Alabama judge allows lawsuit that names aborted fetus as co-plaintiff.

a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, it is sad. But that is the way of these things. Please allow me to congratulate you on your son... hearing that news must have been very hard.

I do have a couple of issues with your thought process:

So I look to natural law, the foundation of life and all creation, and our Constitution. As written in the Declaration of Independence, our rights are "self-evident"; it is our absolute inalienable natural right to do what what we can of ourselves and by ourselves and/or with other consenting adults. And the simple truth is that nature and Nature's God does not compel/impel any woman to be a mother, and that nature and Nature's God provides the means for a woman to terminate a pregnancy of herself and by herself. Therefore, it is her absolute inalienable natural right to do so. Risky? Yup. But do-able. So any crime or sin committed is against nature and Nature's God. Not man and not men.

Natural law, if you mean, as I assume you do, the laws of nature, certainly do indicate that women become mothers. Sexual pleasure creates an impetus to engage in actions that lead to procreation, and the biological configuration of a woman's body decree that she be the one to carry a child to term in the event of a pregnancy. It is by man and man's laws (used here in the context of 'human' and not 'male') that we can control that to some degree. Contraceptive medications are not a product of nature; they are a product of man. Abortion is not a product of nature; it is a product of man, and in large part is driven by the desire to accomplish things in man's world beyond motherhood. And while yes, a woman can physically abort a pregnancy, to do so actually flies in the face of the natural instinct to self-preservation.

I do not disparage a woman's right to decide what she wishes to do with her life. I simply point out that were we truly to be living by natural law, the purpose of every man would be to fight for the women under his care and likely die early doing so, and the purpose of every woman would be to create and raise offspring. That is not a world I wish to live in any more than you apparently do.

Likewise, in regards to conception, pregnancy, and fatherhood, men have no natural rights. There is absolutely nothing men can do of themselves and by themselves to have a child.

There is also absolutely nothing a woman can do to conceive a child without the aid of a man. It requires both sperm and ova to do so.

Fatherhood is a sacred gift -- both from Nature's God AND from the woman who agrees to bear his children. But too many men presume it is their right, rather than a privilege, subjugating women to their will, and otherwise abusing women's free will and our persons.

This contradicts what you wrote earlier, that men have no natural rights to fatherhood... if that were true, then fatherhood could not be a gift of nature (which I agree it is). I will support you in your characterization of some men's attitude toward women. Fatherhood is not a right, but a privilege, as is motherhood, and no human has moral authority to subjugate another.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people of all walks desire nothing less than subjugation of others. That is not restricted to sexual activity. It is not restricted to male-female interactions. it occurs from the moment a child interacts with anyone outside the immediate family (and too often even before that). It lasts until our bodies cease functioning. It simply is the way things are. Men subjugate other men, women try to subjugate men, women try to subjugate other women... and ironically, I see a lot of attempts at subjugation in this very issue. One of the problems that many see in abortion is the fervor with which some, both men and women, will use to persuade a young woman to undergo an abortion, even to the point of denying to present the fact that yes, that thing inside you is really alive and really human.

Of course, I do not discount the fact that the same thing occurs on the other side of the issue. There are those who would, as you say, make even rape no excuse for an abortion, or would like to call a miscarriage an abortion and persecute. I believe that those who would do so are few and far between... at least I would hope so.

I, on the other hand, wish to subjugate no one. I completely support birth control availability... my daughter, despite our preaching abstinence from an early age, was on birth control pills as soon as the doctors said it was safe to do so. My son was taught his responsibility in birth control, in addition to the same abstinence preaching that my daughter received. That's simply acknowledgement of reality: children will be children, often with adult consequences. As parents, it fell on my wife and I to protect them from even themselves.

As far as I am concerned, abortion is a horrible thing to do, but it simply cannot be ignored any more than the possibility that my children would engage in sexual activity before they were ready for the consequences. There will be mistakes in judgement, failures in precautions, rapes, miscarriages, incest, and horrible developmental defects that render a child unviable. It will happen, and it behooves us as a society to try and take those matters into consideration. No woman should be forced to carry a child to term that she is not physically and mentally prepared to deal with. No woman should be required to raise a child she does not want. Likewise, no man should be required to support a child he does not want, nor should he be required to stand by and watch helplessly as something he has an obvious biological interest in destroyed without even a thought to his desires.

