Should fathers be allowed to sue over abortion?
Replies
-
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.0 -
^^^^^^ excellently summed it up, right there. Our court system can be a nightmare. This is an area of our lives the court shouldn't have power over.
Thank you! It would have earned me an F for being disorganized and incomplete back when I was taking a contracts class, but I'm rusty! :blushing:
Another issue I thought of is, are we going to treat the production of children as a commodity, a service to be performed? Admittedly, in civil law we do treat children as a commodity to some extent, a person can sue over the death of their child and the potential lost income of the child is even considered in some cases. But now we're talking about commodifying the production of a child.
Well come to think of it, surrogate motherhood has already opened that sticky can of worms.0 -
No one should ever have a right other than the woman carrying it.
To the men out there wanting a legal say in it, put yourselves in a woman's shoes: If it were YOU that were the baby-carriers, would YOU honestly be okay with someone else dictating what YOU can and cannot do with your own body?
I can't even fathom telling someone else what they MUST do with their own body.
If a man is so hell-bent on having a child, he can adopt one. Or he can commit to a relationship where a woman actually wants a child, or a woman who is against having an abortion.0 -
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.
IF they die that's because that will be as a result of their own actions/choices. Not because of another persons actions...0 -
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.
IF they die that's because that will be as a result of their own actions/choices. Not because of another persons actions...
So the actions of people who have prevented women from accessing safe medical procedures, which could easily be available, have nothing to do with it, and they bear no responsibility? Sorry, I don't buy that. Someone who actively prevents others from having a safe medical procedure and uneccessarily leaves their only option for self-determination as an unsafe procedure which leads to their death is culpable, in my view.
Say a city council decided that drivers were king, and removed all safe pedestrian crossings. A pedestrian needs to cross the road in order to get to work, or because the person they love lives on the opposite side of the road, or to buy groceries - whatever you like. They make the judgement call to cross without a crossing, due to the removal of a safe option. If they are killed in doing so, or permanently injured, surely the city council has some responsibility for that death, having removed access to a safe option?0 -
Excellet analogy. Taking away safe and legal options doesn't put the blame on the person who wanted to use those options.
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.
IF they die that's because that will be as a result of their own actions/choices. Not because of another persons actions...
So the actions of people who have prevented women from accessing safe medical procedures, which could easily be available, have nothing to do with it, and they bear no responsibility? Sorry, I don't buy that. Someone who actively prevents others from having a safe medical procedure and uneccessarily leaves their only option for self-determination as an unsafe procedure which leads to their death is culpable, in my view.
Say a city council decided that drivers were king, and removed all safe pedestrian crossings. A pedestrian needs to cross the road in order to get to work, or because the person they love lives on the opposite side of the road, or to buy groceries - whatever you like. They make the judgement call to cross without a crossing, due to the removal of a safe option. If they are killed in doing so, or permanently injured, surely the city council has some responsibility for that death, having removed access to a safe option?
If we do allow a man to sue to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term how much say does he have in other aspects of the pregnancy? Can he force her not to eat red meat or sushi? Can he force her to take prenatal vitamins? Can he force her to give up smoking and all alcohol? Can he force her to breastfeed when it is born? Can he force her not to have an epidural? If he can force her to have a baby why shouldn't he also be allowed to force her to make absolutely certain it's as healthy as possible?0 -
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.
IF they die that's because that will be as a result of their own actions/choices. Not because of another persons actions...
So the actions of people who have prevented women from accessing safe medical procedures, which could easily be available, have nothing to do with it, and they bear no responsibility? Sorry, I don't buy that. Someone who actively prevents others from having a safe medical procedure and uneccessarily leaves their only option for self-determination as an unsafe procedure which leads to their death is culpable, in my view.
Say a city council decided that drivers were king, and removed all safe pedestrian crossings. A pedestrian needs to cross the road in order to get to work, or because the person they love lives on the opposite side of the road, or to buy groceries - whatever you like. They make the judgement call to cross without a crossing, due to the removal of a safe option. If they are killed in doing so, or permanently injured, surely the city council has some responsibility for that death, having removed access to a safe option?
