Alabama judge allows lawsuit that names aborted fetus as co-plaintiff.

a reply to: eletheia

"That" probably does happen in the majority of cases, and it is certainly preferable. However, when "that" happens, the law is not involved; it's a mutual decision between two consenting adults and should be respected.

The problem come in when there is disagreement. That's what we're discussing: who gets to decide and under what circumstances.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

The problem come in when there is disagreement. That's what we're discussing: who gets to decide and under what circumstances.

to me, it seems that we would need to determine just what course would cause the least damage
so, could you cover those "circumstances" in any kind of concise way and put it into a legal framework to ensure that the course that is chosen if causing the least damage? or would you have to take each case one by one, hear each side out, and with it, probably expose alot of the couples personal dirty laundry to the world to see in some kind of hearing? just how long would that take? I mean wasn't you who said that if the women is gonna abort the baby, it should be as soon as possible? so would this young 16 year old from the op, who quite frankly obtained her abortion early enough she probably would have been eligible to have an abortion even if there was a law in effect prohibiting it after the detection of a heartbeat, end up not being able to have it until she was in her second trimester or close to her third?
first of all, anything else concerning to a person's medical decisions are allowed to be decided with some sort of privacy, and yet, you think the women should have to stand in front of the world and explain to them why she has decided that she should have an abortion.
my last pregnancy was a bitch, and I had two young children I had to care for while I was pregnant. my last trimester I ended up having the doctor griping at me at every visit about picking those kids up and worrying every time I picked them up because quite frankly I did not trust my legs to hold me up! after that, I just would have not had another child, period! my husband knew quite well that I was having problems, but well... he did have to work! other people knew also, but no one offered assistance. quite frankly, I had no choice but to pick the kids up, and take the chance of miscarrying, or falling with a baby in my arms. that was bad enough, but then many times when my husband could have been home, he chose not to be. so, if I had gotten pregnant after that, just how do you think such a hearing would have gone?

(Redneck -- So sorry for the late reply!!! I had to get some stuff done in the yard that I didn't get done yesterday because I was ATSing... and then some bulbs I ordered arrived a week earlier than I expected, so I wanted to get those in the ground before we get rained in for the next few days. So -- whew! -- I did it by the hair of my chinny chin chin!!! I was still trimming and raking as the sprinkles started...)

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

Well, that's a relief.

I often get weird (and distasteful) comments on that outlook whenever I mention it, so I mention it rarely....The comments I receive are usually because of some interpretation that I see people as animals... and in a way, I do. We are mammalians and primates, and physically share much with other such species in the animal kingdom. But that overlooks the fact that I also believe the spirit resides in everyone. Some are simply more in touch with it than others.

That's a shame. We are animals... but with opposable digits and the ability to think and reason, which, together, gives us the ability to create (in our minds) and to fabricate (with our hands).

It is not meant as a condemnation of any individual.

Of course not. It is equally true of us all.

And really, isn't that what the difference between debating on the basis of logic and debating on the basis of feelings boils down to?

Yes... and I would add it also enables us to find cooperative solutions, hopefully for the greater good, as opposed to using mere brute force to have one's way. No need for anyone to be King of the Jungle so-to-speak.

Even the best intentions can fail. I know I have failed many times in my life despite good intentions. I just keep picking myself up, dusting myself off, and trying again. I guess I'm either too stubborn or too stupid to stay down for long.

Another quality that sets the human "animal" above. We can learn from our mistakes, reconsider and re-evaluate, and do better. We are not subject to nor limited by mere "animal" instinct.

So I had this 1980 Chevy LUV pickup that needed the motor rebuilt. I told him if he could rebuild it, he could have it. He got so angry at me, because I refused to help him! What he didn't know then was that every evening I was going by the truck and checking out what he had done, and was carefully listening to everything he talked about concerning it. He wasn't going to fail, but he had to believe he could. The day he finished, we put some fresh gas in the tank, a few drops in the carburetor, threw a full battery on it, and turned it over. The first time it only coughed. I adjusted the distributor and he hit it again. The engine roared to life, and that was the biggest smile on his face I have ever seen.

