Man wins injunction on woman's abortion

Washington Times ^ | 8/05/02 | Joann Loviglio, AP

[Steve0113]

At least they are refering this kid as a "baby" instead of a "fetus."

That's because it's the Washington Times. Their editorial position is unapologetically pro-life.

[FITZ]

Even sperm aren't part of her body but the new baby certainly isn't.

[Tribune7]

Every abortion of which I am aware of personally was the choice of the boyfriend. The girl wanted to keep the child but was pressured into the abortion. I also know single women who carried the child despite pressure from the boyfriend.

A society which tells men that prenancy is not their concern is a society that is ultimately going to unpleasant for women.

Abortion is inflicting suffering on a baby and should be stopped for that reason. If father's rights are a mechanism to stop some of the suffering, that is fine.

[glory]

"You wonder what judge in this country is unaware that women in this country have the right to choice>>

And you wonder what woman in this country doesn't understand despite the farce Roe vs Wade, a growing baby is half the fathers and imo a responsible father deserves the same rights to decisions regarding that infant(certainly the same feminists think he has equal responsibility even if he would have chosen an abortion so what gives?). Sadly, this will probably be overturned and she will abort. We need to have recognition of a "fetus" as an INDIVIDUAL in the custody(obviously) and care of the mother during pregnancy before we start to see equal rights for fathers and abortion becomes history. My favorite line in the rhetoric on this issue is "why is it a baby when it's wanted and a fetus(or blob of cells) when it isn't" In fact I've known women who take two different stands in two different instances FOR THEMSELVES. IMO, it's always a baby and fetus is an attempt to emotionally detach from that growing baby. The statistics regarding depression and mental health care following abortion seem to bear out that it doesn't work(detaching) in the long term.

[glory]

Absolutely! Personally that bears out. A woman's immune system is "lowered" during pg so it does not attack the growing baby. Because of this, I have had my psoriasis completely clear up because my usually overactive immune system is quieted down. It really is quite an amazing process to see in action when you have something like I do that is affected by this process. The baby is not part of the mother in much the same way a breastfeeding infant who relies on it's mother for it's nutrition is not part of the mother. If there was not an alternative(just like thier are no synthetic wombs--thank God!) and a woman decided after a baby was born not to breastfeed, would we allow her to starve the infant to death? After all it's a woman's body right?

[William Terrell]

. . .and besides....this is not a ruling for the baby...this is just a ruling for another adult....this ruling does not establish any rights for the baby....now, declaring a baby has a right to be born would make more sense...

Wouldn't that lead to the law telling a woman she has no "say over her body and what is going on in her body"? If the unborn baby has rights then the woman has no rights in that area. That would be "forcing pregnancy on woman". You can't have it both ways. By the way, the common law agrees with you on one side of your dichodomy:

Qui in utero est, pro jam nato habetur quoties de ejus commodo quaeritur.
He who is in the womb, is considered as born, whenever it is for his benefit.

[glory]

imagine Nazi germany....or more recently...in Romania...forcing women to carry children,,,forcing pregancy on women>>

Hello.... this woman was not raped by her boyfriend. She chose pregnancy as much as he did when they chose to have sex without protection likely. You are comparing apples to oranges here. You might have some argument if this was a rapist taking this woman to court to stop an abortion, but it is not. You might even have an argument if this woman was in a high risk pregnancy and her boyfriend was looking to force her to carry the pg. But a pregnancy resulting from both going in eyes wide open to the posibility..I'd hardly call that "forcing" a woman into anything.

[glory]

we will end abortion through religious and cultural changes...not by some judge declaring a ruling...


Why not? It was a judge's decision that forced this scourge on this nation to begin with.

[glory]

Wonderful post. Never thought about it in terms of forcing a man to do something against his will through child support.

[SarahW]

The judge has overstepped the law, and deliberately. He needs to be smacked down with a reprimand or other discipline.

It is settled law that the only parties with a say in the first trimester of pregnancy is the woman, in consultation with a doctor.

She alone bears the physical risks of pregnancy. She decides whether the physical risks are worth the benefits.

Custody and support are irrelevent questions to the right to decide whether she ends a pregnancy or attempts to bring it to term. If the father or accepts all of the financial or custodial burdens, it does not end the pregnancy or any of its physical burdens or risks to her.

