Its the anniversary of Roe V Wade

[Calexxia]

IF you believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a human, then I understand your position, lerx. Not everyone believes that.

However, for those that do, please be aware that many forms of birth control can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, thus being (by that definition) abortifacients.

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/brthcntl.htm

[lerxstcat]

IF you believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a human, then I understand your position, lerx. Not everyone believes that.

However, for those that do, please be aware that many forms of birth control can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, thus being (by that definition) abortifacients.

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/brthcntl.htm

But this isn't a matter for "belief" like a religion. It's empirical FACT that that human zygote is human life.

Next fallback position is "viability"; how far can we take THAT? "This guy's been homeless on the street for 20 years. HIS life isn't viable. Give him an 80th trimester abortion".

It's homicide by definition. again, if you want to have it legal, at least be honest with yourself and call it what it is.

[thejuggernaut]

It should be private and non criminalized.

The minute you make it "legal" it is just that - it becomes something that is legislated.

The ONLY thing that does is grease the skids to give the "powers that be" to have a say in it.

For those who oppose the notion of the "right wing evangelicals" trying to keep it from coming to the table as a discussion, ask yourselves an honest question:

Would you rather it be kept underground where nobody has to know about it, or would you rather laws that oversee it ?

Somebody will no doubt think about posting the classic "but....but.....but....if it's underground it's more dangerous because there is no supervision and no controls in place".

That's a thin argument.

It doesn't change the fact that you'd be giving government access to your decision. And if they have access to your decision, they are one step away from influencing your decision. And, if they are one step away from influencing your decision, they are one step away from making the decision for you.

If you don't want government saying you can't have one, do you want government telling you when you have to have one ?

Some folks will most likely pass that off as "oh, that's a bunch of slippery slope nonsense".

In a culture that is essentially dominated by greasy lawyers squeezing things through via "precedents" and in a culture where people believe "climate change" is man made and food shortages are a real possibly, with overpopulation often being used as one of the reasons for both, do you really want to give government authority over abortions ?

The current pack may pay lip service to being in favor of it now, but you are talking about a political climate where the politicians feel the people are not capable of taking care of themselves, so how long will it be before an administration, facing "a world wide crisis like never before" decides they need to control the population ?

[Calexxia]

IF you believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a human, then I understand your position, lerx. Not everyone believes that.

However, for those that do, please be aware that many forms of birth control can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, thus being (by that definition) abortifacients.

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/brthcntl.htm

But this isn't a matter for "belief" like a religion. It's empirical FACT that that human zygote is human life.

Next fallback position is "viability"; how far can we take THAT? "This guy's been homeless on the street for 20 years. HIS life isn't viable. Give him an 80th trimester abortion".

It's homicide by definition. again, if you want to have it legal, at least be honest with yourself and call it what it is.

Batter isn't cake.

[chickenona]

This just illustrates the point I was trying to make. No matter what the decision is in any individual case, it's not made lightly and more than one person has a say in it. It's not just a matter of some "selfish woman" coldly terminating an "innocent life". And because so many gray areas do exist, legal access to abortion is the only practical compromise that can be reached here.

As for the teenage couple I cited earlier - whom I NEVER stated were relatives - ultimately the heartbreaking decision that they ended up making turned out to be the best solution for them. They were a conscientious couple who were using birth control that happened to fail. Both of them have gotten their lives back on track, and they're still together. I can't paint a picture of some horrible nightmare scenario of brutality and badgering and endless despair just because it fit's Vinnie Kulick's rather melodramatic take on this subject matter. It's a sad thing, but an abortion - a "do-over" as it were - turned out to be a necessary evil in these kids' lives.

I hope I didn't say anything hurtful to you, Chicke. I got PMed about it and I have the utmost respect for you - I think you know that, but it bears repeating. That goes for most here, whether I disagree with you on a topic or not. Nor do I expect to convert anyone's long-held beliefs - I am just expressing my own in turn.

