LETTER: Stand up for the unborn child

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Mostly because I would argue against the 16th Amendment as well, but that is for different day..

Anytime my friend.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Your question has been answered numerous time, in this forum alone, you simply choose not to accept it.
Excuse me if I do not hold any more value for your body and what it is going through than thatof which you hold for the unborn..

Therein lies the fundamental premise of choice.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
If you're referring to a court's ability to grant relief, that's not a matter of opinion. And a contract for sex is either voidable or flat out illegal. A contract requires consideration. But I agree that rights carry an element of responsibility.

You missed my point, I was not talking about drafting a contract for sex or sex for money etc. I was merely making an example where when two parties come together, and under mutually agreed upon terms enter into an endeavor, in this case sex, the argument could be made that both parties hold an interest in the products of that endeavor, in this case a child.

You see, the problem is the double standard, a mother holds all the cards. Two people enter into an endeavor equally yet only one controls the asset. The second party namely the father has no say until the child is born, and usually that say will be in the form of a child support payment.

The people who support this have gotten braver, before they would run from any argument that shed light on the fact that Roe v Wade was all about allowing another form of birth control at a time when birth control was new. It isn’t about rape, incest, or medical risk. It is truly about having another way out, a way where you can have your cake in eat it too, what you do on Saturday night can be erased on Sunday.

The question you need to ask yourself is: Are the innocent responsible for the actions of the irresponsible?

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed my point, I was not talking about drafting a contract for sex or sex for money etc. I was merely making an example where when two parties come together, and under mutually agreed upon terms enter into an endeavor, in this case sex, the argument could be made that both parties hold an interest in the products of that endeavor, in this case a child.
You see, the problem is the double standard, a mother holds all the cards. Two people enter into an endeavor equally yet only one controls the asset. The second party namely the father has no say until the child is born, and usually that say will be in the form of a child support payment.
The people who support this have gotten braver, before they would run from any argument that shed light on the fact that Roe v Wade was all about allowing another form of birth control at a time when birth control was new. It isn’t about rape, incest, or medical risk. It is truly about having another way out, a way where you can have your cake in eat it too, what you do on Saturday night can be erased on Sunday.
The question you need to ask yourself is: Are the innocent responsible for the actions of the irresponsible?

If the father wants a say he can have it before he is having sex. Really, should he be having sex with a woman if he doesn't know her well enough to discuss options relating to an unplanned pregnancy?

Ya know buddy...the morning after pill would be the new way out. Taken within 72 hours of unprotected sex it can prevent pregnancy. This still has nothing to do with a womans fundamental right not to be forced into gestation and delivery.

Not all unplanned pregnancies are due to irresponsibility. I got pregnant with my daughter while on birth control. So tell me...where was the irresponsibility there?

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
You missed my point, I was not talking about drafting a contract for sex or sex for money etc. I was merely making an example where when two parties come together, and under mutually agreed upon terms enter into an endeavor, in this case sex, the argument could be made that both parties hold an interest in the products of that endeavor, in this case a child.
You see, the problem is the double standard, a mother holds all the cards. Two people enter into an endeavor equally yet only one controls the asset. The second party namely the father has no say until the child is born, and usually that say will be in the form of a child support payment.
The people who support this have gotten braver, before they would run from any argument that shed light on the fact that Roe v Wade was all about allowing another form of birth control at a time when birth control was new. It isn’t about rape, incest, or medical risk. It is truly about having another way out, a way where you can have your cake in eat it too, what you do on Saturday night can be erased on Sunday.
The question you need to ask yourself is: Are the innocent responsible for the actions of the irresponsible?

Actually, I just wanted some clarification, which you've provided. Thanks.

I submit that if both parties entered into the endeavor willingly, and are engaged in a monogamous relationship, they both have a say so. The reason why one controls the "asset," is a biological question. Unfortunately, we do not reproduce asexually. But even the father has a choice on whether to participate in the development of the unborn. I know I did when my ex was pregnant with my daughter. I talked to my daughter, I sang to her, I even played music for her. And when she was born, I was there. In fact after I cut the cord, she was given to me to bond with. I changed her first dirty diaper; and since her mother chose not to breast feed, I fed my daughter for the first time. I pay a lot of child support (close to 2K a month), but I am also that much involved in he life and I have a big say so in how she's raised.

It may seem as it is another way out, but that technology of which you spoke previously, has made abortion an almost non-existent form of birth control.