You are making it sound like a procedure required for a woman to survive. In most all cases, an abortion is an elective procedure and NOT medically necessary. Would you say the same thing if a woman was not allowed to have breast implants? People are going to die because they are getting back-alley boob jobs and have no safe alternative to make adjustments their body? I would even be ok with allowing them in the case of medical necessity (ie the woman will die if she carries the baby) or rape/incest but if a woman makes the choice to use a coat hanger to abort her baby, another person is not responsible.
The same goes for the analogy used. I wouldn't expect the city to be responsible for a dangerous choice a person makes. A little girl was killed in my hometown two years ago walking to school. It was dark outside and her mom was at home in bed. It was over an hour before school started and before the crossing guards went on duty and the mom made millions off the city for letting her 6 year old walk alone to school in the dark while she slept. People will leap at any chance to place blame elsewhere and make a buck for decisions THEY make. You realize that is the same logic of the woman who sued McDonalds over her hot coffee? Or suing them for getting fat because they don't offer any real healthy options (yes, even their "healthy" choices are terrible). It's just more excuses for people to take responsiblility off of themselves and place blame where it doesn't belong.0 -
The same goes for the analogy used. I wouldn't expect the city to be responsible for a dangerous choice a person makes.
Are you, in all seriousness, going to say that a pedestrian crossing the road to their best discretion, with no pedestrian crosswalks due to crosswalks being deemed "unnecessary" and removed, is not a direct response to the city's poor judgment on removing said crosswalks?0 -
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.
IF they die that's because that will be as a result of their own actions/choices. Not because of another persons actions...
So the actions of people who have prevented women from accessing safe medical procedures, which could easily be available, have nothing to do with it, and they bear no responsibility? Sorry, I don't buy that. Someone who actively prevents others from having a safe medical procedure and uneccessarily leaves their only option for self-determination as an unsafe procedure which leads to their death is culpable, in my view.
Say a city council decided that drivers were king, and removed all safe pedestrian crossings. A pedestrian needs to cross the road in order to get to work, or because the person they love lives on the opposite side of the road, or to buy groceries - whatever you like. They make the judgement call to cross without a crossing, due to the removal of a safe option. If they are killed in doing so, or permanently injured, surely the city council has some responsibility for that death, having removed access to a safe option?
You are making it sound like a procedure required for a woman to survive. In most all cases, an abortion is an elective procedure and NOT medically necessary. Would you say the same thing if a woman was not allowed to have breast implants? People are going to die because they are getting back-alley boob jobs and have no safe alternative to make adjustments their body? I would even be ok with allowing them in the case of medical necessity (ie the woman will die if she carries the baby) or rape/incest but if a woman makes the choice to use a coat hanger to abort her baby, another person is not responsible.
The same goes for the analogy used. I wouldn't expect the city to be responsible for a dangerous choice a person makes. A little girl was killed in my hometown two years ago walking to school. It was dark outside and her mom was at home in bed. It was over an hour before school started and before the crossing guards went on duty and the mom made millions off the city for letting her 6 year old walk alone to school in the dark while she slept. People will leap at any chance to place blame elsewhere and make a buck for decisions THEY make. You realize that is the same logic of the woman who sued McDonalds over her hot coffee? Or suing them for getting fat because they don't offer any real healthy options (yes, even their "healthy" choices are terrible). It's just more excuses for people to take responsiblility off of themselves and place blame where it doesn't belong.
Actually, if you read my analogy closely, I used a potentially, but not necessarily, life-threatening situation, that can be made almost 100% safe by the adoption/facilitiation of legal, safe practices by those in power, that allows people to continue living their lives as they choose to do. Which is, it seems to me from the discussions on this board, something Americans in particular are pretty keen on, until it comes to womens' reproductive health and rights, at which point, everyone but the women directly affected seem to be allowed to dictate choices and options and moral positions.
I'm not talking about people's failure to use their common sense for their own safety, as in the case of the little girl you mention, but of the removal of safe options altogether. If the city council removes all the safe crossings, they're at least partially responsible when someone gets killed crossing the road. If someone chooses to jaywalk, ignoring safe crossings THAT ARE AVAILABLE (sorry - can't 'bold' on this forum, for some reason) then the responsibility is primarily theirs, and/or the driver of the car's if they were driving in a dangerous and reckless manner. The city council in that case bears little or no responsibility, as they have provided a safe crossing which someone chose to ignore. There is a big difference between having no safe choices because they've all been removed and ignoring safe options that exist, and the culpability is equally different.
