Alabama judge allows lawsuit that names aborted fetus as co-plaintiff.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: riiver

In the end, I think that's all reasonable people want: don't kill, but if you must kill, don't create unnecessary suffering.

It's a simple enough philosophy.

TheRedneck

Yep. I think that's what it does boil down to for most people. There are extremists on both sides of the issue, but I think for the vast majority of us this is it.

a reply to: riiver

umm.. a day care center sounds like a pretty big improvement to what my parents solution to how to handle the fact that both my parents had to work and they often didn't have an answer as to do what to do with me!!!

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: riiver

umm.. a day care center sounds like a pretty big improvement to what my parents solution to how to handle the fact that both my parents had to work and they often didn't have an answer as to do what to do with me!!!

That's my point. We've created a society where mother's most often get little chance to mother even if they want to. So we've handed it off to daycare and school.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

I think of a person as having essentially a dual identity. There is the animal body, which strives to eat, drink, and reproduce. But there is also the intellect, which strives to create and improve and understand... Far, far too often, the animal overrides the spirit, and that is our issue. Especially with youth. They are simply not as adept, cannot be as adept, at controlling such powerful urges.

That is an excellent analogy and analysis.

That's why we have laws.

Yup. The ideal is seldom the reality.

No one has the right to subjugate another. The want and try, however, seems quite capable of translating into do, at least overall... we do have a rapidly expanding world population.

Nature tends to find a way to obtain what nature wants.

Yes. I tend to say what Mother Nature wants, Mother Nature gets -- but same effect, eh?

While I do believe a father should have some say in abortion matters, I also believe a father is as responsible for the life he helped create as the mother. In days of yore, a man who got a woman pregnant was forced to marry her and support her. I don't think that is optimal, but I do believe the theory is sound: if you help create a life, you help support that life. When applied to the abortion debate, however, it brings up a couple new twists to the logic: if a woman decides to have a child instead of an abortion and the father disagrees, the father should have no further financial obligation.

And that bothers me as well. That would lead to financial pressure on potential mothers to have abortions, something I do not want. So what's the answer here? Should the father be required to pay for a child he does not want, while the mother can simply abort a child they do not want? Or should the father be required to pay anyway to protect the child's life?

I'm right there with you, Redneck. These are all concerns that I continue to have and wonder how the hell we best address them all.

I think we start by understanding and accepting that no one has a right to demand anything of anyone else, nor can we even really expect anything. For example, even if a man is ready, willing and able to be a father, even eager to be a father, circumstances beyond his control may prevent him from being the father he wants to be, including his own death. So even in the best of circumstances, a woman has to be prepared to go it alone. Not just in the worst of circumstances.

And I practiced what I'm preaching; I impressed this upon my daughter as a teenager. If she got pregnant, she could not be sure of anything about the father, but she could be damn sure she still had a child to take care of, so SHE better be ready for the challenge... (and of course I told her -- tee hee hee! -- that we would be there for her, but that was when she was sure that my only mission in life was to make her miserable, so that was the absolute LAST thing she wanted to hear -- much less contemplate!)... but if she wasn't up for that challenge, then she sure shouldn't be putting herself in that position, and would have only herself to blame.

(to be continued...)

a reply to: riiver
better than the bar my mother worked in back in the early 60's, which is my point!!! I was the youngest of three kids, both my mom and dad had to work...
I felt like the hot potato than no one wanted to mess with and I often ended up sitting in a booth in the bar till midnight doing my homework, eating chips and drinking cokes, and getting mauled by the mom's drunken friends!! if, by some chance, she worked days, ya know what, I don't remember who I came home to, I just remember roaming the streets alot, and well, showing up at the bar and drinking cokes and eating chips!

a reply to: TheRedneck

So I guess we have to accept the absolute right for either party to say "no," but that does not and should not preclude us from finding and encouraging and promoting reasonable compromises in the best interests of the child, who might be the only one with any reasonable expectation or right to have the male and female parent that nature and Nature's God provided for. We are adults who understand that we can't always have our druthers, but we can make the most and the best of any situation we find ourselves in. Such as the many you mentioned, [e]especially adoption! There are so many good loving couples that would provide wonderful nurturing homes and families. It is such a wasted resource.