What a great project! Beyond the obvious mechanical skills, there are so many valuable life skills to be gained and developed from a project like that -- planning and prep and coordination, patience and perseverance, overcoming the inevitable challenges and obstacles that present themselves along the way -- but it's so worth it. And we learn so much about ourselves too when take on challenges like that... some good and some not so good! But the sense of accomplishment and joy and pride and confidence that come with a job well done are invaluable, and the other tools will serve him well for a lifetime. That's so cool.

A child needs to succeed, but success without realizing that failure is a possibility is child abuse in my book. Every person should be able to stand up under their own power. There will come times when they can't, but I trust that in those times, others will be there for them.

Sometimes they even have to fail, if only to learn how to deal with it, then pick themselves up and dust themselves off and get back in the game. I am a firm believer in wallowing in our sorrows for the same reason we celebrate our blessings: Because it's important to process our experiences, the good, the bad and the ugly. It helps us learn what to do better, what to do differently, what not to do at all. It's not the end. Failing just means that we aren't done yet. So we should take some time to ponder events and circumstances and search our soul, to regroup, refocus, make a plan, and then we pick ourselves up and dust ourselves off!

I'm going to separate my responses to coincide with yours... these posts are getting long, lol. that's the mark of a good discussion.

This has been a great discussion -- thank you!!!

Okay, let's turn this around. Since some seem to think that they should be able to meddle in their baby mommy's medical care. If a woman has an obligation to carry your child to term, then it's fair to say that a man has the obligation to provide for that family. So the man manages to screw up his back rather bad. Bad enough that it puts a major dent in his ability to earn enough to support that family. He has the option to have a surgery that could very well repair the damage But there is a small chance that he might end up permanently paralyzed. He doesn't want to do it. His wife thinks he should. Should she be allowed to take him to court and try to get the legal system to force her will onto him?

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

Adoption is indeed a wasted resource. I know of many couples who would like nothing better than to adopt a child, but because of financial requirements or overly intrusive restrictions and inspections, choose not to even try. What kind of society do we live in where the killing of a life is preferable to giving that life a chance?

This is what makes me saddest about the entire abortion debate. I understand why women could consider abortion their best option, and even their child's best option. I do not understand why we don't do everything reasonably possible to eliminate -- or at least alleviate -- the many known reasons women would consider abortion in everyone's best interest.

As already noted by another poster, and I have to agree, there are potential risks -- even fatal -- with any pregnancy, so adoption is not for every woman. So I would never want a woman shamed or belittled or in any way coerced into bearing a child for adoption. My sister stopped at two because she developed gestational diabetes, with the second time much worse than the first. My other sister stopped at three because she learned the hard way she was Rh negative and that presents complications for both mother and child. We stopped at two because I had so many pregnancy complications that the OB who delivered my daughter told me to count my blessings and quit while I was ahead -- and I did. The funny thing was that despite all the physical complications, pregnancy hormones made me happy as a lark! Go figure, eh?

I would even go so far as to say that such complications are becoming more and more common, and I blame the massive amounts of synthetic hormones and other endocrine-disruptors in our environment. It's in our food, our water, our soil, our air, our cleaning products, and on and on! For my daughter and I, just reducing our exposure to these toxins has done wonders for our hormone-related health issues.

One thing that also needs to be changed is that often, after a mother has given up a child for adoption, she can go back to court and demand her child back. That is atrocious to me. That child has known two parents for all of its life and then this stranger shows up to claim it? How objectifying can one be? No, after a woman has given up her child, she needs to leave it be until her integration back into its life is approved by the adoptive parents or it reaches the age of majority. Some decisions must be final.

