Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Abortions soon to become illegal again [Locked - Topic Hijacked]      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 401
Abortions soon to become illegal againPage 17 of 63    (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43)
Dear Miss DragonN:
You have said: "Irrelevant to the conception. As it could have been the male's conception device that failed. Non?"
==========
comment: no use re-iterating the stipulative contractual assumptions I have already cited.
Therefore to the point:
The male and the female are equally reliant upon the contraceptive, whether his or hers. Neither manufactured it. Neither has a UL lab to subject his/her extensive testing of the contraceptive.
Therefore, all the previous points I made stand, of course.
Across-the-board abortion should be outlawed.
Roe v. Wade was an illegal decision.
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 402
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/25/2006 11:36:57 AM
Dear Miss Marita:
You cite the following example.....
"A recent development (November, 1996) involves a pregnant Ottawa woman, Brenda Drummond, who tried to kill herself or her foetus by discharging a pellet gun into her vagina."
============
comment: hardly sounds like an attempted suicide. It was an obvious attempt to kill the fetus / baby. She should be prosecuted. Probably not for full-fledged murder, but for a substantial felony. I think she certainly deserves prison time. Absolutely.
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 403
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/25/2006 11:43:50 AM
ya their recent,...and she's a postal employee,...

sheesh,..figures,...we're talking nutburger here,...
----------------------------------------------------

1996

June
Brenda Drummond, a 28-year-old postal worker and mother of two, is charged with attempted murder of her son and with criminal negligence causing bodily harm. On May 28, Drummond shot herself in the vagina with a pellet gun. Two days later, she delivered her son, Jonathon, alone in the bathroom of her home outside of Ottawa. A brain scan reveals that the infant has an injury from a pellet. Drummond spends the next month in a psychiatric hospital undergoing assessment. Counsel for Drummond argues that there is no offense and the case should be dismissed as a fetus is not a person. (ii)

A settlement is reached between Cynthia Dobson (and her insurance company) and Ryan Dobson (represented by his guardian Gerald Price). The insurance company agrees to provide an undisclosed sum for Ryan's care (iii). If the boy wins the right to sue his mother, the company agrees to make a further payment without the requirement of additional court proceedings. (iv)

July
Jonathon Drummond is released from hospital in good condition. Brenda Drummond spends the next seven months in a psychiatric hospital being treated for depression. (v
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 404
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/25/2006 7:45:07 PM

The Supreme Court, with justices appointed by Presidents of both parties, by a margin of 7 to 2, established Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. What are your credentials for declaring it an "illegal decision?"


Remember that logic when the current SCOTUS reverses RvW
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 405
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 4:00:12 AM
^^^^ What he said
Some I see have not enlightened themselves with RvW and argue on the basic assumption they are educated on the matter

Have a nice day
 marita_b
Joined: 6/15/2005
Msg: 406
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 4:45:44 AM
sometimes we Canadian's follow,...what you do south of our borders,...
sometimes we actually do the same,...
other times we decide for ourselves what's right,..fair and just,...

it's at those times we often get more of you up here visiting
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 407
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 8:00:10 AM

A logical response to my post would have been to answer the question I posed - what are your credentials to delcare Roe v Wade an "illegal decision?"


Actually a logical repsocne would be to take the oppurtunity you provided to slip a comment into the archive sof time so that when SCOTUS reverse RvW and you complain about it I can make you eat your words.

Answerign your query was not logical beucase it was ad hominem via the posters credentials or lack there of. They have the same qualifications to hold views that any of us do. None of us here are legally qualified to render such decisions. Yet we all freely express our views on the subject.
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 408
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 9:48:09 AM
Dear Miss Shore:
You have said, and asked....
"The Supreme Court, with justices appointed by Presidents of both parties, by a margin of 7 to 2, established Roe v. Wade as the law of the land. What are your credentials for declaring it an "illegal decision?" "
============
comment: my credential - a literate American citizen, who has read, and understands, the great and idealistic Constitution of the USA.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 409
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 9:50:13 AM

There are various aspects to the debate about abortion. We are all equally qualified to share our opinions as to the moral aspects, but when someone makes a flat statement that a ruling of the Supreme Court is "an illegal decision," I don't see how it is inappropriate to question what credentials that person has to support that conclusion. Disagreeing with something does not make it illegal.


