So at week 20, it is a child? Ever heard of the saying, "Better safe than sorry"? I especially like to apply it regarding children. So if there is a gray area in which we don't know for sure if it is a child or not, we should err on the side of safety. Are we doing that, or have we been? Were we being safe in the Casey decision (that gave states the option to restrict late term abortions)? I don't think so; there is no mention of this concept of being better safe than sorry when it comes to killing children. I've read those cases, and it is definitely not emphasized, if even mentioned. So to recap, if there is a gray area in which we aren't quite sure whether or not children are being killed or not, let's include that for the reasoning in our court cases...
] You are splitting hair and you are not doing your "crusade" any favor by being silly! The fact that elective abortion is legal until the 20th week doesn't mean that most women wait until then to have an abortion. In fact, ALL women try to get an abortion if they must make a decision to have one as EARLY AS POSSIBLE, and the statistics demonstrate that fact. The "later" abortion (i.e. early in the 2nd trimester) are rare, and usually due to events that cannot be controlled. In ANY CASE, it is not YOUR place to judge. You want a child. . have one, have ten, if you wish. Leave that decision to each individual parent! That is the LAW and I believe this law (unlike many other laws!) is just about right!
Are you dreaming? Please show where I said you (or anyone else) didn't have a right to procreate? DUH!
And at what point is the "side of safety"? You very well know that for most pro-lifers, abortion would never be "safe" at any point Let's do away with all anti-abortion laws. They don't protect "children." In fact, if anything, they create obstructions and delay abortions for some women into that "gray area." Instead, let's provide comprehensive sex education and provide free contraception. That is the only way that has proved to reduce abortions and protect more "children." If the goal is really to protect the "children"... .
“We think improving access to birth control, particularly IUDs and implants, coupled with education on the most effective methods has the potential to significantly decrease the number of unintended pregnancies and abortions in this country,” Peipert (Washington University) said. http://blogs.scientificamerican.com...s-can-reduce-abortion-rate-by-more-than-half/
and neither can you do it .. science has already proven that the actual fertilization takes place over a period of 12-24 hours, so please pinpoint the exact moment for me. There is a point that can be used, that point is consistent brain wave activity which can be measured . .unlike the actual point of fertilization.
Post a link that says that abstinence education reduces the number of abortion rates. Are you aware that the number of abortions has gone down significantly in the last few years?
That requires her to remain pregnant and give birth. You are saying, in essence, that a woman has a right to give a child away but not to end a pregnancy and avoid childbirth. Since pregnancy and childbirth require her to sacrifice time, resources and risk pain, injury and death, this is not a plausible solution to the problem you think you are solving.
I'm not talking about most women, or most children. The fact is, some children would be killed under the current legal framework. If scientific evidence came out that a certain level of a pollutant caused a certain number of child deaths per year, but there was a gray area in which there was no consensus on exactly where that pollutant level was, the EPA administrator whose duty it is to set the legal pollution standards, wouldn't promulgate that standard without even considering the danger to children. He or she would use the fact that at some level children start dying to make his or her determination on what the legal standard for that level should be. And he or she should err on the side of safety! But somehow, even though we admit that fetuses are children before birth (they aren't a fetus for 1 sec, and then 1 sec later are a child upon birth), then we admit that there is a time period in which some children (who may have developed brain functions just a week earlier) my be being killed. Why aren't we at least considering this in our abortion laws is my question. In this instance, we don't err on the side of safety when it comes to children? Weird.
So if hours before birth, a woman goes on a heroin binge, and miscarries the baby, then the expectant father should say, "You killed our fetus!", but just ours later, if the woman kills the child 1 second after birth, then he can exclaim, "You killed our child!"? And the father should express one set of emotions if the fetus is killed, but literally an hour later, he should express another set of emotions (emotions that would be justified upon hearing the news of the murder of one's child)? This doesn't make sense, and I posit that the father who witnesses his newborn killed within hours of birth feels just about the same emotions of a father who witnesses his unborn child killed the day before birth, whether the mother, nature, accident, or other person causes it. But prochoicers' entire argument states that the man would be wrong to feel, display, or act upon these emotions prior to birth. Again, the argument doesn't make sense.
