It shouldn't, but it is.

There is a right to do wrong, or rather a right not to be forced to do right. At least on the temporal level, I don't pretend to understand cannon law.

It just isn't that simple. These children are being murdered, but it's entrenched in the law. Overturning it also wouldn't end abortion, since it would then go back to the states and who knows if any of them would ban it. It's a bit of a jump to have the federal government actively support the right to choose one day and then enforce its prohibition the next, and I can't think of how it can be justified. I know that my hero the great Clarence Thomas would know how to do it, but I just don't see how it could happen.

the way to fight abortion is on an individual basis.

"My understanding is, the conservatives wait until they have a pro-life majority on the supreme court and then they file a suit... atleast not without consent of the father."

It should be done only on the merits of the case.

It's his kid too. He should have a say.

As far as a father having a say (and I am a father) I would say it comes down what the criteria are... if the issue is only reproductive choice, then clearly yes, he should have a part in it... if the issue is that no one can tell you what to do with your body, then, no, the mother is the only one deciding. I'm not sure where I stand on this, frankly... I guess it's something like the father ought to be in the loop and consulted - but that the ultimate decision would be the mother's.

To me the ultimate choice must lie with the mother, as she is the one who will be most affected by the outcome. The whole issue of where does life begin is irrelevant. Sure the embryo is the first step to creating a conscious human being - but at that stage it is potential human. I think if the pregnant women decides that the circumstances are not right - then it must be her choice. If the father doesn't agree, personally I don't think he has any say. Its not his body.

Spyman, by that argument it's unethical to require a father to pay child support for a child he wants aborted. Just like it's the mother's body, it's the father's money, and it would be hypocritical to allow abortion on that basis then change everything when it comes to taking care of the baby the father didn't want in the first place.

SteevoKun you make a very good point. Ethically I think a strong case could be made for father who want to opt out of the process at the start, but I am not wise enough to suggest the solution.

In a couple of Jared Diamonds books, "Guns Germs and Steel" and "Collapse" he discusses infanticide by Polynesians living on small Islands with limited resources. It was necessary for them to practice infanticide in order to maintain a stable population. If they didn't they would end up overpopulating their life would become unsustainable. Their practice would be considered wrong by our standards but to them it was a necessary evil for the greater good.
I guess what I am saying is that I don't see things as absolutely right or wrong: moral relativism, which some people find hard to stomach.

By the way, I don't think a father should be able to opt out of child support (as someone whose parents divorced at an early age I'm very aware of just how important that support can be for a single mother in modern America), but it is the necessary logical, and legal, consequence of allowing a mother to abort her child without the father's consent - especially in cases when the father is vehemently opposed.

Interesting view-points here. I'm from the undecided camp.

I think i would have a lot more sympathy with the pro-life side of the arguement if (a) they allowed birth control (particularly condoms) and thereby made choices easier for people. (b) they did more to make it easier for women to positively choose to keep their babies. Lifting them out of povety for example. Perhaps posters who argue fagainst abortion could give me examples of what they have done for pregnant women faced with this life or death choice.(aside from condenming them).

On the other side of the arguement I think that pro-abortionist should just accept that life begins at the moment of conception and be honest enough to say that the state/society has the right to allow mothers to kill this life in some circumstances.

Whilst every life may be sacred, there are many other examples of permitted killing - in times of war (killing foreigners) if someone attacks me (Killing assailents), if someone attempts to steal my TV (killing theifs), to provide me with food (killing animals) to provide me with clothes (killing animals again) to provide me with sport (killing animals again) distroying habits (killing animals yet again).

We also allow people to kill other people by not helping to save them, sometimes by request (patients requesting DNR), sometimes due to financial constraints (the elderlly - those affected by famine etc, etc, etc)

None of the above are particularly pleasent and I wouldn't normally say we should add killing (unborn) children to the list, but if we are adding them to the list of permitted killings we should clearly say - 'it should be lawful to kill unborn children' so that we don't try and desensitise it by calling it 'terminating the unviable.'

Still undecided....

Maniac,
I like your request for honesty of language. I support the woman being in complete control of the unborn life until it's birth or death. The unborn life, not yet an individual or a member of society, is within the universe, if you will, of the woman and under her control. If she wishes to ride a roller coaster she will not be held liable for a miscarriage - in contrast to irresponsible behavior once the child is born. If she wants to have the child, no one has the right to stop her including the father. If she wants to not have the child and thus opts for killing the growing life within her, no one has the right to stop her including the father.

