Lin-


I'm curious about something here... It may sound like I'm being absurd or trying to tangent into a abortion debate, but I'm really not. I think this is pertinent.

If both parties have a choice before sex, why is necessary that the woman needs to have another chance after she's pregnant? I understand the "reality" of the situation -- that she's the one carrying the child and he's not -- but I'm not seeing the exact link.

If it comes down to a matter of biology for you, I'm wondering why is the scope focused on that. Why is it "because it's her body, she must be able to control it" and not "because it's her life, she must be able to control it"? If it was the latter, the "choice" would clearly need to apply to men as well. So again, why is the focus what it is?

Please don't take me as being hostile or something... I'm just rolling some thought around and I'm genuinely interested in your answer.

Yes, indeed, we've been here before.

Your concept of fairness is pretty one-sided. If the man opts out, the child loses support and society bares the cost. If the mother opts out, there is no direct cost to anyone (father included). To repeat, his "option" to make everything "fair" leads to costs born by the woman, the child, and society. Her option leads to none of those costs. It isn't the same. I'm willing to bare some expense for indigent children when it is necessary....not simply due to the financially-able father wishing it all away.

I don't know why because I've said repeatedly that both are responsible for the situation. What angers me is that by and large, one one of them his being held responsible for it.



Yep, now will you admit the same for the fathers and also acknowledge that in many cases they've been lead to believe the man is in love with them and will "be there if anything happens"? Is that stupid and naive in the woman's part to believe that old line of...( well you know what)...Yep. Is it callous and irresponsible for men to make such false claims...Yep



Nope I'm not to busy pointing the finger to look in the mirror. Apparently you are too busy deflecting any responsiblity on the man's part to notice the fact that the women alreadyare taking responsibilty (hense whyI focus on men in this issue). If it were 85 percent of men raising these kids and 60 to 70 percent were recieving no financial aid, I'd be directing my ire at the mothers. It's not a sexist issue to me, it's a responsibility issue. It was irresponsible on the part of both of them yet only one seems to be even attempting to take responsibility for these kids.



And did I or did I not say that the child support system needs reform and fairness? Did I or did I not say that men should not be forced to become classified as "deadbeats" because paying their child support leaves them unable to survive themselves? I'm not advocating a "hang em high, soak em dry" attitude toward men. I'm just tired of watching the vast majority act as though these woman got pregnant by immaculate concept and feeling entitled (because they're not the ones left holding the bag or bundle of joy as the case may be) to ditch any long-term financial responsibility for their own part in that situation. I'm not asking them to pay till they bleed, just stop pretending it's not your fault it happened as well.

I support abortion rights because there really is no good, viable solution given the number of children growing up poor due to single parent households.

And men aren't physically affected during female pregenancy? Ever consider the mental anguish of tending to a pregnant wife?



And, if the gender roles were reversed and men were taking care of the kids, women would be doing the same thing. Women would hate having to pay that "bastard" just as much as men hate having to pay that "bitch" come time to send off that alimony check. As a matter of fact, I would be willing to argue that women would have more of an issue with alimony than men currently do, but I disgress.

I'm agreeing with people a lot today.

Mrs. Pigpen brings up a good point too: the reasoning why the father would choose to dump the child one hundred percent on the mother. If the father is capable of sufficiently sustaining the life and reasonable comfort of the child it is his responsibility to do so. No person should be allowed to swear off their bonds so easily.

If both parents decide as a unit to put the child up for adoption and or foster care I have not a single problem with that. If they are too incapable of taking care of the child, be it due to illness, lack of money and or other problems that cannot be resolved quickly and permanently, then I have no problem fronting money for the child to be provided for. But for a father to choose to leave the children without even the burden of paying child support and leave the mother most likely helpless? I don't think so.

How self-centered must one be to put yourself first before providing for your child. Your child. A dependent and innocent creature who did not ask to be brought into the world. But because of, shall we say, the horizontal hokey-pokey, the child was brought into this world. All people, men and women should answer for that child. For one of them to burden the other with the child is immature and callous. Callous to the life you helped create. Callous to the unspeakable bond it took to create it... to suddenly disregard it and cast away your duty to shelter and nurture it? The very idea of it is blood curdling.

If men may dislodge a child from his care what is next? Teenagers legally running away from their parents?

