Stop having so many damn kids; population control, anyone?

[Carlene 12]

Okay, so what if the Dad wants the baby? Does the mother still have a right to abort it if the Dad is wanting to keep the baby? After all, it is not "UNwanted" anymore.....

I don't think a woman can be legally forced to carry a man's child to term so that he can raise the child.

[Wheetsin 714]

Okay, so what if the Dad wants the baby? Does the mother still have a right to abort it if the Dad is wanting to keep the baby?

Yes. Not a friend, but someone I know was raped & impregnated. She aborted the pregnancy. The father, from jail, tried to contest. They didn't let him, thankfully.

He wanted to keep the baby. Because he knew it would hurt the mother.

I don't think a woman can be legally forced to carry a man's child to term so that he can raise the child.

And that's a good thing, otherwise it might inspire the idea in some that women are nothing more than carrying devices for babies.

[missy4gordon 0]

I don't think a woman can be legally forced to carry a man's child to term so that he can raise the child.

I don't mean legally. I'm asking on a moral level, if it is of people's opinion that it is ok to abort because the child was "unwanted", this would not be the case then.

[Carlene 12]

So, what are you saying? It's okay for people to raise kids that they don't want and abuse them b/c your husband is a "normal" adult. I hate that weird, what is normal? He might just be normal to you, what's your definition of normal.

Sorry, in my 27 years I have realized that everyone doesn't have common sense. Some of these same people were unwanted children themselves and maybe didn't want their children growing up that way.

People raise kids they "don't want" all the time. Why, I don't know...but they do. It has nothing to do with abortion. Those people generally had access to abortion and chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

People abuse kids all the time. That has nothing to do with abortion either. Obviously, aborted children are never abused (well...not after the abortion, anyway), but that doesn't mean that, had they lived, they would have been abused.

Common sense does not mean killing your children because you don't want them to grow up unwanted. Give them to someone who will appreciate the blessing that is a child. That way, everyone wins.....and no one dies.

[gadgetlady 4]

To my mind, it's analogous to removing a patient from life-support machines. If it's unable to maintain life on its own for any length of time, it will die in very short order if left alone.

So it would have been OK for me to stop giving food and Water to my quardiplegic aunt (before she died last year of cancer)? After all, she couldn't maintain her life on her own for any length of time, and would have died in very short order if left alone.

[missy4gordon 0]

So, what are you saying? It's okay for people to raise kids that they don't want and abuse them b/c your husband is a "normal" adult. I hate that weird, what is normal? He might just be normal to you, what's your definition of normal.

Sorry, in my 27 years I have realized that everyone doesn't have common sense. Some of these same people were unwanted children themselves and maybe didn't want their children growing up that way.

Oh please, whatever! If that is the way you want to interpret my words, knock yourself out, whatever helps you sleep at night.

Normal is normal, he's not a freaking lunatic, ok? Statistics might say he should be but he's not, considering his childhood. My point being, all children should be give a chance to live and not use the excuse that their life would suck because they were unwanted. Life can suck irregardless if you were planned or unplanned.....

[Carlene 12]

So it would have been OK for me to stop giving food and Water to my quardiplegic aunt (before she died last year of cancer)? After all, she couldn't maintain her life on her own for any length of time, and would have died in very short order if left alone.

You are going to be surprised at how many people say "yes" to your question. Even Hospice would agree that it was okay. That's why I changed my mind about getting help from Hospice when my late husband was ill (with Cancer). He was getting nothing but pain meds via injection and glucose in an IV, and they wanted me to discontinue the IV. The worker's exact words were, "This will go a lot faster if you disconnect that IV."

I was not going to try and prolong his life, but I wasn't in a hurry to end it, either.

[Alexandra 55]

So it would have been OK for me to stop giving food and Water to my quardiplegic aunt (before she died last year of cancer)? After all, she couldn't maintain her life on her own for any length of time, and would have died in very short order if left alone.

Again, this sort of thing MUST be decided on a case-by-case basis. Was your aunt brain-dead? Did she have any thoughts on the matter? If she did, the right and moral thing would be to take her desires into account and act accordingly. As an adult, she has a say in the matter.

Generalizations are extremely hard to make and exceptions can always be found, which is why I believe the government has no place in these decisions.

[gadgetlady 4]

I wanted to respond to something someone said about people never changing their minds on this issue. I can't remember who said it and I can't find it now. But people do change their minds.

Ever heard of Bernard Nathanson? He was a co-founder of NARAL and an abortionist. He oversaw 60,000 abortions and performed 5,000. He is now pro-life. There are numerous cases of other abortion providers, nurses, doctors, and clinic workers, who had their eyes opened to what they were doing.