My personal view is that abortion is abhorrent and almost never NECESSARY. It's a matter of degrees of inconvenience, because anyone can give up a baby for adoption anywhere in this country AFAIK. So it's 9 months' inconvenience per occurrence. Not a life-breaker. Kids flunk and spend an extra year in highschool all the time. It doesn't destroy their lives.

But I think the pro-life aproach is to minimize what's being done to a "procedure" rather than an ending of a life. Grade-school biology class taught us that when human sperm fertilizes a human egg, that zygote is a human life. Scientifically, by definition, life DOES begin at conception. It's not anyone's opinion, it's empirical fact.

Now if society is going to decide that this form of pre-euthanasia is acceptable, for whatever reason - in China it's population control, and is forced - then at least call it what it is, don't sugarcoat it or use euphemisms to minimize it.

Because those euphemisms lull young mothers into thinking that it's all right, in particular the grownups are saying it's okay, no big thing, and that convinces them to take the easy way out. But then, they have to thnk about it for the rest of their lives - no post-abortion counselors to deal with that, at least not free like the pre-sale.

I just find it intellectualy dishonest to deny the fact that a life is being taken when an abortion is performed. The zygote thing proves it and any 7-year-old understands that.

It's her body? Like I said, if I used my body to rob that bank, or kill that fucker that pissed me off, would anybody buy that justification? Hey, it's MY body, I can do what I want with it. Right? Yeah, right....

See how ridiculous it sounds when you put it that way? If I can kill an unborn baby because it's inconvenient to me, why can't I kill the bank guard who's inconveniently keeping me from getting the money I want?

Exactly, BOTH defenses are ridiculous. But again, if society is going to make it legal, call it what it is. Homicide. Society recognizes the idea of justifiable homicide, in effect legal abortion is another category of justifiable homicide. Think of it as self-defense against the inconvenience.

Because that is exactly what it is.

I haven't really taken offense at much of anything you've posted, l-cat. I understand that this is an emotionally charged subject - that's the point I was trying to make right from the start. I primarily took issue with someone who deconstructed the first post I made here and read some gross overstatements into a series of hypothetical questions I posed. I took that somewhat personally because it appeared to be personal.

This is a very complex, difficult issue to come to grips with, and people who WISH it was black and white have very little regard for the pain it causes people who actually have to live with it. They'd rather hang onto their misinformed, self-righteous, cut-and-dried views than give any serious thought to the many factors that lead to a decision to terminate a pregnancy.

And I'm sorry, but there are some men here who appear to be fully emotionally invested in the idea that no matter what the circumstances, abortions only occur because women are selfish and cruel. That is a simplistic, barbaric view that does no service to the pro-life position in this debate.

[lerxstcat]

IF you believe that a fertilized egg is the same as a human, then I understand your position, lerx. Not everyone believes that.

However, for those that do, please be aware that many forms of birth control can cause a fertilized egg not to implant, thus being (by that definition) abortifacients.

http://home.att.net/~nathan.wilson/brthcntl.htm

But this isn't a matter for "belief" like a religion. It's empirical FACT that that human zygote is human life.

Next fallback position is "viability"; how far can we take THAT? "This guy's been homeless on the street for 20 years. HIS life isn't viable. Give him an 80th trimester abortion".

It's homicide by definition. again, if you want to have it legal, at least be honest with yourself and call it what it is.

Batter isn't cake.

And human life is neither batter nor cake. I know you're not as stupid as your flip remark makes you seem, but to make such a comment doesn't do the pro-choice position any favors. It just makes you seem callous.

[chickenona]

The minute you make it "legal" it is just that - it becomes something that is legislated.

The ONLY thing that does is grease the skids to give the "powers that be" to have a say in it.

I'm not saying your post here isn't reasonable and thought-provoking, but right out of the gate it's based on a faulty premise. The bedrock constitutional interpretation that led to the "Roe v Wade" decision was the implicit right to privacy. Meaning, Roe v Wade became law BECAUSE the SCOTUS didn't think the government had a say in the abortion issue.

