Roe v. Wade

Post Reply New Topic

Basically, after the real dangers involved in birth, the problem resolves about who should be responsible for the unwanted child after it is born. If the husband declares it is his right to have the child and the wife wants nothing to do with it then it might be alright if the wife left the child with the husband to raise and support until it is independent. He would have to do all the dirty work involved ( I had two kids and I know there are years of being up to your elbows in sh it, aside from other considerations). There are years of interrupted sleep and being careful about all sorts of things. If the husband is willing to undertake the whole burden of this, it should be considered and there should be legal recourse if he is delinquent.

Instead of only looking at the uterine contents as property, why not look at the sexual act as a contract between the two parties? The male agrees to whatever terms the female sets forth for those potential months (including allowing her to change her mind).

[quote="zer0netgain"]
An irrelevant argument. The medical dangers, complications, physical and emotional after effects of an abortion are well documented as well. So, if the woman carries the fetus to term, she exposes herself to risk. If she forcibly induces a miscarriage or undergoes any abortion procedure, there are very real risks as well.[quote="zer0netgain"]

So can we stop with the false notion that a woman gets off scott free.

[quote="zer0netgain"]
From what I can tell, the only "risk free" option a woman has is to never get pregnant in the first place.[quote="zer0netgain"]

Or, with equal responsibility, a man can choose not to impregnate a woman.

[quote="zer0netgain"]

I will also state that a lot of "complications" like gestational diabetes only indicate a pre-existing condition. My sister has Type II diabetes. When she was pregnant, she had gestational diabetes. The stress of being pregnant revealed that her body didn't produce enough insulin, and poor eating habits after her first child resulted in having full-blown diabetes that put her on insulin for her second pregnancy. The pregnancy did not create the diabetes...it simply revealed a problem she already had but had not yet manifested.[quote="zer0netgain"]

Gestational diabetes is a condition caused by pregancy, hence the term gestational. A woman with gestational diabetes does not have diabetes prior to pregnancy, and becomes undiabetic (if that's a word) very soon after delivery. She is, however, more likely to develop type 2 diabetes about 5-10 years after delivery. All of the conditions that I mentioned apply only to women with no pre-existing conditions. The list would become massive if I included conditions relating to pre-existing conditions.

[quote="zer0netgain"]
The issues are related. You want to argue "consequence" by forcing a mother to carry a fetus to term rather than abortion. I'm pointing out the "consequences" that choice has on other parties, and frankly, the courts don't always get involved. Child support is often started by administrative action and they go to the courts who typically "rubber stamp" their decisions rather than following a due process of law.

While an abortion might do away with financial support issues, so would adoption. The conflict is when a woman unilaterally decides to give birth and keep the child....then lets the state impose her choice on other parties who had absolutely no say in the matter.[quote="zer0netgain"]

Consequences in terms of child support work both ways. If a mother has custody, the father pays. If the father has custody, the mother pays. Whoever ends up caring for the child ultimately gets the much harder end of the bargain.

[quote="zer0netgain"]
True. The law can't stop a person from doing what they want. However, considering Americans are going to CHINA to adopt babies (and they pay a lot of money to get one), how can we say that if we didn't mandate adoption there wouldn't be homes for all these kids? Would it be such a bad thing for a kid to grow up in an orphanage but at least have a choice at life?[quote="zer0netgain"]

People go to China to adopt babies because the process is much less risky and much more efficient. In the US, there is a dreadfully long waiting list (sometimes 3 years+), not because of availability, but because of all the caseworking and homestudies, and other bureaucratic red tape involved. It costs an obscene amount of money (approx 2 times the cost of international adoption), and in the end, the birth mother is allowed to change her mind, leaving the hopeful parents with nothing and no recourse. Could you imagine spending 3 years and 30K only to end up with nothing but shattered dreams. Of course, if the hopeful parents are willing to accept an older child with disabilities, then it becomes much easier.

[quote="zer0netgain"]
What I find abhorrent about legalized abortion is that, as my friend's research shows, over 95% of them are not done for any reason outside of the mother's convenience or lack of desire to accept responsibility for her actions. I find it abhorrent that the father of the fetus gets no right or input into that decision. I find it abhorrent that the legal system thinks a person should have the right to act unilaterally and impose consequences on other people but be able to make another choice that absolves herself of any responsibility.[quote="zer0netgain"]

No woman with an unwanted pregnancy is absolved from responsibilty, nor do women regulerly have abortions for convenience.
The overwhelming majority of women who have abortions do so because they do not believe that they are capable of being a good mother in their current circumstance or, possibly, any circumstance. No mentally stable woman looks at abortion as an easy way out. It is a decision that is weighed over very heavily and usually along with the father. Any woman who who sees it as no big deal, or finds enjoyment in the idea is suffering from psychosis.

I did not read all the post in the thread... sorry if this was already covered.

Roe Vs Wade did not provide the right to have an abortion.

It clarified the right to doctor/patient privacy. The Government does not belong in the exam room or the operating room.

That said, the Medical Board should be able to review a doctor's records and determine if the medical procedures performed are necessary and legal. I believe at one time a doctors used to take an oath to protect and preserve life.

Hrmph, Catholic Rythm... Ya mean the calendar method? Or the abstinence? :p

aka Calendar method.