Roe v. Wade for Men
Moms View Message Board: The Kitchen Table (Debating Board): Roe v. Wade for Men
'Man's version of Roe v. Wade' lawsuit pending
While the group is ready for the lawsuit to fail, they hope to spark a debate.
The National Center for Men argues women have more options than men in the event of an unintended pregnancy.
The gist of their argument is if a pregnant woman can choose abortion, adoption or raising a child, a man involved in an unintended pregnancy should have the choice of declining the financial responsibilities of fatherhood.
What do you think?
To be honest, I completely agree that men can really get a bum deal in allot of instances. I have thought that for many years. I have known women who have gotten pregnant on purpose in order to try to "trap" the guy. He however, thought she was on birth control. How fair is that?? I do also agree that it is a chance you take everytime you have sex, but do kind of find it unfair that if a unwanted pregnancy happens for a woman, she has choices. If it happens for a man, too bad. I don't know what the answer is, but do think it is unfair.
If I were a man I wouldn't care if I were assured that she was birth control or had a medical problem & couldn't have kids, I would wear a condom!
I think it is unfortuante that there is a man trying to use a case os important as Roe vs. Wade to "spark a debate". This law is in place to protect womens rights to make choices about their OWN bodies. If men want a different say in how they support children they help to create then they need to have enough fortitude and thought to bring about a lawsuit based on their paternal rights and not try and ride the coat tails of such important female legislation!
I think many men do make that choice to not be financially responsible for their children already.
Overall I think men have little to no rights when it comes to their kids. I've seen it with my divorced brother, I see it in Roe v Wade, and I saw it when my own daughter was born.
My brother has next to no say in the lives of his children, simply because his wife chose to leave him for another man. An unborn child is created by TWO people and jsut because one person carries that child does NOT, IMO, make that person have rights over the other one. Basically a woman gets pregnant and really the man has no say-so after that point. I think it's very unfair.
As for me, when my daughter and I were discharged from the hospital, my DH did not even need to be present. They literally TOLD him that I would need to handle the discharge. I had to give my eye teeth to confirm that this was my child. I had to sign 20 sheets of paper saying this was MY child. No one cared who the father was, where he was, or what he thought. Likewise when my DH stated our wishes to the nurses regarding pacifiers and bottles (while I was out cold from meds), they looked at him like "Yeah, right, you have no say-so in this. You're just the dad" and refused to follow his instructions. The instructions WE agreed on as new parents. Not until he became firm and said "We said no pacifiers and that's what I expect to have done" did anyone even look his direction.
Just my 2 cents. I see where Hlgmom is coming from as far as "using" Roe v Wade for this, but I have thought all along that Roe v Wade should take a man's wishes into consideration. I don't think it should just be "female legislation" at all. I'm like Vicki in that I've always thought men get a raw deal when it comes to their kids.
I think many men do make that choice to not be financially responsible for their children already.
Mommmmie, you are right! How many men who were MARRIED with kids and left the marriage don't pay their child support???
I completely agree with both of you Mommmie and Karen, those are not the men I was speaking of.
Ditto Vicki. I'm thinking of responsible men. 
But on the flip side of that...does not paying your support mean you have no rights? I know (due to my line of work) TONS of totally irresponsible mothers who are in full control of their children and they STILL have all the rights to do almost anything they want with those kids. I could tell you some stories that would make your toes curl!! It then makes me wonder what is the line for rights and responsibility, and who decides.
Men totally already have the right not to be financially tied to their children. They have the right to not pay and thus legally give up the rights to their child. I have a personal experience with this. I don't want to expand on this. But I do know a situation where the "father" didn't ever pay a dime of child support, never wanted anything to do with the child, and so a few years down the road, he signed his legal rights off and the child was adopted by someone else. It's that simple.
Now there is also the flipside of men who don't have legal rights to their children non-financially, but I believe this debate was regarding the financial side, so I'll leave my response at this for now.
Just checkin' in and couldn't resist responding.
While I agree that men do not have equal rights with regards to pregnancies, I also do not believe that Roe v Wade is the proper context in which this case in particular should be debated in the courts.
It is my attitude that if you don't want a baby, don't have sex. That goes for both the man and the woman. I believe that it's the one and only common sense 100% effective means of birth control. It's disgusting to me that a guy screws a woman and complains later that she got pregnant when he was just as responsible for his actions as she was for hers.
