Live in Indiana? Give the gift of Abortion!

[Comrade Tovya]

Jackson50 said:

Comrade Tovya said:It's actually funny you should mention that...

I've always wondered how, if the fetus is property of the woman, why exactly does the man have zero say in what happens to that fetus?

Afterall, in a child support case, the man is always told, "You played, you pay".  In other words, you slept with her and made this kid, it's 50/50, so do your part. 

But if a woman wants to abort the baby and the man wants to keep it... the law says, "it's not yours to decide what happens to it".

Seems a little hypocritical to me.   She wants to keep the kid, and you don't, tough crap, open your wallet and pay up.  But if a man wants to keep the kid, and the woman doesn't, tough crap, the kid is getting terminated.

I think you are misinformed as to why a woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion. It does not mean the fetus is the property of the woman. The reasoning is that the state has a compelling interest to give precedence to the woman's right to privacy (which guarantees abortion) until the fetus is viable. A fetus does not violate a man's constitutional right. 

 

 

According to Roe v Wade, a woman is guaranteed the right to an abortion because the fetus is considered by that ruling to be property of the woman.

As for your assertion that the "state has a compelling interest to give precedence to the woman's right to privacy (which guarantees abortion) until the fetus is viable", there is no prior precedence that provides that right.  Never in the history of the courts prior to RvW was there ever a precedent that even remotely implied that a fetus was property of the woman nor has any prior ruling ever stated that the right to privacy and the right to an abortion were in anyway connected.

The RvW ruling stated that the definition of "viable" was the date at which a fetus has the ability to survive outside of the womb... in Miami back in Feb. 2007, a 19-week old baby was delivered and SURVIVED, which is far younger than Roe v Wade had originally stipulated as the earliest ability for a fetus to survive outside of the womb (they estimated it to be 28-weeks).

 

Now as for your comment that "A fetus does not violate a man's constitutional right"... what exactly does that mean?

If a woman chooses to keep the kid, and the father doesn't want to keep it... can he make the choice to abort the baby?  No.

But when it comes time to take financial responsibility for the child, is he forced under threat of jail time and/or wage garnishment to pay for the child he didn't want?

Yes.

If a woman chooses to abort the child, and the father wants to keep it... can he make the choice to raise the child himself?

No.

The woman can throw him the finger and drive down to the Planned Parenthood and have an abortion, no questions asked.

Therefore, a man's constitutional rights ARE violated, beacause although he by law is considered 50/50 in the raising of the child, he gets absolutely no say in whether or not the child lives or dies.

So here is how the Roe v Wade interpretation of "Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness":

A woman can choose what makes her happy, but a father and his child's fate are up to the mother to decide...?  And don't start that crap about a baby not being baby until it is born, because science has already disproven this long ago.  Liberals only care about science when it's convenient for their beliefs... but if it disproves them, screw you, they don't care.