posted on March 17, 2001 08:24:46 PM new
This one really got me thinking, as do many of the posts here as I lurk.
If a couple has sex and a pregnancy occurs, the father of the child does not want children at the moment but the mother does. She can take him to court and get money for raising this child, even as far as to garnish his wages. Happens all the time.
Reverse scenario, same couple, sex, pregnancy, except the father wants the child, the mother does not. I haven't seen a case where the father's choice outweighs the mothers.
The father can not force an abortion but the mother can force the man to be a father, at least financially. Yet they both made the same decision to have sex.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:28:04 PM new
Helen, out of curiousity... don't you think that a man who impregnates a woman has an obligation (financial and/ or moral) to the child?
posted on March 17, 2001 08:31:35 PM new
Leagally and morally we do, james. Unless the child is aborted. If that happens, a man most likely still would even have to pay for that, even if he didn't agree with it.
In the begining, God created the heavens and the earth.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:37:44 PM new
I didn't misread your post, I just realized that while women have a choice of whether or not to be a parent, men do not. If men have sex and a pregnancy occurs, we can't legally or morally decide not to take care of that child, if a woman does, she has a choice of either being a mother or terminating the pregnancy.
One aspect of pro-choice I hadn't fully considered before, just thoughts. The cartoon post made me think a little deeper.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:48:59 PM new
ddicffe, That's a very interesting talking point list for the anti-abortion agenda, but the fact is that most pro-choice people simply believe that abortion is a fait accompli and for that reason it is better for it to be legal to ensure that women who opt to have an abortion can do so in a safe and sanitary manner.
Helen, out of curiousity... don't you think that a man who impregnates a woman has an obligation (financial and/ or moral) to the child?
No, that is not my opinion. It would be a lovely situation if the
man wanted to provide for the child and take an interest in the child,
not just out of a sense of obligation but because he really cared about the child. Otherwise, I personally would not be interested in
a man with a only a feeling of "obligation."
I have deleted your post containg a complete article from Citizen magazine. Posting "snippets" of an article or a brief summary is OK but the entire article isn't. You are welcome to post again but you need to provide a link instead.
Please also be aware that the posting of private information that is not readily available to the general public (including names, addresses & phone numbers) is not permitted under the User Agreement.
posted on March 17, 2001 08:56:52 PM new
If a pregnancy occurs and the mother wants to keep the child, should the father be responsible for any part of raising the child, even against their will, if they do not want a child?
posted on March 17, 2001 09:00:35 PM new
ddicffe
You asked a number of questions that I would
like to answer...and I will, but it will
take me a while. It's midnight in the East
so I will answer your questions tomorrow and'
I won't duck a single one.
I just used the word "sire" to distinguish him from a man who would be a father in the
true sense of the word.
And I used the term, impregnated woman to
distinguish her from a woman who would be a
mother in the true sense of the word.
posted on March 17, 2001 09:07:31 PM new
Yes, the man should be legally responsible, even if he didnt want a child. Also, if the woman does not want a child and is pregnant, and the father DOES want the child, then he should have the right to raise it, and she provide support.
posted on March 17, 2001 09:16:53 PM new
The word of God makes it clear to us that abortion is not a sin. In fact it's quite clear that to believe otherwise is nothing short of idolatry and blasphemy, and those are, quite definitely, sins.
PSALM 139 AND THE BEGINNING OF LIFE
One of the most beautiful chapters in the Bible is Psalms 139. It speaks of God's constant, practically doting, love for his creation. It is distressing to see this chapter used by anti-abortionists as proof that life begins at conception. If you read the chapter in its entirety it becomes clear that our existence begins in the mind of God and that God's attentions follow us all of our days, through good and bad. Here are the
verses that anti-abortionists use to twist this beautiful chapter to a common political tool:
"For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast
covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvelous are thy works: and that my soul knoweth right well. My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth. Thine eyes did see my substance, yet
being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them." Psalms 139:13-16.
These verses are used to prove that human life begins at conception. But there is nothing here to even suggest that.God conceives of us first.
We read that a blueprint, of sorts, exists in a book, God's book. Before we are born God uses this to form our bodies. Nowhere here does this describe anything but the making of the human form. Nowhere here does it describe how we are imbued with a human soul. But there are numerous other places in the Bible where God makes it quite clear when and how we become a living being and not just an "imperfect substance" as mentioned in Psalms 139.
Consider first, Genesis 2:7, "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of
life; and man became a living soul."
