Touche.

Maybe will needs to form his own party.

Only because neither language formation nor values formation are in the domain of science. If some crazies redefined 'humanity' as "white upper-class landowners with at least one slave", science would have NOTHING to say to them. Nothing.

That's not quite right, though. I fall back on the wishes of both clumps of cells. And when those two clumps of cells have irreconcilable differences, say "that's nine months of my life I'll never get back" versus "that's my life I'll never get back", I make the obvious choice.

But the facts are not inconclusive. We know all we need to know about the z/e/f. We just come up with different interpretations of those facts. We both go with what we don't absolutely know. If what you're doing is searching for a way to make your position objectively better, I really don't think you're going to find it.

You were the one to bring up souls. And I answered this already. In a word: the blueprint.

Again, there's nothing scientific in this disagreement.

The potentiality is hardwired into the organism. It proceeds naturally if not interrupted. It's a physical, real part of the make-up. It's not some wishy-washy "I have the potential to be president", it's concrete and observable.

It's not potential in the way the word is usually used. It's actually a characteristic.

Certainly. No, I'm not talking about the legal construct.

Get ready for Mr. Godwin... so the Holocaust was only a mass number of displeasing events? That's all it was, morally? (Hey, at least I didn't do the abortion=holocaust comparison!)

Are you forgetting the other meaning of murder, or dismissing it?

fta: i think you're making my argument for me...so thanks. I know I can't make my argument objectively "better," the point is that it's indeterminant, when averaged over multiple people. No one can agree. Reasonable people...can't agree. We all agree that putting a gun into a kid who has just been popped is a bad thing. Slitting your grandmother's throat...probably immoral. When it comes to the z/e/f or whatever you want to call it, there's a lot of confusion. Perhaps not for you, but for others. So I say, in your personal life make personal decisions that affect you personally. That's called choice, and is why I'm pro-choice. Make your choice.

However, since we don't have that little question nailed down, I don't see how we can make official policy about a potential father's rights...when the fundamental of question of "is there anything to have rights over?" hasn't been settled. It's putting the cart before the horse. If we give some sort of "father's rights" to the fetus, then it gets argued backwards that there must have been a human life to give rights over. It's like intelligent design, in my opinion. We don't give a man the "rights" over anything else in a woman's body...so if we grant rights in this particular situation...then what exactly are we doing?

Well, if you need to call it murder for it to be a big deal, the you're kind of proving my point about the need to use the word "murder" because of the emotional weight it has.

But it does depend on perspective- i'm sure most military folk would disagree with you about the nature of murder in the context of war. The nazis probably didn't think it was murder. That's the point- labeling a certain act a murder is just another way of saying that somebody got killed in a way that you consider to be unjust. The fact that you want to call abortion murder reflects more on your opinion of abortion than it does on the merits of abortion. It's just a way of framing the argument, an unfortunate way because it relies more on appeals to emotion than reason, but i guess that type of thing is unavoidable when discussing morality.

Wow. I don't think I've ever quite seen anyone dehumanize women to the point of calling them a "clump of cells" and equating their status in the word with a fetus. I've seen people make arguments that treat women like children, but this is a pretty impressive new level of extreme.

It's also disingenuous to imply that the effects of pregnancy and childbirth are an isolable 9-month period, but I've never observed much interest from some sides in how unwanted pregnancy has lasting impact on the lives of women, so I'm not surprised if you honestly think your comparison is meaningful.

I don't think you 'get it', in fact I'm sure you don't.

We are living creatures are just lumps of cells. Your body is really a hive of various related cells, and your gonads are the 'queen' if you want to expand it out. Its not 'dehumanizing' someone to call them a lump of cells any more to call a fetus a 'lump of cells'. YOU are a lump of cells, thats ALL you are. You can think, dance, make forum posts, but you are just a lump of cells, as am I.

FTA's stance is pretty clear. To HIM that 'lump of cells' thats a fetus is as a life is not unlike that lump of cells thats a woman, or a man. Its a human lump of cells. One is fully differentiated as a adult, the other is just forming, but they are the same in different life stages.

There was nothing extreme at all in what he said.

Abortion has a lasting effect on women too. I had a girl crying in my arms over hers. We were casually dating, I go to visit her, we are about to have sex and then shes sobbing about some abortion she had at 16.

