NationStates Jolt Archive

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html

"Her parents chased her out into the yard, grabbed and tied her hands and feet together," Salem Police Officer Sean Marino wrote in a court affidavit. "Katelyn states that her father then carried her to their car and they headed toward New Hampshire."

Investigators said rope, duct tape, scissors and a .22-caliber rifle were found in the Kampfs' Lexus and Nicholas Kampf had a loaded .22- caliber magazine clip in his pants pocket.

The Kampfs were upset that their daughter was pregnant by a man who is now in jail, police said, and before leaving Maine on Friday they had an argument at the parents' home.

"Katelyn stated to me that upon her parents finding out that she was pregnant, they told her she had no choice but to get an abortion," Marino wrote in his court affidavit.

Katelyn Kampf escaped from her parents in Salem after persuading them to untie her so she could use a Kmart bathroom. After her father went into the men's room, she used a cell phone to call for help, then ran to a nearby Staples store, where police found "a hysterical female hiding in the back of the store," according to the affidavit.

Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

I'm just wondering what they were planning on telling the doctor - "don't mind the ropes, she's just dropping in for a quick D&C..."

People are weird.

Assholes come from all walks of life. :p

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html



Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...


you'd be suprised.

there are always the people who scream "no abortions ever!", but that only lasts up until "my daughter is having premarital sex and got pregnant and is having a child without being married!"


what dickish parents, though.

Weird Fundamentalists. I would shove said parents into a trunk to rip off a kidney from them. I guess they could find it fair.

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html



Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

I'm just wondering what they were planning on telling the doctor - "don't mind the ropes, she's just dropping in for a quick D&C..."

Idiots … I detest people interfering in the reproductive choices in either direction. They had NO right to force her to abort against her will

I hope there is HEAVY jail time involved in this case

Taking tips from the government of China I see.

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html



Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

I'm just wondering what they were planning on telling the doctor - "don't mind the ropes, she's just dropping in for a quick D&C..."

The lot of them should be aborted.

Assholes come from all walks of life. :p

Couldn't have put it any better.

Assholes come from all walks of life. :p

Quoted for truth

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html



Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

I'm just wondering what they were planning on telling the doctor - "don't mind the ropes, she's just dropping in for a quick D&C..."Damn anti-choicers.

Maybe the little skank should of told the guy that banged her to wear a FUCKING CONDOM! They are only 25 cents for godsake!

Maybe the little skank should of told the guy that banged her to wear a FUCKING CONDOM! They are only 25 cents for godsake!

Her parents kidnapped her to force an abortion and your main issue is that she was promiscuous? Hell from the information we have so far the dude could have raped her for all we know.

Maybe the little skank should of told the guy that banged her to wear a FUCKING CONDOM! They are only 25 cents for godsake!

She was nineteen, for Christ's sake! We don't know what kind of relationship she had with the man that got her pregnant, and regardless, she is old enough to decide who she has sex with and what protections, if any, she should take. (nevermind whether she has an abortion!)

Her parents kidnapped her to force an abortion and your main issue is that she was promiscuous? Hell from the information we have so far the dude could have raped her for all we know.

indeed.

the article even said that he's in prison now.

Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

You never know. Some Bible translations do not object against abortion, and all translations have little problem with killing pregnant women if the child is not of the husband.

That being said: pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And 19 is old enough to make it the girls decision - not that of the parents.

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html


Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

I'm just wondering what they were planning on telling the doctor - "don't mind the ropes, she's just dropping in for a quick D&C..."

The funny thing is, I've talked to people on this forum who would say that the only thing that makes this unacceptable is the fact that she was 19, not 16 or 17...

Or, at least, they would if they were logically consistent.

That being said: pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And 19 is old enough to make it the girls decision - not that of the parents.

Agreed. I'm pro-choice, but if she says no, then no.

The funny thing is, I've talked to people on this forum who would say that the only thing that makes this unacceptable is the fact that she was 19, not 16 or 17...

Or, at least, they would if they were logically consistent.

I'm not one of them. Age is irrelevant. Much the same as I'm against requiring parental consent for an abortion. Though I am on the fence about parental notification.

THe bottom line is that regardless of age, her body is her own and it's her decision alone. Though, I would think it would be preferable if she spoke with her parents, the father of her child, and/or a trained professional about options before making her decision. But the bottom line is; It's her decision.

The funny thing is, I've talked to people on this forum who would say that the only thing that makes this unacceptable is the fact that she was 19, not 16 or 17...

