New South Dakota Abortion Law

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

No it isn't. Try reading a book or two by people like Locke, JS Mill, or Rousseau. It's in society's interest to have laws protecting property (like your personal body). If people could go around killing and stealing from one-another, we wouldn't have a society. Merely a "state of nature" and "state of war" with each other.

Read all that - they make you do it to get a degree in philosophy. So why do you need laws to protect your property - you've got arms, legs, and the ability to make and use tools - defend yourself! It's silly to assume society can't exist w/o laws - man existed thousands of years before the first formalized codes were ever written.

Think about that for a minute.

Everyone's favorite pulitzer prize winner Guns, Germs, and Steel has some good sections on the structural requirements of societies. If you want to define society as a small group of people where everyone knows everyone else, then maybe they can get by without laws. (although they will still have an informal rule structure which is pretty indistinguishable from laws) As soon as you get beyond that, it's a requirement... which is of course the society that they were referring to and that nearly every human on earth has lived in for quite some time now.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

An abortion is not a murder.

Originally posted by: Duwelon
A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.

A fetus isn't a human being and when a pregnancy could impact her health, finances, employment, family situation, etc it is about her. She should have the say in the decision to continue her pregnancy or terminate it. I agree there should be strict rules regarding how far along a pregnancy can be aborted but the final decision should be for the woman who is pregnant, not you and your morality stance.

You may say "an abortion is not a murder" and "a fetus isn't a human being", but that doesn't make them facts. Some people used to say Africans weren't really humans either, but that certainly wasn't a fact.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: dphantom

I will never "mind my own business" when a child's life is at risk. A child locked up in a hot car, a child abused, a child about to be killed, I will "butt in".

Likewise, I will "butt in" whenever I see or hear one person trying to tell another person that he or she has less of a right to believe in something than someone else provided that it is in accordance with the law.

The bottom line is this right here folks. As more and more time passes, people are becoming more pro choice. You don't have to like it and you can fight it till the day you die but that is just the way it is. The change is slow and gradual but that is exactly what is happening. Not because it is right. Not because it is wrong. It is because that is what they want to believe. While some may not ever be willing to have an abortion themselves when faced with the choice, they are perfectly alright with others making their own choice. They value and respect their own right to make their own choice. Therefore, they feel it is only fair that they value and respect the right of others to make their own choices as well.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: eskimospy
Our government won't focus on birth control because our society as a whole is batshit insane about sex. Must be our Puritanical roots. I for one will never understand the US anti-sex movement. (and don't fool yourself, that's what it is)

I've yet to meet anyone who's anti-sex. Almost everyone who's tried it really seems to like it, and most who haven't tried really want to. But perhaps you're just looking for strawmen, instead of explaining why gov't should be involved in birth control to begin with.

You must not have come from any strict religious background. 😛

Actually, I know several families with 5+ kids, and they're extremely religious. One couple just had their 9th child two weeks ago. I think 9 children is pretty good evidence that they're not "anti-sex", unless storks really do bring the babies.

Uh... I grew up in the Mormon church. In fact, I'm the 5th of 6 kids myself, an average-sized Mormon family at the time (we had one family in the ward with 14 kids). That doesn't mean they aren't anti-sex, because they are. Of course they enjoy it, but they don't talk about that because sex is supposed to be for procreation ONLY. Of course it's not, but this is just one example of their glaring hypocrisies.

True story: a friend of mine was ex-communicated from the Mormon church at age 18. It was discovered that he and another girl in the church were having sex. But that's not why he was ex-communicated. That happened because, instead of begging forgiveness, etc., he told the bishop that he enjoyed it.

 

[Praxis1452]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

Yes I do.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
You may say "an abortion is not a murder" and "a fetus isn't a human being", but that doesn't make them facts. Some people used to say Africans weren't really humans either, but that certainly wasn't a fact.

