Thread: Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

After thinking about the subject for a few days and being prompted by new posts in this thread, these are my thoughts on the subject. Btw, in no means a legal opinion.

The father only contributes very little in actuality towards the fetus. Maybe he supports the mother through the term, but if the mother wants an abortion, something is wrong in that relationship. Anyway, point being, all the father does is have sex with the mother and contribute a single sperm to fertilize the egg. Thats it. His job is done, he does not *HAVE* to do anything else to ensure the egg matures into a new baby/person.

The mother OTOH has to not only carry the baby for a full 9 months, but must experience all the biological aches, pains, problems, risks, etc etc of 9 months of pregnancy. And then at the end, she must again risk her life giving birth to the baby, which I hear is quite painful. Looks and sounds painful as well.

The courts are not stupid and they have access to this information, they are going to look at this and make their decision.

After thinking about this...I'm not sure the father *should* have the ability to *force* a mother to carry a child to term *if* the state does not. After all, all he did was contribute a single sperm.

However, if the two parents come to an agreement whereby he pays the mother as a sort of surrogate mother to carry the baby to term and then the mother decides somewhere down the line that she wants to abort... thats a better argument for the father.

Of course, 3rd trimester abortions are still a no in my book. But like I said, if the state can't do it, neither should the dad IMHO.

Allowing the father to force the mother to carry the child for 9 months sounds a lot like slavery/indentured servitude/forced labor to me.

Originally Posted by Leighton

After thinking about the subject for a few days and being prompted by new posts in this thread, these are my thoughts on the subject. Btw, in no means a legal opinion.

The father only contributes very little in actuality towards the fetus. Maybe he supports the mother through the term, but if the mother wants an abortion, something is wrong in that relationship. Anyway, point being, all the father does is have sex with the mother and contribute a single sperm to fertilize the egg. Thats it. His job is done, he does not *HAVE* to do anything else to ensure the egg matures into a new baby/person.

The mother OTOH has to not only carry the baby for a full 9 months, but must experience all the biological aches, pains, problems, risks, etc etc of 9 months of pregnancy. And then at the end, she must again risk her life giving birth to the baby, which I hear is quite painful. Looks and sounds painful as well.

The courts are not stupid and they have access to this information, they are going to look at this and make their decision.

After thinking about this...I'm not sure the father *should* have the ability to *force* a mother to carry a child to term *if* the state does not. After all, all he did was contribute a single sperm.

However, if the two parents come to an agreement whereby he pays the mother as a sort of surrogate mother to carry the baby to term and then the mother decides somewhere down the line that she wants to abort... thats a better argument for the father.

Of course, 3rd trimester abortions are still a no in my book. But like I said, if the state can't do it, neither should the dad IMHO.

Allowing the father to force the mother to carry the child for 9 months sounds a lot like slavery/indentured servitude/forced labor to me.

Then why does the law also require the father to pay paternity support, etc? Legally speaking the father is not "done" after the Deed is done.