First, God forms Adam, he forms of dust, a flesh and blood body. SECOND, he "breathes into his nostrils the breath of life" and THEN man became a living soul. Man did not become a living soul when God first formed the IDEA of creating Adam, in Genesis 1:26. Man did not become a living soul when God created his BODY. Not until God gave man his first BREATH did he become a living soul. Life comes from God. It does not come from human conception. To believe that the entry of a sperm into an egg constitutes a human soul is blasphemy. To believe this is to eject God from the mystery of birth and put the power of the male ejaculation above the
generative power of God. It is nothing less than idolatry, elevating the status of mere man, his sperm and his ejaculation above the power of God to give life.
The verses in Genesis are not the only verses in the Bible to make this clear. Consider Job 33:44:
"The Spirit of God hath made me, and the breath of the Almighty hath given me life."
Consider the story of Ezekial and the dry bones, Ezekial 37:1-6,:
"The hand of the Lord was upon me, and he brought me out by the Spirit of the Lord, and set me down in the midst of the valley; it
was full of bones. And he led me round among them; and behold, there were very many upon the valley; and lo, they were very dry. And
he said to me, "Son of man, can these bones live?" And I answered, "O Lord God, thou knowest." Again he said to me, "Prophesy to these bones, and say to them, 'O dry bones, hear the word of the Lord. Thus says the Lord God to these bones: Behold, I will cause BREATH TO ENTER YOU, and you shall live. And I will lay sinews upon you, and will cause flesh to come upon you, and cover you with skin, and PUT BREATH IN YOU, and you shall live; and you shall know that I am the Lord.'"
Just like Adam, who had a body before he had a soul, like every fetus in the womb, these dry bones were given sinew, flesh and skin,
and AFTER they received the body GOD breathed into them and THEN they became alive. And, as in the verses above, because of that we "know that [God] is the Lord." Only God can bestow life and he tells us again and again in his word how this is done.
There is no trickery here. God does not breathe through an umbilical cord. We receive the breath of life, from God, through the nostrils, when we take our first breath. The concept of life beginning at birth, rather than conception, is so central to Christianity that we are "born again," not "conceived again."
ABORTION IN THE BIBLE
Why doesn't the Bible say anything directly about abortion? Why didn't Jesus dedicate his crusade against the practice as many of his
modern day followers have? Did women have abortions in Biblical times? Yes. The Bible tells us so. Many anti-abortionists feel that the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill," covers the abortion issue.But in Mosaic law God covers the exceptions to this law, indicating quite clearly who may be killed and for what offense. For instance, if a man or woman has sex with an animal or commits adultery they must be killed. Does "Thou shalt not kill" apply to abortion? No. Miscarriage or abortion is an exception. Let's look at Exodus 21:22:
"When men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that there is a miscarriage, and yet no harm follows, the one who hurt her shall be fined, according as the woman's husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine." In this instance a woman has been so injured, in a fight between two men, that she has aborted. The law states that if "no harm follows" the outsider must pay the husband a fine. An abortion has been induced through violence and this is not considered harmful. Abortion, then, is not a capital offense or a violation of the commandment, "Thou shalt not kill."
In the Bible a prophet of God calls upon
God to induce abortions Hosea 9:14.
"Give them, O Lord: what wilt thou give? give them a miscarrying womb (an abortion) and dry breasts."
And later,"...yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb." Hosea 9:16
In this case God causes abortions, the prophet prays that these women will abort. If
these are truly innocent children, how could God do this? But they are not, they are
"miscarrying wombs," "unperfect substances"
and God will prevent them from becoming human souls that will grow up to oppress his people.
WHAT IF MARY HAD DECIDED TO ABORT JESUS?
Many people are surprised to learn that God gave Mary a choice concerning her pregnancy with the future Savior. In the gospel of Luke
the angel came to her announcing what the will of God was for her life. In verse 1:38 Mary replies, "Behold the handmaid of the Lord; be it unto me according to thy word." Mary gives her assent. To believe that Mary had no voice in the process is unthinkable, for that would mean that God forced Himself on (raped) an unwed, teenaged virgin. Mary
chose to be the mother of our Savior. God honored her ability to make that choice.
CONCLUSION
Abortion is not a sin, though blasphemy and idolatry are. To say that human copulation (which the Bible calls unclean) has the power to bestow life is blasphemy. No mere act of man can negate the fact that only God bestows life, by giving the fully formed body,breath.
Asserting that human life begins at conception is counter to the claims of the word of God and is a sin. It is doubly a sin because this debased belief leads others to sin. Those that kill clinic workers, harass clients and attempt to legislate this wayward belief lead innocent believers down a road to murder and depravity.
Follow the example of Jesus, let those that want Christ come to you. Do not force the grace of God on anyone. God has the power, not only to give life, but to save. As Paul says in Galatians 2:21 "I do not frustrate the grace of God: for if righteousness come by the law, then Christ is dead in vain".
I had just finished reading it and copy/pasting it to my files - then came back in and saw it was already deleted.