Using that logic, there will never be a time or way to determine for a fact what stage of development a human actually is classified as a human. Therefore, that logic concludes that the issue is 100% subjective which means everyone is just going to have to go with their own opinion. They have to go with their own choice.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

No it isn't. Try reading a book or two by people like Locke, JS Mill, or Rousseau. It's in society's interest to have laws protecting property (like your personal body). If people could go around killing and stealing from one-another, we wouldn't have a society. Merely a "state of nature" and "state of war" with each other.

Read all that - they make you do it to get a degree in philosophy. So why do you need laws to protect your property - you've got arms, legs, and the ability to make and use tools - defend yourself! It's silly to assume society can't exist w/o laws - man existed thousands of years before the first formalized codes were ever written.

Think about that for a minute.

Everyone's favorite pulitzer prize winner Guns, Germs, and Steel has some good sections on the structural requirements of societies. If you want to define society as a small group of people where everyone knows everyone else, then maybe they can get by without laws. (although they will still have an informal rule structure which is pretty indistinguishable from laws) As soon as you get beyond that, it's a requirement... which is of course the society that they were referring to and that nearly every human on earth has lived in for quite some time now.

Well of course - which is why I threw in the word "formalized". Prior to laws, societies had mores, customs, traditions, etc., which compromised their informal legal codes. But it's silly to suggest laws are separate and distinct from "morality". Morals are defined as:

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

Therefore, law is merely morality made official!

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Well of course - which is why I threw in the word "formalized". Prior to laws, societies had mores, customs, traditions, etc., which compromised their informal legal codes. But it's silly to suggest laws are separate and distinct from "morality". Morals are defined as:

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

Therefore, law is merely morality made official!

In a lot of sense, that is correct. That is also why we are seeing more and more people become prochoice even though they may not be willing to get an abortion themselves. That is also why slowly over time we will see the law change to reflect the changes in the people's morality.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

This is a poor argument, because morality is debatable. Most people would universally agree that the morality of the Golden Rule (or Ethic of Reciprocity) makes for the best criminal code. So when people complain about others "pushing" morality onto the people, they're not talking about that code of morality, but some other code which is NOT universally shared.
At which point, I'd like to point out that Jesus Himself said in the Bible that the Golden Rule comprised "the sum of the Law" on several different occasions.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

An abortion is not a murder.

Originally posted by: Duwelon
A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.

A fetus isn't a human being and when a pregnancy could impact her health, finances, employment, family situation, etc it is about her. She should have the say in the decision to continue her pregnancy or terminate it. I agree there should be strict rules regarding how far along a pregnancy can be aborted but the final decision should be for the woman who is pregnant, not you and your morality stance.

You may say "an abortion is not a murder" and "a fetus isn't a human being", but that doesn't make them facts. Some people used to say Africans weren't really humans either, but that certainly wasn't a fact.

The law says abortion isn't murder and a fetus isn't a human being. I just happen to agree with it.

Are you comparing aborting unborn, unconscious fetuses to the past treatment of living, conscious African Americans?

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Well of course - which is why I threw in the word "formalized". Prior to laws, societies had mores, customs, traditions, etc., which compromised their informal legal codes. But it's silly to suggest laws are separate and distinct from "morality". Morals are defined as:

of, pertaining to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical:

Therefore, law is merely morality made official!

Straw man. And you know it too.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

This is a poor argument, because morality is debatable. Most people would universally agree that the morality of the Golden Rule (or Ethic of Reciprocity) makes for the best criminal code. So when people complain about others "pushing" morality onto the people, they're not talking about that code of morality, but some other code which is NOT universally shared.

Well of course morality's debatable, or ethicists would have more to show for the last 2000+ years. But I think you presume too much in thinking there's much universality of morality. Sure, in theory most of us agree about the "Golden Rule", but in practice, we rationalize all sorts of distinctions. The sheer amount of violence in the world (not just random, emotionally-based violence, but systemic, societally-sanctioned violence) suggests there's not much in the way of universal morality.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Duwelon
Do what you believe is right, fine, but when millions upon millions of American's don't want unborn human beings murdered, it would be barbaric for them not to stand up to the injustice that is occurring in the name of "pro choice".