My family also used to take in teens who were pregnant so they could give birth away from the pressures of family and their friends in school. They gave the kids up for adoption.

I wonder how many of those girls are happy that they didn't abort now years past. I only still know one, shes happy about it.

I can't think many women who gave their children up for adoption are thinking 'Oh this is so horrible, I can't live without knowing who my children are, I wish I had aborted them instead!'

Nice anecdotes, but completely unsubstantiated by medical studies. ..as far as the girl crying in your arms, I guess you just ooze empathy, but girls/women experience a range of emotions from sadness to relief to happiness.

In fact, studies by Reagan's pro-life Surgeon General Coop, the American Psychological Association and Royal Colleges of Obstetricians and Gynecologists among others have found that an abortion has no more lasting effect on most women's mental health than taking an unwanted pregnancy to term.

***

To the more germane question.....IMO, a potential father should be included in the discussion over options, but men will never and should never have an equal voice or equal rights in a woman's reproductive decision......we/they should focus on a dad's equity in child custody battles (there should not be a presumption that the mother would be a better parent), adoption rights, etc.

I'm sorry it took me this long to go through 6 pages but you all just fried my critical thinking skills, so then I went back out and read the topic again and "Mysperm" was right next to my "Myspace" link on my firefox bar and I just had to share my giggles.

You don't think that abortion can and has caused stress or emotional problems for some girls/women?
There is no scientific law about a specific occurrence's effect on someone's mental health because there are too many variables in psychology. What may be totally fine for one person could cause PTSD in others. As such, a ruling such as the one you listed above is irresponsible because it's misleading. For some women, abortion can be much worse than bringing an unwanted child to term, thus making that ruling incorrect in some cases.
I'm not suggesting an equal voice. I can't remember anyone mentioning equal rights. I created this thread because men have no rights. I'd like less than half, but more than zero.

I agree....I was responding to Ustwo's comment "Abortion has a lasting effect on women too." Maybe, maybe not....maybe the effect on a woman's mental health is negative, maybe its positive.

As you say....the effects vary. But there is an intent by many who oppose abortion to generalize and politicize the issue by using anecdotes and flawed data to suggest that abortions pose a direct threat to a woman's mental health. IMO, that was Ustwo's intent..but I could certainly be wrong.

You might find this interesting, particularly as it described the study done by pro-life Surgeon General C Everett Koop:

Despite years of trying, antiabortion activists failed to gain any traction with the nation's major medical groups in alleging that abortion posed a direct threat to women's health, especially their mental health, so they turned to the political process to legitimize their claims. In 1987, they convinced President Reagan to direct U.S. Surgeon General C. Everett Koop to analyze the health effects of abortion and submit a report to the president. As Koop had been appointed to his position in no small part because of his antiabortion views, both prochoice and antiabortion factions believed the outcome to be preordained. (An eminent pediatric surgeon as well as an outspoken abortion foe, Koop had no prior experience or background in public health; both public health and prochoice advocates in Congress vehemently opposed his appointment, delaying his confirmation by several months.)

Koop reviewed the scientific and medical literature and consulted with a wide range of experts and advocacy groups on both sides of the issue. Yet, after 15 months, no report was forthcoming. Rather, on January 9, 1989, Koop wrote a letter to the president explaining that he would not be issuing a report at all because "the scientific studies do not provide conclusive data about the health effects of abortion on women." Koop apparently was referring to the effects of abortion on mental health, because his letter essentially dismissed any doubts about the physical safety of the procedure.

Prochoice members of Congress, surprised by Koop's careful and balanced analysis, sought to force his more detailed findings into the public domain. A hearing before the House Government Operations Subcommittee on Human Resources and Intergovernmental Relations was called in March 1989 to give Koop an opportunity to testify about the content of his draft report, which had begun to leak out despite the administration's best efforts. At the hearing, Koop explained that he chose not to pursue an inquiry into the safety of the abortion procedure itself, because the "obstetricians and gynecologists had long since concluded that the physical sequelae of abortion were no different than those found in women who carried pregnancy to term or who had never been pregnant. I had nothing further to add to that subject in my letter to the president"

Abortion and Mental Health: Myths and Realities

Rights are a legal issue and there are no legal half rights.

As I said,the man should be allowed to be involved in the decision-making, but ultimately, a woman's reproductive choice is hers.