Definitely. Sometimes we have to make hard choices. Then we have to live with our choices. The child will grow up and be able to choose to meet their birth parent then. Perhaps it would be appropriate for the laws/regs/rules to allow the parent to provide a letter to the child to be given to the child at 18, providing the birth parent's name and contact info.

And yet, that is how abominations come to be. Ideas are floated, over and over, each time gaining a bit more support, or at least a bit less resistance. Eventually, those ideas become accepted enough to become law. It is a symptom of our evolving social structure (or possibly devolving, if you will). That's why it is so important to speak out when such horrendous atrocities are suggested... not just the first time, but every time.

I am seeing this -- and more -- with the current Trans Activism/ists. The "more" would be the outright bullying and silencing tactics to anyone who deviates from their script. With every inane and nonsensical idea floated, then adopted and pushed by political critters and activists, complete with all their gaslighting propaganda and rhetoric the next one was even more inane and nonsensical! Too many people have been silenced, either through intimidation or through de-platforming. And more recently, via government imposed laws, rules and regs.

I know I've become quite the pitbull in my posts about the Trans Activism/ists, but this is exactly why. There is far too much abuse of our rights -- not to mention our intellectual honesty! -- going on already, and potentially far greater abuse. I'm not having it. The more people they silence, I'll just have to get that much louder and prouder. Use it or lose it, right?

a reply to: TheRedneck

I only mention this because I know the icon doesn't light up anymore, but you have a PM.

a reply to: dawnstar

I won't directly address your hypothetical, because I didn't go there... but I would like to address the issue as a whole.

First and foremost, I would never force a woman to continue an unwanted pregnancy, nor would I ever want a woman prosecuted for terminating a pregnancy... but neither do I want any unwanted pregnancies or any abortions... at all. So my second purpose would be to address the reasons women would even consider abortion, and eliminate/alleviate those issues for the mothers. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, right?

However, there will always be unwanted pregnancies and women who will find ways to terminate those unwanted pregnancies. There will also always be fathers who want her to bear those babies and want to be fathers. If for no other reason than it is in the child's overwhelming best interests to have an active and involved father, we need to also encourage and promote and protect the father's best interests as well.

Here is how I'm thinking we could balance everyone's rights and needs and best interests:

First trimester: Mother has complete autonomy and can terminate the pregnancy upon her own will. Period. However, let's at least offer other options, adoption is just one. What does she need? Is it the medical bills? Let's figure out a way to pay for it. Is she unable to support a child after birth? How about offering career training... help with childcare expenses... medical care for the baby's first year.

Second trimester: Again, mother still has complete autonomy... and again, we find ways to offer the help she needs to complete the pregnancy. However, at this point, there's a good chance that medical reasons are involved, so terminating the pregnancy may be in the best interests of mother and/or child.

Third trimester: At this point, the mother can choose to end the pregnancy, but cannot choose how. With a potentially viable baby at this point of fetal development, if the mother absolutely insists on terminating the pregnancy, I would insist that instead of a deliberate attempt to end the life of the baby, that the baby be delivered. Either labor would be induced or a C-section performed, giving the baby a chance to survive. (This is, of course, presuming that it will not endanger the mother's life.)

In this event, if the father wants the child, then the father should be given custody of the child -- except in the case of rape or incest. I would make this pretty much automatic, with little legal expense or effort on the father's part. If someone wants to make the case that the father is unfit, they would have to take the initiative (and expense) to do so.

If the father does not want the child, then it should be put up for adoption immediately.

I think I covered everything?

a reply to: dawnstar

to me, it seems that we would need to determine just what course would cause the least damage

I can agree with that... the least damage to the mother first, the child second, and the father third IMO.

so, could you cover those "circumstances" in any kind of concise way and put it into a legal framework to ensure that the course that is chosen if causing the least damage? or would you have to take each case one by one, hear each side out, and with it, probably expose alot of the couples personal dirty laundry to the world to see in some kind of hearing? just how long would that take?

