But should she be able to legally force him to or prevent him from getting one? Because there’s a world of difference between considering someone’s opinion and placing your destiny in their hands.
Thanks, Mr. Justice, for paving the way to the overthrow of Roe v. Wade and setting the progress of women’s rights back a couple of centuries.
When are these assholes ever going to learn that there is one opinion and one opinion only that matters in the case of abortion: the mother’s? In this day and time, women are well educated as to the pros and cons of abortion. Where the hell does Kennedy get off thinking that they are not making informed choices?
Fucking religious whackos on the Supremes trying to impose their loser ideas on the rest of us…grumble, mutter…
I think what pissed me off most about the decision was both the condescending “there, there, honey, don’t worry your pretty little head, we’ll tell you what’s best for you” tone of it, and the notion that all women feel exactly the same way about everything regarding kids.
Justice Asswipe and his cronies can kiss my shiny metal ass.
And has that happened to you? Just asking.
Did you read the link?
It’s not legally a child, and he’s not legally a father, until the baby is born. Until then, no, he should legally have no say.
Morally and ethically he should in most cases, but that’s not the province of the law.
No, does it have to? The question was simple: What could be worse than one’s death? The answer for me is simple; my child’s death. (I’m talking about a living, breathing, walking around child, not a fetus.) What, do you not believe me?
No. And ?
No, which is why fairness is impossible. There is no equivalent for a man. An expendable internal organ was simply the closest analogy I could think up.
The point I was trying to make.
I can’t speak for RickJay, but it has happened to me. I lost my month-old son over 12 years ago. It still hurts, but for the first few years after he died, it hurt like hell. I know you can empathize with the sheer hell of losing a child.
That said, losing a child is the worst thing imaginable for any parent. You don’t have to actually lose one to have some idea, however slight, of how it feels. The fear is enough.
Robin
I can’t see, in the paragraph you quoted where he correlates being a mom with the later comments about “some women come to regret their decision etc.”. He doesn’t state "some women, those who’ve never had children and there for aren’t ‘real women’ come to regret their decision". Or, what Captain Amazing said. From what’s been quoted in this thread, the only thing I can really see is that he may not have put it exactly correctly.
I don’t even see anything he’s saying that isn’t true. From what’s been quoted HERE that is. If there is more, then yeah. FWIW, I am a mom as well. I have 2 kids.
I don’t feel like a “real woman” or whatever because of it though. And I still agree with the statement that the bond between mothers and their children IS, if not THE ultimate expression of respect for life, one of the most powerful.
Now if he’s made other, more pointed comments leading one to believe he thinks that that is THE mark of womanhood, I’m willing to change my mind, from what I read here though, I don’t see that he’s saying that.
According to the article they’re talking about partial-birth abortion. I can’t see anything “there-there don’t worry your pretty little head about this” in trying to prevent, if possible, something that heinous. They conceded in cases where it was medically necessary to save the mother’s life.
Otherwise, sheesh, why not just wait until the child is born and then chop off its head or something? I’m pro-choice, but from what I’ve read, this method is very late in the pregnancy, after the child is pretty much a viable life, and to me, I can’t understand someone waiting to that point and then going “oh, let’s get rid of it, I don’t really want a child”.
Preventing THAT, pro-choice or not, I can get behind.
And what exactly HAVE you read? Enough to know that “partial-birth abortion” isn’t actually a medical term? Enough to know how very few of the several procedures covered by that politcal catchphrase are performed? Enough to find a single documented instance of one that was performed for some reason OTHER than to save the life or health of the mother?
According to the CDC, just over 10,000 of the nearly 1.6 million abortions performed in 2005 occurred during or after week 21. The CDC doesn’t offer statistics on how many of them were medically necessary, but I’m willing to guess that the number of women who whimsically decide to get an abortion AFTER theoretical viability is vanishingly small.
Seriously, do people honestly think that women abort eight month preganancies for shits and giggles, or that doctors sit around thinking about the goriest, most gruesome possible ways to terminate a fetus? Is it really so unthinkable that perhaps when a woman and her doctor decide to go ahead with any medical procedure, it might be for the sake of her health and not an expression of their politics?
CanvasShoes, from what I’ve read, this procedure is most often done in cases of severe birth defects, in cases where the child would most often have a very, very short life anyway. This procedure is actually less gruesome than the still-legal procedure where they dismember the fetus in the womb and remove it piece by piece. It’s also less likely to damage women’s future fertility. (With the other procedure, there are, among other things, risks of bone fragments puncturing the uterus.) Don’t get me wrong, it’s a horrible, horrible procedure and I wouldn’t want any woman to have to go though it. It scares me, though, that, if God forbid, my doctor told me that I needed this procedure that I couldn’t get it. I don’t know if I would do it, but I would want to be the one to decide.
And why is it “heinous” to destroy a fetus that’s either dead or nonviable ? And who do you think is going to decide whether or not it was “medically necessary to save the mother’s life” ? Judges, most likely, who have no medical training, and many of whom are pro lifers who would like nothing better than to see the mother die.
Because that’s more likely to hurt or kill the mother, and because there’s no point since a baby defective enough for the doctors to do this procedure will be dead or dying anyway.
Except that’s not what happens. :rolleyes: Abortions that late happen because the fetus is dead or beyond saving.
And if women are hurt or killed because of it ? And not one baby is saved, because they are beyond saving ?
The fetus will be aborted anyway. A procedure that is not as safe will be used on the woman. The judges have made this medical decision for us. They overrule both the women and the women’s doctors.
This they do out of concern for our esteem?
Talk to us about esteem when there are five female Supreme Court Justices.
When he can grow a uterus and carry it to term, he can have final say on whether or not to have an abortion. However, until that time comes, I still have final say on whether or not I am going to be giving birth to and raising a child. I don’t see too many men who argue for keeping the child [when the mother doesn’t want to] who end up being the primary caregiver in these situations. If you’re gonna be with me, you can’t have your cake and eat it too in this particular argument.
Besides, as many posters have mentioned, these late term abortions are normally for reasons like the fetus being stillborn or not likely to survive past the first few days of life outside the womb. Making a potentially risky procedure even more dangerous is just stupid and pigheaded, especially when the procedure that’s being banned is used in cases where the mother’s survival of pregnancy is at stake. (Slightly OT: I was watching Dr. Shinyhead McTexas the other day and they had an episode on women who have a disease that makes them deathly ill during pregnancy; essentially, it causes you to vomit so much that you get put on extensive anti-nausea medications AND an IV to keep you fed. I am incredibly shocked that, after the first two pregnancies filled with this misery, they would even want to have another and RISK DYING before the baby comes to term. In cases like this, an abortion would put an end to the life-threatening side effects of these pregnancies.)
Only if medical science advances to the point where he can either; have the fetus transferred into an artificial womb and such transfer posed no more risk to the woman than an abortion, have some sort of faux uterus implanted and carry the baby himself. As long as the fetus is in mom’s body she get’s to make all the decisions.