Adoption is not an option for everyone. Just like abortion is not an option for everyone.

My Dearest Rudey,

As far as I know only some corporations have maternal leave. My boss does not offer it at all-nor do any of my friend's bosses.

Several of my friends have had children in the last year. The men in their lives are still present but as far as helping out-they do about 99% of the work. If they left it up to their spouses the baby would never get fed or bathed. Now I am not saying all men are that way, my brother raised his girl completely on his own (though my mom helped at times) but this is the exception rather than the rule. How many stories have we heard about a women getting pregnant and the man ends up leaving? Too damn many. BTW, It is the toughest job in the world IMO.

Feel free to wack off your testicles-I won't interfere:).

Until the politicians leave this debate alone I won't leave them out-after all they are making all the decisions about what I can and cannot do.

Rudey, part of me believes men deserve SOME input when it comes down to his S.O. aborting or not. The men that stay I think should have an input. BUT -

Not all men stay. Not all men take responsibility. Not all men want to be there to help out. Like AggieAXO said, how many stories have we heard of being women being knocked up and then dumped? I honestly believe that if most guys (not talking about anyone on here, just in general) weren't dip shits, and took responsibilty for the child they produced, most abortions wouldn't happen. I mean, would any MALE on here want to have an unwanted pregnancy, then raise a child BY THEMSELVES when they are in the prime of their life?? hmmm....maybe, maybe not. There are so many circumstances to take into consideration, but if the tables were turned I doubt you would hear us bitching about not having rights when we are the ones that run out!

Bottom line - you can't legalize someone's morality. If you don't want to have an abortion, don't have one. Don't be so pompous though to think that YOU are capable of making that decision for anyone else.

AggieAXO you and I see the same.

My opinion is this,
if you don't want abortions, then guarantee that the life of the child that is given up for adoption is going to be a good one.

If you don't want abortions then make these good for nothing motherfudgers that if they get a girl pregnant then their life has to change to, they have to take a part, they have to be active and do all the things that the women is going to.

If you don't want abortions, make Birth control widely available and inexpensive.

And if you don't want abortions then love your children and teach them about sex, the responsibilities and what raising a child entails.

But, this isn't a perfect world nor a perfect place and these things don't happen. Men are not held accountable while a woman has to (sometimes this word is applicable, other times not) suffer through the changes in her body, her mind and her soul by carrying a child.

Unless your dick can squeeze a lemon out, then I suggest men step aside, they have NO CLUE, hell they don't even get the "joy" of a period.

As for late term abortions, once again, read up on it. This is by NO MEANS a common practice, nor one that is taken lightly by women or the medical community. This is a huge deal.

And it isn't like having a first trimester abortion is easy, either. They cost between $350-$800 and I know in my state there is only one provider, that is located in Lexington, KY, so women have to find a way to get there, which could be really far from home. It isn't like all planned parenthoods have OB's that are willing to perform an abortion. There are like 4 PP here in Louisville and none of them have one.

Back to the debate, meanwhile I am going to reiterate what I think most of the antiabortion sentiments stem from-
IT IS BETWEEN THAT WOMAN AND GOD, AND UNLESS YOU ARE GOD, YOU CANNOT TELL HER WHAT TO DO, SHE HAS TO RECONCILE IT WITH HER MAKER, AND WHAT BUSINESS OF YOURS IS THAT?

I have gotten into this debate before...
 

...and I understand what you mean by placing a law on morality. I will tell you one thing though. If I were to impregnate someone, and wanted to keep the child (which I most certainly would), there would be NO abortion. I would consider it cold blooded murder. If one of the two parents wants the child, there is no veto power. If the guy leaves, he is an ass, and should be castrated. Don't use that as an exuse. Thoughts? I want to know what you guys think.

I would die for my kids....

i think the woman should always have the OPTION. i'm not saying that it is always the right choice, but they should have the right to chose. people who wish to take away this option, are taking away one of the mother's rights-- the right to make a choice.
in my mind, banning abortion is like creating a law that states if you have late term cancer, you shouldnt be able to recieve new or inovative treatments, becuase "god" (or allah, or buddah, or whomever you pray to) decided that it was your time to go. just my $.02.

