Is Abortion Immoral?

[WaitingInfinity]

I have always struggled with this question since leaving Christianity. I don't know if it is immoral or moral. I think it does involve the decision of two people, but I think that it involves the woman more greatly. After all, she is the one who has to give up 9 months of her life to take extra good care of herself so her child is okay, go through pain and sickness, etc. So it definitely shouldn't be all up to the father because if the woman really doesn't want to go through all that (or have a child) then she should not have to because of the man.

 

I never want to have children and I have always been afraid of an accidental pregnancy in the future because I absolutely do not want to be pregnant or have a child. This distressed me greatly when I was a Christian because I felt I couldn't do anything about it if I did get pregnant. Now though, I would consider having an abortion in the first trimester. I would consult the father and see what he thought. Certainly I would weigh his opinion into my decision, but ultimately, it is my decision. And I hope that the father would respect that.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

[falemon]

@Pantaphobia, what did you think about my comments?

 

Personal story: my mum had an abortion (presumably without my father's knowledge). She asked me about it and knowing why she was asking and why what her fears were I helped her make her decision by reinforcing what she was thinking.

 

Did he have a "right" to know? I couldn't say, but because of the the way he behaves his inevitable actions waives his right to respond. Which makes me think about the relation between ones right to know and ones level of responsibility.

 

Around the same time my friend's mum was in a similar situation (though the father was a complete arse and their relationship was already doomed for failure). My friend protested against it and as expected the jerk of a father left, but they had the child. He is such a beautiful child and although he didn't know who I was when I last saw him he was so friendly and sweet. My friend loves her little brother now and I'm sure she wouldn't want to change anything, though her dispositions at the time still stand.

 

Likewise I sometimes think it would have been better if some people were not born, because as beautiful as that person may be, the overall outcome is not so good. And this is a completely objective look at the situation. Even myself, if I hadn't been born my mum would not have committed to such an arse of a partner. But it takes a lot of zen meditation to look at life in this way.

 

If my girlfriend (wait, I don't have one at the moment), but if I got a girl pregnant and she wanted an abortion, as much as I may not like it I can remove my personal dispositions and accept the world for what it is as it is. But that's just me.

 

And yes, sometimes I wish I could be more normal lol

[falemon]

I never want to have children and I have always been afraid of an accidental pregnancy in the future because I absolutely do not want to be pregnant or have a child. This distressed me greatly when I was a Christian because I felt I couldn't do anything about it if I did get pregnant. Now though, I would consider having an abortion in the first trimester. I would consult the father and see what he thought. Certainly I would weigh his opinion into my decision, but ultimately, it is my decision. And I hope that the father would respect that.

Well that's the key, it should always be the woman's decision, but providing the man is reasonable it is only fair to consult him and at least let him present a case. Even when it's the other way and one person wants to keep the baby and the other wants to abort it. Let's communicate about these decisions, even if the decision doesn't change I believe the communication alone is worth it. Maybe it might make us think a little more about other issues in life and the world at large.

[Pantophobia]

@falemon, which ones, specifically?
 

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

 

Oh, totally. And better birth control options, education, etc., are all part of that, too. Misrepresenting the pro-choice movement as some sort of "anti-man" movement is completely untrue (but what a lot of the antis claim). It's about reproductive education, knowledge, and safe options, for men and women.

 

 

I know the man in your situation deceived you; maybe it was intentional. 

 

 

Since I found out he also had another girlfriend the same week I found out I was pregnant, yeah, I'm pretty sure it was intentional. 

 

But I don't want to be misunderstood, either. I didn't have an abortion as some sort of act of anger/revenge because I found out he was cheating on me. In fact, it was better that he was. At that time, and in the state I was in, if we remained in a relationship, he might have been able to convince me to have it against my own better judgement. But I knew with every fiber of my being that I was not in any place, in any way, to bring a child into the world. And I've never had a moment's regret about that decision. 

 

But consider all the men out there who never even knew they could have been a father.  Think of those whose voices were silenced by the woman getting an abortion without even telling them they were pregnant.  Sure, some have just shrugged it off, perhaps most.  But I guarantee you at least one of them is losing sleep over the child they will never get to hold.

