I was simply making the point that the fate of a fetus cannot and should not be decided by a court of law. Regardless of what the fetus is, it is a decision to be made by the parents. If they disagree, it is the mother's call.

I'd also like to point out that anyone who says a fetus is an inanimate object is just plain wrong. A fetus is definitely alive, and it is definitely human. It'd be silly to say that it was anything else.

Here's what I see:

The man contributes his DNA during sex.

The woman contributes her DNA, may face the loss of financial security as the result of having to pay for the prenatal care and birth in addition to quite possibly becoming unable to work, may have to cope with debilitating emotional and physical distress, may face health problems (during the pregnancy or afterward), may suffer postpartum depression - a rather serious psychological condition - following the pregnancy, will most likely have to make significant lifestyle changes to ensure the fetus's health, is highly likely to endure extreme pain during birth... the list goes on. There's a reason surrogate mothers are often compensated with tens of thousands of dollars for their services, on top of the inevitable medical bills.

Needless to say, I don't really think "ownership" should or would be considered an even split between the two.

Originally Posted by Fabby

I was simply making the point that the fate of a fetus cannot and should not be decided by a court of law. Regardless of what the fetus is, it is a decision to be made by the parents. If they disagree, it is the mother's call.

I'd also like to point out that anyone who says a fetus is an inanimate object is just plain wrong. A fetus is definitely alive, and it is definitely human. It'd be silly to say that it was anything else.

My question to you is, why should the mother have all the say when it is half the father's DNA? Same with why shouldn't a guardian be able to make the decision for a minor?

Also, many who argue that abortion is not murder would claim that a fetus is not living, thus it can not be killed.

Well yeah, you should definately be able to abort the baby if your own life will be taken in the process, or if you were raped, or are twelve.

The people who should not be allowed to abort are the ones who know the risks and consequences of having a lot of unprotected sex and do it anyway, having the ability to care for the child etc.

But no one should be forced to keep a child in which they do not want and will not care for properly, especially if they can't, or if they are on drugs and the baby will be deformed/metally retarded etc...

There are too many people on this planet and we are destorying it. Abort away.

Originally Posted by ahill787

Well yeah, you should definately be able to abort the baby if your own life will be taken in the process, or if you were raped, or are twelve.

The people who should not be allowed to abort are the ones who know the risks and consequences of having a lot of unprotected sex and do it anyway, having the ability to care for the child etc.

But no one should be forced to keep a child in which they do not want and will not care for properly, especially if they can't, or if they are on drugs and the baby will be deformed/metally retarded etc...

There are too many people on this planet and we are destorying it. Abort away.

Here's my interpretation of what you're saying, and please, correct me if I'm wrong, but you think that using abortions as birth control is acceptable behavior.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

[color=purple]My question to you is, why should the mother have all the say when it is half the father's DNA? Same with why shouldn't a guardian be able to make the decision for a minor?

My question to you is this: why do you think something as trivial as DNA contribution - which amounts to nothing more than sperm donorship - entitles the man to equal say in what happens to a fetus that resides in and has serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences for the woman?

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

Also, many who argue that abortion is not murder would claim that a fetus is not living, thus it can not be killed.

I'm fairly certain that's not true. It's a biological fact that a fetus is living; murder is not simply killing something, it's killing a person. Personhood is the issue here, not life at the cellular level.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

My question to you is this: why do you think something as trivial as DNA contribution - which amounts to nothing more than sperm donorship - entitles the man to equal say in what happens to a fetus that resides in and has serious physical, emotional, and financial consequences for the woman?



I'm fairly certain that's not true. It's a biological fact that a fetus is living; murder is not simply killing something, it's killing a person. Personhood is the issue here, not life at the cellular level.

I bring up DNA because that sperm contributed to the creation of that fetus, thus that fetus is half his. He should have a say. Most men that I've known would go along with an abortion if the woman really wanted it, so the dispute comes in when that man truly wants to be a father.