An abortion is not a murder.

Originally posted by: Duwelon
A woman having an abortion isn't just about her, it's about the human being she's having murdered for her own convenience. There are adoption waiting lists, how anyone can be so morally bankrupt to want to off an unborn baby over letting a family adopt it is beyond me.

A fetus isn't a human being and when a pregnancy could impact her health, finances, employment, family situation, etc it is about her. She should have the say in the decision to continue her pregnancy or terminate it. I agree there should be strict rules regarding how far along a pregnancy can be aborted but the final decision should be for the woman who is pregnant, not you and your morality stance.

You may say "an abortion is not a murder" and "a fetus isn't a human being", but that doesn't make them facts. Some people used to say Africans weren't really humans either, but that certainly wasn't a fact.

The law says abortion isn't murder and a fetus isn't a human being. I just happen to agree with it.

Are you comparing aborting unborn, unconscious fetuses to the past treatment of living, conscious African Americans?

Yes I am. And what does consciousness have to do with it? It's still illegal to kill someone in a coma. You also used the word living. I think most scientists would agree a fetus meets the scientific definition of "living".

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Brainonska511
At a curiosity, why does this always become such a big freakin' argument. Surely, the government has more important things to do than push morality onto people.

:roll:

Practically the entire criminal code is essentially "morality" being pushed onto people. Do you have issues with that?

This is a poor argument, because morality is debatable. Most people would universally agree that the morality of the Golden Rule (or Ethic of Reciprocity) makes for the best criminal code. So when people complain about others "pushing" morality onto the people, they're not talking about that code of morality, but some other code which is NOT universally shared.

Well of course morality's debatable, or ethicists would have more to show for the last 2000+ years. But I think you presume too much in thinking there's much universality of morality. Sure, in theory most of us agree about the "Golden Rule", but in practice, we rationalize all sorts of distinctions. The sheer amount of violence in the world (not just random, emotionally-based violence, but systemic, societally-sanctioned violence) suggests there's not much in the way of universal morality.

Which is why we have democracy. It's not perfect, just better than any other way of settling out these differences.

 

[Moonbeam]

Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

A secular pragmatist has to live in the real world and navigate these competing forces. So we define human rights at the third trimester or some such relative point like we do the age of drinking driving and military service and other such intangibles, no? Rational people try as best they can to accommodate the irrational of both sides of the issue, no?

 

[Moonbeam]

Pro life is anti women, no, in that to prevent abortion one has to make a woman have a child she doesn't want to carry. Imagine, that instead of forcing some such mother to carry such a child, the law had the will and the means to remove it and implant it in some randomly selected religious fundamentalist pro choice male for him to carry to term. This of course would be necessary as law because the woman might kill herself and thus the child. Such a man would have to carry the child to save the mother and baby. You know when it comes to moral absolutes you do what you have to do to save a life.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: DomS

Originally posted by: child of wonder
Being a South Dakota resident, I also find this ridiculous. Our legislature is "anti-abortion" and not "pro-life" since they're so worried about protecting people pre-birth but once you're born they couldn't give a shit less. No one is lining up to adopt unwanted babies. No one is lining up to be foster parents.

I'm vehemently anti-abortion, and here's why. Just because you don't LIKE the fact that it's a life inside you, or it's a baby, doesn't make it untrue. It may be your body, but if you choose to have sex, you run the risk of getting pregnant and creating another life, and you have no right to end that life, as you assumed the risk by having sex. Now I always hear people say 'oooh but if the baby was born the parents wouldn't want it and might be mean or abusive, or give it up for adoption, or foster care'. That's such an insult to anyone who's had abusive or neglectful parents, been in orphanages, or foster care. That very statement that it's better to abort it because the parents might be neglectful implies that if you experienced that type of thing growing up you would've been better off being aborted.