I believe a fair compromise would be to stop the shaming of women who become pregnant accidentally... they are no more at fault than the man who impregnated them. At the same time, allow the man some say in the decision (obviously not applicable in certain cases, aka rape, incest, domestic abuse, etc). If a mother does not want to raise the child, but the father does, allow the father to do so. He is a parent as well. If the mother cannot afford to have the child but there is someone willing to raise it, have the prenatal care and the delivery paid for by others... preferably those who want the child. I know of several loving couples who would love nothing more than to adopt a child, but present law makes that horribly difficult.

There are answers, but none of those answers involve demanding that a man who fathers a child has no interest in that child. The way to make motherhood easier is the same thing that humans have done for hundreds of years until modern society decided to 'fix' it - make the man an equal partner in the raising of the child.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

If you became pregnant would you want to put your whole life and health on hold for someone else because they said so?

Imagine being 16 years old and being told you are basically a walking baby machine. It takes two to tango, but it also only takes one to endure the struggle of pregnancy and have one of the most conflicting decisions a woman can make.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

Yes, it is sad. But that is the way of these things. Please allow me to congratulate you on your son... hearing that news must have been very hard.

Thank you -- it was hard, as you well know I realize. My heart goes out to you. One of those times when I can only think, "If love could have saved her, she would have lived forever."

I do have a couple of issues with your thought process...

Fair enough -- I do too!

Natural law, if you mean, as I assume you do, the laws of nature, certainly do indicate that women become mothers. Sexual pleasure creates an impetus to engage in actions that lead to procreation, and the biological configuration of a woman's body decree that she be the one to carry a child to term in the event of a pregnancy. It is by man and man's laws (used here in the context of 'human' and not 'male') that we can control that to some degree. Contraceptive medications are not a product of nature; they are a product of man.

Yes and no... today, we rely on medical intervention and technology. But nature's bounty also provides the means to terminate a pregnancy, knowledge which was well known and practiced by the "wise women" of long ago ages. Before the Burning Times. Before men completely took over medicine, which roughly coincided with the later Inquisition and the Malleus Maleficarum.

Abortion is not a product of nature; it is a product of man, and in large part is driven by the desire to accomplish things in man's world beyond motherhood.

Let's not forget profit!!! Many people profit from making sure -- one way or another -- that women do not want to have their babies.

And while yes, a woman can physically abort a pregnancy, to do so actually flies in the face of the natural instinct to self-preservation.

Yes. Not just self-preservation, but the natural instinct to protect one's young. The proverbial "Mama Bear" or "Lioness" fiercely fighting off any and all danger with no thought for self... But that's not always the reality.

(Ooops! I'm already out of room. I have to continue in a new reply!)

a reply to: Boadicea

Thank you -- it was hard, as you well know I realize. My heart goes out to you. One of those times when I can only think, "If love could have saved her, she would have lived forever."

Thank you. That is one episode in my life I try desperately to forget.

Her name would have been "Dixie Sierra."

today, we rely on medical intervention and technology. But nature's bounty also provides the means to terminate a pregnancy, knowledge which was well known and practiced by the "wise women" of long ago ages.

I'm afraid I am not familiar with that. Can you elaborate some specifics?

Let's not forget profit!!! Many people profit from making sure -- one way or another -- that women do not want to have their babies.

Is it possible to forget profit in today's money-hungry society? Green paper is worth more than life itself.

Not just self-preservation, but the natural instinct to protect one's young. The proverbial "Mama Bear" or "Lioness" fiercely fighting off any and all danger with no thought for self... But that's not always the reality.

The most dangerous animal we have around here is also one of the cutest... a black bear cub. Mess with it, and no firepower, no retreat, no actions can be assured to save one from the wrath of Mama Bear. One need not even be messing with the cub; sometimes just being too close when it yells out is enough.

That brings up an interesting point I have pondered many times. It seems to me that in a time when women in general often seem unhappy with their lot in life (many with good reason), I cannot help but see their innate ability nature has granted them... they are the ones who shape the future, by shaping the hearts and minds of the children. No man, regardless of how rich or powerful, has that kind of ability. Men may make the laws, but women control the hearts and minds of the future.

Not to mention, women effectively control men as well. On a typical date, only one of the parties knows what will likely transpire after the date ends, and it certainly is not the man! Some days I think that is our secret to survival of the species.

TheRedneck

a reply to: strongfp

If you became pregnant would you want to put your whole life and health on hold for someone else because they said so?

I would hope I had enough sense to use some kind of birth control.

Imagine being 16 years old and being told you are basically a walking baby machine.

