Abortion: Putting A Face On The Issue

I'm talking about seeing the fetus she is carrying, inside her body. Although I agree it should be included in basic biology classes as well.

When I say drinking age, I mean 21, not 18. I would think the parents of that mother would make the decision after seeing the sonogram and waiting a week to consider the ramifications. As it stands now, that would reduce abortion majorly.

As for the father's input, he would have to agree to an abortion before it could be preformed, if he didn't agree, he could seek damages, as it was his fetus as much as it was her's.

If you believe the father has no right to damages, then you must feel he isn't responsible for support payments. If it's not his fetus, then he has no responsibility.

If I assume you only value your own opinion over mine, would that be fair, based on the fact you show no respect for my opinion? Probably, but I do show respect for others opinions, unlike those who claim to be pro-choice. I never seek to ridicule others for their opinions. Look at many of the posts directed at me, not exactly what one would consider respectful disagreement. But I don't complain, unless it's a vicious personal attack. Then I just report it.

I have even said in past threads that even though I disagree with an opinion, I will fight to the death to support your right to believe and say it.

I wouldn't oppose this, but I do think that it should be paid for by the legislative body that enacts it. It should also have an exemption if the government is unable provide the sonogram at no charge to the woman on the day she visits the doctor. Unless sonogram technology has improved greatly, I don’t see it making much difference. I find it easier to find the face of the virgin mary in a tortilla than see a fetus on a sonogram.

Is the drinking age 21? Well, I think both ages should be 18 (actually I think the drinking age law is silly, but americans seem to not want personal responsibility). I don't think it should have to be the parents though, that's far too open to abuse.

Yes, i think it would be fair that if he wanted, he could go and pick up the fetus afterwards and keep it, since he did contribute.

Do you believe this? If so, then would you support keeping abortion legal as long as men didn't have to make support payments?

You nitpicked me to death about something even when I said "seemed". Do not attempt to say you've been nothing but respectful, it simply is not true.

Nitpicking points isn't considered disrespectful. I have been nitpicked too, but I'm not bothered by it. It's not a personal attack.

New technology, with 3-d color sonograms makes the womb a store front window display. I don't know when you last saw one, but they aren't the grainy, b&w fuzz with great big pixels.

I think the jury's still out on any long term effects those might have on the baby, since it's new technology. There are risks involved with having the "womb with a view"

Perhaps this is a difference in opinion about what a moral is? Among my morals, I don't just include ones specific to a religious view, such as avoiding promiscuity. I also include supporting democracy, human rights, and equality under the law.

The problem with things like prohibition is that the law passed didn't conform with a widely held moral. It became unenforceable because people didn't hold it as their own value. Contrast this with the freedom of speech. Most people don't even think of this as a moral value, but it is. It's simply so widely agreed with that its "morality" is hardly ever discussed. This also gives you an indicator of how likely we are to lose it, because it would be lost first as a value people hold to be important.

Laws are a barometer to the shifting morals of the population. They can certainly influence our values, but by the same token any law that doesn't reflect a widely held moral will not be a tool for anything but oppression and defiance. Where this applies to abortion, as demonstrated around the world women are willing to risk becoming criminals rather than face a child with a life they can't provide for properly. In other words these laws are not moral, according to their own sense of values.

It can't be any more dangerous to the baby than an abortion though.

I didn't say it was a personal attack or that I considered nitpicking being disrespectful. I was talking about using the word "seem". You have been disrespectful whether you want to believe it or not. (and no, I'm not denying any disrespect on my part.)

I'm following the logic of those who say we must allow freedom of choice. Unfortunately, they mean freedom to abort the child, because there is no need to choose to let the child live, just don't kill the fetus and it lives.

Ummm no, we mean freedom to choose either to carry the child full term, or abort it. Not JUST abortion. You seem to fail to see that EVERY SINGLE TIME!

What happened is you made a broad generalization at anyone who doesn't agree with you, then when you are called to the carpet on it, you take it personally or as a sign of disrespect. In debate there will be winning points and losing points. No one should take offense to being debated once they choose to join the fray.

When I say disrespectful, I mean personally attacking another, completely ignoring the argument made. An example would be...

Participant 1: Freedom must include the freedom to be alive. Therefore, abortion attacks our very freedoms at the most rudimentary level.

Participant 2: Yeah, but your an egghead and your feet stink. Freedom for people like you should be limited or ended. Your kind doesn't deserve to walk with the rest of us, in an upright position.

The attack has no bearing on the debate at all.

New technology, with 3-d color sonograms makes the womb a store front window display. I don't know when you last saw one, but they aren't the grainy, b&w fuzz with great big pixels.

If a girl is too immature under the law to drink a single beer, then she is surely too young to understand the consequences of killing the child within her. Her parents are the ones who make life and death decisions for her, surely they can be trusted to decide what's best for both their child and grandchild.

You ignored the point about damages. He can pick up the fetus and the first payment on the settlement.

I'm following the logic of those who say we must allow freedom of choice. Unfortunately, they mean freedom to abort the child, because there is no need to choose to let the child live, just don't kill the fetus and it lives. Women get to choose to either be parents or not, are you against allowing the father a choice to back out, before viability? Or are you one who demands the father has no choice, only full responsibility?

.......

Are you changing the definition of "personal attack" now? My goodness, whatever it takes to suit your needs. I don't believe anyone has called you a murderer or jerk or even sweetie.

.......

If abortion is made illegal in the United States, women will still try to seek out abortion, the question is, would you rather they die?

I'm happy to say that these threads have served to strengthen my resolve that a woman has a right to choose and I'll be sending some money to NARAL, CARAL and PLANNED PARENTHOOD today.

ah, okay

Yet at 18 she can join the army (or is that 17?)
She can vote
She can move out of the house and live independently
She can get married

which is why I think the 21 drinking age law is silly

The federal government, however, would withhold some highway transportation funding to states which allowed drinking at a lower age, as it does in the territory of Puerto Rico, where the legal drinking age is 18.

....

Yes, if you are willing to support legal abortion, then I will support the right for a man to make a single lump sum payment during the pregnancy to remove himself of all further rights and responsibilities.
Are you up for it?

Just clarifying this for you. Here in the US we can vote at the age of 18, join the army (you might be able to join at 17, but it's weird and I don't think they allow you to see combat til you're 1. The marriageable age varies from state to state but it is generally 18. And unless you've been emancipated, I do believe you are correct about moving out of the house and living independently.

The drinking age used to be 18, then they raised it to 19, then some states kept their drinking age 19 when nationally it went to 21 (we don't have a federal drinking age, just a "suggestion" from the federal government).


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drinking_age

I would say there are risks with any crime, especially crimes where someone is killed.

The woman knows the risks. I also feel badly for a robber who gets killed breaking into a home. He knew the risk though.

I'm not willing to accept the rational that a crime should be legalized to make the crime safer for the person committing the crime.

Sorry, but it's not a crime now. You are all for doing away with abortions altogether, right? You seem to want no exceptions for rape or incest. Those ARE crimes. Since when does the victim get penalized for a crime?

are you against allowing the father a choice to back out, before viability? Or are you one who demands the father has no choice, only full responsibility?

Ah, you are willing to deal if the end result is the death of the child? But no deals that would give the father his child alive? That seems rather one-sided, wouldn't you say, not much compromise if you ask me. The father should have the right to "choose". You are only willing to offer him a way to support abortion, not to grow old with his child caring for him.

I would say there is a debt to be paid to him if she insists on abortion. The value would be at least multimillion's of US dollars.

The child is just as much a victim, she is surely not the criminal, yet you are willing to punish her for the rape or incest.