How to Join Member's Area Private Library Search Today's Topics p Login
Main Forums Discussion Tech Talk Mature Content Archives
   Nav Win
 Discussion
 Philosophy 101
 Abortion and parental rights   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ]
 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
Follow us on Facebook

 Moderated by: Ron   (Admins )

 
User Options
Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Admin Print Send ECard
Passions in Poetry

Abortion and parental rights

 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


75 posted 06-22-2003 06:20 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

I understand what you are saying, Kamala.I agree.But I am not asking what a womans rights are, we have clear legal guidelines here.I am not arguing a woman has more invested, that is obvious and true.I asked, should a man have the same right to not be responsable for his actions.I realize that many bad parents do this anyway.But should a male have a legal way to say, I will not be responsible, just as a female does?
Kamala
Member
since 04-17-2003
Posts 66
CA, USA


76 posted 06-24-2003 03:19 PM       View Profile for Kamala   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Kamala

I asked, should a man have the same right to not be responsable for his actions.I realize that many bad parents do this anyway.But should a male have a legal way to say, I will not be responsible, just as a female does?

Okay -- I just want to make sure I'm following you here... the above seems to imply that you think of abortion as a way for women not to accept responsibility for their actions.  Is this, in fact, how you see it?  If so, I only partly agree with you.  As with all things, I think there are some women who don't think seriously enough about their pregnancies... some who would use abortion as a jacked up form of birth control.  This, I do not support in any way.  

But in the overwhelming majority of cases that I am aware of, the girl hasn't been like, "Oh well... I don't think I want to be responsible for this kid... off to the doc."  Rather, the decision to abort or not is an excruciating one.  And a lot of the times, I think women get abortions TO BE responsible (because it is best all around option in a given situation)... not to shuck responsibility.

In any case... I'm just trying to be clear on exactly how you see it.

So, I don't think that there can be an exact parallel for a guy "legally."  Because abortion isn't just a "legal" procedural thing.  It's much more complicated than that.  I wonder if you would see your own question differently if you were a woman having experienced an unplanned pregnancy.  Or even if you were just a woman period.

But, that being said, I do think (as I stated before) that men should have some legal recourse in cases where they've been victimized by stupid psycho women.  I mean, in my friend's case -- where he was taking every precaution (trying to wear condoms and such) but the girl was sabotaging it -- I completely feel that he should have had some kind of legal option to limit his responsibility.  I think designing that kind of law, though, and implementing it would be extremely tough.  Cases are so individual, and I think if such a law were authored, it might make it really a lot easier for men to get out of responsibilities they should otherwise be assuming for the children they conceive.  Whereas, I DON'T think that that's what the abortion option necessarily does for women.

Kamala
Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


77 posted 06-24-2003 11:20 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

I worded that poorly, I do not believe that women use this as an easy form of birth control.Not in most cases anyway.
And I do not believe that it is an equal question or an exact parallel.
To be honest, despite having asked this question, I do not believe this should be legal nor do I desire this right.

And lastly, you are correct.As a man I could not imagine what a woman goes through making a decision like this.I do not pretend to.

I do think it was a fair question, taken in context.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


78 posted 06-25-2003 12:15 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Jason:

Whether or not you agree that abortion is contraception, that is the legal basis on which the woman's right to an abortion was secured by Roe v. Wade.  The right of privacy, held in the past to be encompassed by the Bill of Rights, provides for protection from unwarranted government intrusion, including into decisions regarding contraception.  That is also why abortion rights advocates are very concerned by the prescription of human rights to children before they are born.

Although this is outside of my element, I don't believe there is a parallel legal basis for the man being able to "abort" his responsibility.  It doesn't seem to be encompassed by the right of privacy and, once the child is born, you cannot weigh fairness or equity without considering what is fair or equitable for the child.

There is also the practical problem of getting legislators to agree to sponsoring "The Deadbeat Dad Right to Abort Responsibility Act" ... makes for some excellent smear campaign material though if you want to dethrone the incumbent.  

Jim

[This message has been edited by jbouder (06-25-2003 12:16 PM).]

