Hello all. I've got a discussion to open up here.
I'm sure you've all heard about Bush's new nomination to the Supreme Court, Samuel Alito: http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/10/31/scotus.bush/index.html
I've done some reading about him, and one of the issues that seem to come up again and again, is that Alito once ruled in favor of a state requirement that wives notify their husbands if they were going to get an abortion.
A lot of people, particularly those of more liberal stance, seem to think that this is a very bad thing. I consider myself a liberal, but for some reason, I'm not seeing this issue the same way. Why shouldn't a husband have a right to know if his wife wants to abort the baby?
So, I'm asking your opinion:
Should a wife be required to tell her husband that she wants or is going to get an abortion?
Why or why not?
that's a good question, but I think abortions shouldn't be happening in the first place.
Quote from: Guybrush Peepwood on Tue 01/11/2005 15:10:10
...but I think abortions shouldn't be happening in the first place.
Well, that's kind of a different topic from this one, but personally, I feel that abortion should be reserved for those who really need it for medical reasons, such as in instances of tubal pregnancy.
I'm pro-choice, and I think that although a woman should tell their husband/partner about an abortion, that doesn't mean that they have to. In a healthy, happy relationship, this would be a joint decision, but at the end of the day, it's the womans body, it's her choice.
This is such a touchy topic ...
There's a part of me that says, "It's the man's kid too ... he has a right to know!"
But there's also a part of me that says, "It's her body ... she can do what she wants!"
If I were married, and my wife got pregnant and wanted an abortion ... You know what? I'm not even going to think about it. I don't know how I'd react and I hope I never face the situation.
My opinion on abortion is this:
I don't like it. But a woman has the right to choose for herself.
I certainly don't think the state/government should have any say it in though.
When I was young and always thought I was right, my christian background made me think that abortion was wrong. This got stronger when I met christian women that were also very against abortion: the media had until then given me the impression that being against abortion was something only done by men.
We (my wife and I) had a friend when lived in Bristol, however, who had had an abortion and poured out her heart to us once. She felt terrible for it, and froma catholic background it had really put her against the church, becasue she felt so condemned by it. Her situation was very understandable, but then look at the pain this had caused her. OK, so maybe some of that was her church's fault, but I've heard of non-religious women who feel terrible after thier abortions and regret it for the rest of their lives, too. My emotions were so mixed on the whole issue.
Then, when at 7 weeks pregnant my wife had some bleeding we went for an ultrasound scan and could see a tiny little blob, but with a beating heart, I felt amazed at this life. Then, at 12 and 20 weeks more scans showed what was obviously a tiny human being, I felt dead set against abortion. I loved both my daughters before they were born, and yet with both I was worried that I wouldn't love them enough. The day of their births confirmed for me that I did love them enough.
My heart is broken that there is not enough love in the world to support so many children, born and unborn. I've seen parents who treat their children as a burden, and abortion rates show that this applies to unborn children too.
Now, there are many instances where abortion becomes more acceptable: rape and even more so where the mother is at risk, but there are too many cases where it is used as birth control.
On the other hand, when abortion was illegal in the UK, girls just went to backstreet places and often both mother and child ended up dead or seriously injured. And in modern Ireland, people just fly to another European country where they can get it done.
My heart tells me that it is murder to kill this defenceless unborn child, and it makes me well up just thinking about it. But my head tells me that sometimes it is the lesser of two evils.
Its very hard to get past this to an issue like "Should the father be told". Well, I think that the father has the right to know, but telling him before the fact has a bunch of dangers associated with it. On the toher hand, maybe the wife assumed he didnt want it but when confronted with it he does. Personally, saving an innocent from murder has to be the overriding factor.
From what I understand, this particular law was struck down citing abused spouses may be afraid or unable to obtain "approval" from their husbands. I think that's an excellent argument. Furthermore, I can think of many different scenarios where needing "approval" from a spouse is an unfair burden.
I'm sympathetic to the arguments against abortion (especially late term), but when it comes down to it, it's a woman's choice.
