The question of fathers' rights is an incredibly interesting and difficult question. Where would one even begin? Also, I think it's important to mention that "partial birth" abortions and other types of late-term abortions are extremely rarely performed and are used in cases of medical emergencies. There are diseases that can cause a fetus to be completely non-viable, meaning it could not live outside the womb. What about those? I am without a doubt pro-choice, but I would never call myself pro-abortion and I can't think of a single person who would feel comfortable with that title. This is one of my favorite debate topics.

I've gotta tell you...once an underage girl becomes pregnant, for all purposes of her medical care, she is an ADULT. It doesn't matter if she is 9 years old. I think then saying you're an adult and have to make your own medical decisions as a mother, but if you want an abortion you are now a minor and have to ask permission of your parent is stupid.

The problem with a lot of this debate is that it is not completely about abortion rights. The debate includes social and religious views about contraception, pre-marital sex, sex education and a plethora of other topics.
I think at some point we all will have to decide that to reach a goal of decreasing the number of abortions in this country, we have to accept that contraception and sex education should be readily available with NO impediment put on teenagers because of their parents personal moral or religious ideology. A recent study showed that pre-marital sex rates have not changed since the 20's. The polled people from their teens to their 80s and 95% of people reported that they engaged in pre-marital sex. This whole "abstinence" ideal is a myth. People LIE. Do we want to pretend we all were virgins until marriage and leave our children to sneak out and get pregnant because giving contraception "sends the wrong message?" Or do we accept that the VAST MAJORITY of Americans don't practice what they preach and that we'd do our children a favor by being realistic and giving them the tools to protect themselves from unwanted pregnancies and deadly diseases?

And as the father of an 8 1/2.-year-old girl, I think treating a 9-year-old as an adult for almost any purpose is stupid.

She is not an adult. Similar treatments may be called for and the like, but she is not an adult. She cannot make decisions like an adult. She cannot understand the consequences of her decisions like an adult (or like an adult should be able to do).

Interesting question raised by AOIIAngel's post - a 9 year old is not legally able to make medical decisions for herself - were she to be pregnant, would she in fact be able to make it for her child, or would it fall to the grandparents? GC lawyers? Haven't there been cases where the (grand)parents wanted a minor woman to have an abortion and she didn't want one? What happens in that case?

FWIW, just because you can have sex and get pregnant does not translate into adulthood for me. Legally speaking, we pick an arbitrary age to make children into adults - we don't base it on physical attributes. I know there was a discussion regarding the 13 year old who didn't want to undergo chemo - he is learning-disabled, and there was a great deal of debate as to how much input a child should have in making medical choices for him/herself.

That may be true, but it is the reality of the situation. I think if you look at it from a medical perspective, 9 year old pregnant girls likely don't have reasonable parents to help them make decisions anyway. I didn't make the rule, but trust me...it's how it works.

I am enjoying this thread! I think the arguments and ideas presented in this one (unlike some from the past) have been quite civil regardless of disagreement. No one has gotten nasty with each other :)

I agree with most of this. I would add a caveat to #1 to say "unless the life of the mother is at risk due to the pregnancy, in which case, the life of the mother would take precedence"

I agree with the first paragraph of yours, which I quoted.

I don't necessarily agree with your second paragraph. My view is greatly slanted because of working on adolescent psych units for 13 years. In a "good" family, all that would work. But, when daughter is being molested by mom's boyfriend and mom won't leave the guy and there isn't enough evidence to have the guy removed from the home, I think *that* kid should be able to get whatever they need to avoid having a baby. When parents are so unrealistic that the girl will be exiled from the family if she does any of those things (because her boyfriend is not of the same religion as them), but she IS going to have sex anyway, she should be able to get those things. (Yes, worked with a 17 year old girl whose family held a funeral for her, refused to speak to her, but allowed her to live in their home and fed her, because they legally had to, because she was dating a boy outside their religion.. she was understandably suicidal). In a "normal" family, they should be able to talk about these things. The problem is, there are far too many families that are totally insane and dysfunctional. While there are currently court processes to get around these kinds of situations, kids don't know how to access that system.

