Pennsylvania abortion verdict

Remove all ads!

Yes, but a lot of the time this is what happens anyway. I know more than one girl that this has happened to. Having the baby and then go and make the father pay afterwards - good luck.

If the mother feels so strongly that she wants to abort the baby, but the father feels that the baby should be given the chance at a life, then both the baby and the father should be given that chance. The mother can have visitation if she is willing to help pay support. This is role-reversal, but I am arguing equality here for all three in this situation, including the baby.

 

Don't judge a man untill you've been there. Even then....think before you speak. There are plenty of single fathers out there who care deeply for thier children. I'm one of them.

 

The other problem I see with the woman carrying the baby and then giving it to the father, what happens if something happens to the father? Legally, the biological parents are responsible. So what happens if the father dies? Does the child then go back to the mother who never wanted to have it?

The other reason why the decision has to rely solely with the mother is the risk component. Pregnancy is one of the biggest risks to a healthy woman's life. Regardless of whether or not the father is willing to take the child or not, the main risk is with the woman. Statistics plainly show that regardless of the age group you are looking at, the number of deaths of pregnant women is higher than with non-pregnant women. Because of this component of risk alone, it has to be the woman who has the final decision.

 

Aldeth - You would be surprised by the transformaton that happens when a baby is born. Once the mother has a chance to spend any time at all with her baby, there is a good chance that she will want to care for the baby if the father should pass on. Love is a potent force and its transforming power should not be so easily disregarded.

 

Have to say that the thought behind this is quite "wrong" (like 'morally'). If the father does not want a child, and asks the mother to remove it while she still has a chance, she either has to do it or forget all her later, possible claims (read: money). Sometimes it really feels like justice and law have nothing in common, when law was created to be just (and secure the rights of all sides).

 

Ergo: all chevalier is doing is discussing the topic. How could he

Stop. You're basically telling that englightened = pro-abortion and dim = anti-abortion, which is not true.

Some people who oppose abortion have degrees, speak tongues, win science awards etc, you know...

Explain to me: if abortion isn't wrong, why not have it at leisure?

 

No, all Chevalier is doing is arguing against abortion in a very roundabout way. Which is all nice and dandy I just find it a bit unnescessary trying to camoflage it as something slightly different.

There is no correlation about enlightenment and intelligence. There are muslim imans who advocates a holy jihad against all unbelievers who have doctors degrees and whatnots from prestigious universities. I still wouldnt call them enlightened.

Abortion isnt a matter of right and wrong, especially seeing since I doubt people will ever see eye to eye with another. It is a matter of legality. Thus each individual can decide for themselves if it is a tiny clot of cells or a tiny little person they have in their uteros and act thereafter.

I think that abortion is more or less never the answer but I dont believe it is for me to decide whether it should be legal or not. This stance has nothing to do with the faetus but with the mother, judging from the women I know who have had an abortion I think it would have been better for them to have child and wreck their future and any chance for an independent life in a foreseeable future than to forever wonder what might have been. But that is their decision, not mine and not the legislative branch. There is no one who is forcing you or those who feel like you to have an abortion but you seem to want to force people do as you want.

Contrary to what most of you who are against abortion believes it is not a callous choice by the women in question and being called a murderess aint helping. Anyone who does make a decision like that callously and at leisure sure as hell shouldnt ever have a child.

 

Because it's a lot more inconvenient, risky and invasive than using a different method of birth-control - oooh, I don't know, condoms, diaphragms, coils, spermicides, the pill, the morning after pill or even your own apparent favourite - abstinence.

 

Why are people arguing that Chevalier is just using this topic to thinly-veil his anti-abortion stance? That's ridiculous. Everyone knows already that Chev is anti-abortion, so it would be pointless for him to try to secretly twist this topic into an anti-abortion platform. In fact, it's downright impossible for him to do this, as it is already a well-known fact that he is anti-abortion. It is no secret, so you can't secretly do something that isn't a secret to begin with.

If nothing else, Chev is a logical person, and if he was doing what several people here claim, it would be a completely illogical course of action. He'd also have to think the average IQ on this site was about 50 if he thought people would actually fall for such a tactic.

But to stay on topic, I don't think there is a perfect solution to this problem. There has to be one person who has the final decision if there is a disagreement between the two prospective parents, and the woman is the best option from an admitedly poor list of choices.

