• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Paternal 'abortion'

sangha said:
Yes, women can get their tubes tied

Is this news to you?
Click to expand...

Good, so why should they need an abortion if they can just get their tubes tied instead. (Here's a hint, I'm trolling you, I'm pro-choice but your comment was just moronic)
 
Removable Mind said:
Equality? Where's the equality if the guy is a sperm donor...sets back for 9 months..and gets a free ride...because it aint his body being invaded.
Click to expand...

Unless its rape, sex is consensual is it not? Unless you are redefining all sex as rape; because invading a woman's body is the same thing as raping her.
 
sangha said:
Yes, women can get their tubes tied

Is this news to you?
Click to expand...

I think true solution to the problem is...all new born male babies...have a reversible vasectomy. Then from the 7th grade thru 12th...he has parenting classes. In fact girls and guys do. Then if the guy is in a situation to want and have children...and has passed his parenting classes, of course...then he gets his vasectomy reversed.
 
ReformCollege said:
Unless its rape, sex is consensual is it not? Unless you are redefining all sex as rape; because invading a woman's body is the same thing as raping her.
Click to expand...

Gezzzzzzzzz...you gotta be kidding! What the hell do you think women are for?
 
ReformCollege said:
Good, so why should they need an abortion if they can just get their tubes tied instead. (Here's a hint, I'm trolling you, I'm pro-choice but your comment was just moronic)
Click to expand...

Abortions are not based on need.

That's why your trolling is so moronic
 
Removable Mind said:
I think true solution to the problem is...all new born male babies...have a reversible vasectomy. Then from the 7th grade thru 12th...he has parenting classes. In fact girls and guys do. Then if the guy is in a situation to want and have children...and has passed his parenting classes, of course...then he gets his vasectomy reversed.
Click to expand...

And how exactly do they have a reversible vasectomy?
 
Removable Mind said:
Well, the story isn't good.

After the baby is born...and the Attorney General's Office can ID the dad...then they can take him to court and try and squeeze him for money. And the court can't usually force the dad to take custody. That can turn into a costly process for the AGO...

Meanwhile...the victim...the baby is in the hands of the State...if the mom has abandoned the baby. The AGO can actually build a case against her...depending if she actually endangered the baby. If they see in means of recovering cost...they'll try. But again...if she has nothing and refuses custody, then the AGO with take the path of least resistance and costly...and turn conservatorship over to the State.

Meanwhile, the victim...the baby is in the hands of the State...and will be...depending on its color, and whatever available background the State has on the parents. If the mom is a druggie...it's be hard to place that baby.

Meanwhile, the victim, the baby...is in the hands of the State.

Meanwhile, the victim, the baby...remains in the hands of the State.

And when this child grows up in the system...he or she will probably be a repeat of the parents he or she never knew.

If I had my ruthers. I'd prosecute both parents for child endangerment...if the baby was abandoned...or was irresponsibly managed.

Pro-life can scream all they want about a woman being responsible...

HERE IS WHERE SHE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE:

The woman should have plenty of time to assess whether or not the potential father is fit, irresponsible, etc. And if she doesn't tell the guy she's pregnant...then she needs step up and do the right thing for herself...and a potential baby. If she can't and has a baby...she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law....regarding the circumstances in which she brought an unwanted baby into the world.

Somebody, somewhere...has to pay for a baby being born...and raised...regardless of where. In the system , a child can cost unbelievable amounts of money if a child lives out even half of his or her life.
Click to expand...

Thinking of it, because the woman can abort and she elects not to, I can accept that, circumstantially, it may rightly land more on her in some regards.

Of course, I suspect a large percentage of cases are poor, probably minority, and ignorant, uneducated people who go life one step ahead of the other with total recklessness. You can't bleed a stone. It costs money to jail people and jail won't change such people. And I would guess those kids are the next generation of the same thing, and probably worse overall too.

And I suspect it is a growing problem numerically, in terms of how troubled those kids are and become, and in expenses and costs.

Poor people do go to jail despite being poor or even maybe sometimes because of it - and doing "wrong" while poor. They go to jail for as little as an unpaid speeding ticket or $20 hot check. But not for dumping a newborn into the system.

