59
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,447

05 Jan 2013, 3:39 pm

The religious right defines marriage as monogamous between one man and one woman. Therefore adoptions must be closed because a child cannot have more than one Mother without being a thereat to the institution of marriage. Unfortunately a woman has to go through the pain of child birth only to forever surrender her child up to the adoptive Mother without ever seeing the child again. That is why many woman choose abortion because they feel it will cause less pain than having her baby stolen by the adoptive couple.

Of course solutions exist to this delima but the religious right will not accept any of these solutions because they want tom uphold the institution of the traditional family values.



hanyo
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 30 Sep 2011
Age: 45
Gender: Female
Posts: 4,301

05 Jan 2013, 3:45 pm

androbot2084 wrote:
Unfortunately a woman has to go through the pain of child birth only to forever surrender her child up to the adoptive Mother without ever seeing the child again. That is why many woman choose abortion because they feel it will cause less pain than having her baby stolen by the adoptive couple.


This is going to sound pretty bad but it's true. The reason I had an abortion was the same reason I did an adoption. I just wanted to get rid of the damn thing. I don't like kids and never wanted any.

Open adoptions do exist. If I wanted that bad enough I'm sure I could have found someone that wanted to adopt a newborn bad enough that they would have agreed to an open adoption rather than wait years for an agency to have a baby available for them.



KagamineLen
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 7 Jun 2012
Age: 41
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,633

05 Jan 2013, 4:07 pm

I am a man. I do not have to fear being a rape victim just to have a daily reminder of that violation grow inside of me. There are a lot of men who oppose abortion - they are trying to control what they will never be able to possibly understand.

The world really is a screwed-up place.