It's not a threat often enough to justify making a rule either way. As such, it's an ineffective argument for either side. I couldn't argue it's common enough to justify turning people away because of potential emotional distress and a pro choicer couldn't justify accepting people because there's no potential for emotional distress.
Heh. I have that bookmarked in my "abortion" favorites list already, actually.
A man cannot be guaranteed a part of the decision making when he is only allowed to be included on the whim of the woman. Thus the thread.

Since this is a political thread, how would you frame such a law?

And what purpose would it serve, if the ultimate decision is left to a woman to determine her own reproductive choice? If you are saying the ultimate decision is not the woman's, then you are asking for equal rights and an equal voice.

You might read, but probably wont agree with this article in Salon (if its not already in your bookmarks):
Dad's Sad, Mad: Too Bad

An example of what I would ask for:
Should the father's identity be known, he will be contacted upon the abortion of his unborn offspring.
This wouldn't interfere with Roe v. Wade in any way. The decision making process would not change (unless the woman didn't want the father to know, in which case he couldn't be contacted because his identity wouldn't be known).
I'm not asking for equal rights.

I dont undertand what this would accomplish, other than "knowing" ...if that is your only intent in compelling the woman to identify the father.

Such a law could also leave the father potentially open to criminal charges of statutory rape, sexual molestation....if the mother was a minor.

It's main function is to help avoid situations like my friend was in. His gf lied about an abortion and he couldn't verify it. Under this law, a man could verify it.
Yes it would, and I have no problem with that. Statutory rape is wrong.

How would your friend's life have changed if he could have verified it..after the fact?

It would have told him that she was lying and that she wasn't pregnant. He dropped out of school and found two jobs because of her lie. As a direct result, he didn't graduate on time and he suffered a great deal because of guilt. He was eventually able to get back on track, but it took several years.

Had this law been in effect, he could have contacted a system and ask "My name is xxxxxxxx, did xxx get an abortion? I would be the father." Instead it took him telling her parents and them having to inquire. It took months.

Edit: To clarify, a DNA test would be performed on the unborn child and the father before information was released. DNA tests can be done from very early stages in the development of the fetus.

A reasonable person could view FTA's opinion as extreme, because what another person decides to permit to grow, or not, in her uterus....is none of his business.

Last november, South Dakota voters took back women;s right to choose, after their legislature and governor. took it away from them:


<h3>How 'bout brainwashin' the boys, too?:</h3>

Ustwo, why do you seem to post, so often, so similar to someone falling under the spell of every conservative financed disinformation "Op", from tort "rerorm", to this, excerpted from the NY Times article, linked below?

So its now 'unreasonable' to be against abortion morally?

Whatever host.

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?

will...IMO, you havent made a case for your proposed law and I would still oppose it.

What I could support and what I think would be reasonable would be an expanded statement by the AMA (and or appropriate affiliates) of its current policies and practices for physicians:
Perhaps adding language....the patient should be encouraged to inform and involve the spouse/partner if such notification poses no threat to the patient, with the patient retaining the final right to determine the most appropriate treatment.

That sounds about as effective as a harshly worded letter from the U.N.

The only solution to the issue Will raised will be a reasonable middle course that both sides might find acceptable at some level...ss opposed to your harsh solution to take a woman's reproductive rights away from her.

will, this is the United States, and the year is 2008.... I can understand anyone believing that life begins at conception, or even that it is improper to interfere with the process of ovulation, or, in the case of a man, "wasting his seed", belief in sex only for procreation and a reverence towards semen and ovum.

I think it is okay to familiarize others with a sense of a reverence for life, and procreation, even at the earliest stages, and in the potential. I think it's okay to talk to anyone who will listen or read another person's opinions about these concepts and closely held beliefs.

Try to counsel people, stand in close, legal proximity to clincs and other medical facilities which provide women's reproductive health services, including abortion servivces. Try to engage people approaching or leaving these facilities, to try to influence them. Donate or volunteer for advertising and counseling services aligned with your belieffs.

But, remember our circumstances, they're in my opening sentence. I think a pharmacist who objects to filling prescriptions for birth control,is acting reasonably if he defers to a colleague to fill such prescritptions. But, if he works alone or has a commitment to customer service as part of his job description, he should fill the prescritption without comment or delay, or resign form his position.

A woman in the US has the right to vote, and the right to choose what grows or doesn't grow in her uterus. No restrictions are discussed or planned to narrow or curtail a woman' voting rights.