I know that men have the right to sign away their parental rights, but that may not be true in every case- what happens if there is no other man present waiting and willing to take on the responsibility and adopt the child once the sperm donor relinquishes his rights? Can the man legally just shed his parental rights and leave the child with no means of support other than the mother?
Anyway, I don't see this as getting any sympathy for men. I see it as a sad testament to the cavalier attitude towards sex and the impact that attitude has on the innocent lives that are created in the process.
I could see this going somewhere if it were the man fighting for the life of his unexpected child in a case where the woman wanted an abortion. THAT would be a true challenge of Roe v Wade and a step towards men's rights.
>>"I could see this going somewhere if it were the man fighting for the life of his unexpected child in a case where the woman wanted an abortion. THAT would be a true challenge of Roe v Wade and a step towards men's rights."<<
Well said Cocoabutter. A better way to explain my thoughts.
Good point, Cocoabutter.
Regarding Deanna's statement "But on the flip side of that...does not paying your support mean you have no rights?"
I think that the right to visitation with a child and the obligation to pay child support are separate things - in other words, just because a man doesn't/won't/refuses to pay child support, doesn't mean he doesn't have the RIGHT to see his child(ren). I realize that is not true in 100% of cases though, there are always exceptions. Ditto the cases of men who give up any legal rights to their child(ren). As in cases where they allow another man to legally adopt their child, they have given up any legal right to that child, or legal obligation to support that child. And there are cases where a woman may have the desire that the biological father have no claims on, or nothing to do with their child, so a man may give up legal rights which would also relieve from from contributing to that child's support.
I realize this is not the original direction of this thread, I just wanted to throw that in there.
I actually agree with what Lisa posted:
"I could see this going somewhere if it were the man fighting for the life of his unexpected child in a case where the woman wanted an abortion. THAT would be a true challenge of Roe v Wade and a step towards men's rights."
I am going way back in my brain here, but hasn't that happened before and the woman was allowed to go ahead with the abortion?? For some reason, I am vividly remembering the case being talked about in the news... I am talking YEARS ago though... hmmm..might have to try to do some searching.
I haven't read all the responses, but this is such a sticky topic, because it can work both ways. The man could deny the woman the right to have an abortion, or fight to not be financially or emotionally responsible for the child. Also, it lends itself to current laws on frozen embryos. There is a current case where a couple had embryos frozen for IFV before the woman underwent treatment that left her infertile. They then broke up, and she is now not able to use the embryos (her only chance at a biological child) because the man revoked his consent. Modern medicine has created a whole myriad of issues in reproduction. Now, I am strongly supportive of Roe V Wade, and a woman's right to choose, but we've reached a point where it's not only difficult for women to have access to safe abortions, but then giving the father the right to sue to block it, or sue to avoid supporting a child carried without his permission just makes it a million times more difficult. I'm rambling here, but ultimately I don't think anyone should be able to force a woman to carry or terminate a pregnancy, and if you have sex you take the risk of an unwanted pregnancy. The risk is fairly equal for both partners, and if a man doesn't want to support a child from an "accident" then he should abstain. As a man he knows that risk, just as a woman knows the risks she takes in such situations. Wrap it up, don't do it at all, or deal with the consequences that may arise, and if you don't have a close enough relationship with the person to make a decision together in case of an unexpected pregnancy, maybe you shouldn't be sexually involved in the first place.
I'm not sure how anyone can say that a man should have no right to choose whether to support a baby if he made the choice to have sex and ultimately got a woman pregnant, but in the same breath can say that same man does not have a right to say I want the baby if the woman is choosing not to have the child via abortion.
So if she decides she doesn't want to have the baby, and it is without question, his baby, and he wants to father this baby and he will take care of it, and she can sign off her rights and have nothing to do with it, and he will support it, he doesn't have the right to make this choice. But if she decides to have the baby, and he would rather not have the responsibility, he can't make the same choice that she could. He must take responsibility for the child?
I am pro-life, as many of you know, so I feel that both parents, at time of conception, have already made their choice, by choosing to have sex. So they both have a responsibility to the child and now have to grow up and take responsibility of a child whether it be by giving it up for adoption to responsible adults who will take care of it, or by doing so themselves.
