Abortion debate thread

Nino Brown · 12-05-2013 01:44AM

Zombrex wrote: »

You don't need to agree with the reasons someone has an abortion, you just need to see that that woman has the right to do so given that it is her body.

For example if a child needed blood or a kidney from a parent you might well think less of the parent if they refused to do this. But that is a world away from requiring that the blood or kidney is removed from the parent against their wishes, which would never happen.

That makes no sense. Refusing to give blood or a kidney is failure to act to save a life, that's very different from acting to end one.
If a parent refused to give a kidney to a child yes society would look down on them. If a parent kills the child, because it doesn't want to be forced to give it a kidney, that's murder.

Zombrex · 12-05-2013 10:57AM

Nino Brown wrote: »

That makes no sense. Refusing to give blood or a kidney is failure to act to save a life, that's very different from acting to end one.

They are the same thing. The foetus requires the woman's womb to sustain its life, the woman refuses to consent to this, the foetus is removed from the woman and dies without the womb due to the fact that the foetus cannot sustain itself own life purely using its own body.

This is no different to you requiring my kidney, me refusing to consent to this, and you dying without it because you cannot sustain your own life purely using your own body.

The principle is exactly the same. A person must consent to you using their body to sustain yourself, whether that is a blood transfusion, their kidneys, their womb etc it doesn't matter.

People have argued that a woman must allow the foetus to use her body because she is their parent, but if someone genuinely believes that they should be consistent and argue that it should be illegal for any parent, mother or father to refuse to allow their child access to the parents body.

Oddly few people ever call for that, especially men who don't like the idea of being forced into medical procedures against their will. Go figure.

MrPudding · 12-05-2013 12:38PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Ending the life of your own child because its inconvenient to allow the use of your organs for a few months seems like a psychopathic argument to me.

So, just to confirm, are you calling any woman that has ever had an abortion a psychopath?

Nino Brown wrote: »

Its not like its permanent, and its not for some random person, its a life that the parents created, creating life comes with responsibility whether its accidental or not.

Why does responsibility have to come with it? The old, you made the bed you have to lie in it argument is not the best really. Julian Baggini had an interesting thought experiment in in one of his books, The Pig That Wants to Be Eaten I think, that went something like this.

You are out partying one and and get a little drunk. In your drunken state you end up somewhere you shouldn't. You wake up in the morning, felling a little worse for wear, but alive. You are attached to a machine which is in turn attached to an unconscious person in another bed. A nurse comes round and explains that the previous night you had kindly agreed to support the bodily functions of the sick man in the bed beside you, as he is not able to himself. Not to worry, no permanent harm will come to you and it is only for 9 months. I presume you have no issue with this?

Nino Brown wrote: »

Personally I would accept early stage medical abortions. That would take of the rape argument too. But how people can abort late term and not go to prison blows my mind.

Most people, even pro-choice like myself, have an issue with late term abortions.

Nino Brown wrote: »

If I killed a newborn who was premature at 21-24 weeks, I'd get life, and people are doing it everyday and getting away with it.

Not to be a pedant, but you might get life.

MrP

robp · 12-05-2013 05:10PM

Zombrex wrote: »

As you have said already. And I'm asking you which person. You know, a person, the thing that has identify and rights.

If you killed the zygote would you be killing Mary Kate or would you be killing Ashley?

Neither. If there was no split yet there would be no Mary Kate and Ashley, just one female tiny human so the question is not answerable.

Zombrex wrote: »

Sorry, my mistake, so you don't mind killing persons who can think feel reason and are self aware, you just don't want to kill humans that are the size of a pin head, have no brains and are just made up of a few cells. Because they have like DNA and stuff.

I'm not sure you have thought your position through very well ... :rolleyes:

Firstly I did not justify killing chimps. Secondly chimpanzees do not have reason! They do not have communication at a language level. To call a chimpanzee a person is fundamentally flawed in my opinion but that is another debate.

Zombrex wrote: »

We do not force people to give up kidneys. Your response to this seems to be we don't need to, as if that some how is relevant to why we don't.

Are you seriously saying if we did need to we would?

Or do you just not have a serious response and are trying to stall for time? (man I hope it is the latter)

If a situation is not going to arise provisions are not made for it. So the kidney analogy is entirely a moot scenario and cannot add insight.

robp · 12-05-2013 05:14PM

Some good news. Its reassuring that the people who actually know what they are talking about in regards health support the pro life position of removing suicide from the bill. Not surprising though as we have seen this trend several times already.