Imagine being any age and being told you are a walking sperm bank. That's what you are doing with posts like that.

Men and women have different biological identities, and no amount of social engineering can change that. Some things just have to be accepted. No amount of protests or screaming at the sky will ever change that. All it will do is divide us farther, and in the process kill more millions of children before they have a chance to see the sun and women who are simply scared of what they have done without good cause.

Is that your objective?

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Boadicea
Likewise, in regards to conception, pregnancy, and fatherhood, men have no natural rights. There is absolutely nothing men can do of themselves and by themselves to have a child. Fatherhood is a sacred gift -- both from Nature's God AND from the woman who agrees to bear his children. But too many men presume it is their right, rather than a privilege, subjugating women to their will, and otherwise abusing women's free will and our persons. And quite likely why nature created us thus, giving women some means of self-protection from men who would use and abuse her otherwise. Such as the points the OP has made regarding prosecuting women for accidents resulting in miscarriage. Or those who would grant "rights" to a rapist whose violence and brutality results in pregnancy.

To the first part: absolutely true. And as to the bolded part: this case certainly could open the door to that, and that's a damn scary thought.

If a man wants to preserve his real or perceived rights to the fruits of his loins, then he needs to take appropriate steps BEFORE engaging in the deed. Marry the woman, and bring your children into a stable and loving home and family. Or at least make sure the woman has the same values you have and would respect and honor you as a father in the event of pregnancy BEFORE you start dipping your pen in the well.

Yes.

And let's stop making pregnancy and motherhood so damn hard!!! An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. If we don't want women aborting their babies, then let's make sure there is no reason for them to want to abort their babies. Let's not make it so damn difficult to be a mother!

Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen. Since the 80's at least (I was still a little kid in the 70s, so I can't speak to them from my own experience), the mantra has been that women who choose motherhood over career are sellouts. That mothers who really mother are women who willingly choose slavery over freedom, blah blah. Look at all the derogatory terms we have for stay-at-home moms AND for women who are really involved in their kids lives. Society has a schizophrenic attitude toward mothers — pushing this idealized version of "mother" and putting her on a pedestal when it's convenient, but on the whole denigrating real mothers trying to really parent in the real world. It's terribly sad. And short of a complete reorganization of society's priorities, I don't see that doing anything but getting worse. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

I can already hear the wailing and gnashing of teeth. So be it. It is what it is.

You know it. You'll be called anti-male, anti-feminist, regressive, etc.; people will ask if you want to go back to the days when women were stuck in the kitchen, couldn't vote, etc. I can hear the angry mob already.

a reply to: TheRedneck

(Continuing...)

I do not disparage a woman's right to decide what she wishes to do with her life. I simply point out that were we truly to be living by natural law, the purpose of every man would be to fight for the women under his care and likely die early doing so, and the purpose of every woman would be to create and raise offspring. That is not a world I wish to live in any more than you apparently do.

I see your point, and I fear we could easily (as a society) devolve to such a point. Especially if we keep giving so much power to "the feelz" in general, as opposed to our ability to think and reason and adapt. I do not want anyone reduced to their reproductive functions. That would benefit no one Especially every woman post menopause! I have often wondered why nature gave women an expiration date (so to speak) but men can seemingly reproduce forever.

There is also absolutely nothing a woman can do to conceive a child without the aid of a man. It requires both sperm and ova to do so.

So, in that light, in an uncommitted relationship, the man gives his sperm without condition... well, except for the expectation of a good time. There is nothing further required of him by nature. His job is done.

For the woman, she has accepted his sperm without condition, beyond the expectation of a good time. But she has no idea what nature is up to. She might get lucky... or she might get unlucky. Nature just might require something further. It is her physical reality to deal with.

This contradicts what you wrote earlier, that men have no natural rights to fatherhood... if that were true, then fatherhood could not be a gift of nature (which I agree it is).

In spirit I totally agree, and this was a sticking point for me for quite a while, but in practice it's more challenging. Because here's the thing -- as we both (sorrowfully) know: We really only have the right to want and to try. We have no right to a guaranteed outcome. I don't like it. But it is what it is.

[quoteI will support you in your characterization of some men's attitude toward women. Fatherhood is not a right, but a privilege, as is motherhood, and no human has moral authority to subjugate another.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where people of all walks desire nothing less than subjugation of others. That is not restricted to sexual activity. It is not restricted to male-female interactions...

Yes -- definitely! And it seems to be only getting worse. Which has sadly confirmed and reinforced my opinion.

