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  ]
 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24
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


0 posted 06-11-2003 11:48 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

After reading jbouders post, I have a differant question, though related.
The way current abortion law stands, a woman has the right to terminate a pregnancy at any time she wishes, it is her body.The fetus however, is only 50% her dna.The act in which led to the pregnancy was both half her decision, and half her responsability.This is not an argument about whether abortion is right or wrong, as a male I could never pretend to imagine what a woman goes through when making a decision like this.
My question is philosophical.If a woman has the right to abort, should the man have the right to abort parental rights and responsability?As things stand now, because it is the womans body, she can decide.She can decide if she wants to have a child, without the fathers input.She also decides if the father is going to have a child, without his input.She may make this decision while in full ownership of her own body, but only a half share in the child.
I ask this question because I think that those who support abortion would scream bloody murder, if a male could legally sign a paper aborting his responsability to a child before it was born.
What if a woman decided to carry a pregnancy to term, but the man could say "I don't want this child"and then legally "abort" his responsability to the child.Never pay child support,never have a legal responsability to the childs actions or welfare.
If a woman has full control of her body, should a man(or a woman)also have full control over his/her dna?
Should a woman have the legal right to force fatherhood on a man, If she has the power to deny it?If I say I want this child, and she says she does not, for any reason.I can not legally force her to bear a child she does not want.If I say I do not want a child, I can not force a woman to abort either.
But as a man the responsability can be forced on me.
So...should a man be able to abort his parental rights?
If not whats the differance?And to say the differance is the body is avoiding the question.

This is a touchy subject, I am not asking if abortion is right or wrong.

I am only asking what I asked

Jason
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


1 posted 06-12-2003 12:10 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jason,

You've got quite a point.  And actually I think it's when we get into considerations like this, that we see the absurdity of treating an unborn life as if it were a mere possession to be kept or discarded at will.  No one would put up with a Father's abortion of responsibilities for a minute.  And I agree that it is preposterous.  But if one is, so is the other.


I think I remember it was Solomon who once brought up the prospect of "halfing a baby", to bring wisdom into focus.  In the same way maybe we can gain some wisdom from your consideration.  

Stephen.
Larry C
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Patricius
since 09-10-2001
Posts 10765
United States


2 posted 06-12-2003 12:25 AM       View Profile for Larry C   Email Larry C   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Larry C's Home Page   View IP for Larry C

The shame that every potential birth father isn't forced to bear the resonsibility. Accountability...what a concept.

If tears could build a stairway and memories a lane, I'd walk right up to heaven and bring you home again.

nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


3 posted 06-13-2003 08:07 PM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

"As things stand now, because it is the womans body, she can decide.She can decide if she wants to have a child, without the fathers input.She also decides if the father is going to have a child, without his input"

The input of both is when they have sexual intercourse. It is not the woman deciding alone. The act itself is done with the knowledge that even with some birth controls...a child may be created...It is a risk  both take, so I would never say that the man has no input ever...

just an opinion

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


4 posted 06-13-2003 08:34 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

A very good point.I agree.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


5 posted 06-13-2003 09:15 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"The input of both is when they have sexual intercourse. It is not the woman deciding alone."

yeah, but I think that Jason was pointing out that the man has no input beyond the initial choice ... as pertaining to abortion.

Stephen
nakdthoughts
Member Laureate
since 10-29-2000
Posts 19275
Between the Lines


6 posted 06-13-2003 09:52 PM       View Profile for nakdthoughts   Email nakdthoughts   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for nakdthoughts

I understand that Stephen, I guess when I see that some feel that they have no input when it comes to creating a life, it always bothers me that they don't take the responsibility that comes along with having sex.

And I can see his point. I have a niece that decided along with her mother
(the Grandmother) to not allow the father of one of her children to participate or even know the child after she was born...just moved  her to another state. I don't believe women should have the right to do that to  the father, nor to the child.
Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


7 posted 06-13-2003 10:26 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

Do not misunderstand me, I am the father of two lovely daughters.I had input
When I asked this question, I tried hard to make sure it did not turn into a prolife/prochoice argument.I just have a real problem with the father having no say, after the fact, in the decision that is being made.If I am understanding the law correctly, even my wife could make this choice without my input.She would not, but should she have the legal right to do so?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


8 posted 06-14-2003 12:27 AM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jason,

As you know, I am definately anti-abortion in my sentiments.  But if it is a choice in our society, then yes it would be valid to ask ... why just the Mother?  Half the DNA after all came from Dad, and he also chose to procreate through intercourse.  If nothing else, requiring agreement from both parents for abortions would greatly decrease the number of abortions.  Just look how hard it is to get people to agree on anything!  Many Fathers would probably say no to spite the Mothers who say yes ... and vice versa.  But if it would save more unborn lives, then I'm for it.