I find nothing in the language or history of the Constitution to support the Court's judgment," wrote Justice White. "The Court simply fashions and announces a new constitutional right for pregnant mothers and, with scarcely any reason or authority for its action, invests that right with sufficient substance to override most existing state abortion statutes. The upshot is that the people and the legislatures of the 50 States are constitutionally disentitled to weigh the relative importance of the continued existence and development of the fetus, on the one hand, against a spectrum of possible impacts on the mother, on the other hand. As an exercise of raw judicial power, the Court perhaps has authority to do what it does today; but, in my view, its judgment is an improvident and extravagant exercise of the power of judicial review that the Constitution extends to this Court.

"The Court apparently values the convenience of the pregnant mother more than the continued existence and development of the life or potential life that she carries. Regardless of whether I might agree with that marshaling of values, I can in no event join the Court's judgment because I find no constitutional warrant for imposing such an order of priorities on the people and legislatures of the States. In a sensitive area such as this, involving as it does issues over which reasonable men may easily and heatedly differ, I cannot accept the Court's exercise of its clear power of choice by interposing a constitutional barrier to state efforts to protect human life and by investing mothers and doctors with the constitutionally protected right to exterminate it. This issue, for the most part, should be left with the people and to the political processes the people have devised to govern their affairs."

Justice White

The Court's opinion decides that a State may impose virtually no restriction on the performance of abortions during the first trimester of pregnancy . . . the Court uses her complaint against the Texas statute as a fulcrum for deciding that States may [p172] impose virtually no restrictions on medical abortions performed during the first trimester of pregnancy. In deciding such a hypothetical lawsuit, the Court departs from the longstanding admonition that it should never "formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied . . . the Court's sweeping invalidation of any restrictions on abortion during the first trimester is impossible to justify under that standard, and the conscious weighing of competing factors that the Court's opinion apparently substitutes for the established test is far more appropriate to a legislative judgment than to a judicial one.

"To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [p175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.(1) While many States have amended or updated [p176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.(2) Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [p177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.

"There apparently was no question concerning the validity of this provision or of any of the other state statutes when the Fourteenth Amendment was adopted. The only conclusion possible from this history is that the drafters did not intend to have the Fourteenth Amendment withdraw from the States the power to legislate with respect to this matter."

Former Cheif Justice William Rehnquist

Now if two former Suprem Court Justices find it to be illegal a layman can safely parrot the same information.
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 410
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:01:18 AM
Dear Miss DragonN:
Pertaining to the fact that SHE is the one getting pregnant, not him, you said:

"Irrelevant. The discussion is the Right to Life. Not who is getting pregnant."
====
comment: it is entirely relevant. SHE, the one with the God-given physiological capabilities to bear, had a sexual liaison with a man without that capability. The inherent risk at the time of the liaison was that SHE would get pregnant. She has to have some sort of contractual arrangement to tend to the culmination of that possibility.
And if she does not, the state will mandate that the father furnish support.

IF, pre-liaison, she would have contracted with the man ("look, if we have sex, and I get pregnant, I will not carry the baby, and will get an abortion unless YOU carry the baby"), I would think the man would have, with a horrified look on his face, run for his life.

So it is obvious that her moral burden is to carry the child.
He is obligated to furnish significant support.
An abortion is an immoral decision. And it leads to more future decisions as such.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 411
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:12:14 AM
Actually Late the 14th epxanded the protections afforded by the 14th a tthe cost of the unborns right to life.

To reach its result the Court necessarily has had to find within the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment a right that was apparently completely unknown to the drafters of the Amendment. As early as 1821, the first state law dealing directly with abortion was enacted by the Connecticut Legislature. Conn. Stat., Tit. 22, §§ 14, 16. By the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth [p175] Amendment in 1868, there were at least 36 laws enacted by state or territorial legislatures limiting abortion.(1) While many States have amended or updated [p176] their laws, 21 of the laws on the books in 1868 remain in effect today.(2) Indeed, the Texas statute struck down today was, as the majority notes, first enacted in 1857 [p177] and "has remained substantially unchanged to the present time." Ante, at 119.

Obviously many states and territories before the passag eof the 14th felt abortion was somehting worhty of crimminal statute.



Shore66, but your query was what makes him qualified to make sucha blanket statement. I provided the information as you asked me to do form the very case it slef (those ar eht edissentign opinions a tthe tiem the case was heard. Obviously ther eis a great deal of disagreement by thsoe who support and those who oppose the ruling.
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 412
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:19:14 AM
Late:
I think this issue is beyond one of a "fundamentalist religious agenda".
As far as personhood of the fetus in the Constitution, the Constitution basically leaves those areas not specified therein to the states. The Constitution does not give us a right to eat bananas, but it is certainly permissible (unless, woe be to me, a state should restrict it!).
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 413
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:32:02 AM
oops. computer glitch
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 414
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:32:08 AM

Cite?


