Debates about abortion all focus on the woman (i.e. "it's her choice", "that woman should burn in hell for murdering her unborn child" etc) Not much thought is given to the rights of the father, which is why I have started this debate.
-
Womans world23% Voted for by nays-lil-boat, Cornilius, thrawn, CookieZeal, Dead Hair.
Yes in theory the father should be able to have a say but in the end it is the women who has to expierience the wares and tears of pregnacy and childbirth
It would be a perfect world if everyone could get what they wanted but say the women was denied an abortion how would that affect the pregnancy....Would she smoke, drink do drugs? And genrally not care since she did not want it anyway?
There have even been cases of self abortions
Women are very determined people if they do not want it they will not have it.
The father is totally passive in this subject. Although he should get a choice the process is so much more complicated than clicking the fingers and suddenly having a baby in your arms it is the womans body therefore the woman gets their way.
-
No19% Voted for by Weydon, petethemeat, thrawn, Dead Hair.
It's nice to get the father's input, but it's ultimately the woman's choice.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment: -
Why. If women ultimately have the choice of whether or not my child is to live or die, then I won't even bother. This seems like tyranny to me. Could you imagine if someone actually had the right to kill your child? I understand the re-precussions of forced labour, but I also understand the re-precussions of 'I don't care if you love this kid, I just don't want it. And I can do what I want to it!'
-
I'm not debating abortion. I'm entering this debate under the assumption abortion is morally okay and it is not killing a baby, but simple cells. You may not agree, I may not feel 100% about it. It doesn't matter, this is just the simplest way to address the issue of whose choice it will be. Your argument of "Well, if I think it's killing a baby and she doesn't" is irrelevent. If it WAS established as killing a baby without a doubt, she would have no "say" in whether she could as that would be murder.
-
*"I’m not debating abortion. I’m entering this debate under the assumption abortion is morally okay and it is not killing a baby, but simple cells."* I thought I did too, Mr defensive. My argument was in regard to father's choice. If I regard this as relevant, then it would seem that I am assuming pro choice in the given situation. *"Your argument of “Well, if I think it’s killing a baby and she doesn’t” is irrelevent. If it WAS established as killing a baby without a doubt, she would have no “say” in whether she could as that would be murder."* Bullcrap. I'm not talking about the science behind it, I am talking about the social, emotional and relational rammifications, relative to ordinary day people. The father may regard that baby as a baby, and it is rightfully his child. The father may have an attachment to this baby, despite all your reasonings, and this is perfectly sane and 'proper'. The mother on the other hand might be a total bitch and decide to simply go and have the baby aborted because she 'feels like it'. Your baby is dead because the supposed 'owner' couldn't care less what happens to it.
-
What about all the times that the dads are dicks and dont want the kid and practically force the mother to abort it or make her miscarry? Its a tough call. Personally I think both parents rush to fast in these decisions but its not always the dad who doesnt want it or the mom that doesnt. Abortion sucks. Both ways.
-
So a woman gets all the choices? She can decide not to have sex and avoid the problem altogether, she knows it takes two people to create a child. If She decides to keep it and not marry the father ,she can damn well collect child support. But its "her body" that in itself is debatable (not really but for arguements sake).I'll tell you something, despite all their male bashing and gabage talk , men are human too, and deserve the same rights over their child as a woman has, without his seed the baby would not exist so its his body too
-
***It's nice to get the father's input, but it's ultimately the woman's choice*** it takes 2 to tango and the child carries genes of both parents so I completely disagree with this line of thinking. The child is the genetic make-up of both persons even though the female carries it. The responsibility of the child should fall on both people. Thus the decision to terminate or not should not be decided by only the female.
-
I am not debating the ethics of abortion. That is a separate debate.
-
If one person wants it and the other doesnt than who ultimately decides? The dad may want it but hes not the one carrying it around and dealing with the risks. Wouldnt it just be easier to go full term then sign all rights over to whomever wants it?
-
***hes not the one carrying it around and dealing with the risks*** No but his risks will come much later after the birth. If he wants it then he should be given the opportunity to rear it if he is deemed fit. He could be single father *LIKE ME* . In which case he would constantly face difficult situations in that each decision he makes in reference to his life will also affect his child's life. So don't scream RISKS like it the mother is facing all the risks. No mattre if they are early or late, there are risks there both sides. Some are willing to step up to the challenge while others see fit to sadly terminate.