However, I feel that if the woman is given this choice, then the man father should also be given the choice, if he is the father. IF the mother is planning on terminating her rights by abortion or adoption, the father should be able to step in and say, I would like to exercise my rights as the baby's father. Legal documents should be drawn up so he can't back out, and he is legally responsible for any medical costs, etc.
He should also have the same right as the woman (in her choice to abort the baby or adopt the baby out) in terminating his rights to the child at childbirth.
Why should the father not have these same rights? There are just as many mothers out there who are deadbeats, not caring for their children as they should, neglecting them, allowing their boyfriends to do awful things to them. Being female does not make you the ultimate parent. Being male does not make you a horrible parent.
If you knew my history, you would think this was the strangest post ever coming from me. I have every reason in the world to think most men are deadbeats (not speaking of my husband). But I know that isn't the case. And I am not speaking of individual cases. I am speaking generally. And I am also not talking about cases where the mothers are in medical danger.
If women are given rights of choosing yes, no, why shouldn't men?
Adena - well said. I agree completely. I guess my experiences have been with wonderful fathers and terrible mothers, so I'm a bit of an advocate for the dads.
>>"Being female does not make you the ultimate parent. Being male does not make you a horrible parent."<<
I think MANY people (even subconsciously) think this way and it's just not true IMO. Great statement.
I just feel like in our society, if you're the mom, you're the decision maker for everything related to that child and the dad has little to no say-so if the mom doesn't agree with it. That's unfair to me, because yes this child was created equally between 2 people.
The only argument against the man forcing the woman to carry is the fact that she will be carrying the fetus for 9 months. You simply cannot FORCE someone to do something with their body, IMO. It has nothing to do with parenting, or who is more capable of raising the child. It's against a woman's civil rights to force her to carry a baby she doesn't want to. As for proving beyond a shadow of a doubt, that cannot be done in utero without an amniocentesis, and DNA test, which cannot be done until at least the second trimester.
Oh, and Emily nailed it with the condom thing, we just had a little "scare" with my 18 BIL, girl claiming to be pregnant (called him drunk on military payday swearing she was pregnant)... when he told her to take 3 tests in front of him they were all negative. Women can be shady and disgusting, so he learned the hard way that just because a girl says she's on BC doesn't mean she really is, not to mention a baby won't KILL you, but an STD might. Both partners take risks, and both partners KNOW the possibilities and their options.
Why should the father not have these same rights?
I am not saying that he shouldn't. I am saying that attempting to challenge Roe v Wade is probably not the best way to secure a father's right not to support his unexpected child. This case in particular doesn't seem to approach R v W in a way that would directly challenge it as it would if the roles were reversed.
Crystal, is what you are saying that the woman basically has ALL the rights simply b/c she has the uterus? I think that is still unfair to men who want to be fathers to their children. When a man and a woman work together to create a new life, they should also work together to decide how to bring that life into the world, or whether to.
As I said before, I see this as a sad testament to the cavalier attitude towards sex and the impact that attitude has on the innocent lives that are created in the process.
Roe v Wade probably isn't the best way to go about this.
Also, here is one thing on my mind. Spend some time in a NICU unit at a hospital with babies born when mothers were pregnant at 5 and 6 months. Sure they may be hooked up to lots of machines, living only with the assistance of breathing tubes and feeding tubes. But they are tiny little babies. Not fetuses. They have all of their tiny little fingers and toes, nose, mouth, eyes, ears, heart, lungs, and though they may need some help for a while living in this world, they are definitely teeny tiny beautiful little babies.
Lisa,
I am saying that the woman has the ultimate right in deciding to carry or not because it's her body. If you FORCE a woman to carry a child she did not want, she may harm herself or the baby to cause a miscarriage. What if the man WANTED to get her pregnant, and sabotaged the condom or BC. Then he can sue to make her carry a baby that she didn't want to have??
Now, I'm NOT saying sex should come without consequences, and in a perfect world a man and woman could make this decision together. However, this is not a perfect world, and life doesn't always work that way. BC fails, and if it were me and the father didn't want to support or have anything to do with the baby I wanted to have, I'd be fine with that, I don't need his money, and the child doesn't need someone who is forced into fatherhood. However, as I said before, men and women BOTH know the unique risks of unexpected pregnancy and the unique consequences for each partner. If men don't feel they have enough rights, maybe they should keep it in their pants.
Adena, I don't understand your reference. We're not talking about late term abortion here, which would be during the period when those babies were in NICU. I'm pro-choice, but against MOST late term abortions (exception made for safety of the mother/baby's ability to survive).