What I am BARKING AND GROWLING AT is 2 things:

1. Pro-life that says "after birth just give up the baby for adoption" - then it was just that the mother was inconvenienced for 9 months. Thus, a "baby killing" avoided. And try to paint a pretty picture of beautiful adoptive parents - a picture we know doesn't happen more than it does, and

2. Men who say it's all about the woman. Something many pro-life and pro-choice both say.

I can't recall which (could probably guess, and I recall one but won't name not to "bait") pro-life men insisting that his wife must have the baby if she were made pregnant by rape - and if not he'd divorce her as a baby-killer - BUT he also would divorce her if she kept the baby after being born because he sure as hell wasn't going to pay for and raise another man's kid!

What I am urging - adamently - is that people should be held responsible and accountable for the children they make - accident or not - liking it or not. Regardless of abortion issues. Baby born - parents are on the hook. Yes, I understand the realities of rotten, poor, ignorant, totally irresponsible bio-parents. Its all grey areas of course circumstantial to each instance.
 
Removable Mind said:
I think true solution to the problem is...all new born male babies...have a reversible vasectomy. Then from the 7th grade thru 12th...he has parenting classes. In fact girls and guys do. Then if the guy is in a situation to want and have children...and has passed his parenting classes, of course...then he gets his vasectomy reversed.
Click to expand...

I suspect that people who work with abused and abandoned children would strongly support that plan.
 
joko104 said:
I've already answered that all. You have yet to answer about the bio-father - and instead stay fixated singularly on the bio-mother.

No every bio-parent is destitute. What of this situation in your opinion:
The bio-father makes about $60K a year. Woman he has sex got pregnant by it and she with won't/doesn't abort.

She's a barfly and financially broke. Lives hand to mouth. Stays where she can find. Hopes some man will keep her. Maybe having his baby would work - and it doesn't. He knows about the baby. Doesn't want it or her. Without him, she doesn't want the newborn either. Leaves it at the hospital.

What, if any, financial, legal or otherwise obligation does that man have towards that baby when born?

And the answer to that question in a sense is answering exactly what you think it should have been towards me when I was born (sometime I've stated of on the forum, but won't here - other than to say there were no wonderful adopting parents in that past).
Click to expand...

no you didnt but your refusal lets me know whats going on lol

cant you quote your answer if you answered it in reality that isnt already explained in my post.
meaning jailing her or punishing her by law isnt going to work because YOU would still be paying according to you

so please answer the question

im not fixated on anything expect real life examples that destroy your argument :shrug: if you dont like that come up with a better argument that is BS and full of holes LOL

now onto your questions

first what the REALITY and FACTS are

obligations?

"otherwise" ?none, he has zero unless he wants to

"legal"? if he knows he has a legal right to claim his child (since the system is biased towards woman in most cases not sure how all the laws work state to state so i cant answer in a factual manner) some states im guessing IF they know will ask him if he wants to take care of the child, there may even be some states that force him, fine him, garnish him if he doesnt

"financial" see above, some states may force him to do something some may not


now on to my opinion

"otherwise" ?none, he has zero unless he wants to

"legal"? if he knows he has a legal right to claim his child, if he doesnt want the baby he is free to give it to adoption, foster care or family etc. He is the man so he had no say to abort or not abort so of course theres no logical reason to force him to do anything legally

"financial" see above

now of course theres more details than that, so please if you would like to know dont just go and make stuff up ask, otherwise it will just be me exposing your lies again.

also dont forget about the questions i aksed above. Either answer it or qoute your answer since you claim to have answered it.
 
joko104 said:
Thinking of it, because the woman can abort and she elects not to, I can accept that, circumstantially, it may rightly land more on her in some regards.

Of course, I suspect a large percentage of cases are poor, probably minority, and ignorant, uneducated people who go life one step ahead of the other with total recklessness. You can't bleed a stone. It costs money to jail people and jail won't change such people. And I would guess those kids are the next generation of the same thing, and probably worse overall too.

And I suspect it is a growing problem numerically, in terms of how troubled those kids are and become, and in expenses and costs.

Poor people do go to jail despite being poor or even maybe sometimes because of it - and doing "wrong" while poor. They go to jail for as little as an unpaid speeding ticket or $20 hot check. But not for dumping a newborn into the system.