10 Amendment to the US Constatution

Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

Ohh and equating prohibiitng aobrtion with the embrace of slavery is dishonest. Many of ythe anti-abortion alws wer epasse din abolistionist states. Theyt obviusly saw common cause with protecting societies weakest members, the unborn and opressed slaves.

Please tell me your Canadian,and that why you were not up to date on the Bill of Rights.
 confused/knothead
Joined: 12/23/2005
Msg: 415
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 10:47:29 AM
Late:
Amendment IX:
" The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 416
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 11:09:39 AM

Please define z/e/f in the context of "society".


I don't ahve to, 36 states and territories already had.


Read the first 11 words.


///The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution///

Yup regulatign abortion is not an issue the Constitution give spower to the feds on. Thus it should ahve remained with the states.


And you cry, "ad hominum"...... too funny.


Not adhominem at all. I figured if you were American you would have read the document sicne you felt the need to voice your opinion on the issue.


No, you brought in the issue of state law, "prior" to the 14th amendment.


Murder wa sillegla thena nd it is ilelgla today. same with robbery, rape. forgery etc. Jus tbeucas ea law dates form a time when there was an unjsut law does not amke itself unjust. By using the issues you did you sought to disparage the Legislatures and assemblys who passed the variosu anti-abortion alws of the time with the black brush of intolerance and opression.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 417
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/26/2006 7:17:52 PM

My arguments concerning abortion rights have all been made from the perspective of a woman who knows what pregnancy and childbirth are like from personal experience. I think that qualifies me to be appalled by anyone who would force those experiences on someone who did not want them.


And as a parent and member of society I am equally appalled that anyone would kill a child. You may not agree that it's a child. For the life of me, I cannot see them as anyhting else. The only reason I can even square the cases of incest and abortion wiht my own moral compass is I cannot find away around the trauma to the woman caused by the crimminal act of another.

Children should be born, grow, play, learn and become happy adults. It dosn't always happen that way, my own life as case in point. But I still wish it could, abortion stops that whole process.
 atrkyhntr™
Joined: 12/20/2005
Msg: 418
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 4:08:25 AM
^^^ bla bla blah
All hypothetical and has naught to do about nothing... more rhetoric
What about the poor fetus and the so called sperm donor???????????????????
Until you have walked in the shoes of an aborted fetus or sperm donor both of whom you wish to silence then .... bla bla blah

Have a nice week

I will be busy helping my kids study this week for the Iowa test
 DeagleNINja
Joined: 9/10/2005
Msg: 419
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 5:01:20 AM
Personally, I would like to see more women taking greater responcibility for their actions. This doesn't mean that I believe abortions should be illegal, but I do believe that 3 or more abortions in a lifetime is a bit excessive to say the least.

We all know that no contraceptive is 100% fool proof. However, the chances are so low that a woman finding herself pregnent multiple times is NOT always using or insisting on protection.

In a perfect world women would only get pregnant when contraceptives fail, this is not the case however. Most unwanted pregnancys occur involving women who wanted sexual pleasure and consciencously 'rolled the dice' when it came to their chances of getting pregnant.

Frankly, though I do believe in a woman's right to choose within reason, I find it patently unfair that a man's responcibility depends on that choice. If a woman chooses to face down those fears and deal with the results of her hopefully pleasurable experience, a man is legally obligated to provide thousands of dollars in money as well as countless hours of his time. If a woman decides that she isn't ready to face this responcibility, the man is obviously cleared of his own responcibility yet will likely face emotional trauma of the kind many women never have to deal with.

My point is this, if it seems so reasonable to legally force men to face the consequences of their actions....why not so for women?
 DeagleNINja
Joined: 9/10/2005
Msg: 420
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 7:54:11 AM

babylonia....physically yes but psychologically men may have a deeper commitment than the woman....


A very valid point Certified Male.
Men are largely free of the biological impulses many women experience after childbirth. Not to belittle such important protectiveness, but it is instinctual by nature. On the other hand, the love that a father gives is mainly free of such instinctual impulses. One could argue that the love a father gives is potentially 'purer' for lack of a better word.


