|
Post by almostabortedchild on Mar 3, 2005 10:11:35 GMT -5
almostabortedchildWhen a woman bears a child she is going through more than pain. She is accepting the inherent risk involved in becoming a mother. She can die in the process. That being the case, I believe that the father's paternal rights are trumped if the woman does not want to go through with the pregnancy. She cannot be compelled to risk her life so that the man can be a father. Therefore, he may have conceived out of shear luck, but in this instance the man is out of shear luck. yes but in howmany cases do the women actualy die during pregnancies. it does happen but what are the chances of it happpeneing to every single case of father/husband vs mother/wife for child berth
|
|
|
Post by droskey on Mar 3, 2005 14:21:10 GMT -5
almostabortedchild Does it really matter. There are between 300-800 pregnancy related deaths in the U.S. every year (http://pregnancy.about.com/library/blmorbidfacts.htm). There are approximately 3 million births in the U.S. each year. This is only a rate of about 0.01%. Not very high. However, the woman is taking a risk in carrying the pregnancy to term. Again, you cannot compel a woman to take a risk in the name of paternal rights. The point is that the risk is not effectively zero. Keep in mind also, that these are deaths that are related to the pregnancy. These are not health complications that may result because of the pregnancy. That is an additional risk that the woman is taking. Not to mention life impact issues of being pregnant.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2005 3:42:40 GMT -5
Have you ever heard of onanism? Also known as coitus interruptus. According to the Catholic church (and the Bible), that is a serious offence. Onans sin was his refusal to bear a child for his brother! it was not because he "spilled his seed" or as you say "coitas interuptis" . this is a most unfortunate doctrin and is Not held by all Christians, this same verse is used to condem masterbation.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2005 3:52:22 GMT -5
Actually you might say that life starts before conception since sperm and eggs are alive and have the potential, under the right conditions, of developing into a person. The issue to address is not when life begins but rather when we've crossed the line between potentially becoming a person and actually being a person. well you know how we theists are with science, so correct me if Im wrong, but allcromosomes nessisary for life are not united until conseption. so what makes "a person"? what separates the infant who is killed with most of its body outside the mother but the head left in while its killed from the one that is born and is now considerd "a person"
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 28, 2005 3:55:15 GMT -5
hey people look i have a question, and i would like your opinions. Picture this: you are married and your wife is pregnant with your child, and for whatever reason, devorse....just not wanting it...., wants an abortion, but you on the other hand want the child. Should you as the rightfull father be able to bring the mother/wife to court to stop the abortion. I understand that the male does not have to feel the pain of giving bearth, but still if you want the hild and your wife doesn't should you be able to stop her from having an abortion? its happend, and the guy lost.
|
|
|
Post by Enuffalready on Mar 28, 2005 5:20:32 GMT -5
what separates the infant who is killed with most of its body outside the mother but the head left in while its killed from the one that is born and is now considerd "a person" what you're refferring to here is a late term or partial birth abortion. Its ugly business and that baby would likely be able to survive independant of its mother. Most legal abortions are first trimester abortions and are nothing like this. Even a pretty avid pro-choicer like myself can't get behind partial birth abortion.
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 28, 2005 13:18:39 GMT -5
Even a pretty avid pro-choicer like myself can't get behind partial birth abortion. Indeed. That is why I see the absolute categories of pro-choice or pro-life more of a false dichtomy than anything. Most people fall somewhere in between on the whole of the issue.
|
|
SSS
Seasoned Citizen
Love Boat Captain
Posts: 119
|
Post by SSS on Mar 29, 2005 21:44:55 GMT -5
Indeed. That is why I see the absolute categories of pro-choice or pro-life more of a false dichtomy than anything. Most people fall somewhere in between on the whole of the issue. A false dichotomy set up by extreme pro-life people to demonize anyone associated with pro-choice.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 30, 2005 4:45:32 GMT -5
what you're refferring to here is a late term or partial birth abortion. Its ugly business and that baby would likely be able to survive independant of its mother. Most legal abortions are first trimester abortions and are nothing like this. Even a pretty avid pro-choicer like myself can't get behind partial birth abortion. what is sad is that so many people will deffend ALL abortions for fear that they might loose some ground in the fight.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 30, 2005 4:50:15 GMT -5
So Im pretty well outnumberd on this one. but it sounds as if you may not all be in favor of all abortions. it might be an interesting pole . where do you draw the line? what about parrentle notification?
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 30, 2005 13:21:53 GMT -5
There is only one fair way around this. Certainly it would not be fair to force a mother to bear the child she doesn't want just because the father wants it. However it would be equally unfair to force the father to pay maintainance for the child he doesn't want.
At the moment, if the mother doesn't want the child she gets an abortion, the father has no say. If she wants the child, the father has no say, he must be there or pay. The father has no say at all.
The way around this is to give either parent the right to terminate their parenthood. If both parties want the child, that's fine. If the father doesn't want it, it is the mother's choice to keep it or not. If she chooses to keep it, the burden of the child is on her alone, she made that choice.
If the mother wants the abortion, tough luck for the father, there is no way around this. If she is generous she may bear the child for him to take, if they agree to this, but no-one can force her.
This is the most fair you will get it, but most people will be horrified that the bad men can sow their seeds unhindered.
As for where the limit for abortions is, I think there should be a compromise, to give the mother enough time to make the decision but also so that the baby is not highly developed. Both sides get what they want. The rigid anti-abortion activists lose out, but they are deluded anyway. 3 months sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by william on Mar 30, 2005 14:25:58 GMT -5
There is only one fair way around this. Certainly it would not be fair to force a mother to bear the child she doesn't want just because the father wants it. However it would be equally unfair to force the father to pay maintainance for the child he doesn't want. At the moment, if the mother doesn't want the child she gets an abortion, the father has no say. If she wants the child, the father has no say, he must be there or pay. The father has no say at all. The way around this is to give either parent the right to terminate their parenthood. If both parties want the child, that's fine. If the father doesn't want it, it is the mother's choice to keep it or not. If she chooses to keep it, the burden of the child is on her alone, she made that choice. If the mother wants the abortion, tough luck for the father, there is no way around this. If she is generous she may bear the child for him to take, if they agree to this, but no-one can force her. This is the most fair you will get it, but most people will be horrified that the bad men can sow their seeds unhindered. As for where the limit for abortions is, I think there should be a compromise, to give the mother enough time to make the decision but also so that the baby is not highly developed. Both sides get what they want. The rigid anti-abortion activists lose out, but they are deluded anyway. 3 months sounds good to me. pretty good reasoning , but if he opts out and she cant support the baby ,you and I are stuck with the tab (although I prefer that to a dead baby)
|
|
|
Post by solidsquid on Mar 30, 2005 17:50:27 GMT -5
what is sad is that so many people will deffend ALL abortions for fear that they might loose some ground in the fight. That's where politics come in and that seems to screw up everything for everybody on both sides. A very large barrier to compromise.
|
|
|
Post by vertigo on Mar 31, 2005 13:10:40 GMT -5
There should be a fund for all the people who prefer it. That would be fair, dontcha think?
|
|
|
Post by william on Apr 2, 2005 22:02:26 GMT -5
There should be a fund for all the people who prefer it. That would be fair, dontcha think? who prefer what?
|
|