Well, it's the women's body, it's her choice, alright, but the man should at least know about it.
Maybe the man can convince her to not do it.
But I think the woman can't just go home and say: "Hello dear, I just had an abortion!"
I agree with Thomas on this one...
The father/husband should know, not nececarily decide on weather or not to go through with it... but there are plenty of factors in there. The father might be some 16 year old with no goals in life, but he should still know.
I personally don't think there should be abortions, but again there are too many factors in there (rapes, teenagers, etc.). I dislike the arguments "You don't have a uterus, you wouldn't know", and "It's my body", because once again it's also the father's child too.
Right, but what if you're husband almost kills you and you have to leave the state to escape him? You can't care for a child and need to have an abortion, what then? Send him a nice letter in the mail? This kind of thing is not as rare as you think.
I think, that a woman has every right to have abortion, in specific circumstances. And I believe the man has every right to know of it, though I agree, that she should not be forced to tell. I think that relationships are based on trust, but if such happens outside a relationship, it's up to the woman. Anyway, I totally accept abortion as a procedure, if the baby is not old enough. As a man I think I had the right to know, because it's about my life too, my baby... But it's up to the girl, let her concider it.
I agree, that in a perfect world, the father should know and be part of the decision making process. But laws are pretty much black and white, and rarely leave room for special circumstances or exceptions.
I never got the whole "It's her body, she has the right to an abortion" thing.
What about the body of the unborn child?
If it wasn't rape, or some other horrible circumstance, then it's her body and she should have to deal with the consequences. I did, had a kid at 19. Should I have had the right to murder my child because I didn't want to lose my youth so quickly? No.
I love my kids so much, and hearing about this topic just makes me sad.
Exactly. However there are cases where having a baby risks the life of the mother. In those cases it's acceptable.
But anyway, this is not the topic. Like what everyone said, if she has an abortion then her husband should know. I'm not sure whether she should be forced to tell him, but I lean closer to no.
Firstly abortion sucks...
You shouldnt be having sex if your not responsible enough firstly to look after the kid,
or use protection.
She should tell the husband, this is just a healthy thing to do.
Abortion only good for women that are raped!
Other than that if your old enough to have sex your old enough to look after your
to be born baby.
Thats what I think anyway...
This is why this topic is so touchy ...
Because I agree with Squinky too. Who has the right to choose for the unborn child who can't speak for him/herself?
I don't think a woman has the right to get an abortion. I think she has the right to make the choice.
The only Man (male, guy, dude, etc) who should have ANY say in the matter should be the father of the child.
I don't see why the state / gov. needs to be involved. If they make it illegal (as was mentioned earlier) it won't stop it. It'll just make it FAR more dirty and un-safe.
Drugs are illegal too ... look how effective those laws are!
As for telling the husband, I don't think I touched on it enough in my last post.
I don't think it would be a bad thing if she was required to tell the father of the child ... however, the father shouldn't have the power to stop it (short of talking her out of it) In other words, she doesn't need his permission to have the abortion, but he has a right to know about it.
Again, as with almost all things, there'd always be exceptions to this rule.
I tend to think that she should have to tell him. Maybe put into law options for women who are abused, but it shouldn't flat out be none of the husbands business.
I know it isn't his body, but it is his child also.
Hmm yeah, I think the best solution is for him to know, but his permission not required
Yes, I think so, too.
So, if my wife got pregnant, started using drugs and going wacky on me, she could go kill off my unborn child without my say so? I should have just as much rights to that child as her, unless I was being an unfit husband.
Edit----
Stop and put yourself in that situation, and you would probably change you're mind.
Quote from: Squinky on Tue 01/11/2005 19:44:52
So, if my wife got pregnant, started using drugs and going wacky on me, she could go kill off my unborn child without my say so? I should have just as much rights to that child as her, unless I was being an unfit husband.
Edit----
Stop and put yourself in that situation, and you would probably change you're mind.
Damn you Squinky ...
Every time I think I have a hold of a situation you go and give me something else to consider. ;)
You make a valid point. Or what if it was planned, and the husband WANTS the child, and the woman just changes her mind (as woman so often do)?