[Calexxia]

But when I make the full analogy, it IS appropriate.

You believe that when the egg is fertilized, it becomes human, right? But when you combine the ingredients for cake, they don't become cake until it's baked--it's still batter until a certain point.

Yes, this opens up the sticky topic of viability. And I admit, freely, that once the fetus develops those characteristics such as a complete central nervous system, I doubt I would be able to be comfortable with choosing to abort.

My point, all along, has been that there are arguments for both sides. For those of us who do not believe that life begins at conception, there should not be a legal requirement for a pregnancy to be taken to full-term. For those who believes that life begins at conception, there should be no requirement to abort, nor to choose a birth control method that prevents implantation.

I'm sorry that you feel my stance is "stupid" or "callous". And, while I have tried, very hard, not to bring religion into it, the way reproductive systems develop is part of why I feel that there is no "intelligent design." If there were, then this question would be moot, as there would be no such thing as a crisis pregnancy.

When I was in ministry, there were girls that I counseled who chose abortion. There were also girls who chose NOT to have abortions. I respected both perspectives.

[thejuggernaut]

The minute you make it "legal" it is just that - it becomes something that is legislated.

The ONLY thing that does is grease the skids to give the "powers that be" to have a say in it.

I'm not saying your post here isn't reasonable and thought-provoking, but right out of the gate it's based on a faulty premise. The bedrock constitutional interpretation that led to the "Roe v Wade" decision was the implicit right to privacy. Meaning, Roe v Wade became law BECAUSE the SCOTUS didn't think the government had a say in the abortion issue.

I am referring to government approved/funded abortions.

[chickenona]

Ideally, the government shouldn't fund abortions. I do think they should fund birth control, though.

[bane]

Ideally, the government shouldn't fund abortions. I do think they should fund birth control, though.

Agreed. I also think a little government control isn't necessarily a bad idea. Late term abortion comes to mind.

[lerxstcat]

But when I make the full analogy, it IS appropriate.

You believe that when the egg is fertilized, it becomes human, right? But when you combine the ingredients for cake, they don't become cake until it's baked--it's still batter until a certain point.

Yes, this opens up the sticky topic of viability. And I admit, freely, that once the fetus develops those characteristics such as a complete central nervous system, I doubt I would be able to be comfortable with choosing to abort.

My point, all along, has been that there are arguments for both sides. For those of us who do not believe that life begins at conception, there should not be a legal requirement for a pregnancy to be taken to full-term. For those who believes that life begins at conception, there should be no requirement to abort, nor to choose a birth control method that prevents implantation.

I'm sorry that you feel my stance is "stupid" or "callous". And, while I have tried, very hard, not to bring religion into it, the way reproductive systems develop is part of why I feel that there is no "intelligent design." If there were, then this question would be moot, as there would be no such thing as a crisis pregnancy.

When I was in ministry, there were girls that I counseled who chose abortion. There were also girls who chose NOT to have abortions. I respected both perspectives.

You completely devalue life when you compare it to bater or a cake, which is a callous way to portray it. Religion has nothing to do with my argument, it is pure scientific fact that that zygote is life, homo sapien life, therefore human life. You can't semantic your way out of it, nor does it matter what you "believe", because it is empirical fact.

Trying to portray it otherwise is you trying to make up your own quasi-religion on the fly, in defiance of scientific fact.

The batter-cake analogy is an example of the very callousness that in turn inflames pro-lifers and makes them feel that pro-choicers are indifferent or cold-blooded about terminating pregnancies and ending lives thereby. It is a textbook example of what I was saying about minimizing the importance of the act of taking a life. "Oh it's just batter, not cake".

Don't think you are doing the pro-choice position any favors with that one. It's insensitive and not even clever.

