Should You Dump Your Pregnant Girlfriend?

[McUSA]

I saw this headline at the airport Friday on "Details" magazine. "Details" basically looked like "Cosmo for men." It's published by the same folks who bring us GQ. Anyway, the headline was so provocative that I had to check it out. Would there be a quiz to tell me if I should dump my girlfriend?

No such luck, the article was about a "growing movement" to allow men to terminate all parental rights and not pay child support if they impregnanted a young lady.

Apparently, there are men that are upset that a woman can choose to have a baby, an abortion, or adoption. Depending on the choice, the sperm donor might to have write a large check for 18 years.

Since women have a choice, it seems only fair that men should also have a "choice" in whether they want to participate or hit the road. It did mention the ancient practice of marrying your pregnant partner for "honor."

It also included some horror stories about the severity of child support payments and one dandy about some guy who already had another child so he "didn't have time for this one." (Would the next child not count the same as the current child?, but I digress).

It would have been nice if they could have included some stories about single women getting fabulously rich off child support payments, but these were missing.

Surprisingly, there was no mention anywhere in the piece about the welfare of the child - that "terminating parental rights" is probably not in your kid's best interest.

I guess I just found it humourous that they ran this piece. Sort of one of those "This Week's Sign of the Apocalypse."

No online link that I could find.

[Titania]

:rofl:

You play, you pay.

If you don't want to be on the hook for some kid you didn't want, keep your equipment zipped.

[Happy Spiaggia]

Men should have a choice in the matter.

If the man doesn't want to be a part of the whole deal, she can go live with her mother.

[Titania]

Men should have a choice in the matter.

I assume you're just being facetious as usual, but men DO have a choice in the matter.

They have a choice to wrap it up or go home and have solo-party.

[Saint Kepler]

Is it fair that women can opt-out of a pregnancy and men can't? Maybe, but abandoning your child is NOT an acceptable solution.

[Happy Spiaggia]

The woman has just as much say over the initial "process." Why does she get all the choice afterwards.

Typical feminist viewpoint.

[Saint Kepler]

I assume you're just being facetious as usual, but men DO have a choice in the matter.

They have a choice to wrap it up or go home and have solo-party.

(I'll save the pro-lifer's some typing)

Women also have the choice not to have sex so abortion is not necessary to be pro-choice.

[Titania]

Women also have the choice not to have sex so abortion is not necessary to be pro-choice.
Nowhere have a said that women don't have a choice.

But don't whine about unfair child support payments, etc., if you get some girl pregnant and she chooses to raise your baby.

[Titania]

The woman has just as much say over the initial "process." Why does she get all the choice afterwards.
Becuase she's the one who puts her health at risk carrying and delivering, she's the one who's body feeds the baby, etc.

Do you need to go back to 5th grade health class?

[Happy Spiaggia]

The woman has all the responsibility after getting pregnant since she must carry it, feed it, change its diapers. Therefore she should should shoulder 95% of the responsibility of not getting pregnant unless she is ready for that responsibility. Especially if she is not married. If the man doesn't understand that, it's not his problem.

[MikeTheTiger]

Becuase she's the one who puts her health at risk carrying and delivering, she's the one who's body feeds the baby, etc.

Do you need to go back to 5th grade health class?

While I certainly agree that both people involved in creating a child bear responsibility for raising that child, I also think it requires a great deal of rationalizing for pro-choice advocates to find a way to justify the disparity inherent in this sort of situation. A man is on the hook financially (sometimes in very crippling ways) for 18 years if the woman wants the child, but the woman shouldn't be expected to deal with the inconvenience of pregnancy and delivery for 10 months if the man wants the child?

[Tim><]

I also think that if this current situation exists, the man should be entitled to equal custody under the law.

[Titania]

While I certainly agree that both people involved in creating a child bear responsibility for raising that child, I also think it requires a great deal of rationalizing for pro-choice advocates to find a way to justify the disparity inherent in this sort of situation. A man is on the hook financially (sometimes in very crippling ways) for 18 years if the woman wants the child, but the woman shouldn't be expected to deal with the inconvenience of pregnancy and delivery for 10 months if the man wants the child?
Pregnancy is an "inconvenience"? :lol: Wow.

I guess you men should have thought of how unfair all this could turn out to be when you were oppressing us for 10,000 years. :D

[Titania]

I also think that if this current situation exists, the man should be entitled to equal custody under the law.
I agree with that.

If he's paying, he has a right to direct his money...he has a right see his child at least equal time, have input into where they live, go to school, etc.

[Tim><]

Pregnancy is an "inconvenience"? :lol: Wow.

I guess you men should have thought of how unfair all this could turn out to be when you were oppressing us for 10,000 years. :DYou are clearly dodging his overarching point. If a price can be put on the work involved in pregnancy, it is most likely smaller than 18 years of child support. Anyway, I am not sure how I feel about this issue in general.

[Titania]

If the man doesn't understand that, it's not his problem.
If the man doesn't understand that, he shouldn't have the right to put his dick into anyone else.

[Titania]

You are clearly dodging his overarching point. If a price can be put on the work involved in pregnancy, it is most likely smaller than 18 years of child support.You're smart enough to know that, not only are their lifetime consequences of one narmal pregnancy and delivery, not all pregnancies are normal and healthy.

[MikeTheTiger]

Pregnancy is an "inconvenience"? :lol: Wow.

I guess you men should have thought of how unfair all this could turn out to be when you were oppressing us for 10,000 years. :D

That's it. You're no longer invited to my 10,001st birthday party. :D

[Tim><]

You're smart enough to know that, not only are their lifetime consequences of one narmal pregnancy and delivery, not all pregnancies are normal and healthy.I understand that. However, as an actuary, you can factor all of that in. Most pregnancies go smoothly. Moreover, despite this danger, many women voluntarily have pregnancies and go on to live normal healthy lives. The added risk does not make the procedure priceless. If nothing else, look at the costs involved in obtaining a surrogate mother as an approximation of the market value of a pregnancy.

[EweTupper]

Maybe it isn't fair, but thats life. (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1031830&postcount=56) If a baby is going to be born, then the guy should have to help support it. Otherwise, its not fair to the baby. Now, if you want to change the law so that a man can force the woman to have an abortion, then argue that point. But, unless you're going to that length, then someone's gotta help support the baby, and its very clear to me that the "someone" should be the biological father.

[Titania]

Anyway, I am not sure how I feel about this issue in general.Me neither.

But, my initial reaction of :rofl: at men, who have enjoyed far superior social and economic power versus women for 99% of human history (and still do in many modern societies), who are whining about being held responsible for children they create.

I mean, yes, there are times when women are sneaky and mislead a man about the chances of her getting pregnant for all kinds of deplorable reasons (attention, revenge, etc.), but, men do a lot of bad things to women too. Life's just not fair.

At the moment I have no problem with leaving the question of how a pregnancy will end with the women, since it's her body who's doing the work. If you have a problem with that, talk to God...see if there's some way we could get men more involved in the childbearing role. I would have no problem if my hubby would carry the baby for a few months, heck, if he would deliver him or her, that would be even better!

Also, if he could take over the milk-engorged-and-then-saggy-breasts and the general weight gain, that would be cool.

[MikeTheTiger]

You're smart enough to know that, not only are their lifetime consequences of one narmal pregnancy and delivery, not all pregnancies are normal and healthy.

Again, those are the sorts of things that we as actuaries are trained to quantify monetarily. You are correct that I oversimplified the situation, but the point still remains that the value of what is expected of a man even if he doesn't want the child is at least as much as that which feminists believe a woman should not be forced to "pay" if the man wants the child. Again, I think it takes a lot of rationalizing to justify that disparity.

[Tim><]

Maybe it isn't fair, but thats life. (http://www.actuarialoutpost.com/actuarial_discussion_forum/showpost.php?p=1031830&postcount=56) If a baby is going to be born, then the guy should have to help support it. Otherwise, its not fair to the baby. Now, if you want to change the law so that a man can force the woman to have an abortion, then argue that point. But, unless you're going to that length, then someone's gotta help support the baby, and its very clear to me that the "someone" should be the biological father.To play devil's advocate, why not the grandparents? Anyway, this may sound simple at first glance, but what happens if the woman gets married and decides to raise the kids with someone else?

[Titania]

I understand that. However, as an actuary, you can factor all of that in. Most pregnancies go smoothly. Moreover, despite this danger, many women voluntarily have pregnancies and go on to live normal healthy lives. The added risk does not make the procedure priceless. If nothing else, look at the costs involved in obtaining a surrogate mother as an approximation of the market value of a pregnancy.I understand your analysis. However, I'm not approaching this question as an actuary.

I'm approaching it as a woman. Sorry, I'm a bit biased in favor of my gender.

Anyway, I'm don't believe that all questions can be approached from an economic/cost-benefit standpoint.

Even if 18 years of child-support is "more valuable" than carrying, delivering, breast feeding, and raising, the support is for the CHILD, not compensation to the mother.

[Titania]

To play devil's advocate, why not the grandparents? What role did they play in this besides giving birth to the parents a couple decades ago? Anyway, this may sound simple at first glance, but what happens if the woman gets married and decides to raise the kids with someone else?Why should that guy have to pay for the first guy's kids?

[MountainHawk]

Even if 18 years of child-support is "more valuable" than carrying, delivering, breast feeding, and raising, the support is for the CHILD, not compensation to the mother.

True in theory, false in practice.

[Griffin 4]

If the man doesn't understand that, he shouldn't have the right to put his dick into anyone else.So are you saying that women are don't understand when they allow that to happen?

[Griffin 4]

Even if 18 years of child-support is "more valuable" than carrying, delivering, breast feeding, and raising, the support is for the CHILD, not compensation to the mother.I believe the issue is the cost to each parent, not the benefit to each parent.

[Titania]

Again, those are the sorts of things that we as actuaries are trained to quantify monetarily. You are correct that I oversimplified the situation, but the point still remains that the value of what is expected of a man even if he doesn't want the child is at least as much as that which feminists believe a woman should not be forced to "pay" if the man wants the child. Again, I think it takes a lot of rationalizing to justify that disparity.I agree, it does take a lot of rationalization...about the same amount as people who feel that a bundle of cells in my womb deserves all the rights of a baby.

I'm ready to agree to disagree on whether what my body is doing is my business or yours.

[EweTupper]

Anyway, this may sound simple at first glance, but what happens if the woman gets married and decides to raise the kids with someone else?I agree with the point made above that the supporting father should be have the right to have a role in the life of the child. Thus, if the baby-mama's new man wants to have a role in the child's life (ie adopt the kid), then the baby-daddy's support should no longer be required.

I see your point about this not being a cut-and-dry issue. I'm going to take a particularly un-fallout stance and say that I think the law in this area should not be overly defined, and judges should be afforded wide lattitude to make determinations based on the situation at hand.

[MountainHawk]

I agree, it does take a lot of rationalization...about the same amount as people who feel that a bundle of cells in my womb deserves all the rights of a baby.

I'm ready to agree to disagree on whether what my body is doing is my business or yours.

Just be consistent. Either it's your body, and therefore you get to make the decision and live with the consequences ... or it's a product of two peoples action, and both of them are responsible and have the rights and responsibility of parents.

It's the inconsistency that's maddening. The man has no say if his child lives or dies, but has to be fully responsible. No rights, only responsibility.

[Titania]

Just be consistent. On this particular issue, I'm unable to be consistent.

Don't worry, one day soon abortion will be illegal again, and then the world will be fair.

Women won't be in control, and men will continue to get screwed by family courts, and there will be even more unwanted babies in the world.

[MikeTheTiger]

Even if 18 years of child-support is "more valuable" than carrying, delivering, breast feeding, and raising, the support is for the CHILD, not compensation to the mother.

The only comparison at issue here is 18 years of child-support vs. carrying and delivering. In the hypothetical situation where the father wants the child but the mother does not, the assumption is that the father will raise the child, not the mother.

In any case, I'm certainly not trying to make a case that it's unfair that the father have to support the child he has created. I absolutely think that's fair. I just don't think it's fair that the father has no right to decide whether his child lives or dies.

[MountainHawk]

On this particular issue, I'm unable to be consistent.

Don't worry, one day soon abortion will be illegal again, and then the world will be fair.


I'd rather it be the other way. Just give the father the same opt-out option as the mother.

[HangerAngler]

I agree with that.

If he's paying, he has a right to direct his money...he has a right see his child at least equal time, have input into where they live, go to school, etc.

Just b/c he's paying doesn't mean he is being an equal parent. His presence and involvement are beyond important.

[Titania]

Just b/c he's paying doesn't mean he is being an equal parent. His presence and involvement are beyond important.
Right...but he should have the RIGHT to be involved.

Making a guy pay isn't going to make them be a father. But, if a guy is being forced to pay, he should have the right to be involved if he wants.