This is a yucky thing.
QuoteYou shouldnt be having sex if your not responsible enough firstly to look after the kid,
or use protection.
Protection can and does fail. Even the most effective forms of birth control do have slim chances of failure. I don't think that only people who are prepared and in a stable position to have a child should therefore be allowed to have sex. That's no fun for anyone!
I love getting it on like anyone else, and I had a kid at 19 because protection does fail.
I didn't want a kid, but I kinda liked living so I figured my kid would too.
Sex is a responsibility. It's sucks, but it's true.
Edit---
And I just want to say that I mean no disrespect to anyone here. I am voicing my opinion, not condemning others.
personally I set my penis on fire every time I have sex and that seems to do the trick as far as protection goes.
The thing that gets me is this:
1) The father gets no say. Even if the mother was deluded, is convinced she MUST have an abortion, smoked, had one night stands, drinks, and is complete denzin of society, she could go and have an abortion, no questions asked. Even if her husband didn't want her to have an abortion at all.
2) Even AFTER birth, if the woman decided to leave her husband (or vice versa) in the example above, in most cases the woman would get automatic custody of the child. Even if the man was the goodest, greatest man on earth. The court would go "Divorce? Okay lady, sign here for custody."
I hate abortion.
EDIT: Well said Squinky. :) But not helm.
what? it works.
As a whole, I agree that telling the father is a good policy, but shouldn't be a must. I also agree that not just anybody should be able to go and get an abortion because they don't want the kid. Abortion, in an ordinary pregnancy, is not fair to the child because it has no say.
But, interestingly enough, most people who would say no to an abortion because it denies the child a choice would, after birth, whisk that said child into an operating room to be circumcised.
Quote from: Raggit on Tue 01/11/2005 20:14:05
But, interestingly enough, most people who would say no to an abortion because it denies the child a choice would, after birth, whisk that said child into an operating room to be circumcised.
Are you comparing that to being aborted?
If so, then I choose getting my junk cut on instead of being aborted...
Quote
Are you comparing that to being aborted? ...
Quote
No, I'm not comparing the severity of abortion with the infringement of circumcision. What I'm saying is that people tend to overlook the idea that infant circumcision is also a violation of a human's right to choose.
So's baptism. We have to draw the line somewhere, I guess. Overlooking abortion is a much bigger deal than overlooking a small cut or a bit of water, though.
When your a child, you don't really have many rights to choose. Your parents can take away all your stuff, restrict your freedoms, force you to go to church etc...Although, I don't baptize my kids, it's their right to do that, they can choose to do so when they are older.
This is different from taking away your right to live.
It's her body, but the baby is half mine. Do you see where I'm going with this? Totally wrong for any woman to do that, especially when married. That's the real kicker.. (this is all hypothetical, I'm not married)
I was friends with an older woman who'd had an abortion back in the 70's when it was relatively new. She said it was pretty much advocated and they didn't really tell her about all of the things involved with the process before and after. It was regretted, though make no mistake about it, some people don't regret it.
I think the problem is that we're too obsessed with being supportive of people no matter what. If people want abortions, fine, but we don't need television ads for it and people advocating it. If it were allowed but heavily discouraged I wouldn't be so discontented with it.
Then there's the other argument oft unnoticed, when does life really begin? I certainly don't feel bad for not using my sperm to make babies. When is it OK to take measures to end or stop a pregnancy? The day after? A month after? Many people don't even believe in contraception for moral (not necessarily religious) reasons. In especially early stages, like a week, I definately don't think it's wrong. After that, it gets foggy. Hearts start beating, brains start forming.
You guys are using one or two situations to base your decision on. I think any legislation should only be implimented when you think of the absolute, dead hardest situation it could impact. Everyone has been saying, "In a perfect world..." and that is perfectly true. You can't use your examples of happy relationships, children you love, or situations where it has worked out in one way or another as reason to impliment legislation for or against a certain action.
