Nebraska Woman Forced To Carry Non-Viable Pregnancy to Term Because State Law Bans Abortions After 20 Weeks

So, in what way did this law prevent unnecessary suffering?

The suffering of Christian's consciences who implemented this ass backwards law.

And this is coming from the "less government intrusion in our lives" party. What a joke. These guys aren't Christians. Jesus certainly wouldn't recongnize them as such!

The thing that seems to be being missed here is that this woman was 'forced' to carry a child to full-term that she knew was going to die. In essence, she went through two grieving processes. This is just so sad and my sympathies go out to her and to her family.

The anti-choicers really do get off on torturing women. What sick people they are.

Was this woman forced to stay in the Nebraska? If she wanted to terminate the pregnancy she could have travelled to another state where abortions are legal after twenty weeks.

This is just one of the pains of living in a state where people think there is a chance Jesus will step in at the last minute and give the fetus a brain. People shouldn't have to go to another state for a procedure but there is nothing you can do.

philipe - If she wanted to terminate the pregnancy she could have travelled to another state where abortions are legal after twenty weeks.

It's dead for crying out loud, keeping in in utero isn't going to bring it back. Is this America or what? Why should a woman who needs medical care travel for hours? If you have an appendicitis should you be required to travel to another state for care?

Transportation?

A poor woman and the article didn't give an age, but if she is a minor there is a law preventing just that.

Remember we don't want our tax money to pay for poor women and their abortions, so where is she to get transportation, the money to pay for the trip etc.?

Please excuse my language, but there is just no other way I can respond to this than say, that was so @!$%#ing mean spirited and hateful. Why do we have people who constantly impose their religious beliefs on the general population and then get away with it. I get it, no one wants to see a baby die, but those same people could careless about the child once the child is out of the womb. You hear that the baby is defenseless, well so are the new borns that need WIC to survive. When will those hypocrites stand up and then take care of those unwanted children instead of housing them in foster care then letting them lose at 18? Are we going to invest in their education or are we going to invest into prevention and family planning? I feel so bad for this lady that I am actually angry. If I was the father, I would lose my mind knowing that she was carrying a child that will die in minutes. I would mortgage my soul to sue anyone involved in this horrible law. Absolutely disgusting.

edit: loose*

Philippe - Yes maybe she should go to Kansas, that's near Nebraska, and see Dr. Tiller. Oh wait, nevermind, she can't. He was killed by a "pro-lifer". And the doctor who wants to take over his practice is receiving death threats and working to provide security for herself, her employees and her patients. What state should this woman go to where she can get the safe private medical care she needs, Philipe? Are you willing to come walk her through the mobs of women-haters threatening her life to get her to a medical facility? The anti-women forces have made it almost impossible for this woman to safely and privately get the legal medical care she needs. They all should be ashamed of themselves. "Pro-life" - what a joke.

And this is coming from the "less government intrusion in our lives" party.

Oh they are very selective about the "intrusion" thing. They don't want the government to intrude on their right to have assault weapons, but it's perfectly fine to intrude on what people do in their bedrooms, and even better if they can force women to suffer and "pay for" sexuality.

philipe

Was this woman forced to stay in the Nebraska? If she wanted to terminate the pregnancy she could have traveled to another state where abortions are legal after twenty weeks.

This is the same argument made when pharmacists are permitted to deny medications to women because of "conscience" laws; the same argument made as to why people didn't leave New Orleans when Katrina was coming. It's a nice, middle-class notion that everyone just has the resources and ability to just go anywhere, at any time, that they would like. It's a notion that falls apart in the face of reality.

I believe this recent Nebraska law is wrong, and this case illustrates just why.
This was an unfortunate outcome due to the water breaking early. The baby was born, and died, eight days after the pregnancy was declared nonviable.

The doctor's hands were tied by the law, and I fully understand the mother's reluctance to travel out of state. She shouldn't have to: We are one nation, indivisible.

Phillipe: Why should she have to leave the state to exercise her LEGAL RIGHT TO CHOOSE?!? She should be able to go to her OWN doctor. She should not have to add to the expense, hardship, and personal trauma in order that she get the medical treatment she should be able to find at her own doctor's office or hometown hospital. But then, that would make too much sense. The Republicans in Nebraska have allowed the "rights" of a fetus to supersede the rights of a living, breathing human tax payer. It's disgusting.

The law is flawed. If the fetus can't survive, and it certainly has no consciousness, terminating the pregnancy should be an option, but the woman didn't have that option. The law is flawed.

Any man who obviously can't go through what this woman went through has no right to argue for or against the stupid law.

Perhaps they poor woman can sue the State of Nebraska for Un-necessary Pain and Suffering. I dislike being litigation happy in general but this plus the push for bans even in the case of Rape, Incest and the Health of the Mother are monstrous. Government does not belong in a decision of this nature.

And for the expense, I'm sure this was more costly to the family and everyone involved that taking care of it a 22 Weeks.

Decisions of Conscience and Fiscal Responsibility indeed. PFFT..

Reliant: I smell a lawsuit, myself. It wouldn't surprise me if the Woman's Advocacy Center or the ACLU don't put this case front row center when they go after this horrid law.

These guys aren't Christians. Jesus certainly wouldn't recongnize them as such!

You mean to tell me that there are authoritarian religious people that arn't viewed as good by God? Gosh, I don't remember any such Pharisees being mentioned in the bibl... ooohhhh...

This sounds like "cruel and unusual punishment" to me. Isn't that unconstitutional? Just askin'

Was this woman forced to stay in the Nebraska? If she wanted to terminate the pregnancy she could have travelled to another state where abortions are legal after twenty weeks.

It's sad when the well off or those who can travel every weekend for a nice little get away, can't image those who can't, those who don't have the means or the money or the people able to help them to do so.

Maybe she didn't have the money on her waitress salary to travel to another state and stay in a hotel at $100 a night. Her husband had to work his construction job that weekend. Her 1985 Ford Escort was quite questionable to make it to another state. Her friends were busy working the weekend shift, or the week day shift and couldn't drive her, or afford to stay with her, then if she could get there, maybe she was a bit concerned about driving herself home. A little something extra: I had to go to an out of state hospital for some quick help once when we were on vacation. My insurance didn't cover me here. The cost was staggering.

Are we getting a broader idea now? Are we walking a minute in another's shoes? Feeling any humanity or empathy?

JoMan: Humanity or empathy? Don't expect the anti-choice crowd to offer what most of them don't seem to have....

I'm the thirty-seventh person in the choir, apparently. Rock on.

I know Michelle. I'm naive and it's just scary there are people like that. They are like programed robots with their propaganda.

The law of Nebraska prohibited this woman from getting an abortion there. She found herself in a bad situation but, the law is the law.

Instead of complaining about this incident, those who are offended should complain to the Nebraska legislature and have them amend the law.

But until then those who reside in Nebraska and find themselves in a similar situation have a choice: obey the law or travel out of state to seek remedy.

The suffering of Christian's consciences who implemented this ass backwards law.

Hopefully not. I hope all the lawmakers who supported this law and the Governor all suffer greatly by their decision.

But until then those who reside in Nebraska and find themselves in a similar situation have a choice: obey the law or travel out of state to seek remedy.

you make it sound so easy. How would you like to carry a dead carcass in you philipe? I can speak bluntly in this way b/c I have been there. I wasn't 20 weeks, but still it is a feeling no one should have to go through. We treat our dogs better than that.

Philipe- your comments make no sense.

I'll refer you to my comment 1.11 and add that this woman did comply with Nebraska law which you would know if you read the article. You also seem to want her to complain, but not complain. How does one do that? In case you are completely unaware of how political action happens, getting an article in the paper or on TV is one of the best ways to alert the public to legislation that they might want to change and gain public support for that change. And, I think most elected officials read their local papers and watch their local news.

CCArm

How would you like to carry a dead carcass in you philipe?

Read the full article, "Deaver gave birth Dec. 8 to a baby girl that died 15 minutes later."

The fetus was not dead.

Phillipe, don't confuse them with the facts.

This is where I find the titles of these threads despicable. The baby was not carried to term. Term would be nine months. The baby miscarried ten days after the she found out it could not live outside the womb. And again, doctors don't always get it right. Some babies that doctors classify as down's end up being normal.

I feel sorry for this lady, but the law is a good one.

WATCH OUT!!! I posted that a couple times (about the "to term" thing) and got ATTACKED and my comments were collapsed. Brace yourself, an nasty storm is about to blow your way.

This is where I find the titles of these threads despicable. The baby was not carried to term. Term would be nine months.

See 19.21. There seems to be a discrepancy there...

And again, doctors don't always get it right. Some babies that doctors classify as down's end up being normal.

That's nice - this was not a case of this fetus possibly having Down's syndrome so not a valid comparison in the slightest.

I feel sorry for this lady, but the law is a good one.

You should also feel sorry for the fetus that had to grasp for air and suffer for 15min of life outside the womb.

This law is a @!$%#ing disgrace - a piss poor attempt at controlling women via their religious ideals.

Felicitie: Actually "to term" means to the end of something. She DID carry the fetus to term. She had a NATURAL childbirth. No induction, no C-section. And this law is anything but "good." It panders to the religious views of the zealots and completely ignores the rest of us. Very few in this country have "forced" abortions, regardless of what the zealots have brainwashed the masses into believing. Why should childbirth be FORCED on a woman or girl, for ANY reason? We have too many in this country that we can't educate, house, or even FEED. Can we take care of THEM first instead of worrying about a clump of cells that can accurately be described as a parasite?!?

"...and even better if they can force women to suffer and "pay for" sexuality."

Ahhhh, but they do it to men too. They must suffer and "pay for" THEIR sexuality as well. Decisions should be available to all.

"Why should childbirth be FORCED on a woman or girl, for ANY reason?"

And expanded, why should being a parent be FORCED on anyone?

Wow, it's too bad nobody's figured out how to give a fetus pain medication to prevent any sort of discomfort.

But that's a very difficult concept to grasp...I'm still working on it myself...

I now feel terrible for all of the little fetuses that have surgery before they're born, it must be excruciating....

jacq24

...your comments make no sense.

Re-read my post. My comments make perfect sense. You might have a comprehension problem.

You also seem to want her to complain, but not complain.

Re-read my post. You might have a comprehension problem.

In case you are completely unaware of how political action happens...

I know quite well how the legislative process works. But if you think that publicity is will result in change then you are remarkably naive. It takes more than a heart wrenching story to do that.

Ahhhh, but they do it to men too. They must suffer and "pay for" THEIR sexuality as well. Decisions should be available to all.

Just how exactly do men "pay for" 9 months of pregnancy including the continuing effects for more than 18 years (like hemorrhoids, rectocele, stretch marks, saggy breast and lose of volume, extra weight gain, etc) since BOTH mother and father are equally financially responsible for the baby once it's born? Just curious even though this has nothing to do with the topic since the mother and father were looking forward to having this child.

Wow, it's too bad nobody's figured out how to give a fetus pain medication to prevent any sort of discomfort.

Pain medication won't do much to stem the pain from suffocating to death.

which is why it should never have been born, poor kid. I rather they overdose it with pain med and abort than have the child dry drown.

Pain medication won't do much to stem the pain from suffocating to death.

Oh hyperbole, and I thought we hardly knew ye...

Yes it does, pain is pain, regardless of your drama.

This is a heinous law put in place by politicians. All we can do is hope the citizens of Nebraska see fit to vote them out of office when the time comes. If this is what the people of Nebraska think is right then they are getting what they deserve, however much disgust it may cause the rest of us.

And this is why Even THE BIBLE CONDONES ABORTION in some circumstances!!!

Yes the ONLY reference to abortion in the bible is a statement in it's favor.

Numbers 5: 13-29

Life is not easy and hard chooses abound, no one should have the right to deny a woman control of her own body in the USA!!!

I don't think the writer of the article gave near enough information for me to make a rational comment, left too much to speculate on.

The pain this woman must have gone through carrying the baby knowing it would never live. I feel for her pain, and I definitely feel for her predicament. No one should have to go through this, and no one should decide for her what must happen once she learns the baby would die. Someone above said she had to grieve twice because of this law, and I agree with that. I feel for her and her family.

This should be considered as against medical professional practice. No matter how backward a state is. Nebraska sounds like our Neanderthal Christian Taliban state.

Nebraska sounds like our Neanderthal Christian Taliban state.

Because of a single law?

Talk about ignorance...

I am incensed by this article. Abortion is legal in this country and state government's have no right to interfere. I just finished writing an email to my state Senator asking her to spearhead a bill to repeal or change this law. I actually started the email with a cut and past of this article. Thank you Kill file for posting the ammunition.

Now I am going to write to the governor.

huskergal: Good luck with that. What you'll get is a letter that says, basically, "I appreciate your opinion. I don't agree. I am strongly pro-life," and that will be the end of it. That's what I get from Johanns, Fortenberry, Nelson, AND Heinemann when I write and email them. Just ONCE I'd like it if they could tell me the majority of their constituents don't agree with me. At least then, it wouldn't feel like a complete brush-off and wouldn't look as if they're legislating THEIR so-called "morality" and religious beliefs regardless of what the people they allegedly represent want.

But more power to you. What we need to do is stop electing these parasites. There isn't ONE of them who will work for things that REALLY make a difference. Instead they keep going after the "morality" issues over budgetary ones. Like cutting discretionary spending is going to make a dent in our deficit....

Does this woman not have a car. I am quite sure that one of the states surrounding Nebraska will allow her to do it. I do not agree with abortion, but in this case I can see why she might want to have it done. Actually there are many instances when it is a viable option, but I just don't think women should use it as birth control. There are too many other options out there.

Actually there are many instances when it is a viable option, but I just don't think women should use it as birth control. There are too many other options out there.

