Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”[W:589]

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No-one is forcing the woman to 'end the natural processes'. She 100% and always has the decision over whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Sure, she can be influenced in her decision, but not forced. The two are very different.

I agree. She cannot be forced by law.

So since that decision is and will continue to be up to her, then there's no point in harping on it. It is what it is. Just like women getting pregnant....that is what it is. Deal with it and move on. Women have for millenia. If men now have to confront a new reality because of technology and medical science, that's what they need to do to protect themselves.

Not whine that they are victims because they can no longer have sex without consequences. Do you believe they are entitled to that? Men need to realize that that is a dangerous belief now....it can cost them alot for 18 years. That's not a woman's fault. She has to make the right decision for her. Men will have to make the right decisions for 'them.' And for them, that occurs before sex if they truly want their control back.

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I agree. She cannot be forced by law.

So since that decision is and will continue to be up to her, then there's no point in harping on it. It is what it is. Just like women getting pregnant....that is what it is. Deal with it and move on. Women have for millenia. If men now have to confront a new reality because of technology and medical science, that's what they need to do to protect themselves.

Not whine that they are victims because they can no longer have sex without consequences. Do you believe they are entitled to that? Men need to realize that that is a dangerous belief now....it can cost them alot for 18 years. That's not a woman's fault. She has to make the right decision for her. Men will have to make the right decisions for 'them.' And for them, that occurs before sex if they truly want their control back.

No.

I have agreed that a man should be equally responsible for the cost of a pregnancy, because he is equally responsible for creating it. Whether that is medical costs from complications or the cost of an abortion (even against his wishes), he should be jointly responsible for it.

However, now that you've agreed that the man has no ability whatsoever to force the woman to choose whether that pregnancy results in an abortion of a child, you must return to my original question - why are you holding the man responsible for a choice which he did not make?

All you have answered so far is to repeat back to me that he cannot force the woman's choice. That's not an explanation for why he should be responsible for her choice.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No.

I have agreed that a man should be equally responsible for the cost of a pregnancy, because he is equally responsible for creating it. Whether that is medical costs from complications or the cost of an abortion (even against his wishes), he should be jointly responsible for it.

However, now that you've agreed that the man has no ability whatsoever to force the woman to choose whether that pregnancy results in an abortion of a child, you must return to my original question - why are you holding the man responsible for a choice which he did not make?

All you have answered so far is to repeat back to me that he cannot force the woman's choice. That's not an explanation for why he should be responsible for her choice.

Because he directly created that child. Again, if you feel it is unfair to hold him accountable (knowing exactly what could occur from his actions), how do you justify holding taxpayers accountable? They did not create that child. (He knew when he had sex that he had no choice if she became pregnant. Isnt he responsible for the risk he chooses to take? She is. She has no 'out.')

His actions have consequences. Are you saying he should be allowed to escape them? Again, a woman cannot escape them. Why would you allow men to?

You seem to advocate for men to walk away yet not the taxpayers. That to me shows a bias, not logic.

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Because he directly created that child. Again, if you feel it is unfair to hold him accountable (knowing exactly what could occur from his actions), how do you justify holding taxpayers accountable? They did not create that child.

He did not directly create that child. He was responsible for the pregnancy, not the child.

The woman directly created the child, because only she had the ability to prevent it's gestation and birth - the two processes by which a child is created.

...unless you want to take the line that it was a 'child' from the moment of fertilisation onwards? If that's the case, we have a whole other topic to discuss.

His actions have consequences. Are you saying he should be allowed to escape them? Again, a woman cannot escape them. Why would you allow men to?

A woman can escape the consequences of having a child by having an abortion. You have just agreed this.
I agree that a woman cannot escape the consequences of being pregnant (at least for a little while), and I have agreed that the man should be equally responsible for these consequences.