[Tim><]

Dare I do the parody of this thread?

[Griffin 4]

Right...but he should have the RIGHT to be involved.

Making a guy pay isn't going to make them be a father. But, if a guy is being forced to pay, he should have the right to be involved if he wants.I don't understand why anyone wouldn't want to pay or be involved with their kids, but if your belief is that the right to life begins with the decision to carry the child to term, viability, or birth, and that the decision to abort or not belongs to the woman alone, then the responsibility for raising the child (and everything that entails) should also belong to the woman alone if the man has opted out within the same time-frame that the woman would be allowed to opt out.

[Griffin 4]

Dare I do the parody of this thread?I think you should make several parodies of this thread.

[Tim><]

I think you should make several parodies of this thread.One with just an 'h', and one with an 's' and 't' as well?

[O. Hannah]

It's pretty widely accepted that if you get someone pregnant you will be on the hook for child support....and I have no problem with that.

The sad fact is that in the situation of divorce...the dad is screwed.

P.S. I know a guy that has to pay child support even though it later turned out the kid wasn't his. :-(

[Griffin 4]

One with just an 'h', and one with an 's' and 't' as well?None with a "p"?

[Griffin 4]

It's pretty widely accepted that if you get someone pregnant you will be on the hook for child support....and I have no problem with that.It used to be widely accepted that if you get pregnant, you were on the hook for raising a kid.

[Tim><]

None with a "p"?The 'p' is trumped by the other two. Of course, if you were to allow for 3 parodies . . .

[Griffin 4]

The 'p' is trumped by the other two. Of course, if you were to allow for 3 parodies . . .I didn't realise that you weren't allowed 100 parodies.

[Happy Spiaggia]

What's the hold up on the parody thread?

[Tim><]

I didn't realise that you weren't allowed 100 parodies.Something about your IDs + your parodies have to be < 100.

[Griffin 4]

Something about your IDs + your parodies have to be < 100.Well, 24 parodies then.

[Tim><]

Well, 24 parodies then.Go for it!

[Garden_Variety]

...If your belief is that the right to life begins with the decision to carry the child to term/viability/birth and that the decision to abort or not belongs to the woman alone then the responsibility for raising the child ... should also belong to the woman alone...

In a perfect world men and women would only copulate if they shared the same values & beliefs and only get pregnant when both wanted it to happen. This may be kind of tangential here but from my point of view (child that was 'supported' after a divorce) child support should be dynamic instead of static and have a ceiling on it, just as SS benefits should have a max. As SS should only cover the cost of basic needs, so too should child support only cover 1/2 of the cost of the basic needs to raise a child and no more. In cases where paternity has been proven to not exist support payments should cease to be required.

I agree that men bear too much responsibility if an accidental pregnancy occurs given the level of control they have on the outcome of said pregnancy. If a pregnancy ends with the birth mother keeping the child then child support can be required. By the same logic shouldn't both men AND women be on the hook if the child is given up for adoption (until the time when the child finds new parents)? Shouldn't there be legal recourse for men who want the child but the mother wants to abort? I think the power is out of balance here...

For that matter, why can't both parents (married or otherwise) sue the condom manufacturer, pill maker, diapragm factory for product failure as the source of $$$ for raising baby? In the current model (sorry Titania!!!) they seem just as culpable as the man.

[Titania]

For that matter, why can't both parents (married or otherwise) sue the condom manufacturer, pill maker, diapragm factory for product failure as the source of $$$ for raising baby? In the current model (sorry Titania!!!) they seem just as culpable as the man.
Because people make mistakes when using birth control...in general birth control is very effective when used properly, and it says right on the package how effective it is.

If everyone who missed a pill or broke a condom sued, no one would sell birth control.

I prefer the current state of the world.

Let men be disincented from having sex with women they don't want to raise children with.

Let birth control manufacturers stay in business.

[Griffin 4]

This may be kind of tangential here but from my point of view (child that was 'supported' after a divorce) child support should be dynamic instead of static and have a ceiling on it, just as SS benefits should have a max. As SS should only cover the cost of basic needs, so too should child support only cover 1/2 of the cost of the basic needs to raise a child and no more. In cases where paternity has been proven to not exist support payments should cease to be required.I disagree.

[Titania]

Grif, you're paying child support, right? Or is she paying you?

Are you cool with all that?

[Griffin 4]

Grif, you're paying child support, right? Or is she paying you?

Are you cool with all that?I have custody, and she has been ordered by the court to pay me. Not that she has ever paid me.

[erosewater]

One with just an 'h', and one with an 's' and 't' as well?

Doh! I should have read the thread before posting the obvious parody.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

As SS should only cover the cost of basic needs, so too should child support only cover 1/2 of the cost of the basic needs to raise a child and no more. In cases where paternity has been proven to not exist support payments should cease to be required.Exactly. Maybe somehwat beyond basic needs, though. But it is ridiculous how the support payments just grow without limit based on the man's income, to the extent that it goes more towards supporting the woman's lifestyle than raising the child and that men will often deliberately forgo opportunities to increase their income because of it.

There was a case with a few years ago with an NBA player whose ex-girlfriend was receiving $5000/month for child support for his daughter and was suing to get $10000/month. He had custody of the girl in the off-season, and said he never spent that much on her while having custody. Families of 5 live quite comfortably on less than that. He actually won the case though.

[fallout]

Nowhere have a said that women don't have a choice.

But don't whine about unfair child support payments, etc., if you get some girl pregnant and she chooses to raise your baby.


What if the man wants to raise the baby? What if he wants the baby, and she doesn't want to give birth? Why is his future based on her whims, but she is in no way obligated by his?

[fallout]

I agree with that.

If he's paying, he has a right to direct his money...he has a right see his child at least equal time, have input into where they live, go to school, etc.


Legally, you are very wrong.

[fallout]

I agree with the point made above that the supporting father should be have the right to have a role in the life of the child. Thus, if the baby-mama's new man wants to have a role in the child's life (ie adopt the kid), then the baby-daddy's support should no longer be required.

I see your point about this not being a cut-and-dry issue. I'm going to take a particularly un-fallout stance and say that I think the law in this area should not be overly defined, and judges should be afforded wide lattitude to make determinations based on the situation at hand.


un-fallout = wrong

[fallout]

Because people make mistakes when using birth control...in general birth control is very effective when used properly, and it says right on the package how effective it is.

If everyone who missed a pill or broke a condom sued, no one would sell birth control.

I prefer the current state of the world.

Let men be disincented from having sex with women they don't want to raise children with.

Let birth control manufacturers stay in business.

But a woman, can have an abortion, therefore she is free to have sex with men she doesn;t want to raise children with. You are a complete and total hypocrite here.

[Lucy]

I have custody, and she has been ordered by the court to pay me. Not that she has ever paid me.All too common. I don't think my husband's father ever paid a dime after he left town.

(He did need to leave the state to avoid paying child support.)

He didn't even bother to provide copies of his tax returns so my husband could apply for financial aid while in college.

Good luck getting blood from that stone.

[Lucy]

But a woman, can have an abortion, therefore she is free to have sex with men she doesn;t want to raise children with. You are a complete and total hypocrite here.I agree that it's not fair, but you're going overboard here. Having an abortion is kind of a big price to pay.

[fallout]

I agree that it's not fair, but you're going overboard here. Having an abortion is kind of a big price to pay.


I disagree. I believe if a man realizes the pregnancy is a mistake, he should be on the hook for half the price of an abortion and probably a ride back and forth to the clinic. If the woman chooses not to accept his offer, he should be off the hook. Also, all his rights should be terminated.

Why should one class of citizens be treated better than others?

I do honestly believe this.

[Listerine]

I sense a rant coming on...








as soon as I've eaten enough of my sandwich.

[fallout]

I sense a rant coming on...








as soon as I've eaten enough of my sandwich.


never rant on an empty stomach.

[erosewater]

I disagree. I believe if a man realizes the pregnancy is a mistake, he should be on the hook for half the price of an abortion and probably a ride back and forth to the clinic. If the woman chooses not to accept his offer, he should be off the hook. Also, all his rights should be terminated.

Why should one class of citizens be treated better than others?

I do honestly believe this.

I've argued this with some pro-choice feminist types before and witnessed :meltdowns: like you've never seen before in your life. Now I usually just keep quiet.

[Pseudolus]

If the man is bound from conception to take care of his son or daughter, then the woman should likewise be bound - and that includes not having the little darling killed. If the woman is not so bound, then the man should not be bound.

- OR -

What if there were a pill that could be taken that would kill the child, but would have no effect on the woman? Let's say it would make the little darling just disappear, as if it never existed. Should the man have the legal right to administer this pill to his child's mother without her knowledge or consent? In this hypothetical world, the rules would be equitable: each parent would have the right to "terminate the pregnancy", and, if this right were not exercised, each parent would bear financial responsibility for the child.

[Listerine]

OK, it seems there is nothing to be done but set down one set of rules and apprise everyone of them. I think I might disagree with the person that the law should be vague and each case decided individually.

I have always sort of thought that the post-pill Western/Abrahamic attitude toward sex was analogous to the attitude toward the environment: "God created all of this for me to use to whatever extent that I can to whatever limit it is available. What's this about telling me to clean up after my mess? Take responsibility?"

Well no, He didn't create all of this for you. The big bang and evolution created most of it. Evolution created you, and it created sex. Just like the desire to eat food and stay warm, dry, and safe requires work, so does sex bring with it burdens and responsibilities. Historically the burdens have fallen on the female: pregnancy, nursing, etc... but also 100% of parenthood if the father denies the child. That doesn't seem right, and it's no longer always necessary to resign one's self to it either, what with the DNA testing. One COULD say, well let the burden to avoid the risk of being a single mother with no $$ support fall on the woman, and propagate a society divided into good girls who are virgins until marriage, and bad girls who service men for their own gain and take on all associated risk -- AND keep government involved in marriage. Or should no man ever be supporting his kids, marriage or not??? That's the other alternative -- if a father (or mother?) declares that he wants to leave a family even after marriage, he is no longer financially responsible for their offspring. How to prevent that sort of thing unless government is in the business of recognizing marriage?

It seems perfectly appropriate to have both parties share in responsibility or any offspring resulting from sex: putting the burden on a man not to have sex if he isn't ready to risk creating a child, or to see a pregnancy terminated despite his wishes. It is simply less radical, and less medieval than assigning all of the risk to the woman -- presumably both parties usually agree to the sex they are having. But this arrangement provides more of an incentive for responsible behavior and/or restraint on the party that would more likely be the aggressor in pursuing the risky behavior, all other things held equal.

The bigger problem is that people enter the adult world completely unprepared. I know someone who was entrapped in a pregnancy, and had never been told before it happened that if a casually involved woman conceives by him through sheer trickery, he will still be enslaved to this situation for nearly two decades, financially. Likewise plenty of young girls are completely unprepared for men who will lie, psychologically bully, or worse, to get between their legs... I have always been puzzled by the high virtue associated with lying to children about themselves and the world, rather than preparing them to fend for themselves in it.

One can't count only on parents to prepare children for the issues in this thread. Sex education in schools is a good safety net for a society in which there exist neglectful and/or crazy parents, and sex ed should absolutely include a full exposure to all practical and legal consequences of conceiving a child.




All of this said, I am already on record railing against paternity fraud. I think women who do this should face imprisonment for it.


Thank you, drive through.

[Listerine]

Why should one class of citizens be treated better than others?

Frickin' Canadian socialists.

[Lucy]

. . .The bigger problem is that people enter the adult world completely unprepared. I know someone who was entrapped in a pregnancy, and had never been told before it happened that if a casually involved woman conceives by him through sheer trickery, he will still be enslaved to this situation for nearly two decades, financially. Likewise plenty of young girls are completely unprepared for men who will lie, psychologically bully, or worse, to get between their legs... I have always been puzzled by the high virtue associated with lying to children about themselves and the world, rather than preparing them to fend for themselves in it.
I know someone that happened to, too. For the next 5 years or so I was on a crusade to warn men of the danger. It as weird as the case you mention: She lied to him about the timing - it was her peak fertile period despite what she said. Then she said she was having an abortion but changed her mind, but led him on about the abortion for as long as one plausibly can. The man was well educated and should have known damn well what he was getting into up front. So I don't think mere education is enough. His issues were lack of restraint and poor judgement. If you sleep with a nut, you may bear consequences. (There are a lot of ways she was a nut, but I'm not going to go into that.)

The fundamental problem is that babies aren't fair. I don't think there's any way to slice it that's fair and also supports babies.

[Listerine]

The woman in the case I know of wasn't a nut. She lied about being on the pill, and showed up two years later with a child who needed help with his medical bills. I'm called a nut here all the time and I would never do what either one of these women did.

Anybody bringing a child into this world could be accused of exhibiting poor judgment.