That's the real issue: how do we do those things? I don't have all the answers. I have my own beliefs and my moral center, but a part of that moral center is to try and take into account all the different variables. That's why I am on ATS; I want to hear what others think so I can try and take their thought process into account.

That is also why it bothers me so much when I hear the old "You're a man; you shouldn't have a say" argument... it is the exact opposite of what I believe. Everyone gets a say.

I do believe, as you insinuate, that a judicial hearing like an actual trial is counterproductive. It takes too long, and the child will not stop developing. Not to mention, there is also the issue of cost... financial means should not be a consideration in these kind of circumstances. So I suppose for now I am leaning toward a legal framework that would cover the vast majority of the cases, combined with a more specialized judicial review for a quick resolution to the few cases that need special attention. Evidence can be presented and a judgement made within 24 hours if all the legaleeze is taken out of the system. Will there be mistakes? Yes. But I know of no way to completely eliminate mistakes. Mistakes are made every day where people die in hospitals because of a clerical error, people die on the highway because of a bad split-second decision, people even die at the hands of the state and are later shown to be innocent.

If you or anyone has a way to completely eliminate the chance of a mistake happening, I'm all ears.

I actually winced at the description you gave of your experiences with your third child. That troubles me when I hear about it. In my personal opinion, any man who would ignore a struggling pregnant woman is scum, and a husband that would do so is the stuff under the scum. Right now I am pretty much disabled (damn heart is getting to be more trouble than it's worth), but I would still not sit idly by while a pregnant woman struggled so.

I cannot empathize, but I can and do sympathize.

Do you have some suggestions as to ways to eliminate most of the issues you bring up?

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

No problems. I had to go see a doc today and handle a legal issue, plus try and get a silly hunk of dirty silicon to give up trying to follow Microsoft protocol... so I'm late as well.

That's a shame. We are animals... but with opposable digits and the ability to think and reason, which, together, gives us the ability to create (in our minds) and to fabricate (with our hands).

I find that very coincidental... you just described exactly what I do. I create with my hands what I envision in my mind. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't; sometimes it explodes. But there is no greater joy than that of watching someone I have created work.

And that includes my kids... my greatest creation of all.

Yes... and I would add it also enables us to find cooperative solutions, hopefully for the greater good, as opposed to using mere brute force to have one's way. No need for anyone to be King of the Jungle so-to-speak.

If you're trying to read my mind, I strongly suggest you tread lightly. Here there be monsters.

Since it is an abortion thread and since the basis of my beliefs on abortion are rooted in reverence for life, and since that parallels religion, I'll say the following:

When I read my Bible, there is one passage (Genesis 1:28) that stands out to me in many similar discussions. In it, God gave man dominion over the fish, the beasts, the cattle, and all living things that creep across the earth. He specified those things. He didn't just say "everything" because He didn't list everything; He left out one thing we do not have dominion over: each other. This is also demonstrated by the Israelites when they became a nation... they had no King, which was unusual at the time. They instead had prophets. But the Isrealites demanded a King anyway, to God's dismay.

I'll shut up on that subject now... just wanted to show that I certainly agree with you that no one has a right to be King of the Jungle.

What a great project!

Thank you.

I still have that truck, BTW. It still runs, too (just has a cooling system issue).

Sometimes they even have to fail, if only to learn how to deal with it, then pick themselves up and dust themselves off and get back in the game.

Very true. Without the knowledge of failure, there can be no joy of success. Without darkness, there can be no appreciation of light.

Everyone fails at some point or other. The trick is to pick oneself up, dust oneself off, figure out what went wrong and fix it. A lot of people think folks like me just design something and put it together and voila! Nope. On my present active project, we (me and the guy I am collaborating with) put together a backup board for a demonstration unit. We hoped we could just plug it in to the working unit and verify it worked. Nope. The first time we plugged it in, it just sat there like a rock. We could have thrown up our hands and surrendered, but we didn't. As it turned out, the major problem was one bad capacitor... literally a one-minute fix that cost a whole dime.