I, on the other hand, wish to subjugate no one. I completely support birth control availability... my daughter, despite our preaching abstinence from an early age, was on birth control pills as soon as the doctors said it was safe to do so. My son was taught his responsibility in birth control, in addition to the same abstinence preaching that my daughter received. That's simply acknowledgement of reality: children will be children, often with adult consequences. As parents, it fell on my wife and I to protect them from even themselves.

In other words, you taught them simple critical thinking, that actions have consequences, and to be responsible in their actions... but we live in a world where people don't want to accept reality, nor consequences. And it's destroying people... at least making them miserable. If we cannot and do not accept responsibility for our actions and the consequences, then we cannot and do not take responsibility to make better choices and get better results either. It's not a curse to be able to make wise decisions, it is a blessing.

As far as I am concerned, abortion is a horrible thing to do, but it simply cannot be ignored... There will be mistakes in judgement, failures in precautions, rapes, miscarriages, incest, and horrible developmental defects that render a child unviable.... and it behooves us as a society to try and take those matters into consideration.

Yes, it does. Very much so. And it would serve us all well to remember that not all pregnancies are destined to be a "life." Spontaneous abortions are very real as well. Perhaps the mother's body rejects it for some reason, perhaps the embryo somehow rejects itself for some reason. Some pregnancies end in a stillbirth, and infants die from SIDS for no apparent reason. More often than not for unknown reasons. But there is a slippery slope here in that efforts to protect an unborn child with criminal sanctions risk persecuting mothers for any/all failed pregnancies.

I also think it's important to point out that many of those who oppose abortion are also quite happy to advocate for (or at least excuse) someone's death for some reason or another... capital punishment, euthanasia, "enemy" soldiers as well as civilian war casualties, vaccination deaths (albeit rare), and so on. I am not trying to justify or excuse abortion with "whataboutism," I am simply pointing out that if we are going to talk about the rights and wrongs of abortion, then we need to consider it in the larger context as well.

I believe a fair compromise would be ...[snip] The way to make motherhood easier is the same thing that humans have done for hundreds of years until modern society decided to 'fix' it - make the man an equal partner in the raising of the child.

TheRedneck

All common sense suggestions and I agree. While I will never agree to any one having control over another person's body or free will, we can find a happy medium to establish fair and balanced civil rights and responsibilities for all involved.

For what it's worth, I have often felt that feminism threw moms under the bus right along with dads when they encouraged -- and even demanded -- that we reduce ourselves to competing with men. In the very rat race they simultaneously condemned and vilified! At the same time, I also saw men abusing the power and privilege they did hold, and I understood why women would reject that wholesale. I also saw how men also benefited from abortion and other "women's" rights. I saw much propaganda and agitating on both sides in a "divide-and-conquer" campaign by both sides.

This isn't rocket science. We know what is fair and what is right. We can do better. We must do better.

Thank you for the very thoughtful reply, Redneck. It's always appreciated -- and I expect nothing less from you!

You don't present enough information about the specific case to then ask the questions you've posed as though those are the issues.

Was this specific woman in known physical danger because of the pregnancy? Was allowing the child to go full term known to cause her harm? Her reason for perusing the abortion absolutely would have implications as far as what the connected man and fetus would have as legal recourse if any.

the arguements that " what will we do about all the women getting abortions for health reasons" is a misdirect of the issue here when the vast majority of abortions are done for personal reasons, not medical.

Are you against the idea of the father protecting the rights of the unborn child to life? Or perhaps the rights of the child?

How would you compare this to a father who's paying child support for a kid he didn't want to have and had no say in aborting?








a reply to: dawnstar

a reply to: TheRedneck

I always love reading your posts. You're such a deep thinker, and you almost always manage to remain objective no matter what your personal feelings on the subject.

I agree with the majority of this post. However, there is one part that really bothers me and I'd like to hear more of your thinking on the issue. I'm talking about this part:

If a mother does not want to raise the child, but the father does, allow the father to do so. He is a parent as well.

Now, if both people are agreeable to that, I'm all for it. But what if the woman doesn't want to carry it to term?

Because the truth is, even though it's safer than it's ever been, there ARE very real risks to being pregnant and to giving birth. I think that's where a lot of us women are coming from. You can die, and though it's uncommon today, it still happens a lot more often than anyone thinks. You can end up going through major surgery (C-section--we have an insanely high rate of C-sections in the U.S.) You can be saddled with life-long health effects. Etc. These are all things that the woman has to risk in order to let the man have the child; do you think she should have to take these risks if she doesn't want to? Or are you talking only about situations where both parties agree?

