anti-abortion people should have adopt all the kids they're forcing to be born

College Confidential Community
61

<p>I know, but the debate was pretty much started by a liberal who called all people who are pro life "filthy conservatives". To me, that poster was uneducated because not all people who are pro-life are "filthy conservatives" and I am not aware of any statistics that people who are pro-life are "filthy" in any way. So the person who made that argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Conservatives have their reasons for being pro-life, be it from a religious standpoint, a scientific standpoint, or a personal experience. How does that make them "filthy"? I have not called liberals "filthy" just because their views differ from mine. I think they're wrong, but I can understand why they believe what they believe.</p>

<p>I will admit, there are people on both sides that are "filthy" but to start out the discussion of abortion by calling all prolifers "filthy conservatives" is really uneducated and baseless IMO. How does being pro-life correlate to being a "filthy conservative"? </p>

<p>I'm a conservative and yes, I'm pro-life, but has that poster asked me personally why I'm against abortion or why I'm a conservative? No one here called the Dems anything perjorative, so I don't understand the point of the name calling.</p>

62

<p>Abortion is killing. The pro-choice people need to admit it. They're not fooling anyone by saying "it's just a ball of cells," because abortions are performed much later in the pregnancy than the "few cells" stage.
But that doesn't mean abortion should be outlawed. Don't we support war in this country when it's justified? Pro-life people may or may not be for the death penalty...but I have yet to meet a single pro-lifer who says we can never go to war. And what is war? The killing of other people (and inevitably the killing of the innocent) to bring about a desired end. You can never support war and oppose abortion at the same time without being hypocritical. Yes, abortion is killing. It's not a happy thing. But it is justified, and in this case the person most entitled to make the decision of whether the ending of the life is justified or not is the person carrying the child.</p>

<p>Yes, killing is "wrong" on the whole. But as I said before, we kill innocent people in war...there has not been one war yet when innocent life has not been taken away. It's a fact of war, yet we continue to engage in it because we want to bring about a better state for the world. Abortion is the same on a smaller level.</p>

<p>And yes, I agree, name-calling is silly.</p>

63

<p>Smurfette, are you ready for the big game next Saturday? Hehe! </p>

<p>Jimbob, I know many people (Americans included) who would never support a war of any kind.</p>

64

<p>I have class in 8 minutes, so I'll make this quick.</p>

<p><em>Actually child support is definitely easier to get out of than actually taking care of the child on a daily basis. It is in no way comparable IMO.</em></p>

<p>Two (okay eight) words: day care, fully funded by the father's money.</p>

<p><em>Vail, what kind of wimpy man would not INSIST on partly financing his child's fomative years? The only word to describe a man"s RvW would be deadbeat!</em></p>

<p>How about no. "Financing his child's formative years" is an idealistic way to think about the child support system. There are tons of legal systems in place to make sure that "mommy" gets her money, but little to none to make sure that she's actually spending it on the kids, as opposed to say, her live-in boyfriend or her romance trips.</p>

<p>You need to read this page about Roe V. Wade before you make a jugment. It's plain to see that all of the power when it comes to children is currently held by women, despite the fact that it takes 2 to make a baby.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.nationalcenterformen.org/page7.shtml&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>some excerpts:</p>

<p>"We will ask that men be granted equal protection of the laws which safeguard the right of women to make family planning decisions after sex."</p>

<p>"A man must choose to be a father in the same way that a woman chooses to be a mother."</p>

<p>Whatever happened to equality of the sexes? </p>

<p>And just in case you didn't read my earlier post, I support Roe V. Wade for Men inasmuch as it shows us how vicious both versions (RvW for men and women) really are, and how, at the end of the day, its the kids who get shafted. I believe that if Roe V Wade for Men is declared unconstitutional, then the same should happen to its counterpart, Roe v Wade for Women. </p>