Oh--I suppose some men might vicariously experience the physical burdens women experience in pregnancy-- but I'm sure it isn't any where near as difficult.




I guess the immature ones might.


But any responsible and mature man or woman who can see beyond their own selfish desires might see it the way VDemosthenes puts it:



Thanks VDem, for saying it so well.

Make that two . Many of us are not really supporting male abortion-- we are using it to expose fetal abortion-on-demand for the irrational horror it is-- sort of like King Solomon ordering a baby to be cut in half to discover which woman was the real mother and which was the kidnapper. He didn't really want the baby cut in half-- he wanted the woman who didn't mind babies being cut in half to show her true colors. I would never actually support such liberal extremism as male abortion-- we're merely pointing out the hypocrisy of abortion-on-demand. But just as in ol' Solomon's day, the wrong side remains as enthusiastic as ever to let babies be cut in half (by denying that unborn babies are babies).

Roe v. Wade settles a general disagreement over whether a potential murder victim is human by asserting the inalienable right of the potential killer to decide without due process of law. If such an irrational rule were scalable to other life-or-death decisions, we'd be living in a bloody chaos far worse than anything in recorded history. Instead, because the issue is still contentious, the federal government should not take sides, but let state and local governments make policy they believe most reasonably protects the right to life and the right to choose (which is what the Constitution actually supports absent the misinterpretation in Roe). Some communities will value life over choice, some will value choice over life.

Roe is definitely a misinterpretation, as illustrated by formulations of a man's right to choose to abort his paternal responsibilities in the first trimester.

As an aside concerning so much talk about irresponsible parents-- I would certainly hope that any statements by me, or anyone else in this thread, are not intended to diminish the fortitude -- both physical and emotional -- that pregancy and motherhood demands of women. We men have no basis for empathizing with pregnancy. All we can do is marvel, and then be as supportive, responsible and thick-skinned as we can. Let every man pay his humble respect to every mom out there dealing with pregancy or motherhood or both. Responsible parents-- especially mothers-- deserve far more honor and gratitude than they will every get.

Unless there is something extremely wrong with a woman, judges almost always award primary or sole custody of children to their mothers in divorce proceedings. Such is a recognition of that which is not always politically correct to mention-- maternal rights and responsibilities naturally tend to outweigh paternal rights and responsibilities. I realize some of the statements I made earlier could be construed otherwise. Please understand I was attempting to show how the "equal rights" agenda does not jive with the "abortion rights" agenda as illustrated by the "male abortion" proposal.

Although responsible fathers are very important and deadbeat moms deserve no respect, the most important members of our society are responsible mothers, and the lowest of the low are deadbeat dads. The question in this debate simply boils down to: should people of both genders be free to choose to be deadbeats in the first trimester of pregnancy without heavy financial consequences? If I were to answer "no" for one gender and "yes" for the other, my position would be inconsistent and hypocritical. We must answer "yes" to both genders or "no" to both genders. Regardless of how the public answers, I would like that determination to be made by state and local governments, and not at the federal level, until voters nationwide can muster enough votes for an official amendment one way or the other, rather than letting five or six robed tyrants virtually amend the Constitution by dictate.

It's actually presenting the direct opposite of King Soloman's point....(hypothetically) giving the baby over to the person who agreed to cut it in half. Rather than an anti-abortion appeal, by this argument all women should opt for abortion (or not get pregnant in the first place), because those who have the children are the only ones with anything to lose.

Perhaps I wasn't clear in drawing parallels. Those who choose abortion are those who allegorically cut babies in half. Those who oppose abortion-on-demand are those who would rather the baby be given to someone else (adoption) than be cut in half (abortion). Solomon decreed cutting the baby in half (extending abortion rights to males) so that he could rule in favor of the one more interested in keeping the child alive (the one preferring adoption to abortion), not with the intent of actually carrying out the decree (as I do not intend male abortion to ever be enacted).

Perhaps someone can explain in more detail why the opposite comparison is stronger than the one I have formulated. I do not follow Mrs. Pigpen's rationale.

I'll try again. Male "abortion choice" punishes only the women who do not obtain abortions. Women who do obtain abortions would be uneffected by this measure, because they would not be bringing the babies into this world to raise them alone and without support from the fathers.

