Okay, imagine that the pro-lifers win and abortion is prohibited by federal law.
What are you going to do when pregnant women start drinking alcohol, taking herbal supplements, etc. that are known to cause complications/miscarriages in the hopes that they will not have to carry their babies to term? Abortion comes in a little pill now, and could probably be achieved by some non-regulated herbal supplement form with a few nasty side effects.
How far can we police women’s bodies? If you’re not allowed to ‘murder’ a fetus, should it be illegal to treat yourself with medicines which might harm the unborn child? What about going bungee jumping, or living with a chain smoker?
Even if abortion is morally wrong, it’s one of those things that is between a woman and her God. There will never be a good way to enforce laws regarding unseen, unborn children. If you must, lump it in with things like adultery, fornication, etc. that are permitted by law, but will condemn her in the end. Instead of badgering the poor woman, just go about your business feeling privately smug in the knowledge that your afterlife is going to be cooler than hers.
Myself, I have no clue whether abortion is moral and don’t feel any authority to decide that for someone else.
As for paternal obligations, I say let the father abort if he wishes. At any time before he has made contact with the child, let him sign a legal affidavit renouncing all rights and obligations. If the mother cannot raise the child without the support of an unwilling father, than perhaps the lives of both her and the baby would be better if she considered putting it up for adoption.
If 100 women in the reproductive time of life used NO birthcontrol for one year and 100 women Used birthcontrol, there would be a number of healthy babies born in the no birthcontrol group. No babies of any kind in the birthcontrol group.
To me, life begins at conception as soon as the fertilized egg divides into 2 cells and then 4 cells etc. But I favor abortion in certain circumstances. Abortion as birthcontrol? absolutely NOT.
I’m not an attorney, but the last time I looked MURDER is an illegal killing. Fortunately or unfortunately, abortion is still legal and therefore not murder at least in the United States.
skelton, I’m unclear on what you mean by the birth control statistics you stated. Are you saying that birth control is 100% effective? If so, what method do you mean? (Heck, I know people who’ve had babies after having their tubes tied!)
Mary Harts Legs (nice handle) - “Full examination of the abortion debate will follow a new ruling which clears the males responsibility.”
Interesting point, but I think with genetic testing, paternity will be undeniable. Therefore what we may get is a situation where if a man wants to avoid responsibility, he will have to use birth control too. Condom, or a yet unreleased male pill, which does exist and is used in the third world…
RobRoy,
It is my belief that the future ruling would be managed without the necessity of bringing into play the paternal identification and responsibility
Crudely utilize ownership principals and the present paternal responsibility doesn’t hold water.
If a male uses HIS sperm to impregnate a female(with or without purpose), he has a role in the outcome of the product. (2 to Tango, remember). It could be then said that the male, given his involvement has a voice in what is, in part his. Ironically, to create the present laws legalizing abortion this point has been dismissed.
At conception however, ownership of the sperm is dismissed, replaced now by a fertilized egg which a female is entirely in ownership of. The male has no right or say in the fate of the fertilized egg- how can he?- the fertilized egg and the reproductive system of the woman are entirely hers.
Magically at birth the ownership is then partial handed back to the male even though the female could have used crack, drank a bottle of scotch a day, smoked a carton of unfiltered cigs., and dressed her own cervix with motor oil. The male gets potentially damaged goods to be responsible for even though his ownership was negated for the entire development.
Now, as to why I would use the concept of ownership? Imagine a male who gave a pair of wheels that were assumed by both parties to be in good working order to a woman who was building a cart. The woman owns the cart(always has) and accepts the the tires on the assumption that the cart with the wheels is entirely hers- the law protects this right. The female then develops a plan to modify the cart-she welds a new hitching device to the cart which weakens the frame of the cart significantly. Nine months later, and after heavy use of the cart, the cart finally breaks. The woman is upset, the cart is no longer usable in its state and although it could be repaired, she lacks the resources. Remembering however that the male had loaned her the tires she seeks compensation for her broken cart, AND WINS!
Although loosely based, do you see a fault in the logic?
Is there currently any kind of legal waiver a man can have a woman can sign before intercourse, clearing the man of any responsibility for the baby should the woman become pregnant?
Upon further consideration, it seems that the father should have some financial responsibility to a pregnant woman up until the abortion, miscarriage or birth of the child. Contraception is not her sole responsibility, so she should not be solely responsible for the financial burden of pregnancy.
However, once the baby is born, either parent should be able to resign his or her obligation in a responsible way (either by turning the baby over to the other parent or giving it up for adoption).
Yes, legal proof of a vasectomy - seriously tho. The courts are coming down hard on “deadbeat dads” and all due respet to the arguments above, I think that the only way for men to avoid the (whether you think them fair or not) sometimes off again, on again vagaries of parental responsibility will be to avoid insemination of anything less than a legally bound female companion.
Remember it’s sex, not eating or breathing. It feels like a necessity, it’s a wonderful thing, but the forces that power it (those who reproduce prodigously pass on their genetic material), are not necessarily what makes for a good home or a well considered frame work to nuture a new soul in the world.
