Why are American people so hung up on women having abortions ?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: musicismagic

Because they're murdering children and taking away their right to live, most of the time because they just don't want the responsibility. A right that is NOT afforded to men. We have to deal with the responsibility under the gun of the law...even if we're not ready. Women claim to have less rights than men, well this is a right, as well as Affirmative Action, that men do not have. So, equality is really in the favor of women if you don't listen to the lies and just look at reality.

^^^^When men get pregnant^^^^ They are welcome to the same

equality on the subject as women.

If women don’t want to get pregnant, then don’t engage in actives that result in men fertilizing eggs? Sad, but the trend seems men are turning to sex robots because they don’t need the hassle?

Make Paternity DNA testing and support of child mandatory per Federal Law.

Enough! With women being 100% responsible - - when it comes to enjoying sex - - and the sometimes result of that act.

Actually, while I agree with the DNA testing for familial heath history purposes, I don't think men should be forced to care for kids they don't want. In that event, yes, it's all on the mom to wing childrearing herself.

It might not be a popular opinion, but I really don't feel forcing people to do that is the way to go. I'd be much happier with subpar men being able to sign away paternal rights, ergo letting them completely off the hook. Sometimes the CS money isn't worth the fight, and we all know that.

a reply to: Nyiah

And I have seen CS support money go for drug use by the mom, while guys worked hard to meet the court mandate?

originally posted by: neutronflux
The act is enjoyable to ensure the continuation of the species? The biology act of sex is to continue the species? Is there not less barbaric ways than abortion for birth control? There are not more progressive and less evasive forms of birth control? You would enjoy sex if every act of intercourse resulted in an unwanted pregnancy and an abortion? That seems very unpleasant? I think it takes a male donor and female donor to create a fetal egg?

You are truly naive. Procreation is not the sole point of sex, nor is it also solely for enjoyment. It is also to further the pair bond between committed people. Trust me, I'm not screwing my husband to make more kids. I didn't screw my husband to make the two I got to begin with, our sex life's point is entirely focused on maintaining & strengthening the pair bond between us for the rest of our lives.

IMO, I think people who refuse to consider the pair bond psychological aspect of sex to have a narrow view of life, and unfulfilling relationships. Sure, you can marry & call it/them lifelong mates for 50 years, but there's a lot of chemicals involved in sex that could take that 50 years down a much more devoted road if you don't stop at just "Hey, I married him/her, didn't I?"

Sex is not just to make babies or have fun. Both are good, but they're not the lone point of it.

a reply to: Nyiah

I also now two or three cases where the mom has lost custody of the children. Funny the system is not as supportive of stay at home dads like it enables stay at home moms? So the children get pushed off to the grandparents so they are raised in a manor that created the problems with their parents?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nyiah

And I have seen CS support money go for drug use by the mom, while guys worked hard to meet the court mandate?

I'm in strong favor of CS being strictly limited to a utility (or two if it is within the averages of more than one payment) or partial rent/mortgage payment, and only those. If mom's going to holler about not having money for food or childcare, etc, then she has no room to whine about not having it with her utilities/part of her lodging costs being covered already. Somebody already paid your electric & water, honey, you have it now.

That is the only way I can see CS being a fair system. Anything outside of that is wide open for manipulation & abuse of said funds.

a reply to: Nyiah

that is what you consider fair? maybe it is, don't know... fair to me would be half of the additional cost between renting a one bedroom and renting a home big enough for the mother and the children, half the child care costs, half the cost of feeding those kids, half the cost of clothing for them, half the cost of medical care, and well, I am pretty sure you get the rest. basically half the cost of raising the kid or kids. of course, sharing the actual care for the child should be encouraged when possible, so if the parents are willing to cooperate and work together well enough, then taking custody of the child or children for the time that the mother is working would offset some of the child care cost since there wouldn't be any child care cost unless there was a need for the child care while she was working, and if meals were to be provided while in the parents care, then that cost should be considered also... ect.
to make it even wilder, I would suggest that the actual home where the children reside be considered to be the child's home and therefore if mom and dad are gonna share custody of the child, then they are the ones that are shifting their lives from one place to another.. not the kids.

a reply to: dawnstar

I wasn't clear, I suppose. I was speaking in the strictest "we can't agree on jack s#" baseline sense possible. People should certainly be free to negotiate with each other to "upgrade" from that where they can. But nobody should start out with everything plus the kitchen sink, that is wholly unfair. If I ever divorce my husband, I have no right to demand obscene amounts of his income to supplement my own if it's equally good or better, or sit on my ass as a SAHM on his dime.

I'm all for mandatory baselines being reasonable, such as what I already mentioned. If I divorced him and got primary custody, it's now MY job to provide for the kids in my care, not his. He can pitch in nominally when he can or when needed, that's fine. But I would loathe and detest the court forcing him to. I'm apt to follow my mother's example, and write him a check back for the CS amount.

