Abortion as Art?

[guyser]

not my fault your memory isn't what it used to be. Sheesh.

In other words you know you are lying. Ok we already knew that.

But I think I will agree w your premise about men not being responsible when not wanting to support a child.

At the same time lets stop all funding for abuse shelters. Why pay, stupid broads stay in a bad relationship they get what is coming to them. They got pregnant and now they get whats coming , late nights, no money (pehaps) tough life all around. It is what you advocate.

Same w abuse shelters. See chicks are stupid and will hang in for another beating time and time again. Not our problems so bugger off and go somewhere else. But I am not contributing a cent to it.

Oh and stop any domestic spouse abuse laws. You obviously agree personal responsibility is paramount , so if you are an abused women deal with it. It is not like you didnt deserve it. Cant get pregnant by yourself, and cant get beat up by yourself..

[Guest American Woman]

QUOTE=Drea @ Apr 24 2008, 04:27 PM: not my fault your memory isn't what it used to be. Sheesh.

In other words you know you are lying. Ok we already knew that.

Thank you for recognizing that and taking the effort to acknowledge it. For the life of me, I can't understand why she can make crap up and attribute it to me and get away with it. It's extremetly frustrating to be involved in an honest discussion and have that crap thown at you time and time again.

As for the child support issue, it being the woman's sole responsiblity to use birth control and support the child, the child not mattering in regards to the man's 'rights', etc.-- I honestly feel as if I've stepped back in time. Thank goodness there are more enlightened people who realize an innocent child shouldn't pay for the "mistakes" of the mother or father; because the idea that it's just the woman's mistake is ludicrous.

[Drea]

In other words you know you are lying. Ok we already knew that.

How many times am I supposed to search for her words?

Iin the last thread I had to go back and copy and paste her words twice... I am not doing it again... t-o-u-g-h luck.

I guess some people simply forget what they type -- and that is my problem in what way exactly?

No matter what some people will argue -- If I say the sky is blue, others will say it is cyan...

Don't cry over it for pete sake.

[AngusThermopyle]

I honestly feel as if I've stepped back in time.

Very astute observation.

What I couldn't believe was the fact that it is women advocating this stuff. Men, well I could see their motivation, but women, come on. Thats just wrong on several levels.

[guyser]

Thank you for recognizing that and taking the effort to acknowledge it.

You are welcome. It is the way it was attributed, no context no effort to enlighten the reader to what you may or may not have said, and then to just say...oh not my responsibility. It shows a clear inability to support her cause. IOW bs'ing the reader.

As for the child support issue, it being the woman's sole responsiblity to use birth control and support the child, the child not mattering in regards to the man's 'rights', etc.-- I honestly feel as if I've stepped back in time. Thank goodness there are more enlightened people who realize an innocent child shouldn't pay for the "mistakes" of the mother or father; because the idea that it's just the woman's mistake is ludicrous.

I agree.

As Angus opines, a woman to boot, is what I cant get over.

But we all know that she would demand support if it were her who got pregnant and the guy said he used condoms that he knew had holes in them.

The child in all our relationships are the innocent ones, and to take this tact is reprehensible. Perhaps not in all cases as we know scum knows no gender , but a child is born innocent of the faults of the sperm and egg donors.

[Drea]

You are welcome. It is the way it was attributed, no context no effort to enlighten the reader to what you may or may not have said, and then to just say...oh not my responsibility. It shows a clear inability to support her cause. IOW bs'ing the reader.

I agree.

But we all know that she would demand support if it were her who got pregnant and the guy said he used condoms that he knew had holes in them.

Yessiree

From personal experience.

I got pregnant. Told the fellow I was keeping it no matter what he thought. He was not interested in a relationship with his child.

I never went after child support as I believed it was MY responsibility to raise the child as it was MY decision to keep him and it was MY fault I got pregnant. I was not on birthcontrol. I am the first one to admit that it was a mistake -- the best mistake I've ever made. And yes I raised him on my own until I met his stepfather eight years ago.

So yes, dear arguers, I have lived this.

What, do you believe women are so weak that they cannot do it on their own? Well boohoo for the weak women.

