http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/10/21/abortion.ap/index.html

-- Steven S (Steven@schneider.net), October 21, 2003

Answers

Top.

Well, two stops down, two to go! (The President for approval then the obligatory path through the Supreme Court)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.

It's the last step (Supreme Court) that has me concerned.

-- Glenn (glenn@nospam.com), October 22, 2003.

They constantly talk about women's right to give birth or not to and so on. No one seemed to mention about the right of a new life, man or woman, to live. May God help us by abolishing this evil act.

-- Abraham T (lijothengil@yahoo.com), October 22, 2003.

Well, maybe we should also pray that technology advances to where a woman who becomes unexpectedly pregnant (rape or incest, especially, or indeed in any circumstance) can just as easily go into a clinic and have the baby transplanted into another woman to carry to term, or into a mechanical "womb", so to speak, instead of having an abortion.

Of course, even with this solution you would also have to deal with the problems of the male half of the equation--should he have any say so in this? Should the woman have to sign away future rights to the child's support (and should she even have that right in the first place?). I am against abortion, but more needs to be done as to the responsibilities of the father--it is still too easy for them to just walk away. The woman not only goes through the discomforts and pains of pregnancy (and even without complications giving birth is not a walk in the park), she most of the time is the one who is primary caregiver, whether she wants to be or not.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 22, 2003.

Jmj
Sorry to keep picking on you, GT, but you know I don't mean it as a personal offense.

This time you wrote:
"Well, maybe we should also pray that technology advances to where a woman who becomes unexpectedly pregnant ... can just as easily go into a clinic and have the baby transplanted into another woman to carry to term, or into a mechanical 'womb,' so to speak, instead of having an abortion."

No, I could never pray for such a thing.

I think that it would be against what the pope has taught about every baby's right to be conceived, borne, and raised by loving, married, natural parents. Oh, I realize that this is sometimes impossible, due to circumstances, but we certainly shouldn't be wishing to make the numbers of such cases greater than they already are. The very thought of a baby coming to term in a mechanical womb and being born into a quasi-orphan state is pretty sickening. A baby needs to bond with mom, get antibodies, etc., while in utero. (The only acceptable use for a mechanical womb might be to sustain the life of a baby who could not come to term inside his/her mother -- e.g., after there was an ectopic pregnancy, after the sudden death of the pregnant mother, etc.)

I also think that, if such "transplanting" options were available, the already high rate of sexual misbehavior would skyrocket. There are lots of girls and women who avoid intercourse because they want neither a baby nor an abortion. This "transplanting" business would clear the way for them to be unchaste. There would be even more non-marital sex (students, etc.) that there is now, and there would be prostitution galore.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.

John, I think it is more the fear of contracting AIDS and other STDs that make many women pause for thought these days. The stigma of being pregnant out of wedlock is just not there any longer.

I feel that many women only seek abortion because they feel they have no other option that (they feel) accomplishes the same thing (removes the baby, removes any other residual responsibility). If there were this other option, and it were equal to abortion procedures healthwise/painwise, I think many women would "choose life", especially if there is already a couple ready and willing to adopt the baby. I also think that adoption laws should be ironclad in that if a mother doesn't want to be found, that adoption records be permanently kept sealed. The mother can always choose to change her mind later, but that should be her choice.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 22, 2003.

GT,

When the powers that be do away with the woman having complete control over the child produced by two in her womb and when those same powers do away with a woman´s right to just "walk away" as you put it, through no fault divorce, then I will listen to your drivel.

You have a feminized one sided view of reality. It is such as yours that give rise to the male bashing that exists in courts and elsewhere.

Justice alone should carry the day and the extremes of either side continue to hold sway in these issues and both are wrong. When you come to that understanding and see each case on an individual basis you will begin to see the light. BOTH PARENTS HAVE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITES AND EQUAL RIGHTS REGARDING THEIR OFFSPRING. To remove the rights but maintain the responsibilites, as is done on a routine basis in this country in divorce in the large majority of cases but not all, is a cancer which is a very heavy contributing factor to the problem.

KARL

-- Karl (Parkerkajwen@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.

Instead of coming up with new technologies why don't we just pray that the culture will change to where people aren't having babies out of wedlock. Wouldn't that make more sense?

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.

Karl, courts and laws were set up by MEN, supposedly to protect women, because supposedly women need protecting. When they do enforce the laws, by for example giving women full custody of children, awarding them child support and alimony, men complain. Gee, why is that?

Scott, of course what you say would be the perfect solution, but life isn't perfect, and I only said what I did to put another option out there, especially in cases of rape or incest.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 22, 2003.

Amen, Karl. Many of our country's current problems are due to the gift of a right without the accompanying responsibility, and some are also due to decreeing responsibilities without corresponding rights.

You must have both rights and responsibilities to be equitable.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.

"BOTH PARENTS HAVE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITES AND EQUAL RIGHTS REGARDING THEIR OFFSPRING. To remove the rights but maintain the responsibilites, as is done on a routine basis in this country in divorce in the large majority of cases but not all, is a cancer which is a very heavy contributing factor to the problem."

