I am fond of thought Experiments so here are a couple

[UndertheOcean]

Say a woman is 9 month pregnant , and suddenly decides she does not want the baby anymore , I know this never happens in real life , that is why this is a thought experiment.

Should she be allowed to do an Abortion ? What if she is already in labour ?


the point is , should there be some limits on the right to Abortion , or should it be without limits.

What if they concoct a pill in the future that will cause a man to produce only boy sperm , should it be only the mans decision whether to consume such a pill or not , with the S.O. having no say in the matter unless the man accepts such input , it is his body after all ?


Lets see , what else .

Say in the future it is possible for a man to get pregnant if the spouse is not strong enough to withstand pregnancy , should he have the same absolute rights to abortion as a woman .


Another thought experiment , Say someone travels to the future and discovers that your child is gonna discover the cure to cancer , should you then lose your right to chose for the benefit of humanity , even if said birth might kill you.

[Xipe Totec]

1. This is why the decision should be made by the mother and with medical advice

This should be a medical decision, not a legal one.

[UndertheOcean]

2. but if it is only a medical decision , there is no choice ?

It has to be more than just a medical decision for choice to be meaningful.

[Xipe Totec]

3. I said it should be the mother's decisions WITH medical advice.

Please don't distort my words.

[UndertheOcean]

4. oh , I misread

sorry

[Xipe Totec]

5. No problem

:hi:

[NC_Nurse]

6. Some who is young and immature enough to deny a pregnancy until labor is

probably not going to do anything except have the baby and either
a. Put it into a dumpster or some such rash act.
or
b. give it up for adoption

They are not decisive or mature enough to do something rational. That's my guess.

^Not that putting it up for adoption is irrational, but in the case where the baby is already born and you don't want it - that's your choice. If you are together enough not to abandon or kill it.

[Lyric]

7. The first question is irrelevant, as it's not legal anywhere in the USA.

Nowhere can a woman abort a 9-month fetus just because she "doesn't want it anymore." I don't know of any serious feminist groups that are trying to overturn that law, either.

As for the second question, about the Y-sperm-only pill? Sure! Of course they should be allowed to take those pills if they want to. Their bodies, their choice. Similarly, if the wife in that situation chooses to use sperm bank sperm that is a proper mixture of X and Y instead of her husband's sperm, and if she chooses to deny him sex completely, well, that's HER choice too. Nobody ever said that our choices cannot have personal consequences, after all. The Constitution protects us from the government--not from each other.

Third question: Yes, of course.

Fourth question: You should still have the right to abort. McFall v. Shimp established the precedent that people cannot be compelled to use their bodies to benefit others. It was an organ donation case in which one man tried to force his cousin to donate compatible bone marrow to him in order to save his life, but the court ruled against the sick man and for the defendant, stating that no person can be compelled via the courts to have their bodies used for someone else's benefit. Whether a single fetus or an entire nation, this same logic would apply--no woman can be forced to donate the use of her body to a fetus, no matter how much it might benefit society.

:hi:

[Chemisse]

8. Once the baby is viable, it is murder to abort it

Unless the mother's life is in jeopardy.

Personally I would like to see a compromise that would limit abortions to the first trimester except for malformed fetuses (like Down Syndrome or neural tube disorders)or the health of the mother (possibly including the mental health too).

[TommyO]

18. Abortion is not murder.

And the decision to have one belongs between a woman and her doctor, nobody else.

[Chemisse]

21. If the baby is viable, it is considered murder

Can you really be so one-sided in this debate as to say it is okay to abort a full-term fetus?

[rustydog]

9. Another thought to your question

Why is the doctor punished for abortions and the female left alone?
Isn't the mother complicit in Murder? Why isn't she charged?

If she visits an abortion clinic via an appointment, is she not guilty of conspiracy with the doctor to commit a crime?

In the history of abortion violence these Right to life groups stay miles away from the patient but attack the doctor.
Some jurisdictions charge the physicians but do not bring the woman up on charges? Why?

[WeDidIt]

10. Roe v. Wade answers your first question.

On your second question, yes.

And the third is also yeas.

To the fourth, time travel to the past is not possible. We are all time traveling into the future.

[cali]

11. oh for pity's sake. there are limits on abortion. go read Roe and

Casey.

Your post is silly. and that's a very kind way of putting it.

[UndertheOcean]

13. Well , I intended it to be silly , thanks for the kindness

but not too silly . A mix of silliness and substance lets say.

[Clintonista2]

19. Cali's just a peach, isn't she?

[UndertheOcean]

15. The question is , should those limits exist ?

[cali]

17. yes. I think the state does have an interest in regulating abortions

after viability. Makes sense to me.

[JackRiddler]

12. here ARE a couple

[UndertheOcean]

14. thanks

[TexasObserver]

16. No. No. Yes. No. Yes. No.

No, she shouldn't be allowed to abort a 9 month pregnancy, unless the mother's life is at stake or there is reason to believe the child is already dead or cannot be saved.

No, she should not be allowed to abort if she is in labor, unless the mother's life is at stake or there is reason to believe the child is already dead or cannot be saved.

Yes, there should be some limits on abortion after the fetus is clearly viable outside the mother, unless the mother's life is at stake, or there is reason to believe the child is already dead or cannot be saved.

No, abortion should not be without any limits at all.

Yes, a man who becomes pregnant should have the same rights as his wife would have.

No, no one should be forced to have the child who will cure cancer in the future.


These are my opinions. Others will have theirs.

[surrealAmerican]

20. In the real world, the first question make no sense.

At nine months an "abortion" would mean inducing labor, anything else would be too risky for the woman. If the infant is indeed "viable", it will be alive after delivery.