I have never denied access... on the contrary I have tried to help father and son build a relationship. When the father makes promises (See you on your birthday!) and then doesn’t show up… what can one do but move on for the sake of the child.

Go ahead and "slam" me. (we know you waaaaannnna!) I did the right thing.

Oh, and when I got pregnant, I and I alone had the choice whether to abort, give up or keep -- his "father" had no say in it at all.

[guyser]

Good for you on raising the child.

You chose not to go for support. Because you did it , you want to deny other women the choice.

Arent you wonderful.

Oh, and when I got pregnant, I and I alone had the choice whether to abort.

You can think that all you want since it is your prerogative to be wrong. He implied consent and you ran with it.

See how it works? Probably not.

[Drea]

Good for you on raising the child.

You chose not to go for support. Because you did it , you want to deny other women the choice.

I never said I was against ALL child support -- just for one night stands. If a couple has a relationship and then she gets pregnant, of course they should discuss it.

Arent you wonderful.

Yes I am. Thanks!

You can think that all you want since it is your prerogative to be wrong. He implied consent and you ran with it.

Implied what consent? Did he "consent" to me keeping the child? Did he "consent" to me aborting it? No. He implied/consented nothing as it was not his decision to make. Do you not see how this works? ... I will spell it out for you. *sigh*

1. woman gets pregnant

2. woman decides to keep, give up or abort.

3. man has no say in this decision making process

4. duh

See how it works? Probably not.

How what works? Human being's plumbing? what?

Do you need a lesson in the birds and the bees hon? ...The man sticks his organ into a woman and sometimes it makes the woman's tummy grow big. But only if she decides she wants a big tummy... she doesn't have to if she doesn't want to. No, hon, the man only decides to put the organ in, all other decisions are made by the woman.

Edited April 25, 2008 by Drea

[guyser]

Implied what consent? Did he "consent" to me keeping the child? Did he "consent" to me aborting it? No. He implied/consented nothing as it was not his decision to make. Do you not see how this works? ... I will spell it out for you. *sigh*

1. woman gets pregnant

2. woman decides to keep, give up or abort.

3. man has no say in this decision making process

4. duh

Injunction.

[Drea]

Injunction:

…Ban

…Order

…Command

…Ruling

…Sanction

…Embargo

…Restriction

… what do you really mean guyser?

is this a beat-around-the-bush way of saying you are trying to get me "banned"?

[guyser]

You parade your stupidity with such glee. Glad you revel in it.

An injunction is an equitable judicial remedy issued at the court's discretion. It usually takes the form of an order preventing or restraining a person from performing an act. The order may also take a mandatory form by compelling someone to do something. It may be sought as a final remedy or at a preliminary stage before trial (the interlocutory injunction). The injunction is designed to provide more effective and appropriate relief than an ordinary common-law award of damages. In many circumstances applicants prefer to have an act prevented or performed rather than to receive compensation after the fact.

There are two basic types of injunctions: mandatory and prohibitive. Mandatory injunctions require a person to perform an act, usually within the context of remedying past wrongs committed by that person. Prohibitive injunctions prevent a person from performing an act, and are designed to prevent that person from committing wrongs to the detriment of others. They can be permanent or temporary and are generally favoured by courts as opposed to mandatory injunctions.

Dont forget , R does not mean Race.....it means Reverse.

[Guest American Woman]

The child in all our relationships are the innocent ones, and to take this tact is reprehensible. Perhaps not in all cases as we know scum knows no gender , but a child is born innocent of the faults of the sperm and egg donors.

Exactly. And this statement-- (quote=Drea)I never said I was against ALL child support -- just for one night stands. If a couple has a relationship and then she gets pregnant, of course they should discuss it-- proves that she just doesn't get that child support is about the child, not the woman, because that line of thought says a woman in a relationship deserves support while a woman who had a one night stand doesn't, making it all about the woman.

What I couldn't believe was the fact that it is women advocating this stuff. Men, well I could see their motivation, but women, come on. Thats just wrong on several levels.

Quite frankly, I can't believe it either. But then, they seem to be making it all about the woman, not the child, so perhaps they're trying to make some kind of "I am woman, hear me roar" statement, and this --(quote=Drea)What, do you believe women are so weak that they cannot do it on their own? Well boohoo for the weak women-- seems to confirm it. Again, it's all about the woman with no thought to the child.

