Willravel

Perhaps it would be better to address my posts, as you and I are more likely to share common ground than you and Ustwo.

I am of the personal opinion that abortion is tantamount to premeditated murder, as "life" as it's described by science would be an applicable description as soon as the organism (fetus) begins functioning, however I accept that this view is not necessarily shared by a great number of people I believe to be intelligent people. As such, I am willing to not fight the position that this should be a personal choice. If I am ever in a position where my personal opinion has been asked I will give it, but I would be wrong to force it on people who do not share it. As such, I would not support legislation to ban abortion, nor would I take any steps personally to prevent them.

The conclusion that abortion is murder, however, means that fatherhood essentially begins as soon as the zygote is formed and cells begin to replicate. As such, any rights enjoyed by a father after birth would clearly apply before birth as well. This is the point in the thread upon which I and people who do not consider a fetus alive differ. Regardless, one could argue, based on the idea that a fetus is property (which is how the law sees it), that the acquisition or creation of said property is a joint venture. While a woman clearly bears more as she carries the property to term, said creation absolutely requires the cooperation of two parties. As such, at least some rights, though no where near a much as the woman and not overriding the woman's right to her own bodily functions as is clearly secured by Roe v. Wade, should be given to the father.

The example which I provided above, allowing the father to be notified of the abortion of his potential offspring, would not violate a woman's right to her own bodily functions, nor would it violate her privacy as the man was also directly involved in the procreation.

Would you consider such a law unfair?