If men don't feel they have enough rights, maybe they should keep it in their pants.
If that is the answer, perhaps women shouldn't have sex also unless they can support a baby on their own if the man doesn't want it.
I really think that everyone would like it if no one ever had sex unless they were ready to be a parent. Fact is, that doesn't happen. Both with men and women. Fact is also that if a women get pregnant, she makes all the choices and the man has no say at all. If she wants it, she keeps it and he has to pay for the next 18 years (perhaps even longer with college etc) for it. All because it is the choice SHE makes. But, if she doesn't want it, she can choose an abortion, even if he DOES want it.
Crystal, I forgot to mention that I agree with you that when a man and a woman have sex, they should be responsible enough to accept the consequences.
Vicki - VERY GOOD POINTS!!! You wrote my thoughts exactly. Completely agree.
Vicki, I also agree with you that it goes both ways... if you don't want a baby there is one sure way to avoid that!! Also, you make an excellent point that a woman should think about whether she can support a child alone or not if she chooses to have sex. The only thing I disagree with is allowing a man to block an abortion, because reality is SHE has to carry the child for 9 months. When we figure out how to implant it in him, then we can talk about that factor.
My reference wasn't to the majority of the babies that you see in the NICU, the babies born during the seventh month on which is the third (late term) term. I was talking about the babies that are born in the fifth and sixth month. Which is second term in pregnancy. I feel that if more people witnessed this first hand, they wouldn't be so quick to call them fetuses instead of babies until birth, regardless of the month of pregnancy the mother was in.
Because as much as many of us want to wish it wasn't true, many women do still have abortions during the second term of pregnancy.
I wasn't talking about late term abortions, either. Just making a point about the use of the term fetus/baby, that's all...
Actually, 88% of abortions are preformed before 13 weeks. Only about 12% of abortions occur after 13 weeks, and many of them are medically necessary. The earliest of premies who can survive are born at about 6 months pregnant, and only 1.4% of abortions are done at 21 weeks or later, and only when medically necessary. You can look at the CDC stats, scroll down to the year 2000 (last report on the chart) to see the breakdown. Those babies in NICU are different than aborted fetuses, and fetus by definition is an embryo after 8 weeks through birth, so those in the NICU are officially babies.
I didn't mean to come off snarky there, just trying to counter your point. I HAVE seen those babies in the NICU, and it's been my blessing that my children didn't become one of them, since I went into labor at 24 weeks originally. I just hate the fact that pro-life propaganda has so many believing that all of these abortions are happening when the fetuses are viable or even CLOSE to being viable, when in reality that is the rarest of occurrences.
You saved me the trouble of typing Crystal! Thanks! Well said!
Actually, babies are an embryo from conception until 8 weeks and then become a fetus from 8 weeks until birth. The embryonic stages come first.
No, not snarky, and I understand all of your points. However, those "fetuses" would become viable if they weren't aborted first. The only reason they weren't viable is because they weren't given the opportunity to be.
I understand all of your statistics.But I don't want to make this another debate about abortions and such. That's not where I intended to take this. Honestly it isn't.
My point is that people tend to use scientific terms when speaking of abortions so it doesn't seem like the harsh reality that it is. However, when you are carrying a baby to term by choice, do you come home and say, oh my God, I heard my fetuses heartbeat for the first time! Or, I felt my fetus kick! Not most of us. We say, we heard our baby's heart beat. Or we felt our baby kick. Then it is a baby. But when we are discussing abortions, it suddenly becomes a fetus.
So you make the point that from 8 weeks till birth it is a fetus. So at 6 months pregnant, the woman is carrying a fetus. But it magically becomes a baby when she delivers prematurely? And I promise I am not trying to be sarcastic or anything, just really, is that the point that fetus becomes baby? At birth?
And I understand all of the statistics that most abortions occur at such and such time but just generally speaking, do you ever think of a fetus as a baby before birth? And as the father of that baby having rights to it, too?
Dawn, that's what I was trying to say, I misworded it. Adena, yes, by definition the fetus becomes a baby at birth. That's why it's considered a stillbirth after a certain point, rather than a miscarriage. And yes, I did think of my fetuses as babies before birth, but not everyone WANTS to have a baby. Do you really feel a man should have the right to FORCE a woman to carry a child? I still think that sets up a situation where she may intentionally harm herself to abort the baby or something to otherwise jeopardize the pregnancy. Put yourself in those shoes, if a court ordered you that you HAD to carry a child, you basically become a prisoner for 9 months, and cannot continue on with your life, not to mention the destruction of your privacy because CPS and the courts would have protective custody of the baby in your womb.