 

 

I recently found out that the guy who knocked me up, now married to the woman he was cheating on me with, has two adopted children because they aren't able to have biological ones. Do you think he lost sleep over the biological child he'll never have?

 

And ultimately, does that matter? Should it matter? Should his regret have more weight than my experiences?

 

It's never an easy decision, and yeah, some fathers are probably going to be hurt, sad, vengeful, angry, feel it's not fair, whatever. But that doesn't mean fathers should have the same voice in pregnancy. The stories I could tell you about my (Christian) cousins talking big about their pregnant girlfriends and "It's my baby!" and how much they want it and love it, and will be awesome fathers, only to disappear from the picture a couple years later…. So does what they say/think in the face of the moment carry the same weight as the mothers' decisions?

 

I'm sure in a huge number of these cases, women take their partners' feelings and thoughts into consideration. But bottom line? Uterus trumps testes. (I really want to see that as a Smiley icon, btw!)

[SilentLoner]

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

 

You say you don't want to argue that a father should be able to outweigh the mother's rights. But what you have suggested is exactly that. It is the woman's body, not the man's. Saying the father can veto her decision to abort is giving control of the woman's body to him. That's not "fair" - it gives the man more rights. It cannot work this way. 

 

A man involved in a pregnancy also does not have an equality of experience that would confer the right to veto. The man does not undergo the health risks. The man does not suffer the limitations on activity (including loss of pay, loss of promotion, and possibly job loss) that go with being pregnant. The man does not suffer the pain and/or undergo the serious surgical procedure required to deliver the baby and the man does not experience the permanent changes to the body caused by bringing a child to term. It is not fair, but there is no equality of experience that can give an equal say.

 

If a woman who values her relationship with the father will work her decision out with him. True, it's not fair, just the way it isn't fair that pregnancy and delivery can't be shared. But "sharing" pregnancy and birth between the sexes wasn't an adaptation that had any survival values for mammals as we evolved, so "fair" is out the window. 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

If it required conviction, how could an abortion possibly be carried out during the early, safe weeks? It would be unusual for a case to come to trial in less than a year in many places.

 

It needs to be woman's private decision.

[RankStranger]

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

If I was king of the world, I would give women the exclusive right to decide whether or not they would carry a pregnancy to term. Their body; their decision.

 

But I would also give potential fathers the ability to 'opt out'. If they want parental rights when the kid is born... then they would be obligated to pay child support. If they don't want to pay child support- then they don't get parental rights.

 

It isn't exactly fair, but neither is biology.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

 

You say you don't want to argue that a father should be able to outweigh the mother's rights. But what you have suggested is exactly that. It is the woman's body, not the man's. Saying the father can veto her decision to abort is giving control of the woman's body to him. That's not "fair" - it gives the man more rights. It cannot work this way. 

 

A man involved in a pregnancy also does not have an equality of experience that would confer the right to veto. The man does not undergo the health risks. The man does not suffer the limitations on activity (including loss of pay, loss of promotion, and possibly job loss) that go with being pregnant. The man does not suffer the pain and/or undergo the serious surgical procedure required to deliver the baby and the man does not experience the permanent changes to the body caused by bringing a child to term. It is not fair, but there is no equality of experience that can give an equal say.

 

If a woman who values her relationship with the father will work her decision out with him. True, it's not fair, just the way it isn't fair that pregnancy and delivery can't be shared. But "sharing" pregnancy and birth between the sexes wasn't an adaptation that had any survival values for mammals as we evolved, so "fair" is out the window. 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

If it required conviction, how could an abortion possibly be carried out during the early, safe weeks? It would be unusual for a case to come to trial in less than a year in many places.

 

It needs to be woman's private decision.

 

You have completely mis-stated what I said.  I never said the father should be able to veto the mother; nor did I say anything about giving anyone control over anyone else's body.  You completely fabricated an argument against an argument I never made.

 

That said, my wife's body does not belong to me, nor do I want control over it.  My son, however, is mine.  He is my DNA, my blood, my family line, just as much as he is his mother's.  Yes, his mother went through the pangs of pregnancy and I didn't have it quite as bad.  That fact, however, does not make my son any more hers than mine.