What we need to understand is that there are certain things beyond our control. One of those is death, of course; we will all die eventually. When conceived, a child is at its most vulnerable. When born, a baby is at its most vulnerable. We should protect those who are vulnerable, but that does not mean we must save every one. It means taking reasonable measures to try.

Yes, of course I agree, and I certainly did not mean to sound callous, just frank. We must try... we must have faith and hope and determination. We just cannot expect any guarantees of success. I'm most concerned about this in terms of prosecuting women who suffer miscarriages.

The recent abortion bill debate in Virginia led to the Governor stating that even after a baby is born, if the mother and doctor agree, the baby can simply be denied life-saving technology. I find that horrific.

Grrrrr... depraved heart comes to mind. It was and still is absolutely horrific. But it is not new. For example, Obama was part of the debate on the "Born Alive" bill while he was a state rep, and similar sentiments were expressed. There was much "clarification" of Obama's comments and votes (and much coverup of course) before the 2008 election. It was unconscionable then, now, and always will be.

...I would consider any woman who risks her life trying to self-abort as someone in need of help, not of condemnation.

Me too. A woman very much in need of help and support and guidance.

Ironically, I have heard that a large part of the shame felt by younger women in such cases is that they feel a baby would be an impediment to future sexual opportunities. That is some seriously messed up thinking there!

That does not surprise me. Saddens me -- but not surprises me. I know I'm old... I know I come from a different time and values... but I'm pretty shocked at many of today's attitudes and norms I've been reading lately!!! I won't go into detail -- TMI -- but I have been seeing so many nonsensical and superficial thoughts that I'm in shock. What the hell happened???

I will agree, but even that requires some caveats.

I share your caveats.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

~continued~

My personal preference would be to make all abortions legal under two conditions: either during the first trimester, or within two weeks of discovery of the pregnancy.

I definitely agree.

We are, after all, talking about the taking of a life. We have animal rights activists that go insane trying to ensure that animals do not suffer when they are killed; should we not do at least that much for a child?

At the very least. In addition, in the greater picture, we are talking about our very right to life -- everyone's right to life. It cannot be taken lightly, and every effort must be made to preserve, nurture and sustain life for its own sake. There will be exceptions, times when that is not possible or does not serve the greater good (such as self defense), but both the consideration and the effort must be made.

Then, during the second trimester, allow abortions in the 'usual' cases. By that I mean things like rape, incest, serious developmental issues, life of mother (obviously!), or perhaps on a medical consensus. Just not on convenience or deciding the child is not wanted. I can see exceptions if the mother and father agree, but it should require a judicial review.

Again, I agree in principle, I think it might be more difficult in practice, but worth the effort. I think the vast majority of women know immediately if they want/intend to abort, and do so as quickly as reasonably possible. So the vast majority of second trimester abortions will not be on a whim, but based upon new information -- usually medical. I do not see many problems here. There will be a few that were too lazy or procrastinated, but I do not want to see them criminally prosecuted. I would like to see what options could be offered that might change her mind though... perhaps hooking her up with adoptive parents that would happily cover her hospital bills, and perhaps even living expenses through pregnancy? Those are the kinds of things I'm thinking. Right now, I believe too many women are ignorant of alternatives to abortion because abortion providers and others want it that way. They are bombarded with negativity and fearmongering about pregnancy and motherhood -- and men! -- so that they will feel compelled to abort their baby. I do think we can do better than this.

Finally, limit third trimester abortions to only incest (necessary because of the higher level of shame involved), lack of viability, of life of the mother. Partial birth should only be performed for life of the mother issues and be a crime to perform without reasonable cause to believe there was a danger to the mother... that is not to make it a crime for the mother, but to someone who performs the abortion. Never, ever, should the mother be charged with any crime involving an abortion.

Yes, agreed, but I would add that partial birth abortions should only be performed as the last and only resort to save the life of the mother. I am repulsed and horrified at the procedure. If labor can be safely induced, then let's go that route... if labor isn't an option, how about C-section?