So you feel that you have the right to tell woman what they can and cannot do with their own bodies - real @!$%#ing nice :(.

The thing that seems to be being missed here is that this woman was 'forced' to carry a child to full-term that she knew was going to die. In essence, she went through two grieving processes.

Not two, one long, painful grieving process. This woman had to live with the notion that her baby was GOING to die. Every second of every minute of every day she was FORCED to live that nightmare scenario. As a man, I cannot begin to understand what a woman goes through during pregnancy. No man can claim to know. As a father, I feel for this woman.

Michelle,

I do not know what district you reside in, but the state senator from mine answered a few times and her views are pretty much the same as mine; though I am not sure if she means what she says or is just telling me what she thinks I want to hear. I have also come to the conclusion that Nelson is a Republican dressed as a Democrat (scary). I know what you mean about Johanns, but Fortenberry usually answers in a way that doesn't bother me. I think it is because he explains why he voted that way or he feels this way. However, we have to continue writing and let them know how we feel.

"Just how exactly do men "pay for" 9 months of pregnancy including the continuing effects for more than 18 years"

Well, really now...are we a society that FORCES people to become parents against their will? Yes, these two wanted it, but the post made said "force women to suffer and "pay for" their sexuality.

So do we force women to have unwanted pregnancies in this country? Do we force women to become mothers if they don't want it for any reason at all? Do we force women to be mothers after the birth of a child (think hospitals and fire stations, or adoption).

So, in this particular case, the woman was past 20 weeks when she found out the baby would not make it. She SHOULD have been allowed to abort to save everybody the time and heartache, meaning the law should include a euthanasia clause.

But you are right, it had nothing to do with forcing women to suffer for sexuality. When you bring suffering for sexuality into the mix like the post I responded to, suddenly you are talking about unwanted pregnancies solely due to the desire to have sex. Think about who we FORCE to be a parent in this country. So I guess I could let you figure it out from here.

I want to have a bill passed that all men must have a vasectomy after having 2 children.

"I want to have a bill passed that all men must have a vasectomy after having 2 children."

As long as that bill includes all women having their tubes tied after the second child, I'm all for it! Constitution and people's rights over their own bodies be damned. Really? That's the best you've got? Instead of increasing privilege for some to become the right of all, your suggestion is to take away more rights of the group you don't belong to? Great thought.

Husker gal,

How about we pay, men and women, a set fee to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Lets say we give $20,000 prior to the first child, $10,000 before the second child and $5,000 before the third. Money well spent!

That's the best you've got? Instead of increasing privilege for some to become the right of all, your suggestion is to take away more rights of the group you don't belong to?

Justice?

I think you proved my point. It is okay for men to take away the reproductive rights of a woman, but not all right for a man.

How about we pay, men and women, a set fee to have a vasectomy or tubal ligation. Lets say we give $20,000 prior to the first child, $10,000 before the second child and $5,000 before the third. Money well spent!

My solution is to leave choice to the individual. That is where it belongs. Nobody inflicting his/her views on anyone. Abortion is legal, leave it that way.

"I think you proved my point. It is okay for men to take away the reproductive rights of a woman, but not all right for a man."

No, that's absolutely not it at all. Abortion is legal. A woman can make a choice about the rest of her life...is she ready to be a mother, does she want to finish school, does she have the finances to support a child, will it destroy her dreams of what she wants to be...SHE should not be held captive to what someone else tells her. SHE has that choice. HE doesn't get any choice...SHE inflicts her views and either forces him to be father (removing all the choices named before) or she makes the choice he will not be a father (that will continue to be unavoidable, even with men given the right to choose). Her choice is wonderful for her...we should never allow that to expire. But her choice, made free and clear, should not hold someone else responsible for it. HE should be just as free to choose about his future. What could possibly be more equal than allowing everyone that choice, WITHOUT anyone else inflicting their decisions on them?

So I think it is you who completely misses my point. Maybe I'm not explaining it very well, or maybe you are so dead set on disagreement you don't want to understand it. Here is a post written by a Cathy Young. Hopefully that will set you at ease enough to be able to read the thought process and understand what is being stated. Take nothing away from a woman's right to choose...just expand it so that our sons can have the same control of their life. Just as my daughter needs control over her reproduction, and should not be punished for her sexuality, so does my son. The ONLY way is to allow BOTH to make the decision if they want to be parents or not and let them each be responsible for their own decisions. When there is a decision made to be a parent, we should NEVER hold EITHER of two involved responsible for the others' decision.

http://www.salon.com/life/feature/2000/10/19/mens_choice

In the article, is a clear point of view of the former President of NOW:

"...if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support ... autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice." I personally would add to this that if a biological father is not ready for it (for ANY reason, just as a woman does not need a reason), then he should not be FORCED to be in a situation he chooses not to be in. Just like a woman, a man chooses to have sex, not have a baby.

Maybe all of this will help make it clear. I'm not denying a woman's right to choose. Only trying to open the eyes of those who fought for and/or agree with reproductive rights...to let them know the job is only half done. I want my son to be as free to choose his future as my daughter is. I would never take that right away...I would expand it.

Justice?

I can understand all of your moral indignation at the unfair advantage that women have over men in regards to reproductive rights but you have to let reality slide into the equation. The State doesn't want to have to finance the upbringing of a child. Money trumps equality every time. If a woman decides to keep her baby and raise it on her own, the odds are monumental that the state will be responsibe for some portion of his/her upbringing. The State isn't going to allow that, thus the father is GOING TO BE held responsible and pay child support. It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of finances. That's just how it is.

I agree with you that a woman should, as a man does, make a commitment to raise a child EVERY TIME SHE HAS SEX. Women, sad to say, don't have the courage to do that.

Be well.

I agree with you that a woman should, as a man does, make a commitment to raise a child EVERY TIME SHE HAS SEX. Women, sad to say, don't have the courage to do that.

How about EVERY TIME SHE WAS RAPED? What kind of courage does that take Felicitie - seriously...WTF.

I would say carrying a baby to term and taking care of it after a woman was raped would take great courage.

I would say carrying a baby to term and taking care of it after a woman was raped would take great courage.

You know what else takes great courage - letting God do the judging here on Earth and staying out of other woman's reproductive organs. Are you courageous Felicitie?

What's God got to do with it? I'm talking about the natural process of reproduction. If you need me to explain it to you, I can. Basically a male and a female join and a baby is created. I'm talking about the life of that baby. What the heck are you talking about?

The State isn't going to allow that, thus the father is GOING TO BE held responsible and pay child support. It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of finances. That's just how it is.

Not if the mother doesn't list the father's name on the birth certificate. I could be wrong on the legal aspect there, though.

What the heck are you talking about?

I'm talking about a woman's right to her own body.

I'm talking about the life of that baby.

No you are not - you are talking about a fetus - a potential human baby. Something that cannot survive without it's host.

You want to respond to #1.33? My comment was in response to yours...

As long as that bill includes all women having their tubes tied after the second child, I'm all for it! Constitution and people's rights over their own bodies be damned. Really? That's the best you've got? Instead of increasing privilege for some to become the right of all, your suggestion is to take away more rights of the group you don't belong to? Great thought.

They wont do it. Hell, they wont even tie your tubes in a "St......(insert name here) hospital. If you are under 25 and have 2 kids they will not tie your tubes even if you drop cash money on the table and say you want it done. Its the most ludicris thing I ever heard. My sister was 33 when she had the twins and the St. Joseph would not tie her tubes.

Not if the mother doesn't list the father's name on the birth certificate. I could be wrong on the legal aspect there, though.

They will find him, even if when they do, the kids are grown and paying their own bills @ the time.

Santin,

What about a man's right to his own body? Justice? was making the point that men don't have the same rights as women in terms of ending a pregnancy. Your comments were way off topic. I still don't see their relevance.

Perhaps you could explain that to me.

I've never know a man who's carried a pregnancy to term and given birth. See this isn't just about reproduction, it's about not wanting to be pregnant. Many women abort not just because they don't want a child, many women abort because they don't want to be pregnant, that's also the reason why many women don't carry a pregnancy to term and give the newborn up for adoption. Pregnancy and childbirth is not easy for many, many women.

But that doesn't address his/her point at all, Lola.

What about a man's right to his own body? Justice? was making the point that men don't have the same rights as women in terms of ending a pregnancy.

WTF are you talking about? I know you're new to the Vine so I'll take it easy on you. Please block quote or reference the comment # where I mention anything about men's rights in ending a pregnancy?

Your comments were way off topic.

My comments were in response to your asinine remark regarding a woman's responsibility after she has sex.

Perhaps you could explain that to me.

Lets start over - NV is a place to "get smarter" so how about we go back to our first exchange (#1.32-1.33) and discuss why you seem to feel/think this law is a "good one".

But that doesn't address his/her point at all, Lola.

Yes it does, because men do not physical carry a pregnancy, if they did abortion would be a sacrament. Very low cost (if not covered by insurance or through taxes) abortions would be performed at Hooters while watching sports, drinking beer, and eating wings.

Let's try to be mature and leave sexist generalizations out of it. K?

Santin,

Pretty quick I'm going to give up on you as a waste of time. MY POINT was concerning the fact that MEN do not have the same choices that women do in terms of pregnancy and abortion.

If you wish to debate that topic, please respond. If you want to discuss some topic you delusionally think I brought up, please do not respond because it is a waste of my time and yours.

Thanks in advance.

Rhep,

Sexist generalizations is all they have. Men are strapped to the baby that women choose to have. Women have no such obligation. It's not even close to being equitable.

Women go through nine months of pregnancy and at most 36 hours of childbirth. Men are financially obligated to that baby for 18-21 years. Why do they not get a vote in whether the poor little thing lives or dies?

IF women were more courageous, they would accept the same responsibility as the men do and give birth to those babies instead of flushing them like a goldfish.

First off Felicitie my name is Santino - if I can spell yours correctly I hope you can at least pay me the same respect in spelling mine.

Pretty quick I'm going to give up on you as a waste of time. MY POINT was concerning the fact that MEN do not have the same choices that women do in terms of pregnancy and abortion.

Oh I see - you don't want to address/defend the fatuous remarks made earlier so we can now only discuss what you would like to...LOL. I think I had a similar conversation with my niece recently ;).

If you want to discuss some topic you delusionally think I brought up, please do not respond because it is a waste of my time and yours.

Nope not delusional at all - perhaps you're in denial. Here it is...your own words...from #1.60...

I agree with you that a woman should, as a man does, make a commitment to raise a child EVERY TIME SHE HAS SEX. Women, sad to say, don't have the courage to do that.

This is what sparked our 2nd conversation on this thread. Here's your words from our first exchange...from #1.31...

I feel sorry for this lady, but the law is a good one.

It's a hell of a thing - being able to block quote exactly what someone else said on NV and call their bull@!$%# out for everyone to see. Now would you like to try again Felicitie ;)?

Let's try to be mature and leave sexist generalizations out of it. K?

Don't like it? Too bad! Look throughout history, when has men's right of autonomy ever been challenged? Yet our patriarchal society continuously challenges women's right of autonomy. That was the point, sorry, I'll try in the future to keep it simpler for you.

Women have no such obligation. It's not even close to being equitable.

So women don't have the same obligation to care for a child they bring into the world? Seriously? Women are just as financially and physically obligated to care for that child, if not more. A check once a month does change diapers, give bathes, play with the child, hold them when they cry, hold a bucket for them while they are throwing up, rush them to the doctors when they are sick, etc. Please! Cry me a river.

I kind of like this whole mythology that women don't bear any portion of the financial burden at all during those same 18-21 years after also having carried the child for 9 months. I'll have to ask my sister where all her money keeps going then if its not to school clothes, groceries, fees and dues for school activities, electric & natural gas, and doctor's office visits. And if labor lasts at most 36 hours how is it that my coworker was telling me last night that she had a 72 hour labor/delivery with her oldest child?

SantinO,

My apologies. I thought that was a zero and not an o. As for the rest of your rant, I don't engage in tit for tat.

If you wish to debate whether men should be strapped with a baby they don't want when women do not have that same burden, I'd be happy to respond.

Be well.

Lilgremlin,

If a woman aborts a baby, there is no financial burden. Men don't get to make that choice.

Men are financially obligated to that baby for 18-21 years. Why do they not get a vote in whether the poor little thing lives or dies?

So are the women!

IF women were more courageous, they would accept the same responsibility as the men do and give birth to those babies instead of flushing them like a goldfish.

ROFLMFAO!!!! Have you ever given birth?

(*rolling eyes*) Unbelievable!

Felicitie some get to help make that choice and others don't. It depends on the couple. I've got a rather memorable example of the guy who drove his girlfriend to get checked out & then the Plan B pill when the condom fell off. Seems to me that Plan B was his suggestion and she agreed.

IF women were more courageous, they would accept the same responsibility as the men do and give birth to those babies instead of flushing them like a goldfish.

WOW! You just have to love the hypocrisy and utter insensibility of zealots.

A woman gets pregnant whether by accident or rape and she has to have the baby.

Screw the fact that a product of rape will remind her of one of the most horrible experiences in her life and she won't be able to move on until it's out of her.

Screw the fact that it's HER body and even as an accident, she didn't sign up for a pregnancy.

All that mattes to zealots is that the baby is born.

Let me ask you Felicitie. Are you gonna take care of the baby? My guess is no. You just want it out of the womb, after that he/she could die for all you care. Your dogma only protects it until it's out.

As for the rest of your rant, I don't engage in tit for tat.

A rant...LOL...? You @!$%# all over women's reproductive rights - I call you out on it...and you provide no support then dodge and deflect away from the comments you made.

I know it sucks being embarrassed ;). Don't worry Felicitie - you are not the first person on the Vine to make baseless claims/comments then run and you surely won't be the last. What a shame...another wasted NV exchange/participant.

