Quote from: doublecross on July 15, 2011, 06:30:31 amSo, basically the way I see it is that claiming that the father should have a 100% say completely ignores most of the arguments brought up in other aspects of the abortion debate.1) Rape. Should a man who rapes a woman, impregnating her, be able to say that he will not allow her to have an abortion?2) Health of the mother. Say a doctor has determined, with enough certainty that it rounds to 100%, that is the woman goes through with the pregnancy, it will kill her. If the man decides to forbid the abortion, that would be akin to killing her, would it not? Even if you claim an abortion is murder, I would argue that one cannot choose to kill a mother to save a fetus, even if one considers abortion to be murder.This is me ignoring the theme of this post and just making the normal pro-abortion argument. I am wondering how you address these two points.The child never committed rape. Why should an innocent child be murdered for the acts of his father? Why does the mother have the right to kill someone just because someone else did something horrible to her? If someone shot me in the leg, does that give me the right to go beat on someone else's head with a club? I think not. Rape is not a viable reason for abortion.As for the health of the mother, having an abortion to save the mother's life is hardly different than a mother using her child as a shield against a crazy gunman. Would you believe that to be okay? Rahter, an operation should be performed to attempt to relocate the fetus so as to save both mother and child. If the child happens to die during the procedure, at least the full intent was to save it.To the point of the question, since both parents had an equal hand in the creation of the child, they should both have equal rights to carry it to term or demand such. Courts always rule in the best interests of childern in custody and similar family cases, why not here too? Isn't the best interest of the child in this case to bring it to term? Thus, if either parent desires the child to be brought to term, then they should have the ability to do so. That is simply maintaining judicial consistency as far as I am concerned.The value of the child is the fact that it is a person; life begins at conception. If you believe it beigns at another point in time, then you are already on a slippery slope for defining life in cases such as comas, sleep, and other such statuses.
So, basically the way I see it is that claiming that the father should have a 100% say completely ignores most of the arguments brought up in other aspects of the abortion debate.1) Rape. Should a man who rapes a woman, impregnating her, be able to say that he will not allow her to have an abortion?2) Health of the mother. Say a doctor has determined, with enough certainty that it rounds to 100%, that is the woman goes through with the pregnancy, it will kill her. If the man decides to forbid the abortion, that would be akin to killing her, would it not? Even if you claim an abortion is murder, I would argue that one cannot choose to kill a mother to save a fetus, even if one considers abortion to be murder.This is me ignoring the theme of this post and just making the normal pro-abortion argument. I am wondering how you address these two points.
The value of the child is the fact that it is a person; life begins at conception.