Parents walk a very fine line between trying to teach their kids morality AND responsibility at the same time. You don't want to condone promiscuous sex yet you realize that they will NOT wait until they're married, especially in this day and age when people are getting married later and later, but puberty is happening earlier and earlier. You can talk about what an intimate act it is and how it should only occur when you're really in love and mature enough to handle the consequences, but they THINK they're really in love and mature enough long before they really are. All that said, I have told my daughter that when she is at the point of needing to be on birth control, that I will support her in that. I'm lucky though that she's a kid with pretty good self esteem and strong future goals and she doesn't want to do things that will mess up her future. I have considered, when she or my son starts dating, putting a box of condoms in the linen closet to make them available if they need them, no questions asked, but, like I said, it also kind of feels like I'm condoning it. My hope is that neither of them date someone that seriously for a while so I don't have to deal with it yet.

ETA: I don't think the father should be able to force a woman to have a child, because there are so many complications with carrying a child for 9 months and going through labor. Conversely, I don't think a woman who wants the child should be able to force a man who wants her to have an abortion to support that child forever either. I think men should have some sort of "waiver" they could sign to say they will not accept parental rights or responsibilities if the woman chooses to have the child. Women should not be able to "trap" a man in this way and it's too easy for us to do so at this point in time.

That's interesting, because there you have a situation where the legal and medical approaches are apparently opposed to each other. That adds a whole other layer to the discussion, in my view, although it starts to get off on a tangent (i.e. at what age should people be able to make their own medical decisions).

I agree about the "abstinence" idea. I do think teens are more likely to lie on such polling/research than non-teens for fear of parents finding out about what they really are doing. I do think abstinence should be taught as part of sex education but then it shoudl also be said something along the lines of this.."but if you decide to have sex here is some important information you need to know and ways of protecting yourself..."

My oldest son is having sex. He didnt tell us, but I could tell. I buy him condoms. That way he doesnt have to feel weird about asking because he already has them. I cant be with him every minute of the day to stop him from having sex, but I will encourage and promote safer sex by buying him condoms and talking to him about their proper use, STD's, etc. I think he listens most of the time :)

As for the debate about parental notification. I understand the point about some kids being so horrified of their parents not to ask. So I have this question. Your teens goes and gets an abortion. The pregnancy is terminated and she is no longer pregnant. You know nothing about it. Later she starts having complications. You are freaking out because you have no idea what the hell is going on. Is that something you want to find out in an ER? She wont be pregnant then and will be back to being a minor that needs medical treatment. Hormonal birth control--Most ladies dont suffer side effects. Some suffer very dangerous side effects. I'll use stroke for example (and a higher risk if woman smokes). Your child gets hormonal birth control from wherever without your knowledge. Some time goes by and she has a stroke. Your freak out wondering how she had a stroke so young. later you find out it was caused from birth control that you didnt know she was taking. Is that another scenario you want to find out about after the fact? There are side effects with implants. Do you want to find out your daughter had an implant after the fact if it gets infected and needs medical treatment?

I would prefer my children to wait, preferably until marriage but definitely until college. Whiel this isnt the case for all parents I'm more than happy to help them get birth control and whatever exams they need. But I WOULD BE FURIOUS if someone did those things without my consent/knowledge with the side effects/complications that can go with those. I've seen too much as a nurse in private practice with high risk groups to budge from that opinion.

^ At what age would you let your child make choices about her birth control method? At 16? At 18? I'm just curious because there are 17 year olds in college...and I'm imagining a scenario of having to go to the campus clinic and ask for birth control or plan B or an HIV test, and them having to call your mom and dad and ask for a permission slip to write a script (and then the backlash from that request that would occur in some households). I guess I'd see that as a huge violation of my privacy as a person. At what point are you no longer a child? Legally, I suppose 18...but someone in college (or working on their own after high school) still needing their mom and dad to OK a medical decision? What if the family situation sucks and the parents would deny their daughter treatment out of spite (ha! let her deal with it, she's not our problem anymore!).