Lilgremlin,

Thanks for your civil debate. My point is that men don't get to choose if the woman has a baby. She gets to decide for the rest of his life whether he will be a father or not. Women don't have that problem. If they choose to abort, there is nothing a man can do to stop them. If he wants to abort the baby, he can't make her do that. The legal system MAKES the men pay for that child for eighteen years. Women get to opt out, men don't. That's reality. If women were more courageous, they'd man up and take the same responsibility.

And yes, I have given birth Lola.

"..if they did abortion would be a sacrament."

Lola...welcome to 2011. Abortion RIGHTS are a sacrament.

"See this isn't just about reproduction, it's about not wanting to be pregnant."

Oh, I'm sorry, must have missed that part in the reasons why women get abortions. Let me show you the reasons women stated and you tell me which of them is not wanting to be pregnant instead of not wanting the responsibility to be a parent. I'll identify it by number so you can tell me which reason you are speaking of. The "choice" reasons could be used by a man or woman as a reason for not wanting a baby and accounts for 93% of the abortions...PLEASE tell me you understand the difference between not wanting a baby growing in you, and making a choice not to have a child. And explain to me WHY men should not be able to make the same choices women do as stated below...maybe more pointed, it appears that you feel if men had a choice, it would somehow control women. Nothing could be further from the truth. Women still would have control over their own reproductive rights. What I am suggesting is that men should have control over their OWN reproductive rights for ALL of the reasons listed below...AND...how do you see free choice to be a parent negatively affecting women? I've heard it from more corners than I can imagine...how can we be so cruel as to FORCE a woman to be a mother because she had sex. All I ask is that you turn it around and ask the EXACT same question.

"Choice"
1 - Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
2 - Feels she can't afford baby 23%
3 - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
4 - Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
5 - Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
6 - Interference with education/career plans 4%
7 - Parents/Partner wants abortion
8- Other reasons <6.5%

So again...by giving men the choice for the same reasons...what are you holding onto so dearly that you think women will be negatively affected by allowing men the same reasons?

*Source: Lawrence Finer, et. al, "Reasons U.S. Women Have Abortions: Quantitative and Qualitative Perspectives" Perspectives on Sexual and Reproductive Health, Vol. 37 No. 3 (Sept., 2005) p. 110.

Women go through nine months of pregnancy and at most 36 hours of childbirth. Men are financially obligated to that baby for 18-21 years.

And those nine months can be deadly and dangerous for the woman, as can the childbirth.

Can we decide what risks you must take to make sure another lives, even against your will, Felicitie? I know someone who needs a kidney, or he will die. I don't care what you have going on, you are a match and must donate yours, dealing with a few hours of surgery and a few months of recovery so he lives. Your body isn't yours when someone else's life is at stake, mmmkay?

"Screw the fact that a product of rape will remind her of one of the most horrible experiences in her life and she won't be able to move on until it's out of her."

Note: You are speaking about .5% of abortion cases, and they are not considered choices...they are "hard cases" of abortion, like the health of the mother or a dead fetus. This woman should have been allowed the choice to terminate the pregnancy...it was not a rape. But where SHOULD the law draw the line on allowing abortions of living fetus'? I think that is a determining factor. If we allow abortions up to 7 months, say...what if a woman came forward who found out her baby would probably (or definitely) die after 7 months and one day. Where does the law draw the line? And if it draws the line at 7 months, doesn't it HAVE to put restrictions on what type of abortions can be performed at that time?

I think the laws need to change to reflect situations like this woman that may not have been entered into the discussion when the law was made.

Felicite: The Law doesn't always make the man be a father. Men CAN (and some do) sign over their legal parental rights - when this happens they don't have to pay child support.

I would remind you Felicitie of the point I made in 1.82 that men aren't the only ones who are financially responsible for children. Women are just as much if not moreso responsible for the actual costs of childrearing even if the father is in the picture or actually pays court-ordered child support in full and on time.

On another seed I did a cost analysis of JUST formula and diapers for a child for one year. The monthly cost of those two items alone is roughly $256 per month. Acutal monthly costs of childrearing when taking all other costs of clothing/shelter/healthcare etc are taken into consideration the average monthly cost of childcare is well over $500/month. If a man pays $200/month child support that still leaves the woman $300+ to cough up to maintain that child.

Let's also not forget that the US ranks 27th out 29 countries studied in mother and infant mortaliy... (the stat may be wrong, but I do know that we are in the bottom of the rankings... WAY to GO USA!)

"Felicite: The Law doesn't always make the man be a father. Men CAN (and some do) sign over their legal parental rights - when this happens they don't have to pay child support."

This is logical, but completely untrue. A teenage boy raped by an older woman was forced to pay child support to his rapist. Do you think he wanted parental rights? It is a system that doesn't care...she can steal the sperm by forging his signature at the sperm bank, he still has NO choice. The list goes on.

Note: You are speaking about .5% of abortion cases, and they are not considered choices...they are "hard cases" of abortion, like the health of the mother or a dead fetus. This woman should have been allowed the choice to terminate the pregnancy...it was not a rape. But where SHOULD the law draw the line on allowing abortions of living fetus'? I think that is a determining factor. If we allow abortions up to 7 months, say...what if a woman came forward who found out her baby would probably (or definitely) die after 7 months and one day. Where does the law draw the line? And if it draws the line at 7 months, doesn't it HAVE to put restrictions on what type of abortions can be performed at that time?

I think the laws need to change to reflect situations like this woman that may not have been entered into the discussion when the law was made.

Oh I agree with you fully there. I'm not advocating for wholesale slaughter of fetuses just because they're not wanted. That would be sick. That's what contraception is for, to try to reduce the chances of an unwanted pregnancy.

On the other hand, I will fight tooth and nail for a woman to have a choice if she does get pregnant which is what many people wanna deny her for being a woman or simply to satisfy their religion dogma.

In the case of this topic and the woman being forced to have the baby because she was 1 week over the limit set by the law, I think the law is completely unfair.

Now, here's something interesting. I have been reading the comments about how the author of the seed changed the title to scandalize people, about how she didn't carry the baby full term but that it was born 1 week after it was found it wasn't viable. I can understand the outrage in a way but whether the author did this or not it's a moot point.

A family was told their baby was gonna die after it was born and the baby suffocated for a whole 15 minutes before dying. How can people, regardless of their creed, be outraged at the author for doing this and not be even more outraged at a ridiculous law that had this beautiful innocent creature die in such a horrible way because the time was up? If there is a horrible way to die to me, I'd say being eaten alive or gasping for air have to be the worst but since there's no zombies around, I'd have to say suffocation is THE worst and this baby experienced a full 15 minutes of it.

If I were to write a bill on abortion, hypothetically speaking, I'd leave it open ended on the matter of viability meaning, if the parents want the baby but it is discovered that the baby is not viable, it should be an act of mercy for both the parents AND the baby to kill it. The baby would be anesthetized and put to death in the most merciful way possible so he doesn't suffer an ounce of pain and the parents get to grieve as soon as they can and hopefully heal and move on.

Lola...welcome to 2011. Abortion RIGHTS are a sacrament.

Wrong! If it were anti-choicers and our patriarchal society wouldn't be attacking the right to abortion continuously.

And yes, I have given birth Lola.

If you have then I would think it would be absurd to you to imagine anyone else telling you that you must abortion or must carry the pregnancy to term. Do you often allow men and women to dictate what you can and can not do with your own reproductive organs. Would it be okay for your husband or boyfriend to force you to prostitute your self for money to pay bills. Would it be okay for your husband or boyfriend to force you to abort your pregnancy or pregnancies?

"I would remind you Felicitie of the point I made in 1.82 that men aren't the only ones who are financially responsible for children. Women are just as much if not moreso responsible for the actual costs of childrearing even if the father is in the picture or actually pays court-ordered child support in full and on time."

It is not true in a lot of cases that women have more financial responsibility. If you were given 25% of another's income (mid around $40K/year), you could take care of the child's needs with JUST that income...plus, it is taxed to the person giving it, but the tax credit goes to the person receiving it. It is the reason for the way it is set up.

But more importantly, you are forgetting THE most important piece of the situation. SHE chooses whether or not to be in that position. HE does not get that choice. One is NOT forced by the state to be support for a child (she opts out through abortion, adoption, or even dropping the kid off at a fire station or hospital in some states, the other IS FORCED based on someone ELSE's decision. If women were FORCED to be support for a child they did not want, I'm sure you'd see the issue. All you have to do is reverse the genders and suddenly justification for it sounds exactly the same as a pro-life argument.

Quite honestly, I believe everyone should have the choice. But to hear those WITH the choice say somehow their choice would be affected if that choice were given to men is interesting. I have yet to hear how giving a man a choice about being a parent after a pregnancy has occurred would affect a woman making the choice. In only one case would the choices impact the other...if a man wanted it and she didn't. Well it's her body, she makes the final choice in that case...he can go find another woman who he wants to have children with if that is his goal. In EVERY other case, giving decisions to both has no bearing on the choice of the other. Why would we fight so hard for choice for one and so hard AGAINST the same choice for another? It's odd.

Lilgremlin,

I would remind you that if a woman chooses to abort her child, no financial responsibility is incurred. Men don't get to make that decision to not be a father.

Justice? - Really, you know that men can't sign their rights over? Well, I actually know men that have done it (I also know women that have done it). It is possible - many men choose not to do it. It may not happen commonly - but it's not untrue.

As far as the teenage boy that was raped goes - that is horrible (the woman should've been put in prison). Like I've said before, there are problems in the family court system - and they need to be fixed. Fixing those problems needs to be done - I am not denying that. However, taking away a woman's right to medical autonomy is NOT the way to fix these problems. Furthermore, the problems that are in the family court system are separate from abortion.

"Wrong! If it were anti-choicers and our patriarchal society wouldn't be attacking the right to abortion continuously."

Sorry Lola...it is a law...that makes it a right. If you are tired of defending it, perhaps you should advocate for choice for all. Repealing a law that gives everyone a choice would be MUCH more difficult than repealing one that only gives 50% the choice. Then you wouldn't have to try to defend it at every turn. It would be a steadfast right for all citizens to in charge of their own reproductive rights. Whether or not to be responsible for a child at any point in their life.

TheJonesGirl,

Women decide to have a baby when they have sex. That is where I hope women can begin to take responsibility for their sexual actions. Men take responsibility for their semen. Why can't women take responsibility for their eggs?

Justice? - Really, you know that men can't sign their rights over? Well, I actually know men that have done it (I also know women that have done it). It is possible - many men choose not to do it. It may not happen commonly - but it's not untrue.

This can only happen if the woman allows it. SHE must agree to his choice in order for it to work. They can mutually sign an agreement of rights vs. not asking for child support, but unless SHE agrees to it, it will not be done. It is not HIS choice. It would be his desire, but still HER choice.

Women decide to have a baby when they have sex.

WOW!!! So women have to keep their legs closed but men can hump whatever they want?

What century you live in Felicitie?

Women decide to have a baby when they have sex.

No, women decide to have sex when they have sex. No one, be it a fetus, an iguana, my uncle, has a right to any part of my body to sustain his life.

Even if I have sex. Even if I cause an accident leading to someone needing a kidney and I am a perfect match and without my kidney, he dies. No one can use any part of me without my consent, ever.

Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy. And if someone uses contraception that fails, it is obviously not a consent to pregnancy.

And if women consent to pregnancy each time they have sex, then so do men, so there goes your argument that the man should have any rights or say in the matter!

Andrew,

Women can hump whatever they want too as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their humping just as men are forced to do.

"However, taking away a woman's right to medical autonomy is NOT the way to fix these problems."

I NEVER have said that would fix it. I have ONLY stated that INCREASING choice to include all would fix a lot of what ills the reproductive problems in this country. To give all human beings a choice about their future as a parent SHOULD be a constitutional right. Not something half the population should have to fight for in this day and age.

Women go through nine months of pregnancy and at most 36 hours of childbirth. Men are financially obligated to that baby for 18-21 years.

You say that like pregnancy is easy. If I get pregnant I will have an abortion, especially since I like living and pregnancy will kill me. Ask a doctor about what pregnancy does to a woman's body. The woman may say that her pregnancy was easy but that's only how she feels. If she could see the chemical changes happening in her, she and you would realize it's merry hell havoc in the body.

Some people have brain tumors and don't know it for a long time, why? They show no symptom, does that means it's not going to kill them? Same with pregnancy, all pregnancies are dangerous. There is a good chance of women dying of pregnancy every day. That's why we have prenatal exams. However there are still those to whom pregnancy is not only dangerous but deadly and there's more than you think. So, no... I don't care how much you believe a woman was made for this and how easy it is, it's not easy and it's nowhere near safe. Everytime a woman gives birth the miracle is not merely the child, but that the woman survived such a traumatic experience.

Any btw, my mom contributed just as much financially to my life as did my father.

Women can hump whatever they want too as long as they are willing to take responsibility for their humping just as men are forced to do.

Newsflash!! They do!!

If they don't wanna get pregnant they have men wear condoms and they use pills. Sometimes accidents do happen though and there's ways to correct it. It's their CHOICE to do so.

So your assertion that every time a woman has sex it's to have a baby is asinine.This might come as a shock to you but some even CHOOSE to get their tubes tied.

"WOW!!! So women have to keep their legs closed but men can hump whatever they want?"

Andrew, you miss the point. Although I DON'T believe women are choosing to be responsible for a baby if a pregnancy occurs because they decided to have sex, I am a bit puzzled by why we believe men are choosing to be responsible for a baby if a pregnancy occurs because they decided to have sex. Right to choose for one...why not open the right to choose to both...how does that affect a woman's current right to choose? It doesn't.

Sorry Lola...it is a law...that makes it a right. If you are tired of defending it, perhaps you should advocate for choice for all. Repealing a law that gives everyone a choice would be MUCH more difficult than repealing one that only gives 50% the choice.