I can't argue with you on the matter of Personhood because that is the real debate. It's not just the reasoning behind getting an abortion but also what rights a fetus has. I see a fetus as an infant from the moment of conception. I believe that a fetus should have full rights, just as a new born child would.

My stance on abortion is simple. I am for a ban on a late term abortion. Where basically what is in the woman's womb is no longer just a bunch of cells but a baby in the final stages to personhood.

While it is still just a cluster of cells I think it should be up to the woman herself. If she feels that having an abortion is the course for her that is her business and it is not my right nor anyone elses to tell her otherwise.

I don't care what her reasons are. If she got knocked up because she slept with a fratboy and they didn't use a condom. Or if she was raped and got pregnant that way. It doesn't matter. If you are going to have the act be legal then there should not be restrictions upon reasons for having the act done.

And personally it is my opinon (since I know it got brought up) that it be left up to the woman's discretion who she tells about it. It is not anyone's right to demand that information from her for any reason. It was a choice she made for herself and it does not involve anyone else.

It would be like me having to notify my spouse (hypothetically assuming I have one, etc. etc.) that I bought a new pair of shoes. It is up to me to tell them if I so choose but otherwise it isn't any of their business (this is all based on the train of thought that the shoes were the standard wal mart price and was bought with my own money.)

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

I bring up DNA because that sperm contributed to the creation of that fetus, thus that fetus is half his. He should have a say.

Bull. His sperm contributed to the creation of a fertilized egg. After that point, the continued formation and sustenance of that fertilized egg - which eventually becomes a fetus - is the sole domain of the woman and her body. He has no part in it; he assumes none of the responsibilities or risks, and he does not participate in the pregnancy. Pregnancy is not - not by the farthest stretch of the imagination - a 50/50 endeavor.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

Most men that I've known would go along with an abortion if the woman really wanted it, so the dispute comes in when that man truly wants to be a father.

"Most men you know" =/= "most men." I've known plenty of men who, largely for religious reasons, would never support a woman's right to choose - even if they have no intention of playing the role of father.

In any case, if a man truly wants to become a father, all he has to do is find a different woman who is interested in pursuing parenthood with him. He does not have the right to force that relationship.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

Bull. His sperm contributed to the creation of a fertilized egg. After that point, the continued formation and sustenance of that fertilized egg - which eventually becomes a fetus - is the sole domain of the woman and her body. He has no part in it; he assumes none of the responsibilities or risks, and he does not participate in the pregnancy. Pregnancy is not - not by the farthest stretch of the imagination - a 50/50 endeavor.



"Most men you know" =/= "most men." I've known plenty of men who, largely for religious reasons, would never support a woman's right to choose - even if they have no intention of playing the role of father.

In any case, if a man truly wants to become a father, all he has to do is find a different woman who is interested in pursuing parenthood with him. He does not have the right to force that relationship.

So a father's right should be ignored because he physically can't participate in pregnancy?

Originally Posted by rainbow_in_the_dark

My stance on abortion is simple. I am for a ban on a late term abortion. Where basically what is in the woman's womb is no longer just a bunch of cells but a baby in the final stages to personhood.

I have two issues with this.

1) Under no circumstances is forcing a woman to carry an nonviable fetus to term in any way ethical or morally correct. A ban on late term abortion would force that upon a woman who discovered defects late during pregnancy that would not permit the child to live outside of the womb.

2) It is already extremely difficult to obtain a late term abortion. It requires doctor recommendations and a court order, which means there's already a damned good reason to have one if you manage to get one (such as discovering you have a non-viable fetus, or there are new health risks to the mother as a result of carrying to term that were previously unknown to anyone). We have also already eliminated the most safe method of performing late-term abortions (partial birth abortions). Who are we doing a favor by banning it altogether?

Originally Posted by Keyori

I have two issues with this.

1) Under no circumstances is forcing a woman to carry an nonviable fetus to term in any way ethical or morally correct. A ban on late term abortion would force that upon a woman who discovered defects late during pregnancy that would not permit the child to live outside of the womb.

