From a personal standpoint, I view someone that would kill the developing life of her own child in her womb, as the lowest form of scum. Right up there with pedophiles in my book. But I try to remove my personal opinion a lot and look at things from other angles. And when I do that on this issue, it comes down to one thing for me. Father's rights.

I feel that before we can even have a discussion about issues such as at what point in the pregnancy can the child be aborted, what exceptions (rape, incest, danger to mother) should be allowed, etc... we need to discuss the elephant in the room and that is the right of the father's. That child developing in a woman's womb is only half hers. The other half belongs to someone else. In what world should it ever be considered right to murder a man's son/daughter without his consent, and often even without his knowledge?

It should absolutely be illegal to have an abortion without the consent of the father except in certain cases (rape, etc). Now, that's not to say he should just be able tell her no and that's the end of it... if he wants the child and he doesn't, he should be responsible for all the medical bills, as well as take full responsibility/custody of the child at birth. Women should just know that when they open their legs for a man, pregnancy and all that it entails is a possible consequence of that.

Viability is a slippery slope. At what point do we quit caring for grandma? She slipped a few gears, got a busted hip and on her own isn't viable.
Use her body as a vessel for something she put there?

Wrong.Its what God wants that really matters most.This life is temporary.

I wanted to interject this mainly because I find it interesting and honestly quite creepy. A women who is pregnant with a son will retain that child's unique DNA in her brain for the rest of her life, the cells from the child can have health benefits to the mother.

If a women is pregnant with a son and aborts that child part of that child will still remain with the mother for the rest of her life, possibly even offering her health benefits. The unique DNA of your child is with you for the rest of your life, even though you killed it... that is just trippy for me to wrap my mind around.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2012/09/bearing-sons-can-alter-your-mind

I have an idea. If the mother and father of the unborn child decides to go ahead with abortion, let them. The first thing after this happens take both of them and sterilize them. If they are willing to kill one child then they will do it again. Just my 2 cents

James, this thread isn't supposed to be about abortion, per se. Courts have already settled that. This thread is supposed to be about your statement of a womans "sovereign right" over her body and how that relates to the "sovereign right" of who has say over the future of the fetus.
I am questioning if a woman really does have a legal sovereign right over a fetus that she gave permission to another individual to help create. Isn't it your contention that the woman, and only the woman, has rights over the fetus?
Perhaps you could expand on the legal parameters of who "owns" a child before and after it is born.

So how come you're so interested in my views? You started the thread--you must have some views of your own.

I never claimed any expertise in domestic relations law. No one owns a child after birth. The natural parents share custody until the child is eighteen or until they relinquish that right or it's lost in court.

Before birth, a father has few legal rights to "ownership" or custody of the fetus. I used to think it was unfair to the man to be denied a say-so on issues like abortion, but changed my mind.

If you're against abortion, why not respond to my seven points for keeping it legal?

Jim

Hey James I have a question I would like to PM you but your inbox is full, could you shoot me a PM or make some room?

Some room has been made.

Jim

Can you restate or provide a link for your 7 points?
I am interested in your views as you are a trained legalese, a democrat trapper.........Oh Yes You Are!!, and have the guts to remain here despite some ridiculing. You also reside in the same state I do.
Personally, I am less against abortion and more against each state being unable to set its own standards. Each state has their own medical licensing, their own laws on providing medical treatment, but are unable to set virtually any law about abortion. Oddly, abortion is somehow NOT classified as a medical procedure.
I am also against under age, 16 in Alaska, girls being unable to legally consent to sex yet once they do and get pregnant they don,t need parent permission to get an abortion, birth control, STD treatment, etc. A person under 18 can't get a flu shot without a parent but can abort a 2nd trimester baby every day of the week! I raised a female child, mostly w/o her mother, so quite bothered by the ease of young girls getting what should be parent permission medical treatment.
I find it quite ridiculous that a female can relinquish her bodies sovereignty to a man for a few moments yet demand it back once those moments are over regardless of the results of those few moments!

MT, these are the seven points I made earlier in this thread.

Jim

MT: Aside from cases of rape or incest, a woman does not give up her sovereignty over her own body by having sex with a man. So long as it's consensual, sovereignty is retained. It's the same for a man.

Yeah, I agree there's something messed-up about the law allowing girls under 16 (or even 18) to get birth control or even an abortion without her parents' knowledge and consent. I don't think sovereignty should exist until adulthood. But like most laws, the worst people and cases drive the need for the law.

Jim

Martentrapper here were my answers to James points. Think he was looking your answers.

Some anti abortion arguments are pretty silly.

You play you pay? Not really. All to often 14 year old mothers and their offspring end up on welfare.

Maybe if an abortionist can be charged with murder, unmarried couples can be charged with a crime for procreating?

Maybe not living together married, till all children are 18 should be a crime? Aren't those things christian based?

So when is the effort to amend the constitution, to say life begins when the first dna strand forms, going to commence?

Are bills going to be introduced to once again fund "orphanages" to care for unwanted children or will that wreck of tragedy known as foster care get bigger?

I think a law to criminalize unmarried procreation needs to happen. The parents of minors who procreate should go to prison. Birth control pills that allow the fertilized egg to be expelled need banned. While we're at it lets send homosexuals to prison again also. Prison used to cure them.

You play, you pay was in reference to knowing the possible consequences of having sex. Maybe you make your bed you lay in it would have been a better phrase. As for welfare I believe if you're capable of work but you choose not to...you don't eat.
Is not the taking of another humans life considered murder? I consider the baby in the womb is human, science would conclude the same, and that anyone who actively takes that life commits murder. The abortionist actively participates in that very action.
Your last point is just an attack on Christians and makes absolutely no sense to me in this conversation..

Attack on Christians? Maybe a little. I get tired of people trying to force their religion on me. Abortion is a complicated issue and not so cut and dried. It is amazing how many sign carrying foaming at the mouth crusaders, change their mind when someone close to them gets pregnant. On both sides of the argument.

Of course abortion is cut and dry.You can try and call it other things but pure and simple it's the killing of a human life.Its just common sense.But then again some people just don't have any.In cases of rape why tramatiz they woman twice?First with the rape and second with the abortion.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

here is a heartbreaker for you.

raise the age to 12 or thirteen and its hundreds every day. many many many victims of incest. Would you really force a 13 year old to bare her step dads child bruce? if so you are one sick individual

Currently we execute the wrong “problem.” Change that and the second issue will diminish almost completely.