All success is a refusal to accept failure as final.

TheRedneck

a reply to: dawnstar

Okay, let's turn this around. Since some seem to think that they should be able to meddle in their baby mommy's medical care. If a woman has an obligation to carry your child to term, then it's fair to say that a man has the obligation to provide for that family.

Absolutely!

So the man manages to screw up his back rather bad. Bad enough that it puts a major dent in his ability to earn enough to support that family. He has the option to have a surgery that could very well repair the damage But there is a small chance that he might end up permanently paralyzed. He doesn't want to do it. His wife thinks he should. Should she be allowed to take him to court and try to get the legal system to force her will onto him?

Eh... good question!

I have to point out that I see one difference: the man would be forcing a woman to not have a procedure, while the woman would be forcing the man to have a procedure. That said, both situations are similar in other aspects.

I reserve the right to change my mind on this based on my further consideration of the scenario, but here's my take at this time: A man should not be able to completely force a woman to forego an abortion, if the woman is adamant about having one and chooses to do so early as practical in the pregnancy (I believe such is the case that started this thread, and that complaint will in all likelihood be denied). Where I believe the father should have more say is in advanced pregnancy cases where life of the mother is not an issue.

If the man needs the surgery, and the chances of the operation going bad are very minor, I believe the woman should have some legal recourse. Perhaps giving the man a choice: either have the surgery or his refusal is grounds for a divorce and he still bears financial responsibility for her care. I actually have trouble comprehending why any man would refuse to support his family to the best of his ability, although I will freely admit there are some males (not men in my book) who would do so.

I may be a bit biased in that I do not trust medical procedures very much; never have. I am still trying to figure out what possessed me to pay a small fortune to some dude I don't know well in return for him cracking my chest open like a walnut and trying to turn my ticker into a fashion statement. I have known several people in my life who would gladly have disassembled me for free. So I am loathe to suggest that anyone be forced to endure a medical procedure without given some opportunity to decline. I do understand your concern though, and it is legitimate. I only wish I had a better answer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

This is what makes me saddest about the entire abortion debate. I understand why women could consider abortion their best option, and even their child's best option. I do not understand why we don't do everything reasonably possible to eliminate -- or at least alleviate -- the many known reasons women would consider abortion in everyone's best interest.

Again, be careful inside my head.

We're really getting into the minutia now, a good thing in my opinion. I am well aware of the complications pregnancy can bring with it; I had to carry our first child out to the maternity ward because my wife was unable to hold her. Her blood pressure literally went to stroke level. Luckily, she pulled through with no lasting problems, but there for a moment we were all scared, and thankful she was in a hospital already. It was very stressful for me, running back and forth between her room and the maternity ward, but not as much as for her.

Our second went much, much easier. Our son came so fast and easy, I at one point offered to buy the doctor a baseball mitt for her next delivery.

Abortions have consequences as well. I know several women who cannot ever have a child because of an abortion. I understand there have been deaths from attempted abortions, even when performed by doctors. I really don't know which is more dangerous, but I suspect (and this is again the bias that I spoke to dawnstar about) the abortions might be the more dangerous option. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong.

I would even go so far as to say that such complications are becoming more and more common, and I blame the massive amounts of synthetic hormones and other endocrine-disruptors in our environment.

No argument whatsoever. Our bodies are chemical machines that we are completely unable to comprehend fully. We can cut and sew, have medicines for ailments, but our medical ability is still quite primitive IMO. As such, those chemicals we want to call harmless can be harmful, and we should take extreme care wherever possible to contain them.

I have watched many family members die after a trip to the doctor. it always seems to go the same way: they start on a couple of medications, develop complications from them, get new medicines to treat the complications, develop complications from them, get more medicines to combat those... after a while they have their own pharmacy. Then when something minor happens, it can't be treated properly due to all the medications, which cannot be stopped because of the minor issue.