[Lucy]

Why'd she do it?

I think in the case I know of the woman wanted to keep the man, and thought trapping him was a way to do so.

(edited to add: that may not be nuts, although it's morally wrong. She was nuts, though, and he was crazy to trust her with something as important as birth control. Trust me, she was way nuttier than anything you've ever done or talked about here.)

[ahow]

The woman in the case I know of wasn't a nut.Don't give away the fact that what you are about to say is a lie so quickly. I stopped reading after this first sentence...

[fallout]

I know someone that happened to, too. For the next 5 years or so I was on a crusade to warn men of the danger. It as weird as the case you mention: She lied to him about the timing - it was her peak fertile period despite what she said. Then she said she was having an abortion but changed her mind, but led him on about the abortion for as long as one plausibly can. The man was well educated and should have known damn well what he was getting into up front. So I don't think mere education is enough. His issues were lack of restraint and poor judgement. If you sleep with a nut, you may bear consequences. (There are a lot of ways she was a nut, but I'm not going to go into that.)

The fundamental problem is that babies aren't fair. I don't think there's any way to slice it that's fair and also supports babies.


Clearly there are. A man gets equal treatment as the woman wrt abortion and/or having custody of the baby. How is this not fair?

[Listerine]

Why'd she do it?
My guess is she wanted a baby. It IS remotely possible that she actually was on the pill and it failed, but the fact that my friend was clueless as to this child's existence until the child was two years old casts everything in doubt.

[Traci]

I'm pro-choice - and most would call me a feminist - I guess I am

And I've gone on record here before agreeing that men should have the choice to opt-out of a pregnancy.

They pay no child support - they have NO parental rights - and the decision is irrevokable. No coming back later to undo it.

I'm pretty sure that in most states, if Mom remarries and Step-dad adopts the kid, that Bio-dad is off the hook for child support. But then Bio-dad also terminates all parental rights.

[McUSA]

The fundamental problem is that babies aren't fair. I don't think there's any way to slice it that's fair and also supports babies.

That's probably the best way to put it. Maybe we should get rid of child support and legalized abortion altogether - that way sex would have known defined consequences and men and women would make better decisions.

[Listerine]

And I've gone on record here before agreeing that men should have the choice to opt-out of a pregnancy.

They pay no child support - they have NO parental rights - and the decision is irrevokable. No coming back later to undo it.
Sort of gives a free hand to those who are comfortable both turning their back on their own children and lying to a woman for the opportunity of unprotected sex/removing condoms during sex/getting their girlfriends very drunk/etc. Also unenforceable if the mother is struggling to support the child financially and is tempted to strike up a bargain for the sake of financial assistance when the guy waltzes back in nine years later. What about the woman who was pining for the father since he left? The child who wishes he or she had a Daddy? Too easy to later get around the supposed cost of opting out.

[Utanapishtim]

Clearly there are. A man gets equal treatment as the woman wrt abortion and/or having custody of the baby. How is this not fair?
Trouble there is that slicing into the man won't prevent the birth...

[Mulan]

I'd rather it be the other way. Just give the father the same opt-out option as the mother.
How exactly would this work?

[ahow]

Trouble there is that slicing into the man won't prevent the birth...Depends when and where the man is sliced...

[Lucy]

I'm pro-choice - and most would call me a feminist - I guess I am

And I've gone on record here before agreeing that men should have the choice to opt-out of a pregnancy.

They pay no child support - they have NO parental rights - and the decision is irrevokable. No coming back later to undo it.

I'm pretty sure that in most states, if Mom remarries and Step-dad adopts the kid, that Bio-dad is off the hook for child support. But then Bio-dad also terminates all parental rights.I go back and forth on this one. It creates a level of parity between the man and the woman, but in practice I think it would leave a lot more babies in poverty - it's very hard to BOTH take care of a baby and also earn a living. There was a time when I thought the solution to that was to replace welfare with orphanages. I think that would be a disincentive to have unaffordable babies. But orphanages don't have a very good track record of rearing healthy kids, mentally or physically. I don't think the current legal set-up is terrible, although it's obviously unfair to some men. In the end, given that people will make irresponsible decisions, I think any set-up will be unfair to someone - man, woman, baby, or the rest of us.

[fallout]

Trouble there is that slicing into the man won't prevent the birth...


Abortion <> slicing into a woman.

[MikeTheTiger]

I'm pro-choice - and most would call me a feminist - I guess I am

And I've gone on record here before agreeing that men should have the choice to opt-out of a pregnancy.

They pay no child support - they have NO parental rights - and the decision is irrevokable. No coming back later to undo it.

I'm pretty sure that in most states, if Mom remarries and Step-dad adopts the kid, that Bio-dad is off the hook for child support. But then Bio-dad also terminates all parental rights.

I applaud you for your consistency, Traci. I disagree with you on this issue, but at least you are applying the same standards to everyone. That being said, I'd rather the laws stay inconsistent as they are now rather than going to a consistent standard that completely disregards the needs of the life two people have created. At least right now the father is required to take financial responsibility at conception. It would just be nice if the mother was also required to take responsibility at the same point in time.

[Pseudolus]

I go back and forth on this one. It creates a level of parity between the man and the woman, but in practice I think it would leave a lot more babies in poverty - it's very hard to BOTH take care of a baby and also earn a living.Why is a baby in poverty an undesirable feature that must be prevented, but an aborted baby, well, that's just a choice?

[MountainHawk]

How exactly would this work?

Man gives woman enough money to have the abortion, gives up his parental rights, and goes away. It's then up to the woman if she wants to have the kid or not.

Edit: OR, require both parents approval for an abortion to take place. If the woman wants to abort and the man doesn't, then the man can take care of the kid and the woman wouldn't need to pay child support, but again would have no parental rights.

[HangerAngler]

Man gives woman enough money to have the abortion, gives up his parental rights, and goes away. It's then up to the woman if she wants to have the kid or not.

Edit: OR, require both parents approval for an abortion to take place. If the woman wants to abort and the man doesn't, then the man can take care of the kid and the woman wouldn't need to pay child support, but again would have no parental rights.

If there is a case where the woman wants to abort, and the man says he doesn't want to, then a vindictive woman could smoke, drink, eat poorly, renovate houses with paint that predates 1978, etc. That way she could practically guarantee that the dad gets a messed-up kid.

[MikeTheTiger]

If there is a case where the woman wants to abort, and the man says he doesn't want to, then a vindictive woman could smoke, drink, eat poorly, renovate houses with paint that predates 1978, etc. That way she could practically guarantee that the dad gets a messed-up kid.

And in yet another example of the inconsistency in the current laws, the woman would be open to criminal charges for doing so.

[ACCtuary]

I assume you're just being facetious as usual, but men DO have a choice in the matter.

They have a choice to wrap it up or go home and have solo-party.


Or make every effort to ensure the pregnancy occurs within a sustainable relationship. What if the woman decides, after a previous agreement, that she does not wish to have the baby? Or she decides to leave him and then have an abortion? If the man wishes to take care of the baby, shouldn't he have a say in the matter?

[Titania]

Edit: OR, require both parents approval for an abortion to take place. If the woman wants to abort and the man doesn't, then the man can take care of the kid and the woman wouldn't need to pay child support, but again would have no parental rights.
Sometimes women don't have a relationship with the father such that it's possible to bring him along to the clinic to sign off.

[MountainHawk]

Sometimes women don't have a relationship with the father such that it's possible to bring him along to the clinic to sign off.

Should have thought of that before they spread their legs and slept with him then.

[MikeTheTiger]

Sometimes women don't have a relationship with the father such that it's possible to bring him along to the clinic to sign off.

It should work the same way as it does now when it comes to giving the baby up for adoption. The father is notified to appear in court. If he does not show up to contest, then his parental rights are revoked.

[Titania]

Or make every effort to ensure the pregnancy occurs within a sustainable relationship. What if the woman decides, after a previous agreement, that she does not wish to have the baby? Or she decides to leave him and then have an abortion? If the man wishes to take care of the baby, shouldn't he have a say in the matter?
OK, this is pretty callous and cold...but, what investment has the man put into this?

He came.

That's it. If you want a baby, come in a woman who's willing to carry it.

I know I'm going to be flamed for this post, bring it on. But, to the extent that the work of having a baby is 99.99% on the mother, why should a man have a say regarding whether or not she does this work? What biological investment have you lost?

Again, yeah, there's no logic in this post and this is just pure emotion, pure disdain for the way I've seen some men treat women. I'll most likely be talked into retracting and apologizing in the end.

I'm thrilled that most RF men are apparently extremely good, sensitive, caring, nuturing guys, and I think the world would be closer to uptopia if more men were like you. But they're not.

But for now...if it were me, and I was pregnant with a baby I didn't want...what has the man done? He gave a little sperm....I don't see why that means he has a right to tell me what to do with my eggs, my body.

[Titania]

Should have thought of that before they spread their legs and slept with him then.
And the guy should have thought about it before he came in a woman who didn't want to carry his baby, which was my point in the beginning...if you're the type of guy who would be devastated if a woman would make a decision about a pregnancy without your input, don't sleep with any women that you don't know their feelings on this.

It's common sense, and it goes both ways.

And of course...we're not considering the cases where the woman didn't give permission, right?

[Titania]

Or make every effort to ensure the pregnancy occurs within a sustainable relationship. Clearly this is the best policy and the one I live by.

Wouldn't it be nice if everyone did?

Then we wouldn't have these problems.

[MountainHawk]

I'm not going to quote the post so you have a chance to delete it later, because it's a foolish post.

When a couple decides to have sex, it's an acceptance of consequences for both people. It's his child just as much as yours, regardless of who actually has to bear it. I'm sorry you feel it's such a burden on women, but there are plenty of expectation on men that their aren't on women as well, so stop feeling so oppressed.

It's that exact attitude that has kept women from being truly equal. 'We different, and we have to be treated differently, and get certain advantages because of the sacrifices we make.'

No. Everyone has burdens and sacrifices. Everyone should truly be equals. Until women accept those facts, they won't be.

[MountainHawk]

And of course...we're not considering the cases where the woman didn't give permission, right?


That's called rape, is already a crime, and is so rare compared to the number of pregnancies that it's not worth bring into the conversation. A rape exception to these type of laws is a minor issue.

[MountainHawk]

And the guy should have thought about it before he came in a woman who didn't want to carry his baby, which was my point in the beginning...if you're the type of guy who would be devastated if a woman would make a decision about a pregnancy without your input, don't sleep with any women that you don't know their feelings on this.

It's common sense, and it goes both ways.

And of course...we're not considering the cases where the woman didn't give permission, right?


Fine, my point is, why doesn't that work the other way. If the guy doesn't want to have a baby, the woman shouldn't sleep with him. It should be her responsibility to find out if he is willing to support a baby ... if not, too bad for her.

[Titania]

When a couple decides to have sex, it's an acceptance of consequences for both people. In a perfect world, yes. I'm sorry you feel it's such a burden on women, but there are plenty of expectation on men that their aren't on women as well, Like what?

What are you expected to do in this world that we aren't also expected to do? Open doors? Pay for dinner? Please.

Fight on the front lines? Please recall...it's men who are making the decision to keep women from that (not that I disagree.)

Oh yeah...and for the record? "Equal rights" doesn't mean "Exactly the same."

[Titania]

Fine, my point is, why doesn't that work the other way. If the guy doesn't want to have a baby, the woman shouldn't sleep with him. It should be her responsibility to find out if he is willing to support a baby ... if not, too bad for her.
Well, again...possession is 9/10ths of the law.

Even if abortion required both parents to sign off, the woman has control over the pregnancy.

If you don't like it, talk to our Creator.

[Luke Skywalker]

In a perfect world, yes. Like what?

What are you expected to do in this world that we aren't also expected to do? Open doors? Pay for dinner? Please.

Fight on the front lines? Please recall...it's men who are making the decision to keep women from that (not that I disagree.)

Oh yeah...and for the record? "Equal rights" doesn't mean "Exactly the same."Hey, did you edit this to add 'fight on front lines'? Because that's what I was going to say. But now that you've said it - do you think that if women were 'in charge' they would send girls off to war and let the boys stay home?

[MountainHawk]

Get shot at in war, for example.

EDIT: Yes, she editted it. And she probably realizes that it weakens her argument considerably.

[Titania]

Hey, did you edit this to add 'fight on front lines'? Because that's what I was going to say. But now that you've said it - do you think that if women were 'in charge' they would send girls off to war and let the boys stay home?
Maybe you missed that movie - GI Jane?

Women have been advocating for the priviledge for decades.

Not only that...if women ran the world, there would be no war.:D

[Titania]

Get shot at in war, for example.

EDIT: Yes, she editted it. And she probably realizes that it weakens her argument considerably.
To the extent that feminists have been fighting for this right and yet are still denied it, no, it does not weaken my argument.

