Well, the overarching subject of the thread has been the creation of a law to prevent women from getting abortions if the man decides to prevent it. On a personal level, most people agree that in most cases the man and woman should make the decision together. Most, if not all, of the disagreement arises when you try to make that ideal situation into a law- ie a political situation.

How would such a law work?

Reality? Why aren't I allowed to do drugs?

[winging it]Hey, xoB, is the "doing" against the law? Or is it something more tangible, more definite, like possession?[/flying it into the ground]

Because it is against the law. Personally i think it shouldn't be.

It's not an equivalent though, because this isn't about whether the state has a right to tell women what to do with their bodies (again, I think they should not), but rather empowering individual men with the right to make decisions about individual women's bodies.

Because some laws infringe on rights. In fact, according to you, all of them do.

bruce,

this analogy would work better if you were comparing it with someone compelling another person to do drugs.

When it comes down to personal liberty....we should be allowed to do whatever drugs we choose to.

Unfortunately, the reality of life means that those who do drugs also have to share reality with the rest of us. When those folks repeatedly fuck things up and cost innocent people things like THEIR lives, safety and money, then the lawmakers are compelled to take steps like regulating and outlawing the drugs that effect the drug users.

That's an end run, you can do them without possessing them.

No equivilent, Dana. I'm not getting into that silly proposal, just responding to Ali's reality.

God damn right they do.... every one.

Not an analogy, see above.That's complete bullshit, considering how many people alcohol and tobacco kill.

Sorry dude, I don't buy it. If the men carried the babies for 9 months and took the same physiological risks it would be different. The woman carries the baby, she get to say if she wants to do that for 9 months or if she wants to terminate it. Her choice, not yours. Men are but the sperm donors.

You can't, and should not try to legislate morality.

If there are methods in place other than the law to ensure the rights of both parents, that would be ideal.
Unfortunately, the current legal climate favors the female alone, my suggestion sought only to level that field for both equal parents.

Libertarians are about as conservative as one can get (neo-cons, the fools who call themselves conservative today are NOT conservative by any stretch of imagination or the definition of the word).
So the man gets the kid the woman runs out on him, he shoots it in the head, no sweat, right?

I guess all of you feel it is ok for women to smoke, do heroin, meth, drink, whatever while pregnant, right... it's not a kid yet and it's "just her body"?

I agree with you until the cord is cut. Then it becomes theirs, not hers.

I would support that notion.

Never stated nor implied that.

How fortunate for her, funny how that happens.

Possession of another human? I think not - unless you were referring to responsibility and not ownership. Either way, when does a fetus becomes a human with its own rights.

If it isn't a human until birth then why is someone who kills a pregnant woman charged with two counts of homicide?

are there or are there not laws prohibiting and or regulating the use of drugs ....including alcohol and terbaccy? complete bullshit?

Libertarians can technically be called liberal since they it has roots with classical liberalism. There are distinct differences between the two but they both stress freedom.

A lot of people feel this was a deliberate step towards more comprehensive anti-abortion legislation. Many disagree with the law or view it as hypocritical at the very least.

I do not feel it is "okay"--however, it is legal (well, insomuch as only drinking and smoking are legal in the first place), and I feel it should stay that way, because you have to draw the line somewhere, and our society has drawn the line at viability. There are only three ways to look at this scenario:

1.) It is not a person before viability (roughly the third trimester). Thus abortion is legal, and the father has no rights to a clump of cells that is not his, or anyone's, child yet.

2.) It is a person before viability, and abortion should be illegal. Thus the whole question of the father's opinion on the matter is moot.

3.) It is a person before viability, but you cannot legislate morality. Thus abortion should be legal, but shunned on a personal level--i.e., the mother should consider the wishes of the father, because it is the right and moral thing to do, but it is both impractical and inappropriate to code that into law.

I gotta say that after seeing premature babies who were born well before the ninth month that it IS a child long before then.

I disagree with that, at their root I think most liberals want a nanny-state.

in YOUR opinion.

Some folks believe that the child is not a child for a year or more.

A fetus must be given birth to, to have his/her own rights. But as long as he/she must depend on a woman's body to live, said woman has overriding rights.

And those overriding rights include deciding to carry her fetus to term, and give birth to a baby with rights to live. If someone else steps in and kills her, especially with the intent to stop the birth of the baby that she wanted, then he/she may get charged accordingly.

Then the father has no responsibility.
You don't get it both ways.

Thus the term...viability.

This whole arguement makes me feel queasy. The practicalities of trying to enforce such a law are impossible. I would think a whole lot of women would suddenly develop anmesia as to who their sex partners had been. The only real way to enforce it would be to outlaw abortion entirely. Then women would have to have the baby and any male who thought he might be the father could lay claim and subsequently submit to paternity tests to prove or disprove it. Back alley abortions would once again be in business.

/sarcasm on
How about this....I propose that men who impregnate women and then refuse to support their own offspring should have their gonads removed to prevent them from procreating anymore. I mean, it is half THEIR child, they should not be allowed to force women to be the sole support of children that are half theirs, right? Do ya think men might object to this invasion of their physical being?
/sarcasm off

No, ownership... just like a mini-slave. That's why the courts have ruled to limit the 4th amendment for kids.

Got me... missed regulating.
But their drug laws are still complete bullshit... it's all about money.

How would it do that?

I agree, on principle.

Some days I wonder if mine have made it there yet actually...

Bruce, please go ahead and take all the drugs you like. :)

This illustrates what I have touched on a couple of times during the course of this thread.

rkz assumes all men would be honourable an honest in this situation. He forgets all the dead beat dads out there. The men who think it's ok to spread their seed then move on to the next. The ones who think it's ok to hang around for a few years and then leave. The ones who are so fucked up they'd use their 'unborn child' as a weapon against a woman who doesn't want him anymore.

