Well, since there is, by nature’s hand, NO CHOICE about who’s body, health and life are at risk, that’s who should get final say.
When men figure a way to gestate a baby in their body they can have a say, until then, my body, my choice. This should be self evident, I feel.
While I agree with your second paragraph whole heartedly;
Except in cases of rape and medical necessity the choice was presented before the pregnancy ever occurred. Those risks are present in every pregnancy.
Calculated risk and implied consent to those risks come to mind. Considering these things are fairly common knowledge.
I think this is pretty easy. I don’t care whether someone is a man or a woman, I care whether there’s a fetus gestating in them. If you’re a big brawny dude who gets pregnant, you have the same right to terminate the pregnancy without the other parent’s permission as a svelte lady has.
You can’t sign away fundamental rights, like the right to control your body. If I agreed to donate my kidney to someone and changed my mind, no court would order my kidney forcibly removed. If, in a state where prostitution is legal, I contracted to have sex with someone and changed my mind, again, no court would force me to honor that contract. Hell, if I sign a contract to work for someone, I can’t be compelled to honor that contract.
I agree with you ladies on the principle matter. That much should be clear.
I’m asserting that there’s no real solution to the fact that, the child itself is not yours alone, but the decision to abort is. At least not one that also protects the fathers right to the child.
Seems like they are trying to balance an issue that neither science nor society is equipt handle in an equitable way.
“You ladies”?
Exactly how far do you think the father’s rights should extend when there is definitely an unequal balance in responsibility? You can’t cut the embryo in half, so someone gets to have the final say, right? Quit being some vague about the situation-just tell us who you think it should be, and why.
Think of it this way, in reality it cannot be his child truly until it exists alive in the world already delivered. Until then, it is a part of her body, no matter how you feel about equality or rights.
So, when does the “baby” begin to “exist”?
Your post and frankly the OP’s stupid description of an even stupider law, but most of all that legislature’s obvious intent to reduce abortions display why exactly trying to make abortion a social issue is a very bad idea. Because (gasp) reasonable people can have different views on it then, without getting into the reductio ad absurdum you see otherwise.
I don’t think there should be abortion rights. I also don’t think that there should be a right to a kidney transplant or a Stenting. Abortion should be a strictly medical procedure done by a medical practitioner and his/her patient after discussions and the state should not second guess it; except to ensure (as for other medical procedures) that standards of quality, health and safety are maintained.
Absolutely.
I think that the position that it’s your choice to abort solely becuase you fucked up the decision to not be pregnant in the first place and want the maintain the option to mulligan is a horrible one.
Yes someone does get the final say, it is, and should be in my opinion, the mother. But let’s not pretend that that right doesnt come at the expense of the fathers right. That’s my only real point. I find it impossible to reconcile
If you could cut an embro in half child support orders wouldn’t exist, that alone would solve a whole host of problems.
I could see how “you ladies” could be seen as condescending. I live in the south. I can’t imagine offense being taken here if I had said that in the tone I had imagined.
It doesn’t matter when the baby exists–I elided “exists independently of its mother”.
My five year old doesn’t have the right to my body now, so I don’t see any argument to why he should have had a right to it when he was a fetus. His personhood is secondary to that.
It’s not the term “you ladies”-it’s the assumption.
Based on first person references to bodys and choices. Though I could have misread.
Or maybe you thought there was a defined “men’s side” and "“women’s side” to this argument.
There is, it’s intrinsic. Just not in the way you’re suggesting.
There’s no shortage of “pro-life” women, or “pro choice” men for that matter down here. Ymmv, but making veiled accusations of sexism? To what end?
Women didn’t rob you of your equality, nature did.
Women can’t make a baby and then wait around while you gestate it. But I don’t see them trying to blame you, act hard done by, or play politics because of it.
It is what it is, and it cannot be changed.
Society and women are blameless.
Genetic testing would prove he was not the father, but it does not prove he had no reason to think he was the father.
You cannot be “compelled” by an armed guard to work for someone because of a contract; however, in many jobs areas breach of a work contract can result in very real and expensive civil penalties. I believe on abortion on demand without apology. However I also earnestly believe that the father should be able to legally and financially walk away from unwanted child (the paper abortion option). Both parties should have a choice with a limited window of opportunity to decide whether or not they want to be parents.
I certainly agree that it would encourage false rape accusations.
I really wish men could get pregnant.
And you don’t think in a state that legalized mandatory father consent wouldn’t peruse fraud or perjury charges? C’mon iiandyiiii!
But anyways, males don’t have final say. They have an equal say.