OptimisticOwl Wrote:I don't think it is an emotional/moral debate:  I think it is a medico-legal debate.

Everyone agrees that it is morally wrong to commit murder.  The debate is over at what point the growth inside a woman's body becomes a human being, worthy of protection by law from being murdered.  Some people think this moment happens at the moment of conception, others not until the baby is fully, 100% born and separate from the mother, and some think it happens somewhere in between.  So when does that lump stop being a  tumor, excisable at the choice of the woman, and become a human being, protected by law?  That is the debate.  I don't have the answers.  I do find it illogical that a woman can abort a child/fetus or keep it, and the child/fetus is defined by her choice.  If she kills it, it is a fetus, if she keeps it, it is a child.  Many mothers have already named their child by the 4th or 5th month of pregnancy.

I think it is unfortunate that the SCOTUS nominations are all seen in the light of this single issue.  I want justices that uphold the law, whatever it may be. 

Re: father's rights, I saw an interesting statement in the paper today.  "When a couple splits, she gets the kids and he gets an invoice".

Fathers are important.  We have responsibilites: we should have rights too.

Agreed.

Personally, I think abortion is simply wrong (in MOST cases)...however, I also don't think my moral opinion should be forced upon anyone else. The legal portion of the debate does hinge on when a fetus is a life. But I would also argue that people's moral convictions, not any medical criteria, are the basis of when they feel life begins.

I do think that too many SCOTUS (is that really any easier to write than Supreme Court?) nominations are view from the abortion/right to privacy standpoint. Frankly, I don't particularily care what the justices personal opinions are in that matter. I care about their judicial philosophy and their ability to separate personal convictions from legal matters. This isn't electing someone to represent YOU and YOUR OPINIONS (general, not you specifically OO), it's putting someone in office to interpret the document that our entire country is based from and how such interpretations should be applied to today's society. Let's face it...most of the issues troubling society today were beyond the range of conceivable issues for the Founding Fathers at the time.

I want justices that fairly interpret the Constitution and fairly judge its applicability to today's situations with respect to inherrent rights of the people. I don't want justices that make up contrived rights (surprising to hear from a Dem?). I don't want justices that have an agenda before setting foot in the Court. And most importantly, I don't want justices that cannot separate their personal opinions from legal principles.

Honestly, I doubt I would line up with John Roberts philosophically; but there's no doubt in my mind that he was highly qualified for the job. If I had any say in the matter, I would have supported his nomination.

edit: I especially agree about your comment on fathers. It's unfortunate that society still views mothers as the primary parent responsible for raising children and uses that as an arguement against giving custody to the father.

Again I ask, in the matter of abortion what rights should a father have and wouldn't giving the father rights void the mother's rights?

Edit: For Owl.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Again I ask, in the matter of abortion what rights should a father have and wouldn't giving the father rights void the mother's rights?

Edit: For Owl.

That unborn baby is half his, right? If the woman decided to have it, you would expect the father to pay child support, wouldn't you? It seems to me that the law feels that the baby is half his responsibility. If the baby is half his responsibility, wouldn't it stand to reason that the unborn baby is also half his responsibility? If that is the case, shouldn't he have a say in that unborn baby's future?

Wouldn't giving him a say remove the woman's say in the event of a split decision?

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Wouldn't giving him a say remove the woman's say in the event of a split decision?

Possibly, but by choosing to have it, wouldn't she be imposing child support payments on the father without his consent/support or by choosing to abort it, rob the father from the opportunity to raise his child? It takes two to conceive (let's leave sperm donors out of this), shouldn't it also take two to make the decision?

Exceptions: Forced conception (i.e. rape, incest, lying about contraception/birth control, etc.) In this case, the choice should lie solely with the party who was wronged.

cant_think_of_a_witty_name Wrote:Again I ask, in the matter of abortion what rights should a father have and wouldn't giving the father rights void the mother's rights?

Edit: For Owl.

Certainly the placement of the lump/tumor/fetus/baby INSIDE the mother, not the father, raises some practical questions. Sometimes one parent wants the child, the other doesn't. In both cases the father's desires are worth zero, the mother's 100%. How about this: notify the father of the mother's desire to abort. If he wants the child, and she doesn't, the child is carried to term, at which point the father assumes 100% responsibility for raising the child and the mother's parental rights and responsibilities, including financial responsibility) are terminated

When a man squawks about 18 years of financial responsibility for one night of fun (especially when he wants the abortion and she doesn't), we have little sympathy and "should have thought of that before you took it out of your pants".

If a woman squawks about 9 months of discomfort and inconvienience for one night of fun (especially when she wants the abortion and he doesn't), why not say " Should have thought about that before you dropped your pants"?

I'm glad my wife didn't decide to kill my son. I've protected him since he was born; why not before?

Perhaps the above should be limited to married couples. Maybe not. If you have a better suggestion, let's hear it. But at the least, he should be notified. At least give him a chance to talk her out of it.But the current system just igrores fathers: we are seen not as parents, but as wallets.