Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutha  The man also chooses not to excercise his right over his own body by commiting suicide. Nobody punishes the man for commiting suicide and as a result of commiting suicide he doesn't have to pay child support anymore.
Of course the man might have reasons for not commiting suicide just as a woman might have reasons against killing the fetus.
Both decisions are about excercising one's right over one's own body.
That right happens to be the legal reason why nobody can force or forbid a woman to abort in the US. |
YOUR ANALOGY CROSS POINT
Yes, however if the man exercises his right not to commit suicide as its his choice to live and so therefore he must be self sufficient and responsible for his own life without assistance from (his girlfriend or the unemployment office) to support his life. Furthermore, being that he has this choice... if he has an option of getting a job (being adopted) then he choses not to take that job (keeping the child) then the unemployment office will no longer issue the checks (child support). In my view your analogy actually supports the point that our own free will over our body actually is an argument for self sufficiency and not indefinite support of that decision from someone who doesn't have control of your body.
END ANALOGY
I never suggested that anybody could or should force a woman to abort. What I said was that if abortion exists and adoption options exist and the woman decides to go full term and then keep the baby then that is her choice.
She could make a choice to abort or she could make a choice to put up for adoption however she instead made a choice to have the baby. Her decision not to abort could be specifically because of her religious reasons however the decision not to put for adoption is strictly because you have chosen to have a child.
Children love adopted parents just as they do their blood parents and vice versa. So to choose not to let adoption happen is one based upon a desire to parent. At this critical point the person is making a commitment for their time and their money for 18 years.
In the case of the man he may have no qualms against abortion. Of course he should not be able to force a women to abort (thats rediculous). However there are no religious reason not to let a child to be adopted. There are thousands of willing and eager parents, many that have more stable homes with a father and mother both there to support the child.
At the juncture that the woman makes the choice for the man that she chooses to commit her time and money for 18 years that is a choice.
Now some may identify her choice not to abort and some may not. We can all understand a woman not wanting to have their baby adopted however simply because a couple had sex does not mean that both are consenting towards having a baby and raising it for 18 years.
There are many cases whereby women and men are irresponsible for birth control, there are many cases where women use men as a sperm donor as well. She could choose to pay a sperm bank but sperm banks don't pay for your baby for 18 years. When many laws were created abortions were much more taboo, adoptions were less popular and women were not able to earn a living like they are today. Time has changed and now there are many independent and strong women who simply don't need a man or simply don't want the wrong man BUT, they still want a baby. Again times are changing.
Having a baby should be a joint decision even after conception. In cases whereby the women choses to have a baby and cannot afford it the government does have programs to assure that the woman and child won't starve. Yes this cost tax payer dollars however I wonder how much tax payer dollars are spent jailing all the kids coming form one parent homes. Granted not all single parent kids are problems however if we must split hairs over a few women who get support from the gov't then we should also split hairs over how many percentage wize end up costing more for society. If we did a study of adopted parent's kids going to jail vs the single parent homes what do you think the numbers would show? People who give thought, get interviewed and really long for children but can't seem to be slightly different. There is something demographically different about an adoptive family going through infertility and then the interview process for adoption.
I know that only 5 years ago what I'm saying would be viewed very negatively however I feel now its only slightly controversial. There are many men AND women surprisingly who see the logic we are discussing here.