Yep. Women are the ones who make the decision regarding abortion. Until you and the other pro-lifers actually come to grips with this, and stop pretending that when a woman has an abortion it must be the fault of some big, bad man someplace (since admitting this would destroy your pretensions to the “moral superiority” of women) you are going nowhere.Your post indicates a belief that women are not physically and emotionally abused so that they will abort their children.
Is this the belief you are attempting to convey?
Naturally. Who gives a rip about what rights fathers should have? They’re just men, after all.I completely understand that rape is rarely the reason for abortion. What I’m saying is that requiring all unmarried fathers to consent to the abortion is unenforcable and counterproductive to the pro-life movement.
So you are denying that a woman has ever been forced to abort her child?Yep. Women are the ones who make the decision regarding abortion. Until you and the other pro-lifers actually come to grips with this, and stop pretending that when a woman has an abortion it must be the fault of some big, bad man someplace (since admitting this would destroy your pretensions to the “moral superiority” of women) you are going nowhere.
I don’t know that it is entirely unenforcable, although regrettably, the greater weight of enforcement would have to fall after the child has lost his life, rather than before. In such instances, as I already mentioned, a simple blood test could be performed to establish paternity, and the father would be given legal recourse against the mother. In the unfortunate case in which an impostor signed his consent in place of the father, the perpetrator could face civil or criminal prosecution. At the very least, this would act as a deterrent to any and all abortions sought behind the father’s back. That has to be a significant percentage.I completely understand that rape is rarely the reason for abortion. What I’m saying is that requiring all unmarried fathers to consent to the abortion is unenforcable and counterproductive to the pro-life movement.
No, of course not; I am denying that is the general case of things. Are you denying that in the vast majority of cases women were not forced to abort their children but did so of their own free will?So you are denying that a woman has ever been forced to abort her child?
I think the law should protect the rights of child. I think one of the reasons it currently doesn’t is because the pro-life movement has gotten away from the core reason abortin should be illegal: It kills an innocent human being. It wastes all this time on weak arguments about how the law should protect (adult)women and sometimes men from their own decisions. Just because someone might regret an action doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the right to do it. If abortion is truly taking an innocent life(which I believe it is) then it should be illegal just like killing a three old is illegal. We don’t say that killing a three year old should be illegal only if the father doesn’t consent to the killing. We don’t give a mother who kills her three year old a legal pass because she was “coerced”. Killing a three yeay old is illegal because of the rights of the three year old. Why can’t we apply the same logic to an unborn child and forget about the straw man arguments that merely focus on the parents(of the unborn) and their rights?I don’t know that it is entirely unenforcable, although regrettably, the greater weight of enforcement would have to fall after the child has lost his life, rather than before. In such instances, as I already mentioned, a simple blood test could be performed to establish paternity, and the father would be given legal recourse against the mother. In the unfortunate case in which an impostor signed his consent in place of the father, the perpetrator could face civil or criminal prosecution. At the very least, this would act as a deterrent to any and all abortions sought behind the father’s back. That has to be a significant percentage.
I cannot see how this would be counterproductive, as you say, to the pro-life movement. It would be a large step closer to recognizing the unborn baby for the human life that he or she is, and it would be establishing legally a right that all fathers (previous exceptions noted) have naturally.
Do you agree or disagree that a father has a right to protect the life of his child?
Very few woman in the U.S. are FORCED to abort. Some are told they should, but it is their decision whether to listen.No, of course not; I am denying that is the general case of things. Are you denying that in the vast majority of cases women were not forced to abort their children but did so of their own free will?
Because the pro-life movement doesn’t want to confront the elephant in the room: whether mothers who kill their unborn children should be convicted of homicide. There are all kinds of BS reasons why they should not, which makes the movement essentially intellectually dishonest. If you “protect the right to life” that means you must punish all who would violate it. To get around this they must pretend these mothers are “victims”.I think the law should protect the rights of child. I think one of the reasons it currently doesn’t is because the pro-life movement has gotten away from the core reason abortin should be illegal: It kills an innocent human being… We don’t give a mother who kills her three year old a legal pass because she was “coerced”. Killing a three yeay old is illegal because of the rights of the three year old. Why can’t we apply the same logic to an unborn child and forget about the straw man arguments that merely focus on the parents(of the unborn) and their rights?
It would be great if men would take responsibility for their kids. I would have liked my father to. But to try to have rights in a child’s life without responsibility to the mother is to try to have it both ways. What we need is a regular citizen’s right to prevent an abortion, and that means overturning Roe v. Wade, nothing else. Spousal consent is a step. But ex-boyfriend consent? Think of the precedents that sets in areas that have nothing to do with abortion. The deal a man and woman make to consider each other’s kids their own is marriage.I strongly disagree with you. A man who fathers a child – inside or outside of marriage – is a father and should protect and care for his child. Even secular law recognizes this since an unmarried father would be responsible for paying child support and would have the right to visitation.
