obviously, if she waits until after 12 weeks, she's shit out of luck...but before 12 weeks should be sufficient time for her to make her decision.
See my comment above about the availability of abortion after 12 weeks.
it has always been my understanding, that outside of health risks to the mother....after 12 weeks a woman could not just waltz into a clinic at any point in her pregnancy and request an abortion, and be given one....nor do i think she should. 12 weeks is ample time to figure out if you want to continue a pregnancy or not....unless, as mentioned, health risks to mother or child are determined later.
btw- abusktdi - i don't think it 'societal norms'...i consider it right and practical! you are talking about forcing a woman to take on a pregnancy, the health risks and all, for 9 months, for the father's will! and....AGAIN...you have not addressed my points made a few times over, how will this be enforced? daddy says yes today, and then conveniently no later.....changes his mind......or the baby has abnormalities, now he doesn't want it, etc, etc....and now a woman has a child she didn't want, faced with choices she doesn't want, etc, etc. no, i am sorry...that is just wrong to me. in my mind, the man knows AHEAD of time, that legally, the rights remain with the mother for said choices....if he doesn't like that, he has other options.
it has always been my understanding, that outside of health risks to the mother....after 12 weeks a woman could not just waltz into a clinic at any point in her pregnancy and request an abortion, and be given one....nor do i think she should. 12 weeks is ample time to figure out if you want to continue a pregnancy or not....unless, as mentioned, health risks to mother or child are determined later.
btw- abusktdi - i don't think it 'societal norms'...i consider it right and practical! you are talking about forcing a woman to take on a pregnancy, the health risks and all, for 9 months, for the father's will! and....AGAIN...you have not addressed my points made a few times over, how will this be enforced? daddy says yes today, and then conveniently no later.....changes his mind......or the baby has abnormalities, now he doesn't want it, etc, etc....and now a woman has a child she didn't want, faced with choices she doesn't want, etc, etc. no, i am sorry...that is just wrong to me. in my mind, the man knows AHEAD of time, that legally, the rights remain with the mother for said choices....if he doesn't like that, he has other options.[/quote]
Not for the "FATHER'S WILL"!!! But because she is pregnant with a child.
it will be enforce exactly the same way it is with a mother. It is the law that children's needs are met by their parents. You can only be asking how to enforce the mother's wish to not be responsible after birth.. and well.. sorry, that can only happen if the father chooses.
I don't think any abortion is really in the best interest of the child.
I guess that's where our opinions differ. Regardless, though, of whether or not I, personally, think it's possible for abortion to sometimes be in the best interest of the child, I believe it's the parents' right to make that decision, not mine. And since we must choose only one parent to have the ultimate decision-making authority, I think we have no choice but to choose the mother.
it has always been my understanding, that outside of health risks to the mother....after 12 weeks a woman could not just waltz into a clinic at any point in her pregnancy and request an abortion, and be given one....nor do i think she should. 12 weeks is ample time to figure out if you want to continue a pregnancy or not....unless, as mentioned, health risks to mother or child are determined later.
Roe v. Wade ruled that states cannot criminalize abortion until post-viability (which is usually considered to be 24 weeks)... after that is when it may be determined by health risks to the mother. I'm not trying to argue with you... just trying to put the correct information out there. :geek:
I will note, however, that I have seen many cases where 12 weeks was not ample time to make a decision... particularly when the woman didn't find out she was pregnant until after 12 weeks (as seems to more frequently be the case with minors). I totally agree, though, that the sooner a woman can have an abortion after making a certain decision, the better.
Not for the "FATHER'S WILL"!!! But because she is pregnant with a child.
it will be enforce exactly the same way it is with a mother. It is the law that children's needs are met by their parents. You can only be asking how to enforce the mother's wish to not be responsible after birth.. and well.. sorry, that can only happen if the father chooses.
imo that just makes zero sense.
i don't know WHAt you are referring to as to being 'enforced the same way as the mother'......b/c what exactly does that mean? a woman is responsible for her child, period, if she chooses to continue a pregnancy...whereas a man, while sure he is meant to be financially responsible....and we know that OFTEN does NOT occur, there are no laws forcing him to be a presence in the child's life, at all. and seeing how even the financial obligation is oftentimes inadequately met, i cannot imagine the law coming up with a truly useful way of making a man be enforced to take on 100% responsibility for a child...even if it is what he says he wants when he first learns of the pregnancy.
and as to how to enforce the woman's will to not be responsible after birth? tis easy, keep the LAW AS IS....as it should be...the choice lies with the mother. therefore, she can have the baby and keep it, have the baby and give it up for adoption - or to the father to adopt soley, or she can have an abortion.
i'll say it one more time: FORCING a woman to continue on with a pregnancy she does NOT want, the inherent health RISKS to HER....is just wrong imo. personally that seems to be setting up for more women NOT to involve the fathers at all, to avoid being forced to do something against their will. thus why it seems to me, the law 'favors' the mothers will. it's her body and her life. and as it is right now, if a woman chooses to have the child and the father doesn't want it, he is meant to be legally, financially responsible for said child as well. so what if he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't? does the 'father's will' get executed, or the mother's? hmmmmm? b/c it can equally be said many women would not want an abortion, not do that to their unborn, and not do that to their body. so yes...best to leave the decision to the mother, b/c it ALL happens in HER BODY.
and i say again...the father DOES have a choice.....he knows ahead of time what the lawas are, and if he doesn't like that choice either: abstain from sex, abstain from sex with women whom he knows may have an abortion if an unintended pregnancy should occur, ALWAYS use birth control himself, and preferably the woman use birth control as well. then, he will only become a father when he AND the mother want to. makes sense.
you seem to be arguing for 'father's rights'...not children's rights necessarily.....and i 100% am arguing for women's rights, absolutely. i do not say it is in the best interest of the child, etc....b/c as far as i'm concerned, there is NO child. a 12 week or younger embryo does not constitute a child, merely the possibility of a future child if allowed to continue and all goes as it should.
scb - i had forgotten that. i guess b/c i often focus on the stat that 89% of abortions DO occur by 12 weeks, i always think in those terms. viability is of course, later...and certainly health risks, whenever discovered, a different story entirely.