People need to cross roads safely to go about their lives in the way they see fit/choose to. Sure, they could choose to circumscribe their life choices to avoid ever crossing a road, but most would agree that a city council is responsible for facilitating the safe movement of its' pedestrian residents. Similarly, women need access to safe, legal termination options to enable them to make the choices in their lives that are right for them. Those who have the ability to provide safe procedures have a duty of care to women to do so, just as the city council has a duty of care to its' non-driving residents. It's the difference between choosing a back-street abortion because all the safe options in the hands of licensed, medically-trained practitioners have been taken away from you, or going down the street to the woman with a knitting needle because you can't be bothered to go to the hospital/clinic 10 miles away. In the former situation, morally, the state/city council/whoever has taken away the safe options, bears some culpability for my death if things go wrong. In the latter, the culpability is primarily mine.
McDonald's drinks/food, on the other hand, are not (generally!) potentially life-threatening. They may cause discomfort, if eaten inadvisedly quickly or in excess, but that alone is not potentially going to kill you, in the way that a botched back-street abortion might. And I'm not sure how you think women, or their partners, are going to sue for damages from a (presumably illegal) back-street coathanger abortionist. The point is, women, or pedestrians, should not be forced into making life-threatening decisions due to the removal of safe options, in order to go on living their lives.0 -
Shortened to remove some of the quotes..
McDonald's drinks/food, on the other hand, are not (generally!) potentially life-threatening. They may cause discomfort, if eaten inadvisedly quickly or in excess, but that alone is not potentially going to kill you, in the way that a botched back-street abortion might. And I'm not sure how you think women, or their partners, are going to sue for damages from a (presumably illegal) back-street coathanger abortionist. The point is, women, or pedestrians, should not be forced into making life-threatening decisions due to the removal of safe options, in order to go on living their lives.
My only point is that having an abortion is rarely a necessity, it would be considered a choice. No one is FORCING them to get an illegal abortion. They are making that choice for themselves...
Back to the original quote, women aren't going to die over the laws, they are going to die over THEIR decision to get a back alley abortion. Much like crossing the road, there are other options: walk around to the nearest crosswalk, get a ride, take the bus, carry the baby to term and raise it, carry the baby then give it up for adoption, go to Mexico or Canada for an abortion).0 -
Much like crossing the road, there are other options: walk around to the nearest crosswalk, get a ride, take the bus, carry the baby to term and raise it, carry the baby then give it up for adoption, go to Mexico or Canada for an abortion).
Nearest crosswalk is 10 miles. Do YOU want to go that much out of your way?
Getting a ride isn't an option--now what?
No public transportation, or it doesn't run on the times you need it--now what?
I don't want to go through a pregnancy, nor do I want a child to raise--why do YOU feel someone else gets to dictate otherwise for MY body?
Can't afford to travel to Mexico or Canada--now what?
Perhaps you'll pay for my ticket to Mexico or Canada? Or you'll pick me up for work? If I recall, you're against hand-out programs...so who do you propose foot those bills? Or do you simply think everyone should drive a car and use birth control or get their tubes tied or just keep overpopulating the world, regardless if they want to or not? All because YOU feel abortions are a no-no? Perhaps you'll be there to pay for and comfort a 13-year-old girl who must now be punished for the rest of her life, by your reasoning, because she made 1 stupid decision?0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?0 -
Nearest crosswalk is 10 miles. Do YOU want to go that much out of your way?
Getting a ride isn't an option--now what?
No public transportation, or it doesn't run on the times you need it--now what?
Ok, so you are taking the option away from crossing the road, but there are still other options, even if they are't the preferred choice when it comes to pregnancy. And there are people who DO live with this problem, no sidewalks and crosswalks, yet somehow survive.I don't want to go through a pregnancy, nor do I want a child to raise--why do YOU feel someone else gets to dictate otherwise for MY body?
Because I believe that fetus has a right to life from conception. A right to life should, in my opinion, trump your right to choose. To me, morally (not religious) to abort that baby is to commit murder. I mean, the law dictates that after 23 weeks, it is illegal to kill an fetus in the womb because it is now a person, but 5 days earlier it's not? If you murder a pregnant person, the law states you will be charged with the murder of 2 people, but if I woman wants to abort it, it's NOT murder?Can't afford to travel to Mexico or Canada--now what?