Now add in a more generous and accepting adoption program that will make it easier for couples to adopt newborns where the mother does not wish to shoulder the burden. I believe that would be a happy medium.

Absolutely!

As a woman, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Done!

And thank you

ETA: My apologies for the crappy formatting and therefore incomprehensible response and taking so long to see it and fix it!

a reply to: Boadicea

That is an excellent analogy and analysis.

Well, that's a relief.

I often get weird (and distasteful) comments on that outlook whenever I mention it, so I mention it rarely. This thread is one of those times when I have, for good or ill, opened up more than usual. The comments I receive are usually because of some interpretation that I see people as animals... and in a way, I do. We are mammalians and primates, and physically share much with other such species in the animal kingdom. But that overlooks the fact that I also believe the spirit resides in everyone. Some are simply more in touch with it than others. It is not meant as a condemnation of any individual.

And really, isn't that what the difference between debating on the basis of logic and debating on the basis of feelings boils down to?

Yes. I tend to say what Mother Nature wants, Mother Nature gets -- but same effect, eh?

I believe Jeff Goldblum in Jurassic Park said it as "Life will find a way." (Just how many awesome lines did the guy have in that movie?) Yeah, same thing, different words.

I think we start by understanding and accepting that no one has a right to demand anything of anyone else, nor can we even really expect anything.

Oooh, be careful... you're going head-on against the entitlement mentality there!

But I agree. Even the best intentions can fail. I know I have failed many times in my life despite good intentions. I just keep picking myself up, dusting myself off, and trying again. I guess I'm either too stubborn or too stupid to stay down for long.

And I practiced what I'm preaching; I impressed this upon my daughter as a teenager.

That's good parenting right there. I did something similar with mine. One episode that stands out in my mind was my son's first vehicle. He was well past the age to get a driver's license and could easily pass the test, but insurance rates for another young, male licensed driver were more than we could handle. When he got a job, that changed; he could pay his insurance, but he needed a vehicle. So I had this 1980 Chevy LUV pickup that needed the motor rebuilt. I told him if he could rebuild it, he could have it. He got so angry at me, because I refused to help him! What he didn't know then was that every evening I was going by the truck and checking out what he had done, and was carefully listening to everything he talked about concerning it. He wasn't going to fail, but he had to believe he could. The day he finished, we put some fresh gas in the tank, a few drops in the carburetor, threw a full battery on it, and turned it over. The first time it only coughed. I adjusted the distributor and he hit it again. The engine roared to life, and that was the biggest smile on his face I have ever seen.

That's the same lesson you taught your daughter: if something must be done, you have to be ready to take care of it. Never depend on others. Or, as I like to say, expect the best but prepare for the worst.

A child needs to succeed, but success without realizing that failure is a possibility is child abuse in my book. Every person should be able to stand up under their own power. There will come times when they can't, but I trust that in those times, others will be there for them.

I'm going to separate my responses to coincide with yours... these posts are getting long, lol. that's the mark of a good discussion.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

So I guess we have to accept the absolute right for either party to say "no," but that does not and should not preclude us from finding and encouraging and promoting reasonable compromises in the best interests of the child, who might be the only one with any reasonable expectation or right to have the male and female parent that nature and Nature's God provided for. We are adults who understand that we can't always have our druthers, but we can make the most and the best of any situation we find ourselves in. Such as the many you mentioned, [e]especially adoption! There are so many good loving couples that would provide wonderful nurturing homes and families. It is such a wasted resource.

Adoption is indeed a wasted resource. I know of many couples who would like nothing better than to adopt a child, but because of financial requirements or overly intrusive restrictions and inspections, choose not to even try. What kind of society do we live in where the killing of a life is preferable to giving that life a chance?

My wife and I were forced by nature to stop at two children; we really wanted more. But we would have never been able to get approved to be adoptive parents under current restrictions, despite the fact that we raised two healthy, happy, well-adjusted adults.

One thing that also needs to be changed is that often, after a mother has given up a child for adoption, she can go back to court and demand her child back. That is atrocious to me. That child has known two parents for all of its life and then this stranger shows up to claim it? How objectifying can one be? No, after a woman has given up her child, she needs to leave it be until her integration back into its life is approved by the adoptive parents or it reaches the age of majority. Some decisions must be final.

