Anyone else feel this way? (Abortion)

[Associate Justice PiT]

Right; I'm not arguing against your position, which is a perfectly consistent position. I'm just saying that there is also a possible internal logic to the rape exception (not that most people who support the rape exception necessarily do so for logical reasons). If you believe that a woman's surrender of the right to her womb occurs when the woman voluntarily engages in intercourse, which is known to carry a risk of pregnancy, then she didn't surrender that in the case of rape.

Thing is, with the property rights angle, the question becomes, whose rights?  If we're talking about the property rights of the fetus itself, then that the fetus is a person has been conceded and we're back to the issue of whether rape or incest are a sufficient reason to terminate a human life.

The only way I see the property rights angle coming into play when rape or incest has occurred is if the fetus is considered the joint property of both biological parents and the consent of both is required to terminate the pregnancy.  Under those circumstances, I can see rape or incest being sufficient grounds for depriving the biological father of his property rights in the fetus and leaving the decision solely to the biological mother to make.

(Blech, that analysis is rather cold and clinical, isn't it?)

     The father did help make the fetus, but it resides solely in the property of the mother. If I were to plant a tree on somebody else's lot (with their permission, of course), could I claim part-ownership of the tree?

[Cory]

The father did help make the fetus, but it resides solely in the property of the mother.

But the thing is, when it's in her it's "her choice" but when it's born it suddenly becomes "LIEK HALF HIS OMG!" Even as a pro-choice person I find it disturbing that many women feel as if they have the right for other people to finance their irresponsible decisions.

I'm pro-choice, but I think it should work both ways.

If I were to plant a tree on somebody else's lot (with their permission, of course), could I claim part-ownership of the tree?

If you were paying for it's upkeep, yes.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The father did help make the fetus, but it resides solely in the property of the mother.

But the thing is, when it's in her it's "her choice" but when it's born it suddenly becomes "LIEK HALF HIS OMG!" Even as a pro-choice person I find it disturbing that many women feel as if they have the right for other people to finance their irresponsible decisions.

I'm pro-choice, but I think it should work both ways.

     I agree totally. You know that child support laws are a real mess when a woman can defraud a man into fathering a child, bear it against his will, & then force him to pay for it.

If I were to plant a tree on somebody else's lot (with their permission, of course), could I claim part-ownership of the tree?

If you were paying for it's upkeep, yes.

     I sort of guessed that might be the case, but I wasn't sure.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

     The father did help make the fetus, but it resides solely in the property of the mother. If I were to plant a tree on somebody else's lot (with their permission, of course), could I claim part-ownership of the tree?

    Depending on the terms of the contract (implied, oral, or written), you might be able to claim full ownership of the tree, but in my opinion we're getting awfully off topic.

[Cory]

Yeah just for the record by a woman's ""irresponsible decisions" I didn't mean the act of sex itself.

Let me just make that clear.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

In response to the first post, I have Asperger's and am generally pro-life.