Or, at least, they would if they were logically consistent.

she's 19, so that should be her choice.

if she were 16, the parents would have a say in it, but at no point should they resort to brute force.

if they have no other means of discipline or communication than tying her up and forcing her in the trunk, then it would be time for child services to intervene

Well if parents force their children into the trunk... then there's definitely something wrong there.

And I think abortion should be the choice of the mother, not her parents.

And I think abortion should be the choice of the mother

and the father.

if you say that it's the mother's child and the mother's decision, does that mean I don't have to pay alimony anymore?

(in a hypothetical situation where I had an ex-wife and a kid)

if she were 16, the parents would have a say in it, but at no point should they resort to brute force.

if they have no other means of discipline or communication than tying her up and forcing her in the trunk, then it would be time for child services to intervene

So if her parents decide that she will have an abortion, and she doesn't want one, should they call the authorities to come and force the girl into it? What if she wants an abortion and they say no? Should they be able to lock her up to prevent her from getting out.

What exactly makes a girl who is 17 years old, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds unable to make the decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, but a girl who is 18 magically able to do so?

and the father.

As soon as a man can get pregnant, he can decide whether or not he will have an abortion.

if you say that it's the mother's child and the mother's decision, does that mean I don't have to pay alimony anymore?

(a) Alimony is paid to an ex-spouse and has nothing at all to do with children. I'll assume you mean child support.
(b) If a child actually results, it is the mother's child and the father's child. Both are responsible for its upbringing.
However, a child can only result if the mother decides to continue the pregnancy. Only her body is involved, and it is thus her decision alone. I certainly think that she should discuss it with the father, except in certain extreme circumstances, but the decision, in the end, must be hers.

and the father.

if you say that it's the mother's child and the mother's decision, does that mean I don't have to pay alimony anymore?

(in a hypothetical situation where I had an ex-wife and a kid)

It's not a question of whose CHILD it is, it's a question of whose BODY it is. When we can transplant fetuses into the bodies of men(or other women, for that matter), then my opinion might change. But until then, while I favor the father having a voice, ultimately, it's HER choice.

I have to wonder how hard would it be to find a doctor who would perform an abortion on a tied up woman (at 19, she's no longer a girl).

So if her parents decide that she will have an abortion, and she doesn't want one, should they call the authorities to come and force the girl into it? What if she wants an abortion and they say no? Should they be able to lock her up to prevent her from getting out.

What exactly makes a girl who is 17 years old, 364 days, 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 59 seconds unable to make the decision of whether or not to continue a pregnancy, but a girl who is 18 magically able to do so?

It's an arbitrary cutoff.

you could ask the same question about going off to live on your own (where is the line between 'runaway' and 'living alone in a shitty apartment' drawn? at 18)


I didn't say that the parents have complete control over the child, but I did say that the parents should have a say in the decision.

at the very least, the family should sit down and have a discussion about it.

there are some states where abortion clinics are required to give a prepackaged speech about the consequences of abortions to people coming to get one. for minors, simply make it a requirement that the legal guardians join the child at that time to discuss the repurcussions.


At no point does the choice leave the child. But the parents should not be left out of the loop when something so important is happening in their child's life.

It's not a question of whose CHILD it is, it's a question of whose BODY it is. When we can transplant fetuses into the bodies of men(or other women, for that matter), then my opinion might change. But until then, while I favor the father having a voice, ultimately, it's HER choice.

So if the mother has complete control over whether or not the child is born, why should the father have to take responsability for it at all?

If the father votes to have it aborted because he can't afford to take care of it, should he be obligated to pay child support?

the way I see it, there are three levels of of the decision making process here:

1:no say
2:a say, but not the ultimate decision
3:the ultimate decision


In my opinion, it goes like this:

1: parents of adults
2: parents of minors
3: the mother&father

Goofballs seems to be saying:

1: the father
2:
3: the mother

Dem seems to be saying:

1: the parents of the mother
2:
3: the mother

Did I break this down correctly?

... and not only am I completely slack-jawed they managed to reconstitute themselves from ashes in order to do so, but I'm thoroughly amazed they think my boyfriend got me pregnant sans uterus.

Wow.

So if the mother has complete control over whether or not the child is born, why should the father have to take responsability for it at all?

If the father votes to have it aborted because he can't afford to take care of it, should he be obligated to pay child support?