Perhaps you'll pay for my ticket to Mexico or Canada? Or you'll pick me up for work? If I recall, you're against hand-out programs...so who do you propose foot those bills? Or do you simply think everyone should drive a car and use birth control or get their tubes tied or just keep overpopulating the world, regardless if they want to or not? All because YOU feel abortions are a no-no? Perhaps you'll be there to pay for and comfort a 13-year-old girl who must now be punished for the rest of her life, by your reasoning, because she made 1 stupid decision?
Wait 9 months and be free of your burden. I mean, you can leave a baby at any fire station or police station with no strings attached if you won't/can't care for it. And there are tons of people in the world who want to adopt.
That 13 year old girl is not being punished, she is living with the consequences of her actions. It's happend many times before and will continue to happen. The 13 year old can have a great life if she chooses. I too, was a young mother, no job, no car and turned out ok and I chose to keep mine.
And I hate the ideal that if you are against it, you should be willing to pay to support the baby. It just continues my theory half the world wants to put their responsibility on someone else. Like I said, if someone can't afford to care for a child, there is adoption. If dealing with adoption is too hard, they can leave it at a 'safe place' and move on with their life.
I really didn't mean to derail this, I mean we've beaten the abortion horse beyond death. But when a woman says, 'it's my body, my choice", I just can't agree. Especially when one or more other life is involved with your willing act to take the risk of getting pregnant. Focus on all of my examples being a result of unwanted pregnancy and not a rape/incest situation.0 -
Because I believe that fetus has a right to life from conception. A right to life should, in my opinion, trump your right to choose. To me, morally (not religious) to abort that baby is to commit murder. I mean, the law dictates that after 23 weeks, it is illegal to kill an fetus in the womb because it is now a person, but 5 days earlier it's not? If you murder a pregnant person, the law states you will be charged with the murder of 2 people, but if I woman wants to abort it, it's NOT murder?
What you "believe" isn't the same thing as a fact.
I'm honestly not sure why it's considered murder of 2 people if it's still under the legal time frame to obtain an abortion. I don't consider it murdering 2 people, I consider the PERSON murdered to be 1 victim.Wait 9 months and be free of your burden.
I'd rather not go through 9-ish months of that, thanks. Not to mention any other complications that may arise.I mean, you can leave a baby at any fire station or police station with no strings attached if you won't/can't care for it. And there are tons of people in the world who want to adopt.
Why do orphanages and adoption agencies still have children, then? Why are foster parents necessary?That 13 year old girl is not being punished
If she doesn't want the child and she's told she can't abort, then yes, she IS being punished.she is living with the consequences of her actions.
So if you were to get drunk, crash your car, and then break your arm, is it okay for doctors to deny you treatment? I mean, it's YOUR fault your were drinking. It's not like you're dying or anything. You don't NEED to get your arm mended. You get to live with the consequences of your actions.I too, was a young mother, no job, no car and turned out ok and I chose to keep mine.
That's nice. That doesn't happen for everyone, though.It just continues my theory half the world wants to put their responsibility on someone else. Like I said, if someone can't afford to care for a child, there is adoption. If dealing with adoption is too hard, they can leave it at a 'safe place' and move on with their life.
LOL Okay, Ron Paul.Focus on all of my examples being a result of unwanted pregnancy and not a rape/incest situation.
So first you say all of this:Because I believe that fetus has a right to life from conception. A right to life should, in my opinion, trump your right to choose. To me, morally (not religious) to abort that baby is to commit murder. I mean, the law dictates that after 23 weeks, it is illegal to kill an fetus in the womb because it is now a person, but 5 days earlier it's not? If you murder a pregnant person, the law states you will be charged with the murder of 2 people, but if I woman wants to abort it, it's NOT murder?
Then you say this:Focus on all of my examples being a result of unwanted pregnancy and not a rape/incest situation.
They do not equate. If life begins at conception, you feel then, that it's okay to murder a baby simply because it's the product of incest or because it's the product of a rape? In your mind, it's still life. Can you tell me why it's okay to "murder" one and not the other?0 -
I don't see what's so shocking about that. If someone throws a rock through my window it's a crime but if I do it it's not. If If someone else smacks my kid it's a crime. If I do it's not (assuming spanking or something not beating the *kitten* out of them.)If you murder a pregnant person, the law states you will be charged with the murder of 2 people, but if I woman wants to abort it, it's NOT murder?