2) It is already extremely difficult to obtain a late term abortion. It requires doctor recommendations and a court order, which means there's already a damned good reason to have one if you manage to get one (such as discovering you have a non-viable fetus, or there are new health risks to the mother as a result of carrying to term that were previously unknown to anyone). We have also already eliminated the most safe method of performing late-term abortions (partial birth abortions). Who are we doing a favor by banning it altogether?

Late term abortions are only so difficult because President Brush banned them for use like first trimester abortions. And actually it's more difficult now to obtain a second trimester abortion nowadays as well.

Now, it's nearly impossible for a ultrasound tech not to notice something wrong within the first ultrasound, which takes place at around 3-4 months. It's their job, and ultrasounds are very accurate. You can see a lot.

Oh, and there are organizations all over the U.S. that provide free prenatal care like ultrasounds and even vitamins.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

My question to you is, why should the mother have all the say when it is half the father's DNA? Same with why shouldn't a guardian be able to make the decision for a minor?

Also, many who argue that abortion is not murder would claim that a fetus is not living, thus it can not be killed.

Doomfishy already covered this pretty well, but..
It's not his body being used for nine months. And since the mother has power over her body and there is no way to carry the fetus to term without her body, the father does not have any real power. The situation pretty much just sucks for the dad if they disagree, but there's nothing we can do about that. DNA does not entitle you to be able to use someone else as an incubator if they are unwilling. It's not fair, but it's because of simple biological facts none of us have any control over.

Those who argue that fetuses aren't alive are, like I said, wrong. Should we inspect a fetus from a scientific standpoint, you would find that it does qualify as life.
Life on the level of a house plant, but still life.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

Late term abortions are only so difficult because President Brush banned them for use like first trimester abortions. And actually it's more difficult now to obtain a second trimester abortion nowadays as well.

Now, it's nearly impossible for a ultrasound tech not to notice something wrong within the first ultrasound, which takes place at around 3-4 months. It's their job, and ultrasounds are very accurate. You can see a lot.

Oh, and there are organizations all over the U.S. that provide free prenatal care like ultrasounds and even vitamins.

I recognize that it is rare, but it still happens, and my point is that if we have a blanket ban, we're not helping anyone, and we could be forcing women to carry a fetus that won't survive outside of the womb, or threaten her own well-being, which I deeply disagree with. It's already difficult to get late-term abortions, and doctors don't perform them willy-nilly. There's no point to having a blanket ban.

What I do disagree with (but would be unenforceable if there was legislation) is women who abort because the child would be the "wrong" gender. But, that's more of a problem with the mother, and not the abortion itself.

Originally Posted by Keyori

I recognize that it is rare, but it still happens, and my point is that if we have a blanket ban, we're not helping anyone, and we could be forcing women to carry a fetus that won't survive outside of the womb, which I deeply disagree with. It's already difficult to get late-term abortions, and doctors don't perform them willy-nilly.

I agree. And there, nowadays, are a lot of teen mothers in states without abortion, who give birth and kill their baby. That is terrible. I consider a fetus and baby when it takes its first breath outside the womb.

Originally Posted by Keyori

What I do disagree with (but would be unenforceable if there was legislation) is women who abort because the child would be the "wrong" gender. But, that's more of a problem with the mother, and not the abortion itself.

That indeed is a problem but there will always be women like that. We cannot change them.

Originally Posted by The_Good_Kid_13

So a father's right should be ignored because he physically can't participate in pregnancy?

No, the father doesn't have a right in what he's not participating in.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

No, the father doesn't have a right in what he's not participating in.

So true. I think that, ideally, couples should compromise, but to legislate compromise is senseless.

I've proposed to my fiance several times that if he wants us to have a child together, he should be the one to carry it around for 9 months. His response? "But it'll hurt!" :roll: And he wonders why I prefer to adopt...

Originally Posted by Keyori

So true. I think that, ideally, couples should compromise, but to legislate compromise is senseless.

I've proposed to my fiance several times that if he wants us to have a child together, he should be the one to carry it around for 9 months. His response? "But it'll hurt!" :roll: And he wonders why I prefer to adopt...