One common sense question to all of this. Why if someone were to Murder a pregnant woman would they be charged with two murders and not one? Under the logic of abortion shouldn't they only be charged with the one murder? Just a question I have always had.
One common sense question to all of this. Why if someone were to Murder a pregnant woman would they be charged with two murders and not one? Under the logic of abortion shouldn't they only be charged with the one murder? Just a question I have always had.
the 'logic' of abortion is about CHOICE, and the woman's choice for herself. so then, if a pregnant woman is indeed murdered i believe the murderer can well be charged with 2 murders, b/c if the woman was pregnant, she CHOSE to be/remain pregnant. now, if at the time of the murder she was completely unaware of her pregnancy.....that may well be an entirely different story.
abortion is just one choice amongst a few a woman may make for herself when faced with a pregnancy. so no, legally, no one has the right to make that choice for her, nor take/end her pregnancy for her against her will, just as she cannot be forced to follow through with a pregnancy against her will. it all is quite 'logical'.
*although i will say, i don't know if someone would actually be charged with 2 murders, etc....just that perhaps the charges may be made. obviously, there is a lot of grey area there. was the baby desired, how far into the pregnancy was the woman, would the baby have been viable, as in - survive outside the womb, etc.....before one could truly make such a call if murder charges would be issued or not.
personally that seems to be setting up for more women NOT to involve the fathers at all, to avoid being forced to do something against their will.
Excellent point.
i do not say it is in the best interest of the child, etc....b/c as far as i'm concerned, there is NO child. a 12 week or younger embryo does not constitute a child, merely the possibility of a future child if allowed to continue and all goes as it should.
Another good point. When I talk about the best interest of the child, I should clarify that I mean the future child.
scb - i had forgotten that. i guess b/c i often focus on the stat that 89% of abortions DO occur by 12 weeks, i always think in those terms. viability is of course, later...and certainly health risks, whenever discovered, a different story entirely.
I think that when discussing abortion it's probably more important to remember that 89% of abortion occur in the first trimester than to remember that abortion is still an option later. I only feel the need to clarify about 2nd-trimester options because I've known people who have had 23 week abortions instead of 13 week ones (or had kids they didn't want) because when they found out at 13 weeks that they were pregnant they thought abortion wasn't an option. I'm a big nerd when it comes to making sure everyone has accurate information about options and accessibility. :ugeek:
I think that when discussing abortion it's probably more important to remember that 89% of abortion occur in the first trimester than to remember that abortion is still an option later. I only feel the need to clarify about 2nd-trimester options because I've known people who have had 23 week abortions instead of 13 week ones (or had kids they didn't want) because when they found out at 13 weeks that they were pregnant they thought abortion wasn't an option. I'm a big nerd when it comes to making sure everyone has accurate information about options and accessibility. :ugeek:
i am ALL for accurate information, so i do appreciate you putting it out there.
and seriously, IF someone found out they were pregnant at 13 weeks, where in the hell is their doctor informing them of all their viable options? if nothing else, i sincerely hope that more and more..girls/women make sure to get themselves informed, always, with as much information as possible, so they can make an informed choice for themselves.
and seriously, IF someone found out they were pregnant at 13 weeks, where in the hell is their doctor informing them of all their viable options?
Well, some people just make assumptions without running them past their doctors. Or some people won't see their doctors right away, either because they wait to make an appointment or because the doctor didn't have any appointments available. And when a patient presents for prenatal care, not all doctors think to ask, "Hey, ya sure you don't want to abort this pregnancy?" And, unfortunately, not all doctors are even fully aware that abortion is an option past 12 weeks, or they don't know how to access these services. Misinformation (or lack of information) abounds. :(
Not for the "FATHER'S WILL"!!! But because she is pregnant with a child.
it will be enforce exactly the same way it is with a mother. It is the law that children's needs are met by their parents. You can only be asking how to enforce the mother's wish to not be responsible after birth.. and well.. sorry, that can only happen if the father chooses.
imo that just makes zero sense.
i don't know WHAt you are referring to as to being 'enforced the same way as the mother'......b/c what exactly does that mean? a woman is responsible for her child, period, if she chooses to continue a pregnancy...whereas a man, while sure he is meant to be financially responsible....and we know that OFTEN does NOT occur, there are no laws forcing him to be a presence in the child's life, at all. and seeing how even the financial obligation is oftentimes inadequately met, i cannot imagine the law coming up with a truly useful way of making a man be enforced to take on 100% responsibility for a child...even if it is what he says he wants when he first learns of the pregnancy.
and as to how to enforce the woman's will to not be responsible after birth? tis easy, keep the LAW AS IS....as it should be...the choice lies with the mother. therefore, she can have the baby and keep it, have the baby and give it up for adoption - or to the father to adopt soley, or she can have an abortion.
i'll say it one more time: FORCING a woman to continue on with a pregnancy she does NOT want, the inherent health RISKS to HER....is just wrong imo. personally that seems to be setting up for more women NOT to involve the fathers at all, to avoid being forced to do something against their will. thus why it seems to me, the law 'favors' the mothers will. it's her body and her life. and as it is right now, if a woman chooses to have the child and the father doesn't want it, he is meant to be legally, financially responsible for said child as well. so what if he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't? does the 'father's will' get executed, or the mother's? hmmmmm? b/c it can equally be said many women would not want an abortion, not do that to their unborn, and not do that to their body. so yes...best to leave the decision to the mother, b/c it ALL happens in HER BODY.
and i say again...the father DOES have a choice.....he knows ahead of time what the lawas are, and if he doesn't like that choice either: abstain from sex, abstain from sex with women whom he knows may have an abortion if an unintended pregnancy should occur, ALWAYS use birth control himself, and preferably the woman use birth control as well. then, he will only become a father when he AND the mother want to. makes sense.
you seem to be arguing for 'father's rights'...not children's rights necessarily.....and i 100% am arguing for women's rights, absolutely. i do not say it is in the best interest of the child, etc....b/c as far as i'm concerned, there is NO child. a 12 week or younger embryo does not constitute a child, merely the possibility of a future child if allowed to continue and all goes as it should.