Yes, of course I agree, and I certainly did not mean to sound callous, just frank. We must try... we must have faith and hope and determination. We just cannot expect any guarantees of success. I'm most concerned about this in terms of prosecuting women who suffer miscarriages.

Under no circumstances should any mother ever be prosecuted for a miscarriage. Ever. Even if an abortion were illegal, prosecution will not do anyone any good. We agree completely on that.

Grrrrr... depraved heart comes to mind. It was and still is absolutely horrific. But it is not new. For example, Obama was part of the debate on the "Born Alive" bill while he was a state rep, and similar sentiments were expressed. There was much "clarification" of Obama's comments and votes (and much coverup of course) before the 2008 election. It was unconscionable then, now, and always will be.

And yet, that is how abominations come to be. Ideas are floated, over and over, each time gaining a bit more support, or at least a bit less resistance. Eventually, those ideas become accepted enough to become law. It is a symptom of our evolving social structure (or possibly devolving, if you will). That's why it is so important to speak out when such horrendous atrocities are suggested... not just the first time, but every time.

I'm pretty shocked at many of today's attitudes and norms I've been reading lately!!! I won't go into detail -- TMI -- but I have been seeing so many nonsensical and superficial thoughts that I'm in shock. What the hell happened???

Extremism. Fueled by mental laziness that prefers to simply parrot opinions of others instead of research and conclude one's own thoughts.

Again, a symptom of today's evolving society.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: strongfp

If you became pregnant would you want to put your whole life and health on hold for someone else because they said so?

I would hope I had enough sense to use some kind of birth control.

Imagine being 16 years old and being told you are basically a walking baby machine.

Imagine being any age and being told you are a walking sperm bank. That's what you are doing with posts like that.

Men and women have different biological identities, and no amount of social engineering can change that. Some things just have to be accepted. No amount of protests or screaming at the sky will ever change that. All it will do is divide us farther, and in the process kill more millions of children before they have a chance to see the sun and women who are simply scared of what they have done without good cause.

Is that your objective?

TheRedneck

If you really want to devolve this down to a 'science' standpoint with biology involved, yea, men are literally walking sperm banks. A man could easily impregnate multiple women in an hour if he really wanted to. But guess what, all that man has to do is get aroused and ejaculate. And peace!

Your argument is rather flawed as well. Men aren't a one time deal, it's not like they have one shot and that's in. In some cases for a woman, yea it literally CAN be a one time deal one bad pregnancy could give her life altering suffering or even death, not to mention the myriad of other medical issues that happen during pregnancy.

But, you don't get it. When you were 16 years old were you thinking of raising a child with an clearly abusive manipulative person? No, you weren't and aren't even a woman! How could you fathom that. Stop living in this black and white fantasy world.
Medical science hasn't come leaps and bounds to save millions of women and children from crippling poverty, mental health issues, death, physical health issues, social issues, the list goes on, because "it's biology".

a reply to: Boadicea

Again, I agree in principle, I think it might be more difficult in practice, but worth the effort. I think the vast majority of women know immediately if they want/intend to abort, and do so as quickly as reasonably possible. So the vast majority of second trimester abortions will not be on a whim, but based upon new information -- usually medical. I do not see many problems here. There will be a few that were too lazy or procrastinated, but I do not want to see them criminally prosecuted. I would like to see what options could be offered that might change her mind though... perhaps hooking her up with adoptive parents that would happily cover her hospital bills, and perhaps even living expenses through pregnancy? Those are the kinds of things I'm thinking. Right now, I believe too many women are ignorant of alternatives to abortion because abortion providers and others want it that way. They are bombarded with negativity and fearmongering about pregnancy and motherhood -- and men! -- so that they will feel compelled to abort their baby. I do think we can do better than this.

That is a lot to quote, but it is so filled with good information I couldn't trim it down. I cannot see anything in that that I can disagree with, but I see a lot that I can agree with.