[Calexxia]

Ok, so you believe that at the point that an egg is fertilized, it becomes human. I accept that this is your belief and am in no way disparaging that.

So, by this token, what should be done with eggs that are fertilized in the laboratory and not implanted into a womb? Is discarding those murder? Is using an IUD (which prevents implantation) a form of homicide? How about the Pill?

If you genuinely feel that these are also murder, I respect your stance, even though I do not agree.

[lerxstcat]

Ok, so you believe that at the point that an egg is fertilized, it becomes human. I accept that this is your belief and am in no way disparaging that.

So, by this token, what should be done with eggs that are fertilized in the laboratory and not implanted into a womb? Is discarding those murder? Is using an IUD (which prevents implantation) a form of homicide? How about the Pill?

If you genuinely feel that these are also murder, I respect your stance, even though I do not agree.

I didn't use the term murder, deliberately so, in order to NOT be inflammatory. That is one reason why the "batter-cake" analogy DOEs seem inflammatory to me. It is an example of the deliberate minimizing of what is happening that is so distasteful.

As I said, society has decided that there are different degrees of homicide, and that some are justified - like self-defense, for example. It seems to me that abortion is a homicide that society has decide is justified, in self-defense against a lower quality of life for the parent, rather than just a defense of your life in total.

So again, if society is going to decide this is okay, then at least have the courage to call it what it is, and admit that it's what you're doing, instead of doing semantic flipflops to avoid the reality that it is the destruction of a human life.

[Calexxia]

Ok, so you believe that at the point that an egg is fertilized, it becomes human. I accept that this is your belief and am in no way disparaging that.

So, by this token, what should be done with eggs that are fertilized in the laboratory and not implanted into a womb? Is discarding those murder? Is using an IUD (which prevents implantation) a form of homicide? How about the Pill?

If you genuinely feel that these are also murder, I respect your stance, even though I do not agree.

I didn't use the term murder, deliberately so, in order to NOT be inflammatory. That is one reason why the "batter-cake" analogy DOEs seem inflammatory to me. It is an example of the deliberate minimizing of what is happening that is so distasteful.

As I said, society has decided that there are different degrees of homicide, and that some are justified - like self-defense, for example. It seems to me that abortion is a homicide that society has decide is justified, in self-defense against a lower quality of life for the parent, rather than just a defense of your life in total.

So again, if society is going to decide this is okay, then at least have the courage to call it what it is, and admit that it's what you're doing, instead of doing semantic flipflops to avoid the reality that it is the destruction of a human life.

My apologies--you did use the phrase "homicide", not "murder". And I should have realized that. Thank you for YOUR sensitivity and attempt not to be inflammatory, there. Seriously.

Also, I realize that you feel the batter analogy is inflammatory, so I won't utilize that any further, since I am trying to have a genuine discussion here. I don't expect that you will agree with me, nor I with you--but the debate does open up channels of thought that might not have otherwise been considered.

So, olive branch extended, and I am genuinely curious as to your stance on the disposal of lab-fertilized eggs and on the status of anti-implantation contraception.

[JakeYonkel]

Lexx, I gotta say, you are probably the most courteous and diplomatic debater I've seen on here.

Polk County schools taught ya well.

[lerxstcat]

Ok, so you believe that at the point that an egg is fertilized, it becomes human. I accept that this is your belief and am in no way disparaging that.

So, by this token, what should be done with eggs that are fertilized in the laboratory and not implanted into a womb? Is discarding those murder? Is using an IUD (which prevents implantation) a form of homicide? How about the Pill?

If you genuinely feel that these are also murder, I respect your stance, even though I do not agree.

I didn't use the term murder, deliberately so, in order to NOT be inflammatory. That is one reason why the "batter-cake" analogy DOEs seem inflammatory to me. It is an example of the deliberate minimizing of what is happening that is so distasteful.