Any other examples?

[Luke Skywalker]

What are you expected to do in this world that we aren't also expected to do? Open doors? Pay for dinner? Please.

Fight on the front lines? Please recall...it's men who are making the decision to keep women from that (not that I disagree.)
We're supposed to like know about cars and how to fix things and stuff.

[Traci]

At least right now the father is required to take financial responsibility at conception. It would just be nice if the mother was also required to take responsibility at the same point in time.

Since I'm not willing to give you the latter - I'm willing to give up the former. (But then I view having an abortion as taking responsibility, but that's beside the point at the moment)

The downside is the possibility of more babies born into poverty - but right now the welfare system supports babies whose fathers don't pay child support -- so that would just have to continue.

What I would hope is that giving fathers the choice to opt-out would act as a disincentive to women to have babies who don't have the means to support them on their own.

Hopefully that would mean fewer pregnancies -- probably it would mean a few more abortions.

[erosewater]

Titania, I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the pregnancy/childbirth aspect of this. Yes, it is very physically and emotionally demanding to carry a child and give birth to it (to say the least), and this responsibility falls solely on the woman, but in the grand scheme of things it is not the most significant part of having a child. Raising and providing for the child is much more important in the long run than the fact that the woman had to endure a pregnancy. There are many arguments that can be made for your point of view, but taking the approach of "She has to give birth, so it's entirely her decision" is misguided, IMHO.

[Titania]

We're supposed to like know about cars and how to fix things and stuff.
Oh. Well, than I guess I should be forced to have a baby I don't want.

On the topic of women on the front lines:

The Pentagon's policy banning women in combat is being tested in Iraq, where the lack of a defined front line and insurgents' guerrilla tactics expose female troops to deadly situations.

On Thursday night, a suicide car bomber struck a U.S. convoy in Falluja. The attack killed at least four Marines -- including three women, U.S. military sources said.

Of 13 Marines wounded in the attack, 11 were female, the sources said. A Marine and a sailor remain unaccounted for. Their genders were not disclosed.

The bombing marks the highest number of female U.S. military casualties in a single day in the Iraq war. (Full story)

A female Marine killed in the attack has been identified as Lance Cpl. Holly A. Charette, 21, from Cranston, Rhode Island.

From CNN.

If women didn't want to be on the front lines, why did the Pentagon have to ban it? Not like the ban really matters anyway...we're still getting shot at, too.

[Titania]

Titania, I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the pregnancy/childbirth aspect of this. Yes, it is very physically and emotionally demanding to carry a child and give birth to it (to say the least), and this responsibility falls solely on the woman, but in the grand scheme of things it is not the most significant part of having a child. Raising and providing for the child is much more important in the long run than the fact that the woman had to endure a pregnancy. There are many arguments that can be made for your point of view, but taking the approach of "She has to give birth, so it's entirely her decision" is misguided, IMHO.
Thanks for being civil.

[Luke Skywalker]

Maybe you missed that movie - GI Jane?

Women have been advocating for the priviledge for decades.GI Jane? This is your argument? Demi Moore is hot but not without hair, so yeah, I missed it. Apparently it has deeper social commentary than I would have thought for a Demi Moore vehicle.[/QUOTE]

[MountainHawk]

To the extent that feminists have been fighting for this right and yet are still denied it, no, it does not weaken my argument.

Any other examples?

So if men's groups were fighting for the right to have fetuses that the woman wanted to abort implanted in themselves instead (even though it obviously wouldn't work), that would invalidate your point?

[Luke Skywalker]

Oh. Well, than I guess I should be forced to have a baby I don't want. Oh, is that what this thread is about? I really didn't read any of it. I thought it was about some guy leaving his pregnant girlfriend. Weird.

[erosewater]

Like what?

What are you expected to do in this world that we aren't also expected to do? Open doors? Pay for dinner? Please.



Uhh, how about the very issue we're discussing. Men have the responsibility that if we have sex, we do not get to decide whether or not we will have a child. Women get to decide whether or not to abort our babies, and we have no say whatsoever.

[Garden_Variety]

...I'm thrilled that most RF men are apparently extremely good, sensitive, caring, nuturing guys, and I think the world would be closer to uptopia if more men were like you. But they're not...

In a perfect world, all women AND men would have easy access to cheap or free birth controll that, used in conjunction with condoms, would be more than enough to prevent all unplanned pregnancy. Manufactured with a chemical marker of some kind in order to track regular and proper usage, all disputes regarding support of said child etc... could be determined fairly based on who did or did not do their part. Man was lazy or otherwise didn't take his pill? Too bad quick-shot, you pay for 18+. But if the woman missed hers, can she be forced to carry baby to term? Realistically no. But in the case that she decides to keep baby then man's financial responsibility is not required.

Does this sound like a fair and utopian ideal? Ammendments?

[Titania]

So if men's groups were fighting for the right to have fetuses that the woman wanted to abort implanted in themselves instead (even though it obviously wouldn't work), that would invalidate your point?
Nope.

My point of view does take into consideration the fact that men fight to force a woman to keep their baby so he can raise it, which is the more realistic example of what you posted...neither invalidate my argument.

[MikeTheTiger]

Since I'm not willing to give you the latter - I'm willing to give up the former. (But then I view having an abortion as taking responsibility, but that's beside the point at the moment)

The downside is the possibility of more babies born into poverty - but right now the welfare system supports babies whose fathers don't pay child support -- so that would just have to continue.

What I would hope is that giving fathers the choice to opt-out would act as a disincentive to women to have babies who don't have the means to support them on their own.

Hopefully that would mean fewer pregnancies -- probably it would mean a few more abortions.

All the negative consequences you describe are exactly why I would not ever support an initiative to allow fathers to opt-out. I'd rather the circumstances be unfair to the father than be unfair to the child. The way to solve an inconsistency is to take a step in the right direction, not make things worse for the sake of "fairness". Still, as I said, I respect you for seeing the logically consistent trade off for taking the position you do on abortion.

[Titania]

Oh, is that what this thread is about? I really didn't read any of it. I thought it was about some guy leaving his pregnant girlfriend. Weird.
The thread is about how some consider it unfair that women have all the control over pregnancy decisions.

I understand their point of view, but I will fight for my right to be incontrol of my reproductive life regardless of what my boyfriend or husband wants.

[Titania]

Does this sound like a fair and utopian ideal? Ammendments?
It sounds even less feasible than the whole world raising good, honest, caring, responsible men (and women) like we have here on the RF.

[Luke Skywalker]

Titania, I think you're putting far too much emphasis on the pregnancy/childbirth aspect of this. Yes, it is very physically and emotionally demanding to carry a child and give birth to it (to say the least), and this responsibility falls solely on the woman,I see you've been duped too. I don’t buy this ‘child birth is so painful’ business. How tough can it be? Their bodies were specifically built for it, for Pete’s sake.

[Griffin 4]

I understand their point of view, but I will fight for my right to be incontrol of my reproductive life regardless of what my boyfriend or husband wants.What if your boyfriend and husband agree with each other?

[Luke Skywalker]

The thread is about how some consider it unfair that women have all the control over pregnancy decisions.

I understand their point of view, but I will fight for my right to be incontrol of my reproductive life regardless of what my boyfriend or husband wants.Oh. So your husbands input would be inconsequential in your decision to have an abortion or not?

[Griffin 4]

Well, again...possession is 9/10ths of the law.No it's not.

[MikeTheTiger]

What if your boyfriend and husband agree with each other?

:rofl:

[Griffin 4]

All too common. I don't think my husband's father ever paid a dime after he left town.

(He did need to leave the state to avoid paying child support.)

He didn't even bother to provide copies of his tax returns so my husband could apply for financial aid while in college.

Good luck getting blood from that stone.For now I consider it to be money well spent, since it provides a disincentive for her to file any new petitions with the court.

[Titania]

What if your boyfriend and husband agree with each other?
I guess I"m screwed. Twice.

[Traci]

The way to solve an inconsistency is to take a step in the right direction, not make things worse for the sake of "fairness".

Well -- the ideal situation is that both men and women would take the necessary steps to make sure that pregnancy doesn't occur against either's wishes.

Birth control is widely and easily available and VERY effective when used properly. There is very little excuse for unintended pregnancy in our society today.

[Titania]

Oh. So your husbands input would be inconsequential in your decision to have an abortion or not?
Depends on the situation of course.

At the moment, if I got pregnant tomorrow, I'd have the baby and raise it. This is my own personal decision. Fortunately my boyfriend has agreed that if I were pregnant he'd be there for the baby...but, I'd do it on my own even if he weren't going to be around. I'm 31, no kids, make a good living, I'm mentally and physically healthy, etc.

But, things change...there have been times when I might have chosen differently. Absolute control over my body is important to me.

And you know...thinking back to when I was married (for 9 years), my ex's approach to the situation when we had a few scares what that it was my decision, and he'd stand by whatever I chose to do.

[HangerAngler]

Birth control is widely and easily available and VERY effective when used properly. There is very little excuse for unintended pregnancy in our society today.

You are preaching to the choir here.

Why does so much unintended pregnancy occur then? What goes on in the heads of those involved? (besides rape victims)

Thoughts of:
-it won't happen to me
-it feels so much better without a condom

Accidentally:
-puking up the pill when sick or having drank too much alcohol
-taking antibiotics while relying on the pill
-having drunken no-condom sex

These are the patterns that need to be combatted.

[Traci]

You are preaching to the choir here.

Why does so much unintended pregnancy occur then? What goes on in the heads of those involved? ....
These are the patterns that need to be combatted.

Unfortunately, it's sometimes NOT unintended -- it's done as a drama-stunt - for attention -- either from parents or a boyfriend. Or for a girl who feels neglected to have someone in her life to love who will love her back. Or for a girl who feels oppressed to exercise some control in her life. These types of misguided motivations are often hidden in the "accident" column. When they weren't really accidents at all (no matter how much they claim otherwise :roll2: )

[Utanapishtim]

Abortion <> slicing into a woman.
So what did you consider to be treatment corresponding to abortion, for a man?

[Griffin 4]

So what did you consider to be treatment corresponding to abortion, for a man?How about a prostrate-whatever-it's-called?

[Saint Kepler]

And you know...thinking back to when I was married (for 9 years), my ex's approach to the situation when we had a few scares what that it was my decision, and he'd stand by whatever I chose to do.

I consider myself pro-choice but I could not be with a women (wife or girlfriend) that aborted my child. I would not want her thrown in jail but I could not be with her anymore.

[Saint Kepler]

having drunken no-condom sex

Sounds like a typical Friday night for a few around here. :smile:

[Da Bears!]

I prefer the current state of the world.

Let men be disincented from having sex with women they don't want to raise children with.

Let birth control manufacturers stay in business.
Or just have everyone read and obey the Bible. That would fix this and many other problems.

[HangerAngler]

Or just have everyone read and obey the Bible. That would fix this and many other problems.

If it is that easy, then why not have them all read and obey some safe-sex pamphlet that would take up far less paper?

[Da Bears!]

If it is that easy, then why not have them all read and obey some safe-sex pamphlet that would take up far less paper?
Because safe sex includes pre-marital sex...also a no-no.

[whisper]

Or just have everyone read and obey the Bible. That would fix this and many other problems.

If reading and obeying the Bible was all that was needed, why are there so many scandals regarding priests?

[Father of two]

If reading and obeying the Bible was all that was needed, why are there so many scandals regarding priests?

Who said they were obeying the Bible?

[Griffin 4]

If reading and obeying the Bible was all that was needed, why are there so many scandals regarding priests?You think the priests involved in the scandals were obeying the Bible?

[fallout]

The thread is about how some consider it unfair that women have all the control over pregnancy decisions.

I understand their point of view, but I will fight for my right to be incontrol of my reproductive life regardless of what my boyfriend or husband wants.


I don't disagree with you. I question those that think that a woman can make a decision that then makes her in control of the man's life... child support etc...

[fallout]

All the negative consequences you describe are exactly why I would not ever support an initiative to allow fathers to opt-out. I'd rather the circumstances be unfair to the father than be unfair to the child. The way to solve an inconsistency is to take a step in the right direction, not make things worse for the sake of "fairness". Still, as I said, I respect you for seeing the logically consistent trade off for taking the position you do on abortion.


At the time the decision is made, it is not yet a child.

[fallout]

So what did you consider to be treatment corresponding to abortion, for a man?


I have heard people comparing it to something not unlike "popping an unwanted zit".

[Griffin 4]

I have heard people comparing it to something not unlike "popping an unwanted zit".No, silly, that's only when the argument concerns parental notification.

[whisper]

You think the priests involved in the scandals were obeying the Bible?

That's the point.

[Griffin 4]

I'm 31, no kids, make a good living, I'm mentally and physically healthy, etc.Now do Marisa Tomei - "My biological clock is " - stomp, stomp - "ticking!"