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


79 posted 06-25-2003 03:34 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

Good answer.

Jason
Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


80 posted 06-25-2003 11:07 PM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

frozen embryo of a couple who are seeking a divorce.  Wife wants to conceive and hubby says no way, destroy the embryo.  
Is the embryo a life, a potential life, or just a piece of property?
The discussion to this point has been black or white, at some magical moment a life comes into being.  
Roe v. Wade speaks in term of viability.  Viability hardly means the same thing it did at the time Roe was decided.  
Does the existence of life depend upon the ability of medical science to assist the process of viability?
Assuming the Court awards the embryo to the wife and she gives birth.  Is the father responsible for the child?  
Does it make a difference at the time the embryo is destroyed it is in utero, or destroyed frozen as ten of thousands are today?
The law would seem to so indicate.  
Prevailing view would be that a male cannot be made to be a father against his will if the egg has been fertilized in a laboratory and he has changed his mind about becoming a father.
If the fertilization occurs totally within the female body, then the father has no say whatsover whether he ever wanted to bear a child or not.  
In either situation, the child is the same, and the genetic makeup of the child will be the same.  The only difference is method of conception.
A women dies and has children as heirs and a living husband.  
The husband wants a surrogate mother to father the child of his deceased wife.
The children say no way, we don't want another brother or sister and we inherit half of what our mother had.  We say, destroy the embryos.
Can the frozen embryos inherit if they ultimately become living heirs?
Is the embryo property, a potential life, or a life?
Few things are completely black and white.  As I stated earlier in the thread, I won't take a position one way or the other on the abortion issue, but just raise the issue of there being a third alternative, potential life rather than just life or not life, and should it be treated differently when it occurs in utero, with a surrogate mother, or is frozen in a laboratory.
How does it change the responsibility of the father?
Just some thoughts to consider...

jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


81 posted 06-26-2003 01:10 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Tim:

I'm sure you realize you've opened a can of worms.     That's okay.  If the issue was a simple one, I think more people would agree on one position or another.

I would argue though that your "third position" on potential life is really no third position at all.  It is no different from ascribing to both positions depending on some sort of criteria.  It is sort of like hedging your bets.  I don't believe a pseudo-position like potential life can ever be a viable (heh-heh) alternative because the position can never be fixed.  You say tom-AY-to and I say to-MAH-to.

That said, the legal system seems to hedge its bets all the time.  The law probably treats frozen embryos in the same way it treats property, and if a couple divorces, ownership of the embryos would be distributed to one or the other, either voluntarily or by court order.  If one spouse dies, assuming the "property" was jointly owned, ownership would vest in the surviving spouse and the spoiled-rotten kids salivating for their inheritances are SOL (as far as having a say in the destruction of the embryos at any rate - the questions about whether or not an embryo that is implanted in the mothers womb and is eventually born becomes an heir could swing either way).  

You raise interesting dilemmas, though.  We're treading on new territory these days and it will be interesting to see how things play out.

Jim

[This message has been edited by jbouder (06-26-2003 01:13 PM).]

Tim
Senior Member
since 06-08-99
Posts 1801


82 posted 06-27-2003 08:39 AM       View Profile for Tim   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Tim

I respectfully disagree about a potential life being a pseudo position. The inability to contemplate a middle position alienates the pro and anti abortion forces. If an embryo or fetus have no legal status separate and apart from the mother, then a crime of homicide of a fetus cannot exist.  If you legally elevate the status of an embryo or fetus to a human life, then abortion is legalized homicide.

The embryo or fetus have to be something in fact and in law.

The only answer the law can come up with is that the embryo is property. Not attempting to be flippant, but the old adage is possession is nine tenths of the law.  Since the mother possesses the embryo in utero, the law says it is her property to do as she wishes.  Once the embryo is removed or the mother is not the one making the decisions, the law is clearly in a state of flux or evolving.
The fetus has no legal rights if the mother is capable of competent decisions.  If the mother is mentally incompetent, the fetus has rights to continued existence and a future life.