Even after the quintuple bypass, I am only on two medicines: a statin for cholesterol (my triglycerides were well over 500; I was pumping jelly), and an aspirin to lessen the chance of a minor issue becoming major. Oh, yes, and I have nitro pills for emergencies. I do take pepper regularly for two reasons: 1. I have found medical studies (primarily in Europe) that show capsaicin is long-term curative for atherioscherosis, and 2. I like pepper.

Anything more I want to know why I need it, what the minimum dosage is, how long I will need to take it, and if there are any natural substitutes. Doctors hate me.

Sometimes we have to make hard choices.

Yes we do, and unfortunately that flies in the face of the newer generations.

I like your idea of having the contact info presented at age 18. I will go a bit farther, however; many adoptive parents are apprehensive about even telling the child they are adopted, for fear of being seen as less than a real parent (which should not be a fear IMO, but is nonetheless). So instead, establish an office, perhaps as part of the SSA, that maintains those letters and mails them out automatically to children when they turn 18. Adoptive parents would have to file a change of address when they move, but that's a very minor requirement. That would also allow the birth parent(s) (I say allow the father to do so as well) to update their information as needed.

I am seeing this -- and more -- with the current Trans Activism/ists. The "more" would be the outright bullying and silencing tactics to anyone who deviates from their script. With every inane and nonsensical idea floated, then adopted and pushed by political critters and activists, complete with all their gaslighting propaganda and rhetoric the next one was even more inane and nonsensical! Too many people have been silenced, either through intimidation or through de-platforming. And more recently, via government imposed laws, rules and regs.

This is indeed a fight we are engaged in. I'll just say one tenet of my morality is that information should never be suppressed. Unfortunately, suppression of information has been shown to be quite conducive to presenting a particular political agenda.

TheRedneck

a reply to: riiver

And you have an answer.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Boadicea

I agree with almost everything in that. May I offer some suggestions?

With the two week after discovery exemption in place, have one restriction on second trimester abortions: three official counseling sessions, all free of charge. One from a pro-choice group, one from a pro-life group, and the final one with her physician to discuss the medical advantages and disadvantages of both. That can be accomplished in a single day.

If the mother still wants an abortion...as much as it pains me to say this... she has all the relevant information. Who am I to try to dictate her actions to her?

Third trimester... hmmm... interesting proposal. I like it... I think. I know premies can survive as early as 7 months now; I have a god-daughter who was a 7-month premie and that was 30 years ago.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Malak777

Yeah, cause eating beef has really wiped out the cow population...

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

I agree with almost everything in that. May I offer some suggestions?

Of course!!!

With the two week after discovery exemption in place, have one restriction on second trimester abortions: three official counseling sessions, all free of charge. One from a pro-choice group, one from a pro-life group, and the final one with her physician to discuss the medical advantages and disadvantages of both. That can be accomplished in a single day.

I like that. I would also like one of the above -- either the doctor or pro-life group -- to be able to inform her of social and educational programs that could assist her, hook her up with non-profit agencies, I don't know what all exactly. But whatever she needs to complete her pregnancy and raise her child. Beyond the immediate maternity care, I would think some kind of education or job training would be most needed. My purpose being to prepare and set her up for life so she can take care of her family long-term. Not just "right now."

If the mother still wants an abortion...as much as it pains me to say this... she has all the relevant information. Who am I to try to dictate her actions to her?

Yup. That's about it.

Third trimester... hmmm... interesting proposal. I like it... I think. I know premies can survive as early as 7 months now; I have a god-daughter who was a 7-month premie and that was 30 years ago.

This would also solve the problem of babies who survive their abortions, and hopefully reduce the need for partial birth abortions to virtually zero.

a reply to: TheRedneck

When I read my Bible...

A kindred spirit!!!