It is truly hilarious how men claim to be stronger but probably could not handle pregnancy, a monthly period, even a kidney stone.

But that was not meant to be sexist. I was merely pointing out a fact.

Here's my question: if you honestly believe that the man has as much right to a pregnancy as the woman, should he be able to legally compel her to abort, even if she wants to continue the pregnancy?

Recognize that it could go both ways.

Doomfishy: Who are you directing your question towards?

It's in response to the The_Good_Kid_13, but I'd accept an answer from anyone who agrees with her proposition.

That's what I figured, but since she didn't post between your two posts, I got confused. Thanks for clarifying.

Originally Posted by Doomfishy

Here's my question: if you honestly believe that the man has as much right to a pregnancy as the woman, should he be able to legally compel her to abort, even if she wants to continue the pregnancy?

Recognize that it could go both ways.

I agree if this is a response to The_Good_Kid_13.

I also agree with you and Keyori. Men don't have a say in an abortion because of DNA.

Sorry to have jumped in and confused you guys.

Originally Posted by Arousal

So there's a lot of different opinions concerning abortion, some people think it should be illegal, others think it's fine as long as you have a good reason.
I'd like to hear your views on abortion.

I personally think it shouldn't be that big of a deal as long as you have a good reason.
Examples:

A woman who got raped should have the possibility to get rid of child if she really doesn't want it.

A twelve year old girl can't take care of herself let alone a child.

A woman whose life it at risk if she carries through with the pregnancy.

Now if someone was too lazy to use a condom or birth control pills, there should be a limit to getting abortions, because yes, some people do get them very often!

So, what are your views on the subject?

Also to make something clear:
Abortion is NOT murder.

The law says that murder only goes for people who are alive and born.
So as long as it's a fetus, it does not count as murder.

A woman who got raped should have the possibility to get rid of child if she really doesn't want it.

A twelve year old girl can't take care of herself let alone a child.

A woman whose life it at risk if she carries through with the pregnancy.


these reasoning are very good but also very flawed because for 1 a women who is raped has a very small chance of getting pregnant and for another why would you want to kill it in the first place it did nothing wrong.
2 True a 12 year old girl cannot take care of the child but there is a thing called adoption that should always be looked into.
when they say a women who's life is at risk who is to say the woman's life is at risk at all but merely she is uncomfortable or it hurts alot to the point that she thinks she cannot bare it and who is to say that the women says oh its to much just take it out and they do an abortion.
last i would like to point out that no where in the law does it state that it has to be born before it is considered to have the right to live. so considering that before it was legal to have an abortion every scientist and medical personal said that life began at the moment of conception. So i will consider it murder.

Originally Posted by Millie_04

these reasoning are very good but also very flawed because for 1 a women who is raped has a very small chance of getting pregnant and for another why would you want to kill it in the first place it did nothing wrong.

That's pretty flawed logic. You're not killing it because you're angry at the fetus, you have an abortion because you don't want to have the offspring of your attacker and have a constant reminder that you were raped. :\

2 True a 12 year old girl cannot take care of the child but there is a thing called adoption that should always be looked into.

This has been hashed and rehashed so many times I don't want to do it again. There are a hundred thousand good reasons to abort rather than adopt itout.

when they say a women who's life is at risk who is to say the woman's life is at risk at all but merely she is uncomfortable or it hurts alot to the point that she thinks she cannot bare it and who is to say that the women says oh its to much just take it out and they do an abortion.

http://www.dcdoctor.com/pages/rightp...lications.html I guarantee you that quite a few of those can be fatal. So uh, yeah, the woman's life can potentially be at risk during pregnancy.

last i would like to point out that no where in the law does it state that it has to be born before it is considered to have the right to live. so considering that before it was legal to have an abortion every scientist and medical personal said that life began at the moment of conception. So i will consider it murder.

I think it actually varies from state to state, but in most places a fetus is NOT considered a person. The right to live is something that people have, not fetuses. And obviously some of those scientists thought that fetuses were NOT people, because the law was eventually changed. :\