Alito

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I don't necessarily see this as inconsistent, the man's choice just comes a bit earlier when deciding to participate in the procreative act - there are always risks invovlved, I don't think it too far a stretch to make men responsible for the risks they take.

Well, the woman is involved procreative process as well, right? If they are both responsible before the act, and they are both responsible financially after the borth, shouldn't they both have a say in whether the child comes into the world or not?

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Well, the woman is involved procreative process as well, right? If they are both responsible before the act, and they are both responsible financially after the borth, shouldn't they both have a say in whether the child comes into the world or not?

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well. There are lots of things a potential mother can do that might end the pregnancy whether or not they seek a medical abortion.

Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink? Can a husband order his wife to have a pregnancy test, to determine if her behaviors are endangering a potential fetus? If a woman denied the man to be the father, could he require a fetal paternity test to establish his legal rights?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

I think the biology reality gives the choice to the woman, she's carrying the child, and what she does to herself impacts the fetus as well.
Can a husband require his wife to get prenatal care? Make her not drink?

Making my point for me? Since the man has no control over how the woman treats the child she's carrying, which could be abusive, why should he be expected to bear the increased financial burden of caring for an ill child because the woman was irresponsibile?

I have to doubt that you would accept the scenario where the man uses economic coercion to force a woman to abort. Of course we could write laws that allow it, I think enforcement would be an impossibility.

Of course not. This is why I'm saying my argument is completely rhetorical. But it doesn't change the fact that it is a situation where the man has no control over what the woman chooses to do, yet he is held financially responsible for her decision. Yes, I realize he participated in getting her pregnant, but so did she (of course, so no one jumps on me, this excludes rape).

[Not Afraid]

I'm waiting for legislation requring rapists to need to give permission for aborting a pregnancy they caused.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

I'm waiting for legislation requring rapists to need to give permission for aborting a pregnancy they caused.

I believe that might be considered an extreme example. I don't know the complete statistics regarding abortions performed in the country, but I don't think anywhere close to a decent percentage are due to rape.

I could be mistaken - like I said, I don't know the numbers.

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.

I didn't think so.

[wendybeth]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I believe that might be considered an extreme example. I don't know the complete statistics regarding abortions performed in the country, but I don't think anywhere close to a decent percentage are due to rape.

I could be mistaken - like I said, I don't know the numbers.

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.

I didn't think so.

Fine. I'll agree with your deal if you agree to mine: no bitching about Welfare or any of the programs that will be needed to help these women take care of these babies, especially since males will be off the hook for paying child support. ( House votes to cut programs ).

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I'll make you a deal - I won't complain about abortion in the cases of rape or incest or to save the life of the mother if you'll agree to outlaw all others.

Well, you can complain all you want and don't get anybody pregnant you don't want to have a child with. I won't complain when the government interveins with values that are not held my everyone in the country and legislate decisions that should be made my a medical professional qualified to make these decisions.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Well, you can complain all you want and don't get anybody pregnant you don't want to have a child with. I won't complain when the government interveins with values that are not held my everyone in the country and legislate decisions that should be made my a medical professional qualified to make these decisions.

I'm not saying a word about the pratice of abortion. For this argument, anyway. I'm just saying if it's the woman's decision, then it is the woman's decision and therefore her responsibility. I can understand why you wouldn't want the government to be involved. Fine. But if it's your choice, it's your responsibility.

What if the man wants the kid and the woman doesn't? She can still abort. Even though he was part of the process, he has no rights should she choose to abort. So, if the man doesn't want the kid and cannot force the woman to abort, why should he be finanacially responsible?

Again, my argument is completely rhetorical. I have yet to hear anyone ever give me a logical reason why the man should be financially responsible when it is only the choice of the woman to have the child or to abort the child.

[Gemini Cricket]

But Clinton, but Ginsberg, but Clinton, but Ginsberg...

Are conservatives borrowing Dubya's echo chamber?

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

But Clinton, but Ginsberg, but Clinton, but Ginsberg...

Are conservatives borrowing Dubya's echo chamber?

I don't think that the most recent nominations to the court are irrelevant to the current confirmation process at all.