lol as well

To some women abortion is taking responsibility. To some it isn't.

And I'm arguing from a pro-choice POV.


It isn't for you, me, The President, Congress or government in general to tell a woman what she can and cannot do to her own body.

As someone mentioned earlier, pretty much the entire responsibility of a unplanned pregnancy falls onto the women. Until more of the responsiblity falls onto the man, it's really up to the woman to handle the situation. Yes, some men are highly involved and some aren't. That's life.

But the arguement isn't about the validity of abortion or if it's "here to stay" (which let's face it, it is at least for the time being. The pro-choicers will always be fighting to keep abortion alive just as much as the pro-lifers will be fighting to end it. And there will/would be lawyers in both camps fighting with the supreme court if they tried to reverse Roe V. Wade).


The issue is about whether a man should have to pay child support for a child that resulted in an unplanned (or quite possibly planned, you never can tell) pregnancy.

Like I said earlier, if a man doesn't want the child and doesn't want to be a part of that child's right he should be able to relinquish his rights and not be forced to pay child support. But at the same time I believe it also applies to the women. She might want to carry to term but not keep the child. If he wants to, she should be able to relinquish her rights and not have to pay child support.

okay, i can see how that is funny, but think about it...we are way too overcrowded and people beat up their children, and it seems, to me at least, that most cases of child abuse are when they weren't wanted in the first place. Everytime anyone ends up on watch tower with a machine gun, its because their parents beat them or whatever. It would be better to have that abortion than to totality screw up that person's life and have them turn around and screw up a lot more peoples lives.

There should be a licence to get to have children. Seriously, you need one to fish, which in some cases is nothing more than putting a worm on a hook and just sitting there. If there are regulations such as that, then why not for having children. Having children affects society on a much greater scale than going fishing for a day.

Yeah, but what dumbass freaks would end up being in charge of issuing the licenses?

Ok, this reminds me of my (unrealistic) theory that everyone should be fixed at birth and in order to become "unfixed" you have to take a parenting class and pass the test. Although like I said, it's unrealistic, as I'm sure many liberals would say it's discrimintory to those who can't pass the test, don't have the $$ to take the class, etc. Plus, the proposition of fixing babies at birth I'm sure wouldn't be possible or feesible.

At least I know I'm not the only one who has thought this. :D

OK, OP - you win the "Most Quoted on GC Today" prize.:)

I think about things like that all the time, and I am a liberal. Though, I'm of the midset that there should be a minimum IQ to breed. Though, your parenting class/test idea is intriging, maybe you could make the class free, like at a community center or something?

But how is having children a right? I'm sorry, but since so many parents say it's the greatest thing on earth, maybe it should be a priviledge like driving.

Not knocking parents or kids, I just don't think that it's the greatest thing or even a good thing for everyone. Which brings me back to the fact that everyone, even men, should have the right to refuse parenthood and all that it entails (ie child support.)

exactly, thank you

Actually, I was going to say IQ - but then I'd have gotten jumped on by the "IQ doesn't mean anything" people AND the people saying that manditory fixation at birth was discriminitory. So I chose the path of less resisitance - but yes, that's what I was getting at.

maybe a PIQ (Parental Instict Quoteint)

"Intelligence" might not mean anything. Smart people might be lousy parents.

OMG... I've thought this very thing. And, people have responded similarly to the way people have here.

The way I see it, if someone doesn't have the $$ to take the test, how in the world can they have enough $$ to raise a child? They can't. It's completely fair (and in the best interest of the child) to discriminate against those people.

I know it sounds awful, but, kstar said, maybe parenting should be viewed as a priviledge, not a right. If only there were a way to have parental screening for every couple interested in having children -- not just those who are adopting!

Maybe this at-birth-fixing should happen only to men -- then maybe they'd understand why some women (regardless of whether or not they think abortion is moral) are against the government (or anyone for that matter) deciding what can or can't happen to her body.

This little rant was kinda off topic. Sorry.

Not to get so off topic, but for a couple who wants to adopt a child (foreign or domestic) they have to jump through so many damn hoops. They have to fill out the paperwork, they have to be screened a gazillion times, then they have to have the funds readily available (because yeah unlike naturally giving birth to a child which insurance covers, adoption is not covered). And if their adopting foreignly (not even sure that is a word, but it works for me :)) they have to cut through all that red tape. It is insane what people who want to adopt have to go through.

Yet...

If they were able to have a child naturally, insurance would cover most of the pre-natal care, the hopsital visit, the birth.
You aren't screened to get pregnant, anyone can do it.

Makes a whole heck of a lot of sense.:rolleyes:


end my mini hijack and rant :D

Haha. This was a lot like my situation with the Marine I dated a few years ago and his one-night stand a couple weeks before we met.

I should note that she DOES have the option to present him with "absolution of parental rights" papers, and he DOES have the option to sign, therefore ending his rights to the child (and his responsibility for child support). She was really pushing it for awhile - he didn't want to be in a relationship with her, she wanted her on-again-off-again boyfriend to pretend to be the dad.

I just think it's worth noting that the parents CAN work that out between them, if they're both in agreement - effectively cutting one parent out of the kid's life. I think it's a great solution in situations like this one, where the parents have no link at all, and there is some doubt as to the parenting ability of one of the parents.

AFAIK, this is already in effect, and exactly the way you described it.

Never having the kid = full child support. Having the kid half the time = half child support. Etc. There are even rules governing what constitutes a "night" and a "day", etc.

Again, personal experience here with the Marine - his lawer explained that he would owe X amount if he never saw the kid, X-Y if he had the kid on weekends, etc.