I believe that most states with parental notification laws have, as part of the law, an "out" for minors whose parents would not be able to handle the situation - http://www.law.uh.edu/healthlaw/pers...talConsent.pdf

I think as a parent (though I don't have any kids) I would want my children to be honest with me about what they are doing, but not all children have those types of relationships with their parents. I don't think my parents would have reacted logically to a request by any of my siblings to start using birth control. Hell...my parents called me daily for three months freaking out when they found out that at 24 I was living with my fiance! It didn't stop until I put my foot down that I was old enough to make my own decisions.

Birth control pills definitely do have some side effects. They are RARE, but they do happen. If you agreed to give your child OCPs to prevent pregnancy would you feel any less upset than if you had not given your consent? Would your really tell your daughter, "I'm sorry, I won't give you birth control pills because there is a 1 in 100,000 risk that you could get a stroke." Is preventing pregnancy not a valid reason to take that type of risk? Kids can already take over the counter medications without the consent of parents, which in many cases have many more risks and side effects than OCPs which have been proven as safe. OCPs have almost been made over the counter drugs on multiple occasions. They are that safe. The only reason they are still prescription is because OB-GYNs argue that they will not be able to get women to come in yearly for their Pap Smears if they can't withhold OCPs. Do you think you'll have any say when they inevitably go over the counter?

I applaud your actions with your son. Unfortunately, too many people have a double standard for their daughters.

I am one of those women who had a problem with side effects with the pill. I had what my doctor termed a "mini-stroke" and had to get off of them. They are serious stuff, and sometimes I think we have a rather cavalier attitude about them.

As long as we're sharing personal insights - my eldest daughter did not date at all until college, so talking about sex was abstract (although still important). On the way to college I told her that even if she was told by her ob/gyn that she would have trouble getting pregnant she should bear in mind that is what they told her mother, the mother of 4, and her grandmother, the mother of 4. She should assume that if she is having sex, she could very well get pregnant. My younger daugther came to me at 16 and said she wanted to go on the pill. I took her to the doctor and discussed everything with them - we've had to change prescriptions. She seems to be doing fine - currently she isn't involved in a relationship, but I'd just as soon she stayed on them as opposed to getting off of them and then back on - they also help her in other ways - don't want to post TMI. Her father (my ex) refused to even DISCUSS it with our daughter - nothing like putting your head in the sand . . . I hope my girls now (and boys later) know that my ultimate goal is their happiness, and they can tell me anything, knowing that I love them and want only the best for them.

We have an "out" for minors whose parents would not be able to handle the situation in Michigan's law but, as I stated earlier, 14 and 15 year olds don't know how to access that "out" or are afraid to. Additionally, in my county, it involves going to downtown Detroit, twice, which means you need transportation to get there. It's a really intimidating process if you ask me.

I find some irony in that, a 14 year old can have a baby without parental consent/notification but not an abortion. Which one has a longer term effect on the whole family?

ETA: I think parents that would want to know and are open to the idea are going to raise their kids knowing that they can come to them with any problem, no matter how big, and they will, 90% of the time. If you want your child to feel comfortable coming to you for these things, then you raise them with that underlying tenet. I can't see my daughter getting an abortion without telling me, so I wouldn't feel threatened if the law wasn't there. SWTX Belle, it sounds like you're raising your kids the same way.

Oh, I agree that in the hypothetical 9-year-old child's family is not likely to be much help. That's why there are guardians ad litem and the like.