As I said, society has decided that there are different degrees of homicide, and that some are justified - like self-defense, for example. It seems to me that abortion is a homicide that society has decide is justified, in self-defense against a lower quality of life for the parent, rather than just a defense of your life in total.

So again, if society is going to decide this is okay, then at least have the courage to call it what it is, and admit that it's what you're doing, instead of doing semantic flipflops to avoid the reality that it is the destruction of a human life.

My apologies--you did use the phrase "homicide", not "murder". And I should have realized that. Thank you for YOUR sensitivity and attempt not to be inflammatory, there. Seriously.

Also, I realize that you feel the batter analogy is inflammatory, so I won't utilize that any further, since I am trying to have a genuine discussion here. I don't expect that you will agree with me, nor I with you--but the debate does open up channels of thought that might not have otherwise been considered.

So, olive branch extended, and I am genuinely curious as to your stance on the disposal of lab-fertilized eggs and on the status of anti-implantation contraception.

Olive branch accepted, Lexxie. As for disposal of lab-fertilized eggs or contraceptives that stop implantation, well if they kill the living embryo, then that too is the taking of human life. But that is really a separate issue than the issue of individual abortions in individual people, because in the case of abortions the embryos HAVE implanted and, even by the arguments of pro-choice people, would be more worthy of saving by virtue of being more developed than a fertilized egg in a lab or one stopped by RU-486 or such.

My personal view is one thing, but I acknowledge that society has decided that this is a legal thing to do. Just quit hiding behind semantics in an effort to lesson the guilt, and admit that it IS the taking of one human life, for the CONVENIENCE, in most cases, of another. Seniority rules, because one is older and can verbalize her wishes. But both are individual human lives.

Denying the status of human life to embryos is one step. Why not then deny the status of human life to dementia patients who are no longer lucid? To coma patients? They aren't viable on their own either, after all. But could you look at your senile parent or grandparent and say they aren't human anymore, just because they can't talk, or don't know you?

My brother-in-law died of complications of vascular dementia in December 2005. He had been a brilliant and outstanding human being before he was afflicted. The last couple months he no longer had any flashes of lucidity. But he would still turn towards my voice, make eye contact, and smile when I talked to him. He didn't know who I was, maybe didn't know who HE was, but he responded and seemed to get joy from it nonetheless, even if he couldn't verbalize.

When we start on the path opf de-humanization, where will it end? We should keepo ourselves painfully aware of what we do, not try and sugarcoat it to make it easy to swallow. Abortion SHOULD be a bitter pill.

[VinnieKulick]

But when I make the full analogy, it IS appropriate.

You believe that when the egg is fertilized, it becomes human, right? But when you combine the ingredients for cake, they don't become cake until it's baked--it's still batter until a certain point.

Just curious, when people get arrested for having all the necessary ingredients to make meth, none of which are illegal on their own, do you still think the analogy of "it's not done baking/growing, etc" applies?

[Calexxia]

Olive branch accepted, Lexxie. As for disposal of lab-fertilized eggs or contraceptives that stop implantation, well if they kill the living embryo, then that too is the taking of human life. But that is really a separate issue than the issue of individual abortions in individual people, because in the case of abortions the embryos HAVE implanted and, even by the arguments of pro-choice people, would be more worthy of saving by virtue of being more developed than a fertilized egg in a lab or one stopped by RU-486 or such.

My personal view is one thing, but I acknowledge that society has decided that this is a legal thing to do. Just quit hiding behind semantics in an effort to lesson the guilt, and admit that it IS the taking of one human life, for the CONVENIENCE, in most cases, of another. Seniority rules, because one is older and can verbalize her wishes. But both are individual human lives.

Denying the status of human life to embryos is one step. Why not then deny the status of human life to dementia patients who are no longer lucid? To coma patients? They aren't viable on their own either, after all. But could you look at your senile parent or grandparent and say they aren't human anymore, just because they can't talk, or don't know you?

