Quote:
Originally posted by titmowse
let me turn that back to the original question of choice. what if you had WANTED that child when you were sixteen and the mother was eighteen mr head? what if the mother didn't want it and did not want to carry it to term? would you want the law to enforce her to have it? this is what choice boils down to.
|
tricky question.... I am pro choice, however.... we have to look at the sides somewhat differently due to the extreme difference in the outcomes.
One outcome is a new human which must be cared for. A massive responsibility in many ways.
The other outcome is nothing. No responsibility, no financial concerns... nothing. It ends at the clinic.
So.... given the differences, I think the decision should be mutual between the prospective parents, but if an agreement cannot be reached, perhaps the law should take over and default judgement to abort. Certainly the lesser of the two evils in today's world.
An exception to that extreme judgement might be (if in a deadlocked situation) if the partner that wants to keep the child is willing to sign an agreement stating that the other is fully released from responsibilty of the maintenance of the child. If that can be agreed upon, then by all means..... birth as many babies as you want. But I can't agree that just because one half of the prospective parents wants to keep it that the other is automatically forced into providing for a child they do not want, no matter which half is determined to keep the child. Doesn't really matter. By forcing responsibility AFTER protest, you're not creating a parent.... you're merely fining them for their actions as if it were a crime. As I am living proof of.