-
-
Oh boo-hoo. The father has to risk the DIRECTION OF HIS LIFE. The mother has health risks on top of her life's direction being risked, even if she wants to just give it to the father and have nothing to do with it. She will have months of her lifestyle ruined, will be sick, have to take time off work, and have her credibility tarnished in the eyes of people that look down upon those who would be pregnant out of wedlock and then plan on abandonining the kid at birth. But the father? Well, he's willing to raise the kid afterwards and be seen as a swell guy and general hero for taking up the task. Risky indeed. Saying "LIKE ME" does certainly make your argument personal, but not in the least untouchable. My nephew was born out of wedlock and he means the world to me. That doesn't mean I have to oppose abortion. EVERYONE could have been aborted, and you can't get anymore personal than that.
-
-
"Oh boo-hoo. The father has to risk the DIRECTION OF HIS LIFE. The mother has health risks on top of her life’s direction being risked, even if she wants to just give it to the father and have nothing to do with it. She will have months of her lifestyle ruined, will be sick, have to take time off work, and have her credibility tarnished in the eyes of people that look down upon those who would be pregnant out of wedlock and then plan on abandonining the kid at birth." Oh boo hoo back at ya, she should have taken more precautions in the first place. Accepting responsibilty for our actions is a difficult thing to do but a neccessary one all the same.
-
-
That's only an issue if abortion is killing a child and not killing simple cells that have the ability to become one overtime. I consider it a very moral gray area right now, and am currently pro-choice but not so firmly that I would recomend using abortions in place of other forms of birth control. Not everyone having kids is ready to accept responsibility. Some girls are having sex and able to conceive in their early or even pre-teens. They are not in a position to accept such responsibilities. Adults are also can lead very irresponsible lives, and it would be doubly irresponsible to bring the kid in with no way of supporting it. Even if the father wanted to take it in, the mother would have to "have months of her lifestyle ruined, will be sick, have to take time off work, and have her credibility tarnished in the eyes of people that look down upon those who would be pregnant out of wedlock and then plan on abandonining the kid at birth". This may be something easy "suck up" as an act of responsibility when you want the kid, but when you see it as nothing but inhuman cells--no more a baby than a sperm and an egg a couple of inches away from each other, you are not neccesarily responsible to go through all that just because the guy who was equally irresponsible wants to raise a kid.
-
-
-
-
I didnt mean it to seem like single fathers are bad. I just meant that there are risks to pregnancy some people dont want to deal with. Yes there are obviously risks afterwards for whoever takes the child. Its an odd situation. I do think that he should get an opportunity but it comes back to who decides whether it lives or not.
-
if you think the mother is taking a risk , try viewing it from the standpoint of the baby, not being concidered human and all, there was a time prostitutes and blacks were not concidered human as well
-
I agree with you Weydon
-
their could be hope for me yet
i agree with energizer -
Ha... The woman may be the soil, but without the seed there would be no child. For a gender that is thought to be the greater empathic, you seem to be unconcerned for the feelings of the father.
-
The feelings of both people need to be acknowledged. If those views differ than it opens a can of worms. What exactly does everyone expect the woman to do? Go through with the pregnancy and then give it to the dad? Whose to say shes not going to throw herself down a flight of stairs to get rid of it? I dont think abortions right but when the views differ on whether to keep the child or not it obviously complicates things.
-
-
Court - Roe Vs. Wade14% Voted for by Kazrith, bob2314, Cornilius.
Roe was the mother and did not want to carry the baby, Wade, the father, wanted to keep the baby, even if the mother wasnt in his life anymore. but it this way, they went to court and the jury went with the mother. Now there is no chance that if a woman doesnt want to go through pregnancy, the father just has to sit on the sidelines and watch as is love has the abortion (and would be viewed as the one at fault of the whole thing).
-
just one more reason to be gay!9% Voted for by bob2314, Dead Hair.
how about this? there's way to many unwanted kids and way to many abortions. all you have to do do is slip a piece of plastic over mr. happy and avoid the question altogether.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
There are no unwanted kids bob , my sister and her husband had to wait 5 yrs to adopt, that was how long the line was, no other problems
-
i wish it were so
unfortunately the unwanted ones aren't put up for adoption dwn they don't get to live with wonderful people such as your sister. -
everyone wants a newborn. you should try the 9-18 year olds. no one wants those ones. they're "damaged goods."