I must admit that I was tired of hearing the bickering and general foul mood over this subject but your post gave me a fresh perspective. I've always believed that I could never have an abortion personally but I don't have the right to tell another woman that she can't have an abortion - especially in the first trimester. My reasoning is that even though I consider the unborn fetus a living being I can't force other people to take my word for it... so, that is where choice comes in. I do believe that it has reached proportions of being used as a method of birth control and that is of course especially disturbing. I also believe that by the second half of the pregnancy any argument of the infant not being as human as the rest of is pretty much mute. And, in my mind the well-being of the infant should always be paramount by that stage of the pregnancy.
posted on March 17, 2001 09:38:04 PM newGentletides That's also an interesting perspective. Personally, I think the Bible has been rewritten, and re-interpreted so many times through the years - even with whole books left out of it - that I don't consider it to be a reliable source of information. IMO, what may have began as a divine inspiration from God has been eroded by man until it is little more than an interesting book. Not long ago I read an article that said there are more than 30,000 direct contradictions within the Bible. Based on what I've seen I tend to believe that's true.
posted on March 17, 2001 11:42:39 PM new
The mother has the final choice......but the father has no choice. Lately, all other pro-choice arguments I have read have made sense to me, even the arguments for needed PBA's, but this one doesn't make sense to me at all.
The father wants a child, can raise the child, wants to raise the child but the mother can take that choice away from them and still be morally correct. Just doesn't make sense.
posted on March 18, 2001 03:13:55 AM new
As far as I know, there is a limit on the gestational age at which a pregnancy can be terminated, except in exceptional circumstances. The limit is based on the likelihood of viability of the fetus outside the womb. In the UK, I believe this is now 23 weeks, but there were discussions about making it even lower, as some babies have been known to survive earlier, but tend to be very handicapped.
It is intensive care that has enabled these very premature babies to survive. Outside an intensively supportive medical establishment, they would not have survived.
The best way to prevent later abortions is to enable easy access to early abortions. The majority of later abortions are performed on teenagers.
Ok, you may have issues with teenagers having sex, but it happens, and there is very little you can do to stop it.
Someone I know became pregnant at 14, by another 14-year-old. A group of kids from her school cut classes regularly, and "made out", which eventually led to full penetrative sex. Some were lucky, some were not.
At first, she didn't know or believe she was pregnant. Then, when she began to really believe it, she tried to see the future for herself, to try to figure out what to do. To go to her mom and step-father was out - she just couldn't tell her mom and her step-father french-kissed her everytime he got her alone, and she much preferred exploring her sexuality with her peers.
She tried to imagine having the baby... It would be the end of her education, for sure. What kind of life then? The prospect of birth terrified her. But if she had to do it... would she then give her baby up? It would be like giving away a part of her soul. Could she do that? She didn't think so, but thought that was what would happen anyway.
She thought about abortion... but where? How? Who could she go to to help? No-one.. she knew no-one who would help her, and didn't know how to find anyone.
She despaired. She hit her stomach, she stopped eating as much as she could, she willed the baby to die. She took drugs in her despair, hoping it would end the pregnancy too.
And one day, at school in the 9th grade, she began to bleed, heavily, bright-red. Not a period. She sat in the girls toilet for quite awhile, cramps gripping her, before she managed to take herself to the school nurse, where she told the nurse she thought she was having a miscarriage. And so it was.
In this case, her mind and body worked together to end the pregnancy. Sometimes the body works on its own, despite the best wishes of the mind. And when a termination is sought, it is the mind imposing on the body.
The girl would have sought an abortion, but didn't know where to go. By the time she miscarried, she was 16 weeks pregnant. She would have only had a few more weeks left before it would have been too late. And even then, what did she face? Had she gone even further, only to find her baby was severely damaged, what then?
THIS is why there are late-term abortions. For those who don't like the idea of them, and I sure don't, put your energy into making birth-control and first-trimester abortion easily available. Demand proper sex education in schools, and provide teenagers with access to contraception.
Shame on those "pro-lifers" who assume that all those in favour of the right to choose abortion are necessarily "pro-abortion". I am not. I don't like the idea of abortion, but I utterly demand the right for access to them to women who find themselves unwantedly pregnant and cannot see any other way out. Anything else is as cruel as giving them a life sentence because they had the audacity to enjoy sex.
edited for UBB
[ edited by mivona on Mar 18, 2001 03:15 AM ]
posted on March 18, 2001 06:30:01 AM new
Mybiddness,
You state,
"I also believe that by the second half of the pregnancy any argument of the infant not being as human as the rest of is pretty much mute. And, in my mind the well-being of the infant should always be paramount by that stage of the pregnancy."
........