I'm hardly a rebel, but at the moment, it's everyone's choice as to what they do (ie. Tells the man involved or not). If you legislate against that, think of the situation where a woman has gotten pregnant from a one night stand or something. Perhaps she doesn't even know who the guy is. So in those circumstances, how can you deny her abortion if she can't prove she told the man? If you allow exceptions, then any woman can lie about that fact and get the abortion. It's just IMPOSSIBLE to police.
That's the practical side of it. Also imagine a woman who discovers she's pregnant after escaping her abusive husband. Now, in a perfect world, she'd call the police, and they'd discover he was indeed abusive, arrest him and she could be exempt. I'm sure we're all aware this often isn't the case. Sometimes the guy is a respected member of the comminuty. Sometimes, he is the police. Sometimes he'll kill you for telling anyone that he was abusive or the father of an illigitimate child. Something... these are cases right off the top of my head and they're NOTHING compared to circumstances that could really happen.
Some of you need to realise the world isn't as black and white as it may be in your personal circumstances.
As far as saying that people shouldn't have sex if they aren't responsible enough to take care of a child, or prepared to have one... well, I've been doing that for almost a decade. I don't want to live in a world where people don't have sex for fun. I certainly don't want to live in a world where EVERYONE has children. Jesus christ, we'd destroy the Earth FAR quicker than we currently are with that kind of population explosion. Even if you dismiss those arguments... it's just never going to happen anyway. Sex is one of our most basic instincts and you're absolutely blind and living a sheltered life if you think people can be educated enough to decide not to do it unless circumstances are right.
You may think abortions are terrible experiences for everyone involved. 100% true. But life isn't all roses and you can't just legislate against these sorts of things to suit your morality. I used to be a bit of an idealist but I've come to learn there are certain things that, although we can minimilise and should always endeavor to, we will never stop. Killing, rape, incest... I swear that we will never see an end to these things, that's just reality, unfortunately. Of course they should be illegal though, and people punished for doing so. Any sane person would agree those things are bad all the way through. Abortion however... I don't expect to change anyone's opinions on this subject, but at least accept that there are lots of arguments FOR it, and how it can be the "lesser of two evils" (though I hate calling it that), and can stop some people from ruining their lives, and the lives of children too. I really don't expect you to change your opinion, but you should at least accept it's not a black and white situation. There CAN be situations which are arguably bettered because of that.
For that reason alone, I'm very against legislation of it. Instead of making something like that illegal, possibly ruining many lives (and let's face it, causing backyard jobs and suicides), it's much, much more positive to increase councilling, education and support people in bad situations.
Erm, slightly off topic, but that really is my point of view there. If I got pregnant, abortion would be the first thing on my mind and as nasty as it is to think about it, if I weren't allowed to do so... well, I shudder to think of what I might consider.
I agree that in a good relationship, the man should know. But a woman should not EVER be FORCED to tell him. That's a decision she should be allowed to make. It's a man's baby too but that doesn't carry anywhere near the weight of the argument that ultimately, it's her body. I don't think a man can possibly understand the terror that can come from finding out you're pregnant when you truly don't want to be (or when your situation is really bad). I hope I never have to.
EDIT: Okay, as for the argument that it shouldn't be supported even if it's allowed, that's effectively saying that althought you're allowed to do it, we have to right to shame you and make you feel like shit. In 99% of cases, a woman is already gonna feel like shit and the last thing she needs is people shaking their heads at her. It shouldn't be advertised (you know, "10% off! Why didn't I do this sooner?!"), but by god, if something's allowed, it's allowed. It does no good to anyone to add to someone's bad feelings after such a thing.
I really think just encouraging people to do things well rather than scaring them out of doing it badly is the way to go.
(http://www.lifeissues.org/images/PBA.jpg)
Of course, that's only partial birth abortion. However, I saw (of all things...) an episode of Star Trek: TNG today that explains this much better than I could... It was about a planet where every person, upon reaching their sixtieth birthday, had to kill themselves. If killing a baby is convenient, why not kill the elderly? Or your annoying little brother? I read a short story once about a little boy whose mother couldn't take care of him any more, and he was aborted at seven years old. Why is that not acceptable? If things continue along these lines, it eventually will be.
