Obama: Mental Distress Can't Justify Late Abortion

As I've skimmed this thread I've noted the argument for father's rights brought up a few times as an argument against abortion, the father has a say in terminating the pregnancy and not just the mother. From an anti-abortion standpoint though a father's rights argument could be a double edged sword. What if the father says that since he is a party to the pregnancy he should have a right to demand it be terminated even if the mother doesn't.

 

That is the problem. If the parents disagree, somebody gets their wish and somebody doesn't.

Somebody wins...somebody loses...and most often nobody wins.

 

I don't want to debate this topic ( I agree with Obama, and I love the fact that he is actually taking stances on these issues...), but I got this far and needed to add my 2 cents:

The reason our culture is not accepting mental illness as a valid disease is because we, as a whole, have become desensitized by an excessive ton of people who feign mental illness in order to get away with things. Not saying the case is true with everyone, but some people - it's just the way they are - the second you give them an inch, they're gonna take a foot, if you get my drift. Mental illness is used every day as an excuse and accessory to many things - in cases of murder and other crimes down to handicaps.

I, as a law-abiding, tax-paying, contributing citizen, am sick to death of seeing people feign mental illness and other handicaps in order to get away with things, when in most cases, their true illness is just apathy or laziness.

Once again, I know and realize that not everyone who has a "mental illness" is faking, but I would venture out to say that a higher percentage than most would like to believe fake.

And this is the reason mental illness, as a disease, is downplayed in our culture. Not that it makes it right, though.

 

It raises an interesting question. If a father does not want to have the baby and wants to terminate the pregency, or if the mother hides the pregancy from the father - should the father be legally responsible for providing for that child?

 

It's late so my thoughts may not be too sharp right now, but...

Given the case cited by someone about pharmacists who don't fill certain pill prescriptions...

Since the argument hinges on whether or not a fetus is a human during the first trimester, what do you think the fallout would be if, in the face of rising medical costs, insurance companies decided to not cover prenatal care until the second or even third trimester? They could argue that since "it's a cell group that's still part of the woman" that she's covered by her annual physical, and if she happens to get pregnant before her next annual check-up, then she would have to pay out of pocket.

It seems to me that NARAL would be against any lawsuits filed against insurance companies, because my thinking is that suit would be filed under the premise that the woman is actually carrying a human being in the first trimester.

Of course, I must also say that since I've not been in a baby-expectancy situation yet, I may not be aware when women are currently eligible for cover prenatal care (which I'd be glad to be corrected on).

I personally think the care should be available from the time the woman knows she's pregnant--but that's because I think an embryo is a human upon conception.

 

You've raised a very interesting question. Can you imagine the howling were insurance companies to start denying claims for pre-natal care? Of course it won't happen because the care is primarily for the mother not the child but it is kind of a gray area.

 

Thanks. And I think that's precisely my point. This care that's primarily for the mother seems to, on the surface, kick into gear because some natural physical event has occured in the woman's body, similar to other events happen in human bodies, e.g. broken bones, organ failure/replacement, etc. triggers a "need" for treatment above the typical 1-2 times per year exams and physical. And in all these cases, there is a goal of restoring or increasing the health and livelihood of those involved. Good organ transplant means good match and adjustment for both the organ and the host body (even though there are lifelong medications that have to be taken). A case of good care for a broken bone means the bone has healed and set well.

Good prenatal care typically means a healthy baby. Yes is deals with the health of the woman's body, but I would argue that it's concern is not just the health of the woman, but the health of the woman and how it affects the delivery of a healthy baby. If it were just about the woman's body especially in the first trimester when some feel that the embryo is basically a grouping of cells, then any woman could potentially ask for and receive the "above and beyond the typical" nature of prenatal care at any time. The thing is that they already have well-woman type care that is focused specifically on them. Becoming pregnant, and the physical changes that happen within the body as well as the new adjustments that the woman has to make such as eliminating smoking, alcohol intake reduction, and not taking or handling certain medications ("women should not handle 'x' if they are pregnant or MAY become pregnant") are all brought to bear once the event (even the possibility in some cases) of a pregnancy kicks into gear--and I would argue that its for the sake of not only the woman's body, but the baby that she carries.

 

Don't worry about it, Max. I, for one, always respect your intentions.

Just curious... is this supposed to be some revelation? Any woman who becomes pregnant and intends to carry it to term should make use of good prenatal care and should exercise good prenatal care. So what? That doesn't have anything to do with the topic, IMO.