EDIT: By analogy (as I've mentioned before) - a car manufacturer makes and sells a car to a woman who promptly hits a pedestrian. By your argument, the manufacturer should be equally responsible for the collision, because 'they made the car'.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

He did not directly create that child. He was responsible for the pregnancy, not the child.

The woman directly created the child, because only she had the ability to prevent it's gestation and birth - the two processes by which a child is created.

...unless you want to take the line that it was a 'child' from the moment of fertilisation onwards? If that's the case, we have a whole other topic to discuss.


A woman can escape the consequences of having a child by having an abortion. You have just agreed this.
I agree that a woman cannot escape the consequences of being pregnant (at least for a little while), and I have agreed that the man should be equally responsible for these consequences.

EDIT: By analogy (as I've mentioned before) - a car manufacturer makes and sells a car to a woman who promptly hits a pedestrian. By your argument, the manufacturer should be equally responsible for the collision, because 'they made the car'.

So? He knows the risks of causing that pregnancy. Are you denying that? Why shouldnt he be responsible for his actions?

And an abortion is a consequence. Painful, potentially deadly or debilitating. You seem to keep minimizing this. She cannot escape the consequences of the pregnancy. Women pay a price, no matter what. A man can never take on the health risks of a pregnancy. He will not die or suffer anuerysms or strokes, etc from her pregnancy.

And your car analogy is ridiculous. Come on. Unless you are suggesting that men are allowed to get 'pregnancy insurance' in which yes, they can get a policy that will subsidize their actions....and pay their child support...if a pregnancy occurs. Hey....maybe someone should offer it!

And still you cannot justify why it's ok to foist off his responsibility on taxpayers. Why it's unfair to him, but not them. That's the crux here. If it's unfair for him, who knowingly undertook that risk....how is it justifiable to nail the taxpayers for it?

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

So? He knows the risks of causing that pregnancy. Are you denying that? Why shouldnt he be responsible for his actions?

The risks and consequences of that pregnancy (that you refer to here, not the physical risks for the woman) are defined by the law. Given that we are discussing a change in the law, it is irrelevant that currently he is held responsible for the woman's decisions following conception. Whether he should be held responsible for these actions is another matter.

mini-edit: and in fact, I've already stated that he should be as responsible as he can be for the direct consequences of his actions - ie the pregnancy itself. However, the birth is not a direct consequence of his actions.

And an abortion is a consequence. Painful, potentially deadly or debilitating. You seem to keep minimizing this. She cannot escape the consequences of the pregnancy. Women pay a price, no matter what. A man can never take on the health risks of a pregnancy. He will not die or suffer anuerysms or strokes, etc from her pregnancy.

Because women are the ones who are biologically involved, they get the choice regarding abortion. That is their compensation. I have repeatedly said that he should be equally financially responsible for the pregnancy itself.

And your car analogy is ridiculous. Come on. Unless you are suggesting that men are allowed to get 'pregnancy insurance' in which yes, they can get a policy that will subsidize their actions....and pay their child support...if a pregnancy occurs. Hey....maybe someone should offer it!

The car analogy is valid because both the manufacturer and the woman are responsible for her being behind the drivers seat. However, only she is responsible for the collision because only she made the choices which led to the collision.

In the same way, both man and woman are responsible for the woman becoming pregnant. However, only she should be responsible for her choices following that, just as with the man.

Let's try it this way, since it worked so well stumping Jay with the violinist analogy. Persons A and B both make an informed choice which puts person B into a new situation. Person B then chooses to act in a particular way within that situation, which directly results in a third person ('C') needing financial support. Should party A also be held responsible for C's problems? As in other threads, this is a yes/no answer, although feel free to justify it if you can.

And still you cannot justify why it's ok to foist off his responsibility on taxpayers. Why it's unfair to him, but not them. That's the crux here. If it's unfair for him, who knowingly undertook that risk....how is it justifiable to nail the taxpayers for it?