I'm not saying we legalize how people feel about anything. But it is a fact that fetuses are not persons until birth. To give them citizenship and legal rights before this puts all pregnant women in danger of having their own rights over their autonomy seriously affected.
In the last sentence you said "don't push your desire to have children on someone else". But my desire to have children includes my right to find a mate, basically establish a contract with that mate to have a child, and then have sex in order to have that child. After the child is conceived (and I have successfully convinced a mate to allow me to impregnate her) what else can I do to further my right to procreate? You are basically saying my right ends right there, and even though a verbal, implicit contract may have existed with my mate to conceive children, that contract can be voided at any point by the woman. Your last sentence states just 2 possible reasons the contract can be voided: "those who do not want children as a goal" and those "who just can't deal with a pregnancy". Which means, that after I have done everything I could do, 1. find a mate, 2. convince mate that she should carry my child, 3. have sex and successfully impregnate mate, and there is at that point a 99% chance of procreation, you are basically saying all if it can be voided if the woman feels like it. Now I understand that most women, in most cases, will not void the implicit contract to have a child without a rational reason. But that doesn't change the legal fact that the man, under the system you seem to want, has zero right to procreate. We may as well be a sperm bank, to be used at the whim or will of women. Why don't we pour money into scientific research into making the act of sex incapable of pregnancy? That way everyone can run around and have all the sex they want, and if a woman wants to endure a pregnancy with a specific man, she can go to the sperm bank, get his sperm on file, and have it inseminated. Is that where we are moving with procreation?
Then do it. Nobody is stopping you from seeking out a woman who is just as pro-life as you are. There are plenty of women out there looking for baby daddies to take care of them. Have at it.
what does me allowing something i consider to be wrong solve? I am against abortion because it is killing of an unborn. I consider it a human being at fertilization. it is a human zygote divides into a human embryo becomes a human fetus and is eventually a human baby. a human aka human being every step of the way. it is not only THEIR lives involved. No laws are broken by the unborn, why punish him/her to death? Now your argument of live and let live, their lives, their choice. Hmmm what about every law we have on the books? Their life their choice, why shouldn't they be allowed to drink and drive, drink at any age, drive at any age. Why shouldn't anyone for any reason be allowed to buy a gun, do drugs that are currently illegal, murder someone, rape someone. their lives their choice right? the answer to a lot of these is there's more then one person involved and they are there for safety reasons and the fact that rape violates the rights of the victim. now SCOTUS has ruled I feel unconstitutionally that the unborn has no rights. I will fight for the unborn to have the rights they deserve.
Which is why pregnancy is such a specific and unique situation that is difficult to discuss or make rights about. But the fact remains that no human being, born or not may use another human being's body for the purpose of anything, including survival. To give the fetus this right would elevate it to a status higher than any status anyone has. We have equal rights, not more rights than others. And the other fact remains that pregnancy is damaging to a woman's body and a risk to her health and life. We are allowed to choose whether to continue risks or to withdraw from them.
But the point is, it doesn't matter whether I'm pro-life. It doesn't matter what I think when it comes to my attempts at procreation. Under our system, it only matters what the woman wants. If male wants child, and woman doesn't, she can abort. If make doesn't want child, and she does, she can deliver. It makes no difference what the man wants. But it definitely does make a difference to the man, on what the woman wants. Because she basically decides the man's fate, whether he wishes to procreate, or whether he wishes not to. If he does not wish to procreate, it doesn't matter (although if the woman wishes not to procreate, it does matter). Perfect example is my brother and a few of my cousins and friends. They impregnated women who not only wished to deliver the children, but did not wish to stay with them. So her decision to deliver is an 18 year financial and emotional burden on my brother and the others. In fact, it is a life altering burden if one makes less than $50k per year. If one makes $35-50k, and one has child support payments automatically deducted like many I know, then one will struggle to financially afford another family. The support payments will reduce your income to the point at which you simply can't afford a family. And below $25k per year (which is where my bro is), then those payments will reduce your income to the point at which living is impossible (if you are only bringing home $1500 per month (which is barely enough to live on), then child support is typically taking about $300-$500 a month. I know people working 30-40 hours a week at Pizza Hut, but because of child support, are only getting $200 paychecks every 2 weeks. All of this lasts 18 years, and restricts the ability to create another family for that entire time. But meanwhile, the women who receive these payments are free to start a new family anew. My bros babies' momma makes about $70k per year, and she found a husband who makes around $100k. But my bro still must pay them indefinitely, and he will not be able to even consider building a family until he is in the $50k range. Something is screwed up here.
