Author Topic: Bush appoints anti-birth control fundamentalist to run family planning program  (Read 26113 times)

Offline Sheriff Roland

  • BetterMost Supporter
  • Moderator
  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 8,492
The name is Mark

First let me apologise about the spelling error (I'm french & sometimes the spelling comes out wrong). Believe me, it was nothing more than a typo.

The child had a chance at life. And the 9 months with be a hell of a lot easer versis a whole lifetime of regreat, loss, suffering by the woman. Most private adoption will support the mother during this time. Tthere are other choices. Most women live to regret ever having abortion, something that years of therapy can't ever cure.

I believe I've adressed this before:
One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.
Now let's respect that we have differing opinions.

Society shouldn't have to fund the misjudgement of others, I think the father should always pay. We seem to live in a society where we are not accountable for our actions.

again both of us have expressed our views on this one before:
Aparently no one has heard of adoption. And why should it ever be tax payer funded!
and
Mark, you're doing it again. you're repeating yourself:

As for taxpayers paying for it, it's part a being in a society that takes care of it's own (citizen's health matters to all - ergo the public purse should pay)


So allow me to suggest that going around in circles is great for increasing out post counts, but little else. Our views are out there and need not be repeated endlessly.
2015 - Toronto: Pan Am Games
2015 - Edmonton, Montréal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg: Woman's World Cup of Soccer

Offline nakymaton

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,045
  • aka Mel
If you haven't been pregnant, you can't really know what those nine months are like. Your body is simultaneously your body and not your body. Your mind is simultaneously your old mind, and some strange, bizarre thing that is transformed by hormones: emotional, irrational, capable of new things and incapable of old ones. The fetus is simultaneously part of you and something of its own, and changes throughout those nine months, from something indistinguishable from the experience of bad PMS during the first month (and how many menstrual periods may involve the natural self-aborting of a fertilized egg, or the failed implantation of an egg?), to something that wriggles and kicks and responds to music and movement. It is a terrible and wonderful experience. Nobody should be forced to experience it. Nobody should be forced not to experience it. And the physical and mental experience does not end with the separation of the fetus/child from the woman, whether the pregnancy ends with birth or with abortion or with miscarriage; whether a child is adopted or raised by its birth mother.

There are no easy answers. Life does not have a simple beginning. An egg is a living cell. A sperm is a living cell. A fertilized egg will not live unless it is implanted. Without intervention, some fertilized eggs will go on to become fetuses and then babies; many will never be successfully implanted, or will be miscarried, or will be stillborn. With medical intervention, some fertilized eggs that would otherwise not have survived will go on to become adult human beings. Intervention may prevent some eggs from being fertilized, or it may prevent some fertilized eggs from being implanted, or may prevent some fetuses from being born. And human intervention may prevent some children from living to adulthood, or may keep some children alive. Humans keep some young men and women alive when they would otherwise have died, and kill others who would otherwise have lived. Humans can keep a brain-dead woman alive on a machine, and can use machines to kill convicted criminals.

"Thou shalt not kill" is a far more complicated commandment than it may seem at the surface.
Watch out. That poster has a low startle point.

Offline Arad-3

  • BetterMost Supporter!
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 1,650
  • " Save a horse ... ride a cowboy "
 Abortion will always be an issue that there will never be a right or wrong answer to. There are just to many pro's and con's to this subject.

Yes men women and men use abortion repeatedly as a quick remedy to careless sex. This is wrong.  But there are alot of reasons that a abortion is justified.( my opinion)  Like a violent rape. birth defects, mental and phisical health of the mothers and fathers. Poverty. and Age .etc. Is is wrong or is it right? i don't know. but unfortunately, sometimes it is necessary.

« Last Edit: November 18, 2006, 01:16:09 pm by Arad-3 »
" Save a horse... ride a cowboy "

injest

  • Guest
The foundations of Christianity are in Judeaism, the first successful paternalistic religion. In those days, a man could take a female and impregnate her and there wasn't a damn thing she could do about it, under the law. Women developed the ability to abort unwanted pregnancies, which enraged men, and so the oppressive system of laws and morality was a counter-invention of men.

Actually the situation hasn't changed much even today, especially for poor women. They have little access to birth control and men use them for cheap entertainment and to assert their territorial claims.  Access to abortion is for many women the only way out of a life-long sentence to poverty and submission to men. 

actually abortion has been found in even earlier civilizations...but you are right that men reacted to it by using the draconian means we see in the Middle East and Africa...(ok...everywhere...LOL)

Offline jpwagoneer1964

  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • ******
  • Posts: 1,720
  • Me and my 1951 DeSoto Suburban
Oh? and what about rape and incest? babies with major deformities?

Society funds the misjudgement of a lot of people. you are contradicting yourself here...if the woman is permanently traumatized seems she is being 'held accountable for her actions'

and what about the man? Studies here in Texas show that with teenage mothers the FATHERs AVERAGE age is over seven years older than the girl. Where would we imprison these men? Because I would assume that if you advocating forcing girls to carry babies to term that you will want the men similarly 'inconvenienced'

Never having carried a child yourself; you can have NO idea of the pain and suffering you go thru. I WANTED my children..and spent a total of six months flat on my back too sick to move...I very nearly died. A young girl forced to carry a child will have  permanent physical problems.




Sadly I don't think changing the legal status is the answer. I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

I do think our citizens should he held accoutable for there actions. I never suggested that we imprission the father only have the pay the costs, not the taxpayers. This could be done just like deadbeat dad were it is collected thru Social Security. if the dad is a minor should be split between parents.

