Yet that doesn't answer the questions I posed to you.

If I have the right to decide to proceed with the pregnancy, I'm forcing my decision on my husband irregardlessly. And if he was to have his say, he'd be forcing his decision on me irregardlessly.

Nobody wins in either instance. One of us is forced to comply to the other's wishes. And our wishes are contrary to one another as you see. I'm for risking all to have the babies, my husband isn't for risking me for the babies to be born.

So who, in your opinion, has the right to make the choice about what is done with my body? My husband or me? Remember, which ever you choose is forcing the other person to lose their choice...Period.

As in the other situation with my ex...He wanted the abortion. I didn't want an abortion. So he was forced to accept my decision irregardlessly. You say that he shouldn't have been forced, yet the alternative is that he should have been allowed to force me to have an abortion? Because there's only one of two choices to have taken then...Have the baby, or not have the baby. And one of us would have had to have been forced to comply to the other's wishes irregardlessly.

So, if it's my body and someone doesn't want me to go through with my pregnancy, do they have the right to force me to do their will and abort? Or should I be allowed to follow my own heart, which is to go through with the pregnancy?

Either I have full control over my body and choices about it, or I have none at all. Which is it?

The right to your body is yours. I agree with that. But that is where your right ends. At the time of pregnancy, take a vote. If both are in favor the argument is pointless. If the woman wants to have the baby, and the man doesn't, then the baby is the womans responsibility alone. If the man wants the baby and the woman doesn't he should have the opportunity to negotiate a reasonable fee for carrying the child to term. Medical expenses and the like. He should have the opportunity to offer this. If the woman accepts then once born the baby is the responsibility of the man and the man alone. If the woman still decides to abort, that is her choice. I'm fine with that.

A womans decision to abort or not shouldn't automatically determine the parental responsibilities post birth.

If getting an abortion or not getting an abortion is legally her decision to make, then there is no choice but for the man to accept her decision...in a legal sense.

Otherwise, it wouldn't be her own legal decision to make, now would it?

And what about the child?

Here's the answer: don't get pregnant in the first place.

Gee, I wish I'd thought of that.

A child is a parents responsibility. A parent is not simply a donor of genetic material. A parent is an individual who cares for the child emotionally, spiritually, physically, and financially.

Perhaps the states could allow "pre-pregnancy agreements," so to speak, whereby couples could legally negotiate the terms by which the rights of the pregnant woman and the rights of the born child are protected.

I think this approach could certainly eliminate some of the future hardships associated with couples who might not today be able to reach an agreement on their own regarding future children that protects the rights of pregnant women and the rights of born children.

Not when in regards to the parents being married though. When the couple are married, the responsibility is shared equally. And in the event of disagreement of having children, both parties are still held responsible in care of the child. That was the case with my ex and me...We were married, my son was a result of that marriage. Even though I took the precautions of not getting pregnant so early in our marriage, I still got pregnant. He didn't do anything to prohibit pregnancy on his part, even though he didn't want children period, he left that fully up to me.

If what you say is true, that both are equally responsible to prevent pregnancy, then if he truely didn't want a child he could have done things himself to ensure it didn't happen. BUT, since he didn't, and it happened anyways, why should I have the sole responsibility of taking care of OUR child. He knew when we engaged in sex, there was a chance of pregnancy. So why didn't he guarentee a way for himself, so as not to impregnate me? And why should he get away from the responsibility of his own actions for his own inability to take those precautions if being a parent was the last thing he wanted?

Much like the property and property debt collected in a marriage, it's shared equally even if one of the party says they don't want the responsibility...

I've pointed out twice now, that we (as in my hubby and myself) at odds in regards to pregnancy complications. Furthermore, what's at stake is my life...It's not about financial responsibilty/choice, but his position on he doesn't want to raise the children without me there to share in it with him. If my life depends on terminating the pregnancy at any stage is the issue.

So who gets the right in this instance, to determine whether or not I'm allowed to end my life for the chance to give life to my children? Hubby or me?

But it starts out that way, doesn't it?

Who are the parents of a newborn baby? Both man and woman. Both man and woman had a part on that child's creation, not it is the responsibility of both parents to do what is best for that child.

If abortion were illegal you would have to pay in ALL pregnancies.

And like Ali said, if a man doesn't want to have a child with a woman, then he should make damn sure, either by permanent sterilization or abstinence, that he doesn't get her pregnant. Easy. But, believe me, no matter how good the birth control, one sucker can always squeeze by. 4 out of my 5 sons were conceived while on birth control.