What I am BARKING AND GROWLING AT is 2 things:

1. Pro-life that says "after birth just give up the baby for adoption" - then it was just that the mother was inconvenienced for 9 months. Thus, a "baby killing" avoided. And try to paint a pretty picture of beautiful adoptive parents - a picture we know doesn't happen more than it does, and

2. Men who say it's all about the woman. Something many pro-life and pro-choice both say.

I can't recall which (could probably guess, and I recall one but won't name not to "bait") pro-life men insisting that his wife must have the baby if she were made pregnant by rape - and if not he'd divorce her as a baby-killer - BUT he also would divorce her if she kept the baby after being born because he sure as hell wasn't going to pay for and raise another man's kid!

What I am urging - adamently - is that people should be held responsible and accountable for the children they make - accident or not - liking it or not. Regardless of abortion issues. Baby born - parents are on the hook. Yes, I understand the realities of rotten, poor, ignorant, totally irresponsible bio-parents. Its all grey areas of course circumstantial to each instance.
Click to expand...

Joko...the reality of it all sucks. It really does. Yes, the poor can be unnecessary victims.

But in the end...we can't kill born children because the were born to the wrong people. Society has to pay the price for that. Pro-lifers...well, you know, its always somebody elses problem after a kid is born. That's a fact. That can't take care of the born...much less the unborn of women who they don't know exist.

Pro-life...what a joke of a term. I'm amazed that so many men...believe that they have the right to even suggest that women can't have abortions. What BS...
 
Removable Mind said:
Well, the story isn't good.

After the baby is born...and the Attorney General's Office can ID the dad...then they can take him to court and try and squeeze him for money. And the court can't usually force the dad to take custody. That can turn into a costly process for the AGO...

Meanwhile...the victim...the baby is in the hands of the State...if the mom has abandoned the baby. The AGO can actually build a case against her...depending if she actually endangered the baby. If they see in means of recovering cost...they'll try. But again...if she has nothing and refuses custody, then the AGO with take the path of least resistance and costly...and turn conservatorship over to the State.

Meanwhile, the victim...the baby is in the hands of the State...and will be...depending on its color, and whatever available background the State has on the parents. If the mom is a druggie...it's be hard to place that baby.

Meanwhile, the victim, the baby...is in the hands of the State.

Meanwhile, the victim, the baby...remains in the hands of the State.

And when this child grows up in the system...he or she will probably be a repeat of the parents he or she never knew.

If I had my ruthers. I'd prosecute both parents for child endangerment...if the baby was abandoned...or was irresponsibly managed.

Pro-life can scream all they want about a woman being responsible...

HERE IS WHERE SHE NEEDS TO BE RESPONSIBLE:

The woman should have plenty of time to assess whether or not the potential father is fit, irresponsible, etc. And if she doesn't tell the guy she's pregnant...then she needs step up and do the right thing for herself...and a potential baby. If she can't and has a baby...she needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law....regarding the circumstances in which she brought an unwanted baby into the world.

Somebody, somewhere...has to pay for a baby being born...and raised...regardless of where. In the system , a child can cost unbelievable amounts of money if a child lives out even half of his or her life.
Click to expand...

yes leaving your baby in a dumpster is a crime and should remind that way

and yes i agree 1000000000000% over that the system is broken and needs fixed

but i have to ask

are you saying that anybody who doesnt abort and that cant take care of the baby should be prosecuted under the law?

just want to make sure i understand?
 
AGENT J said:
yes leaving your baby in a dumpster is a crime and should remind that way

and yes i agree 1000000000000% over that the system is broken and needs fixed

but i have to ask

are you saying that anybody who doesnt abort and that cant take care of the baby should be prosecuted under the law?

just want to make sure i understand?
Click to expand...

No, OJ...not just anybody. I have to run to the Airport and pick up my wife...but I promise I'll explain my comment clearly...tomorrow. Sorry.
 
Removable Mind said:
Joko...the reality of it all sucks. It really does. Yes, the poor can be unnecessary victims.

But in the end...we can't kill born children because the were born to the wrong people. Society has to pay the price for that. Pro-lifers...well, you know, its always somebody elses problem after a kid is born. That's a fact. That can't take care of the born...much less the unborn of women who they don't know exist.