<p>Anyway, gotta go for now.</p>

65

<p>Alexandre: well, if you know people like that, that's good for them, but they're being highly unrealistic. Yes, we need to kill people to make the world a better place. Does that make every war justified? No way. But the concept isn't inherently flawed. So basically what I'm saying is that to be consistent in your views, you must either
1. be against abortion, the death penalty, AND all war
2. be for abortion and for justified war (you can still oppose the death penalty but not on the grounds that's it's human life...you can for example oppose it on the grounds that the justice system is a flawed decisionmaker)</p>

66

<p>day care?? How does that equal being pregnant for 9 months, raising the child on your own, helping them with homework, stressing about there safety and other things they may need? There are a lot of things that go into having a child. I hope you are not suggesting all that is needed to raise a child is a couple hundred bucks a month.. that of course would be silly. What about the single parents life? Do they get to be social anymore or do they now owe their entire life to the child? While the runaway parent lives their life as usual minus a percentage of their pay check the single parents life is turned upside down.</p>

67

<p>Vail, I will not waste my time reading trash. Sorry man, there is a responsibility a man must assume, and that includes supporting his kids. Whether or not we agree on the definition of what constitutes life at the foetal stage, we can all agree that once born, a child is a life. None of us can prove that a 3 week old fetus qualifies as a life, so there is room for a woman to get an abortion under the presmise that she does not believe it is a life. And since not all of us are bound by the covenant of Catholicism, it is reasonable to assume that some people will have no religious conviction to halt their proceeding with an abortion. But to disregard one's own living pregeny is not so easily justified.</p>

68

<p>Jimbob, I will not agree with you on the issue of war, but let us not open that can of worms.</p>

69

<p><em>day care?? How does that equal being pregnant for 9 months, raising the child on your own, helping them with homework, stressing about there safety and other things they may need? There are a lot of things that go into having a child. I hope you are not suggesting all that is needed to raise a child is a couple hundred bucks a month.. that of course would be silly. What about the single parents life? Do they get to be social anymore or do they now owe their entire life to the child? While the runaway parent lives their life as usual minus a percentage of their pay check the single parents life is turned upside down.</em></p>

<p>You made the fundamental error of assuming that all single mothers care for their children the way most mothers do. Some do, some don't. Think of a young mother who doesn't give a crap about where their kids are at or what they are doing, and a young father who similarly doesn't care, and you'll see that it's pretty much the same thing. (Anesthesia can even remove the pain of childbirth, so even that little 'unequalizer' is gone, furthermore, the soon-to-be mother can milk her pregnancy for free stuff, something the man can't do, so its all pretty balanced out in the end).</p>

<p><em>Sorry man, there is a responsibility a man must assume, and that includes supporting his kids.</em></p>

<p>Agreed, this is why the Roe V. Wade for Men wants to give men the option to opt out BEFORE the child is born. If I understand correctly, the primary reason that the computer technician lost his case is because the child was already born.</p>

<p><em>But to disregard one's own living pregeny is not so easily justified.</em></p>

<p>Maybe you should've read the "trash" after all. It's not about disregarding one's living progeny, its about disgregarding a "tumor", a "lump of cells", right? (I'm reading out of the pro-abortion playbook here). Roe V Wade for Men wants to give men the option to 'opt out' BEFORE childbirth.</p>

<p>If a kid is born, then of course the father has to show some responsibility and pay up, just like the mother had to go through the child birth, fair is fair. But up until the day before the child is born, for any arbitrary reason, the soon-to-be mother can decide to "opt out". Roe v Wade for Men seeks to give men this same privelege, except for instead of giving men the right to kill the child, the movement wants to give men the ability to say that they will not pay child support for the child.</p>

<p>If more women knew that men had the power to do this, maybe they'd think twice before they had intimate relations with that man, agreed? </p>

<p>If this movement passes, then the kids will be shortchanged, as was the case with Roe V Wade for Women, but maybe if RvWM passes, we as a society can start seeing the error made in Roe V Wade. Roe certainly did.</p>

70

<p>I can see you are not at all informed or interested in seeing the other side of the argument. Also being pregnant is not a "little" unequalizer. I have grown leery of people that start new screen names to debate controversial topics. They tend to be trolls and a waste of time so I am not going to bother.</p>