Abortion isn't about the child. It's about the mother's body. The father's financial responsibility doesn't hinge on the mother's decision whether or not she carries to term. His financial responsibility started when he didn't pull out in time. ;)

As did hers. I'll never understand why in the rare occurrence that a father is granted custody, that a mother so rarely has to pay child support(though I know of at least one case where a mother DOES have to pay child support to the father).

the way I see it, there are three levels of of the decision making process here:

1:no say
2:a say, but not the ultimate decision
3:the ultimate decision


In my opinion, it goes like this:

1: parents of adults
2: parents of minors
3: the mother&father

Goofballs seems to be saying:

1: the father
2:
3: the mother

Dem seems to be saying:

1: the parents of the mother
2:
3: the mother

Did I break this down correctly?

No.

Goofball says:

1: The government
2: The father
3: The mother.

Boo, coercion sucks.

So if the mother has complete control over whether or not the child is born, why should the father have to take responsability for it at all?

If the father votes to have it aborted because he can't afford to take care of it, should he be obligated to pay child support?

The father put in his vote at the time of impregnation. If he was unwilling to pay the consequences, he should not have taken the original risk (yes, even with safe sex, or with her saying "I am protected", there is a risk).

And it really is two separate issues. If a man WANTS to have a child (that is, voting against abortion) then he should find a woman who ALSO wants one. It is her body, and her right to say no to carrying it.

So if the mother has complete control over whether or not the child is born, why should the father have to take responsability for it at all?

If the father votes to have it aborted because he can't afford to take care of it, should he be obligated to pay child support?The only way you are guaranteed to vote against getting a child as a man is by not having sex and not donating sperm to a sperm bank.

The father put in his vote at the time of impregnation. If he was unwilling to pay the consequences, he should not have taken the original risk (yes, even with safe sex, or with her saying "I am protected", there is a risk).

And it really is two separate issues. If a man WANTS to have a child (that is, voting against abortion) then he should find a woman who ALSO wants one. It is her body, and her right to say no to carrying it.

I disagree. They BOTH put their vote in during impregnation, unless she in fact did lie about protection, in which case you can change your vote. You wouldn't vote for Kerry and find out they lied and took it to mean Kerry with Bush as his VP.

If she lied, she should have to have an abortion. Stupid bitch.

the way I see it, there are three levels of of the decision making process here:

1:no say
2:a say, but not the ultimate decision
3:the ultimate decision

In my opinion, it goes like this:

1: parents of adults
2: parents of minors
3: the mother&father

It is logically impossible for two different people to have "the ultimate decision." If they disagree, one or the other has to take precedence. Since the mother is not owned by anyone else, and has the right to make her own medical decisions, that person must be the mother. If the father, in any way, gets the "ultimate decision," this means that he gets rights to her body simply by having sex with her.

Dem seems to be saying:

1: the parents of the mother
2:
3: the mother

Did I break this down correctly?

Not even close. I think that a woman going through this decision certainly should discuss it with the father (in fact, I made that clear in my last post), unless he is abusive, the pregnancy is a result of rape, or some other such circumstance. I think an underage girl should discuss the decision with her parents. Of course, I think they should have a close enough relationship that this is feasible - that the girl would know she wasn't going to be forced into anything or thrown out on the streets for her decision, or any other number of things.

However, because it is the woman's body we are talking about here - because she is the one that will either have to go through an abortion (and the physical and emotional ramifications associated) or continue the pregnancy (with the ramifications associated), it is only that woman who can decide what medical attention to seek.

Any man who tries to force his own decision upon her because he happened to have sex with her is trying to enslave her, and is not worthy of consideration. Any parent who would force a teen into an abortion, or force that teen not to have one, is not worthy of the title "parent". They obviously think that they own their children, rather than being responsible for raising their children.

I disagree. They BOTH put their vote in during impregnation, unless she in fact did lie about protection, in which case you can change your vote. You wouldn't vote for Kerry and find out they lied and took it to mean Kerry with Bush as his VP.

If she lied, she should have to have an abortion. Stupid bitch.

What other medical procedures do you think people should be forced into as a result of lying? Should a man who cheats on his wife be forced to have his appendix removed? Should a woman who lies on her taxes be forced to have an enema? Should a man who fudges his resume be forced to have a vasectomy?

Should a man who fudges his resume be forced to have a vasectomy?

:eek:

Any man who tries to force his own decision upon her because he happened to have sex with her is trying to enslave her, and is not worthy of consideration.

