CDZ A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins.

[Chuz Life]

"A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."

Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.

As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.

No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.

The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual
Liberty.

XXXXXX

The Supreme Court itself now recognizes the historical fact that the court got it wrong in the Dred Scott case and whether you think it is a false comparison (slavery to abortion) or not. . . the comparison can be and most likely will be made.

If it were as easily dismissed and ridiculous as you are trying to suggest, why would you have any problem with it being presented at all?

Your reaction (over reaction, really) tells me the comparison has more validity and merit than not.

Proof that those who don't know and learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

"A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."

Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.

As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.

No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.

The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

 

[Chuz Life]

"A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."

Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.

As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.

No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.

The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

Yeah, the Nazis were Pro-life all right.

I didn't think so.

Did they also prevent any Jewish women from aborting based on their pro-life views?

Or were they more consistent with the types of fascism that I described where. . . it is not a child worth saving unless it looked like them - the Aryans?

Your cherry picking of historical facts is not going to change the overall picture of what fascism looks like and what Pro-Aborts and THEIR own holocaust have in common with the fascist atrocities of the past..

 

[JakeStarkey]

No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.

The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

Yeah, the Nazis were Pro-life all right. Did they also prevent any Jewish women from aborting based on their pro-life views? Or were they more consistent with the types of fascism that I described where. . . it is not a child worth saving unless it looked like them - the Aryans?

You described no such "fascism" above. German fascism prevented abortion where possible among "Aryan" women. That is what you want to do. Yes, your way is fascist.

 

[Chuz Life]

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

Yeah, the Nazis were Pro-life all right. Did they also prevent any Jewish women from aborting based on their pro-life views? Or were they more consistent with the types of fascism that I described where. . . it is not a child worth saving unless it looked like them - the Aryans?

You described no such "fascism" above. German fascism prevented abortion where possible among "Aryan" women. That is what you want to do. Yes, your way is fascist.

You are doing what a psychiatrist would call - projecting.

When you are pointing your finger at me. . . you are unaware of how many you are pointing back at yourself.

 

[koshergrl]

The courts do not dictate "personhood". Human rights are INHERENT, not granted by government.

 

[koshergrl]

"A (US) discussion about Personhood and when it begins."

Prior to birth, each individual has the right to decide for himself when ‘personhood’ begins, in accordance with his own good faith and good conscience, immune from attack by the state.

As a fact of Constitutional law, ‘personhood’ begins once birth is realized, not before:

The Court in Roe carefully considered, and rejected, the State's argument "that the fetus is a `person' within the language and meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment." 410 U. S., at 156. After analyzing the usage of "person" in the Constitution, the Court concluded that that word "has application only postnatally." Id., at 157. Commenting on the contingent property interests of the unborn that are generally represented by guardians ad litem, the Court noted: "Perfection of the interests involved, again, has generally been contingent upon live birth. In short, the unborn have never been recognized in the law as persons in the whole sense." Id., at 162. Accordingly, an abortion is not "the termination of life entitled to Fourteenth Amendment protection." Id., at 159. From this holding, there was no dissent, see id., at 173; indeed, no member of the Court has ever questioned this fundamental proposition. Thus, as a matter of federal constitutional law, a developing organism that is not yet a "person" does not have what is sometimes described as a "right to life."

Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833 (1992)

Thus the Court in its wisdom safeguards the right to privacy, the right of citizens to make personal, private decisions without government interference, where vital limits are placed on the size and authority of government, and individual liberty enhanced.

No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.

The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

German totalitarians also encouraged Polish women to have abortions..and forced others to have abortions. They also conducted experiments on humans they didn't think qualified as *people*.

On a linguistics note..."fascism" didn't prevent anything. Fascism is an idea. Totalitarians, i.e., big government tyrants, did pass laws that criminalized abortion..among some. And made it one hundred percent mandatory...among others. Because that's the way that people who think they have the authority to decide who *deserves* to live, and who doesn't, act. They kill people.