I concur it is a can of worms which is my point.  Rather than a bright line existing of life and non-life which both sides are in total disagreement on, perhaps life is an evolving status and should be recognized as such.
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


83 posted 06-27-2003 11:13 AM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Tim:

So when is the line crossed?  At conception?  First signs of neural activity (40-45 days after conception)?  The ability of the fetus to experience sensation or pain?  Quickening?  Viability (with or without intervention of medical technology)?  Birth?

I don't think the gradualist argument bridges the pro-choice/pro-life differences.  I don't like any of the compromises, but if I had to choose one, it would be the neural activity.  Since life's end is marked by brain-death, it is more reasonable to mark the beginning of life at brain-life than any of the other "middle" options (in my opinion).  It is also less arbitrary and more measurable than the others.  Potential life is too fuzzy a concept to be very useful.

Jim
jbouder
Member Elite
since 09-18-99
Posts 2641
Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash


84 posted 06-27-2003 01:29 PM       View Profile for jbouder   Email jbouder   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for jbouder

Tim:

By the way ... an alternative to considering a frozen embryo as property of either the father or mother is to think in terms of custody.  If the law upholds the humanity of the embryo, thereby entitling it to the protections of law, then I think the right of the custodial parent to decide to destroy it is diminished, if not extinguished entirely.  An alternative to destroying "unwanted" embryos could be to encourage mothers who have difficulty conceiving to become surrogates.

I think we ought to be prepared to begin contemplating the humanity of the unborn, in the legal sense anyway, since I think this is more or less inevitable in the United States.  And if Justice O'Connor, the swing vote in Casey v. Planned Parenthood of Pennsylvania (1993), and Chief Justice Renquist retire and are replaced by Bush appointees, the chances are high that any legal shift will remain unchanged for the next several decades.  Interestingly enough, Justice O'Connor, in her majority opinion in Casey, opined that had we known in Roe v. Wade what we knew in 1993 about pre-natal development, abortion would never have become legal.  She, however, ascribed more weight to precedent, the legal doctrine of stare decisis, and suggested that, since women had been relying on the results of Roe v. Wade for 20 years, that the decision should stand.  Interestly enough, she didn't believe that the new information we had regarding pre-natal development was compelling enough to cease perpetuating injustice to the unborn.

If we are going to reach a gradualist compromise, it should be done on the most reasonable basis available.  I personally believe that is at conception because, only after conception, does the fetus have potency within itself to grow to childhood (i.e., with nurishment).  I just can't see how any of the gradualist arguments can escape circular reasoning.

Jim


[This message has been edited by jbouder (06-27-2003 01:41 PM).]

Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


85 posted 06-27-2003 08:35 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

quote:
Wilcott was charged under a law that allows the death of a fetus to be prosecuted as a homicide if the death is caused by an attack. About two dozen states have similar laws.

Wilcott's attorney, Tim Lucas, said he planned to challenge Pennsylvania's fetal homicide law in an appeal.

Lucas has argued that the law conflicts with the state's abortion law about what constitutes a human being: Under the abortion law, a woman may not terminate her pregnancy after the first 24 weeks; the fetal homicide law applies to the death of a fetus at any stage of development.

In ruling the law constitutional before Wilcott's trial, Judge John Trucilla said that although a pregnant woman can choose to have an abortion, she has no choice in an attack that kills her unborn child.



 
 Post A Reply Post New Topic   Go to the Next Oldest/Previous Topic Return to Topic Page Go to the Next Newest Topic 
All times are ET (US) Top
  User Options
>> Discussion >> Philosophy 101 >> Abortion and parental rights   [ Page: 1  2  3  4  ] Format for Better Printing EMail to a Friend Not Available
Print Send ECard

 

pipTalk Home Page | Main Poetry Forums

How to Join | Member's Area / Help | Private Library | Search | Contact Us | Today's Topics | Login
Discussion | Tech Talk | Archives | Sanctuary



© Passions in Poetry and netpoets.com 1998-2013
All Poetry and Prose is copyrighted by the individual authors