I, like Squinky, don't understand why it's a woman's right to choose. It is most definitely NOT her body, it is the baby's. If she doesn't want to carry the baby to full term, I'm sure there are ways to transplant a fetus, but to "terminate" it is murder.
And I think she should have to tell her husband, but not because I'm an ass. I'm just very unforgiving. If you married him, you made a commitment to him, and by not getting a divorce, you are maintaining that commitment. If you don't want that kind of responsibility, don't get married.
I totally understand Kinoko's "perfect world" argument, as my entire life has been nothing but shades of grey. The last time I made the comment that everyone has a say in how their life goes, I received some criticism. But I have worked with people for a very long time. I have seen people live horrible lives and die alone because they made stupid choices, and I've seen society blame it on everything but choices. For god's sake, it isn't McDonald's fault that people are fat bastards and spill burning hot coffee all over themselves. I remember personally telling a girl about a hundred times exactly why she needed to stay away from the guy she was going out with. Then, I tried explaining to her why she shouldn't marry him. Then, I explained why she shouldn't have a baby with him. Then, I had to tell her it was her own damn fault for having the baby and not to kill it because she had been stupid. Then, I had to explain to her why she needed to leave her husband. Then, I explained to her why she needed to do it NOW.
Ã, Ã, And then I attended her funeral and the funeral of her three month old daughter.
It's all about choices. If you make bad choices, you have to live with them. If you married a man you are not willing to tell about your abortion, it's your own fault.
Sad, sure. For that reason, you're going to agree with the legislation though?
No, actually. I don't think the govornment can, could, or should legislate things like that. The govornment can and should, I think, be against abortion, but it has no say in matters that have to do with how a family works. If a woman chooses to be unfaithful to her husband, well, that sucks, and it's wrong: again, she chose to be with him... if she wants to be unfaithful, she needs to just get a divorce. But there is no legislature against it, and I believe that is the way it should be. If a person's choice is not criminal, it needs not be hindered by the govornment.
Speaking as someone who's actually been in this situation; I was 1) unmarried and 2) young. We had allready discussed the topic whether the situation would occur, and the choice was clear. Abortion.
But for some reason, people think that the pro-choicers have no issues with doing such. Abortion is a horrible thing to go through with, because you can dress it up in all the medical terms you like, but you end your childs life right there. That is what I feel. And it was not because of I didn't want to waste my youth, nor was it her reason. We were in a failing relationship, and issues such as "Can I even care for a child?" seem a bit more important than "I'm to young to pay for child support!". It is the worst thing I have gone through, but if I had a chance to redo it, I'd do the same thing. I see no value in life, only in living. And that goes for the child too. I feel shit for it, but no remorse. Come judgementday, I'll stand by my decision come heaven come hell because this was the RIGHT thing to do.
More on-topic, you may think it's the womans choice because it is the womans body. Fine, no man should force a woman to deliver a child, but he's got a bloody right to know. Sure, ignorance is bliss, and I'd be a lot merrier in joyful lack of knowledge, but I still had a right to know. If you're two in such a mess, you can atleast support eachother. And if a woman fears bringing this matter up to her spouse then what the hell is she doing with him in the first place. Fine, these things can end relationships, but so be fucking it. She shouldn't have to go through it alone.
But this is a question where the law has nothing to do with it. Because a law in such a way, not only makes sure the man knows, but the law knows.
I agree with you there. The man should know, but the law should have naught to do with it because of all the grey areas.
Like squinky said "getting it on" is awesome.
The problem comes in when you are getting it on use protection, but know if it doesnt work whoops!
No not Whoops, take responsibility for that little dude.
RESPECT TO SQUINKY! He did just that
Lets face it birth control, and condoms work hand in hand and you even get female condoms. The chances
are pretty slim of having a "unplanned" baby.
ABORTION SUCKS! I listed my only valid points in my first post. I feel strongly about this, thats like killing
part of your soul!