Odd to think that, as you point out quite well, there is a right to kill under certain circumstances. I'll buy that. Indeed it is not just a right, but a necessity. I must kill to eat - even if I'm a vegetarian. And if people don't kill or otherwise punish or restrict those who wrong them they are opening themselves to exploitation and eventual destruction. We have a right to protect ourselves and our future... and our reproductive ability is part of that future. Reminding ourselves that killing does not mean murder if we are not talking about an individual person, a woman has the right to kill the unborn life within her. This is a serious decision... but then so is all killing.

I hope I don't come across as some moral relativist there, but the government certainly isn't the one to tell people how to live their lives. Freedom means the freedom to do wrong. We don't need some paternalistic national government telling people what to think.-does that hold the same for the church then?

Morally speaking, I think that abortion is murder.

When the day comes that a man can place half of the cost of an abortion into escrow for the impregnated woman to claim upon completion of said abortion, with the ability to walk away from all financial obligations in the event that the woman refuses the procedure, we will have a level playing field.

The sad truth of the matter today is that women ONLY can legally decide whether or not they carry a child or unwanted tissue.

This is wrong.

mapleleaf,
I hear two messages in your post that don't necessarily mesh. Abortion is murder and the father needs to be able to wash his hands of responsibility for the child if he favors abortion and she doesn't. Could you please explain how these two views are compatible?

"On the other side of the arguement I think that pro-abortionist should just accept that life begins at the moment of conception"

Maniac, how can you claim to be undecided. By calling them pro-abortionist in the first place, you have shown you are not undecided. The second half of the statement is akin to saying 'Atheists should just accept the fact that there is a god and argue why it is irrelevant.'

Dex,
You are absolutely right. The first sentence represents my view. Murdering children of rape or incest is simply one wrong compounded upon another. We do not choose how we are conceived.
The rest of my comment represents my criticism of the present legal burden upon men, who bear no decision making power on what represents life, but must shoulder the financial hardship. This is unfair.

mapleleaf - noone is talking about mudering children here. Funny how you call yourself pro-life and people thinking different suddenly become "pro-death" or something.

Can you prove that life begins at conception? Or should we all accept it because the Pope said so? :)

And, do you really believe that men are the ones receiving unfair treatment and should have a bigger say?

Straight questions: if a man rapes a woman should he also has the right to say whether she is to give birth?

Does life begin at conception?
I think that a more basic question needs to be answered before that - what is life?

Is life biological activity? (well then life began nearly 4 billion years ago and has been uninterupted... you truly are your mom and your dad)
Is it unique DNA? (well then so are cancer cells, sperm, and eggs)
Is it unique DNA existing independent of the biological processes of it's mother and father? (upon birth)
Is it the presence of a "soul"? (whatever that is) (how are you going to measure this soul? how do we know that it exists and when it starts?)

It sounds silly, being that we are all living beings, that we can't agree what exactly life IS... and that is the root of the whole problem.

Straight questions: if a man rapes a woman should he also has the right to say whether she is to give birth?
====================================================
No. he should get castrated, and go to jail.

Can you prove that life begins at conception?
====================================================
That was proven long ago. It's called science. It has nothing to do with religion.

Define life. Is a pregnant cat really 7 cats or is it one cat about to produce 6 more cats? Is it all genetics? Or is there some aspect of being an active and cognizant part of this world that is involved? To me the pregnant cat is one cat... and it does not become 7 cats until later.

Define human life. Is being human simply having the right combination of base-pair sequences - regardless of form or consciousness? Or is there something more to being human?

Just for a moment, I'd like us all to consider that around 90% of fertilized eggs don't manage to bind to the walls of the uterus, and are naturally washed out in the menstral cycle. Should not the Pro-Life folks be devoting time and energy into making certain these "natural abortions" occur far less often? Imagine if one could reduce that number by just a factor of 50%! There would be many, many less abortions than today, and would likely take only a small investment by every pro-life advocate to the appropriate scientific research.

I thought it might be helpful to state explicitly that there are two possible wrongs involved in this decision:
1) The wrong of preventing a potential full-human life from developing;
2) The wrong of forcing a woman to carry an unwanted foetus in her body for nine months of her life, putting her health, career, marriage etc. at possible risk, plus whatever psychological damage might be caused.