scb - i had forgotten that. i guess b/c i often focus on the stat that 89% of abortions DO occur by 12 weeks, i always think in those terms. viability is of course, later...and certainly health risks, whenever discovered, a different story entirely.
lets see if I can move up a tad from zero. one step at a time please, you are building on things I find completely false. For starters, you seem to think there is something that makes "a woman responsible for her child period" and somehow that is different from the fathers responsibility for his child.. legally or otherwise. Now, we are talking about after birth of course.... please explain how this is the case... Are you merely going on our cultural expectations based on previous social norms? and if so, that is what we call a misconception - there are not laws that more strongly hold a mother to the responsibilty than the father... at least that I am aware of. Please address this point only - after we understand each other on this one, we can move ahead.. but if we continue to build on different foundations we will not communicate.
lets see if I can move up a tad from zero. one step at a time please, you are building on things I find completely false. For starters, you seem to think there is something that makes "a woman responsible for her child period" and somehow that is different from the fathers responsibility for his child.. legally or otherwise. Now, we are talking about after birth of course.... please explain how this is the case... Are you merely going on our cultural expectations based on previous social norms? and if so, that is what we call a misconception - there are not laws that more strongly hold a mother to the responsibilty than the father... at least that I am aware of. Please address this point only - after we understand each other on this one, we can move ahead.. but if we continue to build on different foundations we will not communicate.
one step at a time? i was starting at the first step...who gets to determine if a pregnancy moves forward, or not. once a pregnancy is complete, is after the fact, no? i have asked my questions more than a few times, and you have ignored them.
but sure, ok...once a child is born, father and mother are meant to be equally responsible for their child. this usually works out to be the case if said parents manage to stay together, but if they are apart....and most especially if there really was no relationship beyond sexual, it falters from there. this is not to say there aren't many, many, fully responsible, caring, giving fathers...who support financially and emotionally.....but as is often the case, it is NOT the case. single mothers bear the bulk of the responsibility, emotionally and financially, of raising their child. speaking in general, not case by case here. beyond the very obvious giving of her time/body/health for 9 months.
however, quite honestly...again, AFTER the child is born, is a whole other scenario. we are discussing abortion, and in that instance....BEFORE birth, and the CHOICE...and the RIGHT to make that CHOICE. i would like you to explain how you can think it is right to FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want...and how you would propose, if your idea ever saw the light of day - which i personally think should be never - to 100% ENFORCE that the father takes FULL responsibility, from the day of birth onwards. basically, adopting his child outright. b/c in such an instance, if you are forcing the mother against her will, risking her health for the father and child - when she would perfer an abortion, imo it WOULD be like an adoption scenario, where he would HAVE to take 100% of the burden. and even in adoption scenarios, i don't know....are adoptive parents 100% locked in to adopting said child, ebven say if the child ends up born with masssive abnormalities/birth defects/health defects? aren't even adoptions arranged pre-birth still not 100% iron-clad, on the mother's and the adoptive parent's sides?
also, as i said....you're looking at it from the side of the father WANTing the child. well what about the father who DOES'NT want the child? if we are making laws based on 'father's will'...rights or whatever you want to call it.....why should the father get to decide he wants a child if the mother doesn't...and conversely....if she does want it and he dosn't....can he then force her to have an abortion, or take 100% responsibility, etc? for as many women who i personally know who had abortions...i know just as many men who've had GFs do the same, and not a one had anything but relief from what i've known. and sure, i know plenty of single moms out there, sturggling...most with VERY little support, financial and otherwise, from the fathers of their children.
so if we are to take a step back...i think the first order of business in my mind would be, how do you propose it is 'right' to force a woman to continue a pregnancy?
one step at a time? i was starting at the first step...who gets to determine if a pregnancy moves forward, or not. once a pregnancy is complete, is after the fact, no? i have asked my questions more than a few times, and you have ignored them.
but sure, ok...once a child is born, father and mother are meant to be equally responsible for their child. this usually works out to be the case if said parents manage to stay together, but if they are apart....and most especially if there really was no relationship beyond sexual, it falters from there. this is not to say there aren't many, many, fully responsible, caring, giving fathers...who support financially and emotionally.....but as is often the case, it is NOT the case. single mothers bear the bulk of the responsibility, emotionally and financially, of raising their child. speaking in general, not case by case here. beyond the very obvious giving of her time/body/health for 9 months.
however, quite honestly...again, AFTER the child is born, is a whole other scenario. we are discussing abortion, and in that instance....BEFORE birth, and the CHOICE...and the RIGHT to make that CHOICE. i would like you to explain how you can think it is right to FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want...and how you would propose, if your idea ever saw the light of day - which i personally think should be never - to 100% ENFORCE that the father takes FULL responsibility, from the day of birth onwards. basically, adopting his child outright. b/c in such an instance, if you are forcing the mother against her will, risking her health for the father and child - when she would perfer an abortion, imo it WOULD be like an adoption scenario, where he would HAVE to take 100% of the burden. and even in adoption scenarios, i don't know....are adoptive parents 100% locked in to adopting said child, ebven say if the child ends up born with masssive abnormalities/birth defects/health defects? aren't even adoptions arranged pre-birth still not 100% iron-clad, on the mother's and the adoptive parent's sides?
also, as i said....you're looking at it from the side of the father WANTing the child. well what about the father who DOES'NT want the child? if we are making laws based on 'father's will'...rights or whatever you want to call it.....why should the father get to decide he wants a child if the mother doesn't...and conversely....if she does want it and he dosn't....can he then force her to have an abortion, or take 100% responsibility, etc? for as many women who i personally know who had abortions...i know just as many men who've had GFs do the same, and not a one had anything but relief from what i've known. and sure, i know plenty of single moms out there, sturggling...most with VERY little support, financial and otherwise, from the fathers of their children.
so if we are to take a step back...i think the first order of business in my mind would be, how do you propose it is 'right' to force a woman to continue a pregnancy?[/quote]
you used miles of editorial to address one question, and you didn't fully address it.