Which is why you need to make the effort to find a woman who is able and willing to procreate with you instead of trying to force your one night stand to carry to term for you. Find someone you want to procreate with and who wants to procreate with you. Why is it you guys are so interested in forcing women to bear children for you? Are you really afraid that you will not find someone who wants to carry your genetic DNA to term or something and so you feel you must legally override every single woman's personal medical decisions and make her medical decisions for her? Also I do find it unfortunate that some men are forced to be a part of a child's life they wanted no part in. I acknowledge this unequal effect of rights. I believe men should have the right to sign away all their parental rights to a child they want no part of while the woman is pregnant much in the same way a woman can sign away all her parental rights of a child to the state and simply pretend she doesn't know who the father is. I think it is archaic to treat women as if they are incapable of working and caring for the offspring they wish to carry to term and thus put the demand of financial burden on the father. In this day and age women have plenty of options to choose to not have children at all through abortion or to get a job and financially support the children they want to have. Fathers should not be forced to pay her a regular fee for having babies. In fact the courts should have it set up so that both parents are equally paying for the children's needs when in either one's care, whether they see one parent every other week or every other weekend.
I usually agree with all your very valid and intelligent points but have a sticking point on not having fathers support the children they bring into the world. But after reading this last post of yours the lightbulb is growing brighter. I thinking! Maybe some young unmarried women will stop and think about that pregnancy(or getting pregnant) if they have no legal recourse to make the Daddy pay his share.....hmmm....OK, it won't make them all smarter about the reality of the "guy who loved them so much could soon be gone" but it might help. Now my sticking point is divorced couples...that man has made a legal commitment and is legally responsible to support those kids.... so he gets no leniency from me but those other guys...hmmmm
Oh absolutely. And it would put a huge stop to all this nonsense of women who try to 'trap' men into having a baby with them or getting themselves a free ride by getting pregnant (Yes I'm on the pill! *When she's really not*). This is in fact a form of reproductive coercion against men and it is extremely wrong. It is wrong to try and trap men into fatherhood just as it is wrong to trap women into unwanted pregnancies and motherhood. Also I am fully aware that just saying, "Well men should just stop having sex!" is just not going to work either since it clearly does not work for women. Men and woman both have sex and both have the right to do so. What they do not have the right to do though is coerce one another through reproduction. I just don't see how it is equality to hold women to a certain set of standards and not hold men to the same. That is not equality. Now as far as the men who swore up and down to her that he'd be there for them, well she needs to get that in writing if she wants it to stick in reality. That way she can take him to court over it. If he never made such promises then she has no reason to hold him to paying any kind of child support, although I don't much believe in child support to begin with. I think parents simply need to pay for their kids school necessities, medical care, food and other needs when they are with the parent. Custody should be split down the middle if both want to remain in the child's life. This all would ideally be considered before the child is born, but I know that is not always the case, especially if she does not make him aware that she is even pregnant. These issues would have to be dealt with on a case by case basis.
Well, I think that the laws making deadbeat dads pay up is to help keep the burden off taxpayers. So many of these single moms are young and dumb and can't really support their kids properly and need assistance. Unlike Anti-Choicers, I care about the kids when they are actually people, living breathing people, and whatever can be done to support them is OK with me. I'm sorry , but I'm old and have seen so much unfairness directed at women that if something seems unfair to men I just can't care.