 

I simply want more equality for the men out there who would be good fathers for their kids.

[Pantophobia]

And what about the ones who, twenty years later, decide they want to opt back in? 

 

 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

I'll co-sign SilentLoner's whole post, but this is an important issue to underscore here.

 

The "not fair" of what men experience with pregnancy and abortion compared to what women experience is apples and oranges. My body is not up for a group vote before I get to decided what choices to make about it. 

 

ETA:

 

That said, my wife's body does not belong to me, nor do I want control over it.  My son, however, is mine.  He is my DNA, my blood, my family line, just as much as he is his mother's.  Yes, his mother went through the pangs of pregnancy and I didn't have it quite as bad.  That fact, however, does not make my son any more hers than mine.

 

 

As long as you truly understand the distinction that, when half of your blood/DNA is being housed by another human being, her decision > yours. Because a lot of people will claim otherwise!

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Okay Pantophobia, we disagree and neither of us is going to change how we feel.  I'm okay with that.  Let's not argue anymore.

[mymistake]

Okay Pantophobia, we disagree and neither of us is going to change how we feel.  I'm okay with that.  Let's not argue anymore.

 

These abortions debates can be volatile.

[RankStranger]

And what about the ones who, twenty years later, decide they want to opt back in?

 

 

 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

I'll co-sign SilentLoner's whole post, but this is an important issue to underscore here.

 

The "not fair" of what men experience with pregnancy and abortion compared to what women experience is apples and oranges. My body is not up for a group vote before I get to decided what choices to make about it.

 

ETA:

 

 

That said, my wife's body does not belong to me, nor do I want control over it. My son, however, is mine. He is my DNA, my blood, my family line, just as much as he is his mother's. Yes, his mother went through the pangs of pregnancy and I didn't have it quite as bad. That fact, however, does not make my son any more hers than mine.

 

As long as you truly understand the distinction that, when half of your blood/DNA is being housed by another human being, her decision > yours. Because a lot of people will claim otherwise!

If it's 20 years later then everybody in question is an adult who can do what they want... so it's a moot point.

 

To me a more difficult question would be to ask what happens if the father wants to opt in 10 years down the road. And I guess he would owe a shit-ton of back child support. But the system we have right now is fucked up. Once a woman is pregnant, they still have a choice (in theory... In practice lots of politicians fuck with that choice every chance they get). But men right now don't have a choice at that point- they're at the mercy of whatever the woman decides. And he will be her indentured servant if she wants. It's fucked up.

[falemon]

@falemon, which ones, specifically?

 

This post:

 

 

 

The biological rights of the father should not, do not, and cannot trump the rights of the pregnant woman actually carrying the baby. 

 

Sorry if some men think that is "unfair," but, until a man can either get pregnant or have the fetus implanted in his own body to continue the pregnancy, that's the bottom moral line. What a man goes through with pregnancy is in no way equal to what a woman goes through. 

We may just have to disagree on this, which is okay.  But if the biological father is expected to provide for the child after it is born, then the biological father should also be entitled to have some say in whether his child is aborted.  It takes two people to create that life; both should be involved in terminating it.  I know I'm crazy for thinking this way, but I'm a father myself and would not trade my son's life for anything.

But such is life. Simple fact of the situation is that it affects two people in different ways, but how does one resolve such a conflict?

 

Does having a say mean overriding another person's decision?

 

On the flip side I think we all as human beings have a bias towards our own self entitlement to authority. The man says he should have final say because it's his seed (or some other reason), the woman because she carries the baby (or some other reason), but so long as we do this without acknowledging the fact the decision affects at least two people in different ways we'll never be able to get along as human beings.

 

And this self entitlement to authority and priority is at the basis of most pointless conflicts that could easily have been resolved if people could be more objective.

