Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women?

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

I am asking for repitition because I cannot believe that anyone could possibly be so evil.

I am so sorry. I did not mean that at all. I have no idea how good or evil you are, and I would never purposely insult someone like that on debatepolitics.com. I shiould have made myself clear. What I meant is that, in my own opinion, if the woman aborts the fetus (which she knows for a fact is a human child) because she does not want children YET, she is committing a terrible act of evil. Of course, I could not call you evil for having an abortion because you believe that it is not a child. I'm sorry if you were offended by this.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

It is sick that you think just because YOU think something is morally wrong, that automatically everyone thinks it is morally wrong. I find it sick that you would force a woman to be pregnant and give birth against her wishes. I hope you are not married.

I am not married (yet). I am only 16. But anyway, I would be absolutely shocked to find out if anyone else on debatrepolitics.com agreed with your way of thinking. What do you think of this idea? I'll start a poll that says this:

Title: For pro-choice women only'

Question: If you knew for a fact that the fetus was a child, and that abortion would be killing it, would you still have an abortion?

Yes or no (and maybe possible reasons after the answers)

I cannot imagine that anyone would say yes to this question. ButI'd be willing to post it if you will accept my challenge.

I find it sick that you would force a woman to be pregnant

I would never rape anyone, if that's what you mean. However, if she got pregnant, she should have to go through with it instead of killing someone.

How about this? If you got pregnant and did not want children yet, would you kill your husband to get out of pregnancy? Would you kill your siblings to get out of it? Your friends? Yourself? What if it was just a random death, and yo'd have no idea who you are killing? Because that is exactly what yuo said you would do. You would kill a random person (assuming that the fetus is a child) so that you would not have to go through with the pregnancy.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

I do get the point, and it's definately a good question (although entitling it "Are abortionists just lazy and irresponsible women?" isn't really the best way to try to get real answers, but moreso pissed off responses).

Yes, I realized after my first post that I was not actually asking that question. In the middle I changed the subject to "Is it worth the moral risk?" Is there any way to actually change the title of the thread?

I find that question similar to one some philosopher gave when he was asked why he believed in God, and he responded, "Well, think about it. If I believe in God, and I am wrong, what do I lose? While if I don't believe in God, and I am wrong, the consequences are much more severe."

Yes, I believe it's Socrates that said that. And that fits perfectly in this thread. It's almost exactly the question that I was asking at the beginning of the thread.

I don't really have a very good answer to that, except for that most pro-choice people honestly don't believe that it is alive, and are firm in those beliefs. I believe quite firmly that life begins at viability. I know there's no scientific consensus on where life begins, and thus your opinion is just as likely to be true as mine, but in this situation I choose to err on the side of freedom.

That makes sense, that since you are pro-choice you would err on the side of freedom, while I, being pro-life, would choose to err on the side of safety. But, the way I see it, there's a lot more to lose than to gain in abortion. If the fetuses are children, than we have killed and killed so many babies. But, if the fetuses are not children, we have only increased the poulation (and probably the number of orphaned children). But, in my opinion, it's better to be safe than sorry.

If I'm wrong, I'll probably feel like a dick, but I believe quite firmly that I'm not, just as, I'm assuming, you do on your beliefs.

Yes, the guilt is what edges me towards being pro-life. I would feel terribly if I had aborted and then found out that the fetuses were children, and I would think that this possibility would keep many women from choosing abortin (and it might, I don't know). But, what surprised me is that prochoicedanielle is saying that she would not feel bad if she found out that the fetuses (let's say that's correect grammar) were children.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

You know, I'd really hate to see what your idea of not being impartial is.

I've been very impartial until danielle answered my question. Have you read the rest of this thread?

You believe abortion kills children, and refuse to argue this. Fine. We believe that it doesn't, and if you're not going to defend your point, we needn't do so, either.

Right, there are other threads that cover that topic, I want you to answer this, as galen and danielle have already: Is it worth the risk that you are wrong? Would you not feel bad if you aborted and then found out that you were killling children?

But let's remember that many things I'm sure you find to be moral, others would consider unacceptable. I assume that you eat meat - but many vegetarians consider eating dead animals to be morally wrong (and I bet you'd rather dislike it if they started shouting "Evil murderer!" at you). Learn to respect other people's opinions regarding what is ethical, without shoving your own down their throats or stooping to ridiculous insults.

