| Quote:
Originally Posted by sgtdmski  However, the original post has a valid point. If a woman decides to have a child, the man is legally and fiscally responsible for taking care of the child. We have dead beat dad laws, that allow the government to withhold from a man's check funds to pay child support. If it truly is a woman's body and her right to choose, then if she chooses to have the baby then should she not accept the responsiblity?
Furthermore, if the man is responsible if a woman has a baby, then should he not have a say in whether or not she decides to have the baby.
Come now. If it truly were a woman's body and her right to choose, well then there would be no need for dead beat dad laws now would there. Just another in the long list of hypocrisy when it comes to woman and abortion.
dmk | You are absolutely right sarge. But that just goes to show you that it's not possible to legislate abortion away.
Any law framed will always be too unnuanced to deal with all cases fairly.
I do agree that some debate is needed about what extent the father may influence the decision to abort, but one can legitimately say that he is an integral part of the pregnancy. As such he also has certain rights, which may overlap the rights of a woman to decide over her body.
However this is a far cry from federal legislation banning abortions. Banning abortions take away a woman's right indiscriminately. Ensuring a man's right is not the same as banning someone else's. Love for all, Hatred for none |