Do you agree with the judge's injunction in this case?

it was overturned and now she is free to have an abortion. and i agree with this ruling!!! http://apnews.excite.com/article/20020805/D7L7F3AG0.html

I was just at abcnews.com and found this story. The injunction has been overturned by another judge. http://abcnews.go.com/wire/US/ap20020805_1002.html

Looks like you beat me to it. I just got home and found the story when I went to the wire updates page.

I disagree with the judge's decision. He has no business telling this young woman what to do with her body!

and jettles: I'm glad to see that this injunction was overturned. It shouldn't have happened in the first place.

I can't argue with that. I still can't understand why this judge thought this ruling was in anyway appropriate in the first place! It wasn't as though she was a minor.

I disagree.Is good that fathers have a saying,but it's SHE not HIM carrying the fetus.So the decision is her own.

Good,it was very inappropriate!!

It certainly was!

Given that the temporary injunction is just for five days, to allow the lawyers to submit briefs, I really think it is presumptuous for ANYONE to second guess the judge. This fact makes it unnecessary to even bother mentioning: "...claims in his suit that Meyers is being pressured by her mother to have the procedure."

I disagree with the judge. The woman should have the last say in what she wants to do, since it is her body!

No

This auntless, sisterless, motherless, girlfriendless, historyless-with-any-female needs to step down from the bench and become a bus driver, where getting paid to piss off the public is still his job.

Composes self.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the judges decision in this case.

The decision should be up to the woman. She's the one who has to carry the baby and in most cases many women end up raising and supporting the child on their own. If what she says about this former boyfriend threatening and harrassing her, then she's better off without him.

I think that the boyfriend should have no say unless he is married.

My feelings are strongly with the young woman on this one.

Why would marriage make a difference? His wife's uterus is still not his property!

Instead of making the injunction, I think the judge should have just taken pictures of every women whose worked for women's liberation and thrown them into a great big bonfire. The message is the same.

It is up to her and the father. The judge has no right to take sides. Even if the father disagrees, it is ultimately up to the mother do decide.

Sigh. Yet, if she carries the fetus to term, the man will be held responsible for the baby. If he's going to be held legally responsible, shouldn't he have a say?

If the injunction had lasted more than five days I'd still think it was wrong but the legal iniquity here is a problem.

Just out of curiosity, if the situation was reversed.

If the woman had wanted to have the kid, but her boyfriend wanted it aborted. Would then some knuckehead judge be permited to, or force her to have an abortion. Gives you something to think about.

Sounds to me like our judges are more concerned with the life/death situation of the kid, as opposed to the father's vs mother's rights. Either way, all it takes is one person who wants to have the kid, and he'd be forced to be born.

I believe that abortion should be legel and I also believe in a woman's right to choose. But, at some point there has to be a test case on which to base all future cases. This looks like being it. Does the father have a right to challenge the abortion legally? I imagine that the court will say no, so in the future, no other cases will reach this point. But until there's a precedent, how could the judge legally *not* file an injunction?

It's my understanding, that previous legal precedents have been set before this stage and....oh I'm just confusing myself. I know what I mean, but I can't say it. I think I may be coming down with proper flu

I agree with the judge but not just because I believe abortion is wrong, but because if a man has legal responsiblities if the child is born then he should have some say in this matter. If he is responsible if the child is born then he should be responsible in all decisions. I mean, if the woman had the baby then she can go after the man for financial assistance in the child's upbringing. So, the woman, and the woman alone, can dictate if the man is going to have to part with some of his income for the next eighteen years depending on if she has a child or not. It doesn't seem fair. The woman shouldn't have it both ways and the man get nothing. If he is deemed to be a responsible party in the conception of a child then he should have equal responsibility and an equal voice. If a woman has all the power in deciding to keep a baby or not then the man should not be held responsible for the child if he chooses not to be (that is if she decides on keeping the child.)

I don't care how 'involved' men are, it's still a woman's body.

I don't think this decision has anything to do with the rights and wrongs of abortion, it's about how the law deals with intensely personal cases. Ideally, this would never have come to court in the first place, but, given that it did, the judge had really no option but to issue a temporary ruling before the case could be considered in depth.

In such a situation, the safest option - and, therefore, the most legally sound - is to say "don't do anything until this has been considered further", which is what the ruling meant. A temporary injunction preventing the abortion can be overturned later if necessary (and, in this case has been), so it need not cause any lasting problems. But, if the injunction had not been imposed, it would have effectively pre-empted the decision of the later hearing, as an abortion cannot be reversed if the court had subsequently concluded that it should not have taken place!