One thing we need to combat the 'laziness' you mention is a more accepting society; I see it not so much as laziness as the unwillingness to face the social stigma involved. Traditionally, a woman has always been expected to remain 'pure' while a man is expected to 'sow his wild oats.' That makes no sense. I believe an old TV show, One Day at a Time, said it best. When arguing over a similar issue, Dwayne (the male stereotype) said something to the effect of, "A woman is like a target, and a man is like an arrow. The arrow needs practice; the target doesn't." To which one of the women replied, "So who is the arrow supposed to be practicing with?"

We need to move beyond this narrow view of gender roles in procreation. Yes, there are some definite differences that cannot be ignored, but responsibility and expectations are not among those. I blame our Puritanical roots, but one would think that after a few centuries we would have developed beyond that. Women today have pretty much identical opportunities in society (considering the biological imperative of pregnancy of course), and yet, this attitude persists.

Yes, agreed, but I would add that partial birth abortions should only be performed as the last and only resort to save the life of the mother. I am repulsed and horrified at the procedure. If labor can be safely induced, then let's go that route... if labor isn't an option, how about C-section?

Oh, I agree completely! That was actually my intent, that partial birth be restricted to only the life of the mother issues, as a final resort. I will say that if the issue is acute, there may not be time for an attempt at induced labor... so the decision must be left to the physician, and only the physician. There should be no legal restrictions on saving a woman's life at that point, as horrendous as that only option may be.

My apologies for the crappy formatting and therefore incomprehensible response and taking so long to see it and fix it!

No apology needed... I took some time myself. I have become very good at keeping my emotions at bay, but there are times when it becomes difficult still.

But it seems to have been worth it. I am excited that you and riiver both seem to accept my input on this terribly complex and emotional subject. That gives me hope that perhaps, someday, we can make this better for all.

My respect and thanks to you both.

TheRedneck

a reply to: strongfp

If you really want to devolve this down to a 'science' standpoint with biology involved, yea, men are literally walking sperm banks. A man could easily impregnate multiple women in an hour if he really wanted to.

And in that context, women are indeed walking baby factories. That was my point. the same argument you use for defense of women can also be used on men. We may have different parts, but we are both adult humans.

Men aren't a one time deal, it's not like they have one shot and that's in. In some cases for a woman, yea it literally CAN be a one time deal one bad pregnancy could give her life altering suffering or even death, not to mention the myriad of other medical issues that happen during pregnancy.

While that is true enough, what can be done to change it?

Medical science has evolved to take the risk out of common situations like pregnancy. No, it's not 100% effective, but it tries. Also, there are plenty of instances of women having children just to trap a man into marriage or at least child support. A man cannot do the same to a woman.

Some things simply cannot be changed.

When you were 16 years old were you thinking of raising a child with an clearly abusive manipulative person? No, you weren't and aren't even a woman! How could you fathom that. Stop living in this black and white fantasy world.

No, when I was 16, I was more concerned about my needs. Adolescents are like that.

But you are treading dangerously close to the one argument I will not abide in this discussion. That is, that I somehow should have no say in what laws are in place because I can't understand. I have as much right to voice my opinion as to what should and should not be illegal as anyone else.

However, I prefer to try and understand, as best as I can, what the unique conditions that concern women are. Two women in this thread have explained some of their concerns to me... you have dismissed my contributions as extraneous. That attitude will achieve nothing except anger and resentment from both sides.

TheRedneck

Thanks for the response.

Tie women down? Tell them how to eat or anything else? Why would I want to do that? You are conflating a lot of disparate issues there, assuming somehow my intention is to slam down the rights of women (umm... its not to be clear). It's should be a collective decision between two agreeing parties, not exclusively the woman right.


Can you respond to my points about the health of the mother as the motivation for abortion? You had a lot to say.... but nothing about my main point. Also, damn whitey and his whiteness. And his HISness. Gosh.

ANND before you respond saying I don't care about the health of the mother, absolutely first priority. Second being only the health of the child. The man really does come last in the situation, but again back to my ignored points why are you against a man protecting his child's right to life?



a reply to: dawnstar

originally posted by: TheRedneck

But you are treading dangerously close to the one argument I will not abide in this discussion. That is, that I somehow should have no say in what laws are in place because I can't understand. I have as much right to voice my opinion as to what should and should not be illegal as anyone else.