Men being the post-divorce gravy boat has got to stop. It's not fair to make an ex continue to support you because a divorce was had (I'm also firmly against alimony, so there's that) If you're divorced, you're divorced -- that includes financially.

a reply to: Nyiah

and I think that half the cost of raising the care is equitable. after all, what's that "traditional family"?? oh ya, men earn the cash, women takes care of home and kids. well, that's basically two full time jobs there. all too often the women still gets the full responsibility of caring for the home the kids are living in and the kids with no dad in sight.. seems to me that if you want the women to now pitch in the financial needs of the family, then the dad should be responsible to pitch in with the care of the kids, be it by taking custody while the mother is working or paying half the child care costs while she is working. then they can share the expense of the kids 50/50. as it is it's quite possible that they were barely making it together, so there is no way that they are gonna have the funds to hold two households and at least some funds will be from the taxpayer. so, why should the taxpayers be saddled with the cost for kids they had nothing to do with bringing into the world if dad gets to walk away without contributing as much as he can up to that 50% and likewise mom isn't doing crap as far as making herself marketable in the workforce?

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: musicismagic

Some of us consider the unborn child an individual. A human being.

And murder is distasteful to most.

Shame as many are not as passionate about sending the troops abroad.

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Nyiah

and I think that half the cost of raising the care is equitable. after all, what's that "traditional family"?? oh ya, men earn the cash, women takes care of home and kids. well, that's basically two full time jobs there. all too often the women still gets the full responsibility of caring for the home the kids are living in and the kids with no dad in sight.. seems to me that if you want the women to now pitch in the financial needs of the family, then the dad should be responsible to pitch in with the care of the kids, be it by taking custody while the mother is working or paying half the child care costs while she is working. then they can share the expense of the kids 50/50. as it is it's quite possible that they were barely making it together, so there is no way that they are gonna have the funds to hold two households and at least some funds will be from the taxpayer. so, why should the taxpayers be saddled with the cost for kids they had nothing to do with bringing into the world if dad gets to walk away without contributing as much as he can up to that 50% and likewise mom isn't doing crap as far as making herself marketable in the workforce?

I'm not talking about those who share it 50/50 evenly, I'm talking about the rest out there, the money moochers & "career mommies".
Simply put, I suggest she take on multiple jobs, like it or not. Her childcare can be found, kids' friend have parents -- they're not Boxcar children, you have friends, know your neighbors, etc. "I can't get childcare" is the biggest load of BS I've ever heard of. If you never made the effort to bond with others in your community, that's your own damn fault. Single women have been utilizing that route for DECADES, since before the CS system ever existed. Now all of a sudden people are incapable of neighborhood networking?

Once you take primary or full custody, you are effectively broadcasting that you can shoulder the mantle of meeting the bare financial minimums of raising your offspring better than the other spouse can under their care. Situations of ex-spouse abuse or neglect & medical problems don't matter much here, they're not the issue. The issue is being so entitled as to believe you are entitled to upwards of half of you ex's income. NO YOU ARE NOT. You are entitled to your own job, however.
Furthermore, every women who has kids should approach life in the manner of expecting the father/ex-spouse to suddenly drop dead tomorrow and hence, they never get a dime from them. If women can manage to get their s# together and hack it without CS after the ex's death, it can certainly be done when they're alive. I'm a housewife now, but if I'm ever to divorce, the FIRST STOP I make after signing on the dotted line is a job placement agency. I got divorced, now it's time for me to grow up and pay the bills solo.


Edit: Just so we're clear on this, I'm not trying to attack or belittle you, Dawn. I simply find the way ex's are treated as piggy banks despicable. There's a massive difference between still falling short in depressed areas and needing public & ex's assistance, and being a lazy f# and not lifting a finger for yourself.

After reading the question here is the best answer you will get:

The op has asked why is the USA so hung up on women having abortions:

The answer is going to upset many but it is the truth: This is not about children, it is not about the procedure, it is about controlling women. it always has been and always will be. In this debate, there is never a talk about helping the child. In fact usually there is discussion and real debate on cutting welfare, food stamps, medical, housing and decrease funding for schools. All of the things that a child would need to grow up healthy and be a part of society are often the first things on the chopping block. And even things like birth control is often considered to be wrong and fought over. So if they are fighting birth control, and cutting the safety net programs, then the only thing left is to control and make women a second class citizen.

a reply to: Nyiah

you are aware that if a working spouse dies leaving children behind...
the surviving parent can make a claim with social security on behalf of the children, right??
if the deceased happens to be a vet, the surviving parent can also make a claim from there on behalf of the kids.

another thing, for most men, if you did give them custody of the children, under the terms you are outlining, they wouldn't be able to do it either. the childcare would eat up too much of their wages.

a reply to: musicismagic

Because, apparently, many Americans only care about you before you are born.

Once you are out they couldn't care less.

a reply to: musicismagic

Because families belong together. A child shouldn't be separated from their mother. Especially in the way of murdering the child. Once it has a beating heart, it's actually a living being.

