[Black Wolf]

Originally posted by Primus
Yeah. Ofcourse there's possibility of a pregnancy, even when using protection. But that doesn't mean that the woman can't do an abortion if she wants to, even if the man wants to have the child.

Well it ****ing well should. You sir are a disgrace to the entire father's rights movement, and it's attitudes like yours that have allowed the system to degrade to the point it's at now.

[ShadowWolf_IH]

No flaming man, let's keep it civil.  I disagree with his POV as well, but a different point of view never made anyone a lesser being.  just different is all.

[Primus]

My point is: Nobody can not tell a woman to have a baby or to have an abortion, if she doesn't want to

And that is my POV 'till the day I die.

A disgrace to the entire father's rights movement, etc.? Yeah...  Well, I must admit... That hurt my feelings... I share one point of view of mine and now you think that you know me, huh?

[aldo_14]

The thing about abortion, I think, is that it's a medical procedure; you can't force a person to undergo surgery, for example (except maybe under exceptional circumstances after a long legal action?); so you can't force a partner (er, the woman, obviously) to have an abortion.

But, at the same time, you can't deny medical treatment on the basis of another individuals opinion or beliefs.  Whilst it takes two to create a child, there's only one who carries it; and I think the legalities of abortion (or rather who can give consent/seek it) are concerned with that medical situation, rather than the various conflicting moral views.  

(Whilst I don't like or approve the idea of abortion as an easy 'get out clause' for unplanned preganancy, I think that's always going to be the inevitable consequence, because every system is open to and will be abused; look at the NHS, benefits services for example.  But I wouldn't illegalize it, because I think that choice is important)

Paternal rights/liabilities.... I think there is still a hangover of the old attitude that 'a womans place is in the home', so there's an ingrained expectation that the father must support the family.  

I'm not sure if that's always fair, of course; the problem is that you have 2 conflicting things here - 1/ the mother aborts against her will (which IMO would really be a violation of personal rights, even if she's grudgingly convinced to do so) or 2/ the father has to pay for the child he doesn't want.

 I believe that the 2nd is a better option (by no means ideal), because it involves a financial 'penalty'; the 1st entails a physical and probably psychological effect which IMO would be more damaging on an individual basis.  Obviously it has to balanced against the honest wish of the father not to have a child, against him simply running away from his responsibility.

Oh, and single murder depending on the developmental stage of the child.  I'll admit that I'd like to see him go down for a double murder cos he's clearly a twisted ****, but from a detached perspective I don't think you can change the legal age of 'life' around to suit the situation.

[WMCoolmon]

I see your point.. But.. If the woman doesn't want the child and the man does, she should go through pregnancy and delivery, so that the man could have the child?
I think that's wrong. Why? Because the mother don't have to go through all that because somebody else wants so.

But it's not like the woman is the only one who suffers consequences with child support. The man is also forced to pay money for this baby that he may not have wanted at all. That's not quite at the level of possibility-of-death-during-birth, but it could still change their life significantly.

Both parties suffer consequences. If there is a choice in the matter to change the initial decision that led to the pregnancy, both parties should have a say in the decision. Otherwise, if you're going to say that the baby's part of the woman's body, and so therefore she has complete and total say, how can you justify the father being in any way responsible? It is after all, part of her body - are people not responsible for their own bodies? Should people expect someone else to pay for extensive medical treatment, simply because they got sick from them and then decided to not take proper medication to take care of that illness, before it became serious? That seems to be the sort of thinking you're advocating.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon


But it's not like the woman is the only one who suffers consequences with child support. The man is also forced to pay money for this baby that he may not have wanted at all. That's not quite at the level of possibility-of-death-during-birth, but it could still change their life significantly.

Both parties suffer consequences. If there is a choice in the matter to change the initial decision that led to the pregnancy, both parties should have a say in the decision. Otherwise, if you're going to say that the baby's part of the woman's body, and so therefore she has complete and total say, how can you justify the father being in any way responsible? It is after all, part of her body - are people not responsible for their own bodies? Should people expect someone else to pay for extensive medical treatment, simply because they got sick from them and then decided to not take proper medication to take care of that illness, before it became serious? That seems to be the sort of thinking you're advocating.

The act of conception and the action of pregnancy are different, though; the former involves two people, the latter one.  The man is responsible for the conception of the child, but he doesn't have any role within the pre-natal development of the child because that is solely within the mothers body.  After birth, there's not that medical constraint; the whole reason for giving the mother precedence in an abortion decision is because it's her body, life even, which would be affected.

[Primus]

I don't think I have mentioned anything about man paying child support.

I've only stated this:

Originally posted by Primus
My point is: Nobody can not tell a woman to have a baby or to have an abortion, if she doesn't want to

[Primus]

Originally posted by aldo_14


The act of conception and the action of pregnancy are different, though; the former involves two people, the latter one.  The man is responsible for the conception of the child, but he doesn't have any role within the pre-natal development of the child because that is solely within the mothers body.  After birth, there's not that medical constraint; the whole reason for giving the mother precedence in an abortion decision is because it's her body, life even, which would be affected.