Decision of GPs not to endorse Government’s Bill on abortion “a clear defeat for the pro-choice side”, says Dr Kirsten Fuller
At the annual conference of the Irish College of General Practitioners (ICGP) today, members rejected the wording of a motion which called on members to support the publication of the Government’s draft Bill on abortion. Instead doctors voted in favour of an amended motion calling on the government to introduce evidence based medical guidelines when bringing forward clarity regarding the treatment of mothers in pregnancy.*
Dr Kirsten Fuller who attended the conference in Galway said: “The amended motion which was carried today is a clear defeat for the pro-choice side.
“The refusal of GPs to endorse the recently published heads of the Bill on abortion sends a very strong message to the Government that any proposal it produces must be evidence based. The amended motion which was passed in its place also makes this abundantly clear.
“Introducing abortion on the ground of threatened suicide would certainly not be evidence based. Following today's vote and the rejection of abortion at the recent IMO conference, the Government cannot ignore the concerns being raised by doctors.”

link

Fanny Cradock · 12-05-2013 10:30PM

Morbert wrote: »

Yes. The choice to go through with a pregnancy carries many responsibilities, just as the choice to raise a child carries many responsibilities. However, the body of the mother never becomes the property of the child. If the mother chooses not to go through with the pregnancy, we say that the choice should be respected.

Now, to be fair, I can somewhat sympathise with the pro-life position (I, like many people am only pro-choice up to around the 20-22 week mark), but I cannot understand the pro-life position when it comes to cases of rape, where the victim is stripped of all choice in the matter.

Thanks for the response. And let me be clear that I also have some sympathy for the pro-abortion side when it comes to the hard cases such as rape. Indeed, I really only began seriously considering the topic of abortion within the last couple of months and these are the objections that threw me. However, I've also found answers to these objections.

This aside, I'm wondering if you could answer my scenario regarding your gin loving wife?

Also, can you explain to my what happens after 20-22 weeks that you thereafter impose bodily responsibilities on the mother and presumably on the father after birth? It seems to me that if we logically follow the "kidney defence" for abortion (my term) that we can't then ever compel either of the parents to provide a basic level of care to dependent children (born or unborn) so long this involves placing limits upon their (the parent's) bodily autonomy.

BTW, for those interested in the "kidney defence" they may wish to read up on Eileen McDonagh and Judith Jarvis Thompson.

Aiel · 12-05-2013 10:46PM

18-21 days after conception:before many women will even realise they are pregnent,the baby's heart is beating.

At 8 weeks:every organ to be found in a fully grown adult person is already formed.

At 11 weeks:fingerprints and fingernails can be clearly seen.

At 12 weeks:the baby's lips open and close.The baby can turn his/her head and move around the womb.

At 16 weeks:the baby reacts to sound,sucks,swallow's and yawn's.

At 18 weeks:most mothers feel the baby moving.The baby exercises his/her developing muscles by pushing with his feet and head.The baby now sucks his/her thumb.

At 24 weeks:the baby continues moving,hearing.

At 30-40 weeks:the baby,if protected from harm,will continue to grow bigger and stronger until it is time to be born.

Nino Brown · 12-05-2013 11:08PM

MrPudding wrote: »

So, just to confirm, are you calling any woman that has ever had an abortion a psychopath?

The argument is psychopathic, if the argument is that they don't want to allow to use of the womb, so the child inside that they created should be killed. Violent, Irresponsible, Egocentric, show's lack of empathy and lack of remorse, are characteristic traits of a psychopath, I see all of those in that argument.

You are out partying one and and get a little drunk. In your drunken state you end up somewhere you shouldn't. You wake up in the morning, felling a little worse for wear, but alive. You are attached to a machine which is in turn attached to an unconscious person in another bed. A nurse comes round and explains that the previous night you had kindly agreed to support the bodily functions of the sick man in the bed beside you, as he is not able to himself. Not to worry, no permanent harm will come to you and it is only for 9 months. I presume you have no issue with this?