Just saying

originally posted by: Nyiah

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: neutronflux

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: IlluminatiTechnician
a reply to: musicismagic

Because they're murdering children and taking away their right to live, most of the time because they just don't want the responsibility. A right that is NOT afforded to men. We have to deal with the responsibility under the gun of the law...even if we're not ready. Women claim to have less rights than men, well this is a right, as well as Affirmative Action, that men do not have. So, equality is really in the favor of women if you don't listen to the lies and just look at reality.

^^^^When men get pregnant^^^^ They are welcome to the same

equality on the subject as women.

If women don’t want to get pregnant, then don’t engage in actives that result in men fertilizing eggs? Sad, but the trend seems men are turning to sex robots because they don’t need the hassle?

Make Paternity DNA testing and support of child mandatory per Federal Law.

Enough! With women being 100% responsible - - when it comes to enjoying sex - - and the sometimes result of that act.

Actually, while I agree with the DNA testing for familial heath history purposes, I don't think men should be forced to care for kids they don't want. In that event, yes, it's all on the mom to wing childrearing herself.

It might not be a popular opinion, but I really don't feel forcing people to do that is the way to go. I'd be much happier with subpar men being able to sign away paternal rights, ergo letting them completely off the hook. Sometimes the CS money isn't worth the fight, and we all know that.

I am not going to give men a pass. It starts PRE-Pregnancy.

Condoms are very reliable. (not full proof, but very reliable).

Many men still expect the woman to be responsible for birth control.

Do you see men out protesting for more funding for Male Contraceptives?
NO, you don't. They should.

Do you think men would use a Male Contraceptive if there was a reliable one on the market?

www.malecontraceptive.org...

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Nyiah

And I have seen CS support money go for drug use by the mom, while guys worked hard to meet the court mandate?

I actually support a 3rd party to monitor child support funds.

originally posted by: Annee

I am not going to give men a pass. It starts PRE-Pregnancy.

Condoms are very reliable. (not full proof, but very reliable).

Many men still expect the woman to be responsible for birth control.

Do you see men out protesting for more funding for Male Contraceptives?
NO, you don't. They should.

Do you think men would use a Male Contraceptive if there was a reliable one on the market?

So true ....... My daughter brought up her son with "If you dont want

to be a father to a 'surprise' child take the responsibility and protect yourself

whatever contraceptive she claims to be on. Apart from controlling being an

unwanted parent you will be doing yourself a favour in protecting your own

sexual health."

originally posted by: Kryties
a reply to: musicismagic

Because, apparently, many Americans only care about you before you are born.

Once you are out they couldn't care less.

It is an odd one. I have epillepsy from a faulty DCx gene (only three other males alive in world with it as very nasty and they have had grand mal seizures every 15 - 20 minutes since birth and haven't left intensive care since).

Up until the 70s I would have been imprisoned with 'lunatics, idiots and epileptics' and balls soaked in carbolic acid in a few in the eugenics programme. Sounds like torture to me.

a reply to: Kryties

This is such a tired and discredited canard.

You have it all wrong. Many of us want to ensure each life is given equal potential to succeed. Part of that is ensuring a "right to life" (outside situational exceptions and medical reasons of broad justification)

Once that life is given the opportunity to exist, like all Americans, he/she will (eventually) be responsible for their own success. Until the age of majority is reached, that job is up to the parents.

But again, I don't support overturning Roe v. Wade. I am pro-choice because I am pro-liberty, not because I condone abortion or enjoy the fact that it occurs. But the simple fact is that prohibition is a failing prospect, and the amount of harm caused by ad-hoc procedures is immeasurable (due to the covert nature of such actions)

Because sex is a natural process intended to produce offspring, you are willingly accepting this outcome by engaging in sexual activity. The best option would be 1) birth control or 2) abstinence. But that's nothing more than friendly advice. I don't believe any person has the right to legislate their opinion onto others. Which is the sole reason I back Roe v. Wade. I do think the majority decision was specious, and likely exists on shaky grounds at best.

originally posted by: JBurns

You have it all wrong. Many of us want to ensure each life is given equal potential to succeed. Part of that is ensuring a "right to life" (outside situational exceptions and medical reasons of broad justification)

When does this "right to life" begin? For without the host/mother the fetus

cannot exist before 6 months of gestation.

This predicament comes up time and again from anti abortionists and it always

brings to my mind Shakespeare's *Merchant of Venice* when Shylock is awarded his

pound of flesh .... with the proviso that he doesn't spill one drop of blood!

Shylock is not swayed by Portia arguments to be merciful nor by an increased offer of money, so Portia grants him his wish: the bond must be honoured. Shylock prepares to cut out a pound of Antonio's flesh from near his heart. Antonio prepares to die.
At the last minute, Portia points out that the bond makes no mention of blood - so that if Shylock spills the smallest drop of Antonio's blood, his act is illegal.