Celivia, while you may hold the discussion is at an end, perhaps because of uncomfortable statements made, I am one of those who have had to deal with many a person who were sucked for child support payments and then discovered that after all they were not the biological father of the child but swindled into believing they were. Where a woman has this kind of mentality as to deceive a person in such manner then it is not just about money but also how the woman then has swindled her own child to live the lie of the pretended biological father. When then a man desires a woman to have an abortion, not wanting to risk the same, then somehow the “woman” has all the “rights” to decide yes or no and the poor fellow unknown he is not the biological father then is hit over the head with child support payments.
I am too much aware that there are women “child-support fathers” shopping, where they elect to tell the best financial support person that he is the biological father and concealing she had other sexual encounters. On 6 September 2007 Judge Judy happen to make clear to a woman that she should have disclosed to the alleged biological father that she had another sexual encounter, which in fact later turned out to be the real biological father. Both genders, so to say are playing around, and so one cannot blame one particular gender, but when a woman is the one person who knows if she had other sexual encounters at the time of conceiving and conceals that and then sucks out monies from a man pretending he is the biological father, then this is very serious.
In principle, I oppose child-support as it basically is making children to be used as “slaves”, precisely what the Framers of the Constitution opposed. I oppose also in principle “abortions” unless it is for extreme emergency, but would look forwards to the day when paternity testing is required at the time of birth, regardless if the child is born in a marriage!

What would a pro-life man know about abortion answer nothing.
It is the womans body and her child we do not need a religous nutter such as the Pope saying it is evil. Religioun is only a superstition and went out with the days of the Spanish inquisition. This is now the 21 first century fortunately we have banned hanging and back street abortions, unfortunately they were the evils of the past.

David Palmer you have come out with a primitive point of you and then you want to slope off how shameful. If the Pope agreed with condoms then their would not be so many unwanted pregnancies. The whole idea of legalised abortions was because of the many deaths during back street abortions. If you were pregant what would you prefer David Palmer?

Cel, how is anyone supposed to know what you mean if you only post the same rant. Men and the government must pay for the womans right to have a child, whether it is wanted or not, and if the public must pay for and raise that child so what. The important thing is that the woman has a right to bring a child into the world, poverty and violence and emotional abuse and neglect be damned. It's the woman that is the victim not the child. And any suggestion that perhaps as a single unsupported mother now is not a good time to be having a child is forcing a woman to have an abortion. It could never be about good decent caring common sense by any persons who have to go behind and clean up the mess of your encouragement of assumed 'rights' over what is the right thing to do considering that childs future. What's one more childs desperate life compared to feminist control. The real power will come when there is a majority of single mothers with unwanted children permanently attached to the public purse. Oh the glory of such a day. Mummies philosophy of the nanny state handed down to the children so they can begin the cycle of 'rights' and abuse and misery and poverty and welfare dependence all over again. Manufacturing victims in the name of feminine empowerment and it only cost the life of an innocent child. Cheap by half eh!

There was this group the BLACKSHIRTS who had one of their issues that the moment a parent became a single parent then the child or children are to be removed and placed in care with a couple or a child care agency unless the single parent immediately married. Even if a woman became a widow then her children were to be immediately removed unless he married. These and other kind of “nonsense” they had allegedly based also on Catholic faith. After more then a decade talking to the BLACKSHIRTS they have about totally abandoned to push for this, albeit still like this to become reality. I for one accept that anyone is entitled to life their life in their faith as they desire but as long as this does not clash with the rule of society.
As much as I oppose in principle abortions, I do not like to see that females are getting pregnant all over the land. In my view, no religion should oppose contraceptive usage where after all, this also can make the difference of a person ending up with AID or not.
To counter act abortions, if at birth paternity testing is taking place then many a woman would not get it in their head to have a extra marital relationship without using contraceptive. As such preventing unwanted children to be born can be by all together avoiding in the first place to become pregnant.
Not, so to say, have the cake and eat it. That a woman want to have the fun and then when she doesn’t like it she then somehow can throw of her responsibilities but on the other-hand can hold it over the head of a male if she keeps the child. It is a bit like when you drive a car and have an accident you have to face the consequences, likewise so when you have sex, you simply have to have guts enough to face the consequences!

Mr Gerrit H Schorel-Hlavka, while not being a religionist I don't look upon abortion from a spiritual angle of morality. I see abortion as a necessary but, not a championed tool, that should be used when all else has failed and the advent of bringing a child into the world is known to be a poor outcome for all. Especially considering young single women who are not supported in a desire to have a family by another young single male. And who will be dependent upon society and all it's social resources to give that child the bare necessities. Those two people have their whole life ahead of themselves and a better more opportune time of willing mutual consent awaits in the future. It is abusive and criminal to destroy three lives, the young womans future, the young mans future, and the childs future for the selfish expression of feminist empowerment. I do this by 'right'. It's no different than some sick twisted jerk saying I rape cuz I can.
Being able to do something with out consideration for the totality of that decision is not empowerment. It's the reckless abandonment of social morality and familiar and social responsibility, and a marked disinterest in the welfare and the value of any child brought into this world under those circumstances.