1) As mentioned above, your 'responsibility' line applies to the current way the law is set up, nothing more. He is not making any direct choice regarding the birth.
2) You have previously stated that you do not want people who are indirectly responsible for the birth to be held accountable (eg the man's grandparents). This should apply to the man as well since he is not directly responsible for the birth, only indirectly
3) You have also previously stated that you are happy for taxpayers to pay for a birth if a couple cannot afford it but choose to go ahead regardless. In the case of an unwilling father, the only difference is that you have found a scapegoat to try an place some responsibility on

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

She has only these options:

--give birth
--have an abortion
--have a miscarriage
--die during pregnancy/childbirth

So...tell me again, how it's unfair to men? When in 3 of those, they get off scott free? See...not so unfair, men are just pissed that women get to decide. That they no longer have control or can just walk away.

Didn't we already go over this? She has two options and two options only, at least initially. Either abort or continue the pregnancy. They other two are not options. She can't choose to miscarry or to die due to complications.

As to the men's side, my issues are not so much with him wanting to not have the child. In such a case, who cares if she gets rid of it? Well obviously religious whacks do. But if he wants it it's too bad so sad. Of course in the current era that is a consequence of our tech and knowledge. You can't enforce his right without removing hers, and at this time her's is the over riding one.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No.

I have agreed that a man should be equally responsible for the cost of a pregnancy, because he is equally responsible for creating it. Whether that is medical costs from complications or the cost of an abortion (even against his wishes), he should be jointly responsible for it.

However, now that you've agreed that the man has no ability whatsoever to force the woman to choose whether that pregnancy results in an abortion of a child, you must return to my original question - why are you holding the man responsible for a choice which he did not make?

All you have answered so far is to repeat back to me that he cannot force the woman's choice. That's not an explanation for why he should be responsible for her choice.

I am holding him responsible for hte choice of having sex with a woman who wouldn't get an abortion. End of story.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

The risks and consequences of that pregnancy (that you refer to here, not the physical risks for the woman) are defined by the law.

Please let me know when you find a way to change the law that is a) fair to men and b) fair to the taxpayers. Meaning, not dropping the man's responsibility on the taxpayers.

You can assign all the blame you want. We are going around in circles.

Fact: only women get pregnant
Fact: no one can force a woman to stay pregnant or have an abortion
Fact: men are equally responsible for contributing DNA to a child
Fact: men can control their actions to avoid making a woman pregnant but cannot control HER actions after the fact.
Fact: men know this.
Fact: if it is unfair to make men pay for that kid, it's even more unfair to make the taxpayers pay for it. It's hypocritical.

So you can perhaps find some law that allows men to avoid child support but it will not be 'fair' which is what you are complaining about. Because if a woman cant pay for the kid on her own, no amount of laws will remove that burden from the taxpayers. No one lets the kid starve.

And again, once a kid is born, the law applies equally to the father and mother. So she cant avoid her $$ either.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Didn't we already go over this? She has two options and two options only, at least initially. Either abort or continue the pregnancy. They other two are not options. She can't choose to miscarry or to die due to complications.

As to the men's side, my issues are not so much with him wanting to not have the child. In such a case, who cares if she gets rid of it? Well obviously religious whacks do. But if he wants it it's too bad so sad. Of course in the current era that is a consequence of our tech and knowledge. You can't enforce his right without removing hers, and at this time her's is the over riding one.

They are consequences. I said she cannot avoid consequences once pregnant. She cant.

And what is his 'right?' IMO the state places the best interests of the child first, period. Once born, the woman is held equally responsible financially.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

They are consequences. I said she cannot avoid consequences once pregnant. She cant.

And what is his 'right?' IMO the state places the best interests of the child first, period. Once born, the woman is held equally responsible financially.

You called them options. Go back and look at your post.