It's an interesting phenomenon in much of our moral thinking, that we tend to criticise others for choosing what we believe is the greater of two wrongs (e.g. termination over forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term), but don't bat an eyelid when they choose what we believe is the less of two goods (e.g. buying an expensive meal in a restaurant rather than sending the same money to provide life-saving drugs to an African child infected with HIV).

Some more understanding for the women who wrestle with the dilemma of choosing between two difficult wrongs, even if we believe they end up making the wrong choice, might be appropriate from this overwhelmingly male dominated forum.

dmwits, well said.
---

Considering what ValHelmethead points out, isn't God guilty of the biggest sin by slaughtering 90% of all "humans" before they are even born? ...innocent babies... how brutal of God. ...ah - but that is God's will... we certainly dare not assert our will in our own lives - that is murder. /sarcasm

Consider that there may be a reason for these "natural abortions" - something wrong with the zygote/embryo, the mother's body is not prepared for it or she is stressed... I understand, for example, that a pregnant kangaroo will actually reabsorb a developing fetus into it's body if it is suffering under drought/starvation conditions. In such a case, apparently nature puts the life of the mother before the potential lives of her offspring. From a survivability standpoint it certainly makes sense.

I'd also like to point out that the best number of abortions would be 0. Just like the best number of death penalty cases, the best number of civilian casualties, the best number of limbs lost in surgery, the best number of people on welfare, and the best number of people who collect unemployment.

We live in an imperfect world, and abortion is an imperfect tool. We should not want to use this tool, and it should always be a last resort (as any invasive and unnecessary medical procedure is, although it is quite safe) but it should not be taken off the table because some, but not all, find it offends their morality.

Until there is a way to prevent every single woman reguardless of intent, access, knowlege, circumstance and social moroes from having an unintended pregnancy and having to carry it to term, abortion must remain as an option. To do anything less would be uncivilized.

"Uncivilized"....right...Maybe we should take up the Roman practice of throwing babies out with the trash...they were the pinnacle of civilization.

From a biological standpoint the purpose of offspring is to carry on the species... not the other way around. If having offspring in a particular situation actually hinders the long term viability of that family (as a subset of the species) to carry on then it is counterproductive. The appearance of a new baby in some situations can destroy chances of the mother moving up economically and educationally and socially/emotionally - and thus hurt her and her offspring and potential offspring in serious and long-lasting ways. As a mother would you choose having a kid when you are 18, drop out of school, struggle with low-paying jobs, warehouse the kid in cheap childcare, not spend much time with the child, etc. and never be able to provide anything more than mere subsistence for the child or would you choose aborting that pregnancy, seeking counseling, go to college, get a good career, marrying, have two or three kids at about 30, share child-rearing, provide quality pre-school, live in a better neighborhood and therefore probably a better elementary school for your two kids, etc... Which is better? Which is better for the family and society? Which builds towards a better future?

My wife got an abortion when she was young and still living with her mother... she still reflects on it and it saddens her - but she also never has regretted it. Her life would be nothing like it is if she went through with bearing that child. And the life that she has been able to provide - the loving, happy, attentive household for our two children would never have been possible... and her successful career as a teacher (an excellent teacher) would not have been possible. She touches the lives of many people in ways that wouldn't have happened if she was stuck at some dead-end job alone and "raising" a lonely, poorly educated child.

@DingleberryJones - i really am undecided, calling people pro-abortionist isn't meant to be judgmental merely factual. The rest of my post calls for honesty of language- if we are to allow killing we need to be clear that that is what it is and not play with the language to make it easier for us to do it.

I don't agree with your athesist analogy. I was trying to point out (although not very eloquently) that pro-abortionist can accept that life begins at conception and still be pro-abortion.

1st off i'm pro-life but do many people not coinsider it the death of two people when a pregnant women is murdered? Why is a baby punished because his/her mother decided that even though i could have not had sex i still did/
bte in terms of rape, I coinsider an abortion okay as long as it is not done through an abortion clinic. When a women has sex, that is the only choice they should have on the issue of abortion.

Im think Im confused, if you are in support of abortion rights so long as they dont take place in an abortion clinic, where would you suggest they take place? Canada and Mexico? Or some place very unsafe? (Not that all abortions turn out to be safe)