[MikeTheTiger]

At the time the decision is made, it is not yet a child.

I recognize that that is the necessary belief to support abortion "rights". If one has such a belief then the only consistent position is the one both you and Traci have espoused in this thread. It takes logical gymnastics to support a system which allows the mother to abort, but requires the father to be on the hook from conception. Of course, I think it takes great leaps in logic to assign a cutoff for when it or is not okay to kill our offspring, but that's another topic.

[Traci]

I recognize that that is the necessary belief to support abortion "rights".

No it isn't.

I have no problem conceding that a fetus is a human life.

But the legal "rights" of a woman to control her own body and life trump the legal "rights" of a fetus to continue to exist.

Morally - I find some abortions justifiable and others not - depending on the circumstances - but the moral issues need not be agreed upon -- only the legal ones.

That's why I think a man should have essentially the same legal right to an abortion as a woman.

But I probably wouldn't think much of a man who would exercise this right.

[MikeTheTiger]

No it isn't.

I have no problem conceding that a fetus is a human life.

But the legal "rights" of a woman to control her own body and life trump the legal "rights" of a fetus to continue to exist.

Morally - I find some abortions justifiable and others not - depending on the circumstances - but the moral issues need not be agreed upon -- only the legal ones.

That's why I think a man should have essentially the same legal right to an abortion as a woman.

But I probably wouldn't think much of a man who would exercise this right.

That's a position that I find hard to understand either morally or legally. If you concede that a fetus is a human life, what legal principles do you believe justify the killing of that life?

[Griffin 4]

That's a position that I find hard to understand either morally or legally. If you concede that a fetus is a human life, what legal principles do you believe justify the killing of that life?Because the point that it has a right to life is not conceded.

[Da Bears!]

And also realize that the woman made a decision that put her body in it's current situation. The fetus on the other hand, never had a choice.

[Griffin 4]

But I probably wouldn't think much of a man who would exercise this right.See? We agree on something.

[fallout]

No it isn't.

I have no problem conceding that a fetus is a human life.

But the legal "rights" of a woman to control her own body and life trump the legal "rights" of a fetus to continue to exist.

Morally - I find some abortions justifiable and others not - depending on the circumstances - but the moral issues need not be agreed upon -- only the legal ones.

That's why I think a man should have essentially the same legal right to an abortion as a woman.

But I probably wouldn't think much of a man who would exercise this right.

Although we seem to get to the same place, I disagree with very much of the logic that gets us there.

Either way, you are right.

I do have a question though. If you wouldn't "think much" of a man that chooses the abortion route due to personal reasons, (finances, too young, etc...) do you feel differently about a woman that chooses this for similar reasons?

[MikeTheTiger]

Because the point that it has a right to life is not conceded.

But, again, what legal principle justifies such a position?

[Griffin 4]

But, again, what legal principle justifies such a position?Are you looking for something along the lines of "A person convicted of a capital crime no longer has the right to life"?

[fallout]

Are you looking for something along the lines of "A person convicted of a capital crime no longer has the right to life"?


Naw, he has a right to life still. It's just that his right to death is far greater.

[MikeTheTiger]

Are you looking for something along the lines of "A person convicted of a capital crime no longer has the right to life"?

Not that I agree with that either, but, yes, that is a legal standard accepted in our system. Likewise, while I do not agree with the position that a fetus is not a human life, at least it is legally consistent to consider a fetus to have no rights if life has not yet legally begun. If one concedes that life has begun, what legal principle allows for that life to be taken? That's what I don't understand.

[Griffin 4]

If one concedes that life has begun, what legal principle allows for that life to be taken? That's what I don't understand.Because one hasn't conceded that the right to life has begun.

[MikeTheTiger]

Because one hasn't conceded that the right to life has begun.

But what precedent in law justifies such a position?

[Griffin 4]

But what precedent in law justifies such a position?I have no idea.

[MikeTheTiger]

I have no idea.

I don't either. That's why I'm asking for an explanation from someone who does hold that position.

[Griffin 4]

I don't either. That's why I'm asking for an explanation from someone who does hold that position.Your original question wasn't entirely clear.

[fallout]

I don't either. That's why I'm asking for an explanation from someone who does hold that position.


I think it has something to do with, "I believe that life has begun, but I don't want to force my beliefs on others" sort of thing.

Of course, I have to believe that life has not begun to make me at peace with my personal thoughts on abortion. I also realize that an arbitrarness exists in my definition, but thus is life.

[MNBridge]

Does this sound like a fair and utopian ideal? Ammendments?

I've always wondered in this age of impressive medicine they can't come up with a birth control pill for males.
Or a more easily reversible and less surgical vasectomy.

[fallout]

I've always wondered in this age of impressive medicine they can't come up with a birth control pill for males.
Or a more easily reversible and less surgical vasectomy.


I'm not so sure they can invent a morning after pill for the guy.

[McUSA]

I've always wondered in this age of impressive medicine they can't come up with a birth control pill for males.
Or a more easily reversible and less surgical vasectomy.

Birth control pills for males should be on the market late this year or next year.

[Lucy]

But what precedent in law justifies such a position?Self Defense.

Jewish law distinguishes between a "pursuer" and other types of threats. In general, it is legal to kill a pursuer. A fetus is legally considered a pursuer under Jewish law when it threatens the woman. The threat does not necessarily need to rise to the level of "life threatening", although here opinions vary. Just as some states let you shoot a burgler in your house, but others only let you shoot him if he is threatening your life. In general, it doesn't matter whether you locked your door.

(The fetus is also considered to be something of moral value which doesn't rise to the level of being human under Jewish law, but that's unrelated. A bull can be legally a pursuer as much as a person can be.)

This leads to the interesting difference between Jewish and Catholic law in the case where continuing a pregnancy or delivering a baby endangers the life of the woman. In Catholic law, the baby is considered to be an innocent person whose right to life is paramount - under no circumstance should you damage it if you can avoid that. In Jewish law the unborn baby is considered a non-human pursuer, and while it's best to preserve both lives, it is morally required to do everything possible to save the mother, even if that means aborting, or even cutting up a baby in the midst of a really nasty delivery.

[Griffin 4]

In Jewish law the unborn baby is considered a non-human pursuer, and while it's best to preserve both lives, it is morally required to do everything possible to save the mother, even if that means aborting, or even cutting up a baby in the midst of a really nasty delivery.Does Jewish law require the non-human part?

[fallout]

Self Defense.

Jewish law distinguishes between a "pursuer" and other types of threats. In general, it is legal to kill a pursuer. A fetus is legally considered a pursuer under Jewish law when it threatens the woman. The threat does not necessarily need to rise to the level of "life threatening", although here opinions vary. Just as some states let you shoot a burgler in your house, but others only let you shoot him if he is threatening your life. In general, it doesn't matter whether you locked your door.

(The fetus is also considered to be something of moral value which doesn't rise to the level of being human under Jewish law, but that's unrelated. A bull can be legally a pursuer as much as a person can be.)

This leads to the interesting difference between Jewish and Catholic law in the case where continuing a pregnancy or delivering a baby endangers the life of the woman. In Catholic law, the baby is considered to be an innocent person whose right to life is paramount - under no circumstance should you damage it if you can avoid that. In Jewish law the unborn baby is considered a non-human pursuer, and while it's best to preserve both lives, it is morally required to do everything possible to save the mother, even if that means aborting, or even cutting up a baby in the midst of a really nasty delivery.


So in cases other than threats to the mother, abortion would be "frowned upon"?

[Lucy]

Does Jewish law require the non-human part?No. You can kill it for two independant reasons.

1) It's not human, and the mother is human, so her life is more important.

2) It's a pursuer, and you have the right to kill a pursuer in self defense.

In practice, if the woman is healthy Jewish law would not allow an abortion, because you should be fruitful and multiply. But as soon as medical issues arise (or in some opinions, psychological issues) an abortion is allowed, and might be required.

[Lucy]

So in cases other than threats to the mother, abortion would be "frowned upon"?Yes. However, my understanding of Israeli law (which is based on this legal theory) is that even a casual threat by a pregnant teenager of "I'd rather kill myself than have this baby" is considered enough of a threat to the mother's life to justify an abortion.

[MikeTheTiger]

Self Defense.

Jewish law distinguishes between a "pursuer" and other types of threats. In general, it is legal to kill a pursuer. A fetus is legally considered a pursuer under Jewish law when it threatens the woman. The threat does not necessarily need to rise to the level of "life threatening", although here opinions vary. Just as some states let you shoot a burgler in your house, but others only let you shoot him if he is threatening your life. In general, it doesn't matter whether you locked your door.

I think most people who think abortion should be illegal make room for an exception when the life of the mother is endangered. Self-defense is reasonable precedent in law for such an exception. That still doesn't answer the question about legal precedent (again if one concedes that the fetus is human life) to kill when the mother's life is not endangered.

[fallout]

Yes. However, my understanding of Israeli law (which is based on this legal theory) is that even a casual threat by a pregnant teenager of "I'd rather kill myself than have this baby" is considered enough of a threat to the mother's life to justify an abortion.


Sounds like a threat is not much different from a whim.

[Traci]

That still doesn't answer the question about legal precedent (again if one concedes that the fetus is human life) to kill when the mother's life is not endangered.

I don't know that there is a "precedent" - but my legal arguement is simply that a line must be drawn and the best place to draw that line, IMO is at birth.

We have a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - and a living fetus inside of her.

To legally force someone to host another life against her wishes is enslavement and is unacceptable to me - regardless of how negligent she might be for its existance.

So - the rights of the baby to life should not exist legally until it is a separate living being.

I do have a question though. If you wouldn't "think much" of a man that chooses the abortion route due to personal reasons, (finances, too young, etc...) do you feel differently about a woman that chooses this for similar reasons?

I said "probably" -- my opinion about the morality of abortion varies widely with circumstances. A woman who chooses to abort because she realizes she is too young or doesn't have the means to support a baby - I view as making a responsible choice. I would think more of a man who would support a child even if born against his wishes - but I might be able to respect a situation where the man feels that he was tricked or "trapped" and chooses to opt-out. Unfortunately this happens.

[Listerine]

I don't know that there is a "precedent" - but my legal arguement is simply that a line must be drawn and the best place to draw that line, IMO is at birth.

We have a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - and a living fetus inside of her.

To legally force someone to host another life against her wishes is enslavement and is unacceptable to me - regardless of how negligent she might be for its existance.

So - the rights of the baby to life should not exist legally until it is a separate living being.
Are you for legalizing third trimester abortion?

[Traci]

Are you for legalizing third trimester abortion?

Yes

[Malik Shabazz]

In practice, if the woman is healthy Jewish law would not allow an abortion, because you should be fruitful and multiply. But as soon as medical issues arise (or in some opinions, psychological issues) an abortion is allowed, and might be required.In cases where the fetus will have a deformity, even the Orthodox rabbis permit elective abortions.

And as Lucy indicated, when the mother's life is in peril, an abortion is permitted even during delivery. In other words, the so-called partial birth abortion has been sanctioned by Jewish written law for nearly 2000 years and by oral tradition for who knows how many years before that.

[Malik Shabazz]

I've always wondered in this age of impressive medicine they can't come up with a birth control pill for males.I'm sure they could come up with one tomorrow. Or later today.

The real question isn't whether such a pill is possible. The real question is: If you were a woman, would you trust a man who said that he had taken it?

[Malik Shabazz]

I don't know that there is a "precedent" - but my legal arguement is simply that a line must be drawn and the best place to draw that line, IMO is at birth.

We have a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - and a living fetus inside of her.

To legally force someone to host another life against her wishes is enslavement and is unacceptable to me - regardless of how negligent she might be for its existance.

So - the rights of the baby to life should not exist legally until it is a separate living being.This is something that I just cannot understand, Traci. People who claim to care about life, but they care more about the lives of cells than they do about the lives of women. People who claim to support smaller government, less government interference in people's lives, less "nanny government" -- except when it comes to meddling in women's bodies and personal medical decisions. :shake:

[fallout]

This is something that I just cannot understand, Traci. People who claim to care about life, but they care more about the lives of cells than they do about the lives of women. People who claim to support smaller government, less government interference in people's lives, less "nanny government" -- except when it comes to meddling in women's bodies and personal medical decisions. :shake:


C'mon malik, you know it's not that simple.

How do you feel about the government intefering with a woman's right to smother her crying infant?

If you believe that "it" is a life, it is not that hard to extend that the government should protect "it".