Sorry Justice, no can do. I don't think a mother should be able to sign away her child's right to financial support.

Women decide to have a baby when they have sex.

Sorry, I have sex with my husband for mutual PLEASURE, we are NOT deciding to have a baby.

Justice? - I would like to know where you think that someone could raise a child for $10000 per year (that's 25% of $40,000). I have two kids, I pay $2,000/month for their expenses - or $12,000 per year/child. My ex is court ordered to pay $186/month in child support (though this is going through modification - at my ex's request because he doesn't think he pays enough). When our order was established, $186/month was far less than 25% of his income (I actually made more than he did at that time, so the order was reduced in his favor - as it should be). Furthermore, anyone that has problems with the taxes must not have had a very good attorney when they were setting things up. There are ways that the non-custodial parent can get the tax credit. For example, in cases where time is split 50/50 (as is happening much more often anymore), couples are often ordered to alternate claiming the child on taxes every other year. Another way is what's called a "buy-out" (which is what my ex has). Every year, at tax time, we each figure our taxes with and without the children on the taxes, then compare with each other (in cases where it's not amicable, I've heard of orders saying them must go to an accountant to have this done - each paying their own expenses). The parent that would benefit the most from claiming the child gets to claim the child - however, they must pay the other parent the amount the would get if they had claimed the child. Example: Say parent A would get $2500 back by claiming the child, and Parent B would get $3500 back by claiming the child. Parent B must pay Parent A $2500. Again, there are ways the tax issue can be worked out. It just takes people taking time to think about it and working it out.

"No, women decide to have sex when they have sex."

And men? Oh yeah, that's different. Even though allowing them to choose to be a parent or not after a pregnancy has occurred in NO WAY affects a woman's right to choose the EXACT SAME thing, for some reason there is a mental block to acceptance of a right for all. Just preventing one from choosing and holding them responsible for the choice of another is not a good enough reason to keep it as is. If we were to reverse the genders and hold women responsible for a man's choice about being a parent, there would complete understanding of how wrong that would be...but somehow, someway, we justify it.

TheJonesGIrl,

Your last sentence says it all. Men DO consent to become fathers every time they have sex. IF the woman decides to keep the baby, he's on the hook for eighteen years. When are women going to be that courageous?

Andrew - I'd almost say that because of the possibilities of accidents happening one could also say that both men & women be a lot more careful about who they are having sex with. Know your partner's views on sex and reproduction and plans for reproduction. Have honest, open, mature conversations with each other about what happens if something happens before we're ready for it to happen. I think that the whole issue of responsibility of sexual choices often gets horrifically dumbed down to "keep your legs shut and your zippers up". Realistically there is so much more to responsibility than "Just say no".

A teenage boy raped by an older woman was forced to pay child support to his rapist. Do you think he wanted parental rights?

Justice? do you have a source for this story?

Your last sentence says it all. Men DO consent to become fathers every time they have sex. IF the woman decides to keep the baby, he's on the hook for eighteen years. When are women going to be that courageous?

Oh Felicitie keep on with the nonsense - men consent to some financial responsibility if and only if the woman decides to go forward with her pregnancy. They are not obligated to be a father and/or take part in any parenting whatsoever. Supporting a child financially has absolutely nothing to do with courage - it has to do with the law that's implemented because of the outrageous number of "deadbeat dads".

"I don't think a mother should be able to sign away her child's right to financial support."

Yet you firmly believe she can sign away her child's right to life support? If she decides she wants to be a single parent and believes she has the funds to do it on her own, who are we to hold someone who doesn't want it responsible? Punishment for a perceived wrong? But you are only for the FORCED support by one. The other? If she doesn't want to be a parent for ANY reason, it would be unconscionable to force it. For the other...without blinking an eye you state the reverse.

And men? Oh yeah, that's different. Even though allowing them to choose to be a parent or not after a pregnancy has occurred in NO WAY affects a woman's right to choose the EXACT SAME thing, for some reason there is a mental block to acceptance of a right for all.

It is not the exact same choice - when men incubate an embryo/fetus for 9 months (and put their lives at risk) then it would be the same exact choice.

Justice? For some reason, my browser isn't letting me copy and paste in order to quote - I think I need to restart my computer. But, before I do - I wanted to respond to your comment earlier about men being able to only sign off on their rights (and thus child support) if the woman allows it. That is not entirely true. There have been cases where the woman had no choice in whether the father got to sign off on their rights or not. Again, it may not always be common - but it does happen. I know of several men that have signed off their rights - some of them, the women agreed to it, others, the women didn't agree to it, but the man was still allowed to sign off his rights. I also know if several women that have done the same thing - some with the agreement of the father, some without the agreement of the father.

Also, earlier you stated that you aren't saying take away a woman's right to medical autonomy. That's great. However, if that is your position - then even bringing up family court issues (which there are issues that do need to be fixed) on a seed about abortion is way off topic at minimum. If you want to discuss family court issues that do need fixed - then make your own seed about it don't bring it up on a seed that was originally about a family that due to a horrible circumstance was put in a position that they had to deliver a child that was not viable and watch it die a relatively slow, painful death. Believe me, I agree that family court needs to be fixed - it has to be fixed in a way that is fair to men, women and the children. But, in reality, these problems have absolutely nothing to do with abortion.

Although I DON'T believe women are choosing to be responsible for a baby if a pregnancy occurs because they decided to have sex, I am a bit puzzled by why we believe men are choosing to be responsible for a baby if a pregnancy occurs because they decided to have sex.

Ah, I see what you're saying Justice. Yes, I suppose that's a bit of a double standard there in the matter of the father having to pay for the baby even if it was an accident but not having a say if the mother chooses to abort.

It would be a steadfast right for all citizens to in charge of their own reproductive rights.

I've been reading this exchange for a while and find it very interesting. I think part of the problem is that once a child is born, the state also has an interest in protecting the child's rights as well, because by doing that, the state is protecting itself. A woman can legally give up her rights to the child by giving it up for adoption, because the adoptive parent/s are going to be vetted first to make sure the child can be supported without turning to the state. She can also give the child to the father, if he wants it, but I bet she'll be on the hook for child support as much as the father is for the same reason. She might also not want anything to do with the father but HE can still legally exercise his parental rights if he wants to because, unless something really egregious has gone on, the state will consider it to be in the best interest of the child.

I actually agree with you on some points in that a man should be able to say to his partner "I don't want to be a father so if you want to have a child, you're going to have to do it on your own" and a woman should be able to say "okay, fine, don't let the door hit you on the ass on the way out" to that. But I don't see the state ever allowing that because it has a vested interest in both the welfare of the child and in doing whatever it can to make sure that child doesn't end up needing government assistance.

Just my two cents.

"...because of the outrageous number of "deadbeat dads".

Which is exactly what our society has done to fathers...called them names. Are you aware that there is a higher percentage of deadbeat moms than deadbeat dads? The media doesn't really go after that...it's not part of the special interest and political agenda.

In reality, almost ALL (about 95%) of those you call deadbeat (moms and dads alike), are unable to make ends meet and cannot afford the weight the court has asked them to carry. I do not blame moms for not making more, I do not blame dads for not making more. For those approximately 4% that CAN afford to pay and are not, feel free to drop your "deadbeat" name. For all of the others, men and women alike, be careful on that soapbox...it's pretty high.

I think that the whole issue of responsibility of sexual choices often gets horrifically dumbed down to "keep your legs shut and your zippers up".

I have no problem with what you say about discussing responsibilities as a mature adult. After all, it takes two to tango or make a baby.

The problem I see is that while you are advocating careful thought to the act of sex, people like Felicitie are literally advocating for women closing their legs based on their brainwashed views of sex as sinful.

If sex was sinful, God wouldn't have given us the proper organs to enjoy it so much.

Men DO consent to become fathers every time they have sex. IF the woman decides to keep the baby, he's on the hook for eighteen years.

Were that correct, there wouldn't be deadbeat dads.

And it doesn't change that men don't have to take on ANY health risk in pregnancy. For that reason alone, women should have all the cards when it comes to abortion.

"But I don't see the state ever allowing that because it has a vested interest in both the welfare of the child and in doing whatever it can to make sure that child doesn't end up needing government assistance."

I certainly understand your point. I think, however, that if the state currently believes women are responsible enough to make a decision about it now, they should feel equally comfortable that they will be responsible enough to make the right decision, even if men were given the right to choose. In fact, if a woman knew for sure whether or not the guy signed on at the beginning, I would even be MORE inclined to trust her choice than if the state "promised" to take care of them with someone else's money, whether or not it is even there.

"It is not the exact same choice - when men incubate an embryo/fetus for 9 months (and put their lives at risk) then it would be the same exact choice."

It is the EXACT SAME CHOICE! Reposted WHY women choose...these are the EXACT same reasons why men would choose. Ultimately, it is not about a choice of 9 months...it IS a choice about the REST of one's life as shown below:

"Choice"
1 - Feels unready for child/responsibility 25%
2 - Feels she can't afford baby 23%
3 - Has all the children she wants/Other family responsibilities 19%
4 - Relationship problem/Single motherhood 8%
5 - Feels she isn't mature enough 7%
6 - Interference with education/career plans 4%
7 - Parents/Partner wants abortion
8- Other reasons <6.5%

For those approximately 4% that CAN afford to pay and are not, feel free to drop your "deadbeat" name. For all of the others, men and women alike, be careful on that soapbox...it's pretty high.

I'm sorry but do you have a link for this percentage as well - it's not that I don't believe you it's just I've never read this stat and would like to see the source?

Either way it shouldn't matter what the number/percentage was - laws were created to keep men from impregnating women and running away with no recourse.

It is the EXACT SAME CHOICE! Reposted WHY women choose...these are the EXACT same reasons why men would choose. Ultimately, it is not about a choice of 9 months...it IS a choice about the REST of one's life as shown below:

Re-post it as many times as you like - that doesn't make the choice to go forward with a pregnancy or abort the same between men and women. Their reasons may sound similar however there is one HUGE distinction...

Women have potential health risks with pregnancy that men obviously do not have.

There have been cases where the woman had no choice in whether the father got to sign off on their rights or not.

Summer, although you may believe that is true, it is not...if nothing else, this should help you understand that state of our current reproductive laws:

A teenage boy raped by an older woman was forced to pay child support to his rapist. Do you think he wanted parental rights?

Justice? do you have a source for this story?

Yeah, I wouldn't have believed it either, but this is what the lack of choice has come to. We've gone completely nuts with the responsibility issue. She should go to jail, the child should go to the teenage boy (or his parents) and the rapist SHOULD be forced to pay HIM child support. Any other decision would surely be unconscionable. Even though the number of cases is statistically insignificant, to hear rape brought up by supporters of women's right to choose, and completely ignored when discussing men's right to choose is not altruistic.

"Children often pay child support to grown-ups. In California and Kansas, minor boys statutorily raped by adult women must pay child support to the criminals who raped him. In one case, the boy was drugged before sex."

CALIFORNIA: San Luis Obispo County v. Nathaniel J., __— Cal. App. 4th ___, 57 Cal. Rptr. 2d 843 (1996).

Recent decisions from other states agree that the fact that the father was the victim of
statutory rape does not provide a defense to child support. S.F. v. Alabama ex rel. T.M., 23 Fam. L.
Rep. (BNA) 1082 (Ala. Civ. App. Nov. 22, 1996); State ex rel. Hermesmann v. Seyer, 252 Kan. 646,
847 P.2d 1273 (1993); Jevning v. Chicos, 499 N.W.2d 515 (Minn. 1993); Mercer County v. Alf M.,
155 Misc. 2d 703, 589 N.Y.S.2d 288 (Fam. Ct. 1992). From: (http://www.divorcesource.com/research/dl/enforcement/97feb39a.shtml)

"Were that correct, there wouldn't be deadbeat dads."

Please see post #1.120.

It is the EXACT SAME CHOICE! Reposted WHY women choose...these are the EXACT same reasons why men would choose. Ultimately, it is not about a choice of 9 months...it IS a choice about the REST of one's life as shown below:

Where did you get those stats, by the way? I'd be interested in backtracking to it and looking into the actual survey questions.

Yet you firmly believe she can sign away her child's right to life support?

It's not a child until it's born, so yes a woman can have an aboriton. No one here is advocating for taking children off life support, unless there's something you're not saying.

But what is not surprising is that a seed, about a woman not having the right to carry out a decision that she, her husband, and physician determined was best for her and her unborn fetus was prevented from doing so because of government intrusion, instead that newborn suffocated to death for 15 minutes after being born, has turned into a debate about men's rights. How typical, it's all about the men, we women are just here for their pleasure and to bring their seed to fruition.

"If they [women] become tired or even die, that does not matter. Let them die in childbirth, that's why they are there." - Martin Luther (1483 to 1546)

"Where did you get those stats, by the way? I'd be interested in backtracking to it and looking into the actual survey questions."

Post #1.86

Yeah, I wouldn't have believed it either, but this is what the lack of choice has come to

Thank you - that's insane. I notice this scenario doesn't get out in the spotlight all too often.

Justice? While I don't doubt there are parents that can't afford the child support they are court ordered to pay, I also know that orders can be modified every few years (how often depends on the state) and that modification request can come from either parent. I also know that under some circumstances, the court will reduce the child support below the calculated amount. I know that some of the parents that can't afford the support order can't afford to pay their child support because they refuse to hold down jobs.