[Drea]

I believe in taking responsibility for one's actions.

Obviously you two don't. Obviously you two think that adult women shouldn't be responsible for their actions.

Perhaps you believe that women should not be "allowed" to make the decision to keep, give up or abort. Should the clergy make that decision for them? The government? Their brothers? Fathers? Obviously you believe women are too weak to take care of themselves or their children.

And I do not see how your failures as women are my problem.

A single woman who meets a single man at a bar and ends up pregnant is fully responsible for that pregnancy and if a child results.

Why can you two not understand this very simple concept.

And obviously you live in a very sheltered world and have never seen a man's life go down the crapper financially because he has to support children he never wanted. How naive of you both.

It is all about the woman as she is the one who decides. Again, this is a very simple concept...

[WIP]

Yessiree

From personal experience.

I got pregnant. Told the fellow I was keeping it no matter what he thought. He was not interested in a relationship with his child.

I never went after child support as I believed it was MY responsibility to raise the child as it was MY decision to keep him and it was MY fault I got pregnant. I was not on birthcontrol. I am the first one to admit that it was a mistake -- the best mistake I've ever made. And yes I raised him on my own until I met his stepfather eight years ago.

So yes, dear arguers, I have lived this.

What, do you believe women are so weak that they cannot do it on their own? Well boohoo for the weak women.

I have never denied access... on the contrary I have tried to help father and son build a relationship. When the father makes promises (See you on your birthday!) and then doesn’t show up… what can one do but move on for the sake of the child.

Go ahead and "slam" me. (we know you waaaaannnna!) I did the right thing.

Usually I'm on your side, but I think you've gone off the track and are plummeting over the cliff on this one!

If a guy is out looking for sex, he should be thinking about taking precautions or else he should be prepared to marry the girl or if that's not an option, he should be capable of paying child support if the girl decides that she's keeping the baby.

Congratulations for being able to do it all on your own, but every woman should not have to face the same situation of raising children alone, without financial support from the father of the child. Is it possible that you subjected your child to unnecessary hardship by not seeking the financial support that you had every right to petition for?

And it's wonderful that you later met a man who you could share your life with, and was capable of filling the role of stepfather to your child, but this isn't always the case! Many guys come in and are either indifferent or even openly hostile to their stepchildren, especially if they father children of their own with the mother. It's great that everything worked out well, but from some of the horror stories I come across, I get the feeling this might be the exception to the rule.

Oh, and when I got pregnant, I and I alone had the choice whether to abort, give up or keep -- his "father" had no say in it at all.

Until technology makes it possible for a fetus to be transferred so that the man can be impregnated and carry it to term, and somehow give birth to a child himself, then a man should not be able to compel a woman to go through the nine months of pregnancy and the birthing process. But if she decides to keep the child, he has an obligation to assist financially and should be as actively involved in the child's life as possible.

If that doesn't seem fair, well that's life! Men don't get pregnant, so it's just not going to be possible to make everything fair to everyone's liking.

[Moonlight Graham]

Tomorrow i'm going to lineup 50 people and shoot them all in the back of the head and call it "art". Maybe i'll rape some women too.

[WIP]

Tomorrow i'm going to lineup 50 people and shoot them all in the back of the head and call it "art". Maybe i'll rape some women too.

I take it no one gave you the memo! It seems all but certain that the proposed "performance art" was a publicity stunt:

According to a statement released by the University today, Aliza Shvarts ’08 was never impregnated. She never miscarried. The sweeping outrage on blogs across the country was apparently for naught.

The supposed senior art project of the Davenport College senior was a “creative fiction,” a Yale official said Thursday afternoon as students on campus and bloggers across the country expressed colossal outrage over what Shvarts described as a documentation of a nine-month process during which she claimed to have artificially inseminated herself “as often as possible” while periodically taking “abortifacient drugs” to induce miscarriages.

http://yaledailynews.com/articles/view/24528

[Black Dog]

A single woman who meets a single man at a bar and ends up pregnant is fully responsible for that pregnancy and if a child results.