I wish people wouldn't act like "Well it's only 9 months. No biggie." It may not be a biggie for some people. For others it means they can't work either for health reasons or for job dangers. For some it means diabetes or preeclampsia. For others it means big time issues as they have no health insurance. Or the can't get a job because no one wants to hire someone who is obviously pregnant. Or they can't finish school. Or they get kicked out of their home. Or they end up on bed rest. Or the baby is born sick. Or any number of problems. It's very rare for reality to be like the movies where a woman goes through 9 months with no more issues than an occasional kick, labor for 20 minutes, and give birth to a perfectly healthy baby without smudging her makeup or messing up her hair.
Regarding the rape/incest issue - I have also wondered why that should matter. If it's murder then it's murder and it shouldn't matter if it's a 22yo college student or an 11yo who was raped by her father right? But while most people are compassionate enough to not want to force that 11yo to go through that I have to wonder why not? Isn't the embryo/fetus she's carrying "entitled" to that same "right to life" as the embryo/fetus of the college student?
If abortion is made illegal what do we do to the women who have one anyhow? Life in prison or death penalty? Probation? Nothing?
Another question I've asked but never had answered is if abortion is OK in cases of rape/incest how do we go about that? Does the man have to go to trial first? What if he's found not guilty? No abortion then? What about that 11yo girl who can't report it? How do we know the pregnancy is a result of her father raping her and not from having sex with her 13yo boyfriend? It seems to me that the pro life side has a lot of ideals but they don't have a lot of real world answers.0 -
Only thirty seconds available right now, but will come back later. Just want to make one point...
My only point is that having an abortion is rarely a necessity,
...in your view. As an outsider. To a woman taking that route, it may very well be a necessity, and not just for physical medical reasons that endanger her life. That's what really bugs me in all of this. Other people judging what is right for adult women, essentially in a vaccuum of knowledge, as if they are incapable of making rational, informed decisions for themselves.0 -
Because I believe that fetus has a right to life from conception. A right to life should, in my opinion, trump your right to choose. To me, morally (not religious) to abort that baby is to commit murder. I mean, the law dictates that after 23 weeks, it is illegal to kill an fetus in the womb because it is now a person, but 5 days earlier it's not? If you murder a pregnant person, the law states you will be charged with the murder of 2 people, but if I woman wants to abort it, it's NOT murder?
Actually, it's quite logical from a medical standpoint. 23 weeks is generally held to be the point after which a foetus is viable outside the womb, albeit that preemies born that early usually experience severe, life-compromising complications. Before that point, the foetus is not typically capable of functioning as an independent entity, even with significant medical intervention, ergo it's not yet a person in its' own right (and has no inalienable rights until it is), but is rather a reliant part of a person's (the woman's) body, and for me, the independent, self-determining entity's rights will always take priority. After 23 weeks, except in cases of severe foetal abnormality, the foetus is capable of surviving outside the womb ie. is capable of being a 'person' in its' own right without relying entirely on the host body for survival. Then, it acquires rights.
The fact that murder charges are still brought on two counts if a pregnant woman is murdered has more to do with the benefits of emotive material in jury trials than medical logic, and is also in many ways a hold-over from the days when a woman and her children were the property of her husband. Murder by a third party denies the man in question his proprietal 'rights' over both woman and potential child, which brings us back around quite neatly to the OP. I think most of us would agree that men no longer have property rights in their wives (legal or common-law) and children, who are now generally held not to be 'property' at all. How, therefore, can we allow a man to sue a woman for terminating a foetus that is reliant on her body for survival, and is not yet capable of being a person in its' own right? Sounds cold, but emotion and the law should have very little to do with each other.
I'm sorry I don't have much time today to debate. I have more rebuttal, but no time to type it out!0 -
...in your view. As an outsider. To a woman taking that route, it may very well be a necessity, and not just for physical medical reasons that endanger her life. That's what really bugs me in all of this. Other people judging what is right for adult women, essentially in a vaccuum of knowledge, as if they are incapable of making rational, informed decisions for themselves.
