KitchenGirl, it's fairly clear that you're anti-choice. And here is where my conundrum lies: I cannot see any way to have a discussion about abortion with you, or anyone who shares your beliefs. Lemme 'splain.

What?!

You see, when my girlfriend and I had our/her abortion in October... bla bla bla

[deleting two paragraphs' worth of shmashmortion-and grad-school-lore. What do you want, the "Abortions Tickle" t-shirt? You can get one from tshirthell.com.]

Now to you, we are murderers (I presume a little bit here). No different than two people who meditated in advance on the crime, and committed it in cold blood. At the very minimum, we deserve jail sentences on par with those others who commit first-degree murder.

WHAT???

How do we ever reach any kind of middle ground here? Because as I see it, only pro-choicers even _see_ the middle ground - for the vast majority of those opposing choice, it's just wrong, end of story. How can this issue even be discussed, without both sides just talking at each other?

Care to comment?

Yeah. WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? I only had one point, and it was this: "rights" belong to the child upon birth. Once that child is born, it has the right to support from both parents. One parent cannot, ever, unilaterally terminate that child's right to support. For one parent to say that they want to terminate their rights as a parent is a non-starter, since the "rights" that they are actually trying to terminate do not belong to them in the first place.

Nature is indeed a cruel mistress The fact that only one person has the ability to decide whether or not to give birth is an unfortunate inequity, but until forcible abortions become acceptable, there's not much you can do about it. Sometimes things just aren't fair.

Before there is a child, there are no child's rights to be upheld. There are only prerogatives to create a child, or not create a child, which at present rest solely with the woman.

Yes. Biology is a bitch.

Yes, solely with the woman. If you are going to advance the argument that men enjoy the prerogative to keep it zipped or bear the consequences, you should be prepared to apply that argument equally to men and women. The biological part of conception applies incontrovertibly equally to men and women; interrupting the pregnancy rests solely with women; the social contract is enforced solely against men. QED, the decision whether to procreate rests solely with the woman.

You are mostly correct, since the social contract is also enforced against women who are also not legally permitted to abandon their children.

The product of procreation is not concerned with who wanted him/her at what stage in the gestation. The product (aka the kid) is entitled to support from both parents. Those rights belong to the *child* and cannot be signed away unilaterally by either party, with the adoption exception that you mention below.

Ever heard of "adoption?"

I could be wrong here, but I am not aware of states enforcing the collection of child support for adoptees. Certainly after the child is adopted, that right of support from the biological parent is terminated.

"After" being the operative word.

The adoptees, by definition, are being supported. Otherwise the children would in fact be abandoned -- and abandoning a child is against the law. It is also possible for one man to adopt another man's child upon marrying the child's mother. I don't know if this terminates any rights or responsibilities of the biological father, though. I know one family that has done this, but it seems like kind of a prickly topic so I never inquired what actually went down legally and practically. Also, its none of my business.

Sorry 'bout dat:

Before there is a child, there are no child's rights to be upheld. There are only prerogatives to create a child, or not create a child, which at present rest solely with the woman.

Yes. Biology is a bitch.

Yes, solely with the woman. If you are going to advance the argument that men enjoy the prerogative to keep it zipped or bear the consequences, you should be prepared to apply that argument equally to men and women. The biological part of conception applies incontrovertibly equally to men and women; interrupting the pregnancy rests solely with women; the social contract is enforced solely against men. QED, the decision whether to procreate rests solely with the woman.

You are mostly correct, since the social contract is also enforced against women who are also not legally permitted to abandon their children.

The product of procreation is not concerned with who wanted him/her at what stage in the gestation. The product (aka the kid) is entitled to support from both parents. Those rights belong to the *child* and cannot be signed away unilaterally by either party, with the adoption exception that you mention below.

Ever heard of "adoption?"

I could be wrong here, but I am not aware of states enforcing the collection of child support for adoptees. Certainly after the child is adopted, that right of support from the biological parent is terminated.

"After" being the operative word.

The adoptees, by definition, are being supported. Arrangements are codified by the state, to ensure that the child is under the legal and financial care of another person or people. Otherwise those children would in fact be abandoned -- and abandoning a child is against the law. It is also possible for one man to adopt another man's child upon marrying the child's mother. I don't know if this terminates any rights or responsibilities of the biological father, though. I know one family that has done this, but it seems like kind of a prickly topic so I never asked what actually went down legally and practically.