[MikeTheTiger]

This is something that I just cannot understand, Traci. People who claim to care about life, but they care more about the lives of cells than they do about the lives of women. People who claim to support smaller government, less government interference in people's lives, less "nanny government" -- except when it comes to meddling in women's bodies and personal medical decisions. :shake:

No, we value the life of the mother and the child equally. Actually there is a slight bias toward the mother since most of us support the right to terminate the pregnancy if the mother's life is endangered. While I now attend a non-denominational church, I still feel the Catholic Church's standard when making moral decisions is spot on. That is, in any situation where there will be negative consequences no matter what, you choose the option that does the least harm. Even if you accept the premise that an abortion might help a woman psychologically (which isn't supported by research), the good that she receives is far outweighed by the loss of life to the child. A woman can recover from whatever negative consequences result from having to carry a child to term. The child cannot recover from death.

[Griffin 4]

This is something that I just cannot understand, Traci. People who claim to care about life, but they care more about the lives of cells than they do about the lives of women. People who claim to support smaller government, less government interference in people's lives, less "nanny government" -- except when it comes to meddling in women's bodies and personal medical decisions.The reason you don't understand it is that you are taking your presuppositions and applying them to the Pro-Life crowd. I.e., what would be your response if I asked you why do the people who claim to care about children favor a system that allows mothers to kill their babies.

Note: I can't decide if that should be "i.e." (in other words) or "e.g." (for example). It appears to me that either would work here.

[Titania]

I don't disagree with you. I question those that think that a woman can make a decision that then makes her in control of the man's life... child support etc...
Yeah...over the last couple days since this thread started, I've decided that an "opt out" choice for the father kinda makes sense.

[Griffin 4]

Yeah...over the last couple days since this thread started, I've decided that an "opt out" choice for the father kinda makes sense.And I've decided that it should not be allowed.

[Titania]

I consider myself pro-choice but I could not be with a women (wife or girlfriend) that aborted my child. I would not want her thrown in jail but I could not be with her anymore.That's your personal stance...I have no problem with that.

[MikeTheTiger]

I don't know that there is a "precedent" - but my legal arguement is simply that a line must be drawn and the best place to draw that line, IMO is at birth.

We have a woman who doesn't want to be pregnant - and a living fetus inside of her.

To legally force someone to host another life against her wishes is enslavement and is unacceptable to me - regardless of how negligent she might be for its existance.

So - the rights of the baby to life should not exist legally until it is a separate living being.

While I think that is a fine argument for allowing abortions to be performed in the case of rape (legally, if not morally), I think it's a great leap to call it enslavement in a case where the woman willingly participated in the creation of that life. In life, there are sometimes negative consequences to our actions. It's certainly an unfortunate event when a woman becomes pregnant that does not wish to be. My desire is in no way to torment women, only to protect life. We can agree that it would be better to avoid such situations if at all possible. Still, The negative effects of pregnancy are not as great nor as permanent as death. Most of our laws are based upon finding answers that do the most good and/or least harm. Abortion absent a life threatening situation (and possibly rape) does not do that.

A woman who chooses to abort because she realizes she is too young or doesn't have the means to support a baby - I view as making a responsible choice.

Adoption is a far more responsible choice.

[fallout]

Traci:

I said "probably" -- my opinion about the morality of abortion varies widely with circumstances. A woman who chooses to abort because she realizes she is too young or doesn't have the means to support a baby - I view as making a responsible choice.




I'm curious as to why you would think less of a man for making a similar decision.

[Traci]

While I think that is a fine argument for allowing abortions to be performed in the case of rape (legally, if not morally), I think it's a great leap to call it enslavement in a case where the woman willingly participated in the creation of that life.

I disagree that it's a great leap. I also think that any legal argument that we apply for the worst of circumstances has to be able to hold up under the least of circumstances.


Still, The negative effects of pregnancy are not as great nor as permanent as death. Most of our laws are based upon finding answers that do the most good and/or least harm.

You don't have any idea what the lasting effects of bearing an unwanted child might be on millions of different women -- not to mention millions of unwanted children.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the compassion in taking an unborn life. That's a moral issue.

Adoption is a far more responsible choice.

Yeah -- adoption is a swell choice. It works best when the baby is healthy and has very light skin. Unfortunately, this wouldn't describe a very large percentage of the unwanted children who would be born if abortion were suddenly stopped altogether (which it never will be - even if made illegal.)

I'm not looking to change your mind on anything -- you just asked for the arguments.

Legally - the most logical place (IMO) to draw the line for a "right to life" is after that life becomes a separate living being.

We can argue the morality aspects until the cows come home - about what folks should do. We would probably come to more agreement - but that's beside the point (and I'm a little bored with it.)

[Traci]

Traci:

I said "probably" -- my opinion about the morality of abortion varies widely with circumstances. A woman who chooses to abort because she realizes she is too young or doesn't have the means to support a baby - I view as making a responsible choice.




I'm curious as to why you would think less of a man for making a similar decision.

I strive to be consistent in my legal position.

I make no such promises about my moral positions. :)

[Homer]

We can argue the morality aspects until the cows come home Mmmm ... hamburger

[MikeTheTiger]

I disagree that it's a great leap. I also think that any legal argument that we apply for the worst of circumstances has to be able to hold up under the least of circumstances.

In all legal contexts the culpability a person has for creating a given situation is taken into consideration. It isn't rape if the woman willingly participated only to decide after the fact that she made a mistake. Likewise, pregnancy isn't enslavement if the woman willingly participated only to decide after the fact that she made a mistake.


You don't have any idea what the lasting effects of bearing an unwanted child might be on millions of different women -- not to mention millions of unwanted children.

We'll just have to agree to disagree about the compassion in taking an unborn life. That's a moral issue.

Legal issues can't be completely divorced from moral issues. In many ways our legal system is shaped by common moral standards. In any case, I agree that there is room to argue about the relative costs and effects from pregnancy/abortion. In no way did I mean to discount the negative impact of unwanted pregnancy. I just place greater gravity on the loss of life.


Yeah -- adoption is a swell choice. It works best when the baby is healthy and has very light skin. Unfortunately, this wouldn't describe a very large percentage of the unwanted children who would be born if abortion were suddenly stopped altogether (which it never will be - even if made illegal.)

My wife's matron-of-honor adopted a mixed race child. A couple in our small group from church adopted a black child. I know of numerous other people who have adopted non-white children. There is a very large market right now for the adopting of children from China and Korea. While I agree that there is still a bias toward the adoption of children of one's own race, if the process for adopting non-white children in this country were easier you'd see more people doing that rather than going to Asia.


Legally - the most logical place (IMO) to draw the line for a "right to life" is after that life becomes a separate living being.

I would argue that the most logical place to draw the line is conception if one accepts the fetus as human life.

We can argue the morality aspects until the cows come home - about what folks should do. We would probably come to more agreement - but that's beside the point (and I'm a little bored with it.)

Agreed.

[Traci]

In all legal contexts the culpability a person has for creating a given situation is taken into consideration. It isn't rape if the woman willingly participated only to decide after the fact that she made a mistake. Likewise, pregnancy isn't enslavement if the woman willingly participated only to decide after the fact that she made a mistake.

The problem with that is that there are too many grey areas. What if her method of BC failed? Most often it fails due to user negligence, but it does sometimes happen just by accident. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the mere act of having sex legally obligates a woman to bear a child. You might think that's reasonable - I do not.

And so if we are going make exceptions for rape, then we would need some exceptions where a BC method was used properly -- and then how would we prove that??? Making the legal line at conception simply doesn't work -- it's inconsistent -- it's dangerous -- and it doesn't keep abortions from happening anyway.

I just place greater gravity on the loss of life.


Right -- that's why we won't ever agree on this issue.



My wife's matron-of-honor adopted a mixed race child. A couple in our small group from church adopted a black child. I know of numerous other people who have adopted non-white children.

That's nice -- me too -- but it doesn't change what I said. (And you didn't address "health" -- do you know how many more drug-addicted babies would be born if you suddenly did away with abortion? How many of your friends want to raise a crack-baby? Do you know at least a hundred thousand or so? Me neither.)

I would argue that the most logical place to draw the line is conception if one accepts the fetus as human life.

Life is Life -- sometimes it's necessary to take life -- even human life. Capital punishment, war, self-defense, abortion are all cases where human life is willingly taken.

[Lucy]

. . .where the woman willingly participated in the creation of that life. . .
What if she willingly participated in an act of sex, but not in creating life? Every time you drive a car there's a chance that you will die, but I don't feel like I'm "willing participating in an act of suicide" every time I drive. Do you?

You argument only works if you belive that the moral value of a 6-week old fetus is greater than the cost to a woman of bearing a child to term. Having born a couple of healthy children after normal pregancies, I don't think it is. The cost can be pretty significant.

(I have no problem with some restrictions on late-term abortions. Most abortions are performed quite early in pregancy. The three I know of all happened within a month of conception, for instance.)

[fallout]

What if she willingly participated in an act of sex, but not in creating life? Every time you drive a car there's a chance that you will die, but I don't feel like I'm "willing participating in an act of suicide" every time I drive. Do you?

You argument only works if you belive that the moral value of a 6-week old fetus is greater than the cost to a woman of bearing a child to term. Having born a couple of healthy children after normal pregancies, I don't think it is. The cost can be pretty significant.

(I have no problem with some restrictions on late-term abortions. Most abortions are performed quite early in pregancy. The three I know of all happened within a month of conception, for instance.)


And your argument (or some people on this thread anyways) only works if the moral value of a 6 week old fetus is greater than the cost of 18 years of child support to the man.

[Griffin 4]

What if she willingly participated in an act of sex, but not in creating life?Do you mean she doesn't know where babies come from?

[Lucy]

Do you mean she doesn't know where babies come from?You mean you don't know where organ donors come from?

[Griffin 4]

Which argument are you complaining about? That men can't "opt out" of paying support? That men aren't allowed to force the woman to abort?Please don't answer, fallout. This forum works best when people are arguing over two different things and don't realize it.

[Griffin 4]

You mean you don't know where organ donors come from?I saw that episode of Law and Order.

[Lucy]

Please don't answer, fallout. This forum works best when people are arguing over two different things and don't realize it.:)

[Griffin 4]

You mean you don't know where organ donors come from?Anyway, how does she willingly participate in the sex part but not the possibility of life part if she knows where babies come from?

[Tim><]

No. You can kill it for two independant reasons.

1) It's not human, and the mother is human, so her life is more important.

2) It's a pursuer, and you have the right to kill a pursuer in self defense.

In practice, if the woman is healthy Jewish law would not allow an abortion, because you should be fruitful and multiply. But as soon as medical issues arise (or in some opinions, psychological issues) an abortion is allowed, and might be required.

I have learned the laws of which you speak and am not sure if I agree with your supposition. Jewish distinguishes between life and viable life. In fact, a baby is not considered fully viable until 30 days after birth. If one were to kill a 29 day old baby, one would not suffer the same consequences as killing a 30 day old baby. My understanding was that this was more of an actuarial argument than a life argument.

[Tim><]

In cases where the fetus will have a deformity, even the Orthodox rabbis permit elective abortions.

And as Lucy indicated, when the mother's life is in peril, an abortion is permitted even during delivery. In other words, the so-called partial birth abortion has been sanctioned by Jewish written law for nearly 2000 years and by oral tradition for who knows how many years before that.I believe that some will and some will not.

[Tim><]

Paging Avi and/ or Frummie. My memory might be a little bit hazy on this matter; I was hoping one of you could voice an opinion here.

[Lucy]

Thanks for clarifying those points.

[Tim><]

Malik,
While I would hardly use wikipedia as the end all source on the topic, this is what it has to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_and_abortion

Orthodox Judaism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthodox_Judaism) disapproves of abortion in any other circumstance than to save the mother's life, although a recent rabbinical authority (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posek) holds the minority view that a child with known Tay-Sachs disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tay-Sachs_disease) may be aborted due to its dismal prognosis. This view has not been accepted as of 2004 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/As_of_2004) by most authorities. Psychiatric disease in the mother and rape as the cause of pregnancy are debated by the Acharonim (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acharonim) (post-1550 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1550) authorities), but generally abortion is only performed if there is actual danger to the life of the mother.

[Tim><]

Lucy,
I am doing a little bit of research. Most authorities agree that a fetus is considered part of the mother and not it's own life until the moment of birth. I am trying to find more details, but I will retract my initial statement until I can find corroberating evidence.

[Tim><]

I have confirmed the 30 days post birth law, though.

[Avi]

Paging Avi and/ or Frummie. My memory might be a little bit hazy on this matter; I was hoping one of you could voice an opinion here.

MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH too complicated to get in to, especially here. Let us just say I know of only a handful of people I would trust to even ask a question of such magnitude to, were it relevant, G-d Forbid.

The little I know, and I emphasize it is little, is that the child, under certain circumstances, can be viewed as a rodef, a murderer, and then is bound by the same self-defense laws that permit killing someone attempting to kill you.

The 30-day rule for viability has ramifications here as well; more than that I am not sure.

