You have said SEVERAL TIMES in your post said that a woman can kill her fetus up to the point of delivery....I believe you are WRONG on that and would like a link for proof....and I would also like proof of any woman killing her viable baby right before birth because she felt like excercising her control over the man and over her baby to be.
You made some good points frazzle but they all fell apart when you emphasized that women kill their babies to be up to the point of birth....(As if all women do this and WOULD do this.... rubbing their hands together saying goodie, goodie, goodie, I get to kill my child now even though it is breathing and viable.... on that, i can say....kiss my grits
)
Abortion has never been completely illegal in this country, even before Roe v wade, over 30 states had abortion as a legal procedure for women.
Do we make the man marry the woman if he gets her pregnant since that is what is the right thing to do...have the child have both parents in his life?
It will never be equal between man and a woman when it comes to pregnancy and childbirth imo frazzle, it can be equal from the point of birth, minus the man's lack of ability to breast feed....
a man's seed is the only thing that can get a woman pregnant....if you hold him to that, since the man is suppose to be the king of the castle, then maybe we would have less "sex" before marriage, which is the main root cause, for an unwanted pregnancy and abortions...before rubbers and especially bc pills.... men were afraid of getting a girl pregnant because he knew he would have to marry the girl, if he was to save any kind of "face" in his community... Should this attitutde be the one to come back in to play to reduce unwanted pregnancy?
care
I didn't say women often or frequently kill their baby right before birth in order to have some kind of evil power or vengeance on the child's father. What I said was -it doesn't make any difference under the law if that is WHY she wants to do it or not. The law will back up whatever the woman decides for whatever reason she has for that decision -whether society considers it a valid reason or not, whether the child's father considers it a legitimate reason or not. Or back her up if she wants to force him to be a parent against his will -even if her only reason for doing so is because she believes it will force him to stay in her life or because she figures he is a source of income with child support or whatever. The law will back up her RIGHT to cram her decision, regardless of the worth of her reason for that decision - down a man's throat no matter what she decides and no matter WHY she makes that decision. Good reasons, bad reasons, moral reasons, evil and very immoral reasons -it will back her up in forcing her decision on the man.
Now how is this more fair than the laws of the past -which at least held both parties accountable and forbid EITHER from killing that child -who is the only innocent in the whole thing? Past laws did not force men to marry a woman they impregnated -social mores put that pressure on men to marry a woman if he impregnated her. It was considered the only way to rectify irresponsible behavior by behaving responsibily toward both the mother and their child. But whether they married or not, the law still held BOTH morally and financially responsible.
My point is that an act BOTH people consented to engage in should carry the SAME consequences for both, should hold both parties accountable. Our laws today do not do this. Instead it gives the woman the "right" to make a decision that has PROFOUND and lifelong consequences for the man's future and another, totally innocent person's very existence. And neither of the other two people so profoundly affected by that decision have ANY right to have any say in a decision that will directly affect THEM. I fail to see any "equality" in such a law, I fail to see how this more "fair" in any way -and I see some pretty significant and undesirable consequences for society as a result.
According to the Allan Guttmacher Institute, for women who choose to have a late term abortion, 71% of those women said they were having a late term abortion because they had just "misjudged" how far along they were. Now I bet that "misjudged" bs includes a whole lot of other reasons women are actually very reluctant to reveal when getting a late term abortion. But that was the most common reason women had for having her viable or extremely-close-to-viable fetus killed. 33% said they were having a late term abortion because they had been reluctant to tell their partner and kept postponing revealing their pregnancy, 24% said it took that long to decide whether to even have an abortion, 8% decided to wait to have an abortion until their relationship with the child's father had changed (whatever THAT means), 6% changed their mind about wanting a child after they had intentionally gotten pregnant. And just 2% had a late term abortion because a fetal problem had been diagnosed late in pregnancy. The one that is a nonexistent reason for a late term abortion are threats to a woman's life or health -doesn't even appear on the list of reasons women give for having a late term abortion. That is because it actually isn't NECESSARY to kill a viable fetus to save the life or health of the mother. Having to choose whether to save the baby or the mother is the stuff of TV dramas -but it isn't reality. Doctors may deliver a baby early for the sake of the mother's health and that child may later die from complications of prematurity -but they won't deliberately kill it to save the mother. A late term abortion is for the specific purpose of killing a fetus who would otherwise survive.
So the vast majority of late term abortions are to satisfy the woman's personal WHIM, who compounded her irresponsible behavior of an unplanned pregnancy with more irresponsible behavior by allowing that child to continue to live and then waiting until the child was viable or very near viable -and then killing it. Not because there was either something wrong with the fetus or because the woman's life or health was at stake.
The CDC collects statistics on late term abortions performed in the US -but does not collect information on the exact gestational age of a fetus killed in a late term abortion or what percent were done to viable fetuses. All abortions performed after the 20th week of pregnancy are just all lumped together as "late term abortions" by the CDC. My son was born at 24 weeks gestation -and that was 20 years ago. Perfectly normal guy who is now 6' and 185 lbs. and in college. And he was not even close to the most extremely premature child to survive either then or now. That record is now held by a girl born last fall at 21 1/2 weeks gestation.
Fortunately, there are only a few doctors who are willing to kill viable, healthy fetuses in the entire country, and only two who are willing to kill a healthy, full term fetus in the process of its birth. So unless a woman is willing to travel to the states where these doctors practice in one of the four states that allow late term abortion on demand, it isn't easy for most women to have their viable fetus killed in this country. But it can be done -and it IS done. According to the pro-abortion Allen Guttmacher Institute, 15,000 babies are killed AFTER 21 weeks gestation and 600 are killed anywhere from 26 weeks to 40 weeks. Every year. Since the youngest surviving preemie was born at 21 and 1/2 weeks -that means thousands and thousands of viable babies killed every year. There have been more than 42 MILLION abortions since 1973 -a holocaust that puts Nazi Germany to shame.
In the four states that allow late term abortion on demand on healthy, viable fetuses, there is no time limit in the pregnancy after which they cannot have one. There is no time limit as long as it is done before the child takes its first breath -which means a woman can be full term, go into labor and decide to have her child legally killed as long as it is killed before it takes its first breath. The whole point of a late term abortion on demand is to kill a healthy, viable child who otherwise WOULD take that breath unless it is killed.
Surely allowing a baby to grow until it is viable is a woman giving her CONSENT for that pregnancy. Once it is viable -a woman cannot claim she "owns" that child's life and she can have that child killed if she chooses. Because once a fetus is viable, that child is the sole owner of its life. And since two people had to give their consent for the sex act that resulted in that child, BOTH parents should be held accountable instead of what the law has done by giving sole and INCREDIBLE power to just one of the two partners. A power by which she -for any reason she wants -can force on a man what the law will NEVER force on her. The notion that a man loses any right to have a say in his future, or whether HIS child will live or die on the grounds his sperm has left his body and took that man's rights with it -is ludicrous. But it certainly makes men second class citizens with fewer rights than women.
Oddly enough, the one group of people who are THE biggest supporters of abortion on demand are............single men. Maybe they see it as a terrific solution for any future irresponsible behavior on their part. But without appreciating the tremendous loss of say in their future and the very real profound consequences for their future that they forfeit at the same time.