In an ideal world, men would have a say in the fate of the foetus. The world is not ideal and every situation is different. There is no way you could legislate this without taking away a womans rights. It's like moving back to the dark ages.

rk, is this what you really think?

Honestly, I don't care if every man was willing to care for the child once it was born. Whilst it takes its oxygen direct from the woman's bloodstream, it is a part of her body.


Okay, so after hundreds, indeed thousands of years of the balance being all in favour of men, we get about twenty five years of the balance shifting towards women a little and men like you can't stop whining. It's all skewed in the woman's favour is it now? Because she can decide not to endure 9 months of pregnancy after her contraception failed?

Y'know my mother's generation were the first ones to be considered the natural parent in cases of custody. My grandmother's generation were still being locked up in mental asylums for 'moral and mental instability' for the crime of getting pregnant outside wedlock.

D'you think my generation doesn't know this? Hasn't heard the stories? Do you really think your "Waaah waaaaah, it's not fair, waaaah, women get it easy" bullshit resonates at all?

Exactly. If a Mexican woman is in the US, and is pregnant, the fetus is not an American citizen. It only becomes an American citizen when it is born.

Doesn't that infringe on its inalienable rights? How can you defend an ammendment that limits these rights?


Cut the baby in half while still in utero.

You are so wise King Sol...Spexxvet.

The latest studies show that babies need to be breast fed for at least 6 months.
Hmmmm.....................

You've got it backwards. The 4th amendment does help protect inalienable rights. The supreme court has decided that children do not have that 4th amendment protection.

No really....who is going to breast feed it for 6 months to make sure it's healthy?

Ask the billions of people that were not breast fed for six months. It's best for the kid but far from necessary.

The ONLY thing breast feeding does is add natural immunity for the baby during the first 6 months and relieves painful milk pressure off mom.

Uh, no, that's wrong. :headshake

The truth is we're still finding things out about the effects of breastfeeding, or not.

Recent studies suggest that men who don't get breastfed as babies do not develop the overwhelming fascination with boobies and therefore do not use them to objectify women, thus ending the need for mass subjugation of women.[/ smartass comment]

Yikes, I read back to about pg 13 and thought I might puke.

Keep your laws off my body.

So, rk, as a diabetic married woman, for whom pregnancy would be a major health catastrophe, I can never have sex with my husband since no birth control is 100% effective?

Is that "morality" in your book?

Breast-feeding is a really bad example of what I'm getting at. *sorry*
My only point- to what extent do we get to control the baby factory in this scenario?
Do we get to control it's lifestyle and food intake until we have reached our subjective idea about what's best for the fetus in our custody?

I keep thinking of this guy threatening to sue if it eats another bon-bon.
And
Do we get to charge it with attempted murder if it falls down a staircase?

Sorry about all the "it's" but that is the proper language for the subject at hand. Kind of like "buffalo bill" from "silence of the lambs".
"it will have the baby for me and put the lotion on it's skin"..........

Yeah, breastfeeding misinformation really bugs the shit out me, but I won't derail the thread... Although it seems fairly played since rk won't answer HM's question.

Of course not I have stated that more than once, but if they are not honorable they would simply ignore the pregnancy and she would get an abortion. He would not want a child... people are tail-posting their asses off in here.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v2...TailPoster.jpg
I have not been here moron.
By allowing the father to have his child if he wishes. Simple.

As for those of you talking about "viability" does that mean every time science allows us to keep a child alive earlier and earlier outside the mother the definition of fetus moves? Idiotic argument.

Unless they didn't. You have no reason to make that assumption.
Yes you have. I've been trying to get an answer for a while, and you have posted in the meantime.No, not simple. Here are some complications:

How would the father know about the pregnancy? Would he have to be notified by law? How would his identity be determined? A mandatory DNA test before abortion?

How, if he wanted the child, would the woman be stopped from having an abortion? Would the woman need to bring a permission slip to the doctor? Would the doctor have to check a national registry of woman who are prohibited abortions for nine months?

What deterrant would there be? Prison? A fine?

In short, how would your law work? You're saying that the father ought to have a say in the decision. Most would agree, as a matter of personal interaction. But how could that preference be encoded into law?

All that would take some time to work out.
As far as notification, I would hope the mother would have a modicum of honor. But then, if that were true, there would be no need for a law.

there it is. there is no need for this law. you have it now!

As long as all women honor the fathers as equals, true.
As always LJ can't read.

Sometimes the woman shouldn't have to tell him - rape, for example. Would she have to get a waiver from a judge in order to get an abortion without the rapist's consent? What if it were one of the many rapes (often date rape) where there is not enough evidence to convict? As he is innocent until proven guilty, can he still veto her abortion decision?

I would hope that is a given.

butthole

I think all abortions should be decided by a roving gang of machete-wielding psychopaths.
If they don't hack you to pieces, you are legally required to have a baby. Case closed.

You would hope that it's a given that a date rapist could force his victim to give birth to his kid?

I find it fascinating and pathetic how many in here do not believe in innocent until proven guilty AT ALL.

Innocent until proven guilty is a moot point, if the investigation exceeds the timeframe in which an abortion is possible. Another problem.

Again, I have not pretended to state that I have worked out all legal ramifications and have stated multiple times that the woman should have personal honor so the law does not get involved.
As always, total lack of reading comprehension.
From LJ, a high compliment.

All women will have personal honor as soon as all men do. K? Oh, and we'll stop recreational fucking as soon as men do too.

Wow, more inability to read.
The whole conversation is about men who wish to own up to the product of their actions.

The honor system is what we have in place now. You are suggesting a law which would be prohibitively impractical.