Regardless, this is a question, at least in the Orthdox literature, that goes back thousands of years (The Talmud is around 1600 years old, and the Braisos and Mishna are compilations that are centuries older than that), where the fundemental principle is that every case needs to be decided based on the merits of that case.

There is no overriding prohibition; there is no overriding permission. There are many factors and much case precedent that needs to be analyzed by the arbitor (posek) before a decision of such magnitude can be made. I know of stories where the posek would actually spend time in prayer and fasting even before approaching the complex legal analysis; for this is a matter of life-and-death.

[Tim><]

It is really strange. Jewish authorities argue over the exact moment when the baby becomes a life. This is important. For example, if life begins when the head portrudes, then one cannot kill the baby to save the mother once its head portrudes, as 'who's to say her blood is redder than the baby's blood'. However, one who would murder the same child would not be subject to the ordinary laws of murder.

[Tim><]

MUCH, MUCH, MUCH, MUCH too complicated to get in to, especially here. Let us just say I know of only a handful of people I would trust to even ask a question of such magnitude to, were it relevant, G-d Forbid.

The little I know, and I emphasize it is little, is that the child, under certain circumstances, can be viewed as a rodef, a murderer, and then is bound by the same self-defense laws that permit killing someone attempting to kill you.

The 30-day rule for viability has ramifications here as well; more than that I am not sure.

Regardless, this is a question, at least in the Orthdox literature, that goes back thousands of years (The Talmud is around 1600 years old, and the Braisos and Mishna are compilations that are centuries older than that), where the fundemental principle is that every case needs to be decided based on the merits of that case.

There is no overriding prohibition; there is no overriding permission. There are many factors and much case precedent that needs to be analyzed by the arbitor (posek) before a decision of such magnitude can be made. I know of stories where the posek would actually spend time in prayer and fasting even before approaching the complex legal analysis; for this is a matter of life-and-death.

Thanks Avi!

[Avi]

It is really strange. Jewish authorities argue over the exact moment when the baby becomes a life. This is important. For example, if life begins when the head portrudes, then one cannot kill the baby to save the mother once its head portrudes, as 'who's to say her blood is redder than the baby's blood'. However, one who would murder the same child would not be subject to the ordinary laws of murder.

I am not 100% sure of exactly to what you are referring, but the case can be made that after crowning, or another point, the mother can be veiwed as murdering the baby, the same way the baby is viewed as murdering the mother, while before that point, even if the baby is alive, the mother is not viewed as murdering the baby.

As I said, there are only a handful of people alive today, worldwide, that I would trust with this kind of question, were it practical, G-d Forbid, as opposed to theoretical.

[Tim><]

I am not 100% sure of exactly to what you are referring, but the case can be made that after crowning, or another point, the mother can be veiwed as murdering the baby, the same way the baby is viewed as murdering the mother, while before that point, even if the baby is alive, the mother is not viewed as murdering the baby.

As I said, there are only a handful of people alive today, worldwide, that I would trust with this kind of question, were it practical, G-d Forbid, as opposed to theoretical.I was not making the judgement that the mother was killing the baby. I was saying that until a certain point, one can kill the baby if it is endangering the mother's life. After that point, the decision becomes more complex as the baby is seen as an independent life. Therefore, if it is unclear as to who is endangering who, one cannot easily kill the baby. Of course, the decision would become extremely complicated at that point.

[frummie]

What Avi said. Its complicated and I've been to a lecture or two on the topic. From what I remember, if the fetus may kill the mother, abortion is allowed. If not, not allowed. But each circumstance is to be looked at individually and the talmud consulted. I haven't followed the details. I'm orthodox, but I don't know all the laws off the top of my head, especially those I don't have to deal with on a regular basis. I go to a Rabbi for the unusual ones.

[MikeTheTiger]

The problem with that is that there are too many grey areas. What if her method of BC failed? Most often it fails due to user negligence, but it does sometimes happen just by accident. I don't think it's reasonable to say that the mere act of having sex legally obligates a woman to bear a child. You might think that's reasonable - I do not.

And so if we are going make exceptions for rape, then we would need some exceptions where a BC method was used properly -- and then how would we prove that??? Making the legal line at conception simply doesn't work -- it's inconsistent -- it's dangerous -- and it doesn't keep abortions from happening anyway.

I think the two situations are fundamentally different. While birth control lessens the risk of pregnancy, there is still risk. The woman knows that going into the activity, so pregnancy is a risk she is willingly assuming by engaging in sex. Assumed risk is, again, a principle of our legal system.

As to danger, that gets back to this being an issue upon which we won't ever agree. Illegal abortions would certainly still occur, but not as often as they do now. Some women would tragically die (as they do anyway), but not even close to as many fetuses who die now.


That's nice -- me too -- but it doesn't change what I said. (And you didn't address "health" -- do you know how many more drug-addicted babies would be born if you suddenly did away with abortion? How many of your friends want to raise a crack-baby? Do you know at least a hundred thousand or so? Me neither.)

Life is a precious gift, even when there are health problems. Are you saying that being killed is better than living in less than ideal circumstances?


Life is Life -- sometimes it's necessary to take life -- even human life. Capital punishment, war, self-defense, abortion are all cases where human life is willingly taken.

I agree that there are circumstances under which the taking of life is the necessary evil. Generally I believe that is only when it is necessary to prevent other lives from being lost and only when there is justification for the particular life that is taken to save others. Abortion only falls into that category when necessary to save the life of the mother. (BTW, I am against capital punishment.)

[MikeTheTiger]

What if she willingly participated in an act of sex, but not in creating life? Every time you drive a car there's a chance that you will die, but I don't feel like I'm "willing participating in an act of suicide" every time I drive. Do you?

No, but you are assuming a risk for which the car manufacturer cannot be sued unless there was negligence. There are plenty of activities in life which carry some risk that we willingly take. We don't wish for the negative event to occur, but we are still the ones responsible for the consequences if they do happen (again, excluding negligence or recklessness on the part of another). It should be no different with pregnancy.

You argument only works if you belive that the moral value of a 6-week old fetus is greater than the cost to a woman of bearing a child to term. Having born a couple of healthy children after normal pregancies, I don't think it is. The cost can be pretty significant.

I'm not discounting the costs of pregnancy. They just don't equal loss of life.

[Malik Shabazz]

I defer to Avi and frummie, but I've read (in translation) that the Talmudic consensus was that a baby doesn't have neshama (a soul) until it draws its first breath. Some rabbis felt that a child didn't have neshama until she/he could say amen to a brachah (a prayer), while others felt it wasn't until she/he could perform a mitzvah (a commandment or religious obligation).

According to Rambam (Maimonides, a 12th century rabbi regarded as one of the greatest rabbis in history), killing an infant is murder if it is born after 9 months, but killing a premature baby during its first 30 days is a lesser crime than murder.

Rambam also wrote, echoing the Talmud, that a fetus could be torn limb by limb from the womb to save the mother's life. Also, if the mother's life was in peril during delivery, the midwife was permitted to crush the baby's head to save the mother's life. ("Partial birth abortion," anyone?)

And Tim><, I wouldn't rely on Wikipedia. In another thread I pointed out that they were flat out wrong about the Orthodox Jewish rules about abortion. (I think they said the Orthodox don't permit it at all, but I don't remember the specifics.)

[fallout]

I wonder if the incidence of men killing pregnant girlfriends and wives would drop dramatically if they had this "get out of pregnant free" sort of option.

[Lucy]

I defer to Avi and frummie, but I've read (in translation) that the Talmudic consensus was that a baby doesn't have neshama (a soul) until it draws its first breath. . .
I have read this too, in multiple places. I believe the Jewish objection to abortion is based on grounds other than "the fetus is a human being", and is less strict because of that.

No, but you are assuming a risk for which the car manufacturer cannot be sued unless there was negligence.Who's suing the manufacturer? More like using the emergency brake when the regular one fails.

I'm not discounting the costs of pregnancy. They just don't equal loss of lifeLoss of what sort of life? The life of a human being? The life of my pet cat? The life of a grasshopper? The costs of pregnancy are way more than the value of the life of a grasshopper. Yes, if you think a fertilized human egg = a human being, you can only justify abortion in extreme cases. This is one of those points where we are unlikely to change anyone's mind. But surely you've observed that many people don't think a fertilized egg is a human being. To sway these people, you need to come up with other arguments.

[Lucy]

I wonder if the incidence of men killing pregnant girlfriends and wives would drop dramatically if they had this "get out of pregnant free" sort of option.
Arguments like this one. :) Although I hadn't realized there was an especially high incidence of men killing pregnant girlfriends and wives.

[Listerine]

I wonder if the incidence of men killing pregnant girlfriends and wives would drop dramatically if they had this "get out of pregnant free" sort of option.
Of course they would. Just like the incidence of rape will go down if women are subject to strict curfews, when of course it would be more appropriate for men to be subject to them if the concern is rape.

Yes, Lucy, pregnancy is slightly hazardous, statistically, to women's health, for the reason fallout speaks of.

[Lucy]

Of course they would. Just like the incidence of rape will go down if women are subject to strict curfews, when of course it would be more appropriate for men to be subject to them if the concern is rape.

Yes, Lucy, pregnancy is slightly hazardous, statistically, to women's health, for the reason fallout speaks of.Slightly? Sure. Fallout sounded like he thought there was a fairly large incidence that might "drop dramatically".

I don't see changing the rules about child support as analagous as implementing strict curfews on either sex. Just moving around the (very real) burden of rearing a child.

[Malik Shabazz]

Although I hadn't realized there was an especially high incidence of men killing pregnant girlfriends and wives.Yes, there is.

A few months ago, maybe a year or so, a study found that pregnant women were at very high risk of being killed by their husband or lover. I'll try to find a link.

[Listerine]

A slight but regular thing can be reduced dramatically. Like from 1% to .05%.



The analogy was in putting an additional burden or constraint on the expected target of a transgression instead of on the expected transgressor.

[Malik Shabazz]

Here it is, a series of front-page articles from the Washington Post:

Many New or Expectant Mothers Die Violent Deaths (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10074-2004Dec18.html)

Their killings produced only a few headlines, but across the country in the last decade, hundreds of pregnant women and new mothers have been slain. Even as Scott Peterson's trial became a public fascination, little was said about how often is happens, why, and whether it is a fluke or a social syndrome.

Violence Intersects Lives of Promise
Relatives and Friends Evoke the Women and Their Paths Toward Death (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12359-2004Dec19.html)

Mending Shattered Childhoods
Newborns, Siblings and Substitute Caregivers Endure Reminders of Loss (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14920-2004Dec20?language=printer)

The series tended to be anecdotal, but the sidebar, excerpted below, was more statistical:

Researchers Stunned By Scope of Slayings
Further Studies Needed, Most Agree (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A10785-2004Dec18.html)

Krulewitch wanted to see whether maternal deaths were being undercounted, as was common elsewhere across the country. Granted access to confidential death files, she assumed she would find more deaths from medical complications of pregnancy -- embolism, infection, hemorrhage -- than anyone knew.

What she stumbled upon instead was a surprising number of homicides: 13 of 30 maternal deaths, more than 40 percent. "I was just stunned," she recalled. "You assume it's a quirk in the numbers. A blip."

Krulewitch dug into medical archives and came across a 1992 journal article from Chicago and a 1995 study from New York City. In both, homicide had emerged as a significant cause of maternal death. It was difficult for the uninitiated to comprehend: Were pregnant women being killed in notable numbers? ...

One of the most comprehensive studies came from Maryland, where researchers used an array of case-spotting methods, expecting to find more medical deaths than the state knew about. Instead they discovered that homicide was the leading cause of death, a finding published in 2001 in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

In 2002, Massachusetts weighed in with a study that also showed homicide as the top cause of maternal death, followed by cancer. Two of three homicides involved domestic violence. "This is clearly a major health problem for women," said Angela Nannini, who led the study.

[Lucy]

Thanks, Malik. That's a depressing new fact for the day.

Yes, I suspect many of those could have been averted had the man had a "get out of fatherhood free" card. Probably not all of them - I'm sure some are jealousy (wrong father, or suspected wrong father) some are just, shall we say, over-controlling men, some are probably triggered by the woman's obnoxious pregnant behavior, etc.

[Traci]

I think the two situations are fundamentally different. While birth control lessens the risk of pregnancy, there is still risk. The woman knows that going into the activity, so pregnancy is a risk she is willingly assuming by engaging in sex. Assumed risk is, again, a principle of our legal system.

I drive my kids in my car every day. There is a risk that they might be killed in a car accident. I do everything I can to keep them safe. If an accident occurs (assume I've done everything possible to prevent it) - am I guilty of killing my children simply because I chose to put them in the car?

The legal system makes allowances for accidents that result from reasonable behavior. Having sex is reasonable behavior for adults. All precautions regarding unwanted pregnancy should be taken -- just as I should always have my kids in carseats, etc. But it is not reasonable to hold someone to the worst case scenario every time they do something that is otherwise acceptable.