I already apologized for this and tried to clear it up. I did not mean to insult anyone. And what do you think of my challenge?

People's morals and values differ. Stop being so bloody black and white and get over the fact that just because you believe something, that doesn't make it absoloute truth. I believe abortion in the first trimester is acceptable and I believe euthanasia for the terminally ill is morally fine, perhaps even to the point of giving very severely handicapped babies (I'm talking blind, brain damaged and paralysed, or something) lethal doses of morphine after birth. Of course, I am fully aware that some people would yell themselves hoarse at me over this, with God knows what slander thrown in.

I am putting up a "what if" question, how is that bloddy black and white? I am not saying that yuo are wrong in any of these cases, I am saying how would you feel if you were wrong? Would you agree with danielle's answers, that you would not fell bad at all? Or do you agree with galen, that you would feel terrible?

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

If you don't want to be insulted, don't insult others. Reap what you sow, honey.

You do realize that IndiConservative is almost5 years older than you, right? You really don't need to include the "honey" and "sweetie" at the end, because you are not talking to children.

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

Its your fault if you had sex and then killed it. You don't have to stop having sex just realise if you do you can get pregnent. You don't have to keep it either adoption is a real viable option. The child can have loving family.

I am going to tell you this like I told the other poster this. Adoption is not, nor will ever be an option for myself, and my husband. If we wanted a child, I would get pregnant, and give birth.

If I get pregnant by accident or my birth control fails, and we WANT to be parents, I will continue the pregnancy.

I will NEVER continue an unwanted pregnancy to give birth and HAND off my child. NO WAY JOSE!

 

[Peralin]

I am going to tell you this like I told the other poster this. Adoption is not, nor will ever be an option for myself, and my husband. If we wanted a child, I would get pregnant, and give birth.

If I get pregnant by accident or my birth control fails, and we WANT to be parents, I will continue the pregnancy.

I will NEVER continue an unwanted pregnancy to give birth and HAND off my child. NO WAY JOSE!

Then why wouldn't you just go through with the pregnancy and keep the child? You've hinted that you may want to have children in the future, so, if you knew that the fetus was a child, why wouldn't you rather have children a bit earlier than you'd wanted than kill the child before it can develop? (Again, this question is following my "what if?".)

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

Then why wouldn't you just go through with the pregnancy and keep the child? You've hinted that you may want to have children in the future, so, if you knew that the fetus was a child, why wouldn't you rather have children a bit earlier than you'd wanted than kill the child before it can develop? (Again, this question is following my "what if?".)

You want my reasons that I do not want children right now and neither does my husband?

1) He is in the Army and deployed to Iraq.
2) He has been deployed 4 times in the past 2 years.
3) We do not make enough money to add a third person to our family.
4) I do not want to be pregnant knowing my husband can be killed at the drop of a hat tomorrow.
5) We do not want children until we buy our own home and he is OUT of the army.

I could go on and on.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

Yeah, but, at the risk of sounding a little callous, here's an argument that I've heard.
Think about it this way, what's more tragic, a 17 year old kid dying or a still born child? As a society we do place different values on different levels of life, i.e. a human's life is more valuable than a dog, a dog's life is more valuable than a cows, etc. and we do the same with people, i.e. a miscarriage is less tragic than an 8 year old, which is less tragic than a young father, and it also changes based on the way that the person died.
So, if the fetus is alive, and it's killed in the act of an abortion, how does that match up against other types of life dying?
Just a question, seeing what you think about it.

That's a good question, I'm glad you brought it up. That's completely correct, that we place different values on different sorts of life. And I think there are many different answers to this question. Here's the best answer I can come up with:

To me, death seems worst if it is someone close to my age. The high school kidnappings and suicides hit me hardest. This may be because I realize that it could've been me, or it could be because the student had lots of life ahead of him/her.

The there's the children (5-15). Those hit me hard because all children seem completely innocent to me, and I realize that they haven't had enough time to show how great they can be, and we never know what kind of person the child might have become.

As for adult deaths, I'm not affected as much because I haven't reached adulthood yet (I'm 16). While I do feel bad, it's not the same feeling as when a 8-year-old is abducted and killed.