Aha, now I see where you are coming from, but the reason I disagree is that male abortion rights are so closely reasoned from abortion-on-demand that the two are inseparable-- women who like abortion-on-demand would be in danger of losing that right if the only way to prevent male abortion were to reverse Roe v. Wade (assuming the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment is secure). In other words, if the male abortion is constructed from the reasoning of Roe applied to men via the 14th, and the rationale for male abortion is struck down, then much of the rationale for Roe is also struck down. As a result, opposition to male abortion would most certainly affect (punish) women who want to get abortions (cut their babies in half).

Solomon was deciding a single case affecting individuals, while we are discussing broad social policy, as well as its ramifications for individuals. So, in our parallel, one woman is a symbol of the side who says, "Let us cut our babies in half if we want to, it is our choice to control our bodies privately." The other woman represents the side who says, "Please, wise Solomon, for the sake of the babies, require the babies at least be put up for adoption." Solomon says to the first woman, "Fine, you may split your babies at your discretion, but to be fair, you must also accept that men can legally choose to abandon their responsibilities to the baby during the time you can split her in half." She replies, "That is unacceptible-- to be fair to us and the baby, if we choose to raise the baby, the man should at least pay his fair share." Solomon says, "What could be more unfair to the baby than splitting it in two? You no longer have the right to split your baby without do process of law-- if you don't want her, allow someone else to adopt her-- if you are in distress, I will convene a private court to hear your plea." Then, Solomon, being wise, turns to the other woman and says, "Wipe that smug smile off your face, lady. My decision may sentence your opponent to nine months of an unwanted burden, but it sentences you to at least 18 years and nine months of responsibility for her and her child. If you really want this baby to remain alive, you must always be charitable toward a woman with child, and help her find a caring home for her baby if she does not want to be a mother, regardless of the manner by which she became pregnant. If the ramifications of my decision result in a fate worse than death for children who are allowed to be born, or their mothers, I will hold you responsible because this was your idea, and the blood of the unborn will be on your hands, not those who have been given reason to believe they have no other reasonable alternative to abortion. If you are not willing to accept your responsibility to the other woman's unwanted babies, I will reverse my decision this very moment. What do you say?" The second woman replies humbly, "We will care for the babies and their birth mothers." Solomon replies, "See to it that you do. Next case."

In a society where there is serious disagreement over whether unborn children are individuals worthy of basic rights, does it make any sense at all to have a nationwide ruling which mandates we assume they are not by denying them due process of law when an innocent life is potentially at stake? Until there is enough unity in America to resolve the abortion issue nationwide by constitutional amendment (either pro-life or pro-choice), the issue should be resolved by state and local governments, not by allowing five or six judges to issue a blanket denial of the right to life to a class many of us reasonably believe deserve due process of law.

By allowing a handful of lifetime judges to significantly amend the constitution without going through its prescribed amendment process, we are kneeling at the altar of tyranny in exchange for a little instant gratification. We should be ashamed of ourselves if we think there's nothing wrong with that.

To my knowledge, the Roe ruling does not rest on the 14th amendment. It is an issue of medical privacy, not the equal protection clause. Relinquishment of fatherhood isn't a medical privacy right. (IMO) The only thing a "father's abortion rights" law would do is dissuade women from having children to begin with, because the prospective fathers might opt out arbitrarily and leave them while they are pregnant, fat, and hormonal, to raise the children impoverished and alone.

Edited to add: Perhaps each impregnated woman should simply "sue for damages" incurred via the pregnancy. That would make everything nice and equal.

Mrs. P


And I think dissuading women from bringing kids up in this environment is a good thing. A woman that will be in the position of raising her kid in poiverty, is likely to be in that position, regardless of if the father is around or not. Unless of course it's some Julia Robert's "Pretty Woman" story where some poor girl meets some wealthy. Likely, the two will be in similar socio-economic stations. And where a man does pay child support, it won't be enough to get her out of poverty.

Also I take issue with this comment.



How does it punish women??

As a matter of fact, I'd rather you just think on that question, for now, and answer this.

Do you feel it is punishing men to not give them options after pregnancy to abort a fetus. If not, why not??