Ditto.

What about those whose parents would disown them if they found out they were pregnant? Those who live in extremely religious or conservative towns that would shun them if they showed up pregnant? My parents wouldn't disown me, but they have made it clear that they wouldn't help me out financially or emotionally. My extended family would probably be very uncomfortable with it. This all goes back to the point I made earlier that Catholics are more likely to have abortions -- they know that their Catholic parents, families and other people in their church would be at the very least disappointed, since the church has such a strict stand on sexuality.

For a lot of people, abortion IS the easy way out. It's a lot easier than being disowned, having their parents angry with them or disappointed in them for years, or being treated like a "sinner" in their community. I don't blame them for that.

I think we can all agree that nobody sets out to have abortions. I have yet to EVER hear of anybody who's like, "Well, it's okay that I'm not using birth control, because it seems like an abortion would be a lot easier and a lot more fun than taking a bill everyday or buying condoms." But accidents happen. We shouldn't insist that an accident ruin someone's life -- in some cases THREE lives or even more. I know, for example, that if I got pregnant I would be both financially and emotionally unable to care for a child. If I had it anyway, both the baby and I would have a pretty miserable time. Chances are that my boyfriend would insist on helping out, which would mean him dropping out of school too.

I know that a lot of people think that having an abortion means that you failed to take responsibility for yourself. But having an abortion IS responsible. It means that you realize that you can't give your baby a good life. You can't love it like it will need. You can afford to give it a good life. I know someone who had THREE abortions before she was 21. Yes, she used birth control. No, it obviously didn't work. She worked part time at a clothing store at the mall. She didn't have her driver's license. Her boyfriend was not someone she would want to be the father of her kids, due to his sometimes abusive and often unfaithful habits. Do I think she was irresponsible to have the abortions? Hell no. I think she was being extremely responsible.

Re: I have gotten into this debate before...
 

I didn't even want to get into this, but since you brought it up . . .

I think guys should have some right to decide on a personal, emotional level, but absolutely none on the legal level. If your girlfriend wants to consider your personal feelings, that's fine, but I don't think there should ANYWHERE be a law that if the guy doesn't want an abortion, she can't have one. That is beyond ridiculous.

If my boyfriend and I had sex and we got pregnant, and he wanted to keep the baby while I wanted to abort it (which would not happen, thank god, because we are on the same page regarding this) I would say, "That's great -- if you are willing to be the one who carries the baby for nine months, suffer from morning sickness and all the things MereMere listed above (which are bad enough in women who WANT to have kids, but are a thousand times worse in someone who didn't want to have a baby in the first place), drop out of school to take care of the kid and financially support it, then go ahead."

The woman is the one who traditionally ends up making 95 percent of the sacrifices, and a lot of the time the men don't have to make any. Whenever the guy wants to make 90 percent of the sacrifices, then I'll let him think about keeping the baby.

Oh, I definitely agree. I'm certainly not holding her up as a model of responsibility because she isn't. But in that case, I think the abortions were a responsible solution. Her main argument for not leaving the boyfriend was that, as she had no driver's license and no car, and he was the one that took her to work, without him she would have no income. I'm sure there was some "But he LOVES me, he just gets out of control sometimes" traditional abused partner rhetoric in there too.

This is getting into a whole 'nother subject entirely, but this is why I feel you should never, ever get too dependent on your boyfriend or husband -- it gives you an excuse to stay in bad relationships far longer than you have to.

OK I remember when I was about 4 months pregnant with my son in 2002 there was case in CA (I think??) where the girlfriend wanted to have an abortion and the boyfriend (and his mother maybe?) took the girl to court to prevent her from having an abortion. They ended up losing and the girl had an abortion anyway. Needless to say, they aren't together anymore. Like sugar and spice - I think a woman should take the emotional feelings of the father into play, but a man should have NO legal say whatsoever, that would be like a woman decided randomly for a guy to have a vasectomy without asking him (not the same I know but as close as I could get).