I will jump to your question though.. and maybe then get back to mine.
Force a woman to continue a pregnancy?
See there is something of a leading question. If a woman is pregnant.. the action would be to abort - not to continue. she is pregnant.. nothing to force. she is pregnant and will remain pregnant until something happens - either naturally or man-made.
so to suggest that she is being forced to continue a pregnancy is not a fair charactorization. She is pregnant - "with child'. So lets not put that on the father - happy with the prospect of having a baby - that tomorrow she is still pregnant.
The only forcing that would be happening in this scenario - would be an abortion...if one was performed.
you used miles of editorial to address one question, and you didn't fully address it.
I will jump to your question though.. and maybe then get back to mine.
Force a woman to continue a pregnancy?
See there is something of a leading question. If a woman is pregnant.. the action would be to abort - not to continue. she is pregnant.. nothing to force. she is pregnant and will remain pregnant until something happens - either naturally or man-made.
so to suggest that she is being forced to continue a pregnancy is not a fair charactorization. She is pregnant - "with child'. So lets not put that on the father - happy with the prospect of having a baby - that tomorrow she is still pregnant.
The only forcing that would be happening in this scenario - would be an abortion...if one was performed.
one step at a time please.
it IS forcing her to continue. abortion has always existed, and will continue to exist. there will always be women and men who do not these children. and right NOW, legally, a woman CAN have an abortion, tis her own decision to make...and you are suggesting taking that right away and giving to someone else. someone else, i might add, who does not have to carry the burden of pregancy at all, the health risks associated....and sure, change their life significantly for 9 months.
so one step at time, fine. i already did that. i said men and women, legally, are meant to share the responsibility of a child once it is born.
now what?
that's all you asked. there's your most simplistic answer. however, while it can be said...there is nothing simple about it at all.
and you're right, if we come at this discussion on different foundations, not much communication can be made. and we ARE, and will continue to do so, come at this from different foundations. in my mind, you are talking about forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want. i don't put anything on the father there, b/c i do believe it is HER choice to make. scb said earlier that in such a situation, there has to be one who gets final say, no matter how much it is discussed...and i agree. and imo, the person who carries the heaviest burden of it, the one who's body is compromised, put at risk, changed for the 9 months...well yes, i believe that person should be the one. you want to change that, let a father's will trump that......no matter how much we discuss it, i will never agree. so yes, that's that. obviously, not saying not to share your pov - of course share! just saying, on that, my mind cannot be swayed.
hello.
my name is decides2dream and i am a dyslexic typist. :oops:
and sure, LIVES are permanently changed after a pregnancy....i would hope most for the better....a healthy pregnancy, a healthy baby, a happy, loved, desired life. but being realistic, that isn't always the case either. i admit i really have a blind spot towards the whole process b/c no matter how much i may read and listen, i still always end up with thinking the woman's right to choose is the only way i see it.
hello.
my name is decides2dream and i am a dyslexic typist. :oops:
and sure, LIVES are permanently changed after a pregnancy....i would hope most for the better....a healthy pregnancy, a healthy baby, a happy, loved, desired life. but being realistic, that isn't always the case either. i admit i really have a blind spot towards the whole process b/c no matter how much i may read and listen, i still always end up with thinking the woman's right to choose is the only way i see it.
and I feel a physical obligation to do all in my power to protect and raise my children, regardless of where my child my be or whom is feeding them at the time.
I am ok with a "right" to abort a pregnancy where there is no parent willing to raise a child. I don't see that as a woman's right. i consider that a right in a bad situation, and one made in the best interest of the child- and one left to the unborn childs parents. I agree that the government should not litigate an unloved child into existance. Nor do I feel the government should litigate the right to abort my child to anyone - even its mother.
and I feel a physical obligation to do all in my power to protect and raise my children, regardless of where my child my be or whom is feeding them at the time.
I am ok with a "right" to abort a pregnancy where there is no parent willing to raise a child. I don't see that as a woman's right. i consider that a right in a bad situation, and one made in the best interest of the child- and one left to the unborn childs parents. I agree that the government should not litigate an unloved child into existance. Nor do I feel the government should litigate the right to abort my child to anyone - even its mother.
i understand and respect your pov, absolutely. however, i also absolutely disagree with it. i don't think anyone, including the government....or the partner in the unintended pregnancy....has the right to make a woman follow through with a pregnancy she does not desire. period. and i have stated that there are far too many 'variable's that would be left quite open, even if someone other than the mother 'desired/loved' the child....but long before that, i see it as forcing a woman to do something, that involves HER body and life, that she does not want. there is just no way i can see that as right.
as it stands, abortion IS legal, and it IS the woman's right to choose. so then, if you don't want your child aborted, don't get someone pregnant who will not respect your wishes.
and I feel a physical obligation to do all in my power to protect and raise my children, regardless of where my child my be or whom is feeding them at the time.
I am ok with a "right" to abort a pregnancy where there is no parent willing to raise a child. I don't see that as a woman's right. i consider that a right in a bad situation, and one made in the best interest of the child- and one left to the unborn childs parents. I agree that the government should not litigate an unloved child into existance. Nor do I feel the government should litigate the right to abort my child to anyone - even its mother.
i understand and respect your pov, absolutely. however, i also absolutely disagree with it. i don't think anyone, including the government....or the partner in the unintended pregnancy....has the right to make a woman follow through with a pregnancy she does not desire. period. and i have stated that there are far too many 'variable's that would be left quite open, even if someone other than the mother 'desired/loved' the child....but long before that, i see it as forcing a woman to do something, that involves HER body and life, that she does not want. there is just no way i can see that as right.
as it stands, abortion IS legal, and it IS the woman's right to choose. so then, if you don't want your child aborted, don't get someone pregnant who will not respect your wishes.
every one of your posts on this topic are full of double standards. You can tell me not to get a woman pregnant who will not respect my wishes - as thought that is my responsibility.. but you do not hold women to the same standard by saying, don't get pregnant by a man that does not want his child aborted.
every one of your posts on this topic are full of double standards. You can tell me not to get a woman pregnant who will not respect my wishes - as thought that is my responsibility.. but you do not hold women to the same standard by saying, don't get pregnant by a man that does not want his child aborted.