No I don't, they had the option before the child was conceived and given that the men aren't carrying the fetus and by a wide margin aren't raising them or financially supporting them....Before you ask, I'd also feel the same way if men were the ones carrying the fetus and you were asking if women ought to be allowed to "abort" their share of responsibility. The time to consider the options and possibilities is before conception...that applies to the man and woman equally, they both ought to have shown more sense in the matter but once fertilization has occurred they both ought to be responsible for the outcome. As things stand currently, only one of the two people are held accountable and I feel this lack of shared accountability on the part of both parents has led to the mess we're currently in. Procreation without consequences leads to more of the same. Women should be using protection and men should be wearing condoms...period. Not only are both exposing themselves to the risk of an unintended pregnancy, they are also risking STD's such as AIDS. There's no excuse for this level of irresponsibility.

Actually, this would dissuade almost any woman from having a child. I wouldn't have children today if these were the conditions, and I am far from poor. Hate to be a broken record but, here it goes again...A male's "abortion" results in the birth of a child. A female "abortion" results in no child. To completely different outcomes for the same decision. There is no comparison.

How about this. The man should be paid for damages incurred on him from the woman's actions (loss of income, pain and suffering, permanent physical damage, ect). The woman should be paid for damages incurred on her by the man's actions (loss of income, pain and suffering, permanent physical damage, ect). This would cover all scenarios, to include male and female abortion.

Lin731


Just for clarification:

Are you against a woman's right to abort a fetus??

Mrs P.



Good. If your husband... or if you were single, boyfriend, were to tell you he does not want children, aborting the fetus would be best for all, you, him, and society.

A male's "abortion" results in the birth of a child.

Can't you see how incorrect this statement is. A male abortion has no effect on the birth of a child. Only the mother's choice does, because, in our society, only the mother can choose. If a child is born after a male "aborts" it is only because the woman sought to bring that child to birth.

"It takes two.... " "It takes two..." no it does not!! It takes two to achieve pregnancy, but once this occurs it takes only one to bring a child to birth. This would not be a logical statement, if we lived in a society that did not allow for, as some call it, abortion-on-demand, but we do. Due to the fact that a woman does not even require a reason to have an abortion, it is a fair statement to say that a child only is alive because the mother was willing to have that.

Through it all you are saying that the women should possess the power to make an unwilling man be responsible. In the same breath, you are saying that it would be completely unfair if we were to give men the authority to make an unwilling woman responsible.



That's a deal!!! Though, I don't think you know what you are asking for.

I have no idea what you are saying here. I'd truly like for you to elaborate. I'm attempting to make an illustrative point. Women undergo all of the health complications and risks associated with pregnancy (and abortion for that matter). Almost always, they are the ones with impacted careers during the childrearing process too. Women are left with irreparable physical damage. I don't know of a single woman whose body remained the same in every respect after childbirth. There are minor problems, like cosmetic issues, incontinence or varicose veins, or potential large problems like permanent disability, hypertension, and death. This is inherently unfair, but there would be obvious practical limitations to charging the fathers for the health risks incurred on the mothers. That's life. Women incur the risks and therefore have more of a say in the process. Men incur no real health risks and therefore have limited say in the process. It isn't "fair", but neither is biology. Once the child is born that child must be cared for and it's the job of the parents to do so, provided they can. That is life too, even though the fathers have less of a say in the process.

The rest of your post I can't really address because I cannot view abortion with the same casual disregard as you. It isn't the same as getting your teeth cleaned. So, we're speaking a different language entirely and the point is lost with me. Yes, every child that is born into this world is born because the mother chose not to abort it. That doesn't mean the fathers hold no responsibility at all towards their offspring.

Allow me to elaborate then. If you proposal(which I did take as just an illustrative point) were to sue for damages occur... If I were the man I would include any moneys that I was sued for by the woman. If she sued me for $35,000 for cosmetic surgery, loss wages, or pain and suffering, I would just add that amount to my countersuit along with any of my wages. Here is why.

After the male sexual partner let the woman know he does not want any part of a child, in a time frame that allows for a medically routine abortion, any and all damages that occur to a woman due to child birth, was because of her decision(or lack of) and any damages that I will incur is because of her decision( or lack of). In others words any money I lose in the lawsuit is because of the woman actions

See I am a firm believer that it takes two to make a pregnancy. And I believe that if it is not desired, that both man and woman acted equally irresponsible. Now if the man and woman want to correct the mistake, they should be equally responsible in paying for it... Like I said I am willing to say that if a woman has to go through all the physical burden of an abortion, it is fair for a man to go through all the financial burden.