There are also non-health related situations that can come into play. Let me tell you a story to illustrate. This is a true story, for the record.

Jane Doe was 27. She had 4 kids already. She and her husband had been split up for 8 or 9 months and were in the process of divorce when she had a one-night-stand with someone from her past and a month later found herself pregnant. Now, taking care of the child would have been hard, but not impossible. However, actually carrying the child to term was another story.

This was in the 90s in a small rural town. And it might not be legal, but common practice in this area at least is that you don't hire pregnant women for jobs because you know they're going to leave when they have the baby. But she was lucky--she already had a job that would let her scrape by even with another kid. However, it was a moderately hard physical job. She knew that if she told her boss she was pregnant, he would lay her off — with absolutely the best of intentions, because he'd be worried about her getting hurt on the job — till after she had the baby. And then she'd be jobless, with no prospect of getting another one and 4 mouths to feed.

So she had to choose between taking the very real risk of losing what income she had and having her existing kids go hungry (or even get taken away, if she couldn't feed them and clothe them) by continuing the pregnancy to term, or not having the fifth child.

What about in situations like this? Should someone else get that choice or, frankly, even get a say in that choice? I'd like to hear your thoughts.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Boadicea

That brings up an interesting point I have pondered many times. It seems to me that in a time when women in general often seem unhappy with their lot in life (many with good reason), I cannot help but see their innate ability nature has granted them... they are the ones who shape the future, by shaping the hearts and minds of the children. No man, regardless of how rich or powerful, has that kind of ability. Men may make the laws, but women control the hearts and minds of the future.

They've given that role up to daycare and public school

a reply to: Boadicea

I see your point, and I fear we could easily (as a society) devolve to such a point. Especially if we keep giving so much power to "the feelz" in general, as opposed to our ability to think and reason and adapt. I do not want anyone reduced to their reproductive functions. That would benefit no one Especially every woman post menopause! I have often wondered why nature gave women an expiration date (so to speak) but men can seemingly reproduce forever.

I sincerely hope we do not devolve to that point.

But you are correct. I think of a person as having essentially a dual identity. There is the animal body, which strives to eat, drink, and reproduce. But there is also the intellect, which strives to create and improve and understand. Our physical body places certain desires on us, but it is that intellectual spirit which allows us to control those impulses. A male dog will seek to mate with a female when it smells the right pheromones... it doesn't care if the female is willing or capable of having puppies or even if the pregnancy might kill her. It knows only one thing: it's time to mate. We experience the same (usually as much visual on the part of the male as olfactory), but it is our spirit which compels us to consider the needs of the female... or which should.

Far, far too often, the animal overrides the spirit, and that is our issue. Especially with youth. They are simply not as adept, cannot be as adept, at controlling such powerful urges.

That's why we have laws.

In spirit I totally agree, and this was a sticking point for me for quite a while, but in practice it's more challenging. Because here's the thing -- as we both (sorrowfully) know: We really only have the right to want and to try. We have no right to a guaranteed outcome. I don't like it. But it is what it is.

Agreed. No one has the right to subjugate another. The want and try, however, seems quite capable of translating into do, at least overall... we do have a rapidly expanding world population.

Nature tends to find a way to obtain what nature wants.

In other words, you taught them simple critical thinking, that actions have consequences, and to be responsible in their actions... but we live in a world where people don't want to accept reality, nor consequences. And it's destroying people... at least making them miserable. If we cannot and do not accept responsibility for our actions and the consequences, then we cannot and do not take responsibility to make better choices and get better results either. It's not a curse to be able to make wise decisions, it is a blessing.

I cannot agree more.

That brings up another issue in this debate: the father. While I do believe a father should have some say in abortion matters, I also believe a father is as responsible for the life he helped create as the mother. In days of yore, a man who got a woman pregnant was forced to marry her and support her. I don't think that is optimal, but I do believe the theory is sound: if you help create a life, you help support that life. When applied to the abortion debate, however, it brings up a couple new twists to the logic: if a woman decides to have a child instead of an abortion and the father disagrees, the father should have no further financial obligation.

And that bothers me as well. That would lead to financial pressure on potential mothers to have abortions, something I do not want. So what's the answer here? Should the father be required to pay for a child he does not want, while the mother can simply abort a child they do not want? Or should the father be required to pay anyway to protect the child's life?