While it is obviously preferable for a child to be born into a stable married family, even the child of unmarried parents should be loved and cared for by both parents to the extent possible.
And coming back to the original topic, should a law ever pass that gives the father a say in whether or not a woman could abort her child, I think that right should extend to all fathers, not only to those who are also husbands.
I think you may be confusing actual pro-life leaders (in organizations such as National Right to Life, etc.) with politicians. I know of exactly zero pro-life leaders who have put the rights of the parents above the rights of the children. None. I also firmly agree that the rights of the babies come first.I think the law should protect the rights of child. I think one of the reasons it currently doesn’t is because the pro-life movement has gotten away from the core reason abortin should be illegal: It kills an innocent human being. It wastes all this time on weak arguments about how the law should protect (adult)women and sometimes men from their own decisions. Just because someone might regret an action doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t have the right to do it. If abortion is truly taking an innocent life(which I believe it is) then it should be illegal just like killing a three old is illegal. We don’t say that killing a three year old should be illegal only if the father doesn’t consent to the killing. We don’t give a mother who kills her three year old a legal pass because she was “coerced”. Killing a three yeay old is illegal because of the rights of the three year old. Why can’t we apply the same logic to an unborn child and forget about the straw man arguments that merely focus on the parents(of the unborn) and their rights?
And for those of you who view the parents of aborted babies as merely “victims” I suggest you read some of these stories:
imnotsorry.net/newstories17.htm
Again, we must be careful not to confuse actual pro-life leaders with politicians. So far I am not at all satisfied with the answers of those who would like to hold office. They would have only the doctors and clinics in jail. I would strongly support legal ramifications for any parent who murders his or her child, before or after that child is born. I think a lot of other pro-lifers would, also. People must be held accountable for their own actions.Because the pro-life movement doesn’t want to confront the elephant in the room: whether mothers who kill their unborn children should be convicted of homicide. There are all kinds of BS reasons why they should not, which makes the movement essentially intellectually dishonest. If you “protect the right to life” that means you must punish all who would violate it. To get around this they must pretend these mothers are “victims”.
So, basically, your response to my post was to vent deep-seated resentment over a personal issue that had nothing to do with me, as my post did not say anything to make a case that the majority of women are forced to abort. And now that I am trying to clarify your position, you are going to split hairs and then switch to making me defend my position to take attention off your position.No, of course not; I am denying that is the general case of things. Are you denying that in the vast majority of cases women were not forced to abort their children but did so of their own free will?
Yes, it did. That’s clearly what you implied. Do you admit now the majority of women are not forced to abort?So, basically, your response to my post was to vent deep-seated resentment over a personal issue that had nothing to do with me, as my post did not say anything to make a case that the majority of women are forced to abort.
And this statement shows you don’t give a rip about justice, at least not justice for men. If you don’t support justice for everyone, you support justice for no one.As for the original subject of this thread, no one seems to have brought up the full implication of giving a second party an actual legal right to decide on the abortion. If a man is legally given a right to prevent a woman from aborting, then it is only fair that the men who want women to abort must also have a say.
The proposed law will not prevent abortions more than it will increase them.
It is also a fact that women in this country have been caught going to an abortion clinic without men doing any of the things you describe above. In fact, most women going to an abortion clinic. Only difference is, they aren’t charged.It is a fact that men in this country have been caught and charged for doing things such as shooting the woman in the stomach to kill the child, hiring hit men to beat the woman to cause a miscarriage, putting RU486 in drinks against the woman’s knowledge to kill the child, torturing, threatening, stalking and blackmailing women to pressure them to abort, standing inside the clinic to make sure they can’t escape, assisting abortionists in physically restraining women so they can be sedated and have an abortion, etc.
Your claim to be for “justice” is hypocritical as it does not include justice for men. It’s OK according to you if men’s rights are violated. That would give men more power, and we can’t have that. Your argument is the fallacy of argument to undesired consequences.Providing those men who want more power to force women to abort their children with a legal process of rights is certainly not what you are trying to support, right, SeekingCatholic?
Sorry, SeekingCatholic, but we will just have to part ways on this argument, You are presenting the same process of thinking (rights, justice, power) that women used to get legal sanction for killing their children. You just want men to have this “right” as well as women. Different side, same coin.Yes, it did. That’s clearly what you implied. Do you admit now the majority of women are not forced to abort?
And this statement shows you don’t give a rip about justice, at least not justice for men. If you don’t support justice for everyone, you support justice for no one.
It is also a fact that women in this country have been caught going to an abortion clinic without men doing any of the things you describe above. In fact, most women going to an abortion clinic. Only difference is, they aren’t charged.
Your claim to be for “justice” is hypocritical as it does not include justice for men. It’s OK according to you if men’s rights are violated. That would give men more power, and we can’t have that. Your argument is the fallacy of argument to undesired consequences.
And actually, yes, if women have a right to end a pregnancy, men should have that right, too, at least as far as terminating all rights and responsibilities.