Sorry about the misspellings and repeated lines everybody- I'm trying to toggle between work stuff and responses here every couple of lines. These things deserve more time...I know.

Bruce- don't personally attack me because you don't like my opinion or bad jokes. Just isn't right........if you have an opinion about the topic, I'd prefer to hear that....

You heard my opinion.

I need this explained. What does that have to do with the topic? Do you think people hold kids hostage because they are inside their womb? Not sure......I'm just trying to connect that statement to the topic at hand.

I am talking about a man's choice for his child. Nothing more.
"Witch burnings" lol... cute.
I will no longer comment in here until I see something intelligent and new.

"Nothing more" is right- you still haven't said how it would work without women needing a permission slip from a man to get an abortion.

Then you have not read.

mmmmmm? mmmmmmm?
http://content.answers.com/main/cont...-Tedbaxter.jpg

No, I've read. If I missed it, please point it out. All I see is that you say that if the man wants full custody the woman should not be able to get an abortion. But how would that work without the permission slip requirement? First, how would it be legally determined that a particular man had a claim? Second, he would have to know about the pregnancy, and under this rule it would be against the best interest of the woman to tell him. Third, the doctor would have to know about his custody claim, and it would be against the best interest of the woman to tell him (or her). Would the doctor have to check a national registry of women who are not allowed abortions for the next nine months? Fourth, what sort of deterrant would there be? Prison time? A fine?

Yes, it would be ideal for the woman and the man to make the decision together, but if you want to encode that as a law you need to figure these things out.

No RK...you are talking about controlling a woman's womb......Man's choice for his child isn't gone about by controlling a woman's womb..(and all pretense thereof) It's about participating in their life.

I like the "Man's choice" spin though. I think it's clever. Nauseateing, but clever.


Ha! Haa! I want to see the look on a woman's face when they tell her that she has lost custody of her fetus. (especially a pregnant one)
Watch out!!! Bang! Crash! Boom!

If she wants to share custody, GREAT... that would be the best scenario possible.

"Waaaahhhh!" "Waaaahhh" " The world's so unfair to men." "Waaaah!" " It's a woman's world!" "Waaaah"

For one thing, because the child might not make it 'out'. For another thing, who is it that has to pay all the in utero expenses anyway? For another, of course you're aware of how many men completely ignore the fact they have a child right?

So...assuming this legislation went ahead, *waves magic wand*: a woman gets pregnant, accidentally and tries to get an abortion. She's told to get a signature from the man who got her pregnant, before she can have an abortion...or, in rk's revised edition, she seeks an abortion and the man who got her pregnant finds out, objects and she is unable to get an abortion.

If such a law existed, how many 'under the counter' abortionists do you think would spring up?

The woman, who got pregnant by accident, really doesn't want to have a baby. wasn't part of her plan. She is horrified by the prospect of going through this. She is also subject to hormonal flux, just like any other pregnant woman, so is emotionally fragile. She is being denied the abortion through the normal channels.

How many women do you think, in that situation, would seek an abortion from less reputable outfits?

What if she doesn't, or cannot get an abortion. What if she is forced, or if you wish me to use a less loaded term, coerced into carrying baby to term and giving birth. What guarantees can the people refusing to allow her to end the pregnancy early, give this woman that the pregnancy or labour won't kill her? Not every woman wants to take the risks of childbirth, even with our wonderful medical science, it's still risky. It's also something a lot of women find frightening. Being forced to do something that frightens you can be deeply traumatic. All of these things you would potentially force on women, and thats in the 'best case' scenario, where they don't put their lives in the hands of quacks and conmen, or well meaning, untrained women.

And again, what if because she tried to carry the child to term because she was forced to, and she then dies while giving birth? Does her family have a right to sue? And if so, who?

If they feel that strongly about the horrors of childbirth, they should get their tubes tied or practice abstinence.