That's a bit over dramatic, pregnant woman are not bed ridden for 9 months, many don't even notice any difference whatsoever until they are several months pregnant. And even then, I understand it is uncomfortable and causes body changes, but for the majority of cases its an inconvenience at worst, hardly worth ending a life over. It's ending a life to prevent a few months of inconvenience.

Frito · 13-05-2013 01:37AM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Violent, Irresponsible, Egocentric, show's lack of empathy and lack of remorse, are characteristic traits of a psychopath, I see all of those in that argument.

You're right of course, it is much better such women become parents instead.

lazygal · 13-05-2013 06:50AM

Nino Brown wrote: »

The argument is psychopathic, if the argument is that they don't want to allow to use of the womb, so the child inside that they created should be killed. Violent, Irresponsible, Egocentric, show's lack of empathy and lack of remorse, are characteristic traits of a psychopath, I see all of those in that argument.

That's a bit over dramatic, pregnant woman are not bed ridden for 9 months, many don't even notice any difference whatsoever until they are several months pregnant. And even then, I understand it is uncomfortable and causes body changes, but for the majority of cases its an inconvenience at worst, hardly worth ending a life over. It's ending a life to prevent a few months of inconvenience.

It's patently obvious you've never been pregnant. There's also the far from inconvenient factor of childbirth.

lazygal · 13-05-2013 09:00AM

Aiel wrote: »

18-21 days after conception:before many women will even realise they are pregnent,the baby's heart is beating.

At 8 weeks:every organ to be found in a fully grown adult person is already formed.

At 11 weeks:fingerprints and fingernails can be clearly seen.

At 12 weeks:the baby's lips open and close.The baby can turn his/her head and move around the womb.

At 16 weeks:the baby reacts to sound,sucks,swallow's and yawn's.

At 18 weeks:most mothers feel the baby moving.The baby exercises his/her developing muscles by pushing with his feet and head.The baby now sucks his/her thumb.

At 24 weeks:the baby continues moving,hearing.

At 30-40 weeks:the baby,if protected from harm,will continue to grow bigger and stronger until it is time to be born.

Thanks for the biology lesson.
Is this supposed to sway pro choice advocates towards the 'protect the preshus tiiiineeee baaaaaybeeeeesss' argument from the anti choice playbook? My heart strings remain untugged.

HurtLocker · 13-05-2013 11:05AM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Ending the life of your own child because its inconvenient to allow the use of your organs for a few months seems like a psychopathic argument to me.

You clearly are calling women who have abortions for their own personal reasons psychopaths. Using all this emotive "you killed your baby" thrash. While calling them psychopaths. You know women who had terminations are forced to listen to this thrash everyday now? What about their mental health. Once they've had the abortion do you prolifers get the right to guilt trip them?

The prolife agenda always talks like its trying to save the mental health of the women. Truth be told once the child is born the prolife side are gone taking their guilt trip language with them to torment another women who has to come to her own decision to carry out a pregnancy,not your decision not anyone else's,her decision, her choice.

Nino Brown wrote: »

The argument is psychopathic, if the argument is that they don't want to allow to use of the womb, so the child inside that they created should be killed. Violent, Irresponsible, Egocentric, show's lack of empathy and lack of remorse, are characteristic traits of a psychopath, I see all of those in that argument.

This is not an argument. This is real life. Women come to their own reason to have abortions like this like this. They should not need to argue with strangers who wave banners and shout slogans. What gives you/anyone the right to nose in judge their reason them and deem them a psychopath!? If she brought this pregnancy to term the pro life side would stop caring about her baby, the mother would not be a psychopath? What if the mother still is a psychopath who's pro choice? Should the state intervene as clearly said she has no moral problems ending to life of her own child

Nino Brown wrote: »

Ending the life of your own child because its inconvenient

clearly the state should take away this child?

Why is it that your morals should be forced on others. Many people see nothing wrong with abortion. Your moral compass apparently trumps theirs. Even though if prochoice people got their right to choose. Pro life people could still choose to keep their pregnancies.

Nino Brown wrote: »

That's a bit over dramatic, pregnant woman are not bed ridden for 9 months, many don't even notice any difference whatsoever until they are several months pregnant. And even then, I understand it is uncomfortable and causes body changes, but for the majority of cases its an inconvenience at worst, hardly worth ending a life over. It's ending a life to prevent a few months of inconvenience.