Stephen.  
Toad
Member
since 06-16-2002
Posts 247


9 posted 06-14-2003 06:27 AM       View Profile for Toad   Email Toad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toad

Ever heard of reductio ad absurdam?


If men had equal say what would happen if the female wanted to keep the child and the man was adamant that the foetus should be aborted?

My guess is that you’ll decide that under such circumstances the female’s wishes should carry more weight than the males, and I’d have to agree with you. Once you recognise that to avoid possible absurdity the female’s wishes with regard to this question  have to carry more weight than those of the male then the only question left is why.

Why should the female's choice carry more weight if they both put in equal amounts of chromosomes?

The problem with the original question is the presumption that the male/female investment in an offspring is equal simply because the number of chromosomes supplied by each is equal. This assumption ignores completely the total investment put in by each, which is massively asymmetrical in nature, the female having far more invested in the offspring (though paradoxically both gain equally from their investments – replication of their genes) than her partner.

[This message has been edited by Toad (06-14-2003 06:30 AM).]

serenity blaze
Member Empyrean
since 02-02-2000
Posts 28839


10 posted 06-14-2003 07:06 AM       View Profile for serenity blaze   Email serenity blaze   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for serenity blaze

This is why I ALWAYS kiss toads.

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


11 posted 06-14-2003 01:22 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"The problem with the original question is the presumption that the male/female investment in an offspring is equal simply because the number of chromosomes supplied by each is equal. This assumption ignores completely the total investment put in by each, which is massively asymmetrical in nature, the female having far more invested in the offspring"


It is very true that the "investment" is assymetrical, but it is not unilateral.  The choice of abortion is definitely unilateral.  So the original question is still valid.  When a woman gets to choose abortion, the rights of Fathers are overlooked, as well as the rights of the unborn.

And this is not a question, I think, about the mother's wishes carrying more weight than the father's.  It is a question concerning the fact that the father's wishes (in abortion) carries no weight at all.  Again, how can this be justified?


Stephen.




[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 01:26 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


12 posted 06-14-2003 01:46 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

It's much easier to justify, Stephen, if hidden assumptions are first questioned.

If a woman developed a case of genital herpes, would she have to consult the man who gave it to her before getting it treated? The conclusions you've presented, and indeed the very question itself, presupposes that everyone here agrees that a child is defined by conception. Without that line drawn in the sand, there is no mother, no father, no shared responsibility. Only when a mix of cells is deemed "human" do any of these questions come into play.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


13 posted 06-14-2003 02:37 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

" Only when a mix of cells is deemed "human" do any of these questions come into play."


And equally, only if a mix of cells is deemed "non-human" ... and stays nonhuman, do these questions become irrelevant.   The fact that what some consider to be only a cluster of somatic cells will, if uninterrupted, become human, is enough to place the burden of proof on the other side.  Do we hold no interest, say, in stock investments just because they are not ripe and ready to sell?  I absolutely do not agree with the view that a fetus has no value as a human.  But even if I did, there is a future value, which IS a value.  


Let me a share a little something personal Ron.

My wife and I have a 5 year old boy.  We have been trying since about a year after his birth to have another baby.  We have not succeeded to get pregnant.  We are considering adoption now, and also trusting that if the Lord wants us to have another child naturally, he will provide.  But just ask anyone out there who struggles with infertility and wants a child, what a fetus is worth.  Let's come off of a philosophical high horse for a while, and talk common understanding.  All fetuses at least become human in the long run.  


Stephen  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 02:44 PM).]

Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 05-19-99
Posts 9708
Michigan, US


14 posted 06-14-2003 03:01 PM       View Profile for Ron   Email Ron   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Ron's Home Page   View IP for Ron

Everything has value to someone, Stephen. Some things even, I think, have intrinsic value. That hasn't really ever been the question.