My brother-in-law died of complications of vascular dementia in December 2005. He had been a brilliant and outstanding human being before he was afflicted. The last couple months he no longer had any flashes of lucidity. But he would still turn towards my voice, make eye contact, and smile when I talked to him. He didn't know who I was, maybe didn't know who HE was, but he responded and seemed to get joy from it nonetheless, even if he couldn't verbalize.

When we start on the path opf de-humanization, where will it end? We should keepo ourselves painfully aware of what we do, not try and sugarcoat it to make it easy to swallow. Abortion SHOULD be a bitter pill.

See, THIS is what I'm talking about--you and I disagree on when life begins, which is fair. You feel abortion is wrong on all counts, and I feel it is a matter of personal choice, because of our disagreeing on when life actually begins. You said I'm making it about "seniority", which is one way of viewing it, but I tend to see it as "a life extant", rather than a "potential" life. Of all the women I've known who chose to have an abortion, none of them did it for "convenience", and none of them entered into the choice lightly. Some of them later regretted their choice, some of them didn't. That's why I am leery of government rulings on the matter, and (as my avatar has said for a while now) consider myself both pro-child AND pro-choice.

Your dehumanization argument is a much more interesting one than the "when life begins" one. There are no easy answers, and I do agree that sugarcoating a very major decision makes it a lot less important than it is, or should be. This is why I have a REAL issue with people who get an abortion and then call it a "miscarriage". Would I be correct in presuming that you are also opposed to the death penalty and to the establishment of a military force?

[Calexxia]

But when I make the full analogy, it IS appropriate.

You believe that when the egg is fertilized, it becomes human, right? But when you combine the ingredients for cake, they don't become cake until it's baked--it's still batter until a certain point.

Just curious, when people get arrested for having all the necessary ingredients to make meth, none of which are illegal on their own, do you still think the analogy of "it's not done baking/growing, etc" applies?

Yeah, actually.

[lerxstcat]

No, Lexxie, because as I said, there are different degrees of homiciide, some justifiable. I believe that in SOME cases of murder, not all, that the death penalty is justified. Likewise, since human nature and the aggressions of nations are established fact on this planet, the establishment of a military force to protect one's nation from the aggressions of another.

As I said, to kill in self-defense, though homicide, is not murder, and is justified. You have the right to protect yourself from having your own life taken.

In that regard, if a woman's actual life was thratened by a pregnancy, then in that case, if it's LITERALLY her or the baby, she should have the right to choose herself.

But if it's a matter of lesser importance - the QUALITY of life being less - I don't think that is valid. Again, kids flunk a grade in school and it costs THEM, coincidentally, another 9 months of school in the same grade. Bummer, but not the end of life.

And again I will also say that, despite my personal belief, I accept that society has made this right available - but I think it is a deadly mistake to devalue that human life, simply because it is going to cause an inconvenience in the form of a possible lessening in the quality of life.

So to keep ourselves honest, we should at least call it what it is. To me, those who protest that so much - I wonder, why? Couold it be that really, they DO know how wrong it is, and this sugarcoating is their defense mechanism?

In a society where lawyers try to get murderers off because Mommy spanked them too much, or didn't pay them enough attention, I'm afraid that's exactly what it is - a way to defer personal responsibility. Because who wants to admit they killed their own child to make their own life easier? And that is exactly the reason for many abortions, if not most. Not because of threats to the mom's health, but because she won't be able to go onto college as easily, because it disrupts life plans.

Call it what it is - killing for convenience. Why is that too much to ask?

[VinnieKulick]

But when I make the full analogy, it IS appropriate.

You believe that when the egg is fertilized, it becomes human, right? But when you combine the ingredients for cake, they don't become cake until it's baked--it's still batter until a certain point.

Just curious, when people get arrested for having all the necessary ingredients to make meth, none of which are illegal on their own, do you still think the analogy of "it's not done baking/growing, etc" applies?

Yeah, actually.

So, if you saw your neighbor unloading all the supplies to make meth, you'd be cool with it, since it's not meth yet?