To answer your question, should the innocent be responsible for the actions of the irresponsible? In a perfect world, no. But you must concede that if a woman's right of whether to gestate is denied, as it would be in the case of rape or incest, then SHE is the innocent that's being made to be responsible for the actions of those who were irresponsible.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
Actually, I just wanted some clarification, which you've provided. Thanks.
I submit that if both parties entered into the endeavor willingly, and are engaged in a monogamous relationship, they both have a say so. The reason why one controls the "asset," is a biological question. Unfortunately, we do not reproduce asexually. But even the father has a choice on whether to participate in the development of the unborn. I know I did when my ex was pregnant with my daughter. I talked to my daughter, I sang to her, I even played music for her. And when she was born, I was there. In fact after I cut the cord, she was given to me to bond with. I changed her first dirty diaper; and since her mother chose not to breast feed, I fed my daughter for the first time. I pay a lot of child support (close to 2K a month), but I am also that much involved in he life and I have a big say so in how she's raised.
It may seem as it is another way out, but that technology of which you spoke previously, has made abortion an almost non-existent form of birth control.

Yes, but you only have that right and ability at the convenience of the mother. At any time that ability could have been taken from you with no regard to your wants or wishes.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>
To answer your question, should the innocent be responsible for the actions of the irresponsible? In a perfect world, no. But you must concede that if a woman's right of whether to gestate is denied, as it would be in the case of rape or incest, then SHE is the innocent that's being made to be responsible for the actions of those who were irresponsible.

Actually this doesn't change my scenario at all, in the case of rape we are not talking about a mutually agreed upon contract, and in the case of incest this could also be the case or we could be talking about medical necessity depending on genetics and what level of generational separation.

None of these scenerios really change anything though, we can come up with them all day. The point is this decission was a poor one, as it batardized the 14th Amendment and turned it into something that was never meant to be. Again, at the time 38 states had legislation that allowed abortion for one reason or another-- medical, rape, incest etc. In all these it protected the innocent parties involved be it the mother or the child depending on the specific criteria surrounding the pregnancy. In Texas, it was medical risk. If the people of Texas felt the law was to restrictive and rape, incest, whatever needed to be added then it was the responsibility of the people of Texas to change that law themselves, this bogus cut and dry "right to privacy" really had nothing to do with it. Like I said, it was all about the times and social belief, it was never truly about the Constitution and its rightful interpretation.

jlmiller wrote:

<quoted text>
If the father wants a say he can have it before he is having sex. Really, should he be having sex with a woman if he doesn't know her well enough to discuss options relating to an unplanned pregnancy??

News flash, this is the same for the woman. The only difference is she has the choice to terminate or make the bastard pay.

I don't even know why this comment was posted anyhow, it was only a few posts ago where I talked abot personal responsibility.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Your question has been answered numerous time, in this forum alone, you simply choose not to accept it.
Excuse me if I do not hold any more value for your body and what it is going through than thatof which you hold for the unborn..

Bullshit, it has not. YOU certainly didn't answer it, no one has.

What should be done when the woman and man are in conflict about what to do regarding the pregnancy? Who makes the final decision? If the man, will you let him have the final say if HE wants the abortion, forcing the woman to have one? If the woman, then what is the fuss about?

Answer the questions, coward.

Ink wrote:

<quoted text>
So you do believe in God and if He can do something so can you. Do I have this right?

I don't believe in god for the very same reason I don't believe in mother goose. Magic isn't real and it is time for you fools to grow up and stop playing make believe.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullshit, it has not. YOU certainly didn't answer it, no one has.
What should be done when the woman and man are in conflict about what to do regarding the pregnancy? Who makes the final decision? If the man, will you let him have the final say if HE wants the abortion, forcing the woman to have one? If the woman, then what is the fuss about?
Answer the questions, coward.

That's easy, the woman who is carrying the infant should get to keep the baby if she wants to - but only at her expense if the man wants the abortion.

Pat wrote:

<quoted text>
That's easy, the woman who is carrying the infant should get to keep the baby if she wants to - but only at her expense if the man wants the abortion.

And the other questions?

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
I don't buy into this, its my body deal with it mentality, sorry..
Besides, if Obama gets his way and we get Universal Healthcare which includes funding for abortion through tax dollars you better damn well beleive its my business..

Right on the mark, great post.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
Bullshit, it has not. YOU certainly didn't answer it, no one has.
What should be done when the woman and man are in conflict about what to do regarding the pregnancy? Who makes the final decision? If the man, will you let him have the final say if HE wants the abortion, forcing the woman to have one? If the woman, then what is the fuss about?
Answer the questions, coward.