I wish this was a perfect world where all women faced with unplanned pregnanices have happy endings like I did. I not only feel blessed to have one of my own and one on the way, but that I'm able to financially and emotionally support them. This isn't a perfect world though and most (not all) single women that do keep their babies without the father's help end up on gov't assistance and never finish their education. These would those people you bitch about to get a job so we can stop supporting their asses. Another issue entirely but still something to think about.

BrownEyedGirl,

I never said that a father COULDN'T take care of a child. I have a couple of friends who were raised by their fathers and they turned out fine but usually the mother is more nurturing than fathers. So, it wasn't a silly statement. I know a lot of people would prefer both parents to be in the child's life.

You're sorta taking what I said out of context. I didn't say I wouldn't die for my kids either. But personally I BELIEVE it's a woman's choice.

Furthermore I was telling Chump that I didn't think any woman should be told to suck it up and take it like a man. That's BS and I won't even go there! That's like telling someone dying of cancer to SUCK IT UP! HOW CRUEL!!!!

Heather,

My sincere appologies. I was going to quote you, and hit the "edit" button by mistake and edited your last post.

Since it no longer made any sense (I was quoting selectively and had deleted the major portion of the text) -- and was my thoughts instead of yours, I deleted it.

There was NOTHING objectionable, and I hope you will post it again. In fact, I was going to quote something I strongly agree with.

I'm sorry for the inconvenience -- just some Saturday morning stupidity on my part. I wanted to let you and anyone else who had already read it know what happened, though.

Of the many many single mothers I know (and am related to), NONE of them received government assistance at all during their pregnancies or afterwards. The vast majority of them were professional women before their pregnancies (all of whom were able to hire nannies), had understanding parents who were willing and able to take care of their grandchildren, had amazing employers who were cool with long maternity leaves and milk breaks--all of them thrived and succeeded with little or no help from the fathers. Your use of the word "most" is a vast overgeneralization, and insulting to those single mothers who don't want to be lumped in with the mythical Reagan-era "welfare queen." I do understand and agree with what you've said throughout this thread (and most others here on GC), but that statement just rubbed me the wrong way.

I think what the anti-choice people have to understand is that it's not a perfect world. Boyfriends and husbands beat, cheat, and leave. Condoms break. Personal biochemistries don't work well with the Pill. Girls trust their boyfriends when they tell them that they don't need condoms. Women get pregnant and are either so scared or so uneducated about the way that their bodies work that they literally go into denial about their pregnancies.

I don't like abortion--none of us here do. I've seen the ultrasounds of what happens during a D&C/vacuum aspiration procedure. I know what happens during a late-term abortion. It's a terrible and barbaric thing, but a necessary evil. Women have been aborting themselves since the beginning of times--and they will continue to. So, I will fight and die for women to be able to take care of what is a personal matter as safely as possible. Abortion should be safe, legal, and rare.

I am not denying the realities of the world. I have seen first hand the horrible consequences of woman having too many babies too soon when they are not able to care for them. I know a couple of "miracle" babies that were conceived while their mother was on BC. Even with that, we as a so-called civilized society try to provide protection for those who cannot help themselves. We do not let landlords just throw people out of their apartments because someone came along with a better deal. We do not let people just kill their pets because they are a burden on them. I think when we say the life of an unborn child is not valuable, then we can go on to say that other lives are not valuable as well, and that thought scares me.

To me I guess it boils down to when is the fetus a "child". Because of my belief system, I think it is a child the moment it is conceived. All of the properties are there to make a baby capable of living on his/her own, it just needs to develop to that point. If you don't consider the "thing" inside the mother a child, then I can understand how someone would be pro choice. What's interesting to me though, is that some people who call themselves pro choice were also for having Scott what's his face tried for the murder of his wife and unborn child, or agree with having a drunk driver charged with "fetus-side" when they kill a pregnant woman and her child. Again, either it is a child or it is not, it shouldn't matter if it was wanted

I also find it VERY hypocritical of woman who say that a man should have no say so in a woman's decision to terminate or continue a pregnancy, but would FORCE the same man to pay child support if the woman decided on her own to have the baby. We can't have it both ways.

