What do you think?

[MissLady]

And I disagree entirely.

A man for one thing, can't conceive. A tubal ligation is a very invasive procedure - much more so than a vasectomy.

And thankfully, the law disagrees with you.

Well excuse me! Let me rephrase; if a man never wants to get a woman pregnant he has the right to have a vasectomy. And yes a tubal is invasive but MANY women have had them done and so will I'm sure many more. So if they choose to have one to prevent CONCEIVING they have that right. And yes I know the law disagrees with me that is why I said she SHOULD not have the right, not DOES not.

The man's opinion should certainly be considered however the woman should get the final say when it comes to keeping a pregnancy or not.

Thank you for at least considering the man's opinion. Most don't give a hoot if the man truly desires to be a father to his child or not. Just cause some guys bail and are scum buckets doesn't mean all are. But I will disagree that the final say belongs to the woman. I think it should belong to whoever is in favor of continuing the child's life.

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

I think everyone knows what the minimum involvement level of the father is.

The point is, the father is just as responsible for the child as the mother is. Even the state child support office sees it this way.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Really??? So what about the father that wants to take an active role in raising the child? He should have no say?

I never said anything of the sort.

However I think you will find that there is a great difference between fathers who want to have an active roll in raising a child, and those who want nothing to do with that child, and these differences are worth noting.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

The point is, the father is just as responsible for the child as the mother is. Even the state child support office sees it this way.

AFTER a child is born, I'd agree with you.

However, for approx 40weeks, the father plays very little actual part in the welfare of the child and it is completely down to the mother

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

AFTER a child is born, I'd agree with you.

However, for approx 40weeks, the father plays very little actual part in the welfare of the child and it is completely down to the mother

um yes thats how pregnancy works. I think we all understand that. The issue is that the father was (except ivf) part of the conception process, which entails him to half of the responsibility. Lets say a couple get a pet together, then shortly after they fall in love with their pet, they split up. The man takes the pet on vacation with him for 9 months and comes back. the woman misses her pet so dearly and wants it also. Does the pet belong to the man only or to them both?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

um yes thats how pregnancy works. I think we all understand that. The issue is that the father was (except ivf) part of the conception process, which entails him to half of the responsibility. Lets say a couple get a pet together, then shortly after they fall in love with their pet, they split up. The man takes the pet on vacation with him for 9 months and comes back. the woman misses her pet so dearly and wants it also. Does the pet belong to the man only or to them both?

flawed analogy.
More correctly would be something like this...

"a couple get a pet together, that only one member of the couple wants, and then break up shortly afterwards. The member of the couple who wants the pet cannot have the pet, look after the pet, feed the pet or contribute to its growth and wellbeing in anyway for 9 months. Is it therefore fair to force the partner who never wanted the pet in the first place to take responsibility for the care, cost and feeding of the pet, in the hope that, when the other former partner is able to look after it, he will still want to, and take over the responsibility"

Not to mention that a father who wants a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term isn't the one who has to deal with the deleterious effects of said pregnancy, but we can start with the above analogy if you like

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

flawed analogy.
More correctly would be something like this...

"a couple get a pet together, that only one member of the couple wants, and then break up shortly afterwards. The member of the couple who wants the pet cannot have the pet, look after the pet, feed the pet or contribute to its growth and wellbeing in anyway for 9 months. Is it therefore fair to force the partner who never wanted the pet in the first place to take responsibility for the care, cost and feeding of the pet, in the hope that, when the other former partner is able to look after it, he will still want to, and take over the responsibility"

Not to mention that a father who wants a woman to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term isn't the one who has to deal with the deleterious effects of said pregnancy, but we can start with the above analogy if you like

unwanted pregnancy is a flawed term. Especially so from a christian perspective. Since children are a blessing from God bestowed upon us, who are we to decide not to deal with it? It's like God sending someone a gift and when they receive it, instead of cherishing and being thankful for it, they crush it and toss it in the garbage. Once again, not up to the responsibility of the possibility of pregnancy, don't have sex.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

unwanted pregnancy is a flawed term. Especially so from a christian perspective. Since children are a blessing from God bestowed upon us, who are we to decide not to deal with it? It's like God sending someone a gift and when they receive it, instead of cherishing and being thankful for it, they crush it and toss it in the garbage. Once again, not up to the responsibility of the possibility of pregnancy, don't have sex.

and yet... unwanted pregnancy happens all the time.

Personally, I think pregnancy is always avoidable if you want to avoid it, and abortion is rarely the best solution. However, I DON'T think that "pregnancy and parenthood as punishment for sex" is a healthy way to look at the matter, which is what I get any time I hear things like "Once again, not up to the responsibility of the possibility of pregnancy, don't have sex."