In California a minor teenage girl is requred parent permission to get her ears pierced but not to have an abortion!

Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.
Thank you Heath and Jake for showing us Ennis and Jack,  teaching us how much they loved one another.

Offline LauraGigs

  • BetterMost Moderator
  • BetterMost 1000+ Posts Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 2,447
    • My Design Portfolio
I respect your point of view and don't want to argue things into the ground. But you make it all sound so easy.

Hold the father accountable? How, exactly, when so many just abandon the mother? How would this be enforced? What infrastructure would state governments have to set up to enforce this, and how much would that cost (hello) taxpayers? (Or do we just magically privatize it all, and have adoption agencies chasing down deadbeat dads — adding to the cost of adoption, which is already prohibitive?)

Quote
Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.

Again, so easy and simple. Healthy white infants are a hot "commodity", but what of the babies who don't fall into this category? What happens to them?

Offline delalluvia

  • BetterMost 5000+ Posts Club
  • *******
  • Posts: 8,289
  • "Truth is an iron bride"
Sadly I don't think changing the legal status is the answer. I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

I do think our citizens should he held accoutable for there actions. I never suggested that we imprission the father only have the pay the costs, not the taxpayers. This could be done just like deadbeat dad were it is collected thru Social Security. if the dad is a minor should be split between parents.

In California a minor teenage girl is requred parent permission to get her ears pierced but not to have an abortion!

Giveng up a baby to a family for adoption is an honorable thing.

Laura is right, you make it sound so quick and easy when it is nothing of the sort.  Apparently you're not aware that enforcing deadbeat dads to cough up money also takes funding a whole bureacracy to do so - i.e. taxpayer money.  And you underestimate the viability of such assistance.  One friend had to call every month for enforcement because if she did not, her ex- would not pay.  Another friend never got any money because every time her ex- got a job, reported his new job to the Attorney General for deductions to begin, he found out exactly how long the paperwork would take to go through, then he just quit his job and went to another and the whole process started again.  That was of course, when he wasn't living on his new girlfriends.  Not every father out there has an upscale profession that he can't leave.

In many situations, the father is an adult, over 18, but does not have a job.  He's 19 or so, still living with his parents.  Who are you going to suggest be billed then?

Society does constantly fund misjudgments.  From welfare to social security.  This is nothing new.

Adoption is an option.  it is always an option, but it shouldn't be the only option.

And let's not pass judgments on what is honorable and what is not.  You start to describe something as honorable, you put society right back into Middle Age attitudes.

Adoption is honorable.

Having sex ONLY in the bonds of matrimony is honorable.

All women (not men, mind you) who have sex outside of marriage are not honorable and as such are whores and should be stoned to death.

All that was and in some places still is 'honorable' too.   

Who wants that?

injest

  • Guest
In my state Texas, records show the fathers of the babies of teenage mothers are on AVERAGE seven (7) years older. That is the average!

and as far as collecting child support? the state attorney generals office tells the mothers that if the fathers pay even a little every month no charges will be filed on them. I have a friend that worked at Kmart? She said every month they would get women coming to pick up their child support from Western Union? they were all between 25 and 50 dollars. Because the men know that as long as they have a receipt saying they paid SOMETHING no one in the government was going to say a word.

Women on welfare getting $25 a month child support have no access to help. The program giving them legal assistance has been gutted. and the people figuring their food stamps or housing assistance count the FULL amount of the support to figure their allotments; no matter how much they are actually getting from the father.

There are no simple or economical solutions.

Offline Penthesilea

  • Town Administration
  • The BetterMost 10,000 Post Club
  • *****
  • Posts: 14,745
Just a quick statistics about fathers (not) paying child support. This statistics is from Germany, I'd be interested if any of you have one for the US.
Please have in mind that Germany has relatively strict laws concerning child support. Theoretically there's no way around it, but reality shows different:

1/3 pays no child support at all
1/3 pays too less and/or irregulary
1/3 pays regulary child support amounting to what the court decision says

Even fathers of born children lack of willingness to pay for their children. Many of them have lived together with their children for years. One should think it's self-evident to take financially care for their offspring - but it isn't.

Do you think fathers-to-be would be any more willing/responsible to contribute their share?


Quote
From Mark:
I certainly do not disagree that in cases of rape,  incest and  the heath or imaturity of the mother preventing carrying full term.

So there are cases in which you think abortion is/should be/might be justified. But who has the right to decide in what cases an abortion is justified and in which not?
Roland has put it to the point:

Quote
One hopes that the choice for or against abortion is a well informed one, but it MUST remain a woman's choice - not a religion based politically imposed decision.

The key to avoid abortions are not threats and punishments, but is sex education, access to contraceptive and providing advice and financial help for women who have an unwanted pregnancy.
« Last Edit: November 19, 2006, 03:33:49 pm by Penthesilea »

injest

  • Guest
and please note...although we have been discussing abortion...this guy is anti-BIRTH CONTROL...that means he objects to the pill, condom and natural methods....not just abortion!

he is not an anti abortionist...he is abstinence only!

and to me that is very close to the hard core religious people who feel it is wrong to attempt to stop getting pregnant at all. There are groups who feel it is the DUTY of married people to reproduce and take the stand that married couples should engage in sexual relations and leave it up to God how many children they are 'blessed' with.

remember there are religious people who object to masturbation too...all sex should be an opportunity for a baby to be born.

very unrealistic and to me dangerous.