if the father was really concerned about reproducing...he'd make sure he wrapped it up. or, don't have sex if you don't want a kid...check the website above my previous comment along with every parenting website. i don't think that anyone has the right to tell anyone else what they have the right to do to their own body...period...no one will control my life like that. i feel sorry for people like you...worry about things you'll never control.
bottom line is...you're opinion and other's who share it are the reason why we are still allowed to have the choice. you're chauvinist attitude, along with many other political influences (republicans...cough) is a great help to the pro-life advocates...we thank you for you're continued irrational babble...;)
My argument is more toward a father wantin' kids. And it takes a woman to make sure her sexual partner is wrapped as well. It takes two. I don't take it as women are just as ignorant as men when it comes to knowin' how a woman's body works. Men normally don't care because a woman that doesn't want to get pregnant will normally know when her cycle is & all other aspects.
Aye, & she should have that right. I just feel sorry for the babies. Circumstances are always present. I just hate how responsible men don't get to choose. Like the condom broke & didn't want the baby. Or wanted one then the woman changes her mind. That's my issue. Otherwise, no woman should have to endure abuse like that & made to keep it.
Hi, Reverend. (I do need to show you respect, right?) :) I think you're right - it isn't fair that the father has less of a say than the mother in whether a fetus he helped to create goes to term. I agree - it's not fair that the man loses any control whatsoever once the sperm and egg meet up, and it's not fair that the pressue of such a decision has to be on the woman.
I also agree that, in an ideal relationship, where both partners are on equal footing, they both have the responsibility to use birth control if they don't want a child. And it's not fair that if the women gets pregnant, she can chose to abort or not to abort while the man has no say, and if she chooses to have the baby, he's got to contribute financially, even if he wanted the fetus to be aborted. Again, I agree that this isn't fair.
But, I think that this inequality all stems from the fact that nature isn't fair. It isn't fair that women get pregnant and have to go through a lot to have a baby while all the man needs to do (biologically) is have one enjoyable evening. It's not fair because it's biology and because there's no guiding force behind it. It just is, and we deal with it.
And because all this takes place inside the woman's body, it's up to the woman to decide what to do about it. It's not fair, but it's the best way to deal with an inherently unfair situation.
Man, in a perfect world we would have artificial wombs or something. Mother doesn't want the baby at that time? Cool, remove the embryo and freeze it until she does!
Mother never wants children but the father does? Remove it and incubate it in a glass bowl for him.
If that were ever medically possible, then I could almost see the point for a non-abortion world. I'd reserve the right to donate what eggs/embryos I want to medical research, though. (As opposed to destruction)
Our species is over populated as is. Forcing the oppression of women for unnecessary procreation simply can't be justified.
A woman has to go through pregnancy and birth... a man just has to sign a check.
Fathers can sign off on their parental rights in the U.S and not even have to pay child support. A woman can't just turn over her kids to the welfare agency (unless they are newborns in some states) without facing serious criminal implications and court orders.
Life ain't fair.
Using the law to partially equalize things is the best we can do until medical technology provides us another way.
Viable artificial wombs would solve so many problems. Not only with the entire abortion debate (Abortions would become almost unheard-of, only happening in cases where the fetus was non-viable yet not spontaneously aborting), but also with medical issues. Mom has some kind of medical problem that might endanger the fetus? Into the A-womb.
Oh, I don't deny that there would be massive obstacles to overcome with the development and implementation of viable artificial wombs, and new laws and regulations would have to be developed to deal with their use and abuse. But having them would provide a significant option that just is not available today.
I've got to agree with doone on this one. We're breeding the life right out of this planet. The last thing we need is artifical wombs for crazy people to create as many babies as they can in. I think our society should worry less about fetuses and start worrying more about whether this planet will be able to sustain their actual, living children and grandchildren.
Is your last sentence all the response I get? I'd trying to engage in a friendly discussion here. Though some people have gotten pretty aggressive with you, I've politely laid out what I think is a very serious problem with the opinion that government should give fetuses the same rights as adult humans.
To say that miscarriages / spontaneous abortions are totally immaterial to the discussion misses the point. If someone you are responsible for ends up dead, you can't just tell the authorities "it was cancer" and expect there will be no investigation. For example, you can't just show up somewhere with the body of a 10-year-old, say she died of cancer, and avoid any questions on the topic. Now, if the girl dies in a hospital after fighting cancer, and all this is documented, sure, there aren't questions. But the problem with miscarriages is that often only the mother knows it happens. There is no documentation showing that the fetus was not healthy. There often isn't even documentation that the fetus existed. And usually, no one really knows why the miscarriage happened to begin with.
If you really want the government to treat fetuses as adults and make sure that they aren't "murdered," the same systems will have to be set up to protect them as are in place for children and the disabled and everyone else. The only other alternative would be to just outlaw safe, clinical abortion procedures but turn a blind eye to anything a woman can try to do at home to abort her fetus. Then, if a woman ends up with an unwanted pregnancy, she can drink a lot and throw herself down the steps a couple times and see what happens. I don't think this is the solution for anyone. This also doesn't address the problem of women going out of the country for abortions. If fetuses have the rights of adults, isn't this unfair to the fetuses of the more well-to-do women who can afford to leave the country for abortions? Shouldn't they be protected somehow?
Anyway, I'd appreciate your response to my previous post. If you've just been busy, that's fine.
Seriously, this is all I get? First of all, if you have an argument, please make it. I'm not going to go to some crazy website and read it just because you paste the link here. I'm not debating l4l.org; I'm debating you. In response to your second question, I honestly don't know. I don't think it is. But the real question is, how do you set up a viable legal structure that gives fetuses all the rights of other citizens without putting huge burdens on women and doctors and without spending ridiculous resources to do so? Or are you simply not interested in being practical but more interested in stating your moral positions without thought to the consequences of enacting such a position into law?