I think pro-active preventative strategies are better than the endless end games we play about placing blame and chasing down those who are responsible.
When I was more sexually active - I used to carry a condom AT ALL TIMES. This was about 15 years ago and I got a lot of crap about being a “pig”. I now make sure I do always have them at home, in the same mindset. Let’s get real about what we are doing cast aside the (selfish) romanticism and go for strategies that reduce unwanted pregnancies.
Before Roe v. Wade, there were lots of fatalities from so-called “back-room abortions.”
I just saw in a book at Drain Bead’s hopuse a picture of a woman, lying on the floor of a hotel room, with blood all over the place. The caption indicated she died from an illegal abortion.
I would hope that the next time a pro-lifer harrasses someone who wants to get an abortion with pictures of aborted fetuses, that they get this horrible image thrust in their face.
A dangerous line of thinking, IMO. The courts exist not to solve our problems and tell us how to think, but to enforce the will of the people. Remember, the government did not create the Constitution. The Constitution created the government. This “tired debate” is essential to the evolution of our society. If you are not concerned with the evolution of our society, you certainly wouldn’t be concerned with ensuring that new children are brought into it.
The questions presented here can either be answered by God or man. There is no third option. Since God has not settled this, it’s up to us. That, of course, means all of us. You are personally responsible for the actions and decisions of every government entity that exists by your compliance.
Our morals create the law – not the other way ‘round.
This rant has been brought to you by tymp.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.
Weeeellll … yes and no. The U.S. Federal Constitution (the one that most people mean when they talk about THE Constitution) was drafted by representatives sent to the Constitutional Convention by their respective State governments. This was then turned over to the governments of the several States for ratification. At no time was it put up for a popular vote.
Now, it’s true that the FEDERAL government didn’t create the Federal Constitution, and it’s true that the various State governments didn’t create the State constitutions that described how they were to be run, but the Federal Constitution was a “Constitution Between the States”, and to be honest, that whole “We the People” thing in the pre-amble was little more than a sales pitch.
The truth, as always, is more complicated than that.
He’s right. One is the death of an innocent who did not want to die but because of ridiculous laws put forth by people with no concept of the issue at hand, she did.
The other is a mess of tissue and congealed blood.
I was curious if you can tell me where I said one life was more valuable than another.
If you have convinced yourself of that(blood clot, mess of tissue…), then we’ll just agree to disagree.
There are two victims with abortion, the baby and the woman. My wife has counseled women who have had abortions, and every single one had regrets, guilt, and an extended mourning time(some lasting years).
Well, if they were fine about the abortion, they’d hardly go into counseling, now, would they? Your “one is the death of an innocent, one isn’t” comment was way out of line. I’d like to see you say it to someone who actually did lose a sister or lover or friend due to a botched backstreet abortion. If you still have a head left after that, perhaps you might see why nauseatingly cruel remarks like that do not further your cause in the slightest.
Main Entry: [sup]1[/sup]ba·by
Pronunciation: <tt>'bA-bE</tt>
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): pluralbabies
Etymology: Middle English, from babe
Date: 14th century
**1 a **(1) : an extremely young child; especially : <font size=-1>INFANT</font>
(2) : an extremely young animal b: the youngest of
a group 2 a: one that is like a baby (as in behavior) b : something that is one’s special responsibility, achievement, or
interest 3slanga: <font size=-1>GIRL</font>,
<font size=-1>WOMAN</font>
– often used in address b: <font size=-1>BOY</font>,
<font size=-1>MAN</font>
– often used in address 4: <font size=-1>PERSON</font>,
<font size=-1>THING</font>
<is one tough baby>
ba·by·hood /<tt>-bE-"hud</tt>/ noun
ba·by·ish /<tt>-ish</tt>/ adjective
I do not see how the word “baby” can be used in the context you used it. Nowhere in the definition of “baby” does the word “fetus” or “unborn” come up.
Let’s not battle semantics, son.
When you say one is innocent, you imply one is “guilty.”
I’d say the only guilty one is you - Guilty of a lack of compassion, guilty of forcing your personal morality on those who do not share your views, and guilty of thinking a “baby” and a “fetus” are the same thing.
When a tragedy happens that causes loss of life, there is always particular sadness when we hear of a children dying. I’ve always thought this is because they are “innocents”. They aren’t yet aware of right and wrong, therefore, never having chosen to do wrong, they are wholly innocent. The loss of their lives makes us all feel sad because they will never realize their dreams or hopes.
By the time we reach adulthood, we have made many mistakes, and no one makes it into adulthood innocent of any wrongdoing.
Not that I’m judging the dead woman for her choice. Her death was a tragedy.
But speaking as woman who has felt life moving in my womb, I do not believe that the other was simply “a mess of tissue and congealed blood”.
What a crass and vulgar description of the other lost potential depicted in that photo. Really, Beth. After you’ve had kids grow inside you, tell me if you still believe that.