Casually reading through this piece hit me ......

You gifted your part in the transaction? the 'gift' became something else

did you at the time say if the value increased you wanted part of it?


As in she was penniless so you gifted her a few quid and she bought a

lottery ticket and hit the jackpot !!!! she might share it with you she

might not....... Are you entitled, it was after all a gift ......

a reply to: Rob808

but, what if they can't agree?? that's where the tie women down, drag them to the abortion clinic, force feed them, whatever comes into the picture, because quite frankly, if the women feels strongly enough about it, that is what would take!! like it or not, you can't force anyone to do squat if they don't want to. take my example of the stay at home mom who's husband just decides against her wished to go off and spend a bunch of money on a boat, or maybe he decided to lose it in a card game, whatever... and is habitual leaving her up in the air as to what to feed the kids. there really isn't any law that she can used to force him to give her that grocery money, is there? there are laws that will allow her to navigate around it, she might be able to get a job and earn that grocery money herself maybe, she can take him to divorce court and get rid of him arse and then well... child support will force him to give her a little money, she can try to be sneaky and sly and pick his pockets, find his cash stash, but there is nothing at her disposal that she can use to force him to just give her the money is there? stay at home women should just be grateful that most men feel that their kids having food to eat is more important that a boat to take out to the lake in! well, there really isn't any law no days that a man can use to force that women to go into a place she doesn't want to be and get a medical procedure she doesn't want to have, or prevent her from doing so if she does want to. and even if he succeeded to prevent her from going to that place, he still wouldn't be able to ensure she would take the necessary steps to increase the chances of a healthy child being born or prevent her to self aborting.
like I said, I would hope that they would sit down together and discuss the next step, I mean, they felt like they had a mature enough relationship I presume to do the deed to create a baby. and when that does occur, I imagine that just as many men bend to the will of the women as women who bend to the will of the man. so, yes, in many cases the man does have just as much say as the women in my example had about buying a boat, but just like the man can and just may decide that since it is his money that he worked for and he wants the boat and he's tired of always saying no to himself, well, he is just gonna have the boat! well the women has the same option when it comes to procreation, it is her body afterall, and when all is said and done, she has the most control over what happens to it just like the man had the most control over what happens to his money!

a reply to: eletheia



I'm confused... what did I gift? Quid? Lottery?

I don't think I said that... can you link me back so I can see some context? Or elaborate? The quote you provide only says I have as much right to say what laws we have as a woman does. Do you disagree with that?

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

(Just how many awesome lines did the guy have in that movie?)

LOL! I can't resist...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: eletheia

I'm confused... what did I gift? Quid? Lottery?
I don't think I said that... can you link me back so I can see some context? Or elaborate? The quote you provide only says I have as much right to say what laws we have as a woman does. Do you disagree with that?
TheRedneck

Lol!! I have the same problem with Page ....English/American

or American/English, will probably have to keep out of US threads.

Quid = cash

Gift = giving

Now how do i say this genteelly, when the deed has been done the female

has received something from you (you have gifted) Its her body and no one

absolutely no one has a right to tell her what she can do with it.(her body)

However I would hope that prior communications and understandings would

eleviate the need for distress to either party


dawnstar's post below mine is in a similar vein to what I was trying to say.

a reply to: eletheia

OK, I get what you were saying... I'm not so sure you're using the 'gifted' term correctly though. Gifting is typically when one gives another something that is desired. If I toss a dead skunk in someone's yard, I doubt it would be considered gifting them a dead skunk.

So... if I gift that *substance* to a woman, it means the woman actually wanted it. That would mean she wanted to be pregnant, and that would then mean she wouln't want to abort.

It's also easy to avoid that gift if she doesn't want it. They make latex items for that specific purpose, and I don't think they're expensive.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: eletheia

So... if I gift that *substance* to a woman, it means the woman actually wanted it. That would mean she wanted to be pregnant, and that would then mean she wouln't want to abort.
TheRedneck

That's where

However I would hope that prior communications and understandings would
eleviate the need for distress to either party

^^^that^^^ comes in.