The elderly affect me the least, because I feel that at least they had plenty of life to live and had time to develop into whatever they wanted to be. After all, the elderly are going to die soon anyway. (Yes, I know, that's not a good way to look at it.)

And babies don't affect me much at all. The reason is because no one knows who they are yet, they have almost no personality (that we know of). Sure, they didn't get to live their life out, but they don't realize what is happening either. They don't know what they're missing.

Then come pets. I hate it when I hear about animal abuse and that sort of thing. It's weird, because they aren't human, yet people care about them and are saddened by the death of a pet.

Then all the other animals. I'm sad to hear that cows are slaughtered for food and that squirrels and deer get hit by cars, but it doesn't last for me. For example, there was a story about 1500 sheep who fell off a cliff, many of them to their deaths. I felt bad for a minute, but think of how I'd have felt if they were all people, all children. It's just not the same.

As for fetuses, I am having trouble deciding where they go on the list. I would probably say between the babies and the pets, but I don't exactly know why. I'll have to think about that one for a while.

I do see your point, and respect it. It seems that as a man I should err towards freedom, since whether or not a woman can have an abortion effects me quite a bit less than the woman. I think if a woman decides that it's immoral, that's just fine, since it's her body, she can decide what she feels is right, but I don't feel like it's really my place to make that decision for anyone else.
And that's why I'm pro-choice. I understand that I'm fallible, just like everyone else. I think that we need to embrace that the chance that everyone else is wrong is just as likely as the chance that we're wrong, and thus we need to only make our decisions. I understand that that's harder to ask of the pro-life people, since you actually think there's killing of people going on, and thus asking you to stand aside while we go off and abort fetuses isn't too realistic, but I really feel that we need to just make our own decisions on this matter.

Well, the way I see it, abortion should be illegal until it is proven that the fetus is not a child. I realize that this is the exact opposite reasoning as much of the constitution. Innocent until proven guilty, not illegal until it is proven bad, yadda yadda yadda. But for some reason I strongly feel that it should be illegal. Since it could be a child, don't kill it. Which is sort of like the Terry Schiavo case. Since she could be alive still, don't kill her. Of course, I was for her death, but that's for different reasons.

 

[Peralin]

You want my reasons that I do not want children right now and neither does my husband?

1) He is in the Army and deployed to Iraq.
2) He has been deployed 4 times in the past 2 years.
3) We do not make enough money to add a third person to our family.
4) I do not want to be pregnant knowing my husband can be killed at the drop of a hat tomorrow.
5) We do not want children until we buy our own home and he is OUT of the army.

I could go on and on.

Good response, I was hoping you had a good reason for thinking that way. Because you have good reasons for not having children, in my opinion, it would not be an act of evil to kill the child. But, without knowing this information, I assumed that you simply wanted to wait to have children. I'm sorry for the assumption.

However, I still feel that, even if your case, adoption would be a better choice than abortion. Yeah, yeah, you and your husband are both against adoption, I know. But why? Why do you feel that it is better to kill a child than put him up for adoption? If it's because of personal reasons, that's fine, I understand. You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to, but I am curious as to why you don't like adoption.

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

Good response, I was hoping you had a good reason for thinking that way. Because you have good reasons for not having children, in my opinion, it would not be an act of evil to kill the child. But, without knowing this information, I assumed that you simply wanted to wait to have children. I'm sorry for the assumption.

However, I still feel that, even if your case, adoption would be a better choice than abortion. Yeah, yeah, you and your husband are both against adoption, I know. But why? Why do you feel that it is better to kill a child than put him up for adoption? If it's because of personal reasons, that's fine, I understand. You don't have to answer this question if you don't want to, but I am curious as to why you don't like adoption.

Why? Because I am not willing to be pregnant for 9 months, give birth, and hand my child over to a selfish couple who has waited in line for a year or two just so they could have a perfect white newborn.

I do not believe in adoption, just as you do not believe in abortion. That is my choice. You can give up a child for adoption as much as you would like, I choose not to, and that is my legal right.

 

[Peralin]

Why? Because I am not willing to be pregnant for 9 months, give birth, and hand my child over to a selfish couple who has waited in line for a year or two just so they could have a perfect white newborn.