 

[chikenwing]

Personhood is important and relevant to many debates because we are a nation governed by laws with the United States Constitution being the supreme law of the land and the constitutional basis for any other laws that are passed.

The word person is mentioned several times in our Constitution.

The 5th Amendment says; "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Note that the 5th Amendment uses the word "person" and not "citizen" in it's wording. That's because not all "persons" are citizens of the United States but all "persons" within the United States are entitled to this right.

Personhood Matters.

The 14th Amendment also mentions personhood and it says; "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Please pay close attention to the distinction the 14th Amendment is making between "citizens" (persons born or naturalized) and "persons" who are not "citizens" but have a right to their life, liberty, property, due process and the equal protection of our laws. . . be they a "citizen" or not.

That is what the Constitution says and that's why "personhood" matters.

It is clear and irrefutable that at the time the U.S. Constitution was written, it was not applied fairly nor equally to all "persons" in the United States. Slavery was still legal and was being upheld by our courts and women did not have equal rights to men.

Those injustices have been corrected over time and largely so because it is inarguable that women and African Americans are human beings. They are "persons."

The legal definition for what a natural person is - is simply "a human being."

That is a fairly inclusive definition. Is it not?

Likewise for the sections of the Constitution quoted above. Those are fairly inclusive statements too. Aren't they?

I would like for the discussions in this thread to stay close to the quotes and definitions above. This is not simply about abortion as most people agree that abortion can be debated either way. . . whether a prenatal child in the womb is legally recognized as a "person" or not.

Personhood is also an issue for illegal aliens and their rights while in the U.S. for example.

There are States can and have convicted people of what they did to an unborn human, this is pure science, no politics ,no religion, just the way it is.life begins when it begins, the moment ones DNA is imprinted, and growth begins.this is simple stuff.

 

[Chuz Life]

No one disputes what the court has stated in past rulings.

The question is (sans the Dred Scott case) "Is the Supreme Court infallible on the issue of personhood" and the equal rights as persons that all human beings are Constitutionally entitled to?

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

German totalitarians also encouraged Polish women to have abortions..and forced others to have abortions. They also conducted experiments on humans they didn't think qualified as *people*.

On a linguistics note..."fascism" didn't prevent anything. Fascism is an idea. Totalitarians, i.e., big government tyrants, did pass laws that criminalized abortion..among some. And made it one hundred percent mandatory...among others. Because that's the way that people who think they have the authority to decide who *deserves* to live, and who doesn't, act. They kill people.

That kind of fascism that you just described had the end goal of making the world turn out (and look like) themselves.

That was my point earlier and it's also comparable to the fascism of today. . . where a child in the womb is considered to be "sub human" until it somehow lives too long and develops too much to be "deniable" any longer. .

 

[koshergrl]

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

And as we can see there are those blinded to the wisdom of the Court, whose arrogance and ignorance is such that they seek to compel conformity through the force of law, and increase the size and authority of government at the expense of individual liberty.

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

German totalitarians also encouraged Polish women to have abortions..and forced others to have abortions. They also conducted experiments on humans they didn't think qualified as *people*.

On a linguistics note..."fascism" didn't prevent anything. Fascism is an idea. Totalitarians, i.e., big government tyrants, did pass laws that criminalized abortion..among some. And made it one hundred percent mandatory...among others. Because that's the way that people who think they have the authority to decide who *deserves* to live, and who doesn't, act. They kill people.

That kind of fascism that you just described had the end goal of making the world turn out (and look like) themselves.

That was my point earlier and it's also comparable to the fascism of today. . . where a child in the womb is considered to be "sub human" until it somehow lives too long and develops too much to be "deniable" any longer. .

They extend the same yardstick to all humanity. They don't pose a threat to just the unborn...they pose a threat to every vulnerable person alive.