[Calexxia]

Call it what it is - killing for convenience. Why is that too much to ask?

Mainly because I don't think it's killing (again, we agreed to disagree on this one) and because I don't think the decision is USUALLY made out of "convenience."

The funniest thing in this whole debate is that I am actually anti-abortion. I took steps to ensure I never have to make that choice myself; I just happen to think that it is unfair for my beliefs to be made judicial mandate.

[Calexxia]

So, if you saw your neighbor unloading all the supplies to make meth, you'd be cool with it, since it's not meth yet?

Probably NOT the question to ask someone whose granddaddy was a bootlegger! LOL

And, correct, possession of the supplies to make meth is not illegal. Therefore, I can't say that they should be arrested UNTIL the meth was made.

[VinnieKulick]

Well here in Missouri, it is illegal to have more than a certain amount of psuedofed. Even with a legit reason.

[DizzysRQ]

Earlier Chicke made a statement about women who had a hereditary mental illness and the ramifications of that being passed on to the child and Lerx pointed out that this becomes a "if" the child inherits this mental illness and it still should be brought to term..

and there was a statement made that a women should have to carry the child for the 9 months if the father wanted it, because afterall it is a minor inconvenience to the women when compared with life for the child and allowing the father to have a relationship with his child.

So here is what I am asking taking these two scenarios:

Is it fair to the woman who has a mental illness (bipolar disorder) to have to go off her meds for that 9 months and be institutionalized just so the father has his "rights" to said embryo being carried to term?
maybe Im wrong, but I dont think a situation like this is a "minor" inconvenience!

I think it is an individuals decision, not a groups decision.
With that said since it is my decision what to do with my body, it is also my decision whether to tell you Im pregnant and what my choice is going to be with the said pregnancy...that way nobodies "rights" but my own come into the equation.

sidenote to Calexxia- Im not a wuss, Pro-Choice is mine!

[Calexxia]

Fair enough if a state has declared the possession of pseudoephidrine in a large amount to be illegal--at that point, the illegality has happened, even if it is not being made INTO meth. However, that would be a different charge, right?

[PoisondOne]

He brings up an interesting point though; maybe the government shouldn't have a right in the choice, but the father really should. Unless it endangers the woman, the father should have the right to have the baby brought to term, then take it and raise it himself if she doesn't want it.

It's her body, but both their DNA. Granted in many cases the father will be relieved, but if a mother can decide to keep the child, and invoke 21 years of child support on the father, then why does the father get no say in whether HIS child lives?

I think when you make the considered decision to fuck somebody, you accept this risk, and both parents should have a say in whether the child is terminated or not.

As soon as medicine supports transplanting the embryo from the mother's womb into the father's body for gestation, I agree the father should have the right to say "no abortion", since he will then have the ability to carry the child himself, and the surgery to remove the embryo would likely be no more invasive than the abortion the mother wants.

But I also agree that if a woman chooses to have a child against the expressed wishes of the male that the pregnancy be terminated, then it doesn't seem fair that he is on the hook for child support, particularly if he offers to subsidize the abortion. Of course, the problem comes when it devolves into "he said/she said", and I can't think of any easy answer for that.

It shouldn't matter whether a male can carry the child or not. Again, it's 9 months out of a woman's life to carry the child, versus a lifetime lost for the child and for the father. I don't think it's that much to ask to suck it up for 9 months, frankly. Your right to use your body as you see fit dos have limits.

For example, if I rob a bank, then when I'm caught I can't use the right to do with my body as I wish - as in, leave the courtroom and walk free - as a defense.

It's a bit of a ludicrous example, but the fact is, your action resulted in creating a life. If the father wants that child, you should have to take at least enough responsibility to serve a 9-month "sentence" so the child and its father can enjoy that 70+ year average lifespan.