[RogueScholar]

I have to look at the issue as pragmatically as possible. The fact of the matter is that abortion is a medical procedure. It's a medical procedure that can certainly impact the lives of people other than the patient, but so are things like radiation therapy, transplants and cancer chemotherapy. The ultimate decision should rest with a well informed patient and a qualified medical provider. What constitutes informed consent is certainly a worthy debate, but not necessarily what we are currently discussing. This means that potential fathers may end up dealing with suboptimal outcomes. Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world where we simply cannot avoid these kind of situations, but I cannot see forcing a person to endure a pregnancy against their will and I would never stand for somebody regulating what happens to my body if I were in such a situation. It sucks for prospective fathers who may be in a situation like this. These kinds of issues should be openly discussed as I think education and dialogue are better options than the use of force as using force would be the only way to prevent a person from having an abortion who would otherwise go through with said procedure.

 

It sucks and some may think I'm giving a big F-U to all the guys and not looking out for my self interest. That's not the case at all, but rather, I don't see viable options that do not involve the use of coercion.

 

Full disclosure: I am not a father and I made a decision very early on in my life to take control of my body and it's reproductive capacity, meaning that the chances of me ever being a father are exceptionally small. Therefore, I may lack a certain amount of empathy or context when it comes to examining the concept of fatherhood.

[Pantophobia]

Okay Pantophobia, we disagree and neither of us is going to change how we feel.  I'm okay with that.  Let's not argue anymore.

 

These are important discussions to have, especially considering everything going on politically. And I appreciate your civil discourse on complicated issues. 

 

 

And this self entitlement to authority and priority is at the basis of most pointless conflicts that could easily have been resolved if people could be more objective.

 

 

 

falemon, I think if people were objective about pregnancy and reproduction, 99% of the world would NEVER reproduce!

[falemon]

 

falemon, I think if people were objective about pregnancy and reproduction, 99% of the world would NEVER reproduce!

 

 

Yes, which is why we have feelings and emotions!

 

But still a level of objectivity is necessary in any discussion otherwise it's just about who can shout loudest. What good is discussing a topic if there is no interest in either learning something new or reconsidering their perspective on an issue? Otherwise the discussion becomes ignorant and isn't a discussion at all. All logic, reasoning and thinking goes out of the window and the words are wasted on death ears.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

Okay Pantophobia, we disagree and neither of us is going to change how we feel.  I'm okay with that.  Let's not argue anymore.

 

These are important discussions to have, especially considering everything going on politically. And I appreciate your civil discourse on complicated issues. 

 

I can respect that.  Before my son was born, I was staunchly in favor of it being the mother's right to do what she saw fit with her own body.  I guess the presence of a new body in the form of the little boy changed all of that for me.  It opened up completely new cans of worms for me and I've had to reassess some of the ideals that I held before.

 

My father, a fundy, says that he would support abortion (even government provided abortion), but only under the condition that the fetus to be aborted was 18 years old and could understand the decision and have a say in what happened to its own body.  I know its just his way of stating that he is against abortion in a seemingly humorous way.  But, on a deeper level, he raises a good point.

 

When does the body of a fetus begin to belong to said fetus? 

 

I don't think our current system adequately addresses this question.  We speak in terms of trimesters and such, but at what point should the rights of the fetus be recognized?  I understand a woman's staunch position with regard to her own body, but the fetus is eventually going to grow into a baby, be born, and leave the woman's body.  It has a body of its own even if it is still inside the womb.  Where to the rights of the mother's body end and the rights of the fetus's body begin? 

 

I wish I could think about it with the same pragmatism as Rogue.  I wish I could see it as a simple medical procedure between a patient and a doctor.  But I can't anymore, because there is another person involved.  It has been mentioned several times that abortion affects other people besides just the mother.  But it affects the child in a much more terminal way than anyone else.

 

I know my position may be unpopular, and I don't really know how to answer the questions I have raised.  Anyway, no apologies, but there it is.

[WarriorPoet]

Prof, I get where you're coming from, but I need to disagree with you here.  First, most women that are in a committed relationship with the father of the potential baby and know the man wants a child and would be a good father would have the child.  Nearly all women I've ever met would strongly consider the opinion and desires of the man when contemplating this incredibly complicated decision. 