I was meaning - most single women UNDER the age of 22.....going for the ones that haven't finished a college education, or high school for that matter. I think my brain got ahead of my typing with that one. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Yes and no... because a lot of father jet after the kid is born. So, women have the child knowing thinking that the father is going to be around and then he isn't. As to his responcibility if he decided shortly after hearing about the pregancy/child that he wishes to revoke his rights then... well... that's another topic eh?

However, i have to stress that man can NEVER have a legal say in a woman's right to choose. Because if he can force her to keep a pregnancy against her will... could he not force her to have an abortion against her will? Why not? It is a violation of her body either way.

Yes we do. It is called euthanasia. You can take your pet to any kill shelter and release it and they will euthanize it. I see it happen everyday. I have also had owners try and kill their own pet for one reason or another but that is another different topic all together-and yes they do get away with it 99% of the time.

So you get to wait until you "are in the position to adopt" but you'd have no problem with women being forced to have children that they don't feel they are "in the position" to have?

You are not allowed to kill your own animal instead of taking to a shelter? Kind of like cleaning up your own mess.

A bullet in the head and the animal is pretty dead.

Then give the child up for adoption. I get to wait until I am in the "position" because of choices I have made.

Why do you get to wait but women who want to abort, because they aren't ready, can't? Is that the prize for getting lucky and not having a surprise pregnancy?

*not meant to offend, just curious

huh?

good point valkyrie

adoption is such a nice idea but in the real world is there really that much of a demand?-maybe for caucasian babies but not for minority one's-if this is not true then please speak up and educate me.

I have so many friends who have adopted or in the process of adoption - many from other countries.

The definition of a healthy adoptable baby in San Diego County is one who is "only" addicted to crack.

No offense taken. If I were "suprised" I wouldn't get to wait either. I would have to deal with the consequences of my choices and I don't feel that a a way to deal with it should be killing the baby. And, I guess if you put it that way, that is the "prize", but more often that not, it's not luck that gets you to that prize. And before you say it, yes I know that birth control fails and there is nothing that is 100%.

AggieAXO, as I understand it from 2 sets of friends who have recently adopted, there is a great demand for ALL newborns that have no medical or physcial problems. One is a African American couple and they had to wait well over a year for an AA baby and the other is a biracial (AA/White) who wanted a biracial baby. They also had a long wait, just not sure how long.

I don't think race should be a factor in adoption. That's wrong.

Late in the game...
 

I don't know why I never read this thread (ok, I do, but Ijust had to get that out).

I don't know if people realize HOW these types of abortions are performed. Basically, the doctor "goes into the womb" and grabs the baby's feet and pulls him out feet first.

Once all of the baby's body is out of the womb (except the for the head), a needle/sunction catheter is inserted into the baby's skull, which sucks the baby's brain out, causing the skull to collapse. The dead baby is then removed.

Imagine if a doctor delivered a newborn baby and then immediately did this! People would be outraged. The only difference between this procedure and the doctor previously referenced is the fact the head is still in the mother's womb.

Regardless is you are for or against it, you can't tell me that is not a terrible way to treat a newborn! :eek:

Now granted there are will be exceptions (as there are with everything) that will probably be evaluated on a case by case basis, but I and others are speaking in terms of application to the general population.

I happen to agree with Eclipse. :) I also won't get into a life vs. choice debate, but all i will say that I support the ban on partial birth abortions (which is what Pred. Bush is banning - not all abortions period). But hey, I also think that Scott Peterson should be tried for TWO murders as well.

WHAT!! Me and the Prez actually feel the same way on something! :eek: .