It's important to remember that a temporary injunction does not mean that the judge agrees with the case as presented. All it means is that he considers it to require detailed examination. In such a situation, it is entirely routine for a temporary injunction to be issued that effectively "freezes" the relevant circumstances until the case can be heard in full. The judge has no other option except to dismiss the case out of hand without consideration - which may be what the pro-abortion group would prefer, but is hardly doing justice to such an important legal question.

I disagree with the judge. This man is not going to have to go through the 40 weeks of pregnancy and then have to go through labor to deliver a baby he doesn't want. He won't have the emotional and physical scars that go along with pregnancy. If the woman doesn't want this baby, then she has the right to choose to have an abortion. I'm sorry for the guy, but it's just a part of life. It's the woman's body, not his! Plus, it said that she had to file a protection order against him. He could be only doing this to get back at her, for all we know.

No, I strongly disagree with the judge. Harsh I know but I believe its the woman's right to choose.

Update-the young woman in the case has suffered a miscarriage. http://www.philly.com/mld/inquirer/news/local/3815123.htm

I think the man's right to choose ended with his decision not to wear a condom or take some other birth control measure.

Well, I hope you all don't agree a mother going after a father for child support. Obviously, a man is nothing in regards to having a child so keep it that way.

Also, stop all the crap about a baby being the woman's body. It is IN and ATTACHED to her body but it is not her body. It is her child.

I find this a little creepy. Kudos to the guy if he actually wants the child to be born and have a happy life and all that, but basically I don't think a judge should be able to force a woman to continue carrying a child.

What I meant by that is that his say would be more importent if he where maried to her. Ofcourse it is still the womans body.

I don't care for abortion, and I think such decisions should be mutual, yet I disagree, because I think if a decision can be made, it rests with the mother. On the other hand, not just sperm, but spiritual energy should be poured from both parents into a child.

Good point. I think this survey should be redone as a four option survey for the combinations of a man's say in the decision, and whethar or not he should be financially responsible.

I disagree. I mean, I feel for fathers of the aborted babies when they had wanted to keep it, but it is the woman's body and it is the womans life, and if she doesn't want to have nine months of pregnancy, then she really shouldn't have to.

So would you also say the women's right to choose ended with her decision to have sex with a guy not wearing a condom or take some other birth control measure? If he had worn a condom, would he then have a say in the disposition of the fetus that he was trying not to create?

nobody has a right to tell us what to do with r bodies

I still don't see how his say would be more valid if he were married to her. Can you explain?

For some people, being married means operating as a common mind and body; all decisions are made collectively for collective benefit. Everything becomes 'we', not 'you and I'. Obviously this couple did not have that sort of relationship though, or only one of them thought it was like that.

In this certain case the Father wants the child. Just because the woman doesn't its not all her choice. Shes not the only one that created this bundle of joy, and just because she doesn't want it; it doesnt mean the child doesnt have a right to be born, theres someone here that does want the child. I dont believe in abortions, unless theres a very slim chance that the baby will live if born full term, or if someone is raped. Thats the only two reasons I wouldn't be against abortion, this baby didn't ask to be created if the girl didn't want to get pregnant she shouldn't have had sex. Its not only her fault though, but the man is willing to take care of the child.

Not her body,but is she that has to deal with nauseas and is SHE that finally has to give birth the child.Yes,I believe that fathers can only advice their women,she has to take the decision.Now we hope they agree,but if they don't and the woman hasn't got any kind of mental illness her rights on the fetus are greater than the father rights.A woman can have a child without a man,she can.She can conceive without a man? She can't.Can a man have a child? He can't.Can he conceive a child without a woman? He can't.
Also,if the parents are so stupid to drag each other in a tribunal maybe this child is better off dead.

That's just sad.

It was my thought on how it worked, but it suffocated me not being able to pursue my independent interests, and I couldn't convince my wife to have her own hobbies. before the blatant signs of upcoming divorce, I had already distanced myself to pursue my art degree, something she considered a frivolous pursuit, along with all my business goals. She moved back to Alaska where people don't operate with such pretentiousness. She was a disastor during the divorce, but did a 180 into becoming a self-motivated entity at that point. On the positive side, it was very love birdy, sharing all our mutual plans of having a back to nature llama ranch or something. I circulate at parties, at the time we were joined at the hip. We still have some love for each other, but I think were both glad we're divorced. Now I'd prefer some hybrid of telepathically linked and somewhat creatively at similar odds.

