Because the father doesn't have to carry a child for nine months. That's the major issue. I agree that they both are part of the process, but the mother to a greater degree -- giving the father consent rights gives the father control over the woman's body. I'd say have the father pay for an alternative birthing process. Like a surrogate mother or to pay for an artificial gestation. That way the mother can give up her parental rights if she disagrees. And while the father can't experience the physical burden of bearing a child he would experience the financial burden of an alternative.


Ummmmm...she gives up that right when she decides to have sex. If she doesn't want to deal with the consequences, then simply don't have sex or use one of those many methods of contraception out there. It really isn't that hard. The only excuse is in the instance of incest or rape. When a woman agrees to have sex she in essence gives the man a degree of control just as he gives her a degree of control. If she decides to have the baby and sues the father for child support, the courts will tell him the same thing. That he should simply not have sex if he doesn't want to deal with the consequences. You're saying that we should never allow a man to have control over a woman's body, but we should allow her to have a great degree of control over the man's entire future? There is nothing just about that. So she has to carry a child for 9 months. Big deal. If he wants the kid and she doesn't, she can simply sign away her parental rights to him so she will not be held liable for the child after it is born.

Well, I've never carried a child. But I have two child. And I wouldn't refer to the act of carrying a child so sarcastically as a 'big deal'.

I agree with you. Currently, the provisions allowed by abortion gives the woman entirely too much control. But we're speaking pragmatically here, and I would hate to invoke the anti-gay sentiments that would come a-calling if you chose to impose the idealistic attitude that women should keep their legs closed if they didn't want to deal with the consequence of being subjected to somebody else's judgements. It seems a similar right to privacy is what most gay rights activists are seeking.

But I'm not going to play Vicky in this thread and force it to morph into something that it is not.

Laws are meant to be pragmatic, not idealistic. Nobody'll ever do what they should do in every case. If we start imposing it on women then we'll have to rewrite every law.

But, speaking as a homosexual, you should know that when a person agrees to have sex that it is not an agreement to deal with the possibility of being a parent. Its quite prejudicial of you to say so because pregnancy is an unlikely event in your decision. Should I tell you that because you agree to be homosexual that that decision eliminates you from being able to wed?? Oops...there I go playing Vicky agaim.

Abortion has nothing to do with homosexuality in this regard. I really dont want Vicky to smear this argument with her homosexual tangent foolishness.

Abortion has nothing to do with homosexuality in this regard. I really dont want Vicky to smear this argument with her homosexual tangent foolishness.


I agree. I don't see what in the world abortion has to do with homosexuality in the least. You tried to create an argument, but it really doesn't hold any weight at all.

You tried to create an argument, but it really doesn't hold any weight at all.

hah?

I couldn't resist replying to this...it just seemed too enticing. I will try to refrain from responding to the homosexuality angle since I find it irrelevant.

Well, I've never carried a child. But I have two child. And I wouldn't refer to the act of carrying a child so sarcastically as a 'big deal'.
I did not mean to trivialize the act of carrying a child at all. If that offended you I will appoligize now since that was never my intent.
I agree with you. Currently, the provisions allowed by abortion gives the woman entirely too much control. But we're speaking pragmatically here, and I would hate to invoke the anti-gay sentiments that would come a-calling if you chose to impose the idealistic attitude that women should keep their legs closed if they didn't want to deal with the consequence of being subjected to somebody else's judgements. It seems a similar right to privacy is what most gay rights activists are seeking.
But I'm not going to play Vicky in this thread and force it to morph into something that it is not.
How is my argument idealistic at all? A woman has a right to privacy. So do we all. But it seems that you are trying to argue a man has no right to decide the fate of the embryo simply because it is in the female's body. Did he not contribute just as much to the whole process as she did? Fatherhood is just as significant an act as motherhood is.
Laws are meant to be pragmatic, not idealistic. Nobody'll ever do what they should do in every case. If we start imposing it on women then we'll have to rewrite every law.
But, speaking as a homosexual, you should know that when a person agrees to have sex that it is not an agreement to deal with the possibility of being a parent. Its quite prejudicial of you to say so because pregnancy is an unlikely event in your decision. Should I tell you that because you agree to be homosexual that that decision eliminates you from being able to wed?? Oops...there I go playing Vicky agaim.

Well I don't believe in marriage at all since I am not religious and I see the act of marriage as a religious institution. But let us not stray from the main topic. I will not say that sexual consent is an agreement to deal with the possibility of being a parent solely. I would say that a man agreeing to have sex with a woman is not an agreement that she has the sole proprietorship of the fetus that may be a result. I will not get into a discussion of whether or not it is alive. But you are basically saying that once a man climaxes he has no more right to what happens to his semen or what his semen produces unless a woman decides to give him that authority.