 

What we men need to understand is that pregnancy and giving birth followed by 18 or so years of raising a child is an incredibly daunting task.  Yes, if we are responsible men, we will be there for those 18 years, but no matter how much you love a woman or how dedicated you are to her, many aspects of pregnancy and birth are a solitary task.  I understand your position that at some point the life of the fetus belongs to the fetus, but when is that?  3 months, 6, 8?  Does that really matter?  I am personally not in favor of late term abortion unless the life or well being of the mother is involved, and truth be told, most pro-choice people share that opinion, but pregnancy and birth can be a very risky ordeal.  A perfectly healthy mother and fetus can experience unexpected complications during birth that are literally life threatening.  I feel that no matter how much I may be in favor of my partner carrying a pregnancy to term, it is still really not my decision. 

 

This may not be the best analogy, but please try to see the parallel here.  A 15 year old child comes down with a deadly disease, the only cure is a kidney transplant.  The child's mother happens to be a perfect match.  Most mothers would not hesitate to donate a kidney to her child, but if one refused, there are no legal or moral justifications to compel her to do so.  Donating a kidney is a relatively safe medical procedure, pretty much with the same amount of immediate risk as giving birth.  But during any invasive procedure, there will always be risks.  You may consider a person who refuses to do something like this cowardly, but you can not ever compel a person to risk their own well-being for that of someone else.

 

I'm sure I'm not going to change your mind here.  A person's opinions on this topic are very personal and defined by many aspects of that person's overall character.  I'm just trying to throw in another man's way of looking at this issue.

[WarriorPoet]

Double

[RogueScholar]

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

[SilentLoner]

 

 

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

 

You say you don't want to argue that a father should be able to outweigh the mother's rights. But what you have suggested is exactly that. It is the woman's body, not the man's. Saying the father can veto her decision to abort is giving control of the woman's body to him. That's not "fair" - it gives the man more rights. It cannot work this way. 

 

A man involved in a pregnancy also does not have an equality of experience that would confer the right to veto. The man does not undergo the health risks. The man does not suffer the limitations on activity (including loss of pay, loss of promotion, and possibly job loss) that go with being pregnant. The man does not suffer the pain and/or undergo the serious surgical procedure required to deliver the baby and the man does not experience the permanent changes to the body caused by bringing a child to term. It is not fair, but there is no equality of experience that can give an equal say.

 

If a woman who values her relationship with the father will work her decision out with him. True, it's not fair, just the way it isn't fair that pregnancy and delivery can't be shared. But "sharing" pregnancy and birth between the sexes wasn't an adaptation that had any survival values for mammals as we evolved, so "fair" is out the window. 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

If it required conviction, how could an abortion possibly be carried out during the early, safe weeks? It would be unusual for a case to come to trial in less than a year in many places.

 

It needs to be woman's private decision.

 

You have completely mis-stated what I said.  I never said the father should be able to veto the mother; nor did I say anything about giving anyone control over anyone else's body.  You completely fabricated an argument against an argument I never made.

 

That said, my wife's body does not belong to me, nor do I want control over it.  My son, however, is mine.  He is my DNA, my blood, my family line, just as much as he is his mother's.  Yes, his mother went through the pangs of pregnancy and I didn't have it quite as bad.  That fact, however, does not make my son any more hers than mine.

 

I simply want more equality for the men out there who would be good fathers for their kids.

 

 

I acknowledged that you didn't intend to mean it that way, but essentially it was coming off that way and that there was no real way to be truly "fair" in this situation without giving rights over a woman's body. If humans had the reproductive abilities of seahorses, then yes it could be fair but of course that's not a reality.

 

No one is arguing about your son being yours. I see your point there. And I never said a born child is more the mother's - in fact I have always said that once out of the womb, both parents have 50/50 rights to the child. I have spoken out against mothers who give a child away for adoption against the father's will or who try to keep a father who has done nothing wrong away unlawfully, and I do strongly believe in father's rights. However, this discussion is not about born children, its about fetuses. And while in utero, the woman has the say because her body is the one at risk. There is little basis for equality in this regard. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I think a good starting point is when the foetus has a reasonable chance of surviving the extra-uterine environment. Once the foetus is capable of surviving outside of mom, we can begin discussing. Remember, when you look at your son, you are injecting context and experience that simply does not exist in a situation where a gravid person is considering abortion. Debating a cutoff for reasonable chance of survival is also another debate.