Pro-life...what a joke of a term. I'm amazed that so many men...believe that they have the right to even suggest that women can't have abortions. What BS...
Click to expand...

the reality does suck thats for sure

and your last sentence is what never seems to amaze me either, its laughable and complete BS

and its not just men its ANYBODY, i cant believe ANYBODY thinks they have that right
 
Removable Mind said:
No, OJ...not just anybody. I have to run to the Airport and pick up my wife...but I promise I'll explain my comment clearly...tomorrow. Sorry.
Click to expand...

no biggie, take you time, thanks for the quick answer
 
Removable Mind said:
No surprise answer there. Don't forget the beer delivery girl, laundry mat.
Click to expand...

She can save the beer. I'll make dinner, she can make lunch. I have yet to have a girl complain about that setup.
 
ReformCollege said:
Good, so why should they need an abortion if they can just get their tubes tied instead. (Here's a hint, I'm trolling you, I'm pro-choice but your comment was just moronic)
Click to expand...

Sorry but I thought trolls and trolling are not /is not allowed.
Please stop trolling.
 
Parental rights and responsibilities should not be assigned until after the child has been born and the parents have had a chance to examine it.

Then, and only at that time, should the mother decide whether or not to keep the child and then offer that child to the man of her choice-- who should then have the same right as her to decide whether or not to keep it.
 
Removable Mind said:
I think true solution to the problem is...all new born male babies...have a reversible vasectomy. Then from the 7th grade thru 12th...he has parenting classes. In fact girls and guys do. Then if the guy is in a situation to want and have children...and has passed his parenting classes, of course...then he gets his vasectomy reversed.
Click to expand...

Let me remind the class again that not all vasectomies are reversible. Hopefully your dumb comment was a joke though.
 
AGENT J said:
no biggie, take you time, thanks for the quick answer
Click to expand...

OJ...thanks for waiting for my response. I want to point out that there's several primary issues at hand related to my previous discussion with Joko and you. Sorry my response is long, but the issues are complex. It'll take awhile to read...and I hope this doesn't try your patience to get through it all.

Issue 1) Irresponsible decisions made by women who choose to bring unwanted children into existence knowing they lack fundamental resources and/or incapable of being a fit parent, have no immediate persons (father) or family to take custody of a child...and who refuses to have an abortion based on their moral beliefs.

.......Irresponsible decision is defined as:

(a) A woman who knows that she can't provide the fundamental hierarchy of needs such as food, shelter, safety to a child...and won't abort for moral reasons

(b) In addition to (A), the woman confides to the man involved that she has conceived and he tells her that he also cannot provide for an unwanted child...and she still has the child because she won't abort for moral reasons

(c) The woman chooses not revealed to the man involved that she has conceived, and who doesn't have basic resources or capabilities raising a child and still won't abort because of moral reasons.)

Issue 2) Cost to society for taking on substantially more children to manage for undetermined periods. For the sake of this argument...lets say all children are born who are conceived...and 10 percent find themselves as a ward of the state...that number will compound annually. So for each year that passes...more and more and more children will become the responsibility of our society. Eventually, they will reproduce…and the story goes on and on.

Issue 3) The role of men who are partners in a conception with a woman who lacks resources or capabilities to raise a child and because of her moral beliefs...won't have an abortion.

Issue 4) A woman who bears a child, knowing she isn't capable of providing for it... without having made any effort (during the pregnancy) to seek out assistance to place the child in the care of family members of her or the father, a responsible adoption agency, or an authority who will provide minimum necessities.

As a result of these circumstances...these children will be born in the hands of a woman who has no financial and/or parenting capabilities who by lacking the fundamental necessities to raise a child. A woman who knowingly cannot get support or assistance from the man who fathered the child to help find a proper environment for the child. Ultimately both parents are endangering the welfare of the child. And these situations begs the simple question: Why would anybody victimize a child by knowingly bringing him or her to birth...without the capabilities of providing basic needs?

All of the above scenarios are nothing less that sad, depressing, distressing...yet, we all know they happen daily.

___________________________________________________________________________________

Firstly we know that many Pro-life wants abortion rights eliminated completely. Other Pro-life want abortions eliminated with the exception of rape, incest, endangerment to the woman who hosts the fetus. If either of these cases happen...certainly abortions won't stop, but its safe to say that the reality is...more children born under such circumstances - than not - will live out their childhood for undetermined period of their lives in unhealthy situations.

Unhealthy situations are defined: Children not having the true opportunity to bond to parent figures, establishing healthy values, traditions, and continually having their education process disrupted (this is not an all inclusive list - there's certainly more factors).

