My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

[BluePriest]

I know abortion can be a sticky a and religious subject. I want to focus on the part that isnt often brought up. Everyone likes talking about whether it is a baby or not, I instead want to talk about what the father to be's role should be in the decision. I think the father to be's opinion should matter 100%. Now before slamming me and saying im a male chauvinistic pig, let me explain my view some.

If you are the female, and you do not want to go through with a pregnancy, before having sexual relations, you should have a document that pretty much says "I understand that regardless of whether the female gets pregnant or not, the male under no circumstances can request the female to go on with the pregnancy."

Now lets say that no such paper was signed. The malefemale gets pregnant, and the male wants nothing to do with it. Thinks the female should get an abortion. Well if the female doesnt want an abortion, then too bad male. Cause if she wants the baby, she can keep the baby.

Lets say it is reversed. The male wants the baby, and the female doesnt. Well, the female should have to keep the baby, BUT the male should have to pay all bills related to it. Doctor visits, every needle  she is probed with, everything. + some 

Now why do I think this? Well, I think if 2 people come together and make something, then if both people dont want it destroyed, then it shouldnt be destroyed. Now you may say "But the male doesnt have to carry it around all the time ect ect ect" and if thats your excuse fine, then have there be a payment the male has to do for the female carrying it around.

I know the view is sorta wierd, its just my 2 cents on the matter and religion free. TRied to keep it purely politics/

[YoungSot]

Of course, to be even having this discussion, you'd have to already have disregarded the moral arguments against both abortion and having children outside of marriage. You can't really have a "purely political" discussion about such a topic without picking a moral side too.

[Neopergoss]

Everyone likes talking about whether it is a baby or not, I instead want to talk about what the father to be's role should be in the decision.
...
Now why do I think this? Well, I think if 2 people come together and make something, then if both people dont want it destroyed, then it shouldnt be destroyed.
...
I know the view is sorta wierd, its just my 2 cents on the matter and religion free. TRied to keep it purely politics/

This can't be discussed without considering what the two people came together to make. If they've already made a baby, that's one thing. If they've just made a zygote or an embryo, it's very different. From that perspective, they haven't made anything of value yet, so the male doesn't have a good reason to oppose an abortion.

And I was already kinda ninja'd on this, but this is ultimately a religious discussion even if you try to keep it political: either you believe a soul enters a zygote upon conception, giving it full rights to humanity, or you don't.

[BluePriest]

Everyone likes talking about whether it is a baby or not, I instead want to talk about what the father to be's role should be in the decision.
...
Now why do I think this? Well, I think if 2 people come together and make something, then if both people dont want it destroyed, then it shouldnt be destroyed.
...
I know the view is sorta wierd, its just my 2 cents on the matter and religion free. TRied to keep it purely politics/

This can't be discussed without considering what the two people came together to make. If they've already made a baby, that's one thing. If they've just made a zygote or an embryo, it's very different. From that perspective, they haven't made anything of value yet, so the male doesn't have a good reason to oppose an abortion.

And I was already kinda ninja'd on this, but this is ultimately a religious discussion even if you try to keep it political: either you believe a soul enters a zygote upon conception, giving it full rights to humanity, or you don't.

The value aspect is completely wrong. Its investing. It has value in the fact that it WILL have value, even if it currently doesnt. you know it WILL become a baby and so you invest in it.

This has nothing to do with what it is currently, this is all about what it will become. I also never referred to abortion as being moral or immoral. All I said was that if one wanted to, and was willing to pay for it, then since the 2 came together and made the zygote, then if one wants to keep it, then that person should be able to.

[Neopergoss]

The same can be said about an egg or sperm. It WILL have value if you combine it with something else, or it WILL have value if you don't get an abortion.

[OldTrees]

Something has value if it is valued. (Extreme case: If person A values a boot to the face then a boot to the face has value.)
If a parent values a fetus then the fetus has value.

[Neopergoss]

Something has value if it is valued. (Extreme case: If person A values a boot to the face then a boot to the face has value.)
If a parent values a fetus then the fetus has value.

If we determine law based on religious value, maybe photography should be illegal without consent. After all, certain religions believe that having your picture taken causes you to lose your soul. In this case, based on the potential father's religious views, it is proposed that a potential mother be forced to birth a child against her will.

To me it is similar in spirit to allowing someone to rape a woman just because it's dictated by their religion.

Ultimately I don't think men's opinions matter as much as women's on this issue.

[BluePriest]

The same can be said about an egg or sperm. It WILL have value if you combine it with something else, or it WILL have value if you don't get an abortion.

 You dont seem to realize that this isnt a discussion about if abortion is moral or not. It is about the rights of both parents. Even if abortion is considered morally sound, the topic retains its full value.

[Neopergoss]

The same can be said about an egg or sperm. It WILL have value if you combine it with something else, or it WILL have value if you don't get an abortion.

 You dont seem to realize that this isnt a discussion about if abortion is moral or not. It is about the rights of both parents. Even if abortion is considered morally sound, the topic retains its full value.

What you're missing is that the value of the fetus is essential to this discussion. If its value is high, it may be worth forcing the mother to bear the child. My argument is that it doesn't have that kind of value.

[OldTrees]

Something has value if it is valued. (Extreme case: If person A values a boot to the face then a boot to the face has value.)
If a parent values a fetus then the fetus has value.

If we determine law based on religious value, maybe photography should be illegal without consent. After all, certain religions believe that having your picture taken causes you to lose your soul. In this case, based on the potential father's religious views, it is proposed that a potential mother be forced to birth a child against her will.

To me it is similar in spirit to allowing someone to rape a woman just because it's dictated by their religion.

Ultimately I don't think men's opinions matter as much as women's on this issue.

I did not claim to disagree with you.
I only pointed out that if something is valued then it has value.
Whether this value is or is not sufficient to warrant negotiations with the mother is another topic to be discussed here.

Relevant to the discussion:
The father's interests (derived from his valuation)
The mother's interests (derived from her valuation)
The cost to the mother to bring the offspring past dependence on the mother
The interests of the offspring if the offspring is a person with interests that need to be considered.

All in all the Mother should have more say than the Father IMHO. However how much more?

[BluePriest]

Relevant to the discussion:
The father's interests (derived from his valuation)
The mother's interests (derived from her valuation)
The cost to the mother to bring the offspring past dependence on the mother
The interests of the offspring if the offspring is a person with interests that need to be considered.

All in all the Mother should have more say than the Father IMHO. However how much more?

So say the father wants to keep the whatever you want to call it. Zygote, or whatever. The mother doesnt. Is it just automatically aborted, even if the father is willing to pay all expenses for doctors ect, plus extra for the labor pains, "shipping/handling/storage of the baby" ect?

[OldTrees]

Relevant to the discussion:
The father's interests (derived from his valuation)
The mother's interests (derived from her valuation)
The cost to the mother to bring the offspring past dependence on the mother
The interests of the offspring if the offspring is a person with interests that need to be considered.

All in all the Mother should have more say than the Father IMHO. However how much more?

So say the father wants to keep the whatever you want to call it. Zygote, or whatever. The mother doesnt. Is it just automatically aborted, even if the father is willing to pay all expenses for doctors ect, plus extra for the labor pains, "shipping/handling/storage of the baby" ect?

I said more not all. I have said the extent of my opinions on the matter.