-
"everyone wants a newborn. you should try the 9-18 year olds. no one wants those ones. they’re “damaged goods.”" Absolutely a child with issues is bound to be hard work so only a small group of amazing people would be willing to go through with this. Dwn's point is valid in that yes people have to wait and it must be heart breaking to find you cannot concieve your own. But if people truly wnat a child to love and nuture the childs problems should be accepted as part of the package for the childs sake. So if you don't feel able to give them that support then waiting is unfortunately what you must do.
-
-
For all9% Voted for by Weydon, Dead Hair.
For all those claiming the father should have a vote, simply because you are pro-life, what if the father chooses abortion? The idea of this debate is, afterall, under the pretense that abortion is allowed and who gets to choose this.
So if the mother wants the kid, and the father doesn't, it should be aborted? Or is it some completely fair rule in favor of pro-lifers where it takes 2 votes for an abortion, but only 1 to keep.
When the voting is 1 against the other, and the 2 don't agree: Who are we to go with but the one that will carry the child and bear all the health and social risks?
If you are against it because you are pro-life, you are in the wrong debate.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
"For all those claiming the father should have a vote, simply because you are pro-life, what if the father chooses abortion?" Then the mother should bring up the child on her own if she wishes. I'm not saying the right to choose doesn't work both ways. "So if the mother wants the kid, and the father doesn't, it should be aborted?" No the mother should take care of the child. If the father wants to go through with parenthood the mother should face her responsibility have the child and let the father raise it. "If you are against it because you are pro-life, you are in the wrong debate." I am "pro-life" if I must have a label, the question here is whether the father should have as much right to choose. I believe he does. Why shouldn't he have that right. Just because the mother "might" have complications during pregnancy or labour, tough. If the mother is, say 11yrs old and her parents will not or cannot take care of the child then maybe abortion is the best for them. But it's a big maybe.
-
If an eleven year old is having a baby, it is a sign of the times. I believe God would grant her immense strength during the ordeal. But yeah, if an 11 year old was raped, I believe an immediate Caesarian is in order, but even still, this is a pretty full on situation.
-
Weydon
Exactly, I was working under the pretext that pro choice was acceptable, that there would be no reprecussions for killing a developing fetus. And in this hypothetical word, I believe that the father would still have as much say as the woman. I am pro-life and I am not in the wrong debate. I can still talk about evolution even though I am a creationist. I am willing to play with the thought. -
I don't understand what you're not seeing. Having an equal say on an opposing position, but siding with the one that wants a baby doesn't make sense. What is your reasoning, aside from being pro-life in the first place and figuring that if the world can't be pro-life at least we can make it harder for abortions to happen. *I am “pro-life” if I must have a label, the question here is whether the father should have as much right to choose. I believe he does. Why shouldn’t he have that right. Just because the mother “might” have complications during pregnancy or labour, tough. If the mother is, say 11yrs old and her parents will not or cannot take care of the child then maybe abortion is the best for them. But it’s a big maybe.* You say you are not leading a pro-life argument, merely one of "equal" say of the father (or unequal say of the person who goes against abortion). But then you lead one to believe abortion should never happen, but MAAAAYBE when an 11 year old is raped, which sounds fairly pro-life to me. *But yeah, if an 11 year old was raped, I believe an immediate Caesarian is in order* Caesarian is not the method of abortion, at least in the United States.
-
*"I don’t understand what you’re not seeing. Having an equal say on an opposing position, but siding with the one that wants a baby doesn’t make sense. What is your reasoning, aside from being pro-life in the first place and figuring that if the world can’t be pro-life at least we can make it harder for abortions to happen."* That I'm not stupid and narrow minded (hopefully), and I can use my brain. You watched me side with epiphenomenalism as a christian. This is no different. We are arguing on the basis of reason, and on the basis of the arguments that I put forward which is your job to debase or not. It does not have to have anything to do with my stance. *"You say you are not leading a pro-life argument, merely one of “equal” say of the father (or unequal say of the person who goes against abortion). But then you lead one to believe abortion should never happen, but MAAAAYBE when an 11 year old is raped, which sounds fairly pro-life to me."* So because I am participating in a hypothetical I can NEVER address a pro-life argument ever again, because then I would be contradicting my 'hypothetical' self, is that what you are saying? *"Caesarian is not the method of abortion, at least in the United States."* duh. What you do is you drug the girl and then you take the baby out at full term and then the baby gets to live and the girl and everyone is happy (ideally). Do you understand now, Weydon?
