Here's a healing ministry for both the women and the men.
Posted on 09/02/2009 11:24:57 AM PDT by Lorianne
Fathers have a natural right to protect the lives of their own children, whether you endorse that right or not.
Either parent being able to veto the abortion death of a baby doubles the odds of the baby living over just the mother being able to veto it.
What about the father’s?
Your proposal doesn’t assure fathers of the right to not have their child killed.
Excellent point.
No, no, males don’t count and it isn’t a real baby yet anyway!/SAR. Worthless POS that would kill a child as if they are taking care of an unwanted kitten or puppy(and that sucks too).
I don't believe that ANYBODY has the right to say that a baby should be murdered.
What I'm proposing is, in the absence of explicit consent to be responsible for the kid (with marriage being considered explicit consent), the woman can retain total control AND total responsibility for what comes out of her body.
Within marriage, abortion without husband's consent would be considered to trigger dissolution of the marriage for cause, without alimony.
Not much. But there’s no thing as giving the father “some say” in this decision. Either he has veto power or he doesn’t. As long as abortion is kept legal, this veto power won’t happen.
That isn’t accurate.
Abortion could be made illegal in X, Y, and Z cases, with one of those being where the father of the baby refuses to co-sign for an abortion, granting him an effective legal veto.
What about the father’s right to prevent the abortion death of his child?
Certainly, I think it is the father’s MORAL DUTY to prevent the death of his child.
Of course it doesn’t - I’m holding women fully accountable and responsible for both the benefit and the burden of the choice they alone bear.
I’m cultivating the liberal position so that it makes more sense.
And his natural right.
Liberalism is inherently tribalism: special privileges for favored tribes, special obligations for unfavored tribes.
I can appreciate that but I have a right to protect MY life and my health regardless of what my husband thinks or wants. Fortunately, he is a good man and when we were faced with a tragic life and death situation involving my body and a doomed pregnancy that could not be saved, he didn’t get in the way of life saving treatment for me. Not every woman is that lucky and this proposal is a nightmare for them.
Pregnancies in which the life of the mother is in imminent mortal danger are rare: what about all the rest?
Also, can you imagine a worse nightmare than having the government of your country proclaim that someone else has the legal authority to kill your baby daughter or son by abortion? That is the nightmare to which you believe that men should continue to be condemned.
I agree, and have made the same argument many times. You are 100% correct.
Here's a healing ministry for both the women and the men.
Myself (ectopic pregnancy), my cousin (baby had polycystic kidneys and started to shut down the mother's kidneys in the 5-6th month), and my aunt, niece, a best friend and another coworker who all suffered with preeclampsia. One lost her child to the condition. The ONLY cure for preeclampsia is to end the pregnancy...hopefully when the child is mature enough to survive outside the womb. In my niece's case, her baby was born 3 months premature. It was very iffy.
As an adult, I can control my reproductive organs and avoid nightmare you describe. Men have the same choice AND they don't have to ever worry about risking their lives over it. I strongly recommend they don't procreate with women who might be inclined to terminate. Their nightmare is not nearly as frightening as being a woman whose life could be in danger because of some idiot.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.