I don’t agree that a fetus is a person, so I don’t think it should have any rights. By extension, I disagree with Frylock’s assertion and thus am totally against giving men a say in abortion. However, I do agree that abortion proponents have been short-sighted in repeating the “her body, her right” argument which Frylock refutes
Are you saying Science does support the premise that the fetus isn’t a person, or just that it fails to support the premise that the fetus is a person?
Which assertion of mine do you disagree with? As far as I know, “It’s not sufficient just to say ‘her body, her right’” is my entire point.
do a lot of Kleenex in several wastebaskets count as storage?
Although people don’t have unlimited rights when it comes to what they do with their own bodies, the law gives us pretty strong protection against other private individuals doing things to our bodies against our will.
If a fetus were to be considered a person, why should that give it any special right to make use of a woman’s body? I’m a person, and I can’t just go around doing whatever I like with other people’s bodies.
The reason the time frame of an abortion and questions of viability revolve around that. Anti abortionists and fearful politicians claim person hood from conception. A cluster of cells is not a person.
I didn’t understand that as a response to my question. (I think there may be a major typo in your first sentence–it’s ungrammatical and I’m not sure how to reconstruct it. This may be part of why I failed to understand the response.)
Are you saying science supports the claim that a cluster of cells is not a person, or are you saying it fails to support the claim that it is a person?
Sorry. I thought it was clear. Science does not support the idea that a fertilized egg is a person. as in fails to support. If a fertilized egg is not a person then it’s all the woman’s body right? There is no person inside her with rights as the anti abortionists claim.
Wrong. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional makes them unconsititutional. SCOTUS is the definitive, authoritative word on the matter. Constitutionality is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, so it is actually impossible for the Supreme Court to rule incorrectly on it. They are the ones who DEFINE what is correct.
Confidentiality falls under the ruberick of privacy. Doctor-patient confidentiality was at the heart of Roe.
That really isn’t what I’m saying - or at least trying to say.
As I said earlier I have trouble reconciling this belief (that it shouldn’t always be just the woman’s decision) with the fact that I recognize that it would violate a person’s right to their own body <— a right I hold quite dear to my heart.
Unfortunately either the language or my mastery of it are insufficient to the task of expressing what I mean without recourse to words synonymous with “want” “desire” etc.
It isn’t that I feel that because a man wants a kid then a woman should be forced to bear it. Though I recognize this is one interpretation, and possible ramification, of what I said.
I do believe that given the criteria I listed in the OP the man should be taken into consideration.
I can’t argue this legaly even if I wanted to. Others far more knowledgable than me have already cited the relevant cases (I trust) and I can’t find fault in them - not that I’m qualified to anyway 
Likely I can’t even argue it logicaly because every arguement will result in the man choosing whether the woman remains pregnant.
It’s something that I feel. It isn’t that I feel hard-done-by. It isn’t that I feel like I’m being deprived of property. It isn’t that I’m pissed that biology is unfair.
I imagine it is something similar to the emotional feeling of a miscarriage except that a miscarriage IS biology and so you can take some comfort in it being nature doing its thing. The fact that it was never “a child” per se doesn’t alter the fact that you grieve and you mourn.
In this case the “miscarriage” isn’t nature doing it’s thing though, it’s a result of a decision. Given the circumstances in the OP I think that both people made a choice in instigating the pregnancy and both people should be involved in the decision to terminate.
Northern Piper thank-you very much for the relevant Canadian Law! I knew which side the law came down on but it was cool to read the rationale and precedent.
This is a practical impossibility, setting aside the gross impsition on the rights of the woman, it’s not possible to give both sides equal say, because if there is disagreement, there has to be a tie breaker, and the only one for whom any ethical arguemnt can be made for getting the tie breaker is the woman. This means that, from a practical standpoint, the woman’s decision is autonomous, and there’s no other way to do it.
There is no logical way to give another person “some” say. It has to either be all the say or none of the say.
Sorry, I came into this topic after the fact and only read your response, briefly, that someone quoted. If your assertion is that abortion is wrong, then I disagree with that. If your assertion is simply that the way pro-choice people argue about the law is wrong, then we have no disagreements
You’re right.
Anyone here from Arizona? If so, er, yikes. How interesting that the same people trying to dissuade women from abortion are also assuring her that she’ll likely have support in raising a child – just, you know, not from the government. Let’s hope that those of you riled up over men’s reproductive rights are just as willing to get angry when it comes to women’s, which should be all but gone in 5…4…3…
Good luck with all that.
Yes, confidentiality is considered private, but confidentiality pertains to the record of services provided. The service, (abortion) is state controlled and regulated, and performed by a state-licensed practitioner, thus, falls outside the proper definition of “private”.
No, the Supreme Court is to be bound by the Constitution. The Court is not to proclaim something unconstitutional as a monarch would ruly by decree.
The Court , in essence, ruled by decree when one of the Justices burried a phrase pertaining to privacy and the bearing of children within a seperate court opinion not pertaining to bearing children, just so the phrase could be dug up as a precedent to satisfy the privacy required by Roe.
What if the man wanted the child so he could raise it with his gay partner?
The anti-abortionists are also hugely against gay parenting because “a child needs a father and a mother.” Yet if abortion were outlawed, there would be an epidemic of single woman giving birth. Since a child needs a mother and a father, I guess single pregnant woman should be forced to give birth for infertile couples.
Reproductively slavery it is.
Then who is the authoritative interpreter of what is constitutional?
So when someone is licensed to practice medicine in a certain state the state has the right to dictate which procedures are legal and which aren’t? The doctor and the patient can’t decide that?