See, these exact questions are what is wrong with our society. What about me,me,me and I,I,I. What if I do not want... This again comes back down to the basic premis of responsibility. Taking responsibilit for your actions does not include abortion, it means taking responsibility for your actions that lead to the result. You are typical liberal though with the name calling.

The fact is, if you are not ready to accept the responsibility of a child than you shouldn't be having sex. Plain and simple. This is not the only place this lack of responsibility has effected us, take a look at the number of mortgage forclosues, repos on cars, boats etc.. We want what makes us feel good, we are a nation of fast food, you should be able to pull up to the windown and get what you want then!!

I will always err on the side of the innocent party, the one who's through no action of its own was placed at risk, in this case it is the child.

I will say again, I will hold the womans body, wants and needs to no higher a standard than you hold the value of the unborn child. Thats the bottom line.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
See, these exact questions are what is wrong with our society. What about me,me,me and I,I,I. What if I do not want... This again comes back down to the basic premis of responsibility. Taking responsibilit for your actions does not include abortion, it means taking responsibility for your actions that lead to the result. You are typical liberal though with the name calling.
The fact is, if you are not ready to accept the responsibility of a child than you shouldn't be having sex. Plain and simple. This is not the only place this lack of responsibility has effected us, take a look at the number of mortgage forclosues, repos on cars, boats etc.. We want what makes us feel good, we are a nation of fast food, you should be able to pull up to the windown and get what you want then!!
I will always err on the side of the innocent party, the one who's through no action of its own was placed at risk, in this case it is the child.
I will say again, I will hold the womans body, wants and needs to no higher a standard than you hold the value of the unborn child. Thats the bottom line.

In other words, you refuse to actually answer my questions. And I know why, you can't answer them without exposing your hypocrisy. Thanks for proving that for me.

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
In other words, you refuse to actually answer my questions. And I know why, you can't answer them without exposing your hypocrisy. Thanks for proving that for me.

Nice try, but you need to answer the fundamental questions posed in rebute to youe question. What is more important, the wants of the persons who are responsible for the action that resulted in the unwanted outcome or the actual product of the action, the innocent party, the child.

Again, your questions has been answered you simply refuse to accept it.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>Yes, but you only have that right and ability at the convenience of the mother. At any time that ability could have been taken from you with no regard to your wants or wishes.

I disagree

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>Actually this doesn't change my scenario at all, in the case of rape we are not talking about a mutually agreed upon contract, and in the case of incest this could also be the case or we could be talking about medical necessity depending on genetics and what level of generational separation.

Your question was "[a]re the innocent responsible for the actions of the irresponsible?" That's a broad question, which I answered.

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>None of these scenerios really change anything though, we can come up with them all day. The point is this decission was a poor one, as it batardized the 14th Amendment and turned it into something that was never meant to be. Again, at the time 38 states had legislation that allowed abortion for one reason or another-- medical, rape, incest etc. In all these it protected the innocent parties involved be it the mother or the child depending on the specific criteria surrounding the pregnancy. In Texas, it was medical risk. If the people of Texas felt the law was to restrictive and rape, incest, whatever needed to be added then it was the responsibility of the people of Texas to change that law themselves, this bogus cut and dry "right to privacy" really had nothing to do with it. Like I said, it was all about the times and social belief, it was never truly about the Constitution and its rightful interpretation.

As you said previously, the law is on my side. I do believe it's time for you to stop beating the proverbial "dead horse."

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Nice try, but you need to answer the fundamental questions posed in rebute to youe question. What is more important, the wants of the persons who are responsible for the action that resulted in the unwanted outcome or the actual product of the action, the innocent party, the child.
Again, your questions has been answered you simply refuse to accept it.

No, it hasn't. You danced around it. And I most certainly do not need to answer your points until you have first answered the questions put to you.

Conservative Democrat wrote:

<quoted text>

As you said previously, the law is on my side. I do believe it's time for you to stop beating the proverbial "dead horse."

That one made me laugh.. thanks I needed it.. A lawyer telling someone to stop arguing...

Bitner wrote:

<quoted text>
No, it hasn't. You danced around it. And I most certainly do not need to answer your points until you have first answered the questions put to you.

Just keep grasping at that straw..

akpilot wrote:

<quoted text>
Just keep grasping at that straw..

It's not a straw, it's a fact. You have not answered the questions. But, lying about it...everyone can see that you haven't. It's good for new posters to know the dishonesty of the extreme anti-choicers here.