The solution here is pretty obvious: that's what you believe, so don't get an abortion. Don't tell anybody else they can't, though.

You're like the dummies that say, if you don't want to hit your kids, then don't, but don't tell me I can't! They're MY kids!!

Yes, that's exactly what I'm like. I bow to your superior logic and debate skills and hereby renounce my former position that I may scrape at your feet and beg your approval, oh mighty one.

 

[Xavier434]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I'll answer that with my thoughts. The reason why is because after the child is born it is no longer a question of what is fair between the mother and father. It is now a question between what is fair between the mother, the father, and the child. That child, once born, has rights like any other citizen in this country according to the law.

Now, does that mean I can sit here and say to everyone that I believe that this whole thing is completely fair from A-Z? Nope, because it is not. There is no way to do that properly. The needle must tip one direction. The direction which has been chosen is towards that of the child after it is born. It also just so happens that the way which was chosen in this country under its laws happens to be the way I agree with the most.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I'll answer that with my thoughts. The reason why is because after the child is born it is no longer a question of what is fair between the mother and father. It is now a question between what is fair between the mother, the father, and the child. That child, once born, has rights like any other citizen in this country according to the law.

Now, does that mean I can sit here and say to everyone that I believe that this whole thing is completely fair from A-Z? Nope, because it is not. There is no way to do that properly. The needle must tip one direction. The direction which has been chosen is towards that of the child after it is born. It also just so happens that the way which was chosen in this country under its laws happens to be the way I agree with the most.

But you still haven't explained why the man should be responsible when the woman choose to keep the child, and is capable of raising it without him. Plenty of children are raised by their mothers alone. If the father didn't want the child, why is he morally culpable just because he had sex?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

The author of this article makes a very good point. All these "pro-life" people (a misnomer, as it makes it sound as though pro-choice people are anti-life) argue that a fetus is a human being. Fine. No human being has the right to live inside another human being without that person's expressed consent. If a woman does not want a human being living inside her, they should take the living human being (fetus) out of her and see if it survives on its own. If it does, bully for it, it will have a hell of a story for later. If not, well, God must not have wanted that human being to live or he would have saved it.

Or maybe a fetus is a human being in the same way an egg is a chicken. It's a stage in the developmental process to make an animal of a particular species, but it is not yet a fully formed organism. A cluster of cells the size of a tic-tac is not a human being.

As to the SD law, it's ridiculous, and potentially damaging. The thing is, these pamphlets aren't benign. Women who are considering abortion are typically emotionally wrecked. It's not an easy decision to make; not only is the procedure invasive and painful, but the social stigma surrounding abortion means many women feel they must seek one in private, without being able to talk to their family or friends. Having a pamphlet that explicitly calls them murderers does nothing to help these women with their self-esteem. Even if they decide to keep the child or go the adoption route, they are going to continue to be haunted by the idea that they were almost "murderers," a branding which carries heavy weight in any culture. This move turns every abortion clinic in SD into one of those fake clinics where women are pressured not to get abortions and told they are going to hell for considering it. It's one thing to believe something strongly, but to go to such ends to try to get others to believe as you do is wrong.

Finally, I was an adopted child. I'm glad that my parents weren't pro-choice, or, if they were, that they decided to go the adoption route instead. However, if they hadn't, it wouldn't have bothered me a bit. I never would have existed at a cognitive level, so I couldn't possibly have felt regret for not being born. I am firmly pro-choice, though anti-abortion. I believe abortions should be safe, legal and available for anyone seeking one, but I would encourage it solely as a last resort. With the wide variety of birth control available, there is little reason to see any accidental pregnancies, and even then, the adoption system is a good route to take if a woman can bring herself to go through the ordeal of childbirth. I had a girlfriend who volunteered at an abortion clinic and the women who went through the procedure had horror stories you wouldn't believe. It is not a comfortable process. Conservatives saying that women will simply use abortion clinics as birth control are absolutely wrong, as once a woman has had an abortion, she won't want a second.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Abortion is an interesting issue. Is about a war between the absolute and the relative.