The right to choose must be considered in the same way. Just as the vote was, the right to choose has been a hard fought battle. We need to accept that it is over, and not attempt to reign it in or narrow it via attempts to impose legally enforceable restrictions oin it, no matterhow altruistic and reasonable the motivation to do so, is.

We must all agree not to mess with it. Gun rights advocates demand nothing less, and compared to the right to choose, gun ownership seems trivial matter. If your concern is fathers's rights, why niot propose changes to family law practice, having to do with support obligations, under the law.

I'm not messing with anything but bias that has no reason. As I said, I'm not suggesting that we take away a woman's right to choose. I am suggesting that we allow a man to know if he has (potential) offspring or not. It's actually a case of privacy, not Roe v. Wade. I regret mentioning Roe v. Wade in the OP. As to the privacy issue, the information should not be owned by the woman just because she's the one pregnant. The information is not included in "my body, my choice".

Did you read my post? You didn't respond to anything I wrote.

Will.....how would you protect a woman from a potentially bullying, verbally or physically abusive man if she were forced to allow him to know?

Nope...it doesnt fly for me. I can see going as far as encouraging a woman to provide notification to the man if she feels it would not leave her exposed to a potentially threatening situation.

That excuse won't fly. Some people will physically and emotionally abuse people, and there are already ways to deal with it. If a man hits a woman, do you think she won't be able to call the police just because she aborted his child? That makes no sense.

You act as if when people are married, a man can do whatever he wants to a woman.

Will....you should know that most bullying is never reported...and you want to give a man another excuse to bully a woman who may feel threatened if she were forced to report her pregnancy?

I might add that your justification for notification based on your friend's dropping out of school, having to get two jobs and not graduating on time is not very compelling to me. Guys drop out of school for many reasons, often looking for an excuse to externalize their action.

I continue to wonder why I participate in subjects that pretend to be about "father's rights" or some other "this isn't about abortion" topic. Will, whatever your initial intention, your topic now boils down to your belief that a woman choosing an abortion is nothing less than "premeditated murder."

The debate on when life begins, or ends for that matter, belongs in Philosophy. Host made it very clear that challenging current law begins with a lawyer willing to make that challenge to the law. Has that challenge been made? Are you making an effort to change the law, or is judging women as murderers sufficient for you? Your moral code doesn't trump the law.

That's true, most women are delicate flowers and most men are abusive.

Here's a nutters idea: you're reaching, a lot. There's no reason to believe that this type of policy would cause ANY abuse. None whatsoever. In fact, I'd go as far to say that this would likely help a great many people.
He would have graduated with honors and gone on to a good UC. Instead he graduated late and had to attend a shitty JC. Her lie ruined his life and your lack of sympathy is symptomatic of apologism. She was wrong to lie, and her lie damaged him greatly.

I've still not seen any case to suggest my proposal isn't sound.

You're letting yourself be blinded to what I'm saying. It's a shame I have to keep writing this over and over and over, continually explaining to those who refuse to listen:

I HAVE NOT, DO NOT, AND NEVER PLAN TO TAKE ANY ACTION TO TAKE AWAY A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE WHETHER OR NOT TO HAVE AN ABORTION. MY MORAL CODE IS MY OWN AND I AM WELL AWARE THAT FORCING IT ON SOMEONE ELSE IS WRONG. I HAVE NEVER NOR HAVE I EVER EVEN HINTED AT ANYTHING DIFFERENT.

Is that clear? So this will be the last time I address this point in the thread.

Contacting the father to simply supply information will not interfere with a woman's right to choose, so it's not a part of this thread. Nothing I suggested would take away a woman's right to choose. I even made it clear in the OP that none of my proposals would interfere with Roe v. Wade.

Apparently even the most intelligent people cannot grasp this. I must say that I'm profoundly disappointed.

Close the thread if you want, Mods.

Many/most pro-choice advocates who believe all aspects affecting a woman's choice is ABSOLUTE will never buy into your proposal. I think you know that. But I dont sense a willingness to compromise on your part. You want the man to have an ABSOLUTE right to know.

I was looking for a political solution that might be acceptable to both sides as a reasonable accommodation to the man....less than you want, but better that nothing....and more than most pro-choice advocates would probably support.