I find it very interesting that female activists push for equal pay for men and women. They push for equal treatment on the job and equal access to voting and education. When a man says that he should have some say over the process of having a child, automatically it becomes a woman's right exclusively though the man contributed just as much to start the process as a woman does.

If we are moving into a new world with equal treatment and equal rights for both men and women, why don't we start with the basics. Let's start with equality to the right to give life.

See...when you say words like 'proprietorship', you trigger a certain response. By proprietorship you imply that there is property. And with property comes ownership. Strictly speaking, citizens are the property of the state. And if the fetus is classified as a citizen then the state can decide with whom to assign the fetus' life to.

First things first..

We agree that a woman should not be solely responsible for the decision of the child, whether its to abort or give birth. It is unfair that the father has no decision but 100 percent burden with either decision if he disagrees.

But a part of your response poses something interesting. The man contributes just as much to start the process. But an abortion is not in regard to the start -- contraception is. And that is an entirely different discussion. Abortion concerns the burden of carrying the child to full term and being responsible for the child's future. Contraception is during the act, in which case both share equal responsibility. The majority of the man's responsibility ends there and begins again when there's a blood test and he is made responsible for the child. But abortion occurs in between. I'm not sure what the solution is....but there has to be a viable middle ground because I certainly don't agree with the current laws.

Oh...and this brings up another point. Men that pay child support, only to find out years later that the child wasn't/isn't theirs should have the right to sue the mother.

See...when you say words like 'proprietorship', you trigger a certain response. By proprietorship you imply that there is property. And with property comes ownership. Strictly speaking, citizens are the property of the state. And if the fetus is classified as a citizen then the state can decide with whom to assign the fetus' life to.
First things first..
We agree that a woman should not be solely responsible for the decision of the child, whether its to abort or give birth. It is unfair that the father has no decision but 100 percent burden with either decision if he disagrees.
But a part of your response poses something interesting. The man contributes just as much to start the process. But an abortion is not in regard to the start -- contraception is. And that is an entirely different discussion. Abortion concerns the burden of carrying the child to full term and being responsible for the child's future. Contraception is during the act, in which case both share equal responsibility. The majority of the man's responsibility ends there and begins again when there's a blood test and he is made responsible for the child. But abortion occurs in between. I'm not sure what the solution is....but there has to be a viable middle ground because I certainly don't agree with the current laws.
Oh...and this brings up another point. Men that pay child support, only to find out years later that the child wasn't/isn't theirs should have the right to sue the mother.


I won't touch on the first part since I don't want to trigger a debate about when the fetus is considered a life. I would just ask why you think a man does not have the right to sue a mother if he later leans a child he was supporting is not his? I am not aware of a law that prevents him from doing so. He might not win the case, but I don't think there is anything in the books that prevent him from filing suit against the deceptive mother. If anything, the man would probably feel bonded to the child after a certain point and decide not to attempt a suit out of love for the child.

Oh...he can sue, but he will lose. Once he signs the paper work accepting parental responsibility, he won't win a suit against her.

hah?


tia you changed your name .. why???

Oh...he can sue, but he will lose. Once he signs the paper work accepting parental responsibility, he won't win a suit against her.


That sucks. I thought if he argued that he was deceived he would at least stand a chance.

That sucks. I thought if he argued that he was deceived he would at least stand a chance.


all contracts can be broken ..

basicly every one raised good points proving this abortion thing will just go round in a circle.

i for one think a sexually active female should be on the pill and make her partners wear condoms. YES the pill isnt 100% and condoms arent 100% effective but put the two together if u come up preggers it is a miracle and maybe u should keep the child. (lol)

if a female knows she doesnt want chirren, tie that sucker up. men do the same.

i use to be for pro choice until i learned how abortions are done and i think it is the GROSSIST, SICKEST THING EVER, especially late term abortions.

makin abortion legal and at will, will help increase lax birth control behaviars and we would have one woman gettin multple babies (fetus's) sucked outta her 24/7. it would be like goin to the dentist to get your tooth cleaned.

I am for abortions if the pregancy risk the mothers health and I am for the morning after pill becuase it gets rid of the embreyo before it attaches itself to the womb.

i dont care what know one say, with this fetus talk. if it has a head and a heartbeat u commitin murder.

The need for pro-choice legislation is evident. I don’t understand in this day and age why the Bahamas doesn’t allow legal abortion. If you want to see the effects of unwanted and uncared for children, look no further than the bleek crime statistics of this nation. I can hear the demagogues screaming now: “No! Were a Christian nation” or “You could be killing the next Prime Minister” Please give me a break! A woman should have the right to choose if that’s what she wants. It’s just a matter of time. For a Better Bahamas...


No human can give life so what gives them the right to take it away? I speak in regards to innocent life which is that of a child.

No human can give life so what gives them the right to take it away? I speak in regards to innocent life which is that of a child.

that is your opinion. all im saying is give a woman her choice its her body