Classical family structures where the father is the head of the family disagree with you there though.

I disagree. They BOTH put their vote in during impregnation, unless she in fact did lie about protection, in which case you can change your vote. You wouldn't vote for Kerry and find out they lied and took it to mean Kerry with Bush as his VP.

If she lied, she should have to have an abortion. Stupid bitch.

Your analogy is interestingly odd, but here goes. If I DID vote for a politician and later found out he lied, where would that put me (and every other person in the world who ever voted for anyone)? I am still responsible for the vote I made, whether the outcome is to my liking or not. If I was unwilling to RISK Kerry teaming up with Bush, I should have voted for someone else.

And yes, they did both put in a vote, but their votes are weighted differently. His vote is "I am willing to become a father", hers is "I am willing to become pregnant". Once pregnant she, not he, has the additional "carry the baby" or "have an abortion" vote. She can look to him for input if she chooses, but the final vote there is hers. If she chooses to keep the baby, his "I am willing to become a father" vote stands, as does his responsibility.

I have to wonder how hard would it be to find a doctor who would perform an abortion on a tied up woman (at 19, she's no longer a girl).

That's probably what the rifle was for.

What other medical procedures do you think people should be forced into as a result of lying? Should a man who cheats on his wife be forced to have his appendix removed? Should a woman who lies on her taxes be forced to have an enema? Should a man who fudges his resume be forced to have a vasectomy?

No, I feel she shouldn't be able to have any leverage against the man through lying, or be able to bring into the world a life on the basis of a lie.

Your analogy is interestingly odd, but here goes. If I DID vote for a politician and later found out he lied, where would that put me (and every other person in the world who ever voted for anyone)? I am still responsible for the vote I made, whether the outcome is to my liking or not. If I was unwilling to RISK Kerry teaming up with Bush, I should have voted for someone else.

And yes, they did both put in a vote, but their votes are weighted differently. His vote is "I am willing to become a father", hers is "I am willing to become pregnant". Once pregnant she, not he, has the additional "carry the baby" or "have an abortion" vote. She can look to him for input if she chooses, but the final vote there is hers. If she chooses to keep the baby, his "I am willing to become a father" vote stands, as does his responsibility.

Why should her vote only be to become pregnant? What kind of halfassed voting process is this? The vote should count to be "I'm willing to become a mother", the female equivalent of the man.

EDIT: Or you could reduce the weight of the man's vote to "I'm willing for -her- to become pregnant." As long as it's equal.

No, I feel she shouldn't be able to have any leverage against the man through lying, or be able to bring into the world a life on the basis of a lie.

And yet, human beings use lies as leverage all the time. Human beings do things on the basis of lies all the time. And, unless you are lying under very specific circumstances, lying isn't illegal - largely because everyone would be in jail if it was.

I would never condone someone lying about birth control (male or female), but I'm not looking to make it illegal, and I'm certainly not going to take away a person's rights to their own body because of it.

Why should her vote only be to become pregnant? What kind of halfassed voting process is this? The vote should count to be "I'm willing to become a mother", the female equivalent of the man.

EDIT: Or you could reduce the weight of the man's vote to "I'm willing for -her- to become pregnant." As long as it's equal.

As soon as the ramifications of a pregnancy are the same for both the man and the woman, you can expect the vote to "count" the same. In other words, as soon as men can get pregnant and have to deal with all the ramifications associated with that.

The article says "their daughter was pregnant by a man who is now in jail"... I'm assuming that meant "she was raped" worded for impact, right?

I highly doubt it. If that were the case, I'm pretty sure they would have said that. My guess is that she was dating a guy, got pregnant, and then he was convicted of some crime for which he is now in jail.

The article says "their daughter was pregnant by a man who is now in jail"... I'm assuming that meant "she was raped" worded for impact, right?

As for the story itself, I kind of have mixed reactions. Having a baby at that age could ruin her life, (especially if she would've had post-secondary education otherwise, especially if that was along with her having been raped) but it would've been better to try to more so persuade her to have an abortion and if she still chose not to, she'd have to face the consequences of not being forced to have an abortion. This is different from the Chinese one-child policy of compulsory abortion... I don't exactly condone that either, but that's applied to several people to decrease population, and decreasing population is necessary to prevent resource depletion and global warming. A human population too high is more likely to lead to human extinction than a human population too low, at least for a while (albeit China's only concerned with its own population) but that's off topic. So yeah, I'd consider this abuse.Actually, I have no mixed reactions. Denying her the choice not to have an abortion is probably worse than denying someone the choice to have an abortion.

