Defending the Truth

Your not getting it.

ANY pregnancy has risks. Most of those risks don't show up until it's too late for an abortion, so anytime a woman decides to go on with a pregnancy she is taking a chance with her life.

The man doesn't take any physical risks.

You are for equal rights. When the situations are equal, then the rights can also be equal.

That's all good and noble...But take this scenerio in consideration.

As Knot pointed out, my being pregnant is a huge health risk on my part. Irregardless of that matter, I'm willing to die having these babies. On the otherhand, my husband has made it clear that if there's a choice between me or the babies, he'd rather the babies be terminated so he can have me in his life.

Which one of us has that right to choose if the situation presents itself? Hubby? If he chooses, I lose the chance for my babies to be born. Or me? Which means leaving my hubby to raise two babies (if they survive my dying) alone when his wishes are that him and I grow old together?

Unfortunately, it does boil down to responsibilty and who has the right to determine what's better for me. And for either course to be taken, one of our rights have to be denied. Hubby's or mine, but someone loses.

I believe it's my choice alone, as it has to do with my body period. Even though my hubby has a say, it's a limited say irregardlessly.

Same with my oldest son. My first hubby knew I wanted a child. Even though I was on birthcontrol at the time, he didn't take measures himself to stop me from getting pregnant. And even though I was taking birthcontrol measures, I still ended up pregnant. I spent the next 6 months with him and his mother trying to get me to abort. When that failed, they then did their best to try and make me miscarry.

I had a beautiful boy, ex ended up paying child support, but the majority of financial burden was my own, not his. The only sad part about it was that my son's father/grandmother made it a point to let him know all his life that for them, he was an unwanted child and that I'd been selfish having him?

Should I have caved into their wishes by having an abortion, just because the ex wanted to play without consequences? Or should he have taken precautions of his own to ensure that my wishes to have a baby didn't happen by accident?

Heck, I was healthy when I had my youngest boy and still almost died having him. Luckily, after 17 pints of blood, the hemmoraging was stopped. But I was still paralized and had to take therapy for 4 months after his birth. To this day, I still have health issues in regards to that pregnancy and afteraffects of the paralyzation.

I thought the doctor was going to kill my youngest's father right there in IC over it too. Here I am dying, and he's talking about getting me pregnant again right away? Needless to say, the medical team removed him from the room right away after his comments.

Well, abortion gives others jurisdiction over that of the unborn child.. so I'm afraid it's not that simple. Plus, control over one's body also means taking responsiblity for the consequences of any action taken with said body. So, if she's ready to let a man ejaculate inside her w/o a condom or other from of birth control, then, IMO, it's not exaclty fair for her to scream "it's MY body" when she decides the fate of the unborn child.


Now, the same responsibility holds for men as well. Our society makes it TOO EASY for a man to "fire and forget" or "shoot and scoot" as it were. I'm not sure it's something you can legislate. It's a matter of morality and character (which, BTW is the same reason I think abortion should remain legal, even though I find it morally repulsive.)

I know my father would have never allowed me to turn tail and run, had I knocked a girl up.

By way of personal anectdote, I'll relate the story of a friend of mine, who really did not (or so he thought) want a child, but was having a "friends with benifits" relationship with a certian woman. Well, fate being what it is, she turned up pregnant. It would have been so easy for my friend to just turn his back and say, "that's your problem."

Instead, he allowed the woman to move in with him and helped care for her through the durantion of her pregnancy and for a time after the birth of the boy. He has since taken full resonsibility, providing medical coverage, other monitary help and regular parenting for the boy, who is now a wonderful six-year-old.
Again, this is through NO legal obligation whatsoever on his part. He did this only because he has the character to live up to his actions and the morals to carry through with what needs to be done.

And that, my friends, is a MAN.

Well, in the eyes of the state, a pregnancy only effects the pregnant woman whereas a born child effects society.

So, in the eyes of the state, these are two separate issues...one dealing with the rights of a pregnant woman and the other dealing with the rights of a born child.

And, it is role of the state to protect both the pregnant woman's rights and the born child's rights.

So, although you may consider these two separate issues as a single issue, the state doesn't see it that way. And neither do I.

Ah, baloney, the voice of reason....

I'll second those sentiments...

I get the risks, and I get that women have the right to make the decision on to abort or proceed, but that shouldn't be a forced decision on the man. PERIOD.

I was born with rubber booties. My mother could have decided to abort me but she didn't. I'm thankful of course. She made the decision to put her body at risk to have me. This was her decision but she asked my fathers input. He agreed that I should be born as well. Two people, working together to make a decision.

A close friend of mine became pregnant and had an abortion without ever telling the father. It's her right, but that doesn't make her actions right. She should have consulted the father because he should at least have the opportunity to be an advocate for the baby.

Another friend become pregnant out of wedlock. She decided to keep the baby. The man she had the baby with is less than desirable. He wanted her to abort the baby. Now, since the baby has been born, she has requested child support. Her request for child support has allowed the father visitation with the child. Now the man is in her life despite her desire to the different and the man has influence over the upbringing of the baby he didn't want. Had she avoided asking for financial assistance she could have had him sign away his parental rights and wouldn't have to deal with this. (New Mexico State Laws)

Yet another friend got his girlfriend pregnant. They split up and she had the baby. He pays child support but doesn't get to see the child despite his desire to. He is paying for a child he cannot see due to the mothers interference. This child will likely grow to resent him. How is that fair or right? (Texas State Laws)

There are many women who have a child only to give it up for adoption. This child will live in the states care and face great developmental issues the longer he or she stays in the states care. I, as a gay man, cannot adopt these children with my partner despite the fact we would make loving and attentive parents. (New Mexico/Texas State Laws)

What I'm getting at is this. There is not a clear simple answer. In some situations the woman would be better off rejecting financial assistance. In other cases the financial support does not guarantee a fathers rights. There are other cases where women are deceptive about the issue entirely.

How can we improve the law to protect all interested parties?

That is her decision. If she doesn't want the father to have any say, then she shouldn't be asking him for financial support. She can't have it both ways.

For example, my sister wanted her new husband to adopt her daughter, and get her asshole-ex completely out of the picture. The deal was, he sign off all rights, she signs away any rights to child support. Believe me, it was a win-win situation, considering this asswipe.

It's up to the father to make sure his rights are upheld. To sit there and whine about not being able to see his kids when he pays support is just pathetic, IMO.

I'm not sure about Texas laws, but I know most states are being harder on the mothers to be more fair when it comes to visitation, as they know the father's influence on a child is very important.

And as far as homosexual adoption, I think it's wrong that states don't allow it.

Well, to be honest, I think he might have a good argument if a man had a right to dictate, through legal means, the outcome of a woman's pregnancy.

But, such a "right" would most certainly mean that the state has an interest in dictating the outcome of a woman's pregnancy more so than it has already established.