If life is not absolutely sacred then somebody somewhere can and probably will decide that your life is worthless. Our country is founded on the notion that life liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights, that there is nobody who can take them away.

On the other hand, when you subscribe to the notion that truth is absolute a number of problems arise, not the least of which is that whatever YOU happen to think is truth you then DEFINE as the absolute when if fact it is only your personal delusion. Also there is the matter of competing absolutes and how to prioritize them. If a fetus has a right to life, then the mother can't be free from a form of bondage and slavery. Here we see the absolutists blame such mothers as morally culpable because they had sex and therefore have to live with the resultant slavery. So these nice life preserving folk become negative and evil in their opinions of women as it were.

Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I am an absolutist. It's tough shit for him. He is a slave both to the wish of the mother and his legal obligations to a real breathing and living child. Sorry, but if you want to fuck, know you could be fucking yourself or maybe should be in the first place, if you're not. Everybody knows that a baby is a person and the law knows it too. Everybody also knows that to abort or not is solely the right of the woman.

Edit: One piece of good news I CAN offer you though is that at that point it is also too late for the MOTHER.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I'll answer that with my thoughts. The reason why is because after the child is born it is no longer a question of what is fair between the mother and father. It is now a question between what is fair between the mother, the father, and the child. That child, once born, has rights like any other citizen in this country according to the law.

Now, does that mean I can sit here and say to everyone that I believe that this whole thing is completely fair from A-Z? Nope, because it is not. There is no way to do that properly. The needle must tip one direction. The direction which has been chosen is towards that of the child after it is born. It also just so happens that the way which was chosen in this country under its laws happens to be the way I agree with the most.

But you still haven't explained why the man should be responsible when the woman choose to keep the child, and is capable of raising it without him. Plenty of children are raised by their mothers alone. If the father didn't want the child, why is he morally culpable just because he had sex?

Who said anything about being morally culpable? He's only legally culpable for financial support.

Plus, having sex has the risk of leading to pregnancy, even if some form of birth control is used. If you don't want to be culpable for the choice a woman would make in keeping a pregnancy, then there is a simple solution: don't have sex.

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: Mursilis

Originally posted by: Xavier434

Originally posted by: Mursilis
Question for you, Moonbeam: If a man has sex with a woman and gets her pregnant, and she decides to keep it, is he "morally culpable" for the care and upbringing of the child (at least, financially)? What if he used a condom (which failed, as does happen), and offered to pay for an abortion, which she refused? Why should he be beholden to this child he did not want for the next 18+ years? Your thoughts?

I'll answer that with my thoughts. The reason why is because after the child is born it is no longer a question of what is fair between the mother and father. It is now a question between what is fair between the mother, the father, and the child. That child, once born, has rights like any other citizen in this country according to the law.

Now, does that mean I can sit here and say to everyone that I believe that this whole thing is completely fair from A-Z? Nope, because it is not. There is no way to do that properly. The needle must tip one direction. The direction which has been chosen is towards that of the child after it is born. It also just so happens that the way which was chosen in this country under its laws happens to be the way I agree with the most.

But you still haven't explained why the man should be responsible when the woman choose to keep the child, and is capable of raising it without him. Plenty of children are raised by their mothers alone. If the father didn't want the child, why is he morally culpable just because he had sex?

Because his actions lead to the creation of the baby. Keep your dick in your pants and you wont have to worry about being held financially and emotionally responsible for a child.

 

[Genx87]

btw me being against abortion people are going about this all wrong. It is always an all or nothing approach. They need to hammer down the brutality and digusting on all levels practice of partial birth abortion. I'd be happy if in my lifetime if we outlawed that on the federal level. That procedure is something out of Dr Mengele(sp)'s wildest dream.