I just want to point out something that Senator Harkin said while this debate was on the Senate Floor. This law was created by a bunch of white males. People will never be faced with this sort of decision. When President Bush signed this bill, he was surrounded with ten white males. Although, I could never have an abortion, I am vehemently pro-choice. I'm just not sure that this bill is representing the opinions of the majority of Americans. This is a women's issue, and I wish that more women had taken the time to speak out about it.

Partial birth abortion or late term abortion is a procedure that is rarely performed, generally because it affects the health of the mother. To me, this decision signifies that the Bush administration no longer has to stick to centrist issues and isn't afraid to show his right wing values. It simply is a measure for them to get rid of abortion all together, and to rile up right wing support for the election in 2004.

REDHOTCHIO..
 

I may be wrong, but I heard that late terms are anything after 2nd trimester (I believe). I also heard that the abortion is the most common surgery. And I heard that late terms make up 28% of the abortions. Don't ask for proof, it was heard on the radio... NPR I believe. That said, it would make them pretty darn often... ?????? Anyone know for sure???

I'm at work, so I can't spend TOO much time on the 'net searching :p (plus it interfers with my GC time :D ), but the Center for Disease Control's website had some stats. There are as of 1999 though.

There are other stats out there, but the CDC is probably the most "neutral", so to speak.

Here is a quick fact list Facts

Hope it helps!

Re: REDHOTCHIO..
 

That is highly unlikely, as 90% of all abortions are performed in the first trimester of pregancy. Partial birth abortion, which is not even a medical term, is not for women who decide at 32 weeks that don't want to have a baby. It's used in rare cases where the mother may die due to having this child or the child will be born with a deformity like a brain growing on the outside of its head. To believe that women would be carelessly using this procedure to abort children is ridiculous.

That is the most offensive thing I have ever read. Along those lines, maybe all men that abandon pregnant women and deadbeat dads deserve the same punishment.

Re: Re: REDHOTCHIO..
 

yes this procedure is very rare compared to "regular" abortions done before the 15th or 16th week. The problem with Bush's bill he just signed was that there was NO allowance for mother's health. So pretty much if you find out after your first trimester you are going to die giving birth, you are S.O.L. because of this new law. I do agree this procedure is barbaric and it makes me sick just thinking about it, BUT when did the baby's life become MORE important than the mothers? just a question.

Supposedly, this "dilation and extraction" method is the best one for preserving the mother's future fertility, as it doesn't involve salination or cutting of the uterus. Also, it is one of the only late-term abortions that keeps the fetus's body intact--allowing the family to have a burial or memorial service, as well as allowing the body to be used for medical research. I think the procedure is pretty terrible, but I think it has to remain legal for the health of the mother as well as cases where fatal genetic illnesses are detected late in pregnancy.

Let's get real--random women at 25 weeks aren't getting this 'cause they decided they didn't want a baby anymore.

Health of the mother? How is that? They actually must birth the baby (all but the head), then insert a needle into the skull to suck out the brains.

At this point, the child is birthed. If you actually go through with this birthing process, I see no possible way that this could be to protect the health of the mother. Please enlighten me.

I'm not completely anti-abortion. However, this method is something that is disgusting and in many ways wrong. At 25 weeks, a fetus can actually be viable to survive outside the womb with current medical technology.

Imagine a scenario where a "health of the mother" clause was inserted. Do you think that even 10% of the cases, no, even 1% of the cases would actually be done to avoid post-birth complications?

Nope -- because as I said, the whole birthing process happens anyway in this procedure so that's a pretty moot argument.

Are you a doctor? Please tell me where your research for this conclusion comes from, besides pro-life propoganda.

From what I know from working and volunteering with women's health clinics, many of the complications that jeopardize the health of the mother are after the fetus becomes viable. Basically, a late-term fetus puts an amazing amount of stress on the vital organs, etc. of the mother---which could be a life or death issue if serious complications come about.

I know what goes on in late-term abortions (and early-term ones, too), and I don't like it. I just know that sometimes, it's the only thing that can be done. I will give that choice to the mother and her doctor--and not to some politician.