I do not have that answer.

And it would serve us all well to remember that not all pregnancies are destined to be a "life." Spontaneous abortions are very real as well. Perhaps the mother's body rejects it for some reason, perhaps the embryo somehow rejects itself for some reason. Some pregnancies end in a stillbirth, and infants die from SIDS for no apparent reason. More often than not for unknown reasons. But there is a slippery slope here in that efforts to protect an unborn child with criminal sanctions risk persecuting mothers for any/all failed pregnancies.

That's what the doctors told us. She wasn't viable. It ddn't help.

What we need to understand is that there are certain things beyond our control. One of those is death, of course; we will all die eventually. When conceived, a child is at its most vulnerable. When born, a baby is at its most vulnerable. We should protect those who are vulnerable, but that does not mean we must save every one. It means taking reasonable measures to try.

The recent abortion bill debate in Virginia led to the Governor stating that even after a baby is born, if the mother and doctor agree, the baby can simply be denied life-saving technology. I find that horrific. While there are some procedures that are simply optional by nature (some things cannot be fixed even if the body is kept alive), simple attempts to save the life should at least be examined seriously. I took his statements as those of someone who cared nothing for the life dying behind him. I know that he might well have been referring to those obviously optional procedures such as life support for a baby that can never recover, but his phrasing... well, to be honest, it scared me.

On the other side of the argument, I cannot conceive what anyone would be thinking if they supported any law that would punish a mother for wanting an abortion, much less for having a miscarriage. Such is unthinkable to me. As I mentioned to dawnstar, I would consider any woman who risks her life trying to self-abort as someone in need of help, not of condemnation. Ironically, I have heard that a large part of the shame felt by younger women in such cases is that they feel a baby would be an impediment to future sexual opportunities. That is some seriously messed up thinking there!

"Oh, no, I burnt my hand on a hot stove! If anyone finds out, I won't be able to burn my hand on a hot stove again!"

I also think it's important to point out that many of those who oppose abortion are also quite happy to advocate for (or at least excuse) someone's death for some reason or another... capital punishment, euthanasia, "enemy" soldiers as well as civilian war casualties, vaccination deaths (albeit rare), and so on. I am not trying to justify or excuse abortion with "whataboutism," I am simply pointing out that if we are going to talk about the rights and wrongs of abortion, then we need to consider it in the larger context as well.

I will agree, but even that requires some caveats. I for one will always support life over death, but there are situations where a death is imminent and the choice becomes one of an innocent death or a guilty death. In those situations, I will support a guilty death over an innocent death every time.

Thus my agreement with capital punishment. In Alabama at least, that is reserved for someone who either murders multiple people or who murders someone during commission of another felony, say, an armed robber who shoots a store clerk can be convicted of capital murder. I support hat, as it protects the lives of innocents over the life of one who would end those innocent lives. War, when justified (which is a rare thing to me) is another example.

~to be continued~

a reply to: Boadicea

~continued~

All common sense suggestions and I agree. While I will never agree to any one having control over another person's body or free will, we can find a happy medium to establish fair and balanced civil rights and responsibilities for all involved.

Agreed.

My personal preference would be to make all abortions legal under two conditions: either during the first trimester, or within two weeks of discovery of the pregnancy. We are, after all, talking about the taking of a life. We have animal rights activists that go insane trying to ensure that animals do not suffer when they are killed; should we not do at least that much for a child?

Then, during the second trimester, allow abortions in the 'usual' cases. By that I mean things like rape, incest, serious developmental issues, life of mother (obviously!), or perhaps on a medical consensus. Just not on convenience or deciding the child is not wanted. I can see exceptions if the mother and father agree, but it should require a judicial review.

Finally, limit third trimester abortions to only incest (necessary because of the higher level of shame involved), lack of viability, of life of the mother. Partial birth should only be performed for life of the mother issues and be a crime to perform without reasonable cause to believe there was a danger to the mother... that is not to make it a crime for the mother, but to someone who performs the abortion. Never, ever, should the mother be charged with any crime involving an abortion.

Now add in a more generous and accepting adoption program that will make it easier for couples to adopt newborns where the mother does not wish to shoulder the burden. I believe that would be a happy medium. As a woman, I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Thank you for the very thoughtful reply, Redneck. It's always appreciated -- and I expect nothing less from you!

Thank you as well. This is a pleasant change from the expected vitriol one normally would expect on this issue. You have not insulted me once, and hopefully nothing I have posted has been taken as an insult (if so, I assure you it was unintentional). Of course, I am coming to expect no less from you either.

