Who's right to choose, a womans right to choose.

[Sassylassie]

Bear can we end this conversation on a positive note and declare a stale mate? No harm no foul? We are polar opposites on this subject, but I still think you are a great poster. Bear I'm always sarcastic, that's why my moniker is Sassylassie. :wave: :angel8:

 

[CDNBear]

Bear, you still don't get it. Pressuring people to give up their children or commit abortions is illegal. Why they heck would we have a new law that is unconstitutional? You comparison means nothing. Forget anyone has any choices because it is all entirely irrelevant. The baby is either born or it isn't, and if it is the courts don't give a rat's a$$ that she could've done either. And they never will.

Once again, can you please point out where I said force or pressure anywhere in my post or the thread for that matter?

In fact I believe I have stated the opposite several times, ie: They can not be forced to, he can not force her to, etc.

You have monumentaly missed the point, arguement premise etc, again.

Before I try again, answer my question.

 

[Zzarchov]

I still think either parent should be able to put their half of the child up for adoption. If a father feels he cannot support a child (or a mother) he can give up his paternal (or maternal) rights and responsibilities to someone who wishes to adopt a child.

Can anyone see any reason against that? It means the father now also has the right to opt out of the pregnancy, the mother is still allowed to care and raise her child, the baby gets the support it needs and otherwise would not, and someone who wants a child has a child.

 

[CDNBear]

I still think either parent should be able to put their half of the child up for adoption. If a father feels he cannot support a child (or a mother) he can give up his paternal (or maternal) rights and responsibilities to someone who wishes to adopt a child.

Can anyone see any reason against that? It means the father now also has the right to opt out of the pregnancy, the mother is still allowed to care and raise her child, the baby gets the support it needs and otherwise would not, and someone who wants a child has a child.

I'm getting visions of King Solomon.

 

[Zzarchov]

Ha ha, seriously though, whats the downside of this ?

If the reason women are against men opting out is "because of the children" and not because "This allows me to control a man"

Then isn't it even better if a man, knowing he cant' support a child, puts his rights up for adoption. The woman may not like having to share parental rights with a stranger..but the rights of the child to support come first or this discussion wouldn't be happening, after all. She did after all have sex knowing this could happen (the arguement used currently for why men can't opt out).

So this would seem an Ideal solution to everyone?

 

[tracy]

If they want to they have two choices, men have none.

.

They certainly have two choices, but neither of them are choices I would describe as letting them off the hook. They pay for those choices dearly.

Bear, I am very pro-adoption. It was an excellent thing in my life. I just wouldn't describe it as an easy option for anyone. My birth mother did suffer from it for a long time. She didn't regret her decision, but it was still painful.

 

[Nikki]

It's possible to understand the differences and just not agree with you:wave:

I just don't see why the law should protect someone from taking care of their child when they knowingly acted in a way that could result in the birth of a child. The law isn't there to save people from taking responsibility for their actions, it's the opposite.

True but I think there needs to be a law in place for males (and females for that matter). I mean think about it. You get into a situation where one parent wants to give it up for adoption (or whatever) for the sake of the kid but the one parents doesnt want to. Well parent B knows that they can't afford it. I do think that they should be able to sign away all right along with all financial responsibility. It isn't fair for one parent to make a hudge decision like that that effects everyone life involved.

 

[Nikki]

LOL Kreskin that was sooooooooo funny.

Tracy, I agree with you I can't imagine a law could be enacted to protect the irresponsible. Then again I could be wrong.

You guys keep saying that it is to protect the irresponsible this just isn't true.

 

[Nikki]

The father "to be" can't decide, (after the fact), that they should put the baby up for adoption, that is so
easy, as he can say that, then just walk away, and that leaves her with the 9 mths. to carry baby, the
delivery of the baby, the very stressful moment of having to "give" it away, and then she has to start
her life up again, in the mean time he has forgotton all about situation and gone on his merry way.
Does anyone have any idea how gut renching that experience would be for her.

This isn't neccessarily ture. I know a girl who's ONE NIGHT STAND stuck around the entire time and they went through it together and ultimately she decided he was right in saying giving it away is the best thing to do. Noone is saying that the women should be abandoned by they guy.

 

[Nikki]

Bear, you still don't get it. Pressuring people to give up their children or commit abortions is illegal. Why they heck would we have a new law that is unconstitutional? You comparison means nothing. Forget anyone has any choices because it is all entirely irrelevant. The baby is either born or it isn't, and if it is the courts don't give a rat's a$$ that she could've done either. And they never will.

What he is saying is that if he is not ready to be a parent and he wants to give it up some way but she wants to keep it ultimately her decison will preveil. well that man who is not ready should be able to (in a court of law) sign away his rights.

Why do you think the guy should be screwed in all this?

I think it should be able to go the other way as well. The women wants to give it up but the man doesn.t She should be able to sign away her rights to him and let him be the father he wants to be.

 

[Nikki]

They certainly have two choices, but neither of them are choices I would describe as letting them off the hook. They pay for those choices dearly.