[glory]

My husband has a friend whose fiancee(at the time) aborted thier baby--probably 15 years ago. He still has regrets(he supported *HER* decision at the time) especially when he is around our children. BTW, that abortion was the beginning of the end of thier relationship too. Even with his regrets he remains an avid liberal. Some folks just can't put 2+2 together I guess.

[glory]

Agreed--how many of us have heard stories of women who thought they had a cold or the flu when they were really pregnant--body's immune system at work trying to fight off that foreign DNA.

[A. Pole]

however, in no way should anybody but the mom have a say over her body and what is going on in her body...

How can you have it both ways? Either man has some say and responsibility or not. If the later, then let woman be responsible for child support.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The headline could read: Man Forces Woman to Bear his Child.

[William Terrell]

There is no law in that area. Roe v Wade was for the purpose of getting rid of those laws at the state level, remember? There is only precedent, which can be changed in a heartbeat as judges pile on and/or the supreme court rules.

Risks related to pregnancy can be determined by a physical examination made by a doctor, or several doctors for concurring opinions. If one or more doctors say that a woman faces no physical risk, would that satisfy you?

[glory]

I love it when people talk about this issue that only carrying a baby comes with risks and that abortion has NO risks to the mother. How about we talk about the risks of abortion vs. pregnancy eh? Both come with risk of death(deeath is definite in one choice to the baby), mental health problems. One(abortion) is showing more of an increased link to breast cancer and infertility. Your post is rendered meaningless when weighed up to the risks(usually never told to the mother) of abortion. Both carry risks unless you are one of those pro-choice types who like to pretend like abortion is the same type of procedure as getting a mole removed?

[SarahW]

You obviously have no clue. First trimester abortion is not risk free, but it is much less risky than allowing a pregnancy to continue. Properly done, it is VERY safe for the mother.

Suction curettage, for example, is less risky than the C-section I had for my last pregnancy.

The back end statistics are today slightly skewed, because many high risk pregnancies are terminated.

Pregnancy puts strains on the heart, lungs and kidneys that abortion does not.

It can have very significant effects on women with auto-immune disease. I, for example, have Ankylosing spodylitis, and pregnancy has always caused my disease to flare and progress. My eyes are permanently scarred from the uveitis I developed in the pregnancy from my last child.

You probably have very little idea of what can go wrong. Most people today haven't a clue how many possible complications there are or how commonly they occur.

It used to be understood that pregnancy was a high-risk venture.

Most women who die from pregnancy today die from stroke or bleeding to death. But there are many other possible complications, most of which can not be predicted in the first trimester.

Add to that the simply burdens of a NORMAL pregnancy, and that is reason alone to allow a woman to have the say alone.

It certainly is the well settled law. Change the law, if you think it is bad.

But this judge is ignoring it. He should be disciplined.

[Snuffington]

Change the law, if you think it is bad. But this judge is ignoring it. He should be disciplined.

The entire notion that abortion is a federally protected right stems from a few judges ignoring the law in Roe vs. Wade. I don't think that genie is going back in the bottle anytime soon.

[Tao Yin]

The judge has not overstepped the law. I would like to see this go to the Supreme Court. And why not?

If it is dangerous for her, then she can submit documentation to the court. If it is a normal pregnancy, what's the problem? She might be inconvenienced? Boo hoo, I'm sorry. Why don't you feel bad for a man who has to pay for 18 years against his will? That might be inconvenient.

You wrote "She decides whether the physical risks are worth the benefits" but you don't understand the other side of the equation. What about the man who has to support the child for 18 years against his will? He uses his body and mind to support another life. Plenty of risk. If having sex is a contract for a man, then it should be a contract for the woman.

If men had the option to say, "No thanks, I don't want to be a dad" then I wouldn't have a problem with women doing the same. But is a man having sex is equal to a contract that says "I'll be a dad if you get pregnant and want to keep it", I say that the woman should have the same type of contract "I'll be a mom if I get pregnant and you want me to keep it."

This argument that "It's a woman's body" is show boating. It's a man's body that earns the money to pay support. Tit for tat.

PS - I used the terms mom and dad incorrectly above. Being a sperm donor or an egg donor is not the same as being a parent, even when you throw in financial supporter or incubator status.

PPS – Yes, keeping you legs together is a valid option if you don’t want to be a mom or dad. However, if one person can get screwed, it should be an equal opportunity screw.