I think the judge (as well as the boyfriend) should have his balls ripped out and shoved down his gullet, after which he should be anally raped by rabid porcupines.

The idea that some stranger should be allowed to have ANY SAY WHATSOEVER over what a woman does with her own body is offensive as hell. And men should not have an "equal say" because they do not bear equal risk. They do not carry the child in their body for nine months, endure a dangerous and painful labor, lactate, have their body changed forever, etc. etc.

So, what if someone had a kidney that was the perfect match for someone else who would die if they didn't receive a kidney? Should they be required by law to donate that kidney? After all, if they don't donate their kidney, the other person will die. So, the state has a right to step in and FORCE the person to go through a painful and dangerous procedure so that someone else can live, right?

It's not abuse if you don't feed little joey and michelle, but if her parents don't but could, it is. I'd say anti-abortion laws would look at this as a case of an irresponsible ward or custodian. It's like air-traffic controllers not being allowed to strike. Their logic (amost other arguments) is that she shouldn't have taken on the responsibility, if she wasn't prepared, and if she did, she has become, the person responsible for the unborn's life. Now if they combined rape (including marital rape) a capital offense, that would be interesting. Woman who wanted an abortion would have to choose who dies, the baby or the father. Everyone dating would start signing legal forms before ever having sex.

Good for you, Dora. You recognize the fact that this is a child and if it is aborted it is killing it.

I say, why don't the parents have a go at it and go ahead and have the child. If after a couple of months they don't like it then let the woman decide whether to kill it. The only difference in abortion and killing a two month old is geography.

I recognize it will be a child if it grows up.And it's killing,but not like killing a born child or a full grown person.Sure if you abort a 7 months fetus,that's like killing,but a 3 months old IS not,biologically,a real person.Is a living being,so if you don't kill ants or mosquitos,and don't practice euthanasia on your pets if they are seriously ill and don't go fishing or hunting or anything else that could harm a living thing,then okay.But geography is not the only difference.

Ah, apparently I'm consistent.

Consistent?

Vegetarian, escort bugs out of the house, personally don't believe in abortion.

Ah, yes you are
I'm not I guess; I "believe" in abortion...no,saying that I believe in abortion sounds scary I believe in the right to abort,I eat meat but I can't kill bugs.When I see ants I just watch 'em for hours.Same thing with flies.And no way I'm going to kill a spider.
Also,I think I mentioned this before,I'm ashamed to admit that I discriminate against fish.

I mostly discriminate against shrimp.

We have a 3 month old and one of the ultrasounds was at 18 weeks. At 18 weeks she was formed and sucking her thumb. We had ultrasounds all through the pregnancy (my best friend is an OBGYN) and that ultrasound was the best because she was just the right size for the machine. After 18 to 20 weeks you can't see the entire body all at once because it is too big. You only see a portion at a time.

I think that with the advance of technology, people will start rethinking abortion because photos will be more available and they will see what they are killing.

So it's better to brought an unwanted child in the world? Some things are worse than death.Sure the best thing would be using precautions or not having sex,abortion is EXTREME.18 weeks is more than 3 months...it disqualifies from being an "abortable" fetus for me and the Italian law too.Just for the things you mentioned,it starts to look like a baby.I would never abort a 4 months old fetus!! 12 weeks is the maximum allowed in this country.

At conception the decision has already been made to bring a child into this world. There shouldn't be any going back just like after birth there is no going back. People have to learn to face the consequences of their own actions. It is not the baby's fault it was conceived. Why make it face the consequences of the parents carelessness and promiscuity.

If you are a Christian,as I think you are,then the age of the fetus doesn't matter,because I guess you think that its soul is already there from the beginning,but this has nothing to do with biology.
Anyway everybody has his opinions on the matter,so there's no much use in discussing.

It is her baby and her burned to carry, and he cannot do anything there, even though he is ther father.

Another twist in this story...they are back to dating AGAIN!http://www.timesleader.com/mld/thetimesleader/news/3904306.htm

These two are way stupid.Maybe she knows and wants to abort the fetus for fear it becomes like dear mommy and daddy!!

That could well be the reason.

I disagree with the judge. I think the woman should be allowed to make the choice herself. It's her body!

