Abortion should only be used in cases where neither parent wants the child.
Abortion should only be used in cases where neither parent wants the child.
As long as one of the parents wants the child, then the pregnancy should go to term. If the father cannot be reached, for whatever reason, withing the legal abortion period, then the mother gets to make the decision.
People who liked this debate also liked:
and
good compromise
Side Score: 7
|
 |
Screw you. It's my body.
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
3
points
In the case where she was forced, then she gets to make the decision. Otherwise, if she had consensual sex, then the father has dibs on the baby to raise on his own (if the mother doesn't want it). Sure the mother will say, "Hey, it's my body!" but we can say, "Hey, there are consequences to your actions! Think of it as a 9 month punishment. Next time, think twice." Unless it poses a danger to her to deliver the child. If the mother wants the child and the father doesn't, then he pays child support. Does the Dad have a harsher punishment (lasting 18 years)? Yeah, but we need to impress upon people that there are consequences to their actions and that they are responsible for their actions and that they should use their heads before acting. As long as there's an easy way out, people will act irresponsibly. Side: good compromise
Mothers are still forced to pay child support if they don't raise a child. What are the consequences if a man doesn't want the child? Nothing but monetary. He doesn't have ti live with a body that's given birth for the rest of his life. It's more than just those 9 months. It's the rest of your life. Stretch marks, saggy boobs, a ruined vagina, easier fat storage, and so on. There is also the emotional aspects of knowing your child is out there. If the man wants a child, he can plead with the woman to keep it, or he can find a surrogate and implant his seed again. Side: Screw you. It's my body.
1
point
Ok, so a nice tight pussy is worth destroying a fetus. Nice. ;) How about we make it so that every child is born in a test tube and we take away the burden of bearing children away from women? I mean, everyone wants the icing on the cake and none of the work associated with making the cake so... Side: good compromise
I agree completely because the child belongs to the father just as much as the mother. Since no person can 'own' a child, possession isn't 9/10 of the law. If the possession rule did count, any child outside of the womb could be taken and kept by the father then keeping the mother from the child. The mother holding the child in-utero doesn't give her the right to kill it any more than me killing a house-guest because they are inconvenient. Also, to 'believeyoume'; you are seriously so selfish that you would kill a child just to keep it from someone else on the chance they may run into you in the future? I am adopted and THANK GOD you weren't my mother. I hope that doesn't 'freak you out'. Side: good compromise
|
1
point
It's an interesting idea, but... I don't know. Something seems off. Maybe it's my own personal thing, like, I don't think I could ever give my infant up for adoption or give someone else custody of him/her or donate my eggs, just because the idea of possibly meeting my child someday and not knowing it freaks me out. So maybe that's just me. But maybe if there was a way to transfer the embryo from the mother's body to some other system in which it could safely grow... hmmmm. Side: Screw you. It's my body.
1
point
I agree completely because the child belongs to the father just as much as the mother. Since no person can 'own' a child, possession isn't 9/10 of the law. If the possession rule did count, any child outside of the womb could be taken and kept by the father then keeping the mother from the child. The mother holding the child in-utero doesn't give her the right to kill it any more than me killing a house-guest because they are inconvenient. Also, to 'believeyoume'; you are seriously so selfish that you would kill a child just to keep it from someone else on the chance they may run into you in the future? I am adopted and THANK GOD you weren't my mother. I hope that doesn't 'freak you out'. Side: good compromise
The right of bodily integrity is fundamental. Women fought for over a century to have their rights of bodily integrity legally recognized in the same manner that a man's rights to bodily integrity have always been recognized. And, the fight is nowhere near over. That is, for example why rape remains the most under-reported and under-convicted serious crime. A fetus is not a person under U.S. or European law; it has no inviolate rights to bodily integrity (a legal position with which I agree). Justice Stevens has suggested that the "rights" of the fetus should increase and vest as the fetus grows towards the birth stage that brings it into full legal "personhood"; and while this idea has not been fully formally adopted into law, I think it has merit. A woman, however, has rights of bodily integrity. And a ding in the pocketbook is simply not comparable to discarding a woman's right to bodily integrity. That right extends far, far beyond the question of abortion and any erosion of the right to bodily integrity has serious ramifications for other areas of law. The right of bodily integrity is, essentially, also the reason that it is no longer legal to rape your wife or beat her with a stick, and the reason that the State can no longer force a woman to undergo an involuntary sterilization because she is Black or Native or poor. (And yes, all of those things were legal during pretty recent history. Eugenics was practiced in the U.S. as a state pogrom up through the 1930s, forcing sterilization on thousands of poor women and women of racial minorities on the simple, racist/classist grounds that the State wanted more wealthy white people and fewer of everybody else. Raping your wife was legal in many states up through the 1980s. Even with advances in law, sexual and domestic violence are still our country's most underreported crimes - and over 30% of the women who are murdered each year in this country are murdered by their husbands or boyfriends. The right of bodily integrity - and defending that right in both law and culture - is a critical issue with very real repercussions for the health, safety, and lives of women.) Certainly if a woman is willing to carry a pregnancy to term and to give the child up for adoption after its birth, the father should - assuming that he is fit - be afforded a legal preference in adopting it. But force her to bear? Absolutely not. We simply cannot afford any position that would again relegate women to a subjected position as the property of their husbands, boyfriends, fathers, lovers...or of a paternalistic State. Absolutely no. Side: Screw you. It's my body.
|