Frankly, this is bullshit. Why is she more responsible than the man who, one assumes, consented to sex? Pregnancy is an omnipresent hazard when it comes to having sex. Two people are required to make a child, therefore two people are responsible for the product. If a man doesn't want to deal with the potential financial burden of contributing to raising a child he doesn't want, bag it or zip it altogether.

[Drea]

What I've been saying is that a woman has many many more birthcontrol choices than a man.

Men's Birthcontrol options:

Abstinance

Condoms

Vasectomy

After pregnancy choices for men:

None

Women's Birthcontrol options:

Abstinance

Vaginal Condoms

Sterilization

The Pill

The Patch

The Shot

IUD

Sponge

Rhythm Method

After pregnancy choices for women:

Morning After Pill

Abortion

Give up for adoption

Keep

Men simply don't have the choices that women have and therefor their culpability should be less than the woman's. That's all I'm saying.

I'm all for supporting people who need help, just not those who won't help themselves or don't take responsibilty for their actions.

[guyser]

After pregnancy choices for men:

None

We have been over that and you forgot injunction. But thats a SOP for you.

And your options list is immaterial

I'm all for supporting people who need help, just not those who won't help themselves or don't take responsibilty for their actions.

Ironic.

You want to support those that need help , but you dont want to force those that equally contributed to the situation into doing anything.

But you dont want to help those that dont take responsibility for their actions.

Whoo boy.....

[Drea]

An injunction does nothing when the judge believes the woman's accusations.

Case in point:

- Female comes to male with 11 month old baby girl.

- Female and male have not seen one another for 20 months. (had been together one weekend)

- Male gladly accepts the fact that he has a daughter. Female and male agree to visitation and $400 per month child support.

- Happy every-second-weekend visits go on for two years.

- One Sunday little girl cries and hugs her daddy "I wanna stay wiff my daaaaddddy!" she wails as female tries to take her home.

- Two weeks later male tries to pick up child but is denied. Female says "go talk to social services"

- Male goes to social services and is told that he cannot see child because he sexually abused her.

- Male goes to police to ask them to investigate.

- Stops child support payments.

- Police investigate* find accusations unfounded. (I read the transcripts and female was very angry with male)

- Child gets taken away from mother (see below)

- Male goes back to court.

- Court stayed for one year.

- One year later male goes back to court. Judge says "you can see child on supervised visits if you agree to go for treatment".

- Male refuses supervised visits and treatment on the basis that the RCMP found the accusation of sexual abuse to be false.

- Male gets wages garnisheed.

- Male catches up with payments.

- Male calls lawyer. Lawyer says the judge's decision stands.

*it gets much more convoluted than this point form list. In the transcripts I read that the female was found to be living with a convicted pedophile and social services had taken the child. Female cried her eyes out in court saying "I left the pedophile" as is promptly given full custody of the child.

This man would have been so much better off if he had not known of his child's existence until she was old enough to find him.

And this is just ONE case of many.

So with my personal experience, and the cases I have reviewed -- my opinion stands. It is a single woman's responsibility to ensure she does not get pregnant. And if she does she should do the right thing for herself and her child (if she decides to keep it).

[Guest American Woman]

I'm still reading: (quote=Drea): It is all about the woman as she is the one who decides. Again, this is a very simple concept...I don't think the "simple concept" that it's all about the child, hence the term child support, will ever sink in.

Furthermore, I read this: (quote=Drea): What, do you believe women are so weak that they cannot do it on their own? Well boohoo for the weak women. ... which says to me anyone who thinks a man should be equally responsible evidently thinks women are weak. At the same time I read this: (quote=Drea): And obviously you live in a very sheltered world and have never seen a man's life go down the crapper financially because he has to support children he never wanted. How naive of you both. Evidently all women should be strong enough to financially support an unexpected child on her own, yet men's lives "go down the crapper" when they have to take financial responsibility to help support the child. So if women can't afford to raise a child on their own, 'boohoo for them,' but if a man can't afford to help support a child he created, we better relieve the poor man of his obligation. Evidently he can't be expected to be "strong enough" to help support the child, and he can't help being in the situation he took part in. If I were a man, I'd definitely be insulted.

