Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
...presumably with criminal penalties for non-compliance, requiring a woman to make a timely notification to recent sex partners, of her knowledge of her own pregnancy.
|
I've not discussed any penalties, therefore this is a baseless presumption.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
It is not unheard of for a woman (or a man....) to have several sex partners in a period where each, for the sake of compliance with your law, could be a candidate for paternity in the newly confirmed pregnancy. Would the pregnant woman, to "preserve their rights", be required to also make each partner aware of the other?
|
I see no reason for that. Each would be tested and the father would be notified.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I'm assuming that meeting the notification requirements of your law would be a pre-condition of abortion. That would be a "foot in the door", to make a woman jump through a "new hoop", to exercise a right, already in law, for the past 38 years.
|
I don't know. This is how compromise works. I offer something up where I have sacrificed part of my position in the interest of finding a mutually acceptable solution for both parties.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
I explained what happened in Aurora, with the medical clinic experiencing a delayed opening, while the anti- abortion "crowd", convinced a sympathetic judge to issue a temporary injunction to delay the clinic's opening on the grounds that zoning and permitting for the clinic's construction was obtained through deceit by Planned Parenthood, because they made their applications via a realty subsidiary that listed the use of the building as a "medical clinic", and not an "ABORTION MILL"!
|
I think you know that is not in my nature. I may not agree with abortions, but as I've said time and again: this is only my personal belief and forcing them on others is wrong. What those people did in Aurora was wrong. I am a huge fan of PP, actually. I think the service they provide is vital to people who need it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
You think your idea is fair and reasonable, a compromise. What are you offering in this "compromise"? I don't think you understand that all you are offering is a "foot in the door" for those opposed to legal abortion to interfere, in a new way, with a woman's right to obtain one.
|
A quote from my previous post:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel, the merciful
You're apparently forgetting where I'm compromising from. In my personal ideal system, there would be no abortion outside of rape, incest, mental retardation, or a danger to the mother's health. I'm willing to compromise on this because it's only my particular, subjective belief. I am not asking for this at all, though. No, all I'm asking is "so can the father know?".
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
Have you considered that "some people", men and women, engage in intercourse on impulse, without exchanging last names, or other contact info, or by supplying their sex partners with inaccurate contact information? What happens to women who become pregnant as a result of those circumstances?]
What happens if contact details are accurate, but the male doesn't respond to confirm that notification requirements have been met, because he is unavailable, does not want to confirm a potential paternal obligation, or doesn't recognize or remember the name of the "vessel" carrying his newly minted progeny?
|
I am aware of these circumstances, and I don't know. I am left wondering if I will be the only one to provide an attempt at compromise in this thread.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
You want to argue fine points of privacy rights precedent, but details of your proposal for a law which is actually a hurdle, a waiting period, a disqualifier for some women to have what they have now, a right to a safe, legal, medical abortion, are extremely lacking. If you object to implementing new legal hurdles in the way of exercising other hard won rights, voting, discrimination because of race, or sex, because of the potential for abuse, by authority or by agenda driven opponents, why would you call what you want impelemented, a "compromise"?
|
Because it is. I am not proposing something totally favorable to my position, and that has concessions that take into consideration the needs or wants of your side. It is the very definition of compromise. Why, I wonder, is it that out of all of my fellow liberals in this thread, who are capable of brilliance and sympathy, I am the only person to attempt a compromise? Is it because the ideals behind Roe v. Wade has become gospel, a type of unquestionable faith, instead of being a reasonable conclusion to a human rights question? In what world is a conclusion beyond questioning?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
If you don't get what you want, are you going to work to try to make it illegal to obtain an abortion?
|
This is plainly absurd. Nothing I have said suggests this whatsoever. It's a blatant strawman that has been used again and again. I am not trying to make abortion illegal. I would, actually, defend it's legality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by host
If this is really a fairness issue, why didn't you respond to my idea about working to change parental financial support laws, as they pertain to males?
|
Because fathers already have rights after the child is born, this is not an issue that addresses this thread topic. This is about the legal rights concerning the unborn and the father.