so then you agree an expected father by law should be able to decide during the time a woman can get an abortion during the pregnancy can make a decision to not be a father and excuse him self of all the responsibilities of being a father there for the mother and or the state cant hold him responsible for any type of support if she decides to continue with the pregnancy and has the child
I agree, and there are some really bad people you don't want tied to your life by a child support string, best to cut that string and let them go why should both parents be able to decide to be dead beats, but if only one wants to be a dead beat they are not allowed... is an interesting question forcing someone to have a baby that wants a abortion is more likely to produce an unwanted child... sad but true . .
It is not possible to force a man to be a father or to act like a father at all. All you can do is get him to provide financial support. It is not possible to force a woman to be a mother at all, the period of time abortion was illegal in this country should prove that absolutely. Now it is a fairly recent development in human history for government to weigh in on fathers providing financial support. Just a few years ago a man could simply say the kid wasn't his and generally the courts let him walk. With DNA proof available that will no longer happen. That gave all the power to the man in a relationship, he could choose whether to pay or not. Now the shoe is on the other foot and women do have power. But it is not power over men that they are seeking, it is simply the power to control their own lives. There are some logistical problems with allowing men to opt out of fatherhood. First, he must be informed of the potential child in time for him to make a decision and in turn inform the potential mother of that decision in time for her to make her own decision and to make arrangements for an abortion if that is the best choice. That is a very narrow time window. I imagine these legal decisions will have to be documented in a legal manner. It certainly would be possible for a vindictive man to delay his decision until a woman was forced to give birth. All this complaining about fairness is just a bunch of hooey. Most of you putting forth this proposal don't really approve of abortion at all, but you must realize that such an arrangement would cause the number of abortions to skyrocket. To avoid a skyrocketing abortion rate, government could tax all citizens to pay for the next generation. ALL men and women could pay into the fund, and ALL children born could receive money. Do you men think that would be cheaper? Would you prefer paying your whole lives to support ALL children?
I'm sorry if my ability to take positions that aren't really mine, in order to prove a point, confuses you. I'm not promoting it; I'm pointing out the argument to those who may not be used to it (pro-choicers). It's the same argument many use to say women shouldn't be held to account for the act of sex. It's the same argument that says it's morally wrong to force a person to be a mother who doesn't want to.
I believe convincing millions to abort for reasons other than life, health, rape, or incest produces a society in which more unwanted children are born.
Abortion IS a perfectly responsible choice, and I can think of no circumstances where it might not be. I do want you to understand what is meant by comprehensive sex education, it is not what is taught in schools now. 1. Teaches that sexuality is a natural, normal, healthy part of life 2. Teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse is the most effective method of preventing unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV 3. Provides values-based education and offers students the opportunity to explore and define their individual values as well as the values of their families and communities 4. Includes a wide variety of sexuality related topics, such as human development, relationships, interpersonal skills, sexual expression, sexual health, and society and culture 5. Includes accurate, factual information on abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation 6. Provides positive messages about sexuality and sexual expression, including the benefits of abstinence 7. Teaches that proper use of latex condoms, along with water-based lubricants, can greatly reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of unintended pregnancy and of infection with sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) including HIV 8. Teaches that consistent use of modern methods of contraception can greatly reduce a couple's risk for unintended pregnancy 9. Includes accurate medical information about STDs, including HIV; teaches that individuals can avoid STDs 10. Teaches that religious values can play an important role in an individual's decisions about sexual expression; offers students the opportunity to explore their own and their family's religious values 11. Teaches that a woman faced with an unintended pregnancy has options: carrying the pregnancy to term and raising the baby, or carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption, or ending the pregnancy with an abortion now compare that with the typical abstinence sex education. 1. Teaches that sexual expression outside of marriage will have harmful social, psychological, and physical consequences 2. Teaches that abstinence from sexual intercourse before marriage is the only acceptable behavior 3. Teaches only one set of values as morally correct for all students 4. Limits topics to abstinence-only-until-marriage and to the negative consequences of pre-marital sexual activity 5. Usually omits controversial topics such as abortion, masturbation, and sexual orientation 6. Often uses fear tactics to promote abstinence and to limit sexual expression 7. Discusses condoms only in terms of failure rates; often exaggerates condom failure rates 8. Provides no information on forms of contraception other than failure rates of condoms 9. Often includes inaccurate medical information and exaggerated statistics regarding STDs, including HIV; suggests that STDs are an inevitable result of premarital sexual behavior 10. Often promotes specific religious values 11. Teaches that carrying the pregnancy to term and placing the baby for adoption is the only morally correct option for pregnant teens. Now which of the above do you think has the greater effect? Fully agree a student should be able to confide in a teacher without the teacher notifying the parents.
I may be wrong, but my general opinion on family law, beginning with the ancient laws like Hammurrabi's Code, and many other law codes that I've read, is that they do focus on making sure fathers financially support their children. Going back to the beginning.
What's wrong with teaching that carrying the pregnancy to term and giving the baby up for adoption is the only right choice to make? It's irresponsible and stupid to encourage teenagers to raise babies, and teaching kids that aborting a baby is morally okay, is sick, twisted, and evil. Bodily autonomy does not equal right. For example, cigarettes are legal because of bodily autonomy, but health classes still teach kids that smoking is wrong.
