over a year ago:
Listen, if babies were made and grew to full-baby size in test tubes, then I absolutely agree that the mother and father have a 50/50 split in the decision to abort. But the fact is that they're not: women house the fetus in their bodies for about 9 months. In those nine months, the woman's uterus does not become partly owned by the father of the child. It is not his uterus.
I understand that you think the decision should be split equally, but this is impossible. As misanthrope pointed out, there are two choices: keep the baby or abort the baby. There's no in-the-middle compromise. As a result, if the mother and father have opposing views, one of them will make the ultimate decision
. One will ultimately make the final choice. What you're arguing is that the right of the parent who wants to keep the child is greater than the right of the parent to wants to abort. What I'm arguing is that the right of the woman to decide what happens to her body is greater than the right of the man to decide what happens to her body. We're arguing from different perspectives here. Theoretically, I agree with you to some extent - if it was possible for both parents to have an equal stake in the matter, then absolutely they should have an equal say. BUT THEY DON'T. The woman puts much more into the investment.
When I said it's the mother's life in question, I literally meant her life. There is a great risk to pregnancy and birth, and many women still today die in childbirth. In our society, this risk is much smaller than it was even just 100 years ago, thanks to modern medicine and technology. But there is still a significant risk. And it's not right to force a woman to literally put her life on the line for a child she does not want.
"Unfortunately, the father's rights would cancel out those of the mother's. Meaning both are just as strong as the other in matters of being able to decide whether their child will be brought into the world or not."
Can't you see how contradictory this statement is? If the father's rights cancel out those of the mother, then his rights are stronger. They are NOT equal. This is just simple mathematics. If father's rights > mother's rights, then father's rights ≠ mother's rights.
"I believe that the mother should have made sure that she was fully, concretely prepared and ready for a child and raising one before finding herself in a situation where she becoms pregnant."
This makes absolute sense under the assumption that all pregnancies are planned. But they're not. And I would argue that most abortions occur in situations where the pregnancy wasn't planned. Now, if you're arguing that a woman shouldn't have sex unless she's ready and willing to have a baby, then that's a whole other debate. But under the assumption that people can be ready for and willing to have sex and at the same time NOT be ready for and willing to have a child, this argument doesn't make sense.
"What I don't think is very clear right now (Not just to you but to most Pro-Choice individuals I speak with) is that I don't see it as a matter of the mother's rights."
I think the difference between pro-life and pro-choice arguments is that the two sides ultimately argue from different perspectives, and are unable to see the others' view. The difference (in my opinion) is that pro-lifers view the fetus as a sentient being from conception (or shortly after conception), whereas pro-lifers view the fetus as simply something inhabiting a woman's womb until it is able to live on its own, i.e. without the nourishment and protection given to it in utero. Whereas you're arguing that the child belongs equally to the man and woman (and I agree - both parents have an equal stake in the child), I'm arguing that since the fetus is incapable of living on its own outside of the woman's body
, the woman plays a greater role in the situation. It is equally the man and woman's child, but it is solely the woman's body and uterus. I don't believe that what the man wants gives him a greater say in what happens inside a woman's uterus than what the woman wants.
Essentially, by saying that the man's right to a child is greater than a woman's right to NOT have a child, you're at the same time arguing that the man's right to a child is greater than the woman's right to autonomy over her body. I know that this isn't how you view your argument, but this is ultimately what it boils down to.
"We wouldn't be content with a mother deciding to get up and doing as she pleases with her one-month-old daughter and placing her up for adoption for example withou the hands-on father's consent. So I do not see what the difference between this and a woman getting an abortion behind the father's back would be."
The difference is that while the man is equally capable of caring for a one-month-old as the woman, the man is NOT equally capable of caring for a fetus. Simply by virtue of biology, he isn't able to provide the care that a fetus needs. Is it unfair? Yes. But it's life. Until science develops some way of growing babies without the use of a uterus, it's going to stay unfair.