Are you saying that being killed is better than living in less than ideal circumstances?

"Being killed" in the earliest of life's stages - before an autonomous existance has begun is sometimes better, IMO, than living in horrible circumstances.


I agree that there are circumstances under which the taking of life is the necessary evil. Generally I believe that is only when it is necessary to prevent other lives from being lost and only when there is justification for the particular life that is taken to save others. Abortion only falls into that category when necessary to save the life of the mother.

If the goal is quantity of individual lives, then I'd have to agree with you. But I don't think the goal of our collective existance is merely to maximize quantity of human beings.

We are intelligent beings -- we have the ability to foresee circumstances -- to learn from observing others. Because of that, I think we have a responsibility to maximize the quality of our lives and the lives of those around us.

Occassionally that can justify the taking of another life, IMO.

[Pseudolus]

That's not a choice that anyone, not even a mother - certainly not a mother - should be making for another person. "You'd be better off dead, sweetie, so I'm going to have you killed for your own good. This hurts me more than it hurts you." That makes me feel ill.

[Traci]

That's not a choice that anyone, not even a mother - certainly not a mother - should be making for another person. "You'd be better off dead, sweetie, so I'm going to have you killed for your own good. This hurts me more than it hurts you." That makes me feel ill.

I guess I just view Life more collectively.

That is - I don't think that the "soul" of an aborted fetus has lost its one and only chance at Life.

Life goes on -- and on and on ...

One day there will be no more human beings on Earth. At some point in the future, there will be no Earth. But Life will go on ... somewhere ... somehow ...

[MikeTheTiger]

Loss of what sort of life? The life of a human being? The life of my pet cat? The life of a grasshopper? The costs of pregnancy are way more than the value of the life of a grasshopper. Yes, if you think a fertilized human egg = a human being, you can only justify abortion in extreme cases. This is one of those points where we are unlikely to change anyone's mind. But surely you've observed that many people don't think a fertilized egg is a human being. To sway these people, you need to come up with other arguments.

The discussion between Traci and me was based on an agreement between the two of us that a fetus is a human life, so any arguments I have presented have been in that context. In any case, you are correct that to sway those who don't believe a fetus is a human being, a different set of arguments are needed. Of course, for anyone to sway those of us who do believe a fetus is a human being, you also have to present different arguments than you have. It works both ways. In the end, that is a different discussion than the one here. If you want to have that discussion, I'm more than willing to engage.

[Griffin 4]

That is - I don't think that the "soul" of an aborted fetus has lost its one and only chance at Life.Does the free-look period for the soul end when the cord is cut?

[Traci]

Does the free-look period for the soul end when the cord is cut?

I'm not sure I understand your question.

Even when a person dies - at a day old or at any other point - I believe Life still goes on - it just changes form.

Are you asking why isn't it okay to kill them after the cord is cut? Because it makes the most sense to me that the legal "right to life" should commence at birth. Conception is unreasonable - viability outside the womb is too grey - birth makes the most legal sense (to me).

[MikeTheTiger]

I drive my kids in my car every day. There is a risk that they might be killed in a car accident. I do everything I can to keep them safe. If an accident occurs (assume I've done everything possible to prevent it) - am I guilty of killing my children simply because I chose to put them in the car?

The legal system makes allowances for accidents that result from reasonable behavior. Having sex is reasonable behavior for adults. All precautions regarding unwanted pregnancy should be taken -- just as I should always have my kids in carseats, etc. But it is not reasonable to hold someone to the worst case scenario every time they do something that is otherwise acceptable.

Because of the nature of the analogies we are trying to make, I think we're getting our wires crossed here. You wouldn't be guilty of murdering your child if the death was an unintended consequence. That's not at all the same as abortion where death IS the intended consequence.

My point was that you alone would bear the responsibility for the consequences in such a situation even if those consequences were not what you intended. You would have to live with the loss and pay the costs associated. You assume the risk of the possibility of death. If you want to be 100% sure of avoiding the consequence you don't drive (have sex).

Let's say that instead of your child dying in the accident, your child is paralyzed. You didn't mean for that to happen and it would be a real hardship to care for that child from that time forward. I think there's at least some parallel in that situation to an unwanted pregnancy. Should you be allowed to kill your paralyzed child so that you don't have to deal with the unexpected consequences?

If the goal is quantity of individual lives, then I'd have to agree with you. But I don't think the goal of our collective existance is merely to maximize quantity of human beings.

We are intelligent beings -- we have the ability to foresee circumstances -- to learn from observing others. Because of that, I think we have a responsibility to maximize the quality of our lives and the lives of those around us.

Occassionally that can justify the taking of another life, IMO.

I think a strong argument could be made that if we went around and killed all those who were a drain on society's resources, we would improve the quality of life for everyone else. Would it be justifiable to do so?

[MikeTheTiger]

Are you asking why isn't it okay to kill them after the cord is cut? Because it makes the most sense to me that the legal "right to life" should commence at birth. Conception is unreasonable - viability outside the womb is too grey - birth makes the most legal sense (to me).

I would look at that grey area and draw the opposite legal conclusion. If we are uncertain as to whether or not viability exists, we must err on the side of the preservation of life.

[Griffin 4]

I'm not sure I understand your question.You've provided the reasons for you position on the legal part, but what about the moral* part? It's not immoral (if I understand you correctly) to terminate an unborn fetus at least partly because its soul will have another chance. Does that apply to the post-birth population as well? In the "Killing is Moral" tabulation, does that reason allow you to add a tic mark in the "yes" column?


*For anyone offended by the use of the word "moral", please replace with the version of that word that satisfies you.

[Traci]

Should you be allowed to kill your paralyzed child so that you don't have to deal with the unexpected consequences?



I think a strong argument could be made that if we went around and killed all those who were a drain on society's resources, we would improve the quality of life for everyone else. Would it be justifiable to do so?

I've already stated that the legal right to life begins at birth. So even those who become a burden still have the right to continue to exist - except in extreme circumstances (I am okay with capital punishment in theory).

In the case of a paralyzed child - NO - that child still has a right to his life.

In the case of someone like Terry Schiavo -- she did not forfeit her right to life -- ending her physical life was an act of compassion. Her Life was already over.

(But remember, I was against pulling the plug on her. Her parents still wished to try additional therapies on her and I was in favor of allowing them to try. I would have rather her parents and her husband have been in agreement about the decision to allow her to die.)

[Traci]

I would look at that grey area and draw the opposite legal conclusion. If we are uncertain as to whether or not viability exists, we must err on the side of the preservation of life.

Why?

Why is it of such great importance to add one more living human being to the world?

Especially when it is not brought into the world willingly and welcomed?

(This is a serious question - not meant to be sarcastic)

[Traci]

It's not immoral (if I understand you correctly) to terminate an unborn fetus at least partly because its soul will have another chance.

I think you're mixing up my posts a bit.

Pseud said that my views made him ill. I was just trying to clarify my underlying view of Life and life.

That the soul will have another chance at Life doesn't mean that all abortions are morally okay with me.

[Griffin 4]

Why is it of such great importance to add one more living human being to the world?The issue is not whether or not to add the living being - that has already happened. The issue is whether or not to remove the living being.

[MikeTheTiger]

I've already stated that the legal right to life begins at birth. So even those who become a burden still have the right to continue to exist - except in extreme circumstances (I am okay with capital punishment in theory).

In the case of a paralyzed child - NO - that child still has a right to his life.

I guess that just gets us right back to where we started with this discussion. The legal issue at question is whether the human life has a right to life before being born. You are establishing different standards before and after. I just don't see any legal precedent or precept that justifies the distinction.

In the case of someone like Terry Schiavo -- she did not forfeit her right to life -- ending her physical life was an act of compassion. Her Life was already over.

(But remember, I was against pulling the plug on her. Her parents still wished to try additional therapies on her and I was in favor of allowing them to try. I would have rather her parents and her husband have been in agreement about the decision to allow her to die.)

We are in complete agreement on this issue. I consider brain death to be death. Though I saw no harm in allowing her parents to pursue a hope for life, I also saw no reason to pursue that path either. The only arguments I would make would be to use this case to start a discussion about what standards need to be met before determining that it is appropriate to terminate life support. There needs to be a high degree of certainty that someone truly is brain dead and a high degree of certainty that it would be their wish to do so. I think the first of those standards was met. I'm not sure about the second.

[Griffin 4]

That the soul will have another chance at Life doesn't mean that all abortions are morally okay with me.No, but when you add up the plusses and minuses to determine if a particular abortion is morally okay with you, the fact that the soul has another chance at life is a plus. While I'm sure that for the post-birth population, the minuses will always outweigh the plusses for you, does the fact that the soul will have another chance at life go into the plus column?

[MikeTheTiger]

Why?

Why is it of such great importance to add one more living human being to the world?

Especially when it is not brought into the world willingly and welcomed?

(This is a serious question - not meant to be sarcastic)

As Grif said, this isn't a question of adding another living human being, it's a question of killing an already living human being. That living human being deserves a chance at life just the same as you and I.

[Traci]

I guess that just gets us right back to where we started with this discussion. The legal issue at question is whether the human life has a right to life before being born. You are establishing different standards before and after. I just don't see any legal precedent or precept that justifies the distinction.

Then I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for. There really is no comparable situation to abortion from which we can draw a legal "precedent".

[Traci]

No, but when you add up the plusses and minuses to determine if a particular abortion is morally okay with you, the fact that the soul has another chance at life is a plus. While I'm sure that for the post-birth population, the minuses will always outweigh the plusses for you, does the fact that the soul will have another chance at life go into the plus column?

Yes

[Traci]

As Grif said, this isn't a question of adding another living human being, it's a question of killing an already living human being. That living human being deserves a chance at life just the same as you and I.

But to give it its chance against the will of it's temporary host presents a legal (and moral) problem.

Someone's rights have to take precedence. IMO, the rights of the parasitic life (however temporarily) are trumped by the rights of the host.

[Griffin 4]

YesI have always respected your consistency.

[MikeTheTiger]

Then I guess I'm not sure what you're looking for. There really is no comparable situation to abortion from which we can draw a legal "precedent".

That's why I also used the word precept. Our laws are based on certain principles. One of the core principles is the right to life. I'm looking for a legal argument that justifies a different standard for human beings pre-birth vs. post-birth. The arguments so far have just led us in circles back to your original position.

[MikeTheTiger]

But to give it its chance against the will of it's temporary host presents a legal (and moral) problem.

Someone's rights have to take precedence. IMO, the rights of the parasitic life (however temporarily) are trumped by the rights of the host.

You are right that it's a balance of rights. It's just that our system of laws holds the right to life (assuming life as we have) as more fundamental than the rights of the mother (I'm having a hard time describing what those are, but I recognize they are there.)

[MikeTheTiger]

I have always respected your consistency.

As do I, Traci. I hope that has not been obscured in the course of this discussion.

[Traci]

You are right that it's a balance of rights. It's just that our system of laws holds the right to life (assuming life as we have) as more fundamental than the rights of the mother (I'm having a hard time describing what those are, but I recognize they are there.)

Um - no it doesn't. Abortion is legal now.

Our laws are based on certain principles. One of the core principles is the right to life. I'm looking for a legal argument that justifies a different standard for human beings pre-birth vs. post-birth. The arguments so far have just led us in circles back to your original position.

One of the core principles is the right to life - yes. And if human beings could lay eggs like chickens, then we wouldn't need to debate this.

But other core principles are the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's why when two beings both have rights that are in competition -- one must be able to legally trump the other.

In the case of an unborn person - the born person's rights should and do get legal priority.

[E. Blackadder]

Ahh... This would explain why people are getting posts edited by a person who isn't the author.

Mike, please quit arguing with Traci. It just makes life harder for the rest of us. :-P

[MikeTheTiger]

Um - no it doesn't. Abortion is legal now.

Because a fetus is not legally considered a human being. If the courts were to decide that a fetus was a person, then abortion laws would change to protect that life absent some new argument to justify abortion. That's why I'm asking you what legal argument there could be to justify abortion given the assumption of life that you have.

One of the core principles is the right life - yes. And if human beings could lay eggs like chickens, then we wouldn't need to debate this.

But other core principles are the right to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's why when two beings both have rights that are in competition -- one must be able to legally trump the other.

In the case of an unborn person - the born person's rights should and do get legal priority.

Yes, but our system of laws has established a hierarchy of those rights. The standard for denying someone life (capital punishment) is much higher than the standard for denying someone liberty (imprisonment). Capital crimes are much worse than the lowest crime for which we incarcarate someone. When balancing someone's right to life against someone else's right to liberty, the right to life trumps the right to liberty. One is usually not at liberty to behave in ways that endanger the life of others.