Here's the thing. Both are legally forced to face the consequences of their actions in child support. People are incorrect in lumping a man's responsibility in a comparison with the woman's choice to abort or carry to term. Child support is a duty to the child that, once born, both parents are legally bound to. Both men and woman have a choice to, prior to a pregnancy, use contraceptives, and for both sexes, these are never 100%.


Babylonia, you won't get an arguement on this from me. I only point out the unfairness of a man's destiny being tied to the woman's whim, or her ability to face responcibility.


the suggestion that women be forced to gestate against their will holds absolutely zero comparison to a man's responsibility to provide child support. One is monetary, the other completely engulfs her body. The two are not remotely comparable.


Here is where we diverge.
The concept that society may force you or any woman to bear a child against your/her will is unbearable is it not?
Now ask yourself how terrible it would be for you to be forced to abort a child you want to have against your will. Pretty horrific yes? This is the situation many men face when dealing with a woman's right to choose.

I would also agrue that the situation you described is indeed comparable. At the least, a man will be responcible for roughly $50,000 in child support payments, many times much more than this, and not including any expenses he incurs. How much 'labor' does that translate into? Well, it depends on the man's income level and job, but surely you see my point.

Also, child support, at least here in the US is NOT determined by the what a child needs, but rather what the father makes. Nowhere in our legal system is a woman obligated to match the contribution the male makes, let alone actually spend his contribution solely on the child.

So I ask you, how fair is this? A man faces a near certain jail sentence for avoiding his responsibility, however women are required to face theirs. I say this because part of maturing and becoming a responsible adult is facing such dilemmas. This is why I suggest a limit on how many abortions a woman be allowed to receive.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 421
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 9:55:48 AM

Why is only the trauma caused by the criminal act of another valid justification? What about the trauma of being abandoned by the father/sperm donor? Or the trauma of losing one's job and the ability to support the children she already has? Or the trauma of compromised health? Or any of a number of traumas that, without being in her shoes, you can't possibly evaluate?


beucas eshe wa sa willign participant to the act that led to the creation of the child.
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 422
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 9:58:12 AM

That women have a choice that men don't have is a by-product of nature's design. There is no male counterpart,


Babs, not quite true. A woman who uses decpetion or a crime to get pregnant has effecitvely taken cotnrol of the mans re-productive rights away form him.
 DeagleNINja
Joined: 9/10/2005
Msg: 423
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 1:02:23 PM

That is a very uninformed perspective on nature. I only say this because it is in the father's best interest, biologically, to care for and assist in the nurturing of their offspring.


Actually, biologically it is the father's best interest to impregnate a woman then move on to impregnate another woman. Male birds sometimes play the nuture role for their offspring, but this is very rare in mammals. I personally prefer a monogamous relationship, but speaking in purely biological terms, it is best for the males to play the numbers game so to speak.


Nontheless, the horrific aspect of being forced to endure something such as this is the fact that it is forced upon our bodies. Imagine being psychologically and physically tortured as outside forces enforce a pregnancy and childbirth upon one who is steadfastly opposed to her body being used in such a manner.


Babylonia....pregnancy is a very natural part of a woman's life as well as her psychological development. Avoiding one's responsibilities never makes for a stronger, more mature individual.

As for being steadfastly opposed to having children....maybe a woman should consider this before engaging in sex? Again, men are required to deal with the consequences of their actions, why are women not?


Imagine being forced to endure an abortion, the sucking of the contents of one's uterus, inserting apparatuses inside her uterus, to force an abortion. There is a reason we compare this scenario to rape.


Aren't you pro-choice???


I can appreciate the feelings a man has, but it never will be acquiesced with enforcing a process upon the body of a woman.


Babylonia, it is pregnancy that is natural...
not abortion


Well, the courts here use a grid, and as far as I know, it isn't gender specific. So, if the man has custody, so too should the woman be legally bound to child support.


Ah, but it is very gender specific. A mother has to be a crack addict or worse before the courts will allow a father to have equal rights in a custody battle. Excluding men from the decision making process only diminishes the possibilities for any newborn child.


I can say that both parents are legally bound to support that child.


I agree, but the male is more legally bound than the female and this is unjust.


I will say, however, that the court's miscarriage of justice on the part of child support in no way changes my mind in a woman's right to choose. The two are not related.


Again, I agree. A woman's right to choose must be protected, but not indefinitely. At some point (and I personally believe it is after the first non-rape related abortion) it ceases to become a matter of personal freedom and becomes a blind support of those unwilling to face their responsibilities.