Sweet only 9 months of inconvenience ! Then who steps in? And the mother doesn't have to waste 18 years raising this unwanted child who can easily have been terminated as a foetus by a trip to the UK and hopefully some day here in Ireland.

Zombrex · 13-05-2013 11:49AM

robp wrote: »

Neither. If there was no split yet there would be no Mary Kate and Ashley, just one female tiny human so the question is not answerable.

How can there be "one female tiny human" but that isn't either Mary Kate or Ashley? Who is the "one female tiny human" and what happens to them when Mary Kate and Ashely appears?

robp wrote: »

Firstly I did not justify killing chimps. Secondly chimpanzees do not have reason! They do not have communication at a language level. To call a chimpanzee a person is fundamentally flawed in my opinion but that is another debate.

A zygote cannot communicate at a language level either.

robp wrote: »

If a situation is not going to arise provisions are not made for it. So the kidney analogy is entirely a moot scenario and cannot add insight.

Well again it does arise, doctors regularly re-arrange and prioritize operations based on how much blood is available, and if they don't have the blood they won't perform an elective surgery, who is to say that not performing that elective surgery didn't adversely effect the patient.

Secondly there is no reason why you shouldn't be able to answer the question, given that this problem is not some impossibility. The idea that those in need of organs will die without them is not a hypothetical.

My friends mother had a rare lung degeneration disease and found a donor only weeks before she would have died, after waiting for years. My friends family had prepared themselves for her not making it.

Refusing to answer is the question is a cop-out, and frankly just give us all your answer anyway, you know we wouldn't forcibly require others to give up bodily integrity even if it meant someone else died.

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 11:51AM

HurtLocker wrote: »

The prolife agenda always talks like its trying to save the mental health of the women. Truth be told once the child is born the prolife side are gone taking their guilt trip language with them to torment another women who has to come to her own decision to carry out a pregnancy,not your decision not anyone else's,her decision, her choice.

So if I had newborn and chose to smother it in the hospital, I should be left alone because it was my decision, nobody elses?
And my problem isn't necessarily with the women, my problem is with the institutions that are in place to carry out abortions. Doctors who make a living from killing babies, a woman can have a pretty limited amount of abortions, but these institution are committing genocide in my opinion.

Why is it that your morals should be forced on others. Many people see nothing wrong with abortion. Your moral compass apparently trumps theirs. Even though if prochoice people got their right to choose. Pro life people could still choose to keep their pregnancies.

This is the whole point of law and society. If I decide that it's morally okay to steal and murder does that mean I should be allowed to do it? Our society imposes laws to protect the innocent from people who are acting immorally, and Irish law agree's with me for now, long may it continue.

Zombrex · 13-05-2013 11:51AM

Aiel wrote: »

18-21 days after conception:before many women will even realise they are pregnent,the baby's heart is beating.

At 8 weeks:every organ to be found in a fully grown adult person is already formed.

At 11 weeks:fingerprints and fingernails can be clearly seen.

At 12 weeks:the baby's lips open and close.The baby can turn his/her head and move around the womb.

At 16 weeks:the baby reacts to sound,sucks,swallow's and yawn's.

At 18 weeks:most mothers feel the baby moving.The baby exercises his/her developing muscles by pushing with his feet and head.The baby now sucks his/her thumb.

At 24 weeks:the baby continues moving,hearing.

At 30-40 weeks:the baby,if protected from harm,will continue to grow bigger and stronger until it is time to be born.

Those facts apply to every mammal species.

Seriously, do any of you actually know why we consider humans special? It isn't because they have finger nails :rolleyes:

lazygal · 13-05-2013 12:13PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Those facts apply to every mammal species.

Seriously, do any of you actually know why we consider humans special? It isn't because they have finger nails :rolleyes:

But my fingernails are awesome!

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 12:20PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Those facts apply to every mammal species.

Seriously, do any of you actually know why we consider humans special? It isn't because they have finger nails :rolleyes:

Do you consider humans to be special? Every one of those special people used to be a foetus.

lazygal · 13-05-2013 12:28PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Do you consider humans to be special? Every one of those special people used to be a foetus.

I know a lot of very unspecial people who used to be foetuses too. If everyone's special, no one's special.

Zombrex · 13-05-2013 01:09PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

Do you consider humans to be special? Every one of those special people used to be a foetus.