The man's decision proved that he was pro-choice. He CHOSE not to wear a condom to prevent pregnancy and/or disease. His CHOICE was already made. The woman has to deal with the consequences, so as far as I'm concerned, he's no longer in the decision-making process.

Condoms aren't 100% effective unfortunately Maybe he wore one and it didn't work? I agree with your sentiment though.

BTW, sorry if it looks like I'm stalking you on these surveys. I'm almost completely caught up with all the surveys so all that's new for me on most of these is your comments. Hence the appearance that I'm following you! Not that I'm not enjoying reading your comments (because I am) but I didn't want it to look like I was singling you out. Especially as I'm one of the least scary people here

Darn, I was hoping I had a stalker. I was really hoping to get black roses and Barbie Dolls with their heads cut off. Always nice to feel loved in this world.

If *that's* what you want, go and flirt with mandy If I was stalking you, I'd be the shy quiet girl in the corner that you suspected might be looking at you but could never quite be sure.....

I know condoms aren't 100% effective, but they're very effective if used properly. Wear a condom, heck, wear two. Use plenty of lube and check every now and then to make sure it is still in one piece. Um, the condom that is. And when you've done your business, get outta there and wash up. Condoms may not feel good, but they still feel better than not having sex at all.

And if the condom breaks or falls off or whatever, you've got three days to get to a hospital or doctor or planned parenthood office and get emergency contraceptive pills.

People like to hide this information, but they are out there. They like to think out of sight, out of mind, but that ain't so. Unprotected and irresponsible sex is going to happen. But there are alternatives to conception and there alternatives to abortion.

People need to become educated about these things.

Amen to all that! I think the earler people are taught about contraception the better. I was supposed to get sex education in school when I was 11. My school chickened out for some reason and no-one ever checked up on it. Apart from a few things my science teacher threw in when talking about sex cells when I was 14 I learned nothing about contraception when I was in school. I'm lucky that I have a mother who was completely happy to talk about that kind of thing and buy books for me and my brothers. Otherwise I could still be completely ignorant about all that.

If *I* was in charge of education (ah, to be a dictator!) then I'd have sex education lessons right the way through school from the age of 4. Unfortunately parents can't be trusted to discuss it with their kids.....

My parents' way of teaching me about sex was to say that it isn't enjoyable and should only be done when you're married.

Thankfully, mom had some health books around the house, so I'd grab them and learn about conception and its contra. And having older sisters around helped too. They didn't teach me anything, but reading the letters that they hid in the bottom of their underwear drawers did. Ha!

Ouch. But then I don't remember being taught that sex was something that people did for fun and that was to be enjoyed. I found that out reading a book. I was most shocked! I think it was probably more of an oversight on the part of my mother than deliberate. A bit like her not explaining exactly what a condom lookied like. For years I thought that they were square and flat because no-one told me they had to be unwrapped! I assumed that the had to be sellotaped in place! But luckily that was when I was very young (8 maybe?) so I've had a long time to think things through properly.

Your school chickened out? Good grief. I didn't realise that happened in modern western society.

I went to a rubbish primary school. It's the local village one and no-one noticed how bad it was because it's a good area and so the children did well in government tests. When they finally noticed the state it was in, the headteacher was sacked. He was an idiot, he refused to give a dyslexic girl any extra help and when her mother asked him why, he answered that with her looks she wasn't going to need to do well at school (and she was only about 6 at the time).

I don't think the boyfriend should have such a big effect on the judgement. Afterall, he's not the one going through all the pain. But the baby is his, so he should only a small say. The woman should have the bigger say.
In other words, the choice should be the woman's

Yow. I guess so.

I think the judge's decision had no basis in American law (and the injunction has now been removed), but I am not sure how I feel about it. I think abortion absolutely should be legal, but it does seem like the father should get some say in the matter as well as the mother. I think if the pregnancy wouldn't jeopardize her health physically or mentally, and the father wants to accept custody, he should have some say. Then again, I don't know about how I feel about a woman being forced to carry the baby against her will.

3 Things:

I hope your parents don't really think sex isn't enjoyable. That would be sad.

I don't see what his wearing or not wearing a condom has to do with his rights as a parent. He obviously wants a baby, so he wouldn't wear a condom, right? She is the one who should have been concerned about contraception since she doesn't want a child, then she wouldn't be faced with the issue of whether or not to carry it.

And, doubling up on condoms can make them more likely to break than if you wear just one. Doesn't really offer any more protection