I think that we need to make a distinction between a human being and a
person with full moral rights.
For example, some human beings are not people. A person whose
consciousness has been permanently obliterated is a human being but
no longer a person. There are defective human beings with no mental
capacity who will never be people....A fetus is a human being but not
yet a person and therefore cannot have full moral rights.
The mother, who is an actual person has rights that outweigh those of
any potential person.
I think that it is important to point out again, that late term
abortions are only performed in a case of medical crisis or fetal
abnormality and that they are extremely rare.
This country has a problem with later abortions because it is so
difficult to obtain an early abortion. And with the Bush/Ashcroft
regime, the problem will just get worse.
posted on March 18, 2001 02:17:15 PM new
Well....mmmm.....
When reading this please note I am referring to unmarried couples....
A couple decades back when my nephew was a teeny-bopper, I told him that if he ever found himself a father-to-be and the mother-to-be wanted an abortion that he had as much as say as she did.
He would have been (and is BTW!) a very good father so I knew he wouldn't be a deadbeat parent.
However, I can see that if the father-to-be was one who would not be responsible that the mother-to-be than would be the one stuck raising the baby. So in that scenerio the woman's decision would outweight the man's, in my opinion.
Therefore if the father is a reputation of being a responsible person he has as much say as the mother, unless it was rape or incest -etc- and if there is a health complication.
posted on March 18, 2001 02:28:23 PM new
I am pro-choice. If I have posted that I am pro-abortion I apology because I am notpro-abortion but in fact consider myself as pro-choice.
I believe we need to keep abortion legal for women to have a clean environment for the procedure and professional, accountable medical staff not in unclean environment and with irresponsible, unaccountable quacks performing d&c or even self induced.
One thing about "Cider House Rules" (even for my simple brain to understand) the story makes a point that the rules are made by those who don't live in the conditions that the rules were made to govern. For those who are living in the conditions, the rules are "silly" and don't make sense.
posted on March 18, 2001 02:33:32 PM new
Yes james I know, but I disagree with that law.
I believe men (under some but not all circumstances -but who would decide? the wisdom of Solomon) should have equal say unless it is rape, incest -etc- or health complications.
posted on March 18, 2001 02:49:22 PM new
I am surprised that we haven't seen a situation like that go to court yet. It doesn't seem right, even to me (a die-hard pro-choice advocate from way back) that a father in that position has no rights.
gentletides - that was interesting! Also too deep to be taken in in one sitting, so I'll come back after feeding the brood and re-read that one. Thank you.
ddicffe - some days I am a dame...just ask my husband. heh Nice to see you...hoping we cross paths in some less stressful thread one of these days.
edit because I forgot to add smiles for mivona for a well spoken post as well. Senior moment here. Sorry.
[ edited by maddienicks on Mar 18, 2001 02:51 PM ]
posted on March 18, 2001 03:35:25 PM new
Seems like there has been judgments on the father's rights but can't think of any right off hand. I will see what I can find.
There has been a recent case where the mothers life was on the line and the anti-choice/abortion peeps were fighting against the abortion while the husband made the decision to save his wife's life. Anyone have info on this particular case?
I have to admit that I've never considered the value of the person in quite the way you described. Nevertheless, when I say I would consider the baby's well-being paramount I mean that "I" would - not that "everyone" must.
I would love to see an end to abortion. But, more importantly I would love to see an end to the perceived need for abortion. Until then, we all have to decide the issue for ourselves - not for anyone else.
Personally, I believe that we are all spiritual human beings and that it doesn't matter if our "body" is two months in the womb or 60 years in the grave. IMO, our spirit is all that is real and is not something that can be killed by any method.
So, if you're analysis is correct and the fetus isn't human then its' death means nothing.
On the other hand, if I'm correct and we are all spiritual beings, with the body meaning nothing to our existance, then the abortion of the fetus or infant also means nothing.
This is why I feel no need to "convert" anyone to my particular belief. I believe that either way - the spirit will live.
The bottom line is that we agree because I don't want anyone else telling me how I have to believe and I don't want to tell anyone else that they have to think the same way I do. Technically, I suppose that I'm anti-abortion but pro-choice.
posted on March 18, 2001 04:03:10 PM new
Here is a reference to married couples:
"Furthermore, it cannot be claimed that the father's interest in the fetus' welfare is equal to the mother's protected liberty, since it is an inescapable biological fact that state regulation with respect to the fetus will have a far greater impact on the pregnant woman's bodily integrity than it will on the husband. Section 3209 embodies a view of marriage consonant with the common law status of married women, but repugnant to this Court's present understanding of marriage and of the nature of the rights secured by the Constitution. See Planned Parenthood of Central Mo. v. Danforth, 428 U.S. 52, 69. Pp. 887-898."