I agree that both sides should be equally responsible. But does that mean if a parent doesn't pay child support (except for good reason) he/she should not see their children? I think so, but the courts don't. There are a lot of deadbeat parents paying no support who still get visiting rights, and to me that is wrong. If a parent is withholding support, they shouldn't be allowed to visit. I don't care which parent it is. Conversely, if a parent IS paying support on time, they should get their visitations--if they're good enough to soak for support, they're good enough to see the children.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 22, 2003.

Scott, I agree with your point about prayer.

GT, you wrote: "John, I think it is more the fear of contracting AIDS and other STDs that make many women pause for thought these days. The stigma of being pregnant out of wedlock is just not there any longer."

I didn't say anything about a "stigma," and I wasn't thinking about one. What I wrote was: "There are lots of girls and women who avoid intercourse because they want neither a baby nor an abortion."

I was referring to girls/women who know that abortion is murder, but who don't want to take a chance on having the lives/careers interrupted by a pregnancy. I was referring to people who are living chastely, but for their own convenience, not for virtue's sake (to honor God). If they no longer had to be concerned about getting pregnant (because their conceived babies could easily be removed alive from them), I think that many of them would stop living chastely.

On your reply, you emphasized the use of new technologies in cases of rape and incest. I had agreed with the use of a mechanical womb in extreme cases of necessity (ectopic, death of expectant mom). For those very rare cases of rape/incest resulting in pregnancy, I could agree to the transplanting of the baby into an adoptive mother, but not a machine.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.

"BOTH PARENTS HAVE EQUAL RESPONSIBILITES AND EQUAL RIGHTS REGARDING THEIR OFFSPRING..."

GT,

What you state regarding child support does make sense on the surface.

However, the statement that Karl made inspiring you to birth the child support topic would also apply indirectly to said support...

Here is an example: -consider a divorce as the breaking of a civil marriage contract -one spouse chooses to break out of the agreement. The other spouse and the children do not want the agreement broken; however, that does not matter in no fault divorce law...

So - divorce is no ones fault -it just happened, divorces just happen...

-Interestingly, our Church seems to now have the same no-fault 'pastoral' approach to divorce while at the same time sternly requiring child support be current before granting declarations of nullity? hmmm... In our Church there are many divorce ministries and helpful programs like "New Beginnings" etc springing up to help all those that suffer from that divorce thing that just 'happens'...

There is much work to be done -- anyway, I digress...

Now back to topic -here is a question -- Considering all other things equal, should the spouse that breaks the marital agreement have any right to principle custody of the children AND not only that BUT should they or the courts be able to assign the responsibility of child support to the spouse the kids are being taken from?

In my opinion, the no fault divorce laws are really just 'no responsibility' laws... -- Laws that enable breaking of contracts without merit and without penalty... Divorce like abortion is destructive yet easy to obtain and as such people are obtaining...

I would not be surprised if a law hit the books soon that would require a man that helped concieve a child be required to partially if not completely fund an abortion of said child EVEN if the man is against said abortion...

Just curious, can a husband prevent an abortion his wife may choose to have?

In my opinion, dead beats not paying child support is but a red herring that masks the injustice that is happening in our 'family' courts...

In my opinion, our 'family' laws are no longer based upon upholding God's plan as such and are now really just laws that allow more cooperative and 'civil' sinning to occur in society -child support being one of these helpful laws...

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 23, 2003.

" I was referring to people who are living chastely, but for their own convenience, not for virtue's sake (to honor God)."

John, maybe that's all they have. God gave them a brain and they're using it. Not everybody has faith, but God gives them reason to refrain from certain behaviors. I don't care if it is the fear of jail or the fear of God that keeps someone from being a pedophile or a murderer.

The reason I even wrote of this science fiction option is that if it keeps even one baby from being killed, it's a start. Right now, other than carrying the baby to term, a woman has no other option to get her life back, once she is pregnant. A man does not go around with a neon sign on his head saying "I did a bad thing--I made a woman pregnant out of wedlock". He helps get a woman pregnant, then goes on his merry way. Women don't get pregnant by themselves, but they often bear the burden alone.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 23, 2003.

I was referring to girls/women who know that abortion is murder, but who don't want to take a chance on having the lives/careers interrupted by a pregnancy.

John:

Thank you for raising this point, but for further clarification, I think it should be specified that you meant *unmarried* girls/women (if in fact that is what you meant), since it would not be in keeping with Church teaching for a married woman to avoid pregnancy (at least not for the reasons you mentioned).

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 23, 2003.

Daniel, I see what you are saying about who breaks the marriage covenant first, I think. However, the person who chooses to leave (the one who initially files for divorce) is not always the one at fault....

For example, a woman marries a pedophile or serial murderer, but doesn't know it, even though there were signs in childhood that this person was not someone who should be marrying anyone (and in fact probably deceived the wife as to character-- how many people would come out and say "Will you marry me? I'm a ......."). Is she wrong to seek an annulment and a divorce? I don't think so, because if she had known all the facts, she wouldn't have married him in the first place. That admittedly is an extreme example, but you could probably apply the same to spouse abusers, substance abusers, etc.