But in our society the woman is not forced to go through with childbirth, but rather she is afforded the opportunity to choose. You want her to have 100% power, but only 50, 60, 70 percent of the responsibility of the consequences of that power??



I wonder how many pro-lifer are laughing at your first statement. Let me posit this:

You cannot be pro-choice and not have a casual disregard toward abortion. And whether you are pro-choice or not, I admit, I don't know for sure, but you debate like you are.

Look back at those stats on why women have abortions... 5 percent are medical(fetus or mother). The amount that occur due to rape and incest didn't even make the list. That leaves an overwhelming amount of abortions that happen cause the women just wasn't ready for this reason or that. That is casual disregard, or else you'd be (which you may be) right over there with the pro-life camp kicking and screaming about abortions-on-demand.

Personally, I've never asked a woman to get an abortion, and personally such a decision would be a big deal to me, so if you are talking about "disregard" on a personal level I do not have such disregard. But on a policy level, you're right I have a disregard, but I contend so does every other person that is pro-choice.

The purpose for my support of "male" abortions, is not because I believe that a man should be able shrug off responsibilities, but because I believe a male has the right to decide whether he is ready for the responsibility of a child.

The reason why I support abortion is the exact same reason. I do not support a woman having abortion simply because we have the medical capabilities. To me, this is the most asinine of all reasoning. So what it's her body. I am sure there are a few here who would be totally fine with a person going to a doctor and saying "amputate my arm" and when the doctor asks "why", the person would respond "because it's my body. However, most would not support such amputation, regardless of the medical capabilities. Same goes with supporters of euthanasia . Very few, who do support it, support such medical practices, simply because it is available, and it is that person's body... rather we require reasons.

I support abortion, because I don't feel that an unwilling mother should be made to raise a child, when she does not feel up to the task... and I suspect, though they may hide it in this debate, most pro-choice people feel the same.

For various reasons, men are not ready for children, either. A woman who presumes herself capable of raising a child by herself, after knowing the male counterparts intentions(or lack of), should be made to be accountable for that presumption.

Untrue. I am pro-choice because the costs of making abortion illegal vastly outweigh the benefits, in my estimation. I would alter the law a bit though and leave it up to the states, but that is me. On the other hand, the costs of "male abortion on demand" outweigh the benefits, because there is still the child that must be raised and those costs would be given to the rest of us.

There are inherent inequities to a system in which two people make a child and only one of them carries it. Both incur different potential consequences for the sex act, therefore they are left with different choices.

This is abortion we are talking about. Whether or not a fetus is a human being, a person. Your statement implies that you think abortion is wrong, but support it only because it is cheaper?? Is this the how you feel?? The way we can know for sure is a simple question.

If the costs to society were the same whether women were or were not allowed to have an abortion, would you be for or against a women's right to choose.

If for, then there are more underlying reasons you support abortion.

If against, then I would say... Some prices are worth being paid!



Not necessarily, I offer three reasons for believing you are incorrect. I will even use your own words and others that have agreed with you.

1. Allowing for male abortions will likely serve as a deterrent for women have kids at the prospect of having to do such all alone. Take your own words...

Mrs. P





Well, hopefully you would be correct as this would reduce the current cost on society.

2. We as a society are already paying in many cases.

Take the research done by Lin731, who argues against male abortion in
Post #30



So here we have many father's not paying anyways... so who do you think helps these women out if they need assistance?? Add to that how much government mony goes to government agencies made to locate deadbeat dads?? How much goes to lawyer costs and court costs. How much money goes to jailing deadbeat fathers??

3. A woman in need of government assistance would likely still need government assistance, regardless of if the father is there or not.

Simply put, I doubt that "male abortion" will have any great affect of women in need of government assistance. A middle class single or divorced mother, likely will not make a low enough wage to get government assistance, even if the father doesn't pay child support. An impoverished mother will not likely have a father that is capable of paying enough money to raise her out of poverty, so she'll still need government aid.

Let's go to Lin731 again



If this is the average that means many people are getting a lot less and a few are getting a lot more, so how much negative difference could male abortion make in your pocket??

To sum it up, I believe, (and to some extent so do you) Deterrence will likely be a result of "male abortion". Which means less unwanted children, which means less need for court cost, jail cost, bureaucracy and so on. financially speaking, I don't see how it gets worse by letting men abort.

