|
Grex > Agora56 > #158: South Dakota challenges Roe v Wade | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 254 responses total. |
richard
|
|
response 129 of 254:
| 
Mar 9 18:14 UTC 2006 |
better example, if a woman is "date raped" and made pregnant by someone she
knows, should she be able to opt out of parenthood and force the guy to be
the parent?
|
edina
|
|
response 130 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:16 UTC 2006 |
Don't they call that "adoption"?
|
rcurl
|
|
response 131 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:30 UTC 2006 |
Clearly, men and women should sign a new contract before each coitus, just
to avoid any possible future misunderstandings.
|
richard
|
|
response 132 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:41 UTC 2006 |
re #130 adoption is an option, but that usually ends up with the child being
kept at taxpayer expense until an adoption actually occurs. The question is,
if a mother can opt out of parenthood, why can't a man?
|
edina
|
|
response 133 of 254:
|
Mar 9 18:43 UTC 2006 |
"Until an adoption occurs"....the way things are in this day and age, many
babies go directly home with their adopting parents.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 134 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:01 UTC 2006 |
Babies are wanted by a great number of couples who are unable to have
children. So if there is a delay between birth and adoption I can't
think it's very long at all.
|
richard
|
|
response 135 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:13 UTC 2006 |
but many couples only want a baby of their own race, or only want a healthy
baby. my cousin runs an adoption agency and she'll tell you that it is VERY
hard to get handicapped children adopted, or minority children. in fact she
has adopted three handicapped, I should say physically challenged, daughters
herself, so she leads by example. Her agency has no rules against white
couples adopting black children, though some agencies do, but the vast
majority of white couples who come into her office won't even consider a black
child. Sad but true. So some delays are inevitable.
|
jep
|
|
response 136 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:25 UTC 2006 |
Well, if you're *asking* me what I think, that's different than making
up a position for me. I'll answer questions if *asked*.
I would not and will not participate in a sperm bank. I would not
participate in impregnating a woman in any way if I don't plan to be
there to be my child's father.
If my zipper goes down, my responsibility goes up. It's an 18 year
commitment, every time. Not everyone feels that way, but I do. No
child of mine will ever primarily be an accident. I don't know how to
state it any more strongly than that. I hope I won't be misinterpreted.
I wouldn't ban sperm banks or sperm donations. I think they're a
terrible idea myself but it's ridiculous to state, in today's society,
that single parents and gay parents cannot be good parents. Many of
them are. I wouldn't ban surrogate parents or planned adoptions,
either.
|
richard
|
|
response 137 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:31 UTC 2006 |
I didnt make up any position for you. You SAID you were against that guy's
case, and you SAID you think a father should not be able to opt out of his
parental responsibilities. I quoted you word for word. There was no mistake,
no misinterpretation, and no position stated that you hadn't already stated
yourself.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 138 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:33 UTC 2006 |
resp:137 JEP's position doesn't necessarily mean he wants the law you
mentioned put in place.
|
richard
|
|
response 139 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:34 UTC 2006 |
you don't think that if he's against this guy's lawsuit that he wouldn't be
against any law that would come out of his winning that lawsuit? You are
splitting hairs here anne.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 140 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:37 UTC 2006 |
To me it's almost this simple- if abortion is illegal then no man should
be able to walk away from the responsibilities of impregnating a woman.
He should be responsible for 1/2 the costs associated with the pregnancy
and rearing the child.
If abortion is legal, then I think there should be ways for a man to
sign off on responsibility for a pregnancy. If the woman has an out the
guy should too- neither one being able to force her to continue the
pregnancy, and neither being able to force her into ending it.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 141 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:38 UTC 2006 |
resp:139 being against a law does not imply wanting to create a
different law.
|
richard
|
|
response 142 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:39 UTC 2006 |
jep said:
" If this concept were to become law, it couldn't help but
to cause more abortions. I wouldn't like that. "
Im sorry but that is not ambiguous. I was not making up any position for
him. He is stating loudly and clearly why he'd be against such a law.
|
richard
|
|
response 143 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:55 UTC 2006 |
actually I read an article on sperm banks just last week. they say an issue
is a lot of women want the same sperm. This one guy's sperm was chosen by
forty women, some 6 ft. 4 inch blonde haired blue eyed doctor in d.c. Now
he's, without his direct knowledge, fathered a LOT of children. So what if
these children grow up, and one meets and marries another, not realizing they
are biologically brother and sister?
I'd think the odds of those children meeting and marrying would be remote,
but to some its an issue that makes them against sperm banks.
|
jep
|
|
response 144 of 254:
|
Mar 9 19:55 UTC 2006 |
Richard, I find it all but impossible to you when you make statements
such as resp:102.
Since you won't read it or can't understand it, here's a summary of the
article to which I referred in resp:100: Someone wants guys to be able
to opt out of all of their parenting responsibility, including
financial support for their children, before they are born.
This has nothing to do with the mother's consent or intentions. This
guy just wants men to be able to say, "not gonna support my kid" and be
done with parenting.
So now, if you were to go back and read your resp:102 *in context*, you
would see you made a fool of yourself once again. And you would see
why I objected to you attributing ideas and thoughts to me which I
never had.
But you won't do that, will you? You'll just insist your garbage made
sense.
|
richard
|
|
response 145 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:01 UTC 2006 |
thats bull jep, in #102 I was stating my own opinion, and referring directly
to your previous post where you said specifically that you were against that
man's court case, because you think a father should not be able to opt out
of his responsibilities. There is no need for context, I did not put words
in your mouth. You are the one making a fool of yourself, because you won't
read my exact words and insist on putting things in 'context'
|
richard
|
|
response 146 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:02 UTC 2006 |
And I was saying that in my opinion, that guy's arguments have merit, but only
in my opinion IF the mother gives her consent. I was stating my opinion, not
yours.
|
richard
|
|
response 147 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:05 UTC 2006 |
And I only think the mother's consent is necessary if both parents agreed to
the pregnancy. As stated, I don't think a man need be bonded by fatherhood
if it has occurred through fraud or deception.
Again jep, those are my opinions. I wasn't stating yours. I never once said
that YOU think or don't think the mother's consent was necessary, and wouldn't
because you made it very clear that you think it shouldn't happen regardless
of the consent issue.
|
richard
|
|
response 148 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:09 UTC 2006 |
I said in #102:
"If the mother has her own financial resources and is willing to sign a
legal document releasing the father from all paternal responsibilities,
then why not? In a free country, consenting adults get to make these
decisions, not the government. This is another case of JEP wanting
morality imposed on people of free will by one institution or another.
The first sentence is my personal opinion. The last sentence isn't
referring to the first sentence, it is referring to the general issue JEP
brought up. In no way, shape or form was I putting words in your mouth.
Thats the truth. So apologize.
|
jadecat
|
|
response 149 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:13 UTC 2006 |
resp:142 Richard, John was saying that he wouldn't like there to be more
abortions. I think that's plainly true given that he's stated before
that he's pro-life.
|
edina
|
|
response 150 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:16 UTC 2006 |
And even as a pro-choice person, I don't want there to be more abortions.
|
jep
|
|
response 151 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:16 UTC 2006 |
All right, Richard. Obviously words mean different things to you than
they do to me. And they mean different things to you at different
times of the day. In short, you're completely insane.
It's either that, or you're lying And you said you're not lying.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 152 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:17 UTC 2006 |
Breathe, Richard, breathe. And it is customary to allow at least one other
person to reply to the item before you respond to yourself.
|
klg
|
|
response 153 of 254:
|
Mar 9 20:42 UTC 2006 |
(Easy does it, boys.)
|