[palmer]

Courts issue such decrees all the time - to fathers who have created children and won't willfully support them. But somehow to you it is morally different to require a woman to carry a fetus to term.

I think it's morally different to most people. The father is asked to give up property to support a fully humanized newborn. But by restricting the earliest abortions you are requiring a woman to accept your legal requirement of full humanity at conception. But it's hard to make a moral case for humanity with no human form, no human pain, no movement, etc.

[dirtboy]

I think it's morally different to most people. The father is asked to give up property to support a fully humanized newborn. But by restricting the earliest abortions you are requiring a woman to accept your legal requirement of full humanity at conception.

However, if the father doesn't provide for the child, it still can survive. But if the mother aborts it, it's dead. Seems there is a higher imperative to require the mother to carry the baby.

But it's hard to make a moral case for humanity with no human form, no human pain, no movement, etc.

It's not hard at all. Left undisturbed in the womb, the fetus at any stage will become a baby, barring complications.

See, that wasn't so hard, was it? What's far more convoluted is the reasoning that makes a fetus something less than human, and the "logic" attempting to support such.