My suggestions already are compromise. Under my ideal system, all abortions would require a paternity test and the state would contact the father. I'm suggesting, as a compromise, that if a father asks he can find out.

Your proposal, a system in which the man can only know if the woman wants it, is absolutely useless. She can currently just tell him and show him the bill. In other words, your proposal isn't compromise as it's already in place.

Are you abandoning your argument that my program would cause a spike in abuse from men, or are you still arguing it?

I would still argue that some women would feel intimidated to be forced to provide notification to the man.

I have no idea how many and neither do you and neither of us will ever be in the woman's position to know.

Good luck with your compromise!

Maybe it's because you said this over on page one. :confused:

If the man tries anything, she can call the police. I don't see any reason to think that abuse would happen (more than normal), but if it does the woman isn't defenseless.

I was providing my viewpoint so that compromise could happen. In compromise, one must understand both sides. I made it clear through the whole thread that I believe abortion is wrong, but that I'd not force my beliefs on someone.

Unfortunately, I have been the only person in many pages to try and offer any middle ground solution.

I am not being stubborn, or unwilling to grasp the issue you have presented in regards to the feelings of the father. I have tried to give an example where the agreement between the mother and father is impossible. It returns to who has the final say of the fetus when there is disagreement. I'm not seeing where your compromise argument changes the ultimate choice that is now legally held by the woman.

What am I missing that shouting hasn't caused enlightenment?

The mother has the final say. I don't want to change that. Whether I agree with it or not is, I now understand, moot.

I'm sure you understand the concept of not agreeing with something, but also recognizing that trying to change it would be wrong.

Will how will the government contact the father? A paternal test needs samples from the baby and the father. Thus in order to determine who the father is they need to already know who the father is..... The state doesn't have a database of our DNA (thank god) and thus such a law would be unenforceable.

If we want to remove the double standard in the law either

1) Fathers should have a right to prevent the abortion

OR

2) Fathers should have the right to say "I don't want this child" and thus be free of any financial responsibility.

Personally I prefer number 1 to number 2. Can anyone think of any other ways to remove the double standard?

yes rekna: ex-vitro and testtube babies. that's about it.

will: i think that everyone understands what you think you're trying to say. THE PROBLEM IS THAT NONE OF US THINK THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS TENABLE. If you want to do the all-caps thing. Speaking for myself, but I think probably somewhat representative of the group you're trying mostly to convert, I understand that you want some sort of mandatory notification for "a male" any time a woman goes to get an abortion. However, you do not want to revoke Roe v. Wade, or more correctly, you're willing to not "overturn" Roe v. Wade.

OK. The problem, as I see it, is those two positions become nearly mutually exclusive, pragmatically. What a nightmare! I disagree with your objection to dc's statements about the probable affect on women who have been / are being abused. (ps. No one is saying all women are abused, or that all men are abusive. Nice strawman. Some women are abused, and they would be disproportionately affected. pps. It's not a marginal amount of women, according to most sources I've seen) Furthermore, what happens if a woman is dating multiple men, and has a contraception malfunction with one of them? What if a cheating wife, or girlfriend situation occurs? Of for that matter, a cheating husband or boyfriend matter? For me, it's a huge difference between "Which situations would I, as the male, like to have a right to know, and which situations should I actually have a right to know?" Let's say the girl lies about the father, and/or refuses to give a name? What's her penalty? Is she denied the right to the abortion until she fesses up? Is it pending a DNA test? Once again, it will go back to a place that host alluded to earlier. More educated/middle class chicks will tell the docs to fuck off, and/or pay outright for a doctor who is leniant on the disclosure forms, while people with less access to legal and financial defense strategies will tend to be affected. (yes, that's a hypothesis). As well-intentioned as I know your wishes are, I don't see them ever working out. The fact that others disagree with you doesn't mean you need to get petulant and suggest that the thread be closed. It's not the first time a thread hasn't gone the way the OP wanted.

I'm not saying it's perfect, and I agree that the way things are right now it's definitely way-lop sided toward the female's discretion. I don't necessarily like it, but I don't see any meaningful way to moderate the situation that doesn't involve a cure that's worse than the problem.

My thread is more about maintaining a double-standard, but reducing the distance from one set of rights to the other. Unfortunately, either of your suggestions would require an asterisk to Roe v. Wade, which is something most people would have a serious problem with.