I'll try to take this post piecemeal because it's a bit hard for me to follow. First, when I'm speaking of costs to eliminate abortion, I'm not simply speaking of the financial drawbacks. Outlawing abortion would lead to other consequences, like a lucrative, dangerous blackmarket underground for the procedure, and likely a vast increase in birth defects as well from botched attempts and abortificant drugs that didn't quite do the job. I could expand on this, but it isn't the topic so I'll continue....

Well, against, because that would indicate every woman was willing enough to have a child that they wouldn't harm themselves to get rid of it, or support a dangerous criminal underground for the procedure. But that isn't the case.

Maybe to you, not to me.

I think you're wrong if you believe there aren't costs to a dramatic decline in the young population as the rest of us age. That's basic economics. You premise here is ridiculous, Droop. Why would a woman ever elect to get pregnant in the first place under these conditions? I couldn't turn back and walk into an abortion clinic, but the father should be free to just arbitrarily walk away and leave the woman pregnant as though nothing happened? Any man who feels this way should be up-front with his bedpartner. Before having sex, the man should tell the woman he fully expects to leave if the sex results in a pregnancy and she doesn't abort. This practice, if used consistently, would definitely lead to fewer of those costs to both society and the men....and probably fewer abortions, too.

First, allow me to apologize for any trouble you have following.

As before, I think progress is being made. A big part of our disagreement may lie in your misunderstanding of my positions. At least I get that impression, by some of your comments.
Mrs. P


It seems our signals are getting crossed. If we were to legalize male "abortions", these other "costs" would not come into play, the costs would be financial. While I understand the other costs in terms of making abortions illegal, that is a side effect of forcing people to take on tasks they are not ready for.



Because this would not have a big effect on love. When my wife got pregnant, do you think I wished I could make her have an abortion. How many husbands do you think would think this way?? Women would still get pregnant and men would still stand behind them. Men want families too... when we are ready.

And yes you could turn back into the abortion clinic, that has been my point... I have repeated it too many times as it is. I would only support the male having the right to legally abort with the condition that a woman could still get an orthodox(first trimester) abortion.

The idea that a man could just arbitrarily walk away, is ridiculous and I am glad that I have not brought such up such an idea. It would need to have structure, rules, legal documents... and such.




As before, I think progress is being made. A big part of our disagreement may lie in your misunderstanding my positions. at least I get tthat impression, by some of your comments.

No. They played and they have to pay.

If they didn't want the pregnancy, they should have not had the sex. The two have a way of going together for some reason.

If they "choose" to have sex with a woman, they should consider the fact that a pregnancy could occur. I know that sounds quaint and old fashioned in today's society, but the social mores and constraints governing sexual behavior WERE designed for a reason and this is one of them.

On top of that, I'd also like to see Roe vs. Wade overturned and more restrictions placed on abortions such as making it illegal after the end of the first trimester and also parental notification when a minor attempts to get an abortion.

Women have a "choice" too. A choice to have sex in the first place and to use (or not use) birth control. Their carelessness should not have to result in the death of another human being.

Ok if one gender has a right then according to the equal rights movement the other should too. That's the problem with life it's a two way road. Deal with it, your the ones that brought up all this equal rights stuff decades ago, is it really that surprising after seeing you guy's trying to level the playing field for years men wouldn't try too. Although I do agree with equal rights, unlike most people I believe in total equality, I however have observed that most women aren't they want equal right but not equal responsibility example: Correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think I've ever heard of any women fighting for there equal responsibility of being forced to sign up for the draft at 18. In short you want equal rights of the freedoms this country, but not the responsibility of defending it. Now I know women are in the military, & I know it isn't there choice to not be on the front line (also never heard complaints about). But the fact is men have the right to vote, & the responsibility of the draft. Women have the right to vote but don't have to responsibility of the draft. I'm not saying women shouldn't have the right to vote, I'm saying with rights come responsibility. I'm sorry I got of track I was trying to explain my beliefs about true equality. That being said I don't believe it's right to be able to ditch your responsibility, man or women. So if men cannot choose neither should women. Abortions shouldn't be allowed, until artificial wombs are perfected. On a personal note any man who would abandon a child, isn't a man! Anybody that would kill a child at any age or trimester is a monster!
P.S. I apologize for the grammar, I'm tired, & borderline dyslexic (honestly).