I do question your stat that 95% of the parents that don't pay child support don't pay because they can't afford it. Can they not afford it because of unemployment or underemployment? Or can they not afford it because they refuse to work? With the current economy, I'm positive there has been an increase in parents not paying due to unemployment or underemployment - but, in general, outside of the curent economic status of our country, I doubt that it's really 95% can't afford to pay child support. A study in Illionois, only 38% of parents that didn't pay child support didn't pay due to insufficient funds, 23% of "dead-beat" parents said they didn't pay child support because they felt they lacked adequate visitation rights, 13% said they didn't pay because they didn't want the child(ren), then a variety of other reasons. That said, a similar study in California found that 76% of non-paying parents didn't pay child support due to inability to pay (they lacked the funds). So, I assume that it varies from state to state what they actual break down is - probably depends on cost of living, etc. Higher cost of living areas probably do have more "deadbeat (deadbroke?)" parents due to lack of ability to pay than lower cost of living areas.

Also, I would like to add something to a previous post of mine - when I was talking about parents being able to sign their rights off (and not have to pay child support) - of course it's easier when the custodial parent agrees to it. However, it's not impossible to sign off even without the permission of the custodial parent.

The problem I see is that while you are advocating careful thought to the act of sex, people like Felicitie are literally advocating for women closing their legs based on their brainwashed views of sex as sinful.

I do advocate for careful thought Andrew. I've seen far too many instances of people not thinking about it thoroughly (and guilty myself if I'm truly being honest). Sometimes it's resulted in pregnancy and sometimes it hasn't. Sometimes there have even been close calls. I can't look at sex as being inherently sinful because if it was such a taboo none of us would be here to have this conversation. We are programmed to want sex and to enjoy sex. Its not really a matter of activity or abstinence, more a matter of choosing wisely for your own situation.

If sex was sinful, God wouldn't have given us the proper organs to enjoy it so much.

Very true. I'm pretty sure I've heard various pastors over the years bring up that point - just with a slightly different twist. And if sex is such a horrible sin why do people get so excited over the presentation of the end product?

"How typical, it's all about the men, we women are just here for their pleasure and to bring their seed to fruition."

No Lola, you forget that I advocate a choice for a man to make about an unborn child...one that has no life in your eyes until it is born. That fine. But if you proclaim a child is not a child until it is born, then your claim of a man making a choice to support a child is not true until after it is born. I would never advocate making a choice after birth (however, women can still put it up for adoption or drop them off...but whatever)...when the father is notified that she is pregnant, he has, say, two weeks to determine whether or not he wants to be a parent. Given a woman has three-four months or so, depending on specific laws, I think two weeks is fair. All BEFORE it is a child. She can still make any decision she wants. His decision affects her not in the least. If she believes she can raise a child as a single parent, more power to her. Who are we to say she can't? We HAVE to believe women are responsible enough to weigh the choices and make the best one, don't we? And if she KNOWS she will or will not be getting support, is this not more information that makes her choice even MORE responsible?

Summer, although you may believe that is true, it is not...if nothing else, this should help you understand that state of our current reproductive laws

Considering I actually personally know men and women that have signed off their parental rights and do not have to pay child support without the permission of the other parent, I can absolutely, unequivocally say it is true - parents CAN sign off their rights and not have to pay child support. It may not be easy to do all the time - but that doesn't make it untrue.

The case of the teenage boy that was raped - as I said earlier - that is horrible and should've never happened. Furthermore, I said that woman should have gone to prison.

And if she KNOWS she will or will not be getting support, is this not more information that makes her choice even MORE responsible?

That's a good point.

"Women have potential health risks with pregnancy that men obviously do not have."

And the reason to end a pregnancy due to that is about 4% of the abortions performed. 93% are gender-neutral. Should we prevent one from making the decision because 7% of the time they are not in physical danger, but 93% of the time they have a valid stake? If there is a health issue, then it is not a choice. When a woman makes a choice, the reasons are the same as why a man would make the choice in ALL but the physical process of having the child. I would NEVER advocate taking that right away...only to expand reproductive rights to all which will not affect women's choices about their futures in the least. It ONLY places responsibility for choices with those who made the choices. If offering men a choice about being a father in affected women being able to choose whether or not to be a mother, then I would certainly rethink it. But I see NO downside for women, and a whole lot of upside to those children who were committed to by the parent(s). I bet the child support agencies would go out of business. Instead of demonizing people and putting them in jail for not being able to pay (even if it is 76% in one state), maybe we should recognize the reality of letting people choose their own destinies and you'll find much more commitment to the plan. We have it for women now...GREAT! Let's help society by giving everyone the choice over their futures.

"Considering I actually personally know men and women that have signed off their parental rights and do not have to pay child support without the permission of the other parent, I can absolutely, unequivocally say it is true"

I can't think of any reason why that would be allowed if raping a boy isn't an excuse not to get child support from him. I am not challenging your statement, but could you provide some details that would help me understand how a state would allow a full-grown man to opt out of child support, but hold a rape victim to child support. I really am interested in the case...not trying to bait you for rebuttal.

Justice, a woman doesn't always know the effects a pregnancy will have. If, 10 weeks in, she is required to be on bedrest, but she already has a child to support and must work, should she be allowed to abort?

when the father is notified that she is pregnant, he has, say, two weeks to determine whether or not he wants to be a parent. Given a woman has three-four months or so, depending on specific laws, I think two weeks is fair.

Justice?, I think this is a great idea. Actually, I would say as long as the mother can legally access abortion in her state of residency, the father should have the legal right to opt in or opt out (so to speak). Well, maybe he should have 2 weeks less - only so that if his decision to opt out means she decides to get an abortion, she has time to get the abortion legally. Believe me, I'm not disagreeing with you that family court has problems - it certainly does, and those problems need to be addressed.

And the reason to end a pregnancy due to that is about 4% of the abortions performed.

And what about the fatalities before an abortion could be performed? Honestly I could give a @!$%# if the percentage was less than 1% - point is the reason behind continuing or ending a pregnancy between the sexes is not the same.

When a woman makes a choice, the reasons are the same as why a man would make the choice in ALL but the physical process of having the child.

That physical process (pregnancy, labor and delivery) is kind of a big deal - especially to women.

We have it for women now...GREAT! Let's help society by giving everyone the choice over their futures.

Justice? I understand your point and honestly IMO (especially being a man) we get the "short end of the stick" when it comes to choices after impregnation. Financial responsibility laws should be re-evaluated as they are partial to women but IMHO there is no way that a man should have an equal say about the pregnancy itself.

I can't think of any reason why that would be allowed if raping a boy isn't an excuse not to get child support from him. I am not challenging your statement, but could you provide some details that would help me understand how a state would allow a full-grown man to opt out of child support, but hold a rape victim to child support. I really am interested in the case...not trying to bait you for rebuttal.

I understand you are interested and aren't trying to bait for a rebuttal.

There is no valid reason that teenage boy that was raped should've been ordered to pay child support, imo. The woman should go to prison for rape, etc.

The only thing I can think of is different judges or maybe the state the teenage boy was in have different laws (that obviously need to be addressed). In the cases that I know of, the parent that gave up their parental rights simply stated that they never wanted to be parents, had no intention of being parents. Of course, these individuals began the process when the mother was still pregnant - so it was well known by the courts that they wanted to not be involved from the beginning. There was in and out behavior on the part of these individuals.

Andrew3378,

I never said women should keep their legs shut. In fiact I've repeatedly said the opposite. Have sex in a tub full of jello on tuesdays and thursdays every month, I don't care. But when you get pregnant, let the baby live. It was your actions that created the baby. Don't punish him for your mistakes.

It was your actions that created the baby.

NOT in the case of rape. NOT in the case of child abuse. Nothing is as clean cut as you make it out to be.

But when you get pregnant, let the baby live

I can get behind that as a personal wish. I do wish women let babies live. However it is not my place take their choice away as people like you wanna do by trying to repeal abortion laws or get around them.

But when you get pregnant, let the baby live.

If it was a baby then I'd probably agree with you. Too bad its not. I hope you feel the same way about protecting living breather human beings who are already living on this planet - not living in amniotic fluid.

Santino,

It's the way to dehumanize the baby by calling it zygote or fetus. That is a living, breathing child. Your attempts to diminish the importance of the living, breathing human inside the womb do not change that fact.

Andrew3378,

IF you believe that women are killing babies when they abort, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to speak out against the practice. To do otherwise is to allow genocide because you think the killers should be entitled to their own choices about the lives of babies. If that is your stance, what are we locking murderers up for?

Felicitie, Having an abortion is up to the woman - period. You may not like it, that's fine. As pointed out before - consensual sex is not consenting to being pregnant.

It's the way to dehumanize the baby by calling it zygote or fetus.

No it's not - it is the scientific/factual way to talk about what a human being is before its born.We are not the same - unless you are still being fed through an umbilicus connected to a placenta?

That is a living, breathing child.

LOL...a fetus's lungs aren't even taking in oxygen in the womb - they are filled with amniotic fluid. Good thing we took A&P...lol.

Tell us Felicitie what other mythical stories do you think occurs inside the womb? I'd be willing to bet you also believe in the immaculate conception of Mary too don't you ;)?

Calling it a zygote or fetus is not dehumanizing. It's calling it by the proper terms. It's not a breathing baby until after birth - breathing doesn't begin until birth.

I know you weren't addressing me, but I don't think abortion is killing babies. Just my opinion, but a woman should be able to chose to abort or not abort, for any reason, until viability. Once the fetus is viable, abortion should be allowed in cases of medical necessity to preserve the life of the mother (and yes, psychological reasons are valid), defect, death or non-viability of the fetus, and/or rape or incest.

IF you believe that women are killing babies when they abort, it is your RESPONSIBILITY to speak out against the practice. To do otherwise is to allow genocide because you think the killers should be entitled to their own choices about the lives of babies. If that is your stance, what are we locking murderers up for?

Murderers kill human beings who are fully formed and able to survive on their own. A baby in the womb though I choose to call it a baby for emotional reasons because I'm a father, is NOT a fully formed human being.

We don't convict men of murder for masturbating even though when they ejaculate they are literally killing millions of potentially viable sperm that could one day make a baby, same as we don't convict women for experiencing menstruation and in essence having their body kill the one viable egg they produce every month.

Yes, it does sound heartless to call it a zygote or a fetus or a parasite, which is why I don't, but that is what they are until they exit the womb. They are part of a woman's body and if a woman wants to discard an organ they can live without, she is most certainly entitled to do so even if we don't approve of it.

The ONLY reason the anti-choice crowd uses words like "baby" is to shift the argument to the emotional. It's the only card they have.

The ONLY reason the anti-choice crowd uses words like "baby" is to shift the argument to the emotional. It's the only card they have.

Pro-choice but I use the word baby because

1) I'm a father and

2) As much as I support the choice for abortion, it should NEVER be taken lightly.

Andrew3378,

Thank you for defining your viewpoint. I can't help but wonder if your baby had been killed in utero if you would consider it murder or not. There is a mountain of difference between legal and moral. A baby in the womb is a baby. Let's not kill it.

There is a mountain of difference between legal and moral.

And I can almost guarantee for a 100% fact that your idea of moral vs. immoral behavior is not the same as mine Felicitie.

A baby in the womb is a baby. Let's not kill it.

Not the kind of baby that breathes air and drinks milk...LOL...keep lying to yourself - perhaps it will come true ;).

Thank you for defining your viewpoint. I can't help but wonder if your baby had been killed in utero if you would consider it murder or not.

I wouldn't call it murder because of what I mentioned above about the proper definition of what a baby in the womb is. I would have respected my girl's choice for what it was, HER choice, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't have had a problem with it.

I may not have stayed with her, but you see, that's also a result of making choices. Choices have consequences and not all of them good.

There is a mountain of difference between legal and moral.

True, but your beliefs don't give you the moral authority to impose them on someone else.

A baby in the womb is a baby. Let's not kill it.

If you get pregnant, go ahead and have the baby. That's YOUR choice. It may not be someone else's and you have no right to do anything about it much as you'd like to believe.

Your rights end where someone else's rights begin.

Andrew3378,

Thanks for the clarification of your beliefs. I believe a baby in the womb deserves life. I will fight to make that the law of the land.

Be well.

"If, 10 weeks in, she is required to be on bedrest, but she already has a child to support and must work, should she be allowed to abort?"

Why wouldn't she be able to?

I will fight to make that the law of the land.

I will fight not to let you, not out of spite but because it's the right thing to do. Women have the same rights as men. It's wrong to deny them their rights because of dogma.

"IMHO there is no way that a man should have an equal say about the pregnancy itself."

I completely agree with you and have never argued he should. ONLY that he should have a choice as to whether or not he wants to be a father. If he says no, she can still have it. If he says he will, she can still abort it. It doesn't affect her CHOICE about the pregnancy at all. It only allows both of them to choose to be parents or not...equally.

Justice, many would happily make it illegal for that woman to abort, while screaming that she's not entitled to welfare. Others would say she is aborting for "convenience."

If he says he will, she can still abort it. It doesn't affect her CHOICE about the pregnancy at all. It only allows both of them to choose to be parents or not...equally.

Ah...then we agree. I got hung up on the concept of men and women having an equal choice regarding pregnancy...my bad.

Still can't believe that multiple states feel that statutory rape is still not grounds for dismissing child payments - that is @!$%#ing insane.

I will fight to make that the law of the land.

Who made you God Felicitie - what makes you think you have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. That absolutely disgusts me...

Who made you God Felicitie - what makes you think you have the right to tell women what they can and cannot do with their own bodies. That absolutely disgusts me...

I feel the same. It is disgusting?

Still can't believe that multiple states feel that statutory rape is still not grounds for dismissing child payments - that is @!$%#ing insane.

Totally f-ing insane, I agree.

I will fight to make that the law of the land.

I will fight to keep abortion medically safe, legal, and available to women, I will fight to keep women from dying in back allies, motel rooms, or their home where their children are in another room sleeping then find mommy dead in the morning. I fight to keep newborns from being abandon in dumpsters, allies, rivers, lakes, or buried in the wilderness. I have fought for years and will continue to fight until my dying day for my daughters, my future grand-daughters, and future great grand-daughters.