The state will contact the father by requiring it on one the forms required to have an abortion. If the information is wrong, there could be a penalty. If the woman can demonstrate that the father has a history of violence, then he will not be contacted.

I see this as a good compromise. It doesn't take away the sole decision from the woman, but it also includes the man in an informational sense, assuming he has no history of violence.

Will....do you believe the Constitution provides a right of privacy, which was in part the basis for the Griswold decision (overturned a state law that prohibited sale/distribution of contraceptions) and the Roe decision?

Both recognized a Constitutional "right of privacy" either as an unenumerated right in the 9th amendment or as interpreted in the first clause of the 14th amendment.

If you believe in a Constitutional "right of privacy", you cannot enact a law that violates a woman's right of privacy.

The "right to privacy" is no explicitly stated in the Constitution. As it's only inferred (privacy of beliefs [1st Amendment], privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers [3rd Amendment], privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches [4th Amendment], and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination), the right itself does not include all information. In addition to that, information is not a part of a woman's body by any stretch, and if it is connected to the biological component, then it's not unreasonable to connect it to each part of the whole biological component, sperm and ovum. As such, the information belongs to each party who plays a direct role in the act of procreation, the mother and father. In addition to this, after the child is born, the ownership (or more correctly the responsibility) lies with both parties. As such, I believe that in fact it could be a violation of a father's privacy to withhold information on a joint venture. While the property belongs to the mother, the information does not, necessarily.

I'll summarize:
1) the Constitutional right to privacy, being implied, is subject to interpretation
2) As the father plays a direct role in the creation of the fetus and bears responsibility upon birth, the information is his as well as the mother's.

Man, I'm proving others' points all over the place!

That seems to be the objective fact that turns you toward the pro-choice position. I don't think I did anything to help you prove this point, though. In fact, as you note, I don't see confusion myself. More importantly, I don't see how confusion on the matter should lead naturally to pro-choice rather than anti-choice. It looks more like a crapshoot to me.

Will....IMO what you are suggesting is that the right of privacy be re-interpreted to conveniently fit your law rather than decades of judicial precedent.

That some compromiise you propose!

There's no reinterpretation. Roe v. Wade has never been used to discuss the ownership of the information of the paternal line. It has yet to be interpreted, therefore arguing this with the law is moot. There is no precedence.

It will have to be argued on it's merits.

BTW, the "right to be left alone" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this from a legal standing.

I dont know how to state it any other way...you want to infringe on a woman's right of privacy in order to provide the man with a right to know.

Good luck if you really believe that you can make the case that this is a reasonable compromise.

I'm done here :)

No. I'm suggesting that in fact the information is the property of both parties involved in conception and bearing the responsibility of the child once it's born. It's an infringement of a man's right to information that is partially his to prevent him from knowing.
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?". Apparently, no one on your side is willing to change the system whatsoever.

But I'm guilty of not compromising.

“For everything you have missed, you have gained something else, and for everything you gain, you lose something else.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

After seven pages of serious ideological differences leading to nowhere, a lighter touch may be in order:

http://bp3.blogger.com/_koFXUwAbrrI/...t_New_Logo.jpg

Now carry on!

You started a thread founded on your idea that you are compromising by not opposing a woman's right to choose, but you do insist on a law, 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.

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'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 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"!

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.

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?

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, protections from discrimination because of race, or sex, age, or disability, because of the potential for abuse, by authority or by agenda driven opponents, why would you call what you want impelemented, a "compromise"?

If you don't get what you want, are you going to work to try to make it illegal to obtain an abortion?

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?

I've not discussed any penalties, therefore this is a baseless presumption.
I see no reason for that. Each would be tested and the father would be notified.
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.
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.
A quote from my previous post:
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.
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?
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.
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.

What if she had multiple one night stands and doesn't know who the father is? Or what if she never got his number?

Off the top of my head? Names of each man and DNA tests for those who want them.

BTW, if the father doesn't care, then there's no sense in a test. I may have forgotten to mention that before.

Wow. You had to both read thoughts into my comment AND take my comment out of context. You must have really been in the mood for taking offense.

It's not disrespecting women, it's respecting the z/e/f.

Maybe, maybe not. But the nine months plus years of therapy still isn't a good enough justification for killing it. Think of the same argument in defense of infanticide; would you agree with it there?

No? Then our disagreement isn't over how hard pregnancy is.

I hate my connection, btw.