I'll throw my $0.02 in on this one and say that, although I thought you had a reasonable point when you said this before, I think D2D did successfully demonstrate how, given the current laws, this is not a double-standard because these two circumstances aren't comparable.
every one of your posts on this topic are full of double standards. You can tell me not to get a woman pregnant who will not respect my wishes - as thought that is my responsibility.. but you do not hold women to the same standard by saying, don't get pregnant by a man that does not want his child aborted.
I'll throw my $0.02 in on this one and say that, although I thought you had a reasonable point when you said this before, I think D2D did successfully demonstrate how, given the current laws, this is not a double-standard because these two circumstances aren't comparable.
another way to say that is the drafters of the law were driven by the same double standard.
every one of your posts on this topic are full of double standards. You can tell me not to get a woman pregnant who will not respect my wishes - as thought that is my responsibility.. but you do not hold women to the same standard by saying, don't get pregnant by a man that does not want his child aborted.
I'll throw my $0.02 in on this one and say that, although I thought you had a reasonable point when you said this before, I think D2D did successfully demonstrate how, given the current laws, this is not a double-standard because these two circumstances aren't comparable.
another way to say that is the drafters of the law were driven by the same double standard.
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
another way to say that is the drafters of the law were driven by the same double standard.[/quote]
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.[/quote]
that is silly. I am saying that pregnancy is a serious thing. All the talk about when life begins - yada yada yada i say. I accept that abortion is necessary in our society - as it can be the best of available solutions. I belive that having a baby is a "choice" made by two people. Just as aborting a child should be. If a women gets pregnant - it is something she has done, and is now her responsibility. Just as it is that of the man that got her pregnant. If the woman acknowledges she made a mistake and does not want to be a mother - that that is one of three sides heard from. If the father feels the same, then it is likey the best overall solution to abort this pregnancy.
However, if the father chooses to live up to the responsibility born of this pregnancy - tbat the irresponsible perent (in this case, the mother) should not be granted the right to simply end it. She got herself pregnant, and it will be over in 9 months.. sorry for her, but she should have been more careful. She surely should not have the right to destroy what is a responsible and healthy family - the father and child.
as for financial responsibility after birth - again, the mother got herself pregnant and now owns the resulting responsibility and should be at the mercy of the courts in whatever legal action he may choose.
that is silly. I am saying that pregnancy is a serious thing. All the talk about when life begins - yada yada yada i say. I accept that abortion is necessary in our society - as it can be the best of available solutions. I belive that having a baby is a "choice" made by two people. Just as aborting a child should be. If a women gets pregnant - it is something she has done, and is now her responsibility. Just as it is that of the man that got her pregnant. If the woman acknowledges she made a mistake and does not want to be a mother - that that is one of three sides heard from. If the father feels the same, then it is likey the best overall solution to abort this pregnancy.
However, if the father chooses to live up to the responsibility born of this pregnancy - tbat the irresponsible perent (in this case, the mother) should not be granted the right to simply end it. She got herself pregnant, and it will be over in 9 months.. sorry for her, but she should have been more careful. She surely should not have the right to destroy what is a responsible and healthy family - the father and child.
as for financial responsibility after birth - again, the mother got herself pregnant and now owns the resulting responsibility and should be at the mercy of the courts in whatever legal action he may choose.
I just don't think what you propose is realistic or even possible. Plus, as I've said before, maybe the mother wants to take responsibility for the child and having an abortion is what she believes would be in that child's best interest. Abortion is not all about shirking responsibility.
I just don't think what you propose is realistic or even possible. Plus, as I've said before, maybe the mother wants to take responsibility for the child and having an abortion is what she believes would be in that child's best interest. Abortion is not all about shirking responsibility.[/quote]
I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.
however, to say that maybe the "mothers wants to take responsibility for the child and abort" suggests that the mother is the responsible parent in a family and a father is a mother's helper. does that view begin at conception and end around the third trimester - or extend through college?
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
ugh.. don't say "exactly to something that begins with "So are you saying" because that was not what I or anyone else was saying
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
ugh.. don't say "exactly to something that begins with "So are you saying" because that was not what I or anyone else was saying
I just don't think what you propose is realistic or even possible. Plus, as I've said before, maybe the mother wants to take responsibility for the child and having an abortion is what she believes would be in that child's best interest. Abortion is not all about shirking responsibility.
exactly.
i've said the same earlier...posed a few questions, and was told to take a few steps back. :roll:
i do not see, realistically, how this can be accomplished.....especially without trampling on the rights of the mother. how does one guarantee that if the male/female involved disagree, so then the pregnancy goes forward...that one or the other will not renege on their responsibilities after the birth, or even before? we can't manage to do that now, how will we ever? and if in such instance the child was unwanted by the mother in the first place, and now she is saddled with an undesired child, etc.....how is that ever right?
and unintended pregnancy can happen, even if one does their best to avoid it. BC does fail, etc. so that's why i say it's important to be on the same page as your sexual partner on this issue BEFORE accidents happen, and as it is now....be aware of the law, and that states such rights to choice reside, determinely with the mother.
i will always, always, always support the right to choice...and that said right resides with the mother. it's her body, and she takes the biggest risk, all the way round.