...there is one passage (Genesis 1:28) that stands out to me in many similar discussions. In it, God gave man dominion over the fish, the beasts, the cattle, and all living things that creep across the earth. He specified those things. He didn't just say "everything" because He didn't list everything; He left out one thing we do not have dominion over: each other.

Yes!!! And this is such a crucial distinction. Including in male/female relationships. Man was not given dominion over women either. We were and are meant to be partners, working together, combining our strengths and skills to achieve more and better than we ever could alone.

I'm thinking it won't surprise you that I had that exact scripture in mind as well...

a reply to: TheRedneck

My apologies if I'm overstepping my bounds, but --

Even after the quintuple bypass, I am only on two medicines: a statin for cholesterol... Anything more I want to know why I need it, what the minimum dosage is, how long I will need to take it, and if there are any natural substitutes. Doctors hate me.

-- please PLEASE look into adding a CoQ10 supplement to counteract some of the side effects of the statins.

Coenzyme Q10 Benefits on Patients Taking Statin Drugs

Most integrative doctors recommend that healthy people under age 60 take a minimum daily dose of 50 to 100 mg of CoQ10 when wanting to boost their mitochondrial function. If you’re over 60 or on a statin drug, the recommended dosage increases to 100 to 200 mg daily. If you had recent heart surgery, heart attack, or congestive heart failure, the recommend amount is 200 to 300 mg daily. It is also suggested that you divide the dosages, taking half of your daily CoQ10 in the morning and the rest in the afternoon which will increase blood levels substantially. (If you’re taking any prescription medications, be sure to talk with your doctor or integrative physician before beginning a CoQ10 supplement as CoQ10 can interact with certain medications.)

Only do so with your doctor's knowledge and blessings, of course... and if you'd like some help researching it further, let me know.

I researched this in depth for my mother several years ago, and we added it to her medication/supplement regimen with her doctor's blessing. The recommended form of CoQ10 is called ubiquinol because of its superior bioavailability. It's a little on the higher side price wise, but not outrageous.

Again, my apologies if I'm overstepping my bounds, but it's really that important.

originally posted by: Halfswede
Totally anit-abortion here and I get the issue of the father. I am not sure this lawsuit is the right approach. However, as long as you are willing to say that the father should have zero parental legal say in whether his child should live, you must agree as a pro-"choice", the choice part should apply to all parties.

For example, if the father demands an abortion, so that his life isn't "ruined" and the mother refuses, she should have to sign a waiver of all child support from the father, correct? i.e. you can't just take away the choice to prevent 'ruining' someones life without their consent.

I mean, he just might not be ready to provide a proper life for that child and the choice to kill and avoid responsibility should at least be offered in a monetary sense to the father, right?

Agreed 100%

a reply to: Boadicea

I think nearly all the suggestions you and Redneck have proposed are good ideas (which makes me think--why aren't we floating ideas like this to lawmakers?) and I agree with him that second trimester abortions should be much harder to get than 1st. If it's seriously going to endanger the life/longterm health of the mother, or the baby is catastrophically deformed or something, ok. It shouldn't be an issue; at that point, it comes down to the lesser of two evils no matter what camp you're in. But if not, then second-trimester abortions--or at least mid-to-late second trimester abortions--should be very hard to get. In my humble opinion, of course. Here's why I think that:

There's a lot of argument about when fetuses are capable of feeling pain; one side of the argument says the nervous system isn't developed enough to experience pain until the third trimester, but the other side says it may happen by 20 weeks. If the fetus can feel pain, that makes it an entirely different scenario in my book. Also, the line demarcating viability has moved a lot since we all had kids. I believe the youngest preemie to survive was only 21 weeks gestation, and it's increasingly common for 24-week preemies to survive. The second trimester ends at 26 weeks, so that makes it a much bigger moral dilemma than a 1st-trimester abortion, imo. Just my 2 cents. Great discussion!

a reply to: dawnstar

This will get overturned. Fetuses don't have standing