And host, thanks for nine minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Oh well, at least I learned that I'm probably racist.

What if she lies that she doesn't know who it is?

I'm of two minds on the answer to this. On the one hand, preventing her from having an abortion could be a violation of Roe v. Wade, but on the other hand lying to the police is illegal. Perhaps she can have the abortion (to appease pro-choicers and to not interfere with Roe v. Wade), but the standard penalty for lying to a police officer is applied. This is assuming that the father doesn't have a verifiable history of violence.

Much ado about nothing.

*Is glad he comes from a country where abortion is illegal*

You're a dirty foreigner?

will: i appreciate your desire to find a way to "even up the odds" in as far as the rights of the male to have knowledge of whether he has impregnated a woman he has been sexually active with. I can't speak for other men, or really other posters in general, but I can definitely sympathize with your position. If I got my girlfriend pregnant, I would want to know for sure. Although I'm pro-choice, I don't know how I'd feel about her getting an abortion, and particularly without my knowledge. I'd be interested in any information, of a non-anecdotal nature, of the number of otherwise healthy relationships in which a woman seeks to have an abortion without telling her boyfriend/husband/partner. I will admit that I have markedly less sympathy for the position of a guy who hooks up with a girl on spring break or the equivalent (one night stand), resulting in her becoming pregnant if she then proceeds to want an abortion. That type of sexual behavior inherently carries risk, and I don't think I'd feel the same way as if my girlfriend, with whom I have a pretty solid relationship, were to become pregnant. I'm wondering, in a nutshell, how much of a practical problem this particular issue is. I've known women who have had abortions, and in pretty much every case, the guy has known. He might not have liked her decision, although in most cases he was ok with it. Maybe not thrilled, but he respected her rights. Rights in the colloquial sense, if not the legal sense. Before I'd even want to speculate about possible changes to current law, which represents decades of fighting for this right for women, I'd need to feel compelled to believe it was a common problem. Otherwise, it looks to me like - regardless of your motivations - what it will turn into is another way to prevent a woman from exercising her rights.

fta: I can somewhat understand your position. I didn't mean confusion for you personally, but in the general sense as a population. The issue is far from settled as a society. Therefore, as I said, I default to the rights of the person I can definitely confirm is, in fact, a person. I don't think there is much confusion as to whether the pregnant woman is a fully-realized human, outside of questions of spiritual and philosophical enlightenment.

Yeah, not much more to say here, but a few redundant notes.

You can only definitely confirm that the woman is a person because the law determines what a person is. A century and a half ago - and this is only brought up to make this one point - you wouldn't have such an easy time making that confirmation.

I understand that you meant general confusion. I only mean that using this confusion to determine a default abortion position seems like a crapshoot to me. Or even an invocation of the laziest aspect of conservatism - don't rock the boatism. Bad analogy: "There's too much confusion about metaphysical things - whether there's a God, which values are best, whether evil exists - so I'll just stick with what's empirically measurable." Great choice, now you've got a bunch of historical moralities at best and no justification for following any of them. "...oops, well I'll just kill some time on this Law & Order marathon then."

Wow, that's even worse than I envisioned. Sorry. Ignore that last bit.

Pig: Your last post reminded me of a couple I knew (when they were together). They had an open relationship, lived a thousand miles apart, she already had 2 kids from a previous partner, pretty young... and the current boyfriend made it VERY CLEAR that he never wanted to have kids with her. He had a hard enough time being around the kids she already had, from another man, complained about them constantly.

It turns out (I heard later) that she got pregnant twice with him, and got abortions both times... and he never heard about it, and he still doesn't know. She knew that he never wanted to have children with her, and she already had enough on her hands (and only saw him a few times a year, anyway)... so that was her justification, I guess. Now, WHY they weren't more careful with their BC, I don't know (they are both very intelligent people, but not very practical, I guess).

And WHY she didn't tell him, I don't know. I disagree with her/their personal ethics on several levels, but what can I say. If I had been in her shoes, I most definitely would have told the guy, even if he wanted to abort them ASAP anyway. But that's just me. I know the guy, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a damn that she got abortions without his knowledge... he would just be glad that he doesn't have to be responsible for those kids. He would probably be proud of her for not breaking down and telling him, actually... he really HATED the idea of having kids.