71

<p><em>I can see you are not at all informed or interested in seeing the other side of the argument. Also being pregnant is not a "little" unequalizer. I have grown leery of people that start new screen names to debate controversial topics. They tend to be trolls and a waste of time so I am not going to bother.</em></p>

<p>I didn't come here to talk about abortion. In fact, I didn't even first use the word 'abortion' in my first post (IIRC), I was talking strictly about Roe v Wade for Men. So (please) quit with the message board elitism and name-calling already. </p>

<p>Furthermore, I'm not perfect (!) and its always possibility that I could've been wrong about one part of my post, but until you quit with the ad hominem attacks and actually show me why you think my post is wrong (while remaining civil, we ARE college students after all), then maybe we can make some progress Sweetny007.</p>

<p>Remember I wrote this too (and a whole lot of other stuff, but this was to you):
"You made the fundamental error of assuming that all single mothers care for their children the way most mothers do. Some do, some don't. Think of a young mother who doesn't give a crap about where their kids are at or what they are doing, and a young father who similarly doesn't care, and you'll see that it's pretty much the same thing."</p>

<p>And I believe that I was addressing alexandre at this point, but I think it also relates to an earlier post of yours:
"How about no. "Financing his child's formative years" is an idealistic way to think about the child support system. There are tons of legal systems in place to make sure that "mommy" gets her money, but little to none to make sure that she's actually spending it on the kids, as opposed to say, her live-in boyfriend or her romance trips."</p>

<p>But if you want to leave the argument, be my guest. You'll notice that I didn't call you a single name or make a single personal attack against you (despite the two that you've already made against me) nor am I trying to incite flames (in fact I'm doing the opposite by offering you a way out and trying to calm you down, a troll would welcome personal attacks and reciprocate with some of his/her own).</p>

72

<p>Just to clarify I actually did not attack you in any way. I also did not call you a name. I pointed out that in the past the realibility of someone who starts a new screen name to discuss these kinds of topics is questionable. You also did not actually answer anything I posted but thank you for trying to turn it around on me. </p>

<p>My main issue is that you do not understand in any way what it takes to raise a child. Even bad single parents have to enroll their kids in schools make sure they have a roof over their head and food to eat. Having someone send a check in your name does not make you a parent.</p>

73

<p>I took the remarks that I am not informed and the implication that I am a troll to be personal attacks, which I would never do to someone else, and then claim that I never attacked them. </p>

<p>If I were to have said this (which I am NOT going to say, BTW):</p>

<p>"I have grown leery of pro-choice females debating controversial topics such as abortion on Internet message boards. They tend to be [insert derogatory name for a female here] and a waste of time so I am not going to bother."</p>

<p>and addressed that to to you, would you have not been properly offended and have taken it as a personal attack? You should, because it would have been a personal attack, similar to your statement aimed at me earlier.</p>

<p>Not only did I answer your posts, but I also reposted my same answers for your viewing pleasure, if you choose not to see them, so be it, I'm not going to force you.</p>

<p>Your second paragraph is more along the lines of what I was looking for, a statement that I can respond to and attempt to rebuff, not insults regarding how few posts I have at this website.</p>

<p>If a person is to be called a "Mom" instead of a "mother", then they should raise children similar to the way you've been describing, by taking care of them, feeding them, and loving them. You're not thinking of the callous mothers here, but I am. School registration takes what, all of 5 minutes? Food = fast food. And as for roof "take the keys, and you'd better come home every night". </p>

<p>Single mothers who act like this are not considered parents in my book, nor are fathers who simply send checks and don't make any attempts to visit (provided they haven't been barred by the family court judge). And in the eyes of the law, mothers who treat their kids like dirt (as long as they're not doing anything illegal) and mothers who actually care for those kids are equal receive the same amount of child support from the man.</p>

74

<p>Yes, I apologize for being straightforward and pointing out the facts. :)
You are new to this board (well you are saying that you are) but I assume you have been on others. What have you posted about college or school? What brought you to this site? For now I will try to give you the benefit of the doubt.</p>