He has as much right to the child as she does. However what he doesn't have a right to is her body. Her actual right is the termination of the pregnancy not the ZEF. However, as noted, the current medical knowledge and technology makes the two acts effectively the same, thus her rights trump his. As I have stated if we were to ever develop a way to transfer a ZEF where the process was equally or less traumatic as the abortion, then their rights become equal and he can keep the child while she terminates the pregnancy.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

You called them options. Go back and look at your post.

He has as much right to the child as she does. However what he doesn't have a right to is her body. Her actual right is the termination of the pregnancy not the ZEF. However, as noted, the current medical knowledge and technology makes the two acts effectively the same, thus her rights trump his. As I have stated if we were to ever develop a way to transfer a ZEF where the process was equally or less traumatic as the abortion, then their rights become equal and he can keep the child while she terminates the pregnancy.

Maybe I did there but I've posted it a million times and it's based, even in that post, on the comment that she cannot escape consequences

Yes, he has as much right to 'the child.' A child is born.

And no matter what the technology, IMO it could never be applied against her will and still be Constitutional. However it would offer another "option" to her and I'm sure many women would take it.

I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to be realistic.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Maybe I did there but I've posted it a million times and it's based, even in that post, on the comment that she cannot escape consequences

Yes, he has as much right to 'the child.' A child is born.

And no matter what the technology, IMO it could never be applied against her will and still be Constitutional. However it would offer another "option" to her and I'm sure many women would take it.

I'm not trying to be contentious, just trying to be realistic.

Allow me to rephrase. He has as much right to the product of their union as she does. Born or not is irrelevant. As to the procedure, the key point of it was that it be equally or less physically traumatic to the body as abortion. Because at that point the procedure is essentially the same, with the only difference being whether or not the ZEF lives or dies. Her pregnancy is terminated either way. When we can force medical procedures such as cancer treatments on people in their late teens, when they can be reasonably be assumed to make such a decision, then this is nothing.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Allow me to rephrase. He has as much right to the product of their union as she does. Born or not is irrelevant. As to the procedure, the key point of it was that it be equally or less physically traumatic to the body as abortion. Because at that point the procedure is essentially the same, with the only difference being whether or not the ZEF lives or dies. Her pregnancy is terminated either way. When we can force medical procedures such as cancer treatments on people in their late teens, when they can be reasonably be assumed to make such a decision, then this is nothing.

Born or not is not irrelevant. It is totally relevant. One good reason: the born can be acted on without infringing on her rights. The unborn cannot. Legally you cant really overcome this hurdle.

 

[AGENT J]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I think the best part about craziness like this is it will never happen. lol
It's amazing some people think so lowly of women.

this old thread? well i think my OP in it above is still spot on.


In america as long as the constitution and rights exist this will NEVER happened lol

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Born or not is not irrelevant. It is totally relevant. One good reason: the born can be acted on without infringing on her rights. The unborn cannot. Legally you cant really overcome this hurdle.

Yes you can. If the procedure is exactly the same with the only difference being whether or not you kill the ZEF then the effect on her does not change. What right does she lose by not deciding on whether or not the ZEF lives or dies? Remember that under the premise, only the father has the right to maintain the ZEF alive because he wants the child, much as the woman chooses that she wants the child.

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I am holding him responsible for hte choice of having sex with a woman who wouldn't get an abortion. End of story.

And in the same way, we should blame the car dealer for selling the car to the woman who wouldn't obey the speed limit and drive safely?

Please let me know when you find a way to change the law that is a) fair to men and b) fair to the taxpayers. Meaning, not dropping the man's responsibility on the taxpayers.

You can assign all the blame you want. We are going around in circles.

Fact: only women get pregnant
Fact: no one can force a woman to stay pregnant or have an abortion
Fact: men are equally responsible for contributing DNA to a child
Fact: men can control their actions to avoid making a woman pregnant but cannot control HER actions after the fact.
Fact: men know this.
Fact: if it is unfair to make men pay for that kid, it's even more unfair to make the taxpayers pay for it. It's hypocritical.

