- James: Today's murder of an abortion provider highlights what's important in this debate: the right of women to have an abortion, which, to your credit, is at the center of your argument. As you said, late-term abortions make up a very small proportion of the whole, so that issue is a miniscule part of the overall issue. It's also used as a wedge issue by the right, hoping to eventually ban all abortions, starting with late-term ones. We differ as on that small issue, but let's remember that we agree on the vast majority of cases.
Right-wingers do what they can to deprive women of abortion services, making late-term abortions more likely, not less. The anti-abortion activists who congratulated the doctor's murderer revealed their true colors (not that they ever hid them!): they are thugs who don't really value human life at all. Their concern with humanity starts at conception and ends at birth.
I am having a hard time following your reasoning. But I'll try to address your concerns as best I can understand them.
The man does bare part responsibility for the child and has some entitlement to the child, after birth. Prior to birth or at least for the majority of the pregnancy the fetus is dependent on the mother for survival.
While you may be able to argue that the man has half ownership of the fetus the woman has entire ownership of her body. Having entire ownership of her body she gets to decide how her body is used and if she does not wish to bring the mans child to term the man has no right to force her.
If your heating system is plugged into my power point I have the right to unplug it even if that means you go cold for the winter. Law is not about forcing people to be nice and accommodating to each other it's about protecting peoples rights.
I can't see how an unborn child can have rights nor can I see how a father's half ownership of a child can entitle him to force a mother to go to term on a pregnancy against her will.
Like it or not if you want to live in a free society then you have to support peoples freedom not to care about the things you do.
The correct way to deal with these sorts of disagreements is through negotiation and debate not legal action.
The man is welcome to participate in group discussions with the counselor and to put his case forward but at the end of the day it's the woman's body so the woman's decision.
Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 15:35:04 +0000
Subject: [naturalismphilosophyforum] Re: Abortion
--- In naturalismphilosoph yforum@yahoogrou ps.com, "JRS ." <jrs300@...> wrote:
"If the mother has thought through a decision (to abort), has been educated and understands the decision and is of a sound mind then to interfere would seem to be an unreasonable imposition of our values."
Would it? Well, zoom out and rewind a scene two:
"If the mother has thought through a decision (to mate regardless of any contraceptive practice or not or risk of consequent fertilisation and pregnancy and), has been educated and understands the decision and is of a sound mind then to interfere would seem to be an unreasonable imposition of our values."
So this, but not either likewise for father? Are fathers, men, then dodging any responsibility here, or are mothers, women? Is that for or against men? Can men opt in, or are they co-opted at term only? Is it the eleventh commandment "don't get caught" that's observed? Does equality apply; just more so for some? Perhaps 2+2=5 is possible? Why not, after all it takes 1+1 to make 3, or is that 4 including the state?. That's sensibly balanced. Sure it is. And if two of the three don't get a look in until one of the three produces the third to the fourth, so what? Call it the way things are, pragmatic, convenient, irrational. Call it three monkies ethical, just, and reasonable!
The question then "What of the father's interests and obligations regarding offspring following consensual fertilisation? " stands.
Click here to find out more POP access for Hotmail is here!