For those who are worried about men's rights, perhaps you should fight for them if you're that passionate about it, but please do it on your own seed.

"Justice, many would happily make it illegal for that woman to abort, while screaming that she's not entitled to welfare. Others would say she is aborting for "convenience."

Understood...I'm not one of them.

For those who are worried about men's rights, perhaps you should fight for them if you're that passionate about it, but please do it on your own seed.

Nice...empathy and understanding is apparently for others. The comments made about how much women are expected to suffer for their sexuality is what started it. It needs to be made clear that no one in society should suffer for their sexuality. I don't think that is too much to ask...especially when it is stated on this thread.

This thread is actually about a woman who was unable to get an abortion after 20 weeks. So to your statement:

I fight to keep newborns from being abandon in dumpsters, allies, rivers, lakes, or buried in the wilderness. I have fought for years and will continue to fight until my dying day for my daughters, my future grand-daughters, and future great grand-daughters.

I suppose I could say, "if you feel that passionately about it, you should fight for them (downplaying importance) but find your own thread"...but I wouldn't because that wouldn't be very nice would it.

I kind of like this whole mythology that women don't bear any portion of the financial burden at all during those same 18-21 years after also having carried the child for 9 months.

Felicite: The Law doesn't always make the man be a father. Men CAN (and some do) sign over their legal parental rights - when this happens they don't have to pay child support.

Not always.

http://family-law.lawyers.com/ask-a-lawyer/Surrender-Of-Parental-Rights-6286.html

"I have two kids, I pay $2,000/month for their expenses"

Summer, I can understand where you are coming from, but please know, the amount you claim to spend on your children is more than most parents who are behind in child support make for themselves. State governments issue around $150 a month per child along with food stamps for families that need it. Standard food bill for a family of four can be around $300 per month. These numbers may seem small, but they are what many survive on. To hear that it takes $24,000 a year for two children, I would think they may have a higher standard of living than most. There were times in my life where I didn't make that much for my own residence and food, let alone try to double it for children. Unless I had to get them their own apartment, I have to say I personally did it on much less, as have most of the people in the country.

Please don't get me wrong. If you have $2,000 a month to spend on the children, I commend you and am glad that your children have those resources...but in reality, one can (and most do) raise their children for well under that amount.

Rhep, I never said it was easy or that it always happened.

Justice? I'm a full-time medical student, and we live solely on student loans. I don't qualify for assistance because I have a bachelor's degree and am considered employable (at least that's what the case worker I saw told me). The $2000/month is an average - obviously some months I spend less, other months I spend more. They don't have a higher standard of living of other kids in our area. Perhaps if I lived in a rough part of town - where there are shootings, high crime rates, etc., etc. - I could get away with spending less on some their expenses, but I'm not willing to compromise their safty for money.

Also, you have to understand that $2000/month includes their medical insurance - which I pay for. Yes, I have access to it through school, but I have to pay 100% of their premiums - that accounts for slightly more than $400/month of that $2000/month. The $2000/month also includes the daycare money I spend on my youngest son - that is a little over $300/month for 7.5 hours/week (he goes to before school care only). It also includes the extra money I spent per month on a 2 bedroom over a 1 bedroom - $300/month. I would really like to have a 3 bedroom, but I can't afford that. It includes the increase cost of utilities every month (slightly over $100/month for their part). It includes the $400/month I spend on just their groceries. (Where we live, $300/month for a family of 4 wouldn't cover groceries for the entire month - I spend $550/month on all three of us - and based on how much I eat, my boys eat approx $400/month of the groceries). We do have cell phones (well, my oldest and I do) - so I did include the difference between and individual plan and a family plan with the same features) - we're already at $1600/month. The cell phones are our only phones. I took the cost I spend on clothing for them every year and averaged it over 12 months, I took the cost I spend on school supplies and fees and averaged it out over 12 months (this takes us up to 1800/month). I did add in things that aren't covered by their health insurance - like eye exams, dental exams, orthodontia for my oldest son (this takes us to 1950/month. Then I added $50/month for things that don't really fit into any particular category but still get spent - now we're up to $2000/month. I still cut out a lot of expenses that other parents have - my kids don't get to participate in many activities that cost money because I simply don't have the money to spend on the activities. Really, their standard of living isn't better than other kids in our area. Earlier when I said they don't really have medical expenses that aren't covered by health insurance - I was referring to things specifically covered by their insurance - like doctor appointments, medications, ER visits, etc. all of these are covered 100%. That is hugely helpful - especially since my youngest son has a medical condition that requires some pretty expensive treatments. They don't have eye insurance or dental insurance - so these are things I pay these expenses out of pocket. Notice, I didn't count their school lunches - that's because I pack their lunches for school (so that's included in the cost of groceries). I do this because both of my kids have food allergies - which also accounts for part of the reason why their grocery bill may be higher than some other kids (one of my kids is allergic to peanuts, treenuts, fish and shellfish, the other is allergic to milk). Just an example, but I buy soy butter instead of peanut butter - that's $7.00/jar v $3.50/jar for the same size, I buy soy milk which runs just under $7.00/gallon. We also don't eat out because of their allergies, also the vast majority of our foods aren't pre-packaged meals (I prepare all of our meals). So, I can honestly see where some might pay less for groceries than I do - but I don't know a single family in my area that gets away with spending $300/month on groceries. I also do without for myself a lot of times so that I can provide my kids for the things they need - I can spend far less on clothes for myself (since I'm done growing), for example. When I do buy clothes - for myself or my boys - I only buy things that are on sale (preferrably on clearance) or from a thrift store. I have a friend that lives a few blocks away from me that has 2 kids. Her cost per month for her kids is even more than mine because she pays more in daycare (her oldest is too young to watch the youngest after school, so she pays before and after for the oldest, and full-time care for the youngest - her daycare bill is close to $1000/month for the two girls).

When I was in undergrad - just after my divorce, I did qualify for assistance - and during that time, I honestly didn't spend that much of my own money on my kids. The assistance I received then made it possible for me to get my bachelor's degree - for that I am exceedingly grateful. During that time, I did qualify for housing assistance, food stamps, day care assistance and medicaid for all of us. I was also able to get my undergrad paid for via grants and scholarhsips and qualified for work study for a job. So, I'm lucky that I have virtually no debt from undergrad (my first year, I did have to take out some student loans). I also lived in a state that had lower cost of living at the time. I have to say that if it weren't for that assistance, I probably would not have been able to afford to go to undergrad - let alone go on to medical school. So, I am forever grateful for that assistance. It truly helped me acheive my goals and take better care of my kids during a time that it was very much needed.

I don't even live in an area that has a very high cost of living - certainly there are cheaper places to live, but there are also a lot more expensive places to live. The area I grew up in has a much higher cost of living than where we currently live (I grew up in Park City, Utah). The area I went to undergrad in (just north of Kansas City, MO) has a lower cost of living where I currently live. I currently live in PA.

I pulled up stats that showed the average cost of raising a child was much higher than what I pay - Rhep found some (and they were newer stats) that showed it was much lower than what I had found. So, say we use Rhep's stats (they are somewhere in this seed) - it showed the average cost of raising a child was just over $1000/month (if I remember right) - but that's per child. So, I guess the amount I spend on my kids per month really isn't out of range of the average.

It was $222,360 for 0-18 years.

Here is the study for those who care.

Rhep, Thanks for pulling that back up. We'll use your figures because they do appear to be much more current (and probably more accurate) than the figures I had when I pulled up the average cost of raising a child from 0 -17. Using your figures - that's $1029/month for a child. Based on your figures, my $2000/month for 2 kids is pretty average.

Santino,

Nobody died and made me God and I'm not telling women what to do with their bodies. The babies in their wombs are individuals. Every American is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes babies in the womb.

Taking the stance that you abhor the killing of babies in the womb and then advocating for such is cowardice not tolerance.

In all honestly, MOST of the men that get the short end of the stick PERCEIVE they will and don’t fight. My cousin was off the chain when she was in high school. Had 2 before she graduated and 2 more right after she finished. The father of the 2^nd two took her to court for custody. She was sure she would get the kids. BUT she was on every type of support imaginable including child support from the father of the first two. His argument was that he does not want to give her money to take care of the kids, he can do it by himself. He showed the courts that even with section 8, welfare and child support, she cannot manage any of the resources she gets well enough for the children to be in decent living conditions. The courts saw his point of view and he got his kids. This was in 1986. On top of that, he was a SINGLE man in the military. HE still got his kids. If he could do it in 1986, fathers can damn sure do it now. It takes some work, and some time, but if you don’t want to give an aint-shyt chick your money when you can do it yourself, show the courts this. They would much rather the child not be so dependent on the state anyway.

Taking the stance that you abhor the killing of babies in the womb and then advocating for such is cowardice not tolerance.

Get it through your zealot brainwashed head! Nobody is advocating murder of babies. We are advocating having a choice.

You know what rape is? Rape is not about the sex. Rape is the taking of choice. What you and your ilk are trying to do is as much rape as if you tied a woman up and had your way with her.

It's disgusting!!

Justice? - This thread is actually about a woman who was unable to get an abortion after 20 weeks. So to your statement:

Lola-984242 - I fight to keep newborns from being abandon in dumpsters, allies, rivers, lakes, or buried in the wilderness. I have fought for years and will continue to fight until my dying day for my daughters, my future grand-daughters, and future great grand-daughters.

Justice? - I suppose I could say, "if you feel that passionately about it, you should fight for them (downplaying importance) but find your own thread"...but I wouldn't because that wouldn't be very nice would it.

Let's see, is this seed about father's rights or men's rights? No

Is this seed about a women unable to obtain an abortion? Yes, therefore I'm on topic in regards to stating my stance on women's rights.

"Is this seed about a women unable to obtain an abortion?"

Ahhh, so your comments about newborns in dumpsters are about obtaining an abortion. It is so fun to see justification for one's point of view and personal filters. Keep thinking it's all about you and your specific agenda, everyone else be damned, and I'll keep thinking it's about society as a whole and what is best for everyone, no one be damned.

If he could do it in 1986, fathers can damn sure do it now.

My dad did it too, though it cost him A LOT to do it, back in 1990.

Just because it does happen, doesn't mean it's common.

Is this seed about a women unable to obtain an abortion? Yes, therefore I'm on topic in regards to stating my stance on women's rights.

That's irrelevant Lola - this is Killfile's seed not yours and there have been many sub-conversations going on throughout the entire thread.

Nobody died and made me God and I'm not telling women what to do with their bodies.

Why are you lying Felicitie - you wrote a few posts earlier...

I will fight to make that the law of the land.

That is telling women what to do with their bodies.

Every American is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That includes babies in the womb.

When was the first or last time a fetus had a SS#? No autonomy, no personal liberties - an embryo, zygote and fetus are part of it's host. They are 100% property of the potential mother.

When was the first or last time a fetus had a SS#?

REALLY not a good road to go down...

Justice? - Ahhh, so your comments about newborns in dumpsters are about obtaining an abortion.

Yes, because that's what will happen if rabid anti-choice advocates along with anti-choice politicians continue chipping away at a woman's right to choose to end her pregnancy.

Keep thinking it's all about you and your specific agenda,

It's not all about me, I'm not pregnant, but it is about this topic. My agenda it to keep medical decisions between a man and/or woman and their physician, not you, not me, not the government, and certainly not the church. If this woman's physician said this pregnancy was failing and the fetus was dying and would not live outside the womb, she had every right to obtain that abortion in her city and state.

everyone else be damned,

I said nothing about anyone elses issues being damned, however I did point out that men's rights are not relevant to THIS seed and off topic. Start a seed about men's rights and I'll gladly post my opinions and feelings about that particular issue when I visit your seed. You are doing nothing here be deflecting and derailing, along with attempting to start a fight.

and I'll keep thinking it's about society as a whole and what is best for everyone, no one be damned.

Then why should we even have a topics to seeds? We might as well talk about anything. Hear about the Tsunami in Japan? How do you feel about our tax dollar being used to help the survivors in Japan? How do you feel about fracking? What do you think about Sean Penn inviting Charlie Sheen to Haiti? Did you hear about Gabby Gifford going to Florida to watch her husband's shuttle launch?

That's irrelevant Lola - this is Killfile's seed not yours and there have been many sub-conversations going on throughout the entire thread.

I'm aware who seed this is Santino42, often a poster will point out to another poster that they are going off topic and derailing a seed. Men's rights have nothing to do with this. But to each their own, I'll bow out at this time, have at it guys!

Start a seed about men's rights and I'll gladly post my opinions and feelings about that particular issue when I visit your seed.

I actually think that would be a good idea, Justice?

You've made some really good points about reproductive rights in a way that I've not seen other men be able to do it.

REALLY not a good road to go down...

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me - ok...when was the last time a fetus had a real or fake SS#? There is that better Rhep...LOL?

"I actually think that would be a good idea, Justice? You've made some really good points about reproductive rights in a way that I've not seen other men be able to do it."

Thank you shannoscubie...not a bad idea...I'd have to think about how to frame it so as not to be attacked by extremists with their own agendas, but with both a son and a daughter, I see a lot of hypocrisy from both extremes. Hey...maybe that's the frame. :)

Thank you killfile for the latitude extended in the discussion. I believe it is relevant to the discussion and does tie together, albeit responding to a another's post, and not you directly.

"Then why should we even have a topics to seeds? We might as well talk about anything."