-
*That I’m not stupid and narrow minded (hopefully), and I can use my brain. You watched me side with epiphenomenalism as a christian. This is no different. We are arguing on the basis of reason, and on the basis of the arguments that I put forward which is your job to debase or not. It does not have to have anything to do with my stance.* I don't understand your reasoning. All you've said, that I can tell, is that you definately think that it takes only 1 vote to keep the pregenancy and that you do in fact have a reason behind this. *So because I am participating in a hypothetical I can NEVER address a pro-life argument ever again, because then I would be contradicting my ‘hypothetical’ self, is that what you are saying?* No, just that altering the current laws for hidden agendas could be problematic. The laws say the mother has the right to choose for her social and physical protection. The father's only position is wanting a kid and believing abortion is murder. If your reasoning is simply at least SOME pregnancies won't be aborted since you think it's all killing human babies, simply say so. *duh. What you do is you drug the girl and then you take the baby out at full term and then the baby gets to live and the girl and everyone is happy (ideally). Do you understand now, Weydon?* lol
-
"The father’s only position is wanting a kid and believing abortion is murder." What? Wouldn't a distraught sensitive man be affected psychologically and socially if he found out his child was going to be killed. If the mother has physical problems during pregnancy it's by her own doing, she should have been more responsible! A child, an 11 year old girl, can have a baby it is possible. As much as I find it disturbing it a fact. I know people who have chosen abortion and now regretted it. They have even had complications with later pregnancies, whether or not this would have happened anyway we can never know. I have even met girls/women who have been for an abortion and then a year or two later had a baby because they regretted it!!! What a bloody crime that is!! The age of paedophilic consent maybe changing over here in Britain. Apparently if your 13 - 15 your old enough to consent to sex even with an older man so it can't be classed as paedophilia. I hope this doesn't end up changing the actual legal age for consent. Anyways thats another debate. If a girl has consentual sex no matter her age the child/foetus should come first. Yes it has to be decided who will bring up the child, if the parents don't want to then the child goes up for adoption rather than being thrown into a bin round the back of a hospital!
-
*What? Wouldn’t a distraught sensitive man be affected psychologically and socially if he found out his child was going to be killed.* Maybe, if he was pro-life and considered simple cells his child. But a more sensative and distraught man may be psychologically damaged by the idea of children all over the country being murdered rampantly because he is pro-life. I recomend they both do a better job providing evidence for pro-life, and in the mean team leave this pro-choice law in the hands of the one that will have to carry it. *I know people who have chosen abortion and now regretted it. They have even had complications with later pregnancies, whether or not this would have happened anyway we can never know.* Me too. I also know people that have chosen abortion and not regretted it much and went on to have kids later in life, and I know people that have had kids and regretted that (I cite my mother!). *have even met girls/women who have been for an abortion and then a year or two later had a baby because they regretted it!!! What a bloody crime that is!!* Agreed. I don't think their odd decision making should affect abortion laws for people that aren't so odd. *Apparently if your 13 – 15 your old enough to consent to sex even with an older man so it can’t be classed as paedophilia. I hope this doesn’t end up changing the actual legal age for consent.* That's disturbing. Though I don't understand what the difference between age of consent and being old enough to sleep with an older man. *if the parents don’t want to then the child goes up for adoption rather than being thrown into a bin round the back of a hospital!* I never said I was for partial birth abortions. Anything past the first trimester and it is fairly feasible it could live on its own and most certainly not simple cells that look an awful lot like a sperm and egg ABOUT to touch.