And yet, human beings use lies as leverage all the time. Human beings do things on the basis of lies all the time. And, unless you are lying under very specific circumstances, lying isn't illegal - largely because everyone would be in jail if it was.

I would never condone someone lying about birth control (male or female), but I'm not looking to make it illegal, and I'm certainly not going to take away a person's rights to their own body because of it.



As soon as the ramifications of a pregnancy are the same for both the man and the woman, you can expect the vote to "count" the same. In other words, as soon as men can get pregnant and have to deal with all the ramifications associated with that.



I highly doubt it. If that were the case, I'm pretty sure they would have said that. My guess is that she was dating a guy, got pregnant, and then he was convicted of some crime for which he is now in jail.

The ramifications of a pregnancy are higher for a woman, yes, which means she should be sure whether she wants to have the damned kid in the first place before she gets pregnant. Only makes sense.

The ramifications of a pregnancy are higher for a woman, yes, which means she should be sure whether she wants to have the damned kid in the first place before she gets pregnant. Only makes sense.

Both men and women should be thinking about whether or not they want kids before they engage in sexual intercourse at all. I don't think you'll find many people who disagree with this. However, a failure to do so or changing her mind does not remove a woman's right to control her own body. If she wishes to abort, that is her choice. If she does not wish to have an abortion, she cannot be forced to do so.

The man, while he may very much want a child or very much may not want his child brought into the world, simply cannot be given control over her body. His last chance to decide whether or not he is willing to have his child born is at the moment he decides to have sex with a woman.

Why should her vote only be to become pregnant? What kind of halfassed voting process is this? The vote should count to be "I'm willing to become a mother", the female equivalent of the man.

EDIT: Or you could reduce the weight of the man's vote to "I'm willing for -her- to become pregnant." As long as it's equal.


As soon as the ramifications of a pregnancy are the same for both the man and the woman, you can expect the vote to "count" the same. In other words, as soon as men can get pregnant and have to deal with all the ramifications associated with that.


Exactly.

Your analogy is interestingly odd, but here goes. If I DID vote for a politician and later found out he lied, where would that put me (and every other person in the world who ever voted for anyone)? I am still responsible for the vote I made, whether the outcome is to my liking or not. If I was unwilling to RISK Kerry teaming up with Bush, I should have voted for someone else.

And yes, they did both put in a vote, but their votes are weighted differently. His vote is "I am willing to become a father", hers is "I am willing to become pregnant". Once pregnant she, not he, has the additional "carry the baby" or "have an abortion" vote. She can look to him for input if she chooses, but the final vote there is hers. If she chooses to keep the baby, his "I am willing to become a father" vote stands, as does his responsibility.

Seconded. Spot on.

Hey, if these guys ever make it into SNL, they could be named Mr. and Mrs. Mein Kampf. :D

I mean, they DO act like Hitler. o_O

Oh, and, GODWIN!

Agreed. I'm pro-choice, but if she says no, then no.

One thing you and I agree with. :eek:

welcome to america. glad i don't live there.

How do you trust someone with the last name Kampf?

because they want to force you to have an abortion.

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/18/D8K7CIT80.html



Well, probably not parents who are fundamentalist Christians...

I'm just wondering what they were planning on telling the doctor - "don't mind the ropes, she's just dropping in for a quick D&C..."

A D+C is an abortion? I don't think so. Yes it does similar things but eck I got a D+C recently (dusting and cleaning as I like to put it, and eh I wasn't pregnant )

A D+C is an abortion? I don't think so. Yes it does similar things but eck I got a D+C recently (dusting and cleaning as I like to put it, and eh I wasn't pregnant )

It does both. Dilation & Curettage is a scraping of the uterine lining, to get rid of unwanted tissue, such as cysts or embryos.

Weird Fundamentalists. I would shove said parents into a trunk to rip off a kidney from them. I guess they could find it fair.

Sorry -- where in the article provided does it say they are Fundamentalists?

I'm not one of them. Age is irrelevant. Much the same as I'm against requiring parental consent for an abortion. Though I am on the fence about parental notification.

THe bottom line is that regardless of age, her body is her own and it's her decision alone. Though, I would think it would be preferable if she spoke with her parents, the father of her child, and/or a trained professional about options before making her decision. But the bottom line is; It's her decision.