Yes!

[Goober5000]

The father and mother are both involved in the creation of a human being (or, if you'd prefer, a potential human being).  So they both "own" the developing child.  Just because only the woman is carrying it doesn't change that, any more than a child living with only one divorced parent changes that he belongs to both parents.  Abortion of the child without the consent of one parent is theft of the child from that parent.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by Goober5000
Just because only the woman is carrying it doesn't change that, any more than a child living with only one divorced parent changes that he belongs to both parents.  

If a child lives with one divorced parent, the parents health is not bound to the child living with them.

 I'm not a fan of abortions which take place without both parents consent - it's unfair for one (obvious) reason - but it's the mothers (remember, both mental and physical) health which will be affected, not the father.  That's why the mother has precedence.

[WMCoolmon]

Originally posted by Primus
I don't think I have mentioned anything about man paying child support.

Page 1:

Yes. The child belongs to both parents and both are responsible for the child. That's why the father should pay support, even if he didn't want the child. Why? Because it is his child, no matter if he didn't want it.

This is what I chiefly disagree with. I don't see how anyone can say 'The woman has complete control over the matter' but then say 'but the man takes responsibility for her choice.' It's a violation of free will and self-determination, and is equivocable to being fined or sued for breaking a law. But what has the father done to deserve this? He's impregnated a woman. It may have been intentional, it may have been completely unintentional and due to the failure of some sort of birth control.

The act of conception and the action of pregnancy are different, though; the former involves two people, the latter one. The man is responsible for the conception of the child, but he doesn't have any role within the pre-natal development of the child because that is solely within the mothers body. After birth, there's not that medical constraint; the whole reason for giving the mother precedence in an abortion decision is because it's her body, life even, which would be affected.

That's true, but my chief objection here is forcing one person to live with the consequences of a choice - that they have no control over. If you want to argue straight-out abortion, I'm probably not going to be a very good debater because I look at the situation too literally. To be pro-choice, one is infringing on the life of the foetus. To be pro-life, one is infringing on the life of the mother and possibly the father. With modern medical science the chances of injury during birth are lower, and the survival of the foetus are higher, but it's still not a sure thing.
In the end I tend towards pro-choice, as an abortion is sure to kill the foetus and deny it a chance at life, wheras there's only a chance of the mother/baby dying as a result of or during childbirth. But it seems enough of a grey area to me that it's difficult to wholeheartedly support one or the other.

When you say 'the mother should take precedence' in an abortion decision, though, I completely agree. But in a decision between two people, giving the mother precedence effectively gives the husband no say whatsoever in the matter. In order to give the mother any sort of fair precedence, IMHO, you'd have to have some sort of system set up that involved other considerations besides the wishes of the parents - eg if the mother's life is at significant risk.

[aldo_14]

Originally posted by WMCoolmon

When you say 'the mother should take precedence' in an abortion decision, though, I completely agree. But in a decision between two people, giving the mother precedence effectively gives the husband no say whatsoever in the matter. In order to give the mother any sort of fair precedence, IMHO, you'd have to have some sort of system set up that involved other considerations besides the wishes of the parents - eg if the mother's life is at significant risk.

Well, this is the key issue- how do you give fair representation without infringing the mothers medical rights? Is it right to deny someone medical treatment because of a 3rd party?  Especially as it's a black and white choice; there's not really any way to compromise.

At the moment, IIRC, (in the UK) an abortion requires the approval of 2 doctors; this is probably the best you can do (i.e. it involves an assessment of the mothers state of mind and ability to make a rational decision), because to actively take medical control away from the mother is establishing a dangerous precedent... I think the only condition where it may have happened (if ever) is in the case of a mother unable to mentally comprehend the responsibility of pregnancy and childbirth (i.e. due to being too young, or mentally ill) and thus make an informed decision.

[Sapphire]

Again I'm getting the feeling that an unborn child is being compared to a tumor or sickness.  Medical treatment for a pregnancy should be thought of in terms of pre-natal care, not termination. And when we use the excuse of possible complications of pregnancy to support a decision for abortion (in the case of an otherwise normal, healthy mother), lets not disregard the possible complications of abortion.

I personally believe that women who pick and choose which of their children survive till delivery do not deserve the label of "Mother" nor the right to become one.   And any man who turns his back on being responsible for a life he was involved in creating, does not deserve to be called Daddy....ever.  When abortion is being used as a means of birth control--or as a means to escape personal and/or financial responsibility, it only goes to show how low the human race has degenerated.  

And I'm not suggesting to shove my standards onto others--I mean, if they can sleep at night knowing they've killed a child for their own selfish reasons, who am I to complain, right?

I'm curious as to how many advocates of abortion are also avid animal-rights people.   Kill the Babies, Save the puppies!

Oh, and getting back to the main idea of this thread-- My opinion is: Yes, it should be a double murder charge.