 

[Chuz Life]

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

German totalitarians also encouraged Polish women to have abortions..and forced others to have abortions. They also conducted experiments on humans they didn't think qualified as *people*.

On a linguistics note..."fascism" didn't prevent anything. Fascism is an idea. Totalitarians, i.e., big government tyrants, did pass laws that criminalized abortion..among some. And made it one hundred percent mandatory...among others. Because that's the way that people who think they have the authority to decide who *deserves* to live, and who doesn't, act. They kill people.

That kind of fascism that you just described had the end goal of making the world turn out (and look like) themselves.

That was my point earlier and it's also comparable to the fascism of today. . . where a child in the womb is considered to be "sub human" until it somehow lives too long and develops too much to be "deniable" any longer. .

They extend the same yardstick to all humanity. They don't pose a threat to just the unborn...they pose a threat to every vulnerable person alive.

Very well stated.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Indeed, such as you have described, Jones, embrace fascism.

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

Yeah, the Nazis were Pro-life all right. Did they also prevent any Jewish women from aborting based on their pro-life views? Or were they more consistent with the types of fascism that I described where. . . it is not a child worth saving unless it looked like them - the Aryans?

You described no such "fascism" above. German fascism prevented abortion where possible among "Aryan" women. That is what you want to do. Yes, your way is fascist.

You are doing what a psychiatrist would call - projecting.

When you are pointing your finger at me. . . you are unaware of how many you are pointing back at yourself.

View attachment 69399

You, like Hitler, are the one who wants to prevent abortion. You are accusing me of doing what you want to do. If you force women to adapt to your standards, you are acting as a fascist.

On the other hand, I am not forcing a woman to do anything.

 

[320 Years of History]

A person is always a person, and a fetus is always a fetus.

Well, not really. A fetus can become a person. A person cannot become a fetus.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.

"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.

She didn't claim use, she cited occupation. They are not the same things, especially in this context.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.

"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.

 

[JakeStarkey]

A person is always a person, and a fetus is always a fetus.

Well, not really. A fetus can become a person. A person cannot become a fetus.

Yes, really. A fetus is always a fetus. When it becomes human, it can't become a fetus.

 

[FaerieGodfather]

I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.

"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.

 

[Chuz Life]

It is Fascist to hold the view that a child is not a child and not to be recognized as a person until it looks too much like a child and like a person to be denied as a person anymore.

No, it is not at all. That is simply your opinion, based in neither fact nor definition.

Fascism, in Germany, quite often prevented "Aryan" women from having abortions

Yeah, the Nazis were Pro-life all right. Did they also prevent any Jewish women from aborting based on their pro-life views? Or were they more consistent with the types of fascism that I described where. . . it is not a child worth saving unless it looked like them - the Aryans?

You described no such "fascism" above. German fascism prevented abortion where possible among "Aryan" women. That is what you want to do. Yes, your way is fascist.

You are doing what a psychiatrist would call - projecting.

When you are pointing your finger at me. . . you are unaware of how many you are pointing back at yourself.

View attachment 69399

You, like Hitler, are the one who wants to prevent abortion. You are accusing me of doing what you want to do. If you force women to adapt to your standards, you are acting as a fascist.

On the other hand, I am not forcing a woman to do anything.

Is it also fascism to make laws against any other forms of child molestations?

I don't think so.

The only reason you can hold the beliefs that you do with respect to abortion is because of the way that you dehumanize the victims and then magnify or distort the rights of their killers.

That is a shining example of what fascism is.

 

[320 Years of History]

A person is always a person, and a fetus is always a fetus.

Well, not really. A fetus can become a person. A person cannot become a fetus.

Yes, really. A fetus is always a fetus. When it becomes human, it can't become a fetus.

Please tell me how a fetus carried to term will remain a fetus?

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree that a person is always a person. "Sometimes" as with legalized abortion, our laws fall short of protecting the rights of those children / persons in the womb.

"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.