And I know you didn't make the rules. But if that's really how it works, this passage from Oliver Twist is brought to mind:

“If the law supposes that,” said Mr. Bumble,… “the law is a ass—a idiot. If that’s the eye of the law, the law is a bachelor; and the worst I wish the law is that his eye may be opened by experience—by experience.”

:D

exactly! i worked with kids in state's custody for about five years and my views are forever slanted now. i think morals and lofty ideals work out fine for most people until they end up in situations like the ones you described. life isn't as black and white as people want to make it out to be.

even in my own recent pregnancy and birth of my son, i found myself in a weird gray area. i was RELIGIOUS about taking my birth control and using alternate methods during the "off week". so who has two thumbs and was part of the 1% who got pregnant on birth control? this girl!

i'm pro-choice politically (i'm the only one who should be making decisions about my vagina and uterus and i feel the same about everybody else's reproductive organs as well), but i don't personally believe in abortion (i guess i'll blame my catholic upbringing).

now here i was, a recently divorced, third year ph.d. student, living in a one bedroom apartment with my bf, getting by on the pittance that the university pays me as a grad student and whatever adjunct positions i can pick up each semester. really not the ideal for having a child. however, with family help we were able to pull it off and we're doing as well as we can in this economy and our situation.

can i sit here and pretend that abortion was never a thought? hell no. of course it went through my mind. i'm glad i made the decision that i made, but i feel like i had (and still do) a lot of support. not every person has that. i won't judge other people's lives that i don't live on daily basis. that's just ignorant.

so i guess i consider myself pro-choice. i chose to have my child.

- m

At some point, though, rhetoric about having control of your body falls apart unless you don't believe that at any point in pregnancy the fetus becomes a person. I think people who believe that fetuses shouldn't have any legal protections as people until they are actually born are pretty rare. Are you just controlling your body if you abort a healthy fetus in the 38th week? It seems to me that you wouldn't just be controlling your body; you're terminating the life of another.

I'm also perplexed by why rape or incest (or fetal disability) make a difference in cases carried beyond whatever limits you would otherwise impose. We don't go around killing the products of rape or incest (or the disabled) after they are born, so why would we make exceptions in the cases that for whatever reasons we'd otherwise legal restrict? (I understand why people who want no abortions at all make allowances because it seems too cruel not to, but it makes less sense to permit these exceptions in a system that would allow early abortions for any reasons.)

And for those of us who would restrict abortions after viability, what standard are you using? The lowest age a fetus has survived at? The age at which 50% of more fetuses would likely survive? What do you do as this age is pushed lower because of neo-natal technology? Why does the standard of inducing birth and seeing if the fetus survives seems so barbaric but allowing abortions at the same age doesn't?

The AMA has said, if I recall correctly, 24 weeks - that seems like a good standard, and is one that doesn't rely on a concept of "soul" (which is absolutely no reason to make a law).

You really don't see why inducing labor for a fetus and "seeing what happens" (given the massive incidence of birth defects, death, etc.) is distasteful?

Oh, I see why it's distasteful. It's more the idea that that people don't see abortion at the same stage the same way. [ETA: Or that they consciously choose to suppress that knowledge in their desire to defer to the mother's rights]
It's weird that the disposition of the mother towards the fetus apparently changes the way people view the act so much. The outcome for the fetus might actually be better with the induce and see what happens method.

It's kind of odd on some level to talk about viability being the standard and yet requiring the fetus to be carried to term because we suspect it's hit a point it could survive outside the uterus. [ETA: by this I don't mean that I don't think the viable don't deserve legal protection from termination; just that it's kind of weird.]

EATA: I'd probably restrict earlier in the pregnancy than viability, but I don't think that protection at conception is workable. Too many other medical procedures that people want to see available involve the creation and destruction of embryos. But I'd restrict pretty absolutely at viability, not just a nebulous injury to the health of the mother but only cases in which the mother's life was actually in immediate danger.

