Moliere wrote:Concern #1: men have no say in the matter. If the woman wants an abortion and the father wants the child, well that's just too bad. Fire up the Hoover. If the woman wants the child and the father doesn't, well that's too bad. Have fun paying child support for the next 18 years.
I agree that men should have more control, since they're equally to blame. They could just as easily opt to spray the fire hose at a vacant lot instead of into a holy sanctum. They also have the choice to wrap it up and many think that's just no fun (I'm one of them). Women have a few options as well. It takes two to get into trouble this way, and it should take two to get out of it.
I think it should work as follows:
- If both parties want an abortion, no objection.
- If one party wants an abortion, and the other doesn't, it goes to arbitration (and maybe court).
- The arbitrator/court decides if the party that wants the fetus (potential child) is capable of supporting a child
- If they are, then the second party is absolved of all responsibility, including child support
- The party that wants the fetus (potential child) is responsible for all reasonable healthcare costs up to birth
- If they are not capable of supporting a child, then a woman cannot be forced to carry to term if she wants out and a man cannot be forced to pay child support if the woman decides to keep it.
- Any fetus conceived through rape, incest, endangers the mother's life, or with life-altering defect is not subject to this and could be terminated even if a man wanted to keep it.
I think men are under-represented in courts when it comes to children and custody. I wouldn't gladly tell women they have to be incubators for men who want children, but they did have the option to not have sex with him, and they knew what the consequences of that could be. If they were deprived of that option (rape), then the man has no rights to worry about and she can abort.
Moliere wrote:Concern #2: I don't see where to draw the line. I understand there's a difference between a clump of cells at inception and a 9 month old partial birth smack them in the skull upon breach. But where do you draw the line that it's not ok to kill this human being? Heart beat? Some brain signals? An arbitrary line at the 1st trimester?
I've always drawn the line in a very callous way - "Can it possibly survive without the mother?" Medical precedent has determined that a fetus earlier than a certain age cannot possibly survive without the mother - before then, it's a fully (pardon the term, I don't know if there's a better one) parasitic growth with the potential to become human. At that stage the massive bundle of cells isn't close to awareness. It hasn't been 'charged' with life yet, in my view. Even after that stage, I think it still takes a while in an incubator and using a lot of medical tools to get there. I'm quite comfortable with that line.