All right lola, calm down. You were able to state whatever you wanted and you did. There can be questions about your motives and posts, but that doesn't mean people don't agree with them, or that they do...just wanting to know where you come from. I didn't mean to piss you off by bringing up correlation with the posts. Feel free to continue to post whatever you like. I am not attacking you, running you off the board, or trying to silence you...although, I get the strangest suspicion that was your motive...but whatever. Live and let live. Post and let post. Your posts have insight, angry for the most part, but definitely insight as well, and I don't think anyone is asking you to leave the conversation, but obviously, you are free to do as you wish.

Due to your posts, I'd like to make it VERY clear, that when you say "have at it guys" you would be using "guys" in the neutral gender as there are women here to who may or may not agree with you as well. Any other meaning would make it look like you were trying to paint it as a bunch of guys ganging up and bullying a woman...which is certainly not the case here. Sometimes, it is the subtle tones that give clarity to the entire picture.

The whole idea of men having the rights to a woman's body because they have had sex with her is rather antiquated isn't it!

I guess in some parts of the world people still believe that women's bodies are the property of men, but here in the USA we have constitutional rights!!

I often tell people to go look up -Numbers; 5:13-29- as it is the only direct reference to abortion in the Bible. However it states a MAN has the right to have his wives pregnancy aborted if he feels she has cheated on him. The slippery slope!

If we are going down this path of Men's rights does it not mean they would have the right to demand abortions as well!

This is just a new angle on the Anti-choice movements pile Of BS!

"The whole idea of men having the rights to a woman's body because they have had sex with her is rather antiquated isn't it!"

Either I don't understand your statement, or you don't understand mine. Please denote where it is EVER mentioned that a man has a right over what a woman does with a pregnancy. It is my FIRM belief that BOTH a woman AND a man should have the ability to choose whether or not they want to be a parent, exclusive to THEIR own choice, not forcing that choice on the other. I believe it is YOU who are stating women's bodies are property of men and then arguing with YOUR claim.

If men had reproductive rights about deciding whether or not they WANTED to be a parent after a pregnancy occurred, this would not in any way, shape, or form affect any right a woman has over her body or HER decision to be parent after a pregnancy has occurred. If you have misread any of the statements, please go back and re-read.

We're not talking about SHIFTING control from a woman to a man, we're talking about putting the control in the hands of BOTH people, separate from the other. No decision a man makes would in any way force a woman to make the same choice...and no decision a woman makes would in any way force a man to make the same choice. I hope this helps alleviate your concern that somehow instating reproductive rights for men would in any way affect the reproductive rights women currently enjoy (and hopefully continue to enjoy). It expands rights, but does not remove any...

"If we are going down this path of Men's rights does it not mean they would have the right to demand abortions as well!"

Not if we believe in the ability of a woman to make a decision that is right for herself. Why would anyone force her to have an abortion if she decided she was ready and could support a child herself?

Every American is entitled to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Since when is one person allowed the use of another person's body to maintain his life?

A zygote, embryo, fetus will not live without the woman's body. It requires she give of her own body for it to stay alive until it is viable and can maintain stasis (breathing, blood pressure, body temperature to name a few) on its own.

Unless you are willing to demand that every last person be registered in a database and forced to give of whatever they can, be it blood, bone marrow, a kidney, a lobe of liver to keep another person alive, you cannot demand that a woman give up her body to keep a fetus alive.

We all have the right to determine how we want our bodies used (with some exceptions) and that applies to a woman carrying a fetus. Do you really, truly want to live in a country where one person can be forced to provide his body for another to live?

I don't, because I can see where that would go. Rich people would demand organs from poor people, for one. No thanks.

Are you @!$%#ing kidding me - ok...when was the last time a fetus had a real or fake SS#? There is that better Rhep...LOL?

Well I was thinking more along the lines of people coming back with "Well Illegals don't have a SSN so we can kill them too, right?"

It just isn't really a very good line of argument and opens up a very large can of worms.

It just isn't really a very good line of argument and opens up a very large can of worms.

It illustrates my point, albeit in a very sarcastic manner, that a fetus is not the same as a baby/adult.

You remember that babies don't get a SSN right away... Which means that using your line of logic it would still be OK to kill newborns.

See why it was a poor example? There are holes in the logic big enough to drive a truck through.

See why it was a poor example? There are holes in the logic big enough to drive a truck through.

Can a fetus apply for a SS#? Example works just fine thanks ;).

Can a fetus apply for a SS#? Example works just fine thanks ;).

No, it doesn't. Can a baby apply for SS#?

No, it doesn't. Can a baby apply for SS#?

The parent can yes - are you @!$%#ing kidding me?

Don't be getting pissy when your idiotic logic get thrown back at you.

COH violation - reported as such.

Can a fetus apply for a SS#? Example works just fine thanks ;).

You said had not apply for. Big difference.

Does that mean you disagree with laws like this one? A fetus isn't a person, right?

You said had not apply for. Big difference.

LOL...are you still thinking about this...that's too cute ;). BTW I'm not reading that entire law - would you like to provide a synopsis before I comment on your 2nd question?

I only think about it when I see this title come up in my tracker, doesn't take much thought to see the huge holes in your argument.

You only had to read the first two lines...

187. (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being, or a
fetus, with malice aforethought.

This law should be changed since it's just a fetus, right?

doesn't take much thought to see the huge holes in your argument.

This is just adorable - it was not an argument. See #1.192 - don't need to repeat myself.

You only had to read the first two lines...

Thanks for the synopsis ;).

No IMO a fetus is not a person. However that being said...opinions and attitudes do change when the potential mother chooses to continue on with her pregnancy. I understand and appreciate that emotional fact. I also appreciate that a fetus's rights end where the mother's begin. She is in complete control of the fetus at all times until its born - not the other way around.

This is just adorable - it was not an argument. See #1.192 - don't need to repeat myself.

Like I said, I know what you were trying to do... you just did it poorly. But anyway...

Thanks for the synopsis ;).

No problem.

However that being said

So... you want enhanced punishment for killing a fetus but no punishment if a fetus is killed? Seems weird that it gets considered a person or not depending on how you feel about something.

So... you want enhanced punishment for killing a fetus but no punishment if a fetus is killed? Seems weird that it gets considered a person or not depending on how you feel about something.

I haven't been following this very closely because you guys have gotten a bit too acrimonious for my taste but I thought I'd throw my .02 in there and suggest that you, Rhep, might look back in the discussion and see if the "depending on how you feel about something" could be based on whether or not the pregnancy in question was an unintended pregnancy or not.

Isn't her position that a fetus doesn't count as a life? It can't sometimes be a life, depending on how the mother feels. It is either alive or it isn't.

Personally, I think it is always a human life (therefore I support the CA law counting it as murder), which means the only debate is on when it's ok to end it - for me that is the point of viability, at which point the decision no longer belongs to the mother and should default to the baby (meaning it would still be OK if the life of one or the other is in danger or the baby is either doomed or will have a severely reduced QoL).

I also happen to support capital punishment and assisted suicide, so take it for what you will.

Isn't her position that a fetus doesn't count as a life? It can't sometimes be a life, depending on how the mother feels. It is either alive or it isn't.

I don't know. I don't know the position of whoever you're arguing with or even whether they're male or female. I can, however, tell you as a female who has experienced more than one pregnancy (one of which was unintended) that it really does depend on whether the woman carrying it considers it to be a life or not, and that it is and always should be her decision as to whether that life can and should be carried to fruition.

Personally, I think it is always a human life (therefore I support the CA law counting it as murder), which means the only debate is on when it's ok to end it - for me that is the point of viability, at which point the decision no longer belongs to the mother and should default to the baby (meaning it would still be OK if the life of one or the other is in danger or the baby is either doomed or will have a severely reduced QoL).

I don't disagree with you there, either as a mother or as what I consider to be both a pro-choice AND a pro-life advocate. I also include science-based evidence in the opinion I hold.

I also happen to support capital punishment and assisted suicide, so take it for what you will.

I'm ambivalent on capital punishment (and I believe it's another discussion worthy of having) but I'm fully supportive of assisted suicide, particularly after my sister and mother and I had to help my father die last year.

So... you want enhanced punishment for killing a fetus but no punishment if a fetus is killed? Seems weird that it gets considered a person or not depending on how you feel about something.

Didn't say anything about increased or decreased punishment. I merely pointed out the fact that 'if' the potential mother wants to continue with her pregnancy - attitudes change. She is now making an investment in this potential life both emotionally and financially.

Isn't her position that a fetus doesn't count as a life?

Who are you talking about Rhep? If you are talking about me - Santino is a males name FYI. A fetus's life only counts if the mother wants to continue with her pregnancy and give it life. If she wants to abort it that is her choice too. That's what being Pro-Choice is all about.

merely pointed out the fact that 'if' the potential mother wants to continue with her pregnancy - attitudes change. She is now making an investment in this potential life both emotionally and financially.

Emotions have no place in law.

If you are talking about me - Santino is a males name FYI.

My bad, sorry.

A fetus's life only counts if the mother wants to continue with her pregnancy and give it life.

Look. It is either not alive or it is alive, it doesn't get to be both. If it isn't it never is, until birth I guess. If it is alive, the question becomes when it is ok to kill it - not if it even counts as killing.

That's what being Pro-Choice is all about.

You aren't arguing against what you apparently think you are, at least not in this case.

Emotions have no place in law.

Emotions are what help create/spawn laws.

Look. It is either not alive or it is alive, it doesn't get to be both.

Oh a fetus is alive - its just not a human being like you and I. That is what we were before being born.

If it is alive, the question becomes when it is ok to kill i

Yes it's ok to terminate because a.) its not a human yet and b.) another human life is keeping the fetus alive.

Emotions are what help create/spawn laws.

Not many that are worth a damn.

Oh a fetus is alive - its just not a human being like you and I. That is what we were before being born.

So if it isn't human, what is it?

Yes it's ok to terminate because a.) its not a human yet and b.) another human life is keeping the fetus alive.

So does that make it OK to kill people that need blood transfusions? They rely on other people to survive, too.

So if it isn't human, what is it?

It usually goes zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then finally human baby.

So does that make it OK to kill people that need blood transfusions?

That depends...were they already breathing/eating on their own at some point and time in their lives? Were they being fed by a placenta during the blood transfusion?

They rely on other people to survive, too.

Are you being willfully ignorant via a last ditch effort to support your argument?

It usually goes zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus and then finally human baby.

All of which are human. Dance around it any way you want, the fact remains that it is alive and is human.

Were they being fed by a placenta during the blood transfusion?

A mechanical placenta usually.

Are you being willfully ignorant via a last ditch effort to support your argument?

You must not be able to read well, I've said that I'm pro-choice no less than four times in this thread. It isn't my problem you can't admit that abortion is killing a human. I'm ok with it, why can't you admit that's what it is?

It isn't my problem you can't admit that abortion is killing a human. I'm ok with it, why can't you admit that's what it is?

Oh I'll admit (as I have many times) that a fetus is a pre-human baby. I will not admit, however that a fetus is the same as a human being like you and I. Once that happens it lends itself to people making comparisons between the two - which is no good IMO.

lol pre-human

Once that happens it lends itself to people making comparisons between the two - which is no good IMO.

Some people just don't want to admit that sometimes it is ok to kill another human.

Some people just don't want to admit that sometimes it is ok to kill another human.

And other people don't want to admit that a fetus does not have the same rights as the woman who's carrying it...

A) I never said they did.

B) Pro-life people generally believe that rights belong to the soul, which is there at conception. Others just believe killing any human is wrong.

C) Many (most?) pro-choice people believe abortion after ~24 weeks is no good (except in the case of medical emergencies, obv).

A newborn is just as dependent on others as it was just before it came out, what changed?

A) I never said they did.

Never said that you said anything.

B) Pro-life people generally believe that rights belong to the soul, which is there at conception. Others just believe killing any human is wrong.

Never knew anyone going to prison for taking away someone's soul. This is one of many huge flaws in pro-life people's stance - they are forcing their religious beliefs on the masses.

A newborn is just as dependent on others as it was just before it came out, what changed?

No - physiologically they are not even close to the same level of dependence.

Never knew anyone going to prison for taking away someone's soul.

The soul goes away when the body dies, so murder would be removal of the soul.

No - physiologically they are not even close to the same level of dependence.

What changes in the few hours of labor that makes a baby less dependent?

How is a full term fetus any more dependent on another for life than a newborn baby?

How is a full term fetus any more dependent on another for life than a newborn baby?

It's not a matter of degree of dependence, it's a matter of WHO it's dependent on. Before it's born, a fetus is dependent on ONE person's ENTIRE BODILY FUNCTIONS. After that, anybody can take care of it.

I don't understand why you keep asking that question. Can you shed some light? I'm curious, not trying to be argumentative.

Which question? Why you think a baby is somehow different just before birth than it is just after? They are both equally able to survive on their own, it isn't like someone casts a spell on it to make it go from "fetus" to "baby". A full term fetus is exactly the same as a newborn, just wetter.

I know you aren't trying to be argumentative, btw. But I have to ask - if we aren't allowed to bring religion into it then we are forced to rely on biology and genetics, right?

A full term fetus is exactly the same as a newborn, just wetter.

Okay, I understand now that you're just talking about biological development but I'm still not getting why.

Because people need to realise that if they want to support abortion they need to understand that sometimes ending a human life is OK.

I just happen to dislike it when people dance around in their beliefs so they don't have to think of the unpleasant things in life.

If you want to claim a fetus isn't human, that's your business and has a whole host of issues to accompany it. But if you want to claim a fetus ishuman, there is a whole different list of bad juju you need to deal with.

I'm a fan of intellectual honesty, is all.

You know Rhep I don't think I've ever heard it phrased that way. In the case of serious defect (everyone remember this baby's lungs hadn't/would never have developed?) its sometimes a greater show of mercy to end the pregnancy.