But the thing is, in all of this, there's still no mention of the child. The one totally innocent person who had no say in any of it; thankfully most people have evolved beyond the 'it's all the woman's fault/repsonsibility' line of thought.

Edited April 29, 2008 by American Woman

[Drea]

I'm still reading: (quote=Drea): It is all about the woman as she is the one who decides. Again, this is a very simple concept...I don't think the "simple concept" that it's all about the child, hence the term child support, will ever sink in.

You must have missed my post about that one case. It's kind of long but it's an easy read.

As I stated earlier, I believe that child support should occur in some (but not all) cases.

Furthermore, I read this: (quote=Drea): What, do you believe women are so weak that they cannot do it on their own? Well boohoo for the weak women. ... which says to me anyone who thinks a man should be equally responsible evidently thinks women are weak. At the same time I read this: (quote=Drea): And obviously you live in a very sheltered world and have never seen a man's life go down the crapper financially because he has to support children he never wanted. How naive of you both. Evidently all women should be strong enough to financially support an unexpected child on her own, yet men's lives "go down the crapper" when they have to take financial responsibility to help support the child.

So if women can't afford to raise a child on their own, 'boohoo for them,' but if a man can't afford to help support a child he created, we better relieve the poor man of his obligation.

Evidently he can't be expected to be "strong enough" to help support the child, and he can't help being in the situation he took part in. If I were a man, I'd definitely be insulted.

Not at all. But the woman who shows up years later... why? Why not tell the father right away? Why not have him involved immediately? Unless she didn't want him involved in the first place but she "changed" her mind or otherwise found out it was more difficult than she had thought?

But the thing is, in all of this, there's still no mention of the child. The one totally innocent person who had no say in any of it; thankfully most people have evolved beyond the 'it's all the woman's fault/repsonsibility' line of thought.

In the case example I pointed out that the male was happy to find out he had a daughter and more than pleased to help raise her, monetarily and emotionally.

But when it didn't go the way the female wanted she screamed "child abuse!" and got the courts to side with her.

So for the little girl's first 9 months of life, the female was ok with raising her on her own. Then three years later she is back to being able to raise the child on her own and ruins the father's life (sex abuse accusations will do that).

Now the little girl believes that her father sexually abused her (her life ruined too?).

Both her and her father would have been better off if the female had simply not told him about her.

By the way, it is the rare man that will tell you that family court is fair to fathers.

[guyser]

An injunction does nothing when the judge believes the woman's accusations.

Case in point:

Here is a case in point, eggs are $2.29 a dozen.

As for relevance to your post....oh about the same. Meaning nothing.

An injunction comes before the baby, but that would throw your argument to the wind now wouldnt it?

Keep a list handy when you move to the next room since you cant talk on point.

So with my personal experience, and the cases I have reviewed -- my opinion stands.

Oh please for the love of mankind tell me you are not a social worker or having another whatsoever to do with serving people through social agencies.

I could not think of anyone more ill equipped to do so.

[Drea]

Here is a case in point, eggs are $2.29 a dozen.

As for relevance to your post....oh about the same. Meaning nothing.

Are you still angry?

I got over it as the tone of my post indicates (non insulting to anyone including you). So it would be great if you could do the same.

An injunction comes before the baby, but that would throw your argument to the wind now wouldnt it?

Keep a list handy when you move to the next room since you cant talk on point.

Sorry Guyser, then I am unfamiliar with injunctions before birth. If you would explain, perhaps I would understand.

Oh please for the love of mankind tell me you are not a social worker or having another whatsoever to do with serving people through social agencies.

I could not think of anyone more ill equipped to do so.

You can breathe easy... I am a marketing agent.

But I do expect that some would think this type of case would mean nothing as it paints the female in a bad light. The fact is that many men have had similar experiences.

What are your thoughts on the case I described?

Would the child and father have been better off if never introduced to one another?

By the way, the child support payments have been lowered to $235/month. The $400 was an agreement the male and female came to... but the courts determined the new amount. How much "fatherly love" does that $235/month buy that little girl?

[Drea]

bumped to see if anyone can respond to the questions I posed, sans *insults...

*tis a challenge...! But I just know you can do it!