The question is HOW MUCH should something be valued. Would you pay as much for hamburger as for a porterhouse? Would you sacrifice a woman's life for the "future" life of her fetus? Does a two-week-old fetus carry exactly the same value as an eight-month-old fetus? I don't think even the most callous person would claim that the potential of a fertilized ovum is without value. But potential value is never without cost to someone, too, and clearly there are people who feel the cost to them is sometimes greater than the value. There's certainly nothing wrong in disagreeing with them, but that's all it is -- a disagreement over costs and values.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


15 posted 06-14-2003 03:16 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Ron,

Yeah.  But it's all to easy to slip into viewing human life (or whatever you prefer to call it) as mere commodities.  


What you say does not for a moment make the questions of this thread invalid.  It may show that different people disagree upon which questions should be asked, but that's nothing new.  Your argument still does little except show that you are trying moderate from some neutrality.  Yet the strong convictions about abortion questions still rage on.  If you're trying to convince all sides that they shouldn't feel the way they do ... or even that they shouldn't try to convince others by persuasive argument, then I simply disagree.  

If God is the ultimate definer of human life ... then there is a possibility of being either right or wrong on the issues.  The very possiblity (far from certainty) at least warrants strong opinions and persuasive points.  It's almost like you're trying to say "Argue, but don't argue as if you really could be right".  I would rather hear where you draw the line on such issues (because we are dealing with legislation where lines MUST be drawn), than to hear you assert over and over how little lines matter.  


Stephen.        

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 03:18 PM).]

Toad
Member
since 06-16-2002
Posts 247


16 posted 06-14-2003 04:34 PM       View Profile for Toad   Email Toad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toad


The creation of an offspring, at least for most animals including humans, is definitely not a unilateral act. The investment of the male in most cases however is so negligible in comparison to the female that any claim for an equality of rights in whether to terminate or not is, in my eyes, simply absurd.

To give the father the right to stop a termination at the same stroke would theoretically give him the right to demand a termination. Is there anyone who really believes that males should have or deserve such a right?
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


17 posted 06-14-2003 05:01 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"The investment of the male in most cases however is so negligible in comparison to the female that any claim for an equality of rights in whether to terminate or not is, in my eyes, simply absurd."


I don't think either of the parents should have the right to terminate the pregnancy.  But seeing that this "right" is presently given to females, the question about the rights of the male does naturally lend itself.  I guess that's the question here Toad, whether or not the male's investment is so negligible as you claim.  The equation of human reproduction with animal reproduction misses a few important details....

1) The decision to procreate in humans is a conscious decision (as most have knowledge of basic biology and sex ed).  And thus it is a joint decision between a man and a woman.  

2) There is in the capacity in both the Father and Mother to anticipate the enjoyment of a full human birth.  

3) Half of the DNA which orders nearly the entire development of the unborn, comes from the Father.

4) That conception in which the male's investment, in your opinion, is "so negligible" ... is the very and sole reason the male is legally bound to great responsibilities post birth.  It's not merely because he must consider the baby to be "now human" ... but precisely because the man participated in the conception.


Absurd?

hardly.

Stephen.    




[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 05:03 PM).]

Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


18 posted 06-14-2003 05:30 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"To give the father the right to stop a termination at the same stroke would theoretically give him the right to demand a termination. Is there anyone who really believes that males should have or deserve such a right?"


As I said before, I do not really believe that males or females should have this right.  And I agree that it would create chaos if both male and female were required to assent to abortion.  But the real reductio ad absurdum is the confused outcome we now have, through giving the right to terminate unborn human life to anyone at all.  Sure it would be a strange situation to insist both of the parent's assent for abortions.  But this absurdity is once removed.  It's also absurd to give the right of termination to the mother, while saying that Father's contribution is as trifling as an orgasm.  But really both absurdities come from saying that the unborn may be nothing more than a cluster of cells.   So you're arguing against a position I am not really supporting.  I just happen to see that the question this position brings up is valid, and reveals the dialectical tension of the first postion (pro-abortion) which I am opposed to.  As I said before ... though it's kind of sneaky... the only reason I would want to see the rights of both parents' involved is that it would surely issue in less abortions.  Because the times when both parents would agree, would be significantly less frequent than the times when an individual woman would want an abortion.  It would be the lesser of two evils in my eyes.  But equality of male and female rights for abortion is certainly not a point I am trying to defend.  But I will say that it's questions and concerns are valid ones, especially to point out a larger problem.


Stephen.    

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 05:40 PM).]

Toad
Member
since 06-16-2002
Posts 247


19 posted 06-14-2003 05:47 PM       View Profile for Toad   Email Toad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toad


Slipping into viewing all life as a commodity is a distinct advantage if that is, in essence, what life is. To find that out we need to understand why plants and animals reproduce. If the answer is to ensure genetic survival then offspring as carriers of our genes could definitely and reasonably be viewed as a valid commodity.