TheRedneck

a reply to: riiver

Eh.... gee, thanks for the hard question riiver!

You bring up some great points, and all are deserving of discussion. All I can really say is that you describe a unique situation where I can agree that an abortion is unfortunately her best option. I have no wish to deny her that.

My last post (I'm just a slow typist) I made a proposal to Broadicea as to what I thought might be a reasonable compromise. So let me answer in light of that proposal: Jane Doe would have two weeks to get a abortion minimum, regardless of when she discovered the pregnancy. If she discovered it early enough, she would have the entire first trimester. So there would never be a situation like the one you describe where a woman did not have the opportunity to receive an abortion. The only requirement is that if you must take that life, please do it as soon as possible, so as to not make the child suffer any more than is necessary.

I hope that answers your question.

TheRedneck

a reply to: Rob808

first, I would hope that the two would be able to actually and sit down and discuss their options together in a sane way!!
in which case, I kind of think that most would reach an agreement between them, even if it means one bending to the other's desire...
but, in those case where there can be no agreement, I am sorry, but, the man can neither carry the child to term, or walk into the abortion clinic to abort it, can he? in either case, he has the choice, either find a way to force, coerce, or in some other way convince the women to do something she does not want to do, or accept that she is gonna do what she wants. just like a stay at home wife may not agree with the idea of buying a used boat with the grocery money, but well, if he has control of the bank account and is the one earning the money, well, she just may have to accept that there's gonna be a boat sitting in the driveway!!! and, well, if the new daddy has pulled that kind of crap before and then went out for the day on the lake to enjoy the peace and quiet while mom sat home with the little ones listening to them cry because they are hungry, well, she is gonna be less willing to bend about adding another mouth for daddy to deny food to!

but, what do you want to do, do you want us to tie women down, imprison them, force them to eat right, watch their every move to ensure that they bare you a healthy child, or if you don't want the child, do you want to be able to drag them into the abortion clinic by the hair on their head and force them to endure a medical procedure that quite frankly there are many women that feel strongly is morally wrong? or do you wish to just coerce them into betraying their moral integrity on your behalf?

birth control and abortion has been accepted as a solution to problems that were plaguing society in the past.. other options that were also being deployed at the same time as those birth control methods were being developed were selectively sterilizing those groups of people society really didn't want around, or rounding them up and throwing them in mental institutions, poor houses, ect. and this was all okay, great even, it worked... through birth control, along with abortions there were less poverty, less of a need for such barbaric means. the poor houses, orphanages, became our foster care system, not that it's perfect, but much better than what we had. and the selective forced breeding became more voluntary and left up to the women. all was fine till one day society woke up and noticed... first it wasn't those unwanted groups that were more prone to restricting their birth rate, but rather it was more the upper working class and middle class white people! and, they were doing such a fine job of it, that we were having to import people, again not of the wanted kind, ya know, white and educated, to restore our population. so now, we want to go back to the time when were were forcing, coercing, restricting, whatever we can, to get our women having kids again!

I already explained.. for many women it's not up to them weather or not the father of their children end up getting socked with child support payments. and in fact, it wasn't till the gov't decided it wanted to cut down on how much it was shelling out in welfare payments that those child support payments had that much enforcement behind them. you would have to talk to the gov't about that one.. they have an interest in weather or not those child support payments are being paid. but, ya know what, regardless of who ends up paying weather it be the fathers through child support, or the taxpayers through their taxes... the kids more than likely will be taken care of!! so who do you think really should have more of an obligation to take care of those kids? the parents, or the taxpayers?

by the way, contrary to what some seem to want us to believe, the maternal death rates in this country are going up, not down. I previously figured out how many maternal deaths occurred for one year.. it came out to around 1,000 women.

a reply to: TheRedneck

Excellent post. I agree with all your suggestions.

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: riiver
The only requirement is that if you must take that life, please do it as soon as possible, so as to not make the child suffer any more than is necessary.

Absolutely. I'm of the opinion that once it gets to the point where we know the fetus can feel pain, abortion should be only in the most egregious circumstances; if the pregnancy is risking the mother's life or the fetus is really non-viable (anencephalic or something).

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Rob808

by the way, contrary to what some seem to want us to believe, the maternal death rates in this country are going up, not down. I previously figured out how many maternal deaths occurred for one year.. it came out to around 1,000 women.