So what if it is a child of rape? Prisoners have attorney's too. Because a law is a law and if the law says that a man has a right to say, then all men free or in prison will carry that same right.. Do you think they will put in stipulations as to how the conception occurs? Okay, one night stand he doesn't have rights.. dating a week he does?? Who should get to decide, what will the rules be and who will make them??
And if we are going to allow men to tell us we have to carry their children are we also going to allow them to tell us that we have to abort them too? Should those men be able to say, "Hey hon, It is a mistake and you have to abort it.. I don't feel like being a dad." Or in that case would it be the womans decision, because after all it is our bodies?? But wait the dad has a right to say I can't abort so he must have the right to force me into aborting too.. Only makes since, right? This is a situation that it is good in theory but not very logical. Sounds a bit like a third world country to me.. We do as we are told..
I think this is all a waste of time. I mean really, what little rights women have and they are going to take those away from us too. Because a man says it isn't fair. I can write a book on all the things about being a woman that just aren't fair...
Oh and Karen is right visitation and child support are two different things. It is not based on their financial support or lack there of.. You can be in the rearrange and still see your children.. All you have to have is your visitation orders and a police officer, if your rights to see the child are denied..
As I said earlier, I don't know what the answer is. I just think something is wrong when in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, the woman can choose to abort it without even consulting the man about it. However, if she wants to have it, he is required to support it for the next 18 plus years. No, I don't think it is right for a man to be able to force a woman to have a child, but in the same instance, how is it fair for the woman to force him to have a child? Just because he doesn't give birth doesn't mean he doesn't "have" a child.
Well said, Bobbie. Even my divorce decree says I cannot withhold visits for back support, and vice versa, it's just not the way it works. Plus, you cannot FORCE a parent to visit their child, my ex RARELY visits ours, and when he does they don't know him as dad, we'll eventually explain that DH is not their biological father, but we're really hoping Ex will just sign over his rights this summer (we're in talks now) so he doesn't have to pay support, and DH can adopt the kids as his own. Men have other options, they don't have to keep their parental rights, and support the child(ren).
Crystal, a man can't just simply give up their parental rights and not support the child unless the mother asks for it can they? And usually that happens when the mother remarries and has a new husband that she wants to take over the father role and adopt the children. Do I understand that correctly? So again, I don't see how that is an option for the man who doesn't want to have a child.
Generally yes, although the man CAN petition the courts to release him from parental rights. It's not likely to happen though. The reality is a man KNOWS when he has sex that if she gets pregnant and wants to keep it, he has the obligation of supporting it. The woman likewise knows that if she gets pregnant and wants to abort, she can't FORCE him to help pay for it, and if she wants to keep it she has to pay for DNA testing (assuming they are not married), then sue for child support unless the father legally claims the child. It's the risks each party takes in having sex. This may be a topic for another debate, but how about a married couple who has a baby, the man supports his family for 3 years, then finds out during the divorce (by DNA testing and mother's admisssion) the child isn't his. He can't sue for all of the support/costs he's put into that child, and is denied any visitation rights unless the mother says it's ok. It happened to my DH, it's more common than you think, and he'll forever live with the pain of the situation, while his ex doesn't have any reprecussions for her deceit. (And yes, she admitted in open court that she knew all along it wasn't his, and lied about it to him from day 1) Life isnt fair, and if men think it's unfair to have to support a kid they don't want, then WAHHHH! That's the reality of sex and procreation. I know I was informed early on of what could happen if I accidentally got pregnant, and men know the risks they take as well. No one is ever going to tell me what to do with my body, and that's the bottom line.
"Then if men think it's unfair to have to support a kid they don't want, then WAHHHH! That's the reality of sex and procreation."
Now, if only women would grow up and take on this reality, too. I understand everyone's points about a man forcing a woman to carry a baby that she doesn't want for nine months, but to make a comment like this about a man, but not a woman?
Everyone should understand the reality of sex and procreation.
And I totally agree that guys should have to support their children. But to hear that men should have to grow up and support children they don't want, but women should be able to just abort them just doesn't make much sense to me.