"HOU JOU DING UIT GATE DAN HOU JY JOU GAT UIT DINGE UIT!" - Afrikaans figure it out...
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 02/11/2005 07:44:15
Some of you need to realise the world isn't as black and white as it may be in your personal circumstances.
I never said the world is black and white.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 02/11/2005 07:44:15
As far as saying that people shouldn't have sex if they aren't responsible enough to take care of a child, or prepared to have one... well, I've been doing that for almost a decade. I don't want to live in a world where people don't have sex for fun. I certainly don't want to live in a world where EVERYONE has children. Jesus christ, we'd destroy the Earth FAR quicker than we currently are with that kind of population explosion. Even if you dismiss those arguments... it's just never going to happen anyway. Sex is one of our most basic instincts and you're absolutely blind and living a sheltered life if you think people can be educated enough to decide not to do it unless circumstances are right.
Calling me blind and whatnot dosen't challenge the logic of my arguement. Anything you do in life has responsibility to it in varying degrees. If you have sex and get pregnant you do have a responsibility for your actions. Just because sex is fun and you don't want to take responsibilty for it doesn't mean anything, just that you don't want to take responsibilty.
Quote from: Kinoko on Wed 02/11/2005 07:44:15
I don't think a man can possibly understand the terror that can come from finding out you're pregnant when you truly don't want to be (or when your situation is really bad). I hope I never have to.
I respect that. But imagine the terror of a man who finds out. He now has to pay child support his whole life, here in the U.S you can lose your Drivers license and go to jail if you don't pay. It affects both lives, although the man will not have to carry the child, or suffer the effects of bearing the child.
I really think this issue (the father being involved issue, not abortion, I am not argueing about that can of worms.) can become clearer if you imagine you are a woman about to have a child and your husband can have your child aborted without your permission. Not really possible, but it displays the wrongness of it.
I don't live in a perfect world either, if those comments are addressed to me. I worked in a jail for many years, was second in command actually. I have seen many a sad disgusting bit of humanity, I don't need preached to.
I think displaying the wrongness of it would be if your husband is physically pregnant and can have the abortion without your permission. I think that's his right. Of course your situation terrifies me because he's got control over -my- body.
Quote from: Kinoko on Thu 03/11/2005 02:49:11
...because he's got control over -my- body.
More specifically, your
child's body.
I'm not really sure what to add without beating a dead horse... I agree in saying that husbands should know - not because I'm a man myself, but because it's just as much one partner's child as it is the other. Responsibilities vary between the two sexes, but neither the woman nor the man should be able to make a choice like this without the other at least knowing about it.
2ma2 did a fantastic job of saying this... "..He's got a bloody right to know."
Well, I think I'll add my two cents. There are two posibilities; either the father of the child shares responsibility for it with the mother or he doesn't. The goverment has seen fit to involve themselves in this via child support and other laws to make the father share responsibility for any kids he co-produces. So why wouldn't the father have a 50% say in it? I've read all of the reasons above about abusive partners etc but there are laws to handle those things.
If you believe that the mother has the right to make all the decisions then under the law she should bear full responsibility and not expect anything from the father. If you think the law should obligagte the father to provide financial support then he should have a say. I don't think you can have it both ways.
I agree with you there, I don't think men should be forced to pay support if they have no contact with the child...
So if a man rapes a woman who proceeds to have the child, he shouldn't have to pay child support if the woman doesn't want him to see the child? Or a husband who becomes abusive to the woman or child....
The trouble is with these situations is that there's always counterexamples to any dogmatic generalised statement
Well, yes, what I made there was a general statement.
Getting involved in this kind of conversation is probably a bad idea, but since this is about legislating whether or not a woman has to have the husband's approval to have an abortion and not about whether or not abortions should be legal, I'll add my two cents...
In a healthy loving relationship a woman is always going to inform her husband about a pregnancy and involve him in the decision before terminating a pregnancy. If she doesn't tell him, there's something wrong with that relationship and it's probable that such a relationship would not be an ideal setting for a child.