I'd agree, and while I would not AGREE with the decision, if her parents are that against her having the kid, they could always have thrown her out to live her own life with her own decisions.

If she's old enough to decide to have a kid, and over the age of majority, then she can get a job and support herself.

I have students her age who've done just that.

Sorry -- where in the article provided does it say they are Fundamentalists?

Perhpas it was the fact that the parents had the last name of "Kampf". :D

A D+C is an abortion? I don't think so. Yes it does similar things but eck I got a D+C recently (dusting and cleaning as I like to put it, and eh I wasn't pregnant )

Actually, yes, a D&C can be used to perform an early stage abortion. You're removing the layers of the uterus the egg and sperm has presumably implanted into.

Once removed, it's not going to continue to grow, is it?

There are also cases where it does destroy an embryo by tearing it up.

Perhpas it was the fact that the parents had the last name of "Kampf". :D

That makes as much sense as saying that because a family is named Smith, they like cheesecake.

Sorry -- where in the article provided does it say they are Fundamentalists?

It can be easily inferred they are anti abortion fundamentalists. I didn't say they were any kind of religious fundamentalists.

That makes as much sense as saying that because a family is named Smith, they like cheesecake.
Um... my family name is Smith and we all like cheesecake... :D

They had NO right to force her to abort against her will
Indeed. While I may support the women's right for abortion...FORCING abortion on somebody that does not want it, is downright outrageous. Absolutely no right for them at all to do it. Good to see that the law has cracked down on them for violating their OWN KID's rights (legally at least, often in many countries, in-practice, the rights for minors are almost nonexistent).

(a) Alimony is paid to an ex-spouse and has nothing at all to do with children. I'll assume you mean child support.
(b) If a child actually results, it is the mother's child and the father's child. Both are responsible for its upbringing.
However, a child can only result if the mother decides to continue the pregnancy. Only her body is involved, and it is thus her decision alone. I certainly think that she should discuss it with the father, except in certain extreme circumstances, but the decision, in the end, must be hers.
Off topic a bit, but something just popped into my head:
Has The Child Support Agency ever demanded money from a rapist whose crime led to a woman getting pregnant and giving birth?


Back to the topic: Why has this thread gone on for 5 pages now, and no-one has made any 'Mein Kampf' jokes.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Especially you, LG.

As soon as the ramifications of a pregnancy are the same for both the man and the woman, you can expect the vote to "count" the same. In other words, as soon as men can get pregnant and have to deal with all the ramifications associated with that.



So only Zeus and the Govinator get a vote?

You never know. Some Bible translations do not object against abortion, and all translations have little problem with killing pregnant women if the child is not of the husband.

That being said: pro-choice is not pro-abortion. And 19 is old enough to make it the girls decision - not that of the parents.

What does 19 have to do with anything? She's old enough to be pregnant she's old enough to make the decision.

the way I see it, there are three levels of of the decision making process here:

1:no say
2:a say, but not the ultimate decision
3:the ultimate decision


In my opinion, it goes like this:

1: parents of adults
2: parents of minors
3: the mother&father

Goofballs seems to be saying:

1: the father
2:
3: the mother

Dem seems to be saying:

1: the parents of the mother
2:
3: the mother

Did I break this down correctly?

My personal break down is

3: The mother
1: everyone else on the planet.

My personal break down is

3: The mother
1: everyone else on the planet.

The mother gets no say and everyone else on the planet gets to decide whether she has an abortion???? Or did you mean to reverse that, perhaps?

The mother gets no say and everyone else on the planet gets to decide whether she has an abortion???? Or did you mean to reverse that, perhaps?

Possibly both. ;)

Off topic a bit, but something just popped into my head:
Has The Child Support Agency ever demanded money from a rapist whose crime led to a woman getting pregnant and giving birth?


Back to the topic: Why has this thread gone on for 5 pages now, and no-one has made any 'Mein Kampf' jokes.
You should all be ashamed of yourselves. Especially you, LG.

Covered. Message number 52... Yours truly.

The mother gets no say and everyone else on the planet gets to decide whether she has an abortion???? Or did you mean to reverse that, perhaps?

Sorry I was in a bit of a hurry. Yeah, reverse those numbers.:eek:

Wow, people are idiots. Not only did her parents think it was ok to kidnap their daughter for getting pregnant, they seemed to think they could find someone to perform an abortion on her while she was tied up and screaming for help.