Interesting take on what needs to happen between anti/pro legalized abortion groups
 

I agree. There's not even an option for cases where the child will die either in utero or soon after birth, like in the case of anenocephaly, which is often diagnosed pretty late in the pregnancy (don't Google it, please!), or even one of the trisomies where the baby may not make it an hour after birth.

The way I see it is, and I think most people agree: like much of life itself, there are too many shades of grey. I know I'm pro-life for myself, but pro-choice for the other 6.1 billion people on this planet. Does that make me a hypocrite? I hope not!

Potter's Syndrome and Anecephaly were two of the big ones I was thinking of when I wrote my post about non-viable babies. There's another I learned about in biology class in which the embryo fails to turn into a fetus and becomes like a type of parasitic tumor that can kill the mother. What about that? Some would even argue that it would be wrong to terminate that pregnancy.

There has to be cases where a fetus needs and has to be terminated for the health of the parent and the fetus. So if the fetus goes to term and becomes a vegetable as it were, is that right? Dr. Tiller I am sure was a caring person and only did what he thought was best, not for the money. It is sad that a deminted person took it upon himself to slay him and in a church to boot. Being in the world of drugs, the options are very scary according to the ads of what can happen? Are the cures correct enough to offset the cures and cause further problems and even death.

Beyond gross. Is it similar or the same as this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetus_in_fetu

I know of lesser reasons to terminate a pregnancy, but I definitely see nothing wrong with aborting a tumor that is "alive," but is basically nothingness.

No, it isn't right.

However, many disagree with me. It's fine to disagree and for people to choose whatever works for them and is within legal boundaries. That's what pro-choice means to me. :)

You're thinking of a molar pregnancy. These can actually be cancerous. This would be caught in early pregnancy, though, since it makes the mother really sick. Another common reason for first trimester abortions is ectopic pregnancies. These are "viable" pregnancies that are routinely terminated to save the life of the mother. Would anyone say that those pregnancies should be saved?

Are ectopic considered viable? I've always understood them to be nonviable because the growing fetus will rupture the fallopian tube.

And while there is a small minority of pro-lifers who might argue that yes, the pregnancy should continue if the mother's life is at risk, the vast majority (including all that I know) would accept that as a legitimate reason for aborting before viability.

The vast majority of ectopic pregnancies will not survive to term. However, nothing is actually wrong with the fetus itself that we know of. There have been many ectopics that have survived to term, some within the fallopian tubes, some in the abdominal cavity. Not all ectopics are in the fallopian tubes, though, most are.

No, not fetus in fetu. That's not necessarily fatal and that's when the fetus becomes a parasite to its living twin. The twin can survive with the non-viable twin inside them for years and years if it doesn't disrupt their vital organs or take up too much of their blood supply. There have been a few documentaries about fetus in fetu. Pretty creepy stuff.

I saw an incredible documentary about a set of triplets. The incredible part was that the boy triplet was an ectopic pregnancy that they didn't know about until they delivered the other two babies. Somehow his embryo had attached to the outside of another organ below her uterus (must have been bowels, but I just can't remember). Since it wasn't in the fallopian tube, the fetus was able to survive without rupturing the tube and killing the mother. The amazing thing about his survival was that it suggested that a fetus doesn't need female organs to survive and that there is a possibility with the right technology that someday, a male could carry an implanted fetus to term. Obviously a lot of medical complexities, and we're not anywhere near that just yet, but just a little something to think about.

The problem they can't overcome, however, is the damage done by placental attachment to intra-abdominal organs. The endometrial lining is meant to accept the placenta (though there are cases where the placenta extends to the muscle of the uterus and can't be dislodged after delivery requiring an emergency hysterectomy.) Most people who successfully deliver an intra-abdominal ectopic have to have bowel resection...sometimes they die from hemorrhage.

No, it doesn't. It means you recognize that while YOU may not wish to make that choice, other people should have the opportunity to do so.

I don't know if I would ever be able to have an abortion, but I definitely think I should be able to have that option if the situation arises.

