FaerieGodfather
Member
"Person" or not, nobody has the right to occupy another human being's uterus against her will.
Unless the woman was raped, the only reason she has a child in her womb is because of the risks and the actions that she and her partner took to create it and put it there. . . So the claim that the child is using her uterus against her will is weak at best.
Consent to sex is not consent to pregnancy, and even if she did consent to the pregnancy at one time, as the owner of the uterus she has the right to withdraw that consent at any time.
Red:
This is where you and I differ. I believe the father must have a say in it as well.
Were a woman to have consented at some time to become pregnant and does so with a man with whom she intended to raise the child, even if she has second thoughts (not including for her own health/life), she, IMO, has an obligation to remain true to her promise unless the man involved concurs with her that the pregnancy should be terminated.
I realize my position can result in a woman having to carry a pregnancy to term solely for the man's benefit of having a child, but assuming that is the promise/deal to which she agreed at or around the time of coitus and didn't rescind the deal, she's, in my mind, obligated to carry through with it. Can the man actually prevent her from terminating the pregnancy? Probably not, but that's not the point.
I do not believe the "father" should have any authority whatsoever over the mother's uterus. It is fundamentally unjust to give one person that kind of authority over another, even if his DNA comprises half of the child she is aborting. There can be no binding agreement, on the part of either parent, to raise or support the child until after the child is born... after that agreement, of course, both parents can and should be held to it.
If a man wants to be father, he should find a woman willing to give him children. If he cannot convince a woman to do so of her own free will, it is certainly not desirable to allow him to coerce a woman to do so.
edit: Also, I am male. Both my screen name and my real name (in my signature) are masculine, and I am correspondingly masculine in real life.
Red:
I didn't say or imply that a man should have authority over a woman's uterus. Don't read more into what I said than what I did say. I'm not one given to being imprecise in what I write or writing less than or something other than what I mean. (I realize you may not have read many of my posts on USMB and may not have been able to glean that from the comparatively short post to which you've replied.)
Blue:
Well, that willingness is what I stipulated in my post. What else is it but willing when a woman "consent to become pregnant...with a man with whom she intend to raise the child?"
Green:
Okay. I wasn't of a mind that yours or my stances are gender dependent in terms of who may espouse either of them.
Red:
You said that a man should have a say in whether or not a woman aborts a fetus bearing his DNA. That gives him authority over her uterus and is thus unlawful and unjust.
Green:
I don't think gender is relevant to this discussion, either. I only added it because you referred to me as "she" earlier.