That's a ridiculous generalization. Did you ever think that maybe the adoptees can't have kids? Maybe they would rather raise an unfortunat child than have one of their own. Maybe they are concerned about overpoulation and would not like to contribute by making more people. This is the way I feel. There are so many poor people out there that could use help, why not help out their children instead of making your own?

 

[ProChoiceDanielle]

That's a ridiculous generalization. Did you ever think that maybe the adoptees can't have kids? Maybe they would rather raise an unfortunat child than have one of their own. Maybe they are concerned about overpoulation and would not like to contribute by making more people. This is the way I feel. There are so many poor people out there that could use help, why not help out their children instead of making your own?

So what if they cannot have kids? It is not my job to breed for them, there are plenty of children right now up for adoption waiting to be adopted.
The sad FACT is people wait for years on end simply for a perfect white newborn. And it is not my job to breed for those who cannot have kids simply because I can have kids.

 

[Peralin]

So what if they cannot have kids? It is not my job to breed for them, there are plenty of children right now up for adoption waiting to be adopted.
The sad FACT is people wait for years on end simply for a perfect white newborn. And it is not my job to breed for those who cannot have kids simply because I can have kids.

I was only calling you on your generalization. I doubt that most adoptees care if the get a "perfect white newborn" or not. True, it is not your job to breed for those who cannot have kids, and I never said you should. I'm just saying that just because they can't have children doesn't mean that they are not good enough to become parents.

And what response do you have to my idea that maybe they are concerned about overpopulation?


Also, please back up that FACT with some evidence.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

What do you think of this idea? I'll start a poll that says this:

Title: For pro-choice women only'

Question: If you knew for a fact that the fetus was a child, and that abortion would be killing it, would you still have an abortion?

Yes or no (and maybe possible reasons after the answers)

I cannot imagine that anyone would say yes to this question. But I'd be willing to post it if you will accept my challenge.

You ignored this the first time. Would you like me to try it or not? If you truly believe that my morals are so much different from everyone elses on this topic then you should agree to me starting this new thread. It would be clear evidence to show whose side most people would be on. I would love to try it, because I think it would prove my point very well.

 

[IndiConservative]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

No. Don't put words in my mouth. I never said killing humans is okay - just that it's acceptable in certain circumstances. And since when did I ever mention anarchism?

What would you do if someone was attacking you with a knife, but you had a gun in your hands?

All I'm trying to say is how many times are you willing to redraw the moral line?
I agree killing should only be done in life or death circumstances.
If I didn't have time to show the gun ,fire a warning shot or shoot in a less lethal part of the body (arms or legs) I would shoot.

 

[Malacandras]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

"At the risk, once again, of sounding callous, I'm gonna have to disagree with the placement of a fetus on that list. First I have to say that regardless of whether or not a fetus is or is not alive, it deserves to be placed, since the pregnant woman has an emotional attatchment to it. But I'd put it below the pets.
The reason is that the pet is a very real part of your life, while the fetus is not. I had a dog from the age of 4 until I was 18, and when he died it was way up there on the saddest days of my life, up there with when my grandpa died. It's hard to understand if you don't own a pet, but they become some of the most important characters in your life, even if you can't speak to them."
And at the risk of sounding biased, that's a judgement probably best reserved until you've carried a baby in your womb.
The simple reason that abortion should remain legal - and accessible - is because women have the right to choose. They are the means by which children come into the world and they have the power of life and death. Only a mother can judge whether she can adequately provide for a child and better to abort a fetus than subject it to a life of pain and misery. Of course that might not be the case; but the only person who has the right to determine that is the mother. In my humble opinion .

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

The simple reason that abortion should remain legal - and accessible - is because women have the right to choose. Only a mother can judge whether she can adequately provide for a child and better to abort a fetus than subject it to a life of pain and misery. Of course that might not be the case; but the only person who has the right to determine that is the mother. In my humble opinion .

Actually, if the fetus was a child, the woman should not have any choice in the matter. Because, if it is a child, the woman would be commiting acts against the child, which would not be considered part of the woman's body. Just because the child develops inside the woman's body does not mean that it is a part of her. So it seems to me that, if it could be proven that the fetus is a child, abortion would definitely be illegal.