Bear, I am very pro-adoption. It was an excellent thing in my life. I just wouldn't describe it as an easy option for anyone. My birth mother did suffer from it for a long time. She didn't regret her decision, but it was still painful.

Noone is saying that it is easy to give your child away. But we are talking about what is best for a child. Sometimes doing what is best for you and your loved ones is hard.

 

[Kreskin]

Once again, can you please point out where I said force or pressure anywhere in my post or the thread for that matter?

In fact I believe I have stated the opposite several times, ie: They can not be forced to, he can not force her to, etc.

You have monumentaly missed the point, arguement premise etc, again.

Before I try again, answer my question.

Threatening to not support your own child isn't pressure? Having laws that say she can either abort or adopt out if she doesn't like a deadbeat dad isn't pressure? That is what you appear to be proposing. Let me know if it isn't.

I understand you have your little 2 vs 0 scoreboard going. You have a right not to be pregnant too. Who cares? It isn't that every woman who gets pregnant has to suddenly make a choice. They aren't filling out applications. There's no approval process. Her doing nothing (not getting an abortion) isn't an activity, nor does the law expect her to sit down and consider it. Life is not expected to be terminated or even considered to be terminated. She has the right to fall down stairs and miscarry. So what? She's not making an election. She's just pregnant and doing what naturally happens when you carry a fetus for nine months. Therefore deadbeat dad's argument is moot.

 

[Kreskin]

Noone is saying that it is easy to give your child away. But we are talking about what is best for a child. Sometimes doing what is best for you and your loved ones is hard.

Did you notice that both of her biological parents were working together? The good news stories are often those where people come together to deal with issues, not run and hide behind bogus arguments.

 

[Kreskin]

I have to correct myself on the stair falling intentionally as it may be a crime. Here is abortion under the Canadian Criminal Code:

Abortion​

Procuring miscarriage​

287. (1) Every one who, with intent to procure the miscarriage of a female person, whether or not she is pregnant, uses any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.

Woman procuring her own miscarriage​

(2) Every female person who, being pregnant, with intent to procure her own miscarriage, uses any means or permits any means to be used for the purpose of carrying out her intention is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

Definition of “means”​

(3) In this section, “means” includes
(a) the administration of a drug or other noxious thing;
(b) the use of an instrument; and
(c) manipulation of any kind.

Exceptions​

(4) Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply to
(a) a qualified medical practitioner, other than a member of a therapeutic abortion committee for any hospital, who in good faith uses in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out his intention to procure the miscarriage of a female person, or
(b) a female person who, being pregnant, permits a qualified medical practitioner to use in an accredited or approved hospital any means for the purpose of carrying out her intention to procure her own miscarriage,
if, before the use of those means, the therapeutic abortion committee for that accredited or approved hospital, by a majority of the members of the committee and at a meeting of the committee at which the case of the female person has been reviewed,
(c) has by certificate in writing stated that in its opinion the continuation of the pregnancy of the female person would or would be likely to endanger her life or health, and
(d) has caused a copy of that certificate to be given to the qualified medical practitioner.

 

[Kreskin]

A right to an abortion is a negative right. We also have a right to life, a negative right. We don't need to exercise anything. Being dead doesn't mean we failed to exercise the right to life. A life insurance company cannot deny your death benefit simply because you didn't continue to exercise your right to life or that you failed to demonstrate an appropriate level of self defense. It may do so if you commit suicide but that is not simply failing to exercise a right to life. That is a separate action. The right is absolute without condition. No specific action is required in a negative right. It just is.

As you can see by the Canadian Criminal Code it is also an indictible offence to manipulate one to procur an abortion. Our society takes great steps to ensure that any decision to abort is done without duress or manipulation. No legislative body in its right mind would deny child support because a woman failed to exercise a negative right. A woman need not do anything. A child shouldn't be denied its rights, or father benefit financially, just because the mother had a basic fundamental right. The right is unconditional.

 

[talloola]

Thanx for the sarcasm Sass. Not needed though.

As I and others have stated morethen once, without side stepping...

If the woman has the option to "opt out". So should the male.


If the woman opts out, it "indirectly"allows the man to opt out as well, BUT

if the man opts out, only "he" is free of the problem. It is her body, and

the pregnancy affects her much more than the man, if she decides to have an abortion,

so be it, it is her decision, and if she is making a mistake, she will know that for many years.

When the child is born, it is then the problem of the both of them equally, to support the health

and welfare and financial upbringing of the child.

While she is pregnant "no one" should be able to decide what she should do with her own body,

and if she decides to have an abortion, it should be very "early".

 

[CDNBear]

Ha ha, seriously though, whats the downside of this ?

If the reason women are against men opting out is "because of the children" and not because "This allows me to control a man"

Then isn't it even better if a man, knowing he cant' support a child, puts his rights up for adoption. The woman may not like having to share parental rights with a stranger..but the rights of the child to support come first or this discussion wouldn't be happening, after all. She did after all have sex knowing this could happen (the arguement used currently for why men can't opt out).