So you can perhaps find some law that allows men to avoid child support but it will not be 'fair' which is what you are complaining about. Because if a woman cant pay for the kid on her own, no amount of laws will remove that burden from the taxpayers. No one lets the kid starve.

And again, once a kid is born, the law applies equally to the father and mother. So she cant avoid her $$ either.

Can't help but notice you avoided my question there. And you are the one assigning blame. If you could not assign blame to the man, you would not be able to penalize him for the woman's choices. You claim do not want the taxpayer to pay, so you find the father as the nearest scapegoat and charge him - although if he is unavailable or bankrupt, you are happy for the taxpayer to contribute then rather than widen the net still further. And the reason we are going round in circles is because every time I answer your points, you jump to another one rather than continuing the original line of debate.

Fact: only people drive cars (with a few hilarious exceptions)
Fact: no-one can force a person not to drive a car (so long as they are legal)
Fact: Dealers are equally responsible for contributing their car to the driver
Fact: Dealers can control their actions to avoid selling cars to people, but dealers cannot control their customers after the fact.
Fact: Customers know this
Fact: It is unfair to make the dealer pay for emergency care following an accident, it is even more unfair to make the taxpayer pay it. It's hypocritical.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

And in the same way, we should blame the car dealer for selling the car to the woman who wouldn't obey the speed limit and drive safely?

Bad analogy.. because men are driving using the stick shaft, rather than automatic.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

And in the same way, we should blame the car dealer for selling the car to the woman who wouldn't obey the speed limit and drive safely?


Can't help but notice you avoided my question there. And you are the one assigning blame. If you could not assign blame to the man, you would not be able to penalize him for the woman's choices. You claim do not want the taxpayer to pay, so you find the father as the nearest scapegoat and charge him - although if he is unavailable or bankrupt, you are happy for the taxpayer to contribute then rather than widen the net still further. And the reason we are going round in circles is because every time I answer your points, you jump to another one rather than continuing the original line of debate.

Fact: only people drive cars (with a few hilarious exceptions)
Fact: no-one can force a person not to drive a car (so long as they are legal)
Fact: Dealers are equally responsible for contributing their car to the driver
Fact: Dealers can control their actions to avoid selling cars to people, but dealers cannot control their customers after the fact.
Fact: Customers know this
Fact: It is unfair to make the dealer pay for emergency care following an accident, it is even more unfair to make the taxpayer pay it. It's hypocritical.

The analogy does not work on many levels and I really dont see it.

here's one tho: the intent of the car manufacturer is to make cars. The intent of the man is NOT to make a kid.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Yes you can. If the procedure is exactly the same with the only difference being whether or not you kill the ZEF then the effect on her does not change. What right does she lose by not deciding on whether or not the ZEF lives or dies? Remember that under the premise, only the father has the right to maintain the ZEF alive because he wants the child, much as the woman chooses that she wants the child.

I was talking about current...however even with your futuristic scenario...it is an invasion of her body and would still carry risks...it could not be carried out, Constitutionally against her will.

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

The analogy does not work on many levels and I really dont see it.

here's one tho: the intent of the car manufacturer is to make cars. The intent of the man is NOT to make a kid.

No, the analogy fits - the intent of the man is NOT to make the kid, the aim of the dealer is NOT to cause a car crash.

To highlight the similarities, I repeat the question again:

Persons A and B both make an informed choice which puts person B into a new situation. Person B then chooses to act in a particular way within that situation, which directly results in a third person ('C') needing financial support. Should party A also be held responsible for C's problems? As in other threads, this is a yes/no answer, although feel free to justify it if you can.​

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No, the analogy fits - the intent of the man is NOT to make the kid, the aim of the dealer is NOT to cause a car crash.

To highlight the similarities, I repeat the question again:

Persons A and B both make an informed choice which puts person B into a new situation. Person B then chooses to act in a particular way within that situation, which directly results in a third person ('C') needing financial support. Should party A also be held responsible for C's problems? As in other threads, this is a yes/no answer, although feel free to justify it if you can.​

This analogy makes no sense to me. I cant repeat it again.