As for children always being a blessing from God...
A. Why do 85% of pregnancies abort naturally?
B. at what point do you consider a foetus to be a "child" anyway?

 

[Jet_A_Jockey]

and yet... unwanted pregnancy happens all the time.

so do violent crimes, I guess we need to educate the criminal population on how to achieve nonviolent means of performing their crimes.

Personally, I think pregnancy is always avoidable if you want to avoid it, and abortion is rarely the best solution. However, I DON'T think that "pregnancy and parenthood as punishment for sex" is a healthy way to look at the matter, which is what I get any time I hear things like "Once again, not up to the responsibility of the possibility of pregnancy, don't have sex."

Well, parenthood and pregnancy are not a punishment at all. They are things someone goes through when then decide to own up to what they've done. You are christian, correct? How do you think God feels about it?
Is sex really that important???

As for children always being a blessing from God...
A. Why do 85% of pregnancies abort naturally?

Natural process perhaps? If you don't believe that God has His hand in the birth of a child, then you are mistaken.

B. at what point do you consider a foetus to be a "child" anyway?

I believe it is out of our hands at conception, when all the child needs to survive is the sustaining environment that its growing in. After that its just a matter of time.

 

[jad123]

And its in her body.
When men can carry babies, maybe the law can be changed.
But until then, a man should not have say with what a woman does with her body. Just as a woman doesn't have the right to force a man into not getting a vasectomy if he so pleases.

Sick, very sick.

 

[jad123]

And I disagree entirely.

A man for one thing, can't conceive. A tubal ligation is a very invasive procedure - much more so than a vasectomy.

And thankfully, the law disagrees with you.

So the law is wrong. There are many man made laws that go against God.

 

[jad123]

I never said anything of the sort.

However I think you will find that there is a great difference between fathers who want to have an active roll in raising a child, and those who want nothing to do with that child, and these differences are worth noting.

Fine, there are differences. But what about the times that the mother does not want a child and the father does?

 

[free2be]

So the law is wrong. There are many man made laws that go against God.

I agree with that. Here in Canada (and I think in some States), I live under the law of allowing the abortions at any time throughout the pregnancy. That means, partial birth abortions are legal...the baby is delivered breech up to the neck and is terminated before it's fully born and able to take it's first breath. Wrong. Very, very, very wrong. A case of removing the line because of arguments of where to draw it.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Is sex really that important???

To some people? Yes. If you aren't having it, or have never had it, I don't think its a good idea for you to comment for all those for whom it IS that important.

Natural process perhaps? If you don't believe that God has His hand in the birth of a child, then you are mistaken.

So when God allows an natural abortion to happen thats OK, but he is incapable of stopping an artificial one from happening against his will? Once again, I'm having trouble relating your response to what I actually asked.

I believe it is out of our hands at conception, when all the child needs to survive is the sustaining environment that its growing in. After that its just a matter of time.

For 85% of them, no, thats not the case, including all the fertilised eggs that don't make it to the implantation stage because of cuycles and existing pregnancy... how are they any different/

But I digress... the jey point here is the "sustaining environment that its growing in"... when that environment is part of someone else's body... the owner of that body gets more of a say than anyone who's body the foetus ISN'T living in

 

[EnemyPartyII]

Fine, there are differences. But what about the times that the mother does not want a child and the father does?

how often is this the case?

what is the guarantee the father will take full responsibility for the child after it is born?

would the father be prepared to have an unwanted organism live in his body for 9 months for the purposes of the mother?

 

[EnemyPartyII]

I agree with that. Here in Canada (and I think in some States), I live under the law of allowing the abortions at any time throughout the pregnancy. That means, partial birth abortions are legal...the baby is delivered breech up to the neck and is terminated before it's fully born and able to take it's first breath. Wrong. Very, very, very wrong. A case of removing the line because of arguments of where to draw it.

got a figure on how many of these "partial borth abortions" are being performed in Canada or the US?

I can't see to find one

 

[free2be]

got a figure on how many of these "partial borth abortions" are being performed in Canada or the US?

I can't see to find one

That doesn't, in my mind, make the law ok.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

That doesn't, in my mind, make the law ok.

I didn't say it did.

But a lot of people seem incredibly worked up about these partial birth abortions... but are there any actually... you know, happening?

 

[free2be]

An estimated 10 per day in the US.

 

[EnemyPartyII]

An estimated 10 per day in the US.

may I see your source?