Again, no one said life is fair, but it's not like they don't know the possibilities.
Actually, from the people I know, most men don't pay their support, unless it is taken right out of their checks. I can think of four women I know of the top of my head that have not received support as ordered since the order was made. Tip, leave state.. Most judges won't cross state boarders to go after nonsupport.. And unless you are picked up in that state for another crime, extradition isn't likely, not enough police officers and to much crime on their hands to track down dead beat parents.. Unless you make good money, then that is another issue. And several of the divorced men I know only get the kids to create problems for the mother. So none of that works either.
I also think that if you get pregnant and you choose to keep the child then you should own full financial responsibility for that child. Know to many women that use child support for reasons other than its true purpose. I think if you decide to keep a child the man doesn't want then you should be ready and willing to step up to that responsibility on your own. And that may very well be a better thing to take in front of the courts. I am not talking a divorce and then he doesn't want. I am talking a one night stand, entrapment that he doesn't want. Which women so freely do, thinking it will force a commitment. Too many people see children as pawns and use them as a means to and ends.. I know a woman with 3 kids that gets a thousand a month in support (he is a long term employee at a car manufacturer). She makes more in support that a minimum wage job would pay and almost as much as she makes on her job.. She thinks it is funny and talks about how her ex has lost everything because he couldn't afford the things they had while married.. She wanted the divorce and he lost everything.. so between her live in boyfriends income, her income and her child support she is living HIGH of the HOG.. And she is very proud of herself for it..Way off subject now...
They could order all women of the age to procreate to go on birth control.. That would just solve everything. They are already telling us (women) what we can and can not do with our bodies.. What is next??
I have to pull it form my ex tooth and nail most times, but honeslty I don't want or need his money. My mom actually told the court not to bother, she didn't want any money from my biodad when she divorced him, not every woman is out to get paid. And Bobbie, women like the one you mention, they make me sick, just like men who don't pay give others a bad name, women who do that give us a bad name.
Bobby, I don't get your statement, "They are already telling us (women) what we can and can not do with our bodies.. What is next??"
I understand your point though- it sounds like a Pandora's Box when you come down to all the details of the conception and the decisions. It could be something that could balloon into so much intrusion by laws and courts that we would definitely lose freedoms.
But when you say "what little rights women have and they are going to take those away from us too" I just don't see why you think that women have so few rights. The way I see it, women have way more rights when it comes to custody battles- they get custody most of the time.
http://www.childrensjustice.org/stats.htm
Ninety percent of divorced fathers have less than full custody of their children." Jonathan M. Honeycutt, Ph.D.(c), M.P.A., M.A., I.P.C. Director of Research, Clinical & Consulting Psychotherapist, National Institute for Divorce Research, Panama City, Florida.
Granted, that percentage is of divorced fathers, where there was a marriage between the mother and father and then a divorce. It does not include non-married couples who discontinue their relationship.
So, check out this website for a more complete picture-
http://www.gocrc.com/research/custody-stats.html
Here you will see graphs representing the results of the U.S. Census Bureau. Clearly, custodial mothers outnumber fathers by and large. Father sole custody families historically have been approximately 9% of single parent families, ranging up to 12% in some states...
In addition, as it stands now, women do in fact have the right to decide what to do with their own bodies. The problem here is that men have no say about the results of what was an equal opportunity act. Now, if women truly wanted equal rights, then they would see no problem in granting some rights to the father, who was equally responsible for the creation of the pregnancy.
I sort of think this case is being framed wrong. It's shown as a battle of the rights of men and women but there's a whole and complete person involved who's pretty much ignored. The baby girl.
Neither the mom, inpossibly deceiving her boyfriend nor the guy in filing the suit have considered her at all.
If there's one group who's right are being cmpletely and utterly dismissed in this situation it's the right of children.
Unschoolmom, I completely agree with you. And it's not only in this case. It's in many. The children are the ones who are being ignored. All to often. I was just thinking about this in bed last night before I went to sleep.
I so agree Adena and Unschool. Adena, I was also thinking about this just this morning while I was getting ready. It's so sad that really NO ONE can be forced to take care of the helpless, innocent child that is conceived regardless of what the "parents" are like in real life. If they're not responsibly adopted out, they are either aborted, or just end up living a crappy life with parent(s) who never wanted them in the first place.
|
Members