Thanks Sam, it appears you understand my approach exactly. Judging from the adjectives used to describe me here, it's apparent many don't understand my angle. We don't have to embrace/encourage/like/promote abortion for irresponsible reasons. Weirdly, my drug position (except for what I consider imminently deadly drugs) is the same logic, but in reverse. Drugs like marijuana (abortion) shouldn't be illegal because it's not feasible to enforce. But if marijuana (abortion) is legalized, teachers, parents, everyone should still teach that it is wrong.
Read all the comments here relating to responsibility and every one of them fails to see the elephant in the room .. I wonder if anyone else has seen it?
I find flaws in both your lists. And sadly, I've personally witnessed abortions for irresponsible reasons, back to back to back sometimes. Getting abortions just to continue a sexual lifestyle is an irresponsible health choice, both mentally and physically. And that's leaving the unborn and the father out of the equation.
Because it isn't the ONLY choice, plain and simple, or did you miss number 11 on the comprehensive sex education list. I see your preferred choice is included in there as well. and as usual you are wrong body autonomy is a right. McFall vs Shimp provides evidence to that fact, as do other court rulings such as Griswold v. Connecticut where the Court supported women’s rights to obtain birth control (and thus, retain reproductive autonomy) without marital consent. All of these set precedences that make body autonomy a right.
Laws don't mean compliance. You can pass all the laws in the world requiring men to support their children, but if he can simply deny that it is his child (and you have no means of PROVING otherwise), he's off the hook. Only a few years ago, men would simply disappear if they didn't want to pay. It may be more difficult to disappear nowadays, I'm not up on all the technology, but anyway, being able to actually get money from the father is a fairly new development. DNA evidence and tracking systems have made it possible for government to enforce the laws.
1-Yes, but saying no to drugs also isn't the only choice; but it's the right choice, that's why health classes teach it. 2-Reread what I said. I didn't say that bodily autonomy wasn't a right, I said that bodily autonomy doesn't mean that something is the right choice to make.
I never did say they were perfect, the question was which do you think would have the greater effect? So you base you opinion on a very small minority .. may I do the same concerning pro-lifers?
It is the right choice for YOU, that does not mean it is not the right choice for someone else . .you have to learn that the choices you make that seem right to you does not mean that every other choice is wrong. apologize I did read your comment incorrectly. Refer to my answer to number 1 concerning choices.
Why should schools teach kids that abortion is an okay choice to make? Even if abortion should be legal, that doesn't mean that schools should teach kids that it may be the right decision. Legal does not equal the right thing to do. For example, there's freedom of speech; but do schools promote profanity?
Schools are there to provide teaching for students, not to proclaim their personal opinions. to not provide all the relevant information is a failure in their duty as teachers, and again your are placing what you consider the 'right' thing to do above and beyond other peoples choices. When has a school ever 'promoted' abortion? to promote something is to support or actively encourage (a cause, venture, etc.) or to further the progress of They are not 'promoting' abortion in any way, shape or form, they are merely giving the full range of options . do you have a problem with schools telling the truth? .. silly question really because it is obvious you do have a problem with schools telling the truth. Now to your inane analogy of freedom of speech and the curtailing of profanity .. profanity can lead to physical retaliation, telling a student that one of their options is abortion will never lead to physical retaliation.
Retarded political correctness. If schools taught kids that adoption is the only right choice, that would prevent a lot of kids from having abortions.
so you don't think schools are there to teach in that case I'll become a teacher and teach that all religions are wrong and should be banned, after all my personal opinion is far more important than the truth. Well the reality is some what different, let us look at the top five abortion rates by state and there sex education laws. 1. New York 30/1000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education but they must provide information on abstinence and other ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs 2. Florida 24/1000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but if a district chooses to offer such courses they must include information about abstinence until marriage. Schools are required by law to provide STD and HIV/AIDS education and it must include information on methods of prevention, including abstinence until marriage. 3. Connecticut 20/1000 - Schools are not required by law to provide sex education, but they must present information on STDs and HIV/AIDS. 4. Rhode Island 20/1000 - Schools are required by law to provide sex education, including information about abstinence and ways to prevent HIV/AIDS and other STDs. 5. Nevada 18/1000 - Schools are required by law to provide STD, HIV/AIDS and sex education. Sources http://www.teen-aid.org/State_Resourses/State_Sex_Education_Laws.htm http://kff.org/womens-health-policy/state-indicator/abortion-rate/ The top three states with the highest abortion rate are also states that have no legal requirement to teach sex education .. really blows your ideology out of the water. Facts really are a (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) to pro-lifers.
Just the point though isn't it, schools don't tell kids it is the right choice to make, they tell them it is one of the options they have, they don't judge them or try to force them, they simply provide the correct relevant information .. unlike abstinence only education where they only tell them the choices they think are right. This whole right or wrong thing is purely subjective, what you think is right may not be true for some one else. now that you have the actual figures, do you still think that telling kids that adoption is the right choice to make works?