-
"Maybe, if he was pro-life and considered simple cells his child." I had my first scan at six weeks, it didn't look like simple cells to me. Whether the foetus is aware or not it is still real. There seems to be a belief among some that pro life means the child comes before the mother in some respects this is true. The foetus was concieved because of two already aware human beings. It's not the foetus's responsibilty it's theirs. They had a choice and they made it. Accept responsibility. If their are complications in pregnancy or birth then maybe it should be assessed to see who has the better chance of survival, rather than putting the child first. I could comment on all you've posted above Weydon but it still comes back to responsibility. No matter how old a person if they know about sex they know about babies. Why should a life be wasted because of the selfishness of people. Pro choice allows people to deny responsibilty.
-
*I had my first scan at six weeks, it didn’t look like simple cells to me.* That's halfway through the first trimester, there is obviously going to be some development going on. Your argument, as I argued, is pro-life. That is fine, but has little place in the standards and regulations of the pro-choice law. At least admit the intent of changing the pro-choice law to "It takes one vote to keep the pregnancy." is a foothold to the way of outlawing abortion.
-
As I said before yeah I'm pro life but in exceptional circumstances it maybe the best option (for the mother). "At least admit the intent of changing the pro-choice law to “It takes one vote to keep the pregnancy.” is a foothold to the way of outlawing abortion." That may happen but it's not my personal intention. It's wrong, how can it be right. Even so if a child or woman becomes pregant in horrible circumstances things maybe different. Saying that, the child is still innocent in all this no matter how many cells it is made up of. I don't believe it's right. I don't believe a father has any less rights than the mother, if she didn't want to get pregnant she should have kept her knickers on. Sorry Weydon but thats just how I see it. RESPONSIBILITY, if the lady/girl is not responsible enough to bring up the child someone else should.
-
I understand, but it is not a lack of responsibility if they used proper protection and don't see early stages human life. It is only responsibility if it is definite fact that it's human life. Which is the entire abortion debate.
-
If such an argument persists, then when we invent time machines, I could effectively kill my own son by travelling back in time and consenting to the abortion, without being ethically challenged.
-
-
Yeah, because that's the same thing. If such an argument persists, you could go back in time and slap a condom on and cease the eventual birth of your son. Or convince your past self to catch a movie instead of having sex. This means that condoms and movies are MURDER, because you went back in time to stop the creation of someone who already was. Please.
-
-
"I understand, but it is not a lack of responsibility if they used proper protection and don’t see early stages human life." If they had used protection there would be no early stages of human life.
-
A wonderful opinion. Opinion. Other people have the opinion that early conception is nothing but simple cells, much like sperm and egg separate, on the road to becoming a human life.
-
Well I'm glad I don't have to live with their conscience.
-
Their conscience is perfectly fine, as they don't think it's anything wrong. Do you think everyone that had an abortion would just as easily murder someone on the street?
-
If they wouldn't, for conscience sake, then I would wager that many of them become conscious of the fact that they murdered their baby child.
-
Wager all you like, there are plenty of people that have had an abortion or even multiple abortions without one day thinking, "Hm...I shouldn't murder this man, as that would be wrong. ...WHAT HAVE I DONE!?"
-
Oh yeah, yet a mother would kill that man if he were threatening her child. Odd. Double standards. It would seem that she should rather wish to kill the man before ever killing her own baby, so I would say yeah, she would go "WHAT HAVE I DONE". They tell you otherwise, but that's simple arrogance. The denial technique. Pushes away all the pain; for a while.
-
What are you even talking about? Throwing in whether or not self-defence or defence of others (especially your own children) is the same as murder (Which, widely agreed is NOT) has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not early conception is a human life.
-
Oh Weydon, you entirely missed my point. See, if you haven't of missed it, it would've of been a great 'conscience player'. A woman would rather kill a man and even go to jail if have to than have that man kill her child. Yet also, a woman would also rather kill her baby in the womb than kill a man on the street. Hhhhhmmmmm..... Seems slightly morally askew, if you ask me.....
-
No, that's exactly what I thought you were saying. It just doesn't make any sense.
She doesn't think she's killing her BABY in the womb. She doesn't think it's a baby. THAT'S THE POINT of it. It's not "Pro-Life" and "Pro-Murder", and it's not "Pro-Choice" and "Pro-Control". It's "Pro-Life (I think abortion isn't simply killing off simple cells that aren't yet human)" and "Pro-Choice (I think early stages of pregnancy are not human and therefore not subject to moral rules)". -
Our level of measuring humanity is flawed. Look at what we did with the negroes for goodness sakes. And the Australian Aboriginies, and the Native Americans. They were regarded (scientifically) as little higher than animals and therefore were by society rejected the liberties of a normal human being, and thus were not subject to the full extent of human morality.