Requiring her to spend 9 months gestating the child is way different than the idea of requiring her to change her entire life by having AND RAISING a child. The negative effects of 9 months versus a lifetime are minimal.

Plus if this was a possible result, more women might be conscientious about taking their BC pills or whatever other BC method they use, than using abortion as their method of birth control. Preventing is different than killing, and whether you like it or not, abortion is the termination of a being's life. It's not a tumor, it's another individual, whether it can yet live outside of its mother or not.

If you're going to do it, call it what it is - homicide. The law does recognize cases of justifiable homicide, such as self-defense. Our society has created this specific catgegory of justifiable homicide, but calls it something else, to ease the consciences of the killers.

So, back to the original point - seeing that society HAS legalized this kind of homicide, if both parents want to do it, so be it. But if one parent wants it - whether the mother OR the father - the other parent should have to accomodate that desire.

If a father can be forced to pay child support for 18 years, against his wish to have a child, then a woman can "pay" for 9 months with the use of her body to finish what she started so the father can raise HIS child. Seems a way to make that whole dynamic more equitable. In fact, to REALLY make it equal, she'd have to give up the baby to the dad AND pay him child support. THAT would make the two situations fully equal, but let's say that 9 months of inconvenience will offset 18 years of monthly payments and call it good. Seems fair.

What if that father decides once the child is born that he no longer wants any involvement? What happens if the mother decides to keep the child and does not want to give custody to the father after birth?

This happens with adoptions in this country every day...one or both parties have a change of heart.

Carrying a child to term not only takes a physical toll on the body, but it also brings a mental/emotional attachment to the life growing inside of you. I would find it extremely hard to part with a child I carried to term and I'm sure it is not an easy decision to make...either way.

I am pro-child/pro-choice. I believe it is a private issue that should be dealt with privately without the influence of law involved.

On another note that Calexxia touched on earlier...
Why do I need my husband's permission to have an ablasion or hysterectomy, but my husband can go anywhere and have a vasectomy performed without my permission? Both of them are preventing the same situation from happening, yet I can't make that decision without someone else being involved? **Sorry for interrupting a great discussion, but I honestly want to opinions on this**

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Is it fair to the woman who has a mental illness (bipolar disorder) to have to go off her meds for that 9 months and be institutionalized just so the father has his "rights" to said embryo being carried to term?
maybe Im wrong, but I dont think a situation like this is a "minor" inconvenience!

Whether it is a major or minor inconvenience is irrelevant. Convenience has no bearing here. Once you understand the gravity of the act of abortion, then you begin to understand why using convenience as an excuse is ludicrous. You can't terminate a human life based on makes you feel happier or what is easier. It would be more convenient for me to terminate my terminally ill grandfather so that I wouldn't have to foot anymore bills. It would be more convenient for us to terminate habitually violent criminals so we don't have to pay an average of $50,000 a year average per inmate to support them. It is more convenient for a woman who wants to get a law degree to destroy her child so she doesn't have to worry about taking care of him or her.

But the metaphysical argument is that we don't terminate these individuals because their lives are worth more than what is convenient for others.

I think it is an individuals decision, not a groups decision.
With that said since it is my decision what to do with my body, it is also my decision whether to tell you Im pregnant and what my choice is going to be with the said pregnancy...that way nobodies "rights" but my own come into the equation.

What you don't seem to understand is that there is no decision, period. Not the government's, or mine or yours. Committing a crime against a human being is not a matter of choice. Once you are pregnant, as stated many times before, it isn't just your body anymore, you share it with the flesh and blood of your son or daughter. It is impossible to reduce your offspring to an extension of your body like going to get your ears pierced.

[thejuggernaut]

On another note that Calexxia touched on earlier...
Why do I need my husband's permission to have an ablasion or hysterectomy, but my husband can go anywhere and have a vasectomy performed without my permission?

What men are sneaking off to get vasectomies ?

Men are usually ordered to get vasectomies by their wives, so I am not sure where you're getting this whole permission thing.