abortion

melodious

**agreed.

_

decides2dream wrote:

it's all well and good to imagine a father who WANTS the child, and is offering to take 100% responsibility, but there still lie some inherent problems in that scenario as outlined above. you are forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, and all the risks involved, when she doesn't want to....

Good point. What if the father wants the child and chooses for the pregnancy to continue, but the mother (who may or may not want the child) chooses abortion because continuing the pregnancy would put her own life or health at risk?

Danimal

I think murder should be illegal.

Heineken Helen

decides2dream wrote:

it's all well and good to imagine a father who WANTS the child, and is offering to take 100% responsibility, but there still lie some inherent problems in that scenario as outlined above. you are forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, and al the risks involved, when she doesn't want to....and how does one make CERTAIN said father won't change his mind, renege his responsibility, half-way through the pregnancy? for these reasons, just for starters, i cannot see your idea being right, nor implemented. in an ideal world, perhaps...but then again, if it were ideal...unwanted pregnancies would cease to exist.

Agreed... if the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't, does he have the right to make her give up smoking, drinking, etc. for those 9 months? If not, well how is that fair on the kid? And if so, well that just can't be done... otherwise you're getting into scary territory having control over HER body for the 9 months.

Heineken Helen

Danimal wrote:

I think murder should be illegal.

Eh... it IS!

Abuskedti

of course not!
i agree, abortion is a last choice, but it IS a choice...hopefully both involved/responsible will be on the same page, but bottomline, the law agrees, as do i, that the final decision rests with the mother.


it's all well and good to imagine a father who WANTS the child, and is offering to take 100% responsibility, but there still lie some inherent problems in that scenario as outlined above. you are forcing a woman to continue a pregnancy, and al the risks involved, when she doesn't want to....and how does one make CERTAIN said father won't change his mind, renege his responsibility, half-way through the pregnancy? for these reasons, just for starters, i cannot see your idea being right, nor implemented. in an ideal world, perhaps...but then again, if it were ideal...unwanted pregnancies would cease to exist.[/quote]

before you were using the fact that the father knew what he was getting into having sex, but you seem to dismiss that for the woman. If they have a baby together, than the baby is their responsibility together. Granted, today there is the 3 month window where abortion is an option. That should be a joint decision, as all the others were and should be in the future. The it's my body arguement really doesn't hold water at that point, because it is all the child of the father. She got pregnant, the father didn't force her to get or be pregnant. The only forcing here would be the some right of the mother - for a three month window to kill the father's child and you think that is right?

if there is no interest or resistance of the father, then the choice belongs to the mother.. but the father's right seems to be dismissed here for no reason that I can understand.

decides2dream

Abuskedti wrote:

before you were using the fact that the father knew what he was getting into having sex, but you seem to dismiss that for the woman. If they have a baby together, than the baby is their responsibility together. Granted, today there is the 3 month window where abortion is an option. That should be a joint decision, as all the others were and should be in the future. The it's my body arguement really doesn't hold water at that point, because it is all the child of the father. She got pregnant, the father didn't force her to get or be pregnant. The only forcing here would be the some right of the mother - for a three month window to kill the father's child and you think that is right?

if there is no interest or resistance of the father, then the choice belongs to the mother.. but the father's right seems to be dismissed here for no reason that I can understand.

my point in saying the father 'knew what he was getting into' was in reference to the fact that he should be well aware that IF a pregnancy should occur, it is, legally, the woman's right to make such choices, herself. that was my point. if a man doesn't want a woman he is sleeping with to ever have an abortion, than make absolutely sure who you sleep with is as anti-abortion as you - altho, that could still change if faced with an unwanted pregnancy - and/or be certain to use BC, and/or don't have sex.

i stand by my assessment - there is no way in this world that i would EVER think it is *right* to force a woman to go forth with a pregnancy she does not want. 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.


you are right of course, a woman too knows what she's getting herself into sexually as well. obviously, the ideal would be no unwanted pregnancies...i think all women and men would agree on that point. all i am saying is the LAW is pretty clear, and who gets what say.....and as it is, imho, tis rightly so, as is. NO woman should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term.....and you still fail to address any of my questions regarding how one would enforce your scenario in any case. it's all well and good to present it, but how to follow through? i can see many pitfalls in that scenario, fathers bailing out, etc....and then the woman is stuck. besides, bottomline...nope, i will never agree a woman should have to do so.


btw - she is not 'killing a child'.......the potential for a fully formed human being is NOT a fully formed human being. the law states it's a womans right to mae that decision for herself, her body, her life. i agree, always, that in an ideal situation both mother and father would be in agreement and involved....but when push comes to shove, the decision solely resides with the mother...and i personally believe that is how it should be. it's in HER body, it's 9 months of her life, etc. and there are far too many variables to allow the father the right to choose for her....he gave up that right when he had sexual rlations with her...she didn't....b/c the law states clearly who gets to decide.



btw - you fail to address when women ARE forced to have sex against their will in this scenario. and, it is NOT 'all the child of the father'...it is equally theirs, but again, as the blastocyst/embryo/fetus all grows and develops in HER body, you bet....it being her body is an excellent argument imo. when they can pass on the embryo to the father to carry for 9 months, or if they can pass it on to a surrogate that the father gets, etc....then it may well be a whole other discussion. until then, i absolutely 100% agree with the law.

_

Abuskedti wrote:

before you were using the fact that the father knew what he was getting into having sex, but you seem to dismiss that for the woman. If they have a baby together, than the baby is their responsibility together. Granted, today there is the 3 month window where abortion is an option. That should be a joint decision, as all the others were and should be in the future. The it's my body arguement really doesn't hold water at that point, because it is all the child of the father. She got pregnant, the father didn't force her to get or be pregnant. The only forcing here would be the some right of the mother - for a three month window to kill the father's child and you think that is right?

if there is no interest or resistance of the father, then the choice belongs to the mother.. but the father's right seems to be dismissed here for no reason that I can understand.

The problem is that, ultimately, there is no such thing as a true joint decision. This is not possible. Everyone's opinions can be taken into consideration, but when they conflict there can be only one person's decision which holds power. Someone's "right" to make the decision they think is best for their child will ultimately loose out; if not the father's, then the mother's.

(For the record, that window where abortion is an option is actually more like 6-9 months.)

_

decides2dream wrote:

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.

Abuskedti

The problem is that, ultimately, there is no such thing as a true joint decision. This is not possible. Everyone's opinions can be taken into consideration, but when they conflict there can be only one person's decision which holds power. Someone's "right" to make the decision they think is best for their child will ultimately loose out; if not the father's, then the mother's.

(For the record, that window where abortion is an option is actually more like 6-9 months.)[/quote]

I think a 9 month abortion is rahter vulgar, but that is another topic

I don't think any abortion is really in the best interest of the child. though I believe can be the best decision for all involved.

Aborting a child that is loved and wanted by its father goes beyond what I believe reasonable. Dismissing fathers because of the social norms of 50 or more years ago is understandable, but needs to be readdressed. Times have changed.

decides2dream

scb wrote:

decides2dream wrote:

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.

Abuskedti

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.

_

Abuskedti wrote:

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.

_

decides2dream wrote:

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.

decides2dream

Abuskedti wrote:

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.

Pats54

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.

decides2dream

Pats54 wrote:

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.

_

decides2dream wrote:

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:

decides2dream

scb wrote:

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.

_

decides2dream wrote:

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. :(