I hope to see Mark Twain write a book about the oddities of world prejudice against developing fetuses. World ethics is crap, contradictory and perfectly mind numbing.
-
-
When Two Tango9% Voted for by david13, Dead Hair.
If the pregnancy was unplanned then it is the mother's choice 100%. If the pregnancy is planned and then the mother backs out, the father has 50% say which forces a third party to get involved.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
how does one not plan to get pregnant. all the public schools teach how baby are made? the only way i can see NOT having a planed pregnancy is to be raped.
-
-
There are two HUGE forces working against a man when he performs sexual intercourse: 1. Not to use a condem (increase feeling and INTIMACY, and deep-rooted, unconscious desire to empregnate) 2. Not to pull out (when #1 is observed). I know, intellectually, you can debate this but observe the two above when you are having passionate sex. (you have sex on a regular basis, right?)
-
-
So then david what you are saying is that if the mother is aware of what causes pregnency,and aware no form of birth control is 100%, that just because she elected to go ahead and act irresponcibly, then the father has no say,And that she by Vertue of her sex may play executioner. Wow you may be getting a letter in thre mail nominating you to supreeme court justice, That bunch of idiots think like that too
-
-
Dwn, you have 100% choice to have sex with a woman KNOWING that she has 100% choice too to have your baby or not. The power is even. The problem is that you want more power. You want to dominate the woman. I say women are equal. Also, keep in mind, I am talking about unplanned pregnancies. In a marriage, the father DOES have 50% say. But so does the mother. IN THAT case, a third party MUST get involved. If you are having extra-marital sex then be aware that your partner has 100% say about keeping or leaving a pregnancy. If you cannot handle that, and you have made it clear that you cannot, then stay out of the kitchen-- and the pink box.
-
-
responsible gun ownership
esfuerzo, Sadly there is a vocal minority of people in this country that will run through a cow pasture blindfolded step on a cow pie then complain that it is someone else’s responsibility to wipe the poop off their shoe. If you are going to play Russian roulette than recognize the fact that there is a bullet in the gun . -
She should be aware it is a posability,and be ready to deal with carrying a child to term, any other course is irresponcible
-
***how does one not plan to get pregnant Does this really need to be explained to you*** cabbage patch kids........lmao
-
If she needs to be aware so does he. Look at all the dads that back out. Look at all the shows on tv that deal with dads who wont claim them.
-
-
Tug of WarVoted for by London Calling.
I'm very much pro-choice, but I think serious consideration should be given to the wishes of the potential father. The problem is, in a case where the mother wants an abortion, but the father wants the child, how should it be decided? Hmm... tough one...
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
Simple answer
Adoption or let the Father have the child to raise. What is the big concern here? Unless the mothers life is directly put in danger by the term of pregnancy itself, There should be no good reason to destroy a life. ----- Even if the mother was raped. A woman who truly understands the five loves in life, will embrace the child anyways and love it always and equally. If you argue this point, then maybe you do not understand loving another in total. -
The five loves of life? What if the woman doesnt want to be pregnant? Not even have to deal with being pregnant at all. What then?
-
-
Depends on the situationVoted for by Applehead.
When someone considers themselves to be mature enough for a sexual relationship they should know the consequences. If a woman or man are irresponsible enough to conceive without being ready they either have to accept responsibilty or give the child up for adoption.
Why should a man have to lose his child? The woman has responsibilty for protecting her own body if she fails she has to face the consequences and go through child birth if the father is willing to bring the child up on his own and vice versa if the woman wants the child and the man doesn't then he should back off and let her get on with it.
Rape. Gratefully I have never been in this situation and could not begin to imagine how this feels. In these circumstances I would agree the mother has every right to make her own decision.
Please login or register to comment.Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
-
Adding your comment:
-
My sympathy for the rape victim does not surpass the killing of another human being to ease their suffering.
-
As a Christian with God any mountain is climbable but I firmly believe the choice has to be available in these circumstances in the "free world".
-
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
November 14, 2006
Edit | Reply
January 31
Edit | Reply
Well stated. Thank you so much!
Please register or login to comment! It's totally free