We really do have a high maternal mortality rate for a developed country. In fact, we're about right in the middle of all countries at 138 out of 184. We rank below all these countries:
Saudi Arabia
Kazakhastan
Bosnia and Herzegovina
New Zealand
South Korea
Bulgaria
Lithuania
Singapore
Portugal
Luxembourg
Estonia
Libya
UK
Slovenia
Malta
Ireland
Macedonia
Croatia
France
Belgium
Canada
Netherlands
Montenegro
Cyprus
United Arab Emirates
Australia
Slovakia
Germany
Denmark
Israel
Japan
Switzerland
Spain
Norway
Austria
Belarus
Sweden
Italy
Kuwait
Czechia
Finland
Poland
Iceland
Greece

source

Pretty sad.

a reply to: riiver

In the end, I think that's all reasonable people want: don't kill, but if you must kill, don't create unnecessary suffering.

It's a simple enough philosophy.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Her name would have been "Dixie Sierra."

And it is and always will be right there in that big chunk of your heart where she lives and where you will cherish her forever. As it should be. Such a beautiful name too. Again, as it should be.

I'm afraid I am not familiar with that. Can you elaborate some specifics?

I sent you a PM.

The most dangerous animal we have around here is also one of the cutest... a black bear cub. Mess with it, and no firepower, no retreat, no actions can be assured to save one from the wrath of Mama Bear. One need not even be messing with the cub; sometimes just being too close when it yells out is enough.

LOL -- but exactly! That's the kind of mama I was!!! Of course I was also the kind that used to tell my son that I brought him into the world and I could take him right back out again...

That brings up an interesting point I have pondered many times. It seems to me that in a time when women in general often seem unhappy with their lot in life (many with good reason), I cannot help but see their innate ability nature has granted them... they are the ones who shape the future, by shaping the hearts and minds of the children. No man, regardless of how rich or powerful, has that kind of ability. Men may make the laws, but women control the hearts and minds of the future.

A lost art indeed. Which goes back to women competing with men on their level. It's all about the rules of engagement, eh? What works in the marketplace or the business world is not appropriate at home or in the bedroom, but I do believe that's where we've gotten to as a society. Women, as homemakers, have traditionally and historically been the organizers and the managers and the one to balance the wants and needs of the family as a whole, and for the individuals within the family. Men, as providers, have traditionally and historically been the ones to compete and assert themselves in the marketplace and business world, often in a winner-takes-all scenario. Different skills and qualities are necessary and appropriate for the different situations.

I hope this makes sense and doesn't come off as simplifying the dynamics. I think you and I are of the same generation, we're both old married folks with the same basic values and norms, and we're just kind of shaking our heads... We didn't get here through ultimatums or power plays or name calling. And we didn't do what we did because we were weak, but because we were strong enough to make that extra effort and go that extra mile, and we not only had faith that it would be returned, but multiplied, and it was.

Not to mention, women effectively control men as well. On a typical date, only one of the parties knows what will likely transpire after the date ends, and it certainly is not the man! Some days I think that is our secret to survival of the species.

TheRedneck

Whoa there! Nice try -- but no way!!! Men willingly and gladly surrender themselves to women for their own self-indulgent gratification -- albeit while thinking with the wrong head. But that's all on them!

However, there will always be women who will exploit their weakness... and that's all on the women. So I'll give you that.

a reply to: riiver

...this case certainly could open the door to that, and that's a damn scary thought.

It sure is. And probably why it immediately came to mind. As much as I'd like to give every credit to fathers, not all fathers deserve that. And sometimes, the child actually deserves to be separated and protected from that father.

Sadly, I don't think that will ever happen. Since the 80's at least (I was still a little kid in the 70s, so I can't speak to them from my own experience), the mantra has been that women who choose motherhood over career are sellouts. That mothers who really mother are women who willingly choose slavery over freedom, blah blah. Look at all the derogatory terms we have for stay-at-home moms AND for women who are really involved in their kids lives. Society has a schizophrenic attitude toward mothers — pushing this idealized version of "mother" and putting her on a pedestal when it's convenient, but on the whole denigrating real mothers trying to really parent in the real world. It's terribly sad. And short of a complete reorganization of society's priorities, I don't see that doing anything but getting worse. Maybe I'm just a cynic.

Unfortunately, you're spot on. At least, your observations match my experiences as a mother in the 80s and 90s. The general consensus was that I was either too lazy or too stupid to hold a real job... motherhood has been grossly devalued these last few decades.