They are the means by which children come into the world and they have the power of life and death.

So they should play the role of God (yeah, yeah, some people don't believe in God) and decide whether or not the child (an assumption once again) should live or die? If your statement were true, why do we put females in jail for murders? "They have the power of life and death", so why not let them kill whoever they want, right? How about if a child is born and then the mother decides that she hates it and kills it? She brought it into the world, she has the right to bring it out of the world, right? Wrong. The woman did not bring the child into the world, a man AND a woman did. Are you trying to say that women are better than men because they can give birth and men can't? Because the last time I checked a woman could not get pregnant without the use of sperm, which is only produced in the male body. The woman would have no right to kill the child simply because it is within her body.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

At the risk, once again, of sounding callous, I'm gonna have to disagree with the placement of a fetus on that list. First I have to say that regardless of whether or not a fetus is or is not alive, it deserves to be placed, since the pregnant woman has an emotional attatchment to it. But I'd put it below the pets.
The reason is that the pet is a very real part of your life, while the fetus is not. I had a dog from the age of 4 until I was 18, and when he died it was way up there on the saddest days of my life, up there with when my grandpa died. It's hard to understand if you don't own a pet, but they become some of the most important characters in your life, even if you can't speak to them.
The fetus is not so much. A woman has a miscarriage, and she won't mourn it as long as I mourned my dog. Now if a baby dies after a month or two, then the connection is a lot more than that with the dog, so I agree other than that.

Yes, now that I think about it I would place pets above fetuses. But that's because I personally have had an emotional attachment to a pet, but I've never felt anything about a fetus. However, I could see that for women it would be different, because they have had the experience which I have not. So actually, I cannot possibly place fetuses on my list because I have no idea what it feels like to be emotionally attached to one.

lol, at least you recognize the unconstitutionality of this. And I do see your point, I really do, but I disagree. I think that there's enough evidence to show that it is extremely reasonable to believe that a fetus up until a point is not a human life, and thus I think it would be unreasonable to make it illegal, similar to the Terri Schiavo case, where all science led to the fact that she was brain dead, other than Sen. Frists little brain fart on the senate floor, and so euthinasia was sensible.

Right, and I can understand why people would disagree with my way of thinking. What I currently believe (on my own, it's no religion) is that the life of a person is withing their brain, that without the brain, the humanity is gone. That's why I was for the death of Terri Shiavo, because she was braindead. So I could completely understand if abortions were legal up until the formation of the brain, or, as said before (I think it was jimmyjack), until the fetus is concious. It makes good sense to me.

But, I also believe that if you kill a fetus immediately after abortion you are preventing a child from entering into this world. I believe that the child is assigned to that body, and if you take away the body the child cannot be born. So actually, I would not consider abortion to be murder, but I would still fight for it to be banned.

 

[Malacandras]

So what it comes down to is at what point does the fetus become a child. You picked sentience, which seems reasonable. I think you could also make a case for physical dependence on the woman's body - although if you wanted to use test tubes, that makes it irrelevant. So the point at which you no longer have the moral right to abort is after the child can survive outside the womb.
The problem is that I think you have an important point. But abortion, along with the Terry Schiavo debacle of ill fame, falls within a bigger debate about the sanctity of life and the quality of life. Is it better to live, full stop, or to live a good life?
In a perfect world, abortion would be morally wrong, I think. But in our world, with so many imperfectly educated people who do become pregnant by accident (and you can't just dismiss them out of hand, many people in rural areas have neither the access to information nor adequate contraception), who do live lives that they would rather not subject their children to, I think you have to allow people to make the choice. Yes, they should either abstain, use condoms, etc. But there are circumstances that mean that sometimes they don't. Should they and their children have no way out of a self-perpetuating cycle?
Another, more practical, reason for keeping abortion legal is that women have always performed abortions in a variety of safe and dangerous ways. Keeping it legal keeps it safe and I would hate to see angel-makers back in back alleys with their bent clothes hangars.
(Tell me if I haven't answered your question.)

 

[Hume]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

Actually, if the fetus was a child, the woman should not have any choice in the matter. Because, if it is a child, the woman would be commiting acts against the child, which would not be considered part of the woman's body. Just because the child develops inside the woman's body does not mean that it is a part of her. So it seems to me that, if it could be proven that the fetus is a child, abortion would definitely be illegal.