The fact is, there's no reason for such a thing to be legislated. It's a serious issue, yes. But it's just not something that any federal government should be forcing upon its citizens when there are so many exceptions in which the woman has very good reason not to tell her husband. Denying this woman a doctor-assisted abortion because her exception is not one of those outlined in the vaguely-worded law is not a good option.
Laws that prevent women from having safe abortions only lead to more coat-hanger back-alley abortions. Sorry for that image, but it's true.
I agree with a lot of the previous posts in regard to abortion. I believe it's wrong because the one killed is the kid, and nobody is taking his/her opinion into account.
Ok, there are specific circumstances that may add strong emotional aspects to the mother's choice, but the kid has certainly done nothing wrong.
Having said that...
With regard to the legislation bit, I believe couples have a right to cut it out in whichever way they please. Surely, I feel an abortion is important enough for a couple to talk things over, but each couple is a whole different story.
Abortions should be compulsary for under 21s. If you don't you should be jailed. I'm sorry if this seems sick, but there are way to many 14 year olds having babies in the uk.
QuoteAbortions should be compulsary for under 21s. If you don't you should be jailed. I'm sorry if this seems sick, but there are way to many 14 year olds having babies in the uk.
As much as it's someone's choice to have an abortion, it is fully their choice to have the child too, and at 18 some couples are ready and prepared to be responsible parents.
Prevention is better than cure. Better sex education would prevent teenage pregnancies, not mass abortions.
Quote from: Layabout on Thu 03/11/2005 17:13:34
Abortions should be compulsary for under 21s. If you don't you should be jailed. I'm sorry if this seems sick, but there are way to many 14 year olds having babies in the uk.
Well then the legal age to have sex should go up too, however I believe when your 18 its fine go nuts "no pun"
But at the age of 14 the father and mother should both be legaly charged. Cause its still illegal so both should I dunno be charged with rape or something.
Their parents too should be, strung up cause they leave their children to get up to these things!
What can a 14 year old ever know about life as a parent and how can she ever argue with her child
to say no you cannot do this or that when she is that young! Not to even mention the father which was
probably of legal age and ran away.
(http://img63.imageshack.us/img63/3152/pregnant26cr.gif) (http://imageshack.us)
Quote from: Afflict on Thu 03/11/2005 20:11:22
But at the age of 14 the father and mother should both be legaly charged. Cause its still illegal so both should I dunno be charged with rape or something.
Dictionary.com
"Rape
1. The crime of forcing another person to submit to sex acts, especially sexual intercourse.
2. The act of seizing and carrying off by force; abduction.
3. Abusive or improper treatment; violation: a rape of justice."
Doesn't seem to fit there ;)
Actually, I'm 99.9% sure that rape means forcing someone into doing something. The sexual thing is just an evolution of it, so, technically, it does fit!
co·er·cion
rape is definately sexual
I haven't read to the end of the discussion yet, I will, but I stopped when I read this:
Quote...but at the end of the day, it's the womans body, it's her choice.
It's also the man's baby.
It should be a mutual decision. The woman shouldn't just turn around and abort their son or daughter without consulting the husband/boyfriend.
They were partners in the whole goddamn sex shit so they should be partners in the fuckin abortion option.
--EDIT--
Depending on the situation of course:
Rape, one night stand...
--Snake
[EDIT] I'm talking nonsense now.
While I see no reason for their to be a law about the issue. It is as much a guys right to know, whether his wife is pregnant, and is deciding to get an abortion. What if I got married and then decided to have a vivisection, without telling my wife. It's my body...but wouldn't it affect the relationship, if I didn't tell her, and she is trying to have a baby? Yes, we don't live in a perfect world, and there will always be people who don't fit in this category. But a women should definately let the guy know. Especially, a couple who is married.
The right or wrongness of abortion isn't really part of the question, so I won't go into it.
-MillsJROSS
It seems like a poor idea. As much as I think the father should know and that the woman should tell him that she's having the procedure, there are too many problems with it.