It's not the same. If it's all you have, you have not remotely explained how it's not irrelevant.

And as such, you'll have to use your own words. I've been very clear:

How is justifiable to claim unfairness for the man who contributed directly to the child and yet then accept that it is fair to place his responsibility on taxpayers? That is still your claim, cars or not, correct?

There is a kid that he contributed to 50%. The taxpayers contributed nothing. Why should they pay if either/both responsible parents are available?

Edit: PS. The law already regards them differently...cars and kids...so that should tell you something about the lack of validity in your analogy.

 

[Occam's Razor]

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

You can't force someone to do something with their body they don't want to do. Forcing a woman to carry a child she does not want is indentured servitude. Abortion is a UCC property issue. Possession is 9/10ths. The man gave up possession upon orgasm. It's really that simple.

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This analogy makes no sense to me. I cant repeat it again.

It's not the same. If it's all you have, you have not remotely explained how it's not irrelevant.

You're just straight-up refusing to answer the question now. The question applies to both situations, and in doing so shows that the car analogy is valid. Refusing to answer it does not help you case; quite the opposite.

And as such, you'll have to use your own words. I've been very clear:

All you have to do is answer the question.

How is justifiable to claim unfairness for the man who contributed directly to the child and yet then accept that it is fair to place his responsibility on taxpayers? That is still your claim, cars or not, correct?

I have repeatedly, repeatedly stated that the man has not contributed directly to the child, but to the pregnancy. The woman is the only one who has contributed directly to the child, since the birth happens by her choice alone. You have ignored this repeatedly.

The mans contribution is indirect, not direct. You have already stated previously that you would rather the taxpayer pays than other parties who are indirectly responsible (eg grandparents).

There is a kid that he contributed to 50%. The taxpayers contributed nothing. Why should they pay if either/both responsible parents are available?

See above. The man is not directly responsible for the birth, because he gets no say in whether it occurs or not.

Edit: PS. The law already regards them differently...cars and kids...so that should tell you something about the lack of validity in your analogy.

I'm not comparing cars and kids, I'm comparing a newborn in need with an accident victim in need.

...I'll try and explain the analogy.


Linking sentence: Persons A and B both make an informed choice which puts person B into a new situation. Person B then chooses to act in a particular way within that situation, which directly results in a third person ('C') needing financial support. Should party A also be held responsible for C's problems? As in other threads, this is a yes/no answer, although feel free to justify it if you can.

Pregnancy version: Andy and Betty have consensual sex which makes Betty pregnant. Betty then chooses to bring the pregnancy to full term, which results in her new son, Chris, who needs child support. Should Andy be held responsible for Chris' problems?

Car version: Amos sells Ben a car, which Ben then takes for a drive. Ben then chooses to drive his new car in a dangerous manner, which results in a random stranger, Clarence, being hit and needing expensive emergency care. Should Amos be held responsible for Clarence's problems?

The pregnancy version, you answer YES. The car version, you answer NO. Given that the linking sentence is a valid description of both, how do you answer it's question? Answer: either you admit your inconsistent approach, or you give a reason why the linking sentence is an incomplete description of one of the two other versions described here, which you have so far tried to do twice but not succeeded either time.

 

[maquiscat]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I was talking about current...however even with your futuristic scenario...it is an invasion of her body and would still carry risks...it could not be carried out, Constitutionally against her will.

What are you talking about? If she has chosen to terminate the pregnancy then she has consented to the procedure. The ZEF will be removed from her body, either dead or alive, rendering her no longer pregnant. If there is no difference in what occurs to her body between the ZEF being removed dead, or the ZEF being removed alive, how has she been invaded?

I have agreed from the beginning that under current medical technology and knowledge that terminating the pregnancy automatically results in terminating the ZEF and that makes her rights trump the father's.