What I find hypocritical is being against abortion, but in support of the death penalty.

I see what you mean on the basis of human life.

The difference is that an unborn child hasn't done anything and is considered an innocent life. On the other hand, a person given the death penalty has been found by the legal system to have done something.

what someone else does with their body isn't my responsibility. who am i to dictate what they do?

It's not what you want to do to YOUR body - it's what you want to do to the unborn BABY'S that raises the question. Were it merely a case of doing something to your body - like piercing, or plastic surgery - no one, not even self-proclaimed pro-lifers, would care.

I don't like tattoos, but have no reason to prevent you from getting one. That analogy doesn't translate into a discussion about abortion, because there is a third party involved. If a woman has an abortion, her right to HER body infringes on the right of another - hence the term "right to life". As to the question of "Who am I to dictate . . .", well, you do it all the time through the laws of your country. We dictate how fast you can drive your car, when you can drink, at what age you can get a tattoo, when you can sign a contract . . . who are we to dictate? We are citizens who don't wish to live in anarchy.

Where will the women go now?
 

article on Salon.com

But at the same time, we do not legislate what pregnant women can or cannot do to their bodies when pregnant. They can drink, smoke, do drugs, etc. This clearly will have an effect on the fetus, including death, birth defects, addiction, but we don't outlaw those either. Fetuses only have rights up to a certain extent.

My personal opinion about abortion is this:

First trimester abortions should be completely unrestricted.
Second and Third trimester abortions should be allowed ONLY for severe birth defects (completely up to patient/doctor discretion, so yes, if a woman wants to abort her Down Syndrome fetus, that is her choice!), non-viability of the fetus, rape or incest victims and severe risk to the mother's life, up to 27 weeks.
-Neonatologist can routinely save 27 week premies. The results at this point for any fetus younger than that age are so variable across the country that it is NONVIABLE in many areas. This week should change as our technology changes.
-Many severe defects are only fully evaluated beyond the point where the fetus is still first trimester.
-The life of the mother should ALWAYS come first. If the pregnancy is beyond 27 weeks, then labor should be induced rather than abortion performed to save the life of the mother.

My rationale for this opinion is that first trimester fetuses have not fully developed any organ systems and are essentially a ball of cells. This gives mothers of unwanted pregnancies a chance to decide what is best for themselves.

Second and third trimester fetuses have developed all of their organ systems and can be easily identified as babies. Termination should be a last resort at this point. If a woman can't get it together to have an abortion before this point, she's S.O.L!

So ... I feel like you're giving conflicting opinions here. Before, in your own words, you said you're either "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion". Many people have disagreed with your terms, but that's not really the issue right now.

If this is really what you believe, how can you be ANTI-abortion, if you think it's OK to terminate a pregnancy at all ?

^^^ I pretty much second all of this!

Actually, pregnant women have been charged with abuse based on their behaviors before the child was born (drugs, for example http://www.wspa.com/spa/news/local/a...charged/16838/ ) - and, for example, Conor Peterson's father was charged with his murder, even though he was still in utereo. There oughta be a law - and there is .http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unborn_...f_Violence_Act. So as a society we do believe some actions which impact an unborn baby are not only morally wrong, but legally.

As to TP's comment - as has been pointed out before, most of those who are pro-legal abortion aren't 100%, at all times, no exceptions, in support of abortion on demand, and most pro-lifers are not 100%, at all times, no exceptions, no abortions ever. Making an exception for a pregnancy which will result in the death of the mother is still pro-life - it just makes an exception for a situation in which both lives cannot be preserved. A life is still being saved - and weighing the two lives, the rights of the mother would seem to me to logically outweigh the rights of the unborn - but it is an exceptional situation. If it makes you feel better, call me anti-legalized abortion on demand. It is a logical fallacy to call it an either/or situation.

If it's not 100% either way, I think that's just another argument against your "anti-abortion"/"pro abortion" terminology/thought process/belief.