My personal opinion is that the elusive line you keep mentioning shouldn’t be drawn at all, that the mother should have the right to terminate her parental obligation at any point.

Why the male investment is negligible (in humans)

The energy expended in creating the reproductive cells is far greater in females than males, this is due to the fact that the female supplies all the stored energy within her egg to sustain growth in the early stages of pregnancy.

Human females normally only produces one child in a period of nine months the investment in that child equates to 100% of the possible total, males on the other hand have the potential to inseminate hundreds of females in the same period. If we round it down to 50 the investment in one is only 2% of the total available by comparison.

Females undergo massive physiological and psychological changes during pregnancy some of which, including the actual birth itself are potentially life threatening or have a adverse effect on their health and wellbeing. Males dying during childbirth are a fairly rare occurrence.

Human females are forced to expend massive amounts of energy to sustain the offspring during, and for an extended period after, pregnancy. Males are totally free from this expenditure.

And of course females also manage to supply half of the genetic material on top of all this.

I still maintain that the investment by male placental mammals (humans included) in propagation of offspring is negligible.
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


20 posted 06-14-2003 06:11 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

"Slipping into viewing all life as a commodity is a distinct advantage if that is, in essence, what life is. To find that out we need to understand why plants and animals reproduce. If the answer is to ensure genetic survival then offspring as carriers of our genes could definitely and reasonably be viewed as a valid commodity."

Well then I guess Human oppression and harm is okay as long as I view it with an end to propagate my own DNA?  And since when is terminating pregnancy helpful to ensuring genetic survival?  Killing your offspring seems anti-productive to this end.  Also there are many who deny the view that individual lives are no more than tools for spreading genes around.  This is a Darwinian naturalistic view of reality that I, and many others,  do not hold.  


"My personal opinion is that the elusive line you keep mentioning shouldn’t be drawn at all, that the mother should have the right to terminate her parental obligation at any point."


Really?  How about a mother who feels that she has the right to terminate her parental obligation at 2 weeks post birth ... and not only terminate her obligation, but do so by an act of terminating the life of the baby?  Where do you draw the line and why?


"I still maintain that the investment by male placental mammals (humans included) in propagation of offspring is negligible."


As to the female's investment.  I agree that she gives much more physically and emotionally than the male.  But the fact that a Maserati is what it is, does not make a Mazda not exist.  


You are talking sheer bilogy, as to the Male Human's investment.  If you are denying that there is much more than that, you are at odds with how the great majority of Fathers feel.  This is biological reductionism, and you still don't address the points I raise.  Again ...If the contribution of the Male in conception is so negligible, why is he legally held to resposibilites post birth, based upon his involvement in conception?  I mean, why should I have to buy the whole house, if all I did was drop a fingernail clipping on the carpet?  


Stephen

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 06:18 PM).]

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


21 posted 06-14-2003 06:19 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle



"The creation of an offspring, at least for most animals including humans, is definitely not a unilateral act. The investment of the male in most cases however is so negligible in comparison to the female that any claim for an equality of rights in whether to terminate or not is, in my eyes, simply absurd.

To give the father the right to stop a termination at the same stroke would theoretically give him the right to demand a termination. Is there anyone who really believes that males should have or deserve such a right?"

No I do not believe males should have a say in the decision a woman makes, nor do I believe that the investment is an equal one.
My question was not should males have a legal right to prevent an abortion.
I was not asking at what point a fetus could be called a child, or at what point a group of cells could be referred to as "life"
I was not asking if abortion was right or wrong.Either way, it is legal.


What I asked, was should a man have the right to "abort" his legal responsability to a child?If a woman decides to carry a fetus to term, and the male does not wish to be a father.Should he be able to legally proclaim he would bear no responsability to that child? No child support, no contact, no obligation in any way.
It is a cruel question, and yes it is absurd.I am not saying that as a male I desire this right.
I am asking if one is legal, should not the other be legal also?
Jason Lyle
Senior Member
since 02-07-2003
Posts 1519
With my darkling


22 posted 06-14-2003 06:21 PM       View Profile for Jason Lyle   Email Jason Lyle   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Jason Lyle

Just as I feared, this turns into a prolife/prochoice argument.That is not the question I asked.

