Which part should I read, because I'm seeing a lot there that doesn't really give the same impression, especially the end... "Maybe" gives me pause, "they can go fuck themselves" seemingly in reference to men who want to enter the legislative arena in regards to abortion kind of annihilates any positive message, no? Not very civil, especially considering that there are pro-life men on this thread (at least one, Zamdrist that I know of).
Well, there is the legislative arena - which, in case it isn't obvious, refers to the apparatus in place to write legislation and update it when needed, etc. By necessity, they work with the majority. There is really no 'case by case basis' with legislation. The best you can do is write legislation with exceptions, and give people like social workers or doctors or lawyers or judges or other in-the-field professionals leeway to apply your legislation only when appropriate (or whatever; difficult to speak in the general case, here). I don't really believe that rich males have any business legislating the uteruses (uteri?) of poor women. Of any
women, but since this case is talking about funding, it largely affects poor women. I explained this - and yes, as far as I'm concerned, legislators who want to force other people to endure the physical effects of unwanted pregnancy can pretty much go fuck themselves. Especially those who are conveniently insulated from ever feeling the effects of their legislation by dint of having a penis and no uterus. So sorry if you felt that wasn't civil, but it is
the height of arrogance to stand at the pulpit of Congress and moralize about a situation you physically, biologically cannot ever find yourself in
Don't even get me started on the fact that anti-choice folks tend to also be anti morning-after pill, anti Planned Parenthood, anti sex ed, and anti make-condoms-available-for-free. Just sit down, shut up, and pump out babies - that is the message. I reject that, fundamentally and without reservation.
However, there is also the individual case. My 'maybe' referred to the fact that the circumstances around impregnation can vary wildly. You have a boyfriend, he's a decent guy, you've been together for years - he absolutely should have a say in what happens. That is the decent thing to do. However, you have this guy, you've kinda been living with him, he's been sleeping around on you, maybe he goes off and gets high for days and you never see him unless he wants money, and he knocks you up by mistake? Why should he have a say? Why should he have any kind of effect on what happens to his girl's body?
The thing is that you cannot legislate decency; you can try, but you usually end up hurting decent people in the long run. So let's say we start requiring paternal permission slips for abortions to happen. What if she doesn't know who the father was? What if she can't find the father? What if the father just won't sign it out of spite, but has no intentions of helping to raise the kid, either? But she only has so much time before she passes the cut-off for an abortion, and some people would make it 12 weeks or so. Is that enough time for her to get a lawyer and sue to have this guy's parental rights terminated? What if he changes his mind afterward; does he have the right to sue mommy for getting an abortion anyway? It's a mess. Our current system of child support is a mess, not to mention the adoption system.
If somebody wants to step up and be a father, great. Otherwise, it's none of his business. Not even if he's a lawmaker.
Edit: I hate it when you edit your posts while I'm trying to respond to them, Jude. Zamdrist is hardly a pro-life lawmaker, and is clearly a conscientious father. Stop trying to make my posts personal attacks on other members; they are not, and you know that.