First, as mentioned - Government regulation seldom tends to be the best way to go about ensuring something is done properly.
Second - I don't think the male should have 100% veto capability in the matter, and putting this decision into effect would cause just that. If the law requires notification, how is verification of this made? Is there a call the father has to make? Paper to sign? Summons to answer? If verification is required, the father simply needs to avoid it to effectively give a veto to an abortion decision. If no verification is needed, then the law's unenforceable and has no bearing.
This was a much easier matter 200 years ago.
Quote from: Haddas on Fri 04/11/2005 09:08:21
This was a much easier matter 200 years ago.
Yeah, back then they could just kill the woman altogether and there was no way to prove fatherhood so women could often be written off as harlots while the fathers retained their public standing.
Quote from: Afflict on Thu 03/11/2005 20:11:22
But at the age of 14 the father and mother should both be legaly charged. Cause its still illegal so both should I dunno be charged with rape or something.
You're confused. Statutory rape is when an adult sexually abuses a minor who may or may not know any better. The ages of consent vary from 14-18 in the United States. If two minors have sex it isn't a crime, they don't know any better. If an adult has sex with a minor it is a crime, the minor was taken advantage of. Why in the hell should two kids be charged with rape for having sex during the period of their life where they have less control over their sexual urges than they ever will in their future? Do you think they should also be charged for masturbation, etc? It's just unreasonably stupid.
Quote from: MillsJROSS on Fri 04/11/2005 06:55:51
What if I got married and then decided to have a vivisection, without telling my wife.
I just want to jump in and say, Mills, if you go out and get a vivisection, I hope you'd tell more people than your wife!
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=vivisection
Shbaz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication
I bring this up because there are still places in the U.S. that have a fornication law on the books, just not enforced.
Awhile back (10 years maybe?) The Idaho town I live in actaully tried some younger folk for Fornication. All it got was people on talk shows and a shovel-full of shame....
Quote from: Squinky on Sat 05/11/2005 03:41:14
Shbaz:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fornication
I bring this up because there are still places in the U.S. that have a fornication law on the books, just not enforced.
Awhile back (10 years maybe?) The Idaho town I live in actaully tried some younger folk for Fornication. All it got was people on talk shows and a shovel-full of shame....
He said rape though, which is a completely separate issue.
After the Supreme Court decision over Texas Sodomy laws I really doubt it'd hold up long if it
were enforced. That decision could be loosely interpreted as also striking down fornication laws, since two men cannot be married in Texas.
I don't klnow if this is true or not but I heard that at one time or another it was necessary to get permission from the reigning monrarch to engage in sexual activity and hence the acronym F.U.C.K came into common usage. It is my understanding that in Roman times it was common for prostitutes to meet with their clients under a bridge or fonice. And so in modermn times we have ...
Fornication
Under
Consent of the
King
I've heard so many of those supposed acronyms for things like 'fuck' and 'shit'. None of them are true. I could be spouting bullshit here but I have a feeling acronyms weren't even used until much later than all these things were supposed to have come about.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuck
the internet will teach you!
You don't believe everything you read on the internet do You? ;)
Quote from: shbaz on Sat 05/11/2005 03:04:02
Why in the hell should two kids be charged with rape for having sex during the period of their life where they have less control over their sexual urges than they ever will in their future?
Speaking as a 30 year-old, you don't know what you're talking about ;)
Agreed, I'm 27 and still hump the couch in my sleep....
I'm going on 23 and I'm getting my "second wind" right now. I expect this'll happen every few years until I hit the age where sex has less appeal than a good game of parchesee and a bowl of prunes.
Mind you, I haven't had any in 3 months... couch humping for me!
Ok, I'm going to be frank but I'm going to do it as a
Spoiler
When I was 13 I used to get an erection if I touched a girls hand. I think I damn near creamed myself when I had my first kiss. I can't say I've been that out of control since I was 14-15. I don't really think it'll come back when I hit 30. You could be right SSH, but if so I'll bet you have the stamina of a dolphin so the joke's on you! ;D