Jason
Stephanos
Deputy Moderator 1 Tour
Member Elite
since 07-31-2000
Posts 3496
Statesboro, GA, USA


23 posted 06-14-2003 06:39 PM       View Profile for Stephanos   Email Stephanos   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems   Click to visit Stephanos's Home Page   View IP for Stephanos

Jason,

You are making a good point, which I don't think Toad is addressing head on.  He has argued that the male's contribution to the pregnancy is negligible.  I don't agree with this.  But if we take this to be true, then how much more should the Male also be able legally to withdraw his responsiblities, seeing the Female has the right to do so.  If I only invest $1.00 in a new Tech company and it crashes, why should I be required to suffer the responsibility of someone who invested $1000.00?  Why should the Male who presumably invests such a paltry sum in the pregnancy be forced to bear his responsibility post birth, seeing that the woman (who is presumably much more responsible) may end the whole thing at any time.  It is a double standard, and Toad's insistence on the smallness of the male's input, in my opinion, only makes the question more poignant.  


I believe theoretically, if the female alone has the right to terminate a pregnancy, the Male should have the same right to terminate his responsibilites.  But under NO circumstances do I believe that the male should have that right.  So I feel like given the first, the second (theoretically)  should follow.  But one wrong can't be used to justify a second.  In my opinion, it would be almost like saying, If they get to do it, WE should get to do it too.  But I reject both wrongs in my mind.  So I as male would gladly give up such a "right" if it were offered.  Men are just as morally obligated to take care of their children, as women are obligated to bear them (once pregnant).  And if women are allowed to deny this responsibility, then I don't think men should follow suit.  But your theoretical point is taken.  

Stephen.  

[This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 06:44 PM).]

Toad
Member
since 06-16-2002
Posts 247


24 posted 06-14-2003 07:24 PM       View Profile for Toad   Email Toad   Edit/Delete Message      Find Poems  View IP for Toad

Stephan

Well then I guess Human oppression and harm is okay as long as I view it with an end to propagate my own DNA?

Well you’d be wrong to infer that from what I said on two counts, the first being that the offspring viewed as a commodity in genetic reproduction as I described it isn’t related to oppression or harm in any way - in fact quite the opposite. The second count would be that such behaviour would only result in successful propagation under very extreme circumstances.

Really? How about a mother who feels that she has the right to terminate her parental obligation at 2 weeks post birth ...

Up to this point in this statement you’re accurately representing what I actually said.

and not only terminate her obligation, but do so by an act of terminating the life of the baby? Where do you draw the line and why?

Terminating parental obligation post birth by terminating the life of the child would be parental infanticide, I would therefore firmly draw the line between parental infanticide and terminating parental obligation.

You are talking sheer bilogy, as to the Male Human's investment. If you are denying that there is much more than that, you are at odds with how the great majority of Fathers feel. This is biological reductionism, and you still don't address the points I raise. Again ...If the contribution of the Male in conception is so negligible, why is he legally held to resposibilites post birth, based upon his involvement in conception? I mean, why should I have to buy the whole house, if all I did was drop a fingernail clipping on the carpet?


As far as I’m aware animal reproduction is a biological process which would infer that “talking sheer biology” would be somewhat advantageous. I can understand how a father feels - I am one and I don’t deny that a large amount of emotional investment is involved but I suggest that an equal or greater emotional bond is possible between a mother and a child.

Sorry I didn’t answer your question as to why are males legally held to responsibilities after birth I’ll redress that now.

Society has determined that they should.

As to your other points:

1) The decision to procreate in humans is a conscious decision (as most have knowledge of basic biology and sex ed). And thus it is a joint decision between a man and a woman.


This infers that animals procreate without thought, which I don’t believe, but even if humans are special in that regard the investment my male and female on this point are equal.

2) There is in the capacity in both the Father and Mother to anticipate the enjoyment of a full human birth.

Anticipation isn’t an investment

3) Half of the DNA which orders nearly the entire development of the unborn, comes from the Father.

And half comes from the mother

4) That conception in which the male's investment, in your opinion, is "so negligible" ... is the very and sole reason the male is legally bound to great responsibilities post birth. It's not merely because he must consider the baby to be "now human" ... but precisely because the man participated in the conception.

The fact that the male participated in an act that requires two people makes him legally co-responsible for the offspring in the eyes of society, it does not make his investment in that offspring any greater than negligible in comparison to the females investment.


Jason

Sorry for wandering where you didn’t want this thread to go, I’ll bite my tongue from now on and let it get back on track.  

[This message has been edited by Toad (06-14-2003 07:39 PM).]

 
 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