Custody arrangements can range from friendly to very bitter. Divorce is not a good thing for children, but it does not help children to be around parents who constantly bicker, or commit physical violence against one another, either. If the parents cannot or will not get along, then the greater sin is allowing the children to continue to grow up in such an environment.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 23, 2003.

Yes, Jake. I was referring to unmarried females. I was hoping that would be clear from the context, but maybe it wasn't.

GT, you started a sentence with these words: "The reason I even wrote of this science fiction option is that ..."

It's not "science fiction" any more. Did you know that scientists are working on building mechanical/artificial wombs right now? I don't recall how far along they are, but the project is definitely not in its infancy stage [if you can pardon the pun].

You also wrote: "Right now, other than carrying the baby to term, a woman has no other option to get her life back, once she is pregnant. A man does not go around with a neon sign on his head saying 'I did a bad thing--I made a woman pregnant out of wedlock.' He helps get a woman pregnant, then goes on his merry way."

I recommend that you avoid using exceptionless generalizations like this, because such language makes you look like a radical-feminist man-hater (which I know that you are not). I think that you'll admit that a significant percentage of young men who become unmarried expectant fathers (1) don't run and (2) don't pressure for abortion, but (3) stick around and support their kids, sometimes offering to marry the mother.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), October 24, 2003.

John, I'm glad you realize I don't hate men ;-) I do agree with you that most men do not either coerce women to get abortions, or physically cause one by abusing the mother.

However, I disagree about the numbers of men/boys who willingly choose to marry/ support the women/girls they get pregnant. Part of that is undoubtedly due to many females refusing to name the father, even when they know for certain (as opposed to naming anyone they had sex with, or even worse, any man they want--even if the man is proven not to be the father, his name is still dragged through the mud). I doubt that many males see a female they had sex with at one time (and later broke off the relationship) with a baby that looks just like them and would willingly just hand over real support, much less propose marriage without some requirement (beginning with DNA evidence) to do so, either the law or the old "shotgun wedding". You just don't have the "good old days" of "marry my daughter and make an honest (see, there's that old fault thing again) woman out of her or (something bad is going to happen)" anymore. (yes, that is a joke, John).

I do think that with the relative ease with which one can just go after support, there is less incentive to get married, particularly if the relationship was not too strong to begin with, and there are cases no doubt where it is better that the parents NOT marry. Also, I don't think you have that many parents of the young couple urging (well, forcing them through intimidation and promises of providing/withholding support or disowning them completely) them into getting married anymore.

I know one young pregnant woman (still a girl, really), whose parents decided that it would be better if the biological father was not part of their lives at all, so in return for no contact they drew up a legal document preventing them from seeking support now or in the future. I'm not sure the mother and the (grand)parents in this case should be depriving the baby of their father now or in the future. And certainly the baby is entitled to financial support, whether or not the father wants to see him. But she has "moved on", is now going to college and is married to someone who is willing to accept the rights and responsibilities of being a father. Hopefully things will work out for the best....

What I am trying to point out is that women are (I won't say burdened, because a baby is a gift from God, regardless of how he/she comes into the world) still seen to be the ones "at fault" for getting pregnant. Men get "caught" only if the woman seeks support, and only then if she does so in public. Otherwise, nobody knows, nobody cares (except God).

Again, I am for anything that will cut the number of abortions to zero. Technology is not a perfect solution, but it is only one solution. Ideally, people would not have sex out of wedlock, but it happens, and the innocent baby shouldn't suffer for it.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 24, 2003.

As stated before and to get back to it, peopel DO NOT think og this as a baby. they entiurely obsess over the "Womans rights", and throw rape into ur faces. Well, what of the woman who didnt get rapped, and who just " HAd a little fun" and got pregnant/ The argument is the same. " Its her bodt, and she shoudltn be punished for soemthign she did." Thus, rather than see the pregnancy as a consequence of sex, they see it as punishment that is unjust, after all, the woman shoul ave the right to abuse her body with promiscuity, and then murder her baby if she doesnt want it, this way she has no responcibility at all.

As tot he issue of the bbay, I was even told that " Masterbation isnt murder is it? If it isnt then abortion sint cause tis nto a baby." Which is absurd. ( Life begins, and htis is form scence, not religion, when the two halves meet, and the 23 chromosomes becomes 46.Cell function begins then, and with cell function, life.)

The baby is conveneintly NOT a baby, and peopel who oppose abortion are told NOT to call it murder because its "POffensive to women who had abortions."

They choose elctivley to think only abouththe woman and to make it soley abotu her rights, and how we take them away by denying abortion. further, as to rape, interestignly, the abprtion is harder ont he woman. No matter ho they like to rationalise it away, the woman knows, deep down inside, her baby is dead, and its her fault. If they dotn acknowledge thix, they ceal themselves behidn a wall of denial, tat in the end destorys them, if thry do, they sufer depression for life. Abortion doesnt even help the mothers as much as they claim it does.Thats the real joke. Sort for the crudity of this post.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), October 25, 2003.

And the answer to that is we might also have had the cure for ( any disease ) by now had someone not aborted that baby.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 03, 2003.