And every pig, cow, deer, elephant, whale, mouse used to be a foetus too. Being a foetus means nothing in terms of the value of life or rights. Neither does having a heart beat, fingernails, sucking your thumb, eye lids etc, properties that are found throughout the animal kingdom.

HurtLocker · 13-05-2013 01:11PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

So if I had newborn and chose to smother it in the hospital, I should be left alone because it was my decision, nobody elses?
And my problem isn't necessarily with the women, my problem is with the institutions that are in place to carry out abortions. Doctors who make a living from killing babies, a woman can have a pretty limited amount of abortions, but these institution are committing genocide in my opinion.

This is the whole point of law and society. If I decide that it's morally okay to steal and murder does that mean I should be allowed to do it? Our society imposes laws to protect the innocent from people who are acting immorally, and Irish law agree's with me for now, long may it continue.

Ffs when did I say that or even insinuate that unless one considers the morning after pill in the same league as smothering an infant. I want to debate your points. But you couldn't dignify fully responding to all my points I don't see why I should respond to yours. It would only lead to you having an unfair advantage. I would like you to respond to my other points please

Fanny Cradock · 13-05-2013 01:18PM

Zombrex wrote: »

Seriously, do any of you actually know why we consider humans special? It isn't because they have finger nails

You should be asking us, not posing rhetorical questions. There isn't necessarily one answer. For example, a theist might say that it's because we are made in the image of God. Others might attempt to justify the unique place that humans occupy on purely secular reasons.

Why don't you tell us why humans are special.

lazygal wrote: »

I know a lot of very unspecial people who used to be foetuses too. If everyone's special, no one's special.

Actually, the claim being made was that humans as a whole are special in comparison to other lifeforms.

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 01:33PM

HurtLocker wrote: »

What about their mental health. Once they've had the abortion do you prolifers get the right to guilt trip them?

Yes, my right to an opinion doesn't stop because somebody had an abortion. In fact the more abortions woman have, the more people need to speak up. If a woman doesn't want to hear pro life arguments I highly recommend not reading abortion debate forums.

If she brought this pregnancy to term the pro life side would stop caring about her baby, the mother would not be a psychopath? What if the mother still is a psychopath who's pro choice? Should the state intervene as clearly said she has no moral problems ending to life of her own child clearly the state should take away this child?

I don't even understand this bit, so I didn't respond

Sweet only 9 months of inconvenience ! Then who steps in? And the mother doesn't have to waste 18 years raising this unwanted child who can easily have been terminated as a foetus by a trip to the UK and hopefully some day here in Ireland.

Either do the responsible thing and care for the child, or give it to somebody who will.

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 01:38PM

HurtLocker wrote: »

Ffs when did I say that or even insinuate that unless one considers the morning after pill in the same league as smothering an infant. I want to debate your points. But you couldn't dignify fully responding to all my points I don't see why I should respond to yours. It would only lead to you having an unfair advantage. I would like you to respond to my other points please

I don't consider the morning after pill abortion, and I've already said I would accept medical abortions up to a few weeks as a necessary evil. But abortions are being performed on babies who could survive if they were c-sectioned instead of aborted. To me that is no different that killing a newborn, and you said abortion is woman's choice,and hers alone, so I used the killing a newborn analogy.

lazygal · 13-05-2013 02:11PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

I don't consider the morning after pill abortion, and I've already said I would accept medical abortions up to a few weeks as a necessary evil. But abortions are being performed on babies who could survive if they were c-sectioned instead of aborted. To me that is no different that killing a newborn, and you said abortion is woman's choice,and hers alone, so I used the killing a newborn analogy.

Have you ever had a c-section? You're happy to force women to undergo not just pregnancy but invasive abdominal surgery that not only has short term 'inconveniences' but can also affect future pregnancies, limit the number of children she can have in the future and have longer term side effects like numbness and infection?

How can you throw 'c-section' around to back up your 'birth at any cost' arguments? Would you like to be forced to undergo surgery against your wishes?

Serious emphay void from the pro birthers on this thread.

lazygal · 13-05-2013 02:12PM

Fanny Cradock wrote: »

Actually, the claim being made was that humans as a whole are special in comparison to other lifeforms.

Why are we special?

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 02:34PM

lazygal wrote: »

Have you ever had a c-section? You're happy to force women to undergo not just pregnancy but invasive abdominal surgery that not only has short term 'inconveniences' but can also affect future pregnancies, limit the number of children she can have in the future and have longer term side effects like numbness and infection?