This deserves to be repeated :drinker:
There are just too many different instances/situations to make blanket legislation and furthermore, an extremely personal issue..0 -
Not sure about sueing, but I believe it is immoral to abort a child against the father's wishes, or indeed, at all (excluding medical reasons).0
-
"The bill imposes criminal penalties on any physician found to violate the law, including up to $250,000 in fines and up to two years in prison. The physician could also be sued by certain relatives of the woman for money damages. Further, if a woman is able to obtain an abortion under the law’s extremely narrow circumstances, the bill allows nearly anyone in the woman’s life—such as her husband, sibling, parent, or even any health care provider who has ever treated her for any condition, such as her high school nurse—to file a civil action in court to prevent her abortion provider from serving any other women in the future."
http://www.rhrealitycheck.org/article/2012/07/19/house-judiciary-committee-passes-dc-abortion-ban-with-no-exceptions-fetal-anomali
There are going to be back alley abortions with coat hangers again. Women are going to die over these laws.
Their choice.0 -
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?0 -
I believe that life begins at conception. While my son was attached to my body and took up residency in my body, he was not a part of my body in any sense more than an intestinal worm would be. My body (neither consiously or autonomically) controled him during development (otherwise I would have moved him off my bladder and out of my right lung). I don't see a fetus as belonging to me akin to my leg belonging to me. My leg only has my DNA and only functions at my minds will, this is not so for a fetus. Based upon this, unless the father gives up the right to make a decision, both parents should have a say in the fate of the fetus as they would a born child.0
-
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?0 -
In some cases yes.. Obviously not in all cases. My best friend has had 2 abortions I know that wasn't the case locally. Especially in late term abortions, there are doctors who will simply throw the crying baby into a plastic bag and dispose of it.No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?0 -
Um, no. That doesn't happen. For a variety of reasons. The least of which is that "throwing away in a plastic bag" is not the correct method of getting rid of medical waste.
In some cases yes.. Obviously not in all cases. My best friend has had 2 abortions I know that wasn't the case locally. Especially in late term abortions, there are doctors who will simply throw the crying baby into a plastic bag and dispose of it.No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?0 -
Can I sue if she doesn't ?0
-
No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
In your opinion, should late term abortions be banned?0 -
No. BUT abortions past viability should be performed only if the mother's life or physical health are at serious risk or in the case of fetal abnormalities.No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
In your opinion, should late term abortions be banned?0 -
No. BUT abortions past viability should be performed only if the mother's life or physical health are at serious risk or in the case of fetal abnormalities.No, because my god says that fetuses are part of a woman's body, just like a leg. So the only person being theoretically injured here is the woman, and she's the one making the decision.
I'm calling bullsh*t on that one. Other that the fictional "Virgin Birth" of Jesus, It takes two people to create a child. Both persons should be involved in the decisions regarding that child or the termination of that child.
Besides, if you're going to throw God into the mix, isn't abortion frowned upon?
I'm going to with this. Just because they can't carry the child, doesn't make it any less his child. Woo hoo, lucky female, the baby sits in your belly. Well, quite frankly, the baby wouldn't be there without a man's sperm.
When men start carrying babies instead of women, then I'll change my stance and say the man has the final say so. It doesn't matter if it takes 50 people to make a child--whoever it is carrying it has the final say. Would you, in all honesty, want someone else, no matter who it is, to have control over YOUR body like that?
And, in all of this, we forget that the fetus itself has its own body.
Are you okay with the abortion of late term fetus'?
Har harrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr. A zygote has its own body? really?
If it can survive outside the womb on its own, then no, I don't support it. I'd really like to see a percentage on how many women wait that long to get an abortion, anyway...I'd bet money that it's extremely low.
What, exactly, do you think of when you hear the word "abortion?" Do you think of women lying on desks while mean doctors pull a newborn baby out of them and then throw in the garbage or something?
In your opinion, should late term abortions be banned?
^This. If it's possible for the fetus to survive on it's own outside of the womb, then really, what is the difference in performing a c-section and an abortion, at that point? Just do the c-section and the mother can be on her way, if she still chooses to not want the baby.
And I also agree with bathsheba. I do not believe that nonsense for a second. Maybe somewhere, at some point, some lunatic "doctor" did that...but unless I see some unbiased sources to prove otherwise, I'm calling extreme bull**** on that one.0