Comments
it has always been my understanding, that outside of health risks to the mother....after 12 weeks a woman could not just waltz into a clinic at any point in her pregnancy and request an abortion, and be given one....nor do i think she should. 12 weeks is ample time to figure out if you want to continue a pregnancy or not....unless, as mentioned, health risks to mother or child are determined later.
btw- abusktdi - i don't think it 'societal norms'...i consider it right and practical! you are talking about forcing a woman to take on a pregnancy, the health risks and all, for 9 months, for the father's will! and....AGAIN...you have not addressed my points made a few times over, how will this be enforced? daddy says yes today, and then conveniently no later.....changes his mind......or the baby has abnormalities, now he doesn't want it, etc, etc....and now a woman has a child she didn't want, faced with choices she doesn't want, etc, etc. no, i am sorry...that is just wrong to me. in my mind, the man knows AHEAD of time, that legally, the rights remain with the mother for said choices....if he doesn't like that, he has other options.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
btw- abusktdi - i don't think it 'societal norms'...i consider it right and practical! you are talking about forcing a woman to take on a pregnancy, the health risks and all, for 9 months, for the father's will! and....AGAIN...you have not addressed my points made a few times over, how will this be enforced? daddy says yes today, and then conveniently no later.....changes his mind......or the baby has abnormalities, now he doesn't want it, etc, etc....and now a woman has a child she didn't want, faced with choices she doesn't want, etc, etc. no, i am sorry...that is just wrong to me. in my mind, the man knows AHEAD of time, that legally, the rights remain with the mother for said choices....if he doesn't like that, he has other options.[/quote]
Not for the "FATHER'S WILL"!!! But because she is pregnant with a child.
it will be enforce exactly the same way it is with a mother. It is the law that children's needs are met by their parents. You can only be asking how to enforce the mother's wish to not be responsible after birth.. and well.. sorry, that can only happen if the father chooses.
I guess that's where our opinions differ. Regardless, though, of whether or not I, personally, think it's possible for abortion to sometimes be in the best interest of the child, I believe it's the parents' right to make that decision, not mine. And since we must choose only one parent to have the ultimate decision-making authority, I think we have no choice but to choose the mother.
Roe v. Wade ruled that states cannot criminalize abortion until post-viability (which is usually considered to be 24 weeks)... after that is when it may be determined by health risks to the mother. I'm not trying to argue with you... just trying to put the correct information out there. :geek:
I will note, however, that I have seen many cases where 12 weeks was not ample time to make a decision... particularly when the woman didn't find out she was pregnant until after 12 weeks (as seems to more frequently be the case with minors). I totally agree, though, that the sooner a woman can have an abortion after making a certain decision, the better.
imo that just makes zero sense.
i don't know WHAt you are referring to as to being 'enforced the same way as the mother'......b/c what exactly does that mean? a woman is responsible for her child, period, if she chooses to continue a pregnancy...whereas a man, while sure he is meant to be financially responsible....and we know that OFTEN does NOT occur, there are no laws forcing him to be a presence in the child's life, at all. and seeing how even the financial obligation is oftentimes inadequately met, i cannot imagine the law coming up with a truly useful way of making a man be enforced to take on 100% responsibility for a child...even if it is what he says he wants when he first learns of the pregnancy.
and as to how to enforce the woman's will to not be responsible after birth? tis easy, keep the LAW AS IS....as it should be...the choice lies with the mother. therefore, she can have the baby and keep it, have the baby and give it up for adoption - or to the father to adopt soley, or she can have an abortion.
i'll say it one more time: FORCING a woman to continue on with a pregnancy she does NOT want, the inherent health RISKS to HER....is just wrong imo. personally that seems to be setting up for more women NOT to involve the fathers at all, to avoid being forced to do something against their will. thus why it seems to me, the law 'favors' the mothers will. it's her body and her life. and as it is right now, if a woman chooses to have the child and the father doesn't want it, he is meant to be legally, financially responsible for said child as well. so what if he wants her to have an abortion and she doesn't? does the 'father's will' get executed, or the mother's? hmmmmm? b/c it can equally be said many women would not want an abortion, not do that to their unborn, and not do that to their body. so yes...best to leave the decision to the mother, b/c it ALL happens in HER BODY.
and i say again...the father DOES have a choice.....he knows ahead of time what the lawas are, and if he doesn't like that choice either: abstain from sex, abstain from sex with women whom he knows may have an abortion if an unintended pregnancy should occur, ALWAYS use birth control himself, and preferably the woman use birth control as well. then, he will only become a father when he AND the mother want to. makes sense.
you seem to be arguing for 'father's rights'...not children's rights necessarily.....and i 100% am arguing for women's rights, absolutely. i do not say it is in the best interest of the child, etc....b/c as far as i'm concerned, there is NO child. a 12 week or younger embryo does not constitute a child, merely the possibility of a future child if allowed to continue and all goes as it should.
scb - i had forgotten that. i guess b/c i often focus on the stat that 89% of abortions DO occur by 12 weeks, i always think in those terms. viability is of course, later...and certainly health risks, whenever discovered, a different story entirely.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
the 'logic' of abortion is about CHOICE, and the woman's choice for herself. so then, if a pregnant woman is indeed murdered i believe the murderer can well be charged with 2 murders, b/c if the woman was pregnant, she CHOSE to be/remain pregnant. now, if at the time of the murder she was completely unaware of her pregnancy.....that may well be an entirely different story.
abortion is just one choice amongst a few a woman may make for herself when faced with a pregnancy. so no, legally, no one has the right to make that choice for her, nor take/end her pregnancy for her against her will, just as she cannot be forced to follow through with a pregnancy against her will. it all is quite 'logical'.
*although i will say, i don't know if someone would actually be charged with 2 murders, etc....just that perhaps the charges may be made. obviously, there is a lot of grey area there. was the baby desired, how far into the pregnancy was the woman, would the baby have been viable, as in - survive outside the womb, etc.....before one could truly make such a call if murder charges would be issued or not.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Excellent point.
Another good point. When I talk about the best interest of the child, I should clarify that I mean the future child.