This is why I recommend that the current abortion laws be modified to allow one non-rape related abortion. There is no good reason for a woman to need more than one, perhaps two abortions in her lifetime. Under my proposal women would be allowed one abortion for whatever reason she may have. After that she could only legally get an abortion if the father agreed to it. What's so unfair about this?
 raverdad
Joined: 11/10/2004
Msg: 424
view profile
History
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 1:53:12 PM

Actually, biologically it is the father's best interest to impregnate a woman then move on to impregnate another woman. Male birds sometimes play the nuture role for their offspring, but this is very rare in mammals. I personally prefer a monogamous relationship, but speaking in purely biological terms, it is best for the males to play the numbers game so to speak.


I reject this. Human beings are social animals. There is no moving on to another conquest in pre-history. 1) Limited aviablility of mates. Population density wa snot as it is today. There were no meat markets. 2) We have an established social hirearchy going back to the very emergance of our ancestors as thinking indivuals. A man who runs around creating babies and leaivng them for the rest of the tribe to care for will find himself rapidly cast out. If he does manage to stay in the clan which one of those kids he neglected growing up is going to care for him when he gets older and needs help to keep fed? Who is he goign to pass his skills onto? 3) If the man will not teach social bonding to his children then who will? The father is the first person besides the mother tha the will love and elarn about. He is the 1st stranger to teach him/her about social bonds other than mother-child bond

A man need schildren to complete the cycle of life. Chidlren he is close too and can teach and nurture. The very idea that men ever had a drive to plan this see dand leave after our ancensotrs became primates is absurd.

Biological safety rests in having a big brood under one roof so you can keep your eye on them and make sure at least a couple reach adult hood. This need to provide and protect for such a long period problaby helped drive our evolution form mere beasts to men.

Our children ar eborn helpless and remain helpless for years. The onyl way to thrive is to inves the time and effort to make sure they make it through the formatives years in safety.
 DeagleNINja
Joined: 9/10/2005
Msg: 425
Abortions soon to become illegal again
Posted: 3/27/2006 2:23:26 PM

So? I mean not to disrespect this, but so what if it is a natural part of a woman's life? So is cancer. And what you may consider to be avoiding one's responsibilities another may view it as being responsible. I know plenty of mature and responsible women who have chosen to abort when considering their choices, and they made the most mature and responsible choice for them.


Babylonia, first of all please don't take any of my comments as a personal slight towards you or any choices you've made. You are a very bright and insightful person who's opinions I value.

That said, I believe you misunderstood my point about pregnancy. I was trying to express that abortion is unnatural, not that becoming pregnant is natural.


Again, an abortion is not irresponsible. It is an option.


I respectfully disagree.
In my opinion, abortion should only be an option for those who's lives are in danger or were forced to conceive from an act of rape. Using it as a form of birth control only allows women to avoid a situation that will most likely have a positive influence on their lives as well as maturity level.


And I was steadfastly against having children up until a few years ago for a number of reasons which were my own, not up for discussion, and only in relation to the time of my life I was in and that *I* felt I was not ready to be a mother.


Babylonia, when is anyone ready to be a mother, or a father for that matter? I'm not trying to start a 'battle of the sexes' here by any means, but this ties into my earlier point. Men are forced to face their responsibilities, whereas women have the option of avoiding theirs.

No offence, but the "I'm not ready to be a mother" excuse is the lamest of them all. Yes pregnancy is difficult, and yes it must be terrifying, but these are the challenges that make us grow up and mature as individuals. Allowing women an endless 'option' as you put it, only enables many to continue to make the same mistakes rather than learn from them.


If the father has custody the children are entitled to child support from the mother. the GRID is not gender specific. If you are insisting that it is, please provide me with links which indicate different payment scales for fathers and mothers who are non-custodial parents.


IF being the key word here. As I said before, a mother has to be a severe risk to the child's life or stability before a man will get equal to full custody. If the legal system effectively is telling men that they aren't that important to a child's development....what are men supposed to think?


I have my own opinions as well, but I'm not about to apply my own arbitrary moral limits on another. I apply them to myself.


In a perfect world abortions would only affect the woman...


I am not in favour of babies being born into this world as a penance for an earlier abortion


And I am not in favor of potential lives being discarded because a woman is afraid.


there are plenty of 'good' reasons for women to abort more than once


Besides the mother's life being in danger, or the possiblity that a woman is incredibly unlucky and finds herself the victim of rape and pregnant multiple times....what might these 'good' reasons be?
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > Abortions soon to become illegal again [Locked - Topic Hijacked]