In Dr. Nathanson's words, regarding aborting his own child and the children of friends, colleagues, etc.: "Yes, you may ask me...[W]hat did you feel? Did you not feel sad -- not only because you had extinguished the life of an unborn child, but, more, because you had destroyed your own child? I swear to you that I had no feelings aside from the sense of accomplishment, the pride of expertise. On inspecting the contents of the bag I felt only the satisfaction of knowing that I had done a thorough job. You pursue me: You ask if perhaps for a fleeting moment or so I experienced a flicker of regret, a microgram of remorse? No and no. And that, dear reader, is the mentality of the abortionist: another job well done, another demonstration of the moral neutrality of advanced technology in the hands of the amoral".

Dr. Nathanson finally rejected abortion on scientific, not religious, grounds. If HE can change his mind, with the proper presentation of facts, anyone can.

There are plenty of websites that discuss Nathanson. This one is particularly good and concise, easy reading: http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/remember-naral.htm

I remember when Norma McCorvey (aka Jane Roe of Roe v. Wade) was "discovered" or revealed herself to me Jane Roe. The pro-abortionists were ecstatic! (She never did have an abortion but carried her baby to term and place the baby for adoption). They brought her up in front of masses of people to speak about her experience, and she got to the microphone and said something along the lines of, "I just want to know who and where my baby is." :faint: Needless to say, she was not the spokeswoman that the movement envisioned. She is now a pro-life activist.

[Sunta 5]

Regarding end-of-life issues, it is everyone's personal decision what they do or do not want when it comes to prolonging their life. That why I have a living will and everyone around me knows darn well they better not be giving me anything if I have no quality of life any more. They know how I define "quality of life" and my instructions are clearly stated. I am the only person who gets to decide how I want to live, not the government.

[gadgetlady 4]

Again, this sort of thing MUST be decided on a case-by-case basis. Was your aunt brain-dead? Did she have any thoughts on the matter? If she did, the right and moral thing would be to take her desires into account and act accordingly.

Actually, she was not only not brain dead, after her car accident she went on to become the Chair of the Department of Psychology of a major university. Oh, yes, she did have thoughts on the matter.

As an adult, she has a say in the matter.

Who has the say for the baby, since he can't speak for himself? We all know that an infant, left alone without nutrition and care, will die. Is it OK for people to kill their infants by starvation? To let them simply die because they opt not to provide care?

[Carlene 12]

I don't mean legally. I'm asking on a moral level, if it is of people's opinion that it is ok to abort because the child was "unwanted", this would not be the case then.

Unfortunately, you can't separate the legal from the moral issues in this instance. To give the baby its moral right to life would, at the same time, do much damage to the mother's rights, both legally AND morally.

I think fathers' rights begin at birth, not conception, because the father may be involved, prior to, but he's not really committed.

[skyeblu79 0]

People raise kids they "don't want" all the time. Why, I don't know...but they do. It has nothing to do with abortion. Those people generally had access to abortion and chose not to terminate the pregnancy.

People abuse kids all the time. That has nothing to do with abortion either. Obviously, aborted children are never abused (well...not after the abortion, anyway), but that doesn't mean that, had they lived, they would have been abused.

Common sense does not mean killing your children because you don't want them to grow up unwanted. Give them to someone who will appreciate the blessing that is a child. That way, everyone wins.....and no one dies.

I don't have any kids or unwanted pregnancies, but maybe you can help someone that does...And I can't speak for all the unwanted kids either. I was a planned pregnancy w/a decent life. I am just trying to be realistic.

Maybe I am interpreting yal wrong, but some of yal are going across like abusing kids really isn't that serious.:phanvan We'll just take a chance and make them stay with the parents that don't want them and see what happens. Like their an experiment or something. Down right strange.

[Carlene 12]

Maybe I am interpreting yal wrong, but some of yal are going across like abusing kids really isn't that serious.:phanvan We'll just take a chance and make them stay with the parents that don't want them and see what happens. Like their an experiment or something. Down right strange.

Child abuse is VERY serious. And I have not suggested that people should be forced to raise children they do not want. I think I said give them to someone who would consider it a blessing to raise a child and that way, everyone wins....and no one has to die.

I realize that carrying a child to term when you do not want to be a parent is not an attractive option. But it's still, in most cases, the right thing to do. When did we, as a society, lose sight of that? Just do the right thing, and you will seldom be wrong.

[gadgetlady 4]

Maybe I am interpreting yal wrong, but some of yal are going across like abusing kids really isn't that serious.:phanvan We'll just take a chance and make them stay with the parents that don't want them and see what happens. Like their an experiment or something. Down right strange.

Abusing kids is extremely serious. However, there is no statistical correlation between an unplanned pregnancy and an abused child. Many, many abused children were wanted and planned. Furthermore, brutally killing a child so he won't be abused seems a little counter-productive, don't you think?