<p>"And in the eyes of the law, mothers who treat their kids like dirt (as long as they're not doing anything illegal) and mothers who actually care for those kids are equal receive the same amount of child support from the man."</p>

<p>Yes, that is the case but then why don't these virtuous dads take responsibility for the kids by raising them? Why are they content to leave their children with a bad parent? I will tell you why because they know actually raising them takes real responsibility and time. Two things they are not willing to contribute.</p>

<p>What exactly is your stance on how all of this should be handled?</p>

75

<p>I didn't ask for an apology, nor do I expect one.</p>

<p>What have I posted here at these boards about college or school? I'll leave that to you to find out, since it's not that difficult. Or do you mean at other boards about college and school? In that case, not too many things, there weren't that many places to do so, which leads me to your next question, 'What brought me to this site'. I actually came across this site while trawling the net for college reviews (mostly negative ones, the ones at studentsreview.com are rather intriguing).</p>

<p><em>Yes, that is the case but then why don't these virtuous dads take responsibility for the kids by raising them? Why are they content to leave their children with a bad parent? I will tell you why because they know actually raising them takes real responsibility and time. Two things they are not willing to contribute.</em></p>

<p>What? Virtuous dads? I never mentioned anything of the sort... There are several reasons why a dad might leave their kid with a bad parent. Here are several off of the top of my head:
(A) Can't get along with the wife, either because of something she did/didn't do, something he did/didn't do, or somebody both of them did/didn't do
(B) The wife committed adultery, filed a divorce, and won most of the assets (yes it happens)
(C) The father was either wrongfully or rightfully denied his visitation rights to his children.
(D) They are not his kids, and he knows this is true by paternity tests. Despite this, courts still insist that <em>somebody</em> foot the bill (thanks Lord Mansfield), and since her finger is pointed at him, he's the guy.
(E) He's a jerk who doesn't want to take the responsibility to raise the kids he sired. Hey, I'll admit that it happens, but its not the only reason.</p>

76

<p>
[quote]
Also, pro-choice people don't go around shooting abortion doctors and bombing abortion clinics like pro life people do.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>No, they just go around killing babies. Whatever floats your boat man...</p>

77

<p>^^^</p>

<p>they're not babies yet</p>

<p>What I don't understand is why pro-life people need to control other peoples' lives. If YOU don't want to have an abortion, fine by me, but why should it be illegal for me. The fetus is not a self-sustaining organism, there is no reason to call it murder.</p>

78

<p>Has anyone considered the possibility that the OP him/herself may be a troll? I mean, I'm as pro-choice as they come, and I wouldn't use that sort of inflammatory rhetoric. It's not very constructive.</p>

79

<p>or increase his/her post count by starting a thread that is controversial</p>

80

<p>Oh, what fun! I've never been to this part of the forum - wow, what a volatile debate I've been missing!</p>

<p>I have my share of comments:</p>

<p>I am essentially pro-life (except in extreme cases) but don't believe that women who have abortions should be treated as criminals. Rather than changing the law at this time, I think the solution is for the pro-lifers and the pro-choicers to work TOGETHER. That's never gonna happen as long as they continue to debate when life begins, becasue they can't prove that.</p>

<p>I am completely disgusted with most pro-lifers because they tend to be conservatives and against welfare. Statistics show that when welfare is cut, abortion rates go up. If they really wanted to decrease abortions, they would quit preaching abstinance and start having some compassion.</p>

<p>On the other hand, the pro-choicers tend to gloss over the facts. They have suppressed important info such as abortions increasing the risk of depression, suicide, and breast cancer. These are all ways in which abortion hurts WOMEN. (listen up, feminists!)</p>

<p>The only organization I know of that is trying to bridge the gap, and is actually doing something to decrease the ROOT CAUSES of abortion is Feminists for Life.</p>

<p>Both pro-choicers and pro-lifers should check it out - you will be amazed!</p>

<p>It's not religious AT ALL, and is very pro-woman/feminist.</p>

<p><a href="http://www.feministsforlife.org/%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.feministsforlife.org/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>