I think that when discussing abortion it's probably more important to remember that 89% of abortion occur in the first trimester than to remember that abortion is still an option later. I only feel the need to clarify about 2nd-trimester options because I've known people who have had 23 week abortions instead of 13 week ones (or had kids they didn't want) because when they found out at 13 weeks that they were pregnant they thought abortion wasn't an option. I'm a big nerd when it comes to making sure everyone has accurate information about options and accessibility. :ugeek:
i am ALL for accurate information, so i do appreciate you putting it out there.
and seriously, IF someone found out they were pregnant at 13 weeks, where in the hell is their doctor informing them of all their viable options? if nothing else, i sincerely hope that more and more..girls/women make sure to get themselves informed, always, with as much information as possible, so they can make an informed choice for themselves.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Well, some people just make assumptions without running them past their doctors. Or some people won't see their doctors right away, either because they wait to make an appointment or because the doctor didn't have any appointments available. And when a patient presents for prenatal care, not all doctors think to ask, "Hey, ya sure you don't want to abort this pregnancy?" And, unfortunately, not all doctors are even fully aware that abortion is an option past 12 weeks, or they don't know how to access these services. Misinformation (or lack of information) abounds. :(
lets see if I can move up a tad from zero. one step at a time please, you are building on things I find completely false. For starters, you seem to think there is something that makes "a woman responsible for her child period" and somehow that is different from the fathers responsibility for his child.. legally or otherwise. Now, we are talking about after birth of course.... please explain how this is the case... Are you merely going on our cultural expectations based on previous social norms? and if so, that is what we call a misconception - there are not laws that more strongly hold a mother to the responsibilty than the father... at least that I am aware of. Please address this point only - after we understand each other on this one, we can move ahead.. but if we continue to build on different foundations we will not communicate.
one step at a time? i was starting at the first step...who gets to determine if a pregnancy moves forward, or not. once a pregnancy is complete, is after the fact, no? i have asked my questions more than a few times, and you have ignored them.
but sure, ok...once a child is born, father and mother are meant to be equally responsible for their child. this usually works out to be the case if said parents manage to stay together, but if they are apart....and most especially if there really was no relationship beyond sexual, it falters from there. this is not to say there aren't many, many, fully responsible, caring, giving fathers...who support financially and emotionally.....but as is often the case, it is NOT the case. single mothers bear the bulk of the responsibility, emotionally and financially, of raising their child. speaking in general, not case by case here. beyond the very obvious giving of her time/body/health for 9 months.
however, quite honestly...again, AFTER the child is born, is a whole other scenario. we are discussing abortion, and in that instance....BEFORE birth, and the CHOICE...and the RIGHT to make that CHOICE. i would like you to explain how you can think it is right to FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want...and how you would propose, if your idea ever saw the light of day - which i personally think should be never - to 100% ENFORCE that the father takes FULL responsibility, from the day of birth onwards. basically, adopting his child outright. b/c in such an instance, if you are forcing the mother against her will, risking her health for the father and child - when she would perfer an abortion, imo it WOULD be like an adoption scenario, where he would HAVE to take 100% of the burden. and even in adoption scenarios, i don't know....are adoptive parents 100% locked in to adopting said child, ebven say if the child ends up born with masssive abnormalities/birth defects/health defects? aren't even adoptions arranged pre-birth still not 100% iron-clad, on the mother's and the adoptive parent's sides?
also, as i said....you're looking at it from the side of the father WANTing the child. well what about the father who DOES'NT want the child? if we are making laws based on 'father's will'...rights or whatever you want to call it.....why should the father get to decide he wants a child if the mother doesn't...and conversely....if she does want it and he dosn't....can he then force her to have an abortion, or take 100% responsibility, etc? for as many women who i personally know who had abortions...i know just as many men who've had GFs do the same, and not a one had anything but relief from what i've known. and sure, i know plenty of single moms out there, sturggling...most with VERY little support, financial and otherwise, from the fathers of their children.
so if we are to take a step back...i think the first order of business in my mind would be, how do you propose it is 'right' to force a woman to continue a pregnancy?
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
but sure, ok...once a child is born, father and mother are meant to be equally responsible for their child. this usually works out to be the case if said parents manage to stay together, but if they are apart....and most especially if there really was no relationship beyond sexual, it falters from there. this is not to say there aren't many, many, fully responsible, caring, giving fathers...who support financially and emotionally.....but as is often the case, it is NOT the case. single mothers bear the bulk of the responsibility, emotionally and financially, of raising their child. speaking in general, not case by case here. beyond the very obvious giving of her time/body/health for 9 months.
however, quite honestly...again, AFTER the child is born, is a whole other scenario. we are discussing abortion, and in that instance....BEFORE birth, and the CHOICE...and the RIGHT to make that CHOICE. i would like you to explain how you can think it is right to FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want...and how you would propose, if your idea ever saw the light of day - which i personally think should be never - to 100% ENFORCE that the father takes FULL responsibility, from the day of birth onwards. basically, adopting his child outright. b/c in such an instance, if you are forcing the mother against her will, risking her health for the father and child - when she would perfer an abortion, imo it WOULD be like an adoption scenario, where he would HAVE to take 100% of the burden. and even in adoption scenarios, i don't know....are adoptive parents 100% locked in to adopting said child, ebven say if the child ends up born with masssive abnormalities/birth defects/health defects? aren't even adoptions arranged pre-birth still not 100% iron-clad, on the mother's and the adoptive parent's sides?
also, as i said....you're looking at it from the side of the father WANTing the child. well what about the father who DOES'NT want the child? if we are making laws based on 'father's will'...rights or whatever you want to call it.....why should the father get to decide he wants a child if the mother doesn't...and conversely....if she does want it and he dosn't....can he then force her to have an abortion, or take 100% responsibility, etc? for as many women who i personally know who had abortions...i know just as many men who've had GFs do the same, and not a one had anything but relief from what i've known. and sure, i know plenty of single moms out there, sturggling...most with VERY little support, financial and otherwise, from the fathers of their children.
so if we are to take a step back...i think the first order of business in my mind would be, how do you propose it is 'right' to force a woman to continue a pregnancy?[/quote]
you used miles of editorial to address one question, and you didn't fully address it.
I will jump to your question though.. and maybe then get back to mine.
Force a woman to continue a pregnancy?
See there is something of a leading question. If a woman is pregnant.. the action would be to abort - not to continue. she is pregnant.. nothing to force. she is pregnant and will remain pregnant until something happens - either naturally or man-made.
so to suggest that she is being forced to continue a pregnancy is not a fair charactorization. She is pregnant - "with child'. So lets not put that on the father - happy with the prospect of having a baby - that tomorrow she is still pregnant.