So this would seem an Ideal solution to everyone?

This is an excellent idea. Perhaps the pro lifers would like to do something other then spit on young women as they enter abortion clinics or promote welfarism by only adopting a needy single mother and her wafes at Xmass.

They certainly have two choices, but neither of them are choices I would describe as letting them off the hook. They pay for those choices dearly.

Bear, I am very pro-adoption. It was an excellent thing in my life. I just wouldn't describe it as an easy option for anyone. My birth mother did suffer from it for a long time. She didn't regret her decision, but it was still painful.

No choices in life come without some for of consiquence. Some are even harder to live with then to make. But the choices are simply out of balance in the issue of pregnancy. To some degree, rightly so. The woman must bear the brunt of the intrusion into her life. But does that really require a mans support? Are woamn not capable of attaining the necessaties of life for their children, without a man?

Threatening to not support your own child isn't pressure? Having laws that say she can either abort or adopt out if she doesn't like a deadbeat dad isn't pressure? That is what you appear to be proposing. Let me know if it isn't.

I understand you have your little 2 vs 0 scoreboard going. You have a right not to be pregnant too. Who cares? It isn't that every woman who gets pregnant has to suddenly make a choice. They aren't filling out applications. There's no approval process. Her doing nothing (not getting an abortion) isn't an activity, nor does the law expect her to sit down and consider it. Life is not expected to be terminated or even considered to be terminated. She has the right to fall down stairs and miscarry. So what? She's not making an election. She's just pregnant and doing what naturally happens when you carry a fetus for nine months. Therefore deadbeat dad's argument is moot.

That is mere opinion. Nothing more.

Why is it you feel women need the support of a man?

My wife thinks you're all nuts. Even though she appreciated my reversal of attitude, she feels she would have done quite well on her own without the help of the welfare state, or a man.

Is my wife alone in this thought, or is she wrong and you right?

Did you notice that both of her biological parents were working together? The good news stories are often those where people come together to deal with issues, not run and hide behind bogus arguments.

Ah yes a uetopian situation. Wouldn't it be nice if all women and men could work so hard together to correct an error? Instead of point fingures and use the courts to force men into a life of slavery because a woman has the right to?

A right to an abortion is a negative right. We also have a right to life, a negative right. We don't need to exercise anything. Being dead doesn't mean we failed to exercise the right to life. A life insurance company cannot deny your death benefit simply because you didn't continue to exercise your right to life or that you failed to demonstrate an appropriate level of self defense. It may do so if you commit suicide but that is not simply failing to exercise a right to life. That is a separate action. The right is absolute without condition. No specific action is required in a negative right. It just is.

As you can see by the Canadian Criminal Code it is also an indictible offence to manipulate one to procur an abortion. Our society takes great steps to ensure that any decision to abort is done without duress or manipulation. No legislative body in its right mind would deny child support because a woman failed to exercise a negative right. A woman need not do anything. A child shouldn't be denied its rights, or father benefit financially, just because the mother had a basic fundamental right. The right is unconditional.

Once again, where ahve we said force. Oh yes, because we have asked the question where is the balance of justice, we are advocating coerision into a mid evil operation.

No we are not, we are saying it is her body. She can choose what to do with it. Just leave the man out of it if she is ready and he is not.

None of you has even considered the fact that even if the man is ready and she is not and she opts to terminate, what are his rights. It is a case of having ones cake and eating to. Completely unjust. No matter what your emotions dictate.

Thanx for the sarcasm Sass. Not needed though.

As I and others have stated morethen once, without side stepping...

If the woman has the option to "opt out". So should the male.


If the woman opts out, it "indirectly"allows the man to opt out as well, BUT

if the man opts out, only "he" is free of the problem. It is her body, and

the pregnancy affects her much more than the man, if she decides to have an abortion,

so be it, it is her decision, and if she is making a mistake, she will know that for many years.

When the child is born, it is then the problem of the both of them equally, to support the health

and welfare and financial upbringing of the child.

While she is pregnant "no one" should be able to decide what she should do with her own body,

and if she decides to have an abortion, it should be very "early".

Let me ask you a question, how many woman opt out, while the man wants the child, but has no right to prevent the option?

 

[Kreskin]

No Bear, the Canadian Criminal Code is not simply an opinion. The right itself is not an activity or a choice, no more or less than having a right to a free trial. No one claim you must lose your fundamental legal rights simply because you haven't exercised your right to a free trial.

 

[CDNBear]

No Bear, the Canadian Criminal Code is not simply an opinion. The right itself is not an activity or a choice, no more or less than having a right to a free trial. No one claim you must lose your fundamental legal rights simply because you haven't exercised your right to a free trial.

wtf???

 

[Kreskin]

wtf???

A negative right is unconditional. You don't lose your legal rights simply because you have not yet been to a free trial. The right to a free trial is an unconditional right.