When I was pregnant with my younger daughter, I had a sonogram @ 8 weeks, and she already looked like a baby, although her arms and legs were just starting to form. But she had a head, a beating heart, and a body.
If the mother is the only one who gets to choose, should the father be financially responsible if the mother decides to keep the child? If so, why? After all, he didn't get a chance to decide. Also, if the mother is the only one who gets to decide...shouldn't she be the one to pay if she decides to have an abortion? If I don't brush my teeth and they fall out should the tax payers fund my dental work because I was irresponsible? NO!...but if I decide to screw around and it leads to a (or multiple) pregnancy, the government is glad to pick up the tab for an abortion. I think women's rights and a mother's health are just arguments to mask the true issue which is most abortions occur because a man and woman were irresponsible. The other spin is an attempt to detract from the moral issue. I don't believe it should be the tax payers responsiblity to fund.
This has always been so. The mother chooses with the guidance of the father, her family, religious advisors, and doctor. It's not a part of his body.
On this we can agree. But the government should not be a piece of this personal and private family puzzle. On all other issues, you disapprove of government interference, ya' know.