As the father of two healthy children, I made sure my wife, who is pro-choice, by the way, was doing everything possible to have a normal pregnancy and a healthy child. The first thing I did when we discovered she was pregnant was to go to Whole Foods and ask for the finest prenatal vitamins and supplements they had and bought them, hang the expense. Both of us are not large people, but both my son and my daughter were over 9 lbs. at birth.

If we had good national healthcare, perhaps every woman could have access to good prenatal care. That's another topic. I don't see how any of that has anything to do with the woman's ability to control her own body... to me, the most fundamental of rights.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

Concur on the pre-natal care stuff. On the rest, I believe we all concur that the expectant mother has rights. We are just saying that the father and the newly created life should have rights as well.

I still wonder if my aborted child would have been grown up to be the doctor who cured cancer, or the Supreme Court justice who was appointed by unanimous vote, or the No. 1 NBA draft choice who bought his/her dad a new yacht, or the astophysicist who solved riddles of the universe, or an inventor who discovered a cheap, available source of energy generation, or, or, or.....

That child will never have a chance to contribute to society.

 

I have a headache. I was working out in the yard yesterday when two bats came flying right at me. Batman was a pretty good movie, although I preferred Val Kilmer over Christian Bales of hay were commonplace when I was growing up. I used to see them all over the place in backyards and BBQ's. Backyard BBQ wasn't a bad burger when I was travelling in Memphis. Does any really even care for Blues Traveler? I always thought they sucked.

 

That the child could've grown up to be a serial killer also.

There is an infinity of possibilities and not just abortion but any decision could lead to vastly different realities. We only have the reality that we have.

 

We all have regrets, thumbs. Things we wish we had done differently, or things we wish others had done differently. The only certainty is that we can't change what has occurred. We can attempt to influence the future by the choices we make today. I respect the fact that you are trying to do that with this issue. It just happens to be an issue that the country is divided over and one that affects the lives of about 51% of the population. Passionate beliefs and passionate arguments can't change that fact, anymore than it could change the fact that those 51% are being asked by those on your side of this issue to give up control of their own bodies.

How would you feel if the government told you that you had to have a vasectomy, whether you wanted one or not? Wouldn't you find that an unconscionable intrusion on your rights as a citizen? What if the government used the excuse that it is because you have had one child already, and that is enough? Would it make a difference to you, despite the "nuance?" Essentially, that's what the women of this country are being asked to do, by people like you.

Just something to consider.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

Merriam Webster adds wing nut to the dictionary today. Sometimes I think Clutchfans drives culture.

 

Sorry thumbs I didn't realize you were speaking of your own experience and I apologize if I came off as insensitve.

That said while regret is natural and this has certainly affected your thinking on the subject I would caution about getting to wrapped up in "what ifs". While what you feel is a tragedy there is no way of knowing how things would be like otherwise and you could drive yourself crazy thinking of the endless possibilities.

 

I have no problems with birth control/preventatives. I myself had a vasectomy after successfully contributing to global population. I would have no objection to a government that limits the number of children allowed to a couple because I would suspect there would be good reason for it. Governments must have sustained populations to survive. My only concern would be that both husband and wife would have to be snipped.

 

Too late. Already been there and done that without adequate resolution.

 

This line of thinking presumes that ALL woman are into this body-control issue. That's not true; there are lots of pro-Life women. You also keep ignoring the fact that 100% of the babies in these abortive instances die due to a preference the majority of the time. Isn't that bigger than 51?

The woman had a large role in conceiving the child whether it was willful or accidental. Your analogy is just desperate. Women of this country are being asked to "Live and let live." That's a phrase most of them embrace most of the time....

 

giddy, I gave my opinion. I just happen to disagree with you. I'm not going to have this discussion all over again. I could spin you a series of anecdotes, post some statistics, and it wouldn't change anyone's mind.

Honestly, the only person to influence me on this issue, at least here, is Max. I've changed my view to being open minded about restricting 3rd trimester abortions, unless the health of the mother is at risk. I still would be content with no restrictions at all, because it is the woman's body, not mine and not yours. That's all you're getting out of me, giddy.



Impeach Bush/Cheney.

 

Fine, I just wanted to point out how your thinking is over-reaching in ways that are probably not accurate. That's what you always accuse my side of doing. My grab goes right past the woman to the baby.