The only forcing that would be happening in this scenario - would be an abortion...if one was performed.
one step at a time please.
it IS forcing her to continue. abortion has always existed, and will continue to exist. there will always be women and men who do not these children. and right NOW, legally, a woman CAN have an abortion, tis her own decision to make...and you are suggesting taking that right away and giving to someone else. someone else, i might add, who does not have to carry the burden of pregancy at all, the health risks associated....and sure, change their life significantly for 9 months.
so one step at time, fine. i already did that. i said men and women, legally, are meant to share the responsibility of a child once it is born.
now what?
that's all you asked. there's your most simplistic answer. however, while it can be said...there is nothing simple about it at all.
and you're right, if we come at this discussion on different foundations, not much communication can be made. and we ARE, and will continue to do so, come at this from different foundations. in my mind, you are talking about forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy she does not want. i don't put anything on the father there, b/c i do believe it is HER choice to make. scb said earlier that in such a situation, there has to be one who gets final say, no matter how much it is discussed...and i agree. and imo, the person who carries the heaviest burden of it, the one who's body is compromised, put at risk, changed for the 9 months...well yes, i believe that person should be the one. you want to change that, let a father's will trump that......no matter how much we discuss it, i will never agree. so yes, that's that. obviously, not saying not to share your pov - of course share! just saying, on that, my mind cannot be swayed.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
Let me just add to this by pointing out that many women's bodies are changed permanently after having a baby. :(
hello.
my name is decides2dream and i am a dyslexic typist. :oops:
and sure, LIVES are permanently changed after a pregnancy....i would hope most for the better....a healthy pregnancy, a healthy baby, a happy, loved, desired life. but being realistic, that isn't always the case either. i admit i really have a blind spot towards the whole process b/c no matter how much i may read and listen, i still always end up with thinking the woman's right to choose is the only way i see it.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
and I feel a physical obligation to do all in my power to protect and raise my children, regardless of where my child my be or whom is feeding them at the time.
I am ok with a "right" to abort a pregnancy where there is no parent willing to raise a child. I don't see that as a woman's right. i consider that a right in a bad situation, and one made in the best interest of the child- and one left to the unborn childs parents. I agree that the government should not litigate an unloved child into existance. Nor do I feel the government should litigate the right to abort my child to anyone - even its mother.
i understand and respect your pov, absolutely. however, i also absolutely disagree with it. i don't think anyone, including the government....or the partner in the unintended pregnancy....has the right to make a woman follow through with a pregnancy she does not desire. period. and i have stated that there are far too many 'variable's that would be left quite open, even if someone other than the mother 'desired/loved' the child....but long before that, i see it as forcing a woman to do something, that involves HER body and life, that she does not want. there is just no way i can see that as right.
as it stands, abortion IS legal, and it IS the woman's right to choose. so then, if you don't want your child aborted, don't get someone pregnant who will not respect your wishes.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow
every one of your posts on this topic are full of double standards. You can tell me not to get a woman pregnant who will not respect my wishes - as thought that is my responsibility.. but you do not hold women to the same standard by saying, don't get pregnant by a man that does not want his child aborted.
I'll throw my $0.02 in on this one and say that, although I thought you had a reasonable point when you said this before, I think D2D did successfully demonstrate how, given the current laws, this is not a double-standard because these two circumstances aren't comparable.
another way to say that is the drafters of the law were driven by the same double standard.
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.
Perhaps. So are you saying that no one should get anyone pregnant unless they both agree completely, in advance, about what decision they would make? It's just not possible. We can't know in advance what decision we would make and we can't each agree to let the other decide.[/quote]
However, if the father chooses to live up to the responsibility born of this pregnancy - tbat the irresponsible perent (in this case, the mother) should not be granted the right to simply end it. She got herself pregnant, and it will be over in 9 months.. sorry for her, but she should have been more careful. She surely should not have the right to destroy what is a responsible and healthy family - the father and child.
as for financial responsibility after birth - again, the mother got herself pregnant and now owns the resulting responsibility and should be at the mercy of the courts in whatever legal action he may choose.
I just don't think what you propose is realistic or even possible. Plus, as I've said before, maybe the mother wants to take responsibility for the child and having an abortion is what she believes would be in that child's best interest. Abortion is not all about shirking responsibility.
I can agree that what I propose will be something of a strain on the legal system, and perhaps not realistic or even possible. that is another debate.
however, to say that maybe the "mothers wants to take responsibility for the child and abort" suggests that the mother is the responsible parent in a family and a father is a mother's helper. does that view begin at conception and end around the third trimester - or extend through college?
Exactly. But that's my beef with this whole issue of 'choice.' Having sex involves risk, even while multiple methods of contraception. It might be the worst form of denial that we as humans experience-- that having sex makes babies. Even while trying to block it from happening, it still happens-- it may happen much much less, but if it's still within the realm possibility, why gloss over this fact? Someone call Al Gore, I think we've found an even more inconvenient truth!
This is where we need to evolve as human beings-- that if a man and a woman agree to have sex, that they not only to agree to do it, but to roll with whatever comes after-- after all, the end result is just nature taking its course, right?
ugh.. don't say "exactly to something that begins with "So are you saying" because that was not what I or anyone else was saying
What part of my post would you like me to edit?
exactly.
i've said the same earlier...posed a few questions, and was told to take a few steps back. :roll:
i do not see, realistically, how this can be accomplished.....especially without trampling on the rights of the mother. how does one guarantee that if the male/female involved disagree, so then the pregnancy goes forward...that one or the other will not renege on their responsibilities after the birth, or even before? we can't manage to do that now, how will we ever? and if in such instance the child was unwanted by the mother in the first place, and now she is saddled with an undesired child, etc.....how is that ever right?
and unintended pregnancy can happen, even if one does their best to avoid it. BC does fail, etc. so that's why i say it's important to be on the same page as your sexual partner on this issue BEFORE accidents happen, and as it is now....be aware of the law, and that states such rights to choice reside, determinely with the mother.
i will always, always, always support the right to choice...and that said right resides with the mother. it's her body, and she takes the biggest risk, all the way round.
Let's just breathe...
I am myself like you somehow