(05-29-2019, 03:19 AM)JSR18 Wrote: The woman bears their child and signs over custody to the father...

(05-29-2019, 06:02 AM)BakertheBeast Wrote: Thanks for the info. That explains it. Its still taking a "life" though.

(05-29-2019, 07:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So, during these 9 months that we're compelling this woman to carry a child against her will, what are the father's responsibilities?

(05-29-2019, 11:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Medical care and support. Nobody forced her to participate in the activity that created the child against her will.

(05-29-2019, 11:49 AM)GMDino Wrote: Unless she was raped in a state where that's not an exception for an abortion?

Aside:  Can she throw up on the guy every time she gets morning sickness?  You know, just so he can share in the experience?

(05-29-2019, 02:28 AM)BFritz21 Wrote:

(05-29-2019, 07:50 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: So, during these 9 months that we're compelling this woman to carry a child against her will, what are the father's responsibilities?

(05-29-2019, 11:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote:  Nobody forced her to participate in the activity that created the child against her will.

Quote:President Trump’s 2020 budget request landed with a thud this week, laden with deep cuts to programs that lift millions of children and their families out of poverty every year. In a moment of great prosperity, just more than a year after giving away $2 trillion in tax cuts for the wealthy, the President has once again offered a draconian budget that would leave more children hungry, unhoused and uninsured.

The President has proposed cutting the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly known as food stamps) by $220 billion over the next decade, even though SNAP helped 19.2 million children avoid hunger in 2016 and kept 1.5 million children out of poverty in 2017. The President’s plan would take away recipients’ ability to choose the food that best suits their needs by converting their benefits to a box of food selected, packed and shipped by the government. It would also further expand work requirements despite huge bipartisan majorities in Congress rejecting such stringest requirements in the Farm Bill last year.

The President would also like to gut federal housing assistance, without which the child poverty rate would be roughly two percent higher according to a recent analysis by the National Academy of Sciences. The proposed 18 percent cut to the Department of Housing and Urban Development would devastate programs that boost the affordable housing supply at a time when more families than ever face unsustainably high rents and inadequate housing. The budget would also harm families currently receiving rental assistance by increasing the amount of rent such families would have to pay and tightening work requirements. .......

(05-29-2019, 12:42 PM)JSR18 Wrote: Normal things a father should do or participate in. Such as, transportation to/from Dr. appointments, attending said appointments, financial support for anything mother and/or fetus/baby may need. Generally all around involvment in the maternity period/birth... 

(05-29-2019, 11:46 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Medical care and support. Nobody forced her to participate in the activity that created the child against her will.

(05-29-2019, 01:51 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: nearly 1 in every 5 Americans believes that a woman should have to give birth if she gets pregnant from rape.

(05-29-2019, 01:23 PM)jj22 Wrote: And then these rich people adopt children from other countries, leaving American children left abandoned going through the system.

(05-29-2019, 02:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: At least they're consistent.

The people who allow for exceptions for rape and incest are the ones who make no sense to me.

Oh, murdering a fetus is unacceptable unless we decide that it isn't the woman's fault that she got pregnant? Then murder is totally fine.

The argument makes no sense, based on the reasoning they claim to be using for why they want to outlaw abortion.

You either believe terminating a pregnancy is murder or you don't. You can't build in loopholes for people you've decided don't deserve to be punished by having a baby they don't want.

(05-29-2019, 02:27 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: At least they're consistent.

The people who allow for exceptions for rape and incest are the ones who make no sense to me.

Oh, murdering a fetus is unacceptable unless we decide that it isn't the woman's fault that she got pregnant? Then murder is totally fine.

The argument makes no sense, based on the reasoning they claim to be using for why they want to outlaw abortion.

You either believe terminating a pregnancy is murder or you don't. You can't build in loopholes for people you've decided don't deserve to be punished by having a baby they don't want.

(05-29-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And that's because of the US Adoption Laws, which I have said repeatedly need an overhaul.

Overseas no one is going to take "their" baby back after a couple years.

For Example, mother gets Pregnant, doesn't inform father that she's giving it up for adoption. Biological Father finds out and comes after the baby, when the adoptive family already has had the baby for a while. Nothing they can really do, they can fight it, but most likely it will end up giving the baby back to the Biological Father.

The mother can choose the family that adopts her child, this goes against some Couples that wait for years, and just cause they aren't good looking or appealing enough to the mother, they keep getting skipped over for the more appealing couples. I think this is wrong. I don't think the mother should have any say. The agencies should allow the families waiting longest to have first rights to the children. it would make the process much better and fairer for all.

End of rant, so at least you have an idea why people adopt overseas now.

(05-29-2019, 05:03 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: And that's because of the US Adoption Laws, which I have said repeatedly need an overhaul.

Overseas no one is going to take "their" baby back after a couple years.

For Example, mother gets Pregnant, doesn't inform father that she's giving it up for adoption. Biological Father finds out and comes after the baby, when the adoptive family already has had the baby for a while. Nothing they can really do, they can fight it, but most likely it will end up giving the baby back to the Biological Father.

The mother can choose the family that adopts her child, this goes against some Couples that wait for years, and just cause they aren't good looking or appealing enough to the mother, they keep getting skipped over for the more appealing couples. I think this is wrong. I don't think the mother should have any say. The agencies should allow the families waiting longest to have first rights to the children. it would make the process much better and fairer for all.

End of rant, so at least you have an idea why people adopt overseas now.

(05-29-2019, 05:13 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: No Loophole there, the mother wasn't consenting in rape. Not sure how to classify incest, but those babies are generally born with defects. So I guess it's there to protect the general population?

Anyways, my stance is scientific based. Once the baby has passed gestation and has its own unique DNA code, that is when it is considered a human being to me. It's all part of the human life cycle. Every single one of us goes thru that stage.

Now the "meet in the middle" part says, no abortions allowed after first trimester (unless mother or baby's life is in danger). Which I don't think most of us would have a problem agreeing with simply because almost all abortions happen in the first trimester.

(05-29-2019, 05:17 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Now I have a question for you.

If we find or figure out a way to tell while the baby in the womb if it will be gay or not, should the mother be allowed to abort if they do not want a gay or straight child?

Just asking cause I feel this might come up in the future.