 

This only shows the weakness of the logic behind pro-abortion programme.

One on hand, it's perfectly all right and legal, so we can do it.

On the other hand, we still have a need to stress that to have an abortion is an important decision that should be weighed carefully and is not to be taken at leisure. So, obviously, we're having a bad feeling here, aren't we?

Perhaps it's not so all right.

Legal? It's politics. There countries who have nearly the same law rules and yet the judges interpret them differently. When there's a ready conclusion and a potential premise, people tend to malnourish the inference part.

It's your perspective - neither would they call you englightened, I suppose. That they have a different system of values than your one, doesn't make them less wise or less aware. No correlation.

That only works if we put morality aside, which is not really what I would do.

An individual can foresee natural consequences of his actions (sex => pregnancy) and needs to take responsibility for his actions without using the excuse that having him (or her) face the consequences of what he (or she) has done would be too cruel. It's quite naive and doesn't work unless we assume that pleasure is the highest value and that the right of stronger individuals is better than that of the weak.

I could see the same logic justifying the law and government staying totally away from family relations, work relations, private contracts and so on - leaving it to individuals to decide.

Putting old people to old age houses, young people to death, what should we do with the disabled people, the weak people, the ugly people etc etc? Let's build ourselves a new world of only young, healthy and rich folks

People who want to beat their children don't force the rest to beat their own ones. So why would we ban the beating of children and force those folks to act as we want?

The funnier parts have been dealt with by Aldeth

 

No. Unprotected sex => pregnancy

Erm, what? Many things are 'all right and legal' but still need to be considered carefully. Whether to marry someone or not, whether to undergo chemotherapy if diagnosed with cancer, whether to go to university or not... just to mention three wildly different examples. As far as I understand, thinking something through and not taking a decision likely does not imply your doubt in the morality of one of the choices.

 

Aldeth, that is the point, we know Chev's stance on abortion and I have nothing against him arguing his thoughts on it. I just pointed out that I in my opinion found it a bit unnescessary to try to pass it off as something different. Especially twice in a short time. Neither this topic nor the other topic is really about fathers rights or about informing parents when their child have an abortion, they are both about, surprise surprise: Abortion. Because these two things are really non-issues, if you think that abortion should be legal there is no other way to do things than how they are done however unsavory it might be at times and if you are against abortion it just serves to further illustrates how horrible it is with abortion.

Furthermore abortion is a pretty futile thing to discuss, especially between reasonable intelligent people cause they are set in their opinion and both sides have merit to their arguments. It all boils down to the definition of the faetus and whether abortion is murder or not. No argument can never bite on someone who thinks that a person is murdered at every abortion nor will someone who sees it as a removal of a collection of cells with the possiblity to be become a person be swayed to think it is murder. Even among the people who do think it is murder however there are those who is pro-abortion due to the simple fact that a ban on abortion wouldnt stop abortions by a longshot but would only lead to procedures which might abort the life of both the faetus and the mother not to mention making it happen later into the pregnancy.

It is this very disparity which makes it into not a question about morals and right and wrong because as Chev pointed out about my iman there are issues where people dont agree on right and wrong and thus the law must be allowing. The people who advocate abortion isnt a few deviants as is the case with the aforementioned imam or people who thinks it should be perfectly OK to beat their wife or somesuch.

 

No. The basic category here is sex. Sex leads to pregnancy.

Sex + protection => 99% chance of no pregnancy

No, no, no. Abortion is construed by pro-abortionists as morally neutral.

However, the careful deliberation etc in the shape that they advocate resumbles a classic process of making an informed moral decision.

That is where the inconsistency lies: it's either moral/immoral OR morally neutral. There's no other way.

People come and say that the topic WILL turn into an abortion yes/no debate and that it is what I intended when making the topic. Next, people come and say the whole problem we are discussing comes down to whether abortion is right or wrong in general. Ultimately, despite calls in vain to discuss the topic actually, people make less and less vague references to abortion in general.... and in the very end surprise, chev has managed to disguise an abortion debate as something else.

Wonderful logic.

Agreed. Allowing abortion leads to such problems as in the two threads: about the fathers having nothing to say and about the parents of underaged mothers (and fathers) being unable to do anything while their (grand-)child is being killed.

There are many things that some people consider morally right and some consider morally wrong. Majority vote isn't really the way to decide moral matters. Not like it actually is a majority, anyway.