If its a person then it could be considered trespassing inside of a woman's body, giving the woman the right to defend herself against it. If you're going to give it a person's rights it must also have ther responsibilities.

So they should play the role of God (yeah, yeah, some people don't believe in God) and decide whether or not the child (an assumption once again) should live or die? If your statement were true, why do we put females in jail for murders? "They have the power of life and death", so why not let them kill whoever they want, right? How about if a child is born and then the mother decides that she hates it and kills it? She brought it into the world, she has the right to bring it out of the world, right? Wrong. The woman did not bring the child into the world, a man AND a woman did. Are you trying to say that women are better than men because they can give birth and men can't? Because the last time I checked a woman could not get pregnant without the use of sperm, which is only produced in the male body. The woman would have no right to kill the child simply because it is within her body.

Wow you completely carried that out of context. Somehow you turned it into a civil rights movement; chill out. The difference is there's nothing inside us men which feeds and lives off of us. You are yet to prove that the fetus is actually a person, and yes, if it were considered a person the mother wouldn't have the right to choose. but currently there are no laws regarding what to do if a person is living inside of you, so quit making them.

 

[Peralin]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

If its a person then it could be considered trespassing inside of a woman's body, giving the woman the right to defend herself against it. If you're going to give it a person's rights it must also have ther responsibilities.

I hope you're not serious. Because, if a toddler crawls into a yard that is not his (trespassing) the woman who owns the yard does not have the right to kill it. I think that even if the trespasser was a grown man the woman would have no right to kill him. Besides, if you really think that it should be legal to kill any unborn baby then I'm not going to argue with you because (if you truly believe this) you simply won't accept facts. (I'm willing to argue with you on this one, because the facts would be on my side.)

Wow you completely carried that out of context. Somehow you turned it into a civil rights movement; chill out. The difference is there's nothing inside us men which feeds and lives off of us. You are yet to prove that the fetus is actually a person, and yes, if it were considered a person the mother wouldn't have the right to choose. but currently there are no laws regarding what to do if a person is living inside of you, so quit making them.

Here's the quote again: "They are the means by which children come into the world and they have the power of life and death. "

Sure, I carried it a little out of context, but not completely. I did exagerrate a little to show how ridiculous that single statement was. The rest of Malacandras's post was understandable, but I could not let this sentence pass by.

I haven't made any laws regarding what to do if a person was licing inside of you, I don't know why you think that I am. I'm just saying that, if the fetus was a child, the woman would not be allowed to kill it simply because she created it. If it could be proven that the fetus was a child abortion would most likely be illegal, but I'm not talking about legal laws anyway. (If anything I would be arguing over whether it is moral or not.) I'm just arguing that women do not have the power of life and death, but that men also contribute to the child.

 

[Peralin]

(Tell me if I haven't answered your question.)

I'm not exactly sure what question you were trying to answer. My real question is whether it is worth the moral risk of having an abortion or not.

I think I've changed my mind a bit. I think that abortion should be legal simply because there is not enough evidence to prove that abortion actually does kill people. It all depends on when the fetus becomes a child (or, in my case, when the child enters the body). However, because of what I believe, I will still protest abortion.

 

[guns_God_glory]

You want my reasons that I do not want children right now and neither does my husband?

1) He is in the Army and deployed to Iraq.
2) He has been deployed 4 times in the past 2 years.
3) We do not make enough money to add a third person to our family.
4) I do not want to be pregnant knowing my husband can be killed at the drop of a hat tomorrow.
5) We do not want children until we buy our own home and he is OUT of the army.

I could go on and on.

Then use protection. Its that easy.

 

[guns_God_glory]

Re: Is it worth the risk?

Only a mother can judge whether she can adequately provide for a child and better to abort a fetus than subject it to a life of pain and misery.

Yeah the woman is the only person who has the right to determine this the input of the man who she couldn't have done it without is completely worthless, OK back to reality. The mother AND father should have discussed wether or not they can adequately provide for a child before they tried to conceive one. If they found that they couldn't the should use protection. There are no "accidental pregnancies"