How can you throw 'c-section' around to back up your 'birth at any cost' arguments? Would you like to be forced to undergo surgery against your wishes?

Serious emphay void from the pro birthers on this thread.

You think abortion is better than c-section because a c-section may stop the woman from getting pregnant again? So kill the first baby?, so she can get pregnant again, and maybe or maybe not kill the second too? depending on how convenient it is.
And I lack empathy because I think it's better that somebody undergo a quick surgery, than kill a baby?

You're arguments are so selfish it's beyond belief. You seem to have no comprehension of the value of human life at all, this is what I mean by psychopathic arguments. You would not be willing to bear the slightest inconvenience to save a human life. Where as other people undergo medical procedures all the time, to donate marrow etc to complete strangers, you would rather your own child died, than to have a c-section.

That being said I never saida women should have c-sections, I said if had one rather than abort the baby could survive.

lazygal · 13-05-2013 05:13PM

Nino Brown wrote: »

You think abortion is better than c-section because a c-section may stop the woman from getting pregnant again? So kill the first baby?, so she can get pregnant again, and maybe or maybe not kill the second too? depending on how convenient it is.
And I lack empathy because I think it's better that somebody undergo a quick surgery, than kill a baby?

You're arguments are so selfish it's beyond belief. You seem to have no comprehension of the value of human life at all, this is what I mean by psychopathic arguments. You would not be willing to bear the slightest inconvenience to save a human life. Where as other people undergo medical procedures all the time, to donate marrow etc to complete strangers, you would rather your own child died, than to have a c-section.

That being said I never saida women should have c-sections, I said if had one rather than abort the baby could survive.

I'm pregnant with my second, and I delivered by c section the last time because it was medically necessary. Is that selfish?
I'm pro choice because, unlike you, I know just how tough pregnancy and its aftermath can be. I've undergone the 'slightest inconvenience' to which you keep referring. Have you?

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 07:02PM

lazygal wrote: »

I'm pregnant with my second, and I delivered by c section the last time because it was medically necessary. Is that selfish?
I'm pro choice because, unlike you, I know just how tough pregnancy and its aftermath can be. I've undergone the 'slightest inconvenience' to which you keep referring. Have you?

No, and I never will. And I'm not trying to minimilize pregnancy at all, it really doesn't look like much fun. But if you're first pregnancy was so bad that it may warrant killing the baby why would you go through it again, you stuck it out the first time, you had your child, and because you percevered there is now another life on this planet and it obviously wasn't such a tortuous experience that you couldn't possibly do it again.
If somebody doesn't want to be pregnant so badly that they think abortion is the answer, why not be more careful to avoid it in the first place. If it's so bad that it's worth ending a life, then don't start that life in the first place. There's contraception, which is almost always effective, if you notice that fails there's the morning after pill, a monthly pregnancy test would catch it early enough to medically abort (which I would support). The ability to create life comes with responsibility. If people don't want to be pregnant there's plenty of ways to achieve that. If they still end up being pregnant its through negligence, and is not the baby's fault, they have a responsibility to the life they created to see it out.
And Ireland needs to be more like the US when it comes to support from men. Over there of you don't pay child support they will lock you up, and put your name on public dead beat dad website. We also need a better faster adoption system for couples who don't want to keep the child.

Gumbi · 13-05-2013 07:06PM

Don't be sure of the state of things in the States. Personally that "dead beat dad" thing, though I haven't heard of it before, sounds like a poor idea.

I heard of this thing in the States where a newspaper outs recently arrested for various things under the veil of "asshole caught doing x" etc etc. naming and shaming before convictions, indeed, naming and shaming innocents in some cases.

Nino Brown · 13-05-2013 07:16PM

Gumbi wrote: »

Don't be sure of the state of things in the States. Personally that "dead beat dad" thing, though I haven't heard of it before, sounds like a poor idea.

I heard of this thing in the States where a newspaper outs recently arrested for various things under the veil of "asshole caught doing x" etc etc. naming and shaming before convictions, indeed, naming and shaming innocents in some cases.

Yeah, but non payment of child support is pretty clear cut, you either paid or you didn't

http://www.mcso.org/DeadBeat/

Abortion debate thread

Comments