Anyway, so I don't know how common this is, but it happens. Do I think the guy should have been told? Yes, I do... and personally, I would have told him. Do I think there should be a law FORCING the woman to tell him? I don't know about that. This thread hasn't convinced me of anything yet. Yes, it was rude of her not to tell him, but I still don't see a real pressing need.

will, I trust your judgment, your ethics, your stated objection to abortion, along with your commitment not to seek to outlaw it, and....even with all of that said, I see you describing a police interrogation where the subject does not have the option of asserting a right to refuse to incriminate herself. This has developed from an understandable concern for men not being bypassed in a decision process that they have a stake in, a compelling interest to be included in, but now you've conjured up in my mind, armed men in uniform, questioning a woman to gain contact information about her sex partner(s).

It confirms some of my gravest conerns, and it is that foot in the door. I can see a party involved in fertilizing an ovum having standing because of an interest in the welfare and outcome, and I do want to be reasonable, especailly now that you have actually posted about one of my concerns, the "enforcement process" associated with your notification obligation.

Describe the methodolgy of enforcing your proposed notification steps and requirements, and I'll tell you whether it goes beyond my concept of a "foot in the door", "line in the sand". I think it would have some potential if the female were to forfeit something, other than her right to choose, if she did not comply with notification requirments.

If it wasn't for the fact that a mother cannot forfeit her child's right to paternal financial support, other than delay or denial of abortion services, or criminalization and enforcement of notification....it seems inconsequential if it isn't mandatory, I don't see how notification could be guaranteed or even the routine reaction.

If you can propose a way, I'd want to read it. I've gotten past my objection to the invasion of privacy of a new requirement to even volunteer to give information about sexual activity and sexual partners to a party other than a medical services provider, in strict confidence, solely for the purpose of potenitally involving the male partner. Because I view this as the road to a "foot in the door", and because I see common, if not frequent instances when a woman would not want to participate in or volunteer for notification, I can't visualize a proposal to do notification that would have any teeth.

I see a process that would turn into what you touched on...risk of perjury, and questioning by police, a judge, or both. In the process of compromising, one side has something the other side wants, and is willing to offer in return. The reason I asked if you would be possibly opting to challenge the right to choose, if you cannot achieve what you want via compromise, is because it would probably be the best way to negotiate a compromise.

I can see a day where abortion providers are required to have a pamphlet urging paternal notification, prominently displayed in an initial interview area for pregnant prospective clients. The potential for mandatory counseling is the added agenda of lumping enough required curriculum to extend the counseling into the third trimester.

If no law has been broken, then it's not an interrogation in which one can plead the fifth. In other words, the answer to "Who is the father?" probably won't be "I killed a guy.", it will probably just be "John Doe" or "I don't want to tell you." Perhaps, considering this is not a criminal investigation, the idea of holding one accountable for lying to the police would be the wrong way to go. Maybe a new term, such as "failure to notify", would be more apropos. I dunno.
I can't remember writing anything about them being armed. I'm not even set on the idea that the people the woman answer to will be police. They can just be the workers at the clinic or hospital where the procedure will occur.
I can think of quite a few types of enforcement that could be used. One thing that I absolutely won't use is the right to abort. Hanging that over a woman's head is a clear violation of Roe v. Wade. One possibility might be community service. Say she has to serve food in a homeless shelter for 20 hours or something else that's not physically difficult (after all, recovery from an abortion can be physical). Another possibility might be some kind of mark on her police record, tantamount to a loitering charge or something else that's minor.

The problem is that I would want something that makes them think, "I don't really want *insert punishment here*, so I might as well just let the guy know", but I don't want it to be a serious punishment so that it seems like they're being punished for having an abortion.

Do you have any thoughts on a punishment you'd be comfortable with?
It's a conundrum, yes. The paternal notification is one of two or three options concerning paternal rights over a fetus are concerned. I've just concentrated on it because I thought of it first and it could have helped someone I know.
That's not a bad idea. I mean it has no teeth beside simply being annoying to have in one's face, but if it does help someone then I would consider it a victory.

I can't believe that one slipped by--it happens every day. Then liberals shovel money toward these single mothers, while decrying the skyrocketing illegitimacy rate. Who in their right mind would marry the father if it cut down on the government handouts?

Perhaps now would be a good time to post the following link. It created a veritable shitstorm of hatred, most of it highly amusing for its hypocrisy.

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Pitzer_Stu...nist_Coalition