That is a very good point, but it immediately raises the question: should anyone else have the right to make decisions for the body simply because it is not yet viable?  I suppose the real sticking point for me is that we say, "Men shouldn't have the right to decide what a woman does with her own body; but women should have the right to decide what happens to the body of a fetus on the grounds that the fetus's body happens to be inside her own."  Maybe it's a double standard and maybe it's not, I don't know.

 

You are very astute with the observation that a lot of this may just be me projecting where my son is involved.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

 

 

 

I don't want to be misunderstood here.  I am not making the argument that the father's rights should outweigh, over-ride, trump, or in any other way be greater than the mother's rights.  I am simply saying we should try to come up with a system that is more fair.

 

You say you don't want to argue that a father should be able to outweigh the mother's rights. But what you have suggested is exactly that. It is the woman's body, not the man's. Saying the father can veto her decision to abort is giving control of the woman's body to him. That's not "fair" - it gives the man more rights. It cannot work this way. 

 

A man involved in a pregnancy also does not have an equality of experience that would confer the right to veto. The man does not undergo the health risks. The man does not suffer the limitations on activity (including loss of pay, loss of promotion, and possibly job loss) that go with being pregnant. The man does not suffer the pain and/or undergo the serious surgical procedure required to deliver the baby and the man does not experience the permanent changes to the body caused by bringing a child to term. It is not fair, but there is no equality of experience that can give an equal say.

 

If a woman who values her relationship with the father will work her decision out with him. True, it's not fair, just the way it isn't fair that pregnancy and delivery can't be shared. But "sharing" pregnancy and birth between the sexes wasn't an adaptation that had any survival values for mammals as we evolved, so "fair" is out the window. 

 

Also, for instances like rape or abusive relationships, what would it take for a man to be disqualified from having a vote? Would it require an accusation of rape/abuse from the woman or that the man is convicted of rape/abuse?

 

If it required conviction, how could an abortion possibly be carried out during the early, safe weeks? It would be unusual for a case to come to trial in less than a year in many places.

 

It needs to be woman's private decision.

 

You have completely mis-stated what I said.  I never said the father should be able to veto the mother; nor did I say anything about giving anyone control over anyone else's body.  You completely fabricated an argument against an argument I never made.

 

That said, my wife's body does not belong to me, nor do I want control over it.  My son, however, is mine.  He is my DNA, my blood, my family line, just as much as he is his mother's.  Yes, his mother went through the pangs of pregnancy and I didn't have it quite as bad.  That fact, however, does not make my son any more hers than mine.

 

I simply want more equality for the men out there who would be good fathers for their kids.

 

 

I acknowledged that you didn't intend to mean it that way, but essentially it was coming off that way and that there was no real way to be truly "fair" in this situation without giving rights over a woman's body. If humans had the reproductive abilities of seahorses, then yes it could be fair but of course that's not a reality.

 

No one is arguing about your son being yours. I see your point there. And I never said a born child is more the mother's - in fact I have always said that once out of the womb, both parents have 50/50 rights to the child. I have spoken out against mothers who give a child away for adoption against the father's will or who try to keep a father who has done nothing wrong away unlawfully, and I do strongly believe in father's rights. However, this discussion is not about born children, its about fetuses. And while in utero, the woman has the say because her body is the one at risk. There is little basis for equality in this regard. 

 

I would argue that the body of the fetus is also at risk.

[SilentLoner]

 

 

 

When does the body of a fetus begin to belong to said fetus? 

Once its born. 

 

 

I don't think our current system adequately addresses this question.  We speak in terms of trimesters and such, but at what point should the rights of the fetus be recognized?  I understand a woman's staunch position with regard to her own body, but the fetus is eventually going to grow into a baby, be born, and leave the woman's body.  It has a body of its own even if it is still inside the womb.  Where to the rights of the mother's body end and the rights of the fetus's body begin? 

 

 

 

When its born. You do not have rights until you are born.

 

 

 

   But it affects the child in a much more terminal way than anyone else.

 

 

If you're going to stubbornly refer to a embryo as a "child" then I can already see how futile this debate is.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I would further point out that whether the body is in utero or in vivo does not alter the fact that it still carries my DNA, my blood, and my family line, just as it does the mother's.