I once had a conversation with a coworker who had taken her then-teenage granddaughter to have an abortion. The girl was in her early teens & they (she & grandma who pretty much raised her) decided the best thing to do was to terminate the pregnancy. In my coworker's view it was a pregnancy that should not have happened. I have another coworker who's daughter just miscarried. She was only a few weeks along. My understanding (thanks to a very wise former boss of mine) is that if it miscarried there was obviously something very wrong with the developing zygote/embryo/fetus.

Sometimes its a matter of what should/should not have happened. Sometimes its a matter of financial hardship. Sometimes its a matter of showing mercy to the potential life who might only know suffering & pain if born. No matter what causes a woman to consider an abortion it should always be her choice.

I'm a fan of intellectual honesty, is all.

Ah, I see what you're driving at. I think where a lot of the problem lies is that people on both sides of the discussion find it necessary to dehumanize either the fetus or woman in order to prove the greater value of the one they're advocating for. This, IMO, constantly puts the the fetus and the woman at odds with each other. It's not necessarily "just a clump of cells" and the woman doesn't "lose her right to choose when she chose to have sex" either.

It's not necessarily "just a clump of cells" and the woman doesn't "lose her right to choose when she chose to have sex" either.

Exactly. It's a shame more people (on both sides) don't understand that.

Rhep and Shannoscubie, I love your discussion, its well thought out and intelligent. I share many similar views as the both of you (particularly concerning viability) However, I have to say one thing in response to your argument (Rhep) that whether you call it a zygote etc etc etc its still a human. I disagree, and not because I want to put a divide between me and the subject in order to not feel guilt. Biologically I can't consider a zygote a human any more than I can consider a tadpole a frog. A zygote has the potential for human life, but is hardly that. If viability is part of your argument for choice; then viability must be the point where it is now considered human. If not then your points lose strength due to lack of support.

Although I do recognize that viability alone is not the strongest argument for when a fetus can be considered human. That opens the door to philosophy, psychology, and many other ogy's :) by raising the question of "what does it mean to be human, is it emotion, viability, brain activity, etc?"

I commend you both on not treating this as a black and white issue, few people I've met can do that (which is frustrating to say the least)

Rhep and Shannoscubie, I love your discussion, its well thought out and intelligent.

Thanks! I still find it very difficult not to get overly invested emotionally sometimes.

Biologically I can't consider a zygote a human any more than I can consider a tadpole a frog.

I somewhat agree, in the sense that a zygote is a developing human in the same way that a tadpole is a developing frog(a tadpole is more like adolesance, though), my issue is when people say they aren't human. A embryo/zygote/fetus is a Homo Sapien, just as a bullfrog tadpole is still a Rana Catesbeiana.

If not then your points lose strength due to lack of support.

It is the point at which I believe it is no longer considered OK to kill it, for a variety of reasons. (except in medical emergencies, which I've already explained earlier)

by raising the question of "what does it mean to be human, is it emotion, viability, brain activity, etc?"

I find that going by science is easier to get a consensus, as using philosophical values kinda puts us where we are now (on the national scene) - yelling and hurt feelings.

Rhep and Shannoscubie, I love your discussion, its well thought out and intelligent.

I commend you both on not treating this as a black and white issue, few people I've met can do that (which is frustrating to say the least)

Thanks ;)

No, we say it isn't a human being... it's developing into one but it is not yet one. And until probably the first month it is a cluster of cells.

What makes it a human "being"? How is trying to draw a line between "human" and "human being" any different than pro-lifers trying to give everything a soul?

It's it really the same thing, something that makes it wrong to kill us. The only difference is whenwe become special. It also doesn't address my point.... There are situations where it's ok to kill a human.

That's why we should be talking about biology not philosophy.

A human being has the ability to think. Maybe not think well, but think. And not only think but reason. Again, maybe not well but they have some ability to reason. Even the those who are mentally disabled can think and reason. We may not be able to understand their thought processes or reasoning but if we hook them up to a ECG, we see they think. That's why you are considered medically dead at the moment of brain death.

A human being... IS! They are a being, they are here, they are IS. They exist. A fetus doesn't. It's not thinking, reasoning, or processing. When it does start to think, then it's considered late term! And unless to save the life of the woman or because of significant birth defect, abortion isn't allowed!

Do I need to explain it even more basically than that?

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/275376/human-being

I don't think it means what you want it to mean.

Brain activity starts ~25 weeks gestation, btw, but it is always human - it doesn't become any "more" human after the first synapse fires.

Do I need to explain it even more basically than that?

Yes, considering I have repeatedly said we should be using biology rather than philosophy.

Biologically, it isn't thinking. Biologically it can't think! Biologically, THERE'S NO ONE HOME. Biologically, which is the logical processes of life, there is no person, no anything in that meat until thought starts.

Remember, brain death is how the medical community considers you dead. If you cease all function but your brain is going, they won't sign off on the death certificate. If your body is kept pumping by machines but there is no thought, they will.

It's not thinking, it is not there. It is not a person.

So apparently, you can read but not comprehend. Sorry you fail basic understanding.

Rahlly

Unfortunately, you are forgetting that brain dead is not accepted by some as "dead". Some believe the words of Billy Crystal in "The Princess Bride" when he says, "Is he dead, or is he just a little bit dead?" (something to that effect).

I don't remember that girls name, but it was a big controversy when the family wanted to keep her on life support but the husband wanted to pull the plug.

I agree with you about the right to choose and the necessity of abortion in some instances etc. etc. etc.

But I was taught to believe that God breathed life into the baby at birth. A religious belief is protected by the Constitution. Your belief in the definitions and logic of science is putting the decision into the hands of the latest scientific developments and opinion. This has changed over the centuries, who knows what the future will bring. And some believe that Science is a belief and not any more valid than an opinion. Some still think that the earth is flat.

My only question is, as I think if you think about it you know, do you really think that logic will convince a "believer" to change their belief? I think I saw this go around the circle more than once. Can we just choose to ignore "dead end" issues and maybe salvage the discussion to see if there is any common ground and restart there? By any definition, logic or beliefs, this horse is dead!

So apparently, you can read but not comprehend. Sorry you fail basic understanding.

You are trying really hard to rationalize not calling it human.

btw.

Uho, a fetus has brain activity? @!$%# - so much for being brain-dead (I should have clarified 1.232 by saying "higher" brain function).

So...

The Terry Schiavo case. And it was in my state, and it was one of the things I absolutely despised my Governor at the time for doing, but ::shrug:: he was bush's brother. He sold my state to his brother, why wouldn't his brother do his best to force something through congress to help his brother. That case was different as she wasn't brain dead. She was in a Persistent Vegatative State, PVS. PVS means that your brain function is suppressed to the point that chances that you would recover are for all statistical purposes nil.

A persistent vegetative state is a condition of patients with severe brain damage who were in a coma, but progressed to a state of partial arousal rather than true awareness. It is a diagnosis of some uncertainty in that it deals with a syndrome. After four weeks in a vegetative state (VS), the patient is classified as in a persistent vegetative state. This diagnosis is classified as a permanent vegetative state (PVS) after approximately 1 year of being in a Persistent Vegetative State.

-link

As I pointed out, she was in PVS, not brain dead. If she had been brain dead Micheal Schiavo would not have had the fight he had. Brain death means just that... There is no brain function. PVS has brain function, the fight then became would Terri want to stay alive only by the grace of the machines. There was a chance if they took her off, that she had enough brain function to react, if so... she would live but if she did not react, then she would die.

I am talking about having actual brain function. That is another difference between Mrs. Schiavo and a fetus. She may have had depressed brain function but she had at one point normal brain function. She was a person who had something happen to her. To this day, they still don't know what prompted the collapse but because of the autopsy they do know that she never would have recovered as her brain was less than half the size it should have been, parts had collapsed or stripped of neurons.

The neuropathologic changes in her brain were precisely of the type seen in patients who enter a PVS following cardiac arrest. Throughout the cerebral cortex, the large pyramidal neurons that comprise some 70% of cortical cells – critical to the functioning of the cortex – were completely lost. The pattern of damage to the cortex, with injury tending to worsen from the front of the cortex to the back, is also typical. There was marked damage to important relay circuits deep in the brain (the thalami) – another common pathologic finding in cases of PVS. The damage was, in the words of Thogmartin, "irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons."

-link

She lost her neurons and that's what led her to the PVS... a fetus is still developing... burgeoning neurons. They can't think just yet.

Unfortunately, you are forgetting that brain dead is not accepted by some as "dead". Some believe the words of Billy Crystal in "The Princess Bride" when he says, "Is he dead, or is he just a little bit dead?" (something to that effect).

And sorry Lezi but most medical practitioners, and all the ones I do know, do accept Brain Death as dead. They do not accept cessation of other organ functions as death unless it includes brain death. Your heart can stop and they won't declare you dead until several minutes later when they have determined that you haven't gotten oxygen to your brain and have suffered brain death.

If we can't agree to the basics, how then can we move on. If I clone a body and it never wakes is disposing of it murder? If it never thinks, if it never becomes a human BEING. Is that murder?

The brain is what makes us, us.

PVS has nothing to do with brain activity in a fetus.

They do not accept cessation of other organ functions as death unless it includes brain death.

Total brain death, not partial.

If it never thinks, if it never becomes a human BEING. Is that murder?

Does it matter?

The brain is what makes us, us.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirror_test

Like I have said many times before, let's leave philosophy out of this - unless you want to argue against the "soul" being there at conception.

I vote we stick to science, and also assert that it is sometimes OK to kill a human.

Rahlly

I think that is why I used it as an example. Who can decide about what is no brain cell activity. I think that I remember that it was claimed that she told that husband that she would not want to be sustained but that his claim was disputed. The point I wanted to make, sorry if it did not come across, is that the brain function argument is flawed and will always be subject to interpretation.

I thought I presented as such, if I did not, I apologize. That is what I hoped would be taken from my post. I am sometimes a bit obtuse for many. (sometimes more than many! lol)

But I also thought that I said that I still was taught that God breathed life into the fetus at birth and that is when the soul came to be and that is when life began. If one believes this teaching, that is when life begins. And this belief is reinforced with the Old Testament and I don't know that it was addressed in the New Testament at all.

In the Old Testament, and more specifically in the Hebrew belief, the mother could "abort" until the age of reason! I can't cite the source and will stand corrected if I misunderstand this concept. I know that the emphasis of that time concerning "spilt seed" was due to the necessity of procreation for useful purposes. It was a different society and they could not carry dead weight and still survive. Today we have advanced technology and "damaged" births can be sustained because of this technology. That was not possible back then, damaged births would die and/or be left to die. In comparison to these very religious societies, the though of a woman having the right to choose both in ideology contexts and in survival contexts seems rather tame. We don't need children to work the farms and we don't have to wait to see if the fetus is genetically damaged. Aborting in the early stages or in later stages if the woman's life is in danger seems rather tame and within the realm of the religious considerations of the Old Testament. And I would love to see where Jesus talks about abortion in the New Testament. Maybe its there. I never have seen it. Please educate me if I am missing something.

BTW, I am not directing this specifically at you, it is more of a statement of my beliefs. Nothing personal is intended and I still respect your views and most all of the religious views on abortion. I just don't want anyone to force their views on someone that doesn't believe in THEIR way. America was created, at least in part, for freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is right there at the top, Amendment #1 in the Bill of Rights. To me, ideology is secondary. It is not a factor as our Constitution guarantees the right to our beliefs. It is a rather important deal in the Constitution.

But I also thought that I said that I still was taught that God breathed life into the fetus at birth and that is when the soul came to be and that is when life began

Strange. I've never heard that one.

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Psalm%20139.13

http://biblia.com/bible/esv/Jeremiah%201.5

In the Old Testament, and more specifically in the Hebrew belief, the mother could "abort"

I've never heard that, may I ask where you did?

Nothing personal is intended and I still respect your views and most all of the religious views on abortion.

I'm not Christian, but thanks. :)

Indeed, we are free to believe what we wish - the danger is when one tries to force those beliefs upon others.

I never did say that it was scripture. It was taught to me in a religious class when I was young. Your objection and your reasoning shows that you seem to believe that it has to be one of the religions of your choosing. I don't remember seeing that part in the constitution. We don't have (at least as yet, maybe you know of some recent legislation that puts that stipulation on to which religious beliefs we are allowed to follow)

It is a belief. It is very plausible and is in sync with any belief that acknowledges the existence of a soul and in fact just a belief that there is a God and that He is powerful supports this belief as well as any of the beliefs.

The Constitution does not specify , nor does it imply that you or anyone else can tell me what to believe.

IF I believe it, it is my right to believe it even if you don't. Your research is good and laudable that you did research, but it is irrelevant. The 1st Amendment protects MY right to have my BELIEFS. The founders did not even specify the religions of their day to be the ONLY religions to be accepted.

Your beliefs are also protected, but that doesn't give you the right not to respect my right to my own beliefs.

Your objection and your reasoning shows that you seem to believe that it has to be one of the religions of your choosing.

We were talking about Abrahamic religions, my mistake for using scripture of the religion during the debate.

I don't have a religion, btw.

It is very plausible and is in sync with any belief that acknowledges the existence of a soul and in fact just a belief that there is a God and that He is powerful supports this belief as well as any of the beliefs.

I asked (rather politely) where you had learned it, don't get pissy.

The Constitution does not specify , nor does it imply that you or anyone else can tell me what to believe.

I haven't ever told anyone what to believe, maybe you should stop trying to give me a position you know how to argue against.

Your research is good and laudable that you did research, but it is irrelevant.

Thanks, I like to know why I believe something rather than puppet someone else to sound cool. It is relevant to the conversation, btw.

The 1st Amendment protects MY right to have my BELIEFS.

I never said you couldn't, I asked why you believed it.

Your beliefs are also protected, but that doesn't give you the right not to respect my right to my own beliefs.

Seriously, get off my ass about this. I have never said you couldn't believe what you want.