Most pro-life assume that unwanted conceptions, which have the opportunity for surviving their gestation period, and being born is paramount to the alternative, which would be abortion.

I opine that they have a serious misunderstanding or delusion about what happens to children who wind up being wards of the state. I assure you that I don't...having worked with such children and representing special needs children in CPS Court. In addition, most pro-life are in complete denial as to what the cost to society is...for states to pay for the cost of birthing a child....then maintain a child in the system...even if for 1/4 of their lives. Many stay way longer than that.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Is there a remedy? Well, human nature is the culprit whether or not we want to accept it. Sexual conduct is what it is. Unfortunately we humans are plagued with the situation that our pleasure center is also our reproduction center. We are innately driven by evolution to have sex. And humans are way more driven by the pleasure factors to have sex because humans are probably the only species on the planet where females have orgasms like men. Sex feels good (better than good, actually)...and we're told there's health benefits to having sex.

To me...the most important thing to remember about human sexuality is: We are all powerless over others. We cannot control anybody's sexual conduct but our own. Thus the moral to the story is...sexual responsibility starts and ends with each individual.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Can anything be done to circumvent problems listed above. I believe the answer is "yes".

Unfortunately women who conceive bear the tremendous burden to make a responsible choice for her and a potential child...if she is having a baby is a conflict, for whatever she deems it to be. She needs to do whatever her morals dictate. However, the reality is she either has an abortion...or she has a baby.

If a woman's moral will not allow her to abort and she doesn't have the resources or capability of being a fit parent "and the bio dad refuses, for whatever the reason, to be financially responsible or to take possession" then she has some serious tasks to take on.

.....SHE MUST as early as possible after learning she's pregnant -aggressively seek out a responsible family member who can provide basic needs and parenting skills - or a reputable adoption agency that screens their adoptive clients to ensure the best possible parents and to work out financial issues.

.....She can consult with Planned Parenthood. Yes, Planned Parenthood to assist her if she has issues that prevent her from aggressively pursuing options. There are usually organizations who help woman who are pregnant and don't want to abort. There are religious organizations who assist women who don't want to abort.

If she is unable to procure one of the options above...then she has no choice but to go to a state agency such as Child Protective Services, which in most states they also have an internal adoption program.

The reality is...prenatal care is important as postnatal care. Nothing in the process of having a baby is cheap. Somebody or some entity will pay for the birth of a baby.

_________________________________________________________________________________

Another Hardcore Reality - When Children are Born to A Parent or Parents Have Little to No Resources or Proven to Be Unfit....

When men and women make poor choices and for whatever the reasons are not being responsible and/or not capable of provide basic needs and parenting then usually Child Protective Services...along with the Attorney General's Office within any given state will get seriously involved.

They will nearly always take the path of least resistance to deal with children born to parents who cannot or will not provide the basic needs for a child. This means that if the Attorney General's Office believes that there are resources to be gained from either parent...they will go after them.

But the AGO won't do a long-run pursuit. If their initial efforts show that there are little to no resources to be gotten from either parent...they will ask the courts to give permanent conservatorship to Child Protective Services.

Bottom Line: Society indirectly becomes these children's parents. They will foot the bill. We clearly know today that local, state and federal governments are financially in trouble. They are cutting benefits that will effect the quality of lives of children in a variety of ways. CPS's resources are extremely scarce. The Court system for children are overwhelmed. None of the problems will get better...only worse.

__________________________________________________________________________________________



In my Opinion...

If a woman consciously has a child, who knowingly has no resources, the father refuses to take responsibility...and she...in any way, shape, form, or fashion abandons or neglects that child, which results in short or long-term injury or endangerment of the child...she needs to be tried for child endangerment or injury.

But if a man who fathered the child...knowingly does nothing to engage in seeking assistance for a child born, for which neither he or the mother can provide for...he is as guilty as the woman who abandons or neglects the child. And he should also be tried for child endangerment or injury.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

Final Words for Me

CPS is the last house on the block opinion as far as I'm concerned. Those children live in a nightmare. Not all, but most. How do I know? I have represented children in CPS Court. I worked proactively with foster parents and school systems to see that the kids I was able to help...got the best they could get under the circumstances...which in nearly every case...not enough.

Somebody will pay...always. But mostly...the kids. That's incredibly sad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom