»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Abortion and parental rights
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Abortion and parental rights |
|
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
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 |
||
| © Copyright 2003 Jason Lyle - All Rights Reserved | |||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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
since 2001-09-10
Posts 10286United States |
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 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
"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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
A very good point.I agree. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"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 2000-10-29
Posts 19200Between the Lines |
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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
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 2000-02-02
Posts 27738 |
This is why I ALWAYS kiss toads. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
" 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 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"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 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
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
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
"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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Just as I feared, this turns into a prolife/prochoice argument.That is not the question I asked. Jason |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
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 2002-06-16
Posts 161 |
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).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"... the offspring viewed as a commodity in genetic reproduction as I described it isn’t related to oppression or harm in any way" Abortion is oppressive and harmful to the life of the unborn. Or were you referring to something different? "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 evaded my question quite dexterously. Again, what I am asking is, since you do not believe that a line should be drawn at all, why and upon what basis do you draw the line firmly at birth? What really is the difference 10 minutes before birth and 10 minutes after birth, that would warrant such a change in your policy? "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." You still did not answer the question. My question was WHY SHOULD males be legally held responsible after birth? If males weren't held responsible legally, and you had asked me to explain giving reason and support as to why they weren't, would it be a valid answer for me to just say "Because society says so"? This is avoidance. I am asking upon what basis has society determined that they should. I really would like to hear your answer. From how you responded, it seems that any law (just or unjust) could be protected by pointing out the fact that it has been established. "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." So legal responsibility should be based upon the fact that the male participated in an act that requires two people? Why isn't the same standard considered when it comes to abortion decisions? After birth you are applying a different standard ... an act of participation to hold the male responsible. While before birth you are applying the nebulous standard of "investment", to exclude the male's responsiblity and rights. My question is how can you justify this double standard? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 08:12 PM).] |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Toad, I want to reconsider something I wrote, and how you responded. Stephen: "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?" When you responded to this you said the first part accurately reflected your views. But you drew a line right down the middle, and stated that the second part about terminating life would be infanticide. But there is no line drawn when it comes to abortion. In fact, the only way the mother can terminate her obligation pre-birth is to terminate the life of the unborn. My question is why you are willing to draw the line and forbid taking the life immediately post-birth, but not immediately pre-birth? Don't give me a "society says" style answer. I want to know from someone who doesn't believe the line should be drawn anywhere pre-birth, why should the line be drawn even post birth? Why is infanticide and late term abortion so vastly different? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 08:33 PM).] |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
ack, more non answers to my question. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jason, I gave you a summary of my answer in post # 23. You didn't really respond to what I wrote. Sorry, if I have contributed to the diversion of your thread to the pro/ anti-abortion argument. But there's only so far you can go with this post before the question is brought up. I am basically in agreement with you that if women can choose abortion, then men's rights (along similar lines) are not even considered. But since I don't think in any way that men should have the right to choose abortion, or even to "abort" their responsibilities, I have to go back and ask are abortion rights of women any different? It seems if one is invalid then both are. I am basically in agreement with you, but maybe looking at the photo-negative of this consideration. What do you think? Do you think men should have the right to abort their responsibilities? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-14-2003 11:35 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Jason, your original question was: quote: The instant you used the word "parental," you injected a presumption that turned your question into another abortion issue. There are no parental rights and responsibilities, for the man or for the woman, until it is recognized that a child exists. The moment that recognition is given, neither the man nor the woman has the legal right to end the child's life. In short, the mother and father have essentially the same rights and responsibilities under current law. Stephen said: quote: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?" is very rarely a valid question, Stephen, because it is based on an unspoken assumption and ANY attempt to answer the question is an implicit acceptance of that assumption. The questions asked in this thread are of the same ilk. Any answer, either for or against a man's rights, will only affirm the contention that a child exists. Remove that supposition, and the questions here make little sense. Should a man be consulted before a woman seeks treatment for a STD? An argument cannot be convincingly won simply by assuming it has been won. quote: What I'm arguing, Stephen, is what I usually argue: the need for trying to understand both sides of an issue. Would you kill to protect those you love from otherwise certain death? Okay, now, would you kill to protect those you love from torture and maiming? Mmm, getting into some gray areas, yet? Would you kill to protect those you love from psychological damage? From sustained hunger and deprivation? At what point does the life of a stranger become more valued than the cost of your family's safety and comfort? Now, at what point does the potential for life become more valued than the cost a woman might have to pay to become a mother? ALL of these questions are essentially the same, and NONE of them should be easy to answer. Indeed, most can't be honestly answered until actually faced. Why should the life of your family be worth more than the life of the terrorist trying to kill them? Why should a woman's social, mental, and economic well-being be worth more than an eight-week-old fetus? The questions are not unrelated and, in spite of what some might like to believe, the answers are NOT self-evident. You can perhaps justify killing a terrorist because you likely believe his own actions have lessened the worth of his life. I very seriously doubt the terrorist would agree. A woman can justify the termination of a fetus if she can, as you did with the terrorist, lessen the worth of its potential life. For her, for you, for all of us, it all comes down to one thing being worth more than another. Abortion didn't suddenly surface with Roe versus Wade, nor will it ever go away should that decision be reversed. Some battles will never be won in the courts because, ultimately, you cannot legislate morality unless the vast majority of the people already agree with the legislation. Abortion will continue, either legally and relatively safely, or illegally and with great dangers, as long as women place less value on a fetus than they do on their own perceived well-being. Those who argue for the sanctity of life will never convince anyone of anything except, in most cases, their own hypocrisy. Convincing others to place greater value on a fetus is only half the battle, and I fear in most instances, it's a misguided effort. Merely claiming value for something doesn't impart value, and it takes a truly remarkable writer to make others accept one's own valuations as personally and universally relevant. We can call a fetus a child all day long, but until a woman feels like a mother, our impact will be minimal. It's an uphill struggle, at best, a tilting at windmills, at worst. The other half of the battle, and the half I think is more winnable, is to lower the cost to meet the perceived value. How many teenage girls are deathly afraid to tell their father they are pregnant? How many women drop out of college or quit their jobs rather than face the shame of being an unwed mother? How many meet the financial costs with no insurance and too little aid? How many look at our state-run excuses for child care and placement and justify abortion as the lesser of evils? The stigma we place on the unwed mother is nontrivial and COMPLETELY unnecessary. It serves absolutely no purpose, certainly not as a deterrent, and it raises the cost of unwanted motherhood to a level few will willingly pay. If the value of a fetus is so great, why do most people place so very little value on the woman who gives it life? When faced with the decision to kill in order to protect what we love, most of us quickly realize that the sanctity of human life is a myth. A glorious myth, but in the face of reality, still a myth. Those who face what they see as the destruction of their lives and future aren't so very different. Stephen, I'm not trying to convince you or anyone that persuasive argument is futile. I'm suggesting, rather, that the arguments need to make more sense to those you might wish to convince. And the only way I know to do that, the only way that ever works, is to seek a clearer understanding of what you would argue against. At the risk of an old cliché and a mixed metaphor, until we walk a mile in their shoes we'll never have any idea where the blisters are forming. And the Band-Aids we blindly place will do little good for any of us. |
||
|
daniel_martin Junior Member
since 2003-06-15
Posts 30london |
after studying philosophy for too long, this subject just makes me shudder! why can't we get away from moral valuations? [This message has been edited by Ron (06-15-2003 02:31 PM).] |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Why should we put up with you? |
||
|
daniel_martin Junior Member
since 2003-06-15
Posts 30london |
now that's a philosophical question. you can only argue it on utilitarian grounds.. but then there are always hidden aspects that time can only demonstrate. |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Stephen, I read your reply, and agree with what you said.I believe as you do, that theoretically men should have this right.Only because if one is legal, then the other makes sense also. To answer your question, I do not want this right.It would be a law that would cause pain, and suffering to children.So even if I had a philosophical right to a law like this.I do not want it. Ron, I can appreciate what you are saying as to how I worded my questions.The way it reads does make some assumptions.Once a women decides to carry a pregnancy to term.Some other assumptions are made as well.One of these assumptions is that the father will have something to do with the childs life after it is born.In a perfect situation, that something will be love, financial support, involvement, teaching,etc.In a bad situation, it is probably just child support and court battles. To reword the question,If a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term, and the father does not want to father a child.Should he have the right to "abort" his parental rights and responsabilities? If I read the last part of your post correct,I agree here also.Whether I agree with abortion being legal or not, a total ban on the practice will not solve the issue. Nor have I walked a mile in the proverbial shoes.I do not judge those who disagree with me and I don't believe I have the right to judge anyones decisions purely on my own convictions. Toad, Don't give up on the thread, I valued your replies.I was worried it would turn to a strictly abortion argument, which will never be won.I dont know of any moral argument that could be.A moral argument can only be an exchange of disagreements. Daniel, I have never studied philosophy, so teach me something.Is a moral valuation not a philosophical one? |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
The other half of the battle, and the half I think is more winnable, is to lower the cost to meet the perceived value. How many teenage girls are deathly afraid to tell their father they are pregnant? How many women drop out of college or quit their jobs rather than face the shame of being an unwed mother? How many meet the financial costs with no insurance and too little aid? How many look at our state-run excuses for child care and placement and justify abortion as the lesser of evils? The stigma we place on the unwed mother is nontrivial and COMPLETELY unnecessary. It serves absolutely no purpose, certainly not as a deterrent, and it raises the cost of unwanted motherhood to a level few will willingly pay. If the value of a fetus is so great, why do most people place so very little value on the woman who gives it life? Huh? Would appear to be contrary to the situation that exists in the part of the world I live in. A level "few" will willingly pay? The number of children in single mother homes is rapidly approaching the number of children living in homes with divorced parents on a national level. In inner cities, the number of births to unwed mothers exceeds births to married couples. Have you checked your local hospital lately and determined how many births are to single mothers and how many of those mothers are 11 through 15 years of age? Most high schools around here have day care centers for unwed mothers. I shan't enter the abortion debate, but the idea that stigma of unwed mothers is a serious problem is just totally out in left field to me. The women I know do not drop out of school or quit work because of the shame of being unwed mothers. I live in the bible belt and do not consider it unusual to find single women having children with absolutely no desire to be married. There may be vestiges of the stigma remaining in baby boomers, but in the generation of child bearing age, if there is a stigma, then there are one heck of a lot of stigmatized women out there. |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jason: Philosophers like Hume, Mill and Ayer attempted to reduce moral valuations to mere opinion (and I believe they failed). If all moral philosophy is mere opinion, how could any philosopher criticize what the Nazis did to the Jews during WWII? I don't think it is possible to deny the self-evident truth that the Jewish people had their rights to life and liberty stripped from them. And it was wrong for the Nazis to do that. Jim P.S. Even Nietzsche was an outspoken opponent of racism and anti-Semitism. P.P.S. Eight-year-old kicking me off the computer ... more later. Jim |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron said quote: My position is probably tightly aligned with most of what Ron has posted (although we may never know if those are his positions or if he's just postulating )But, on the above reference I did have a very close friend who would have had some things to say that would both agree and disagree -- her words, not mine. quote: [This message has been edited by Local Rebel (06-15-2003 08:48 PM).] |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
I assume that Ron was postulating. I do so, because the argument he made in the highlighted paragraph is based upon assumptions. (which I fail to find persuasive or logical) I fail to see how the feminist quote applies to those assumptions. Ron indicated that both sides of the argument ought to be explored. Not a problem. As indicated, I not engaging in the abortion debate. I have no desire to and apologize for sidetracking the discussion. The problem I have is this one paragraph which I find to be illogical and not representative of the changing views of society over the last half century. Ron indicates stigma is not a deterrent to unwed motherhood. I am not arguing whether unwed motherhood is good or bad, but I fail to see how one cannot correlate the overwhelming numbers of births to unwed mothers to the substantial weakening of the stigma attached to unwed mothers. If Ron is playing the devil's advocate, all well and fine, but we do not live in "I Love Lucy" land anymore. I would be more inclined to accept the feminist viewpoint more than Ron's although I doubt many teenage girls make decisions based upon such a thought process. |
||
|
daniel_martin Junior Member
since 2003-06-15
Posts 30london |
firstly, i wasn't claiming that moral valuations weren't philosophical content, what i was stating is that i am sick of it. This is mainly because i've just finished a paper on morality, and am sick of writing about them secondly, Ayer, Hare, (not so much Mill, being a liberal, thus his philosophy being underpinned by absolutes) argued not so much against the valuation, but the meta-ethical motive behind them. Nietzsche is the most relevant name you quoted, and i'd say that largely he succeeded on existentialist grounds. But if you want a philosopher that truly forced our thinking on moral judgements, it has to be Heidegger |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
D- Well, I might agree with Hume, and even Nietzsche, that it is futile, at least rationally, to make prescriptive judgements on existential or descriptive grounds alone. How does Hiedegger deal with self-evident, prescriptive valuations? For example, Mortimer Adler writes: quote: I think you can construct similar arguments around other human desires and needs to reach similar conclusions (e.g., freedom, life, etc.). Granted, the objectivity of the desires and needs must be defended evidentially, but isn't that what we are discussing here? Back to the discussion, I believe the abortion debate is over whether the unborn child, fetus, or whatever you want to call him/her/it is human and ought to live, and whether "forcing" a woman to have the child inequitably encroaches on her individual freedoms. In order for the latter argument to be tenable, I believe the former question must be answered in the negative. Without resorting to dogmatic assertions (either for or against abortion), deciding when the "product of conception" become human must be supported evidentially. I think that is pretty easy to do in the third trimester of development, but becomes more difficult in the second an first ... at least for now. Jim [This message has been edited by jbouder (06-16-2003 09:25 AM).] |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Jim, Thanks for the answer regarding moral valuations, I will read more on these philosphers. LR, Quote "I am not out to destroy the capitalist western culture. I merely seek a society in which a woman is not percieved to be weak because she is pregnant. I see a world where there are no crisis pregnancies because men are responsible and women can carry thier children to term without impunity." I would love to live in this world your friend seeks.Though I cannot agree with her comment that pregnant women are viewed as weak.I watched my wife go through two pregnancies, and I have never seen that much strength in a person. I agree, as long as a woman is forced to sacrifice things like careers, and force to bear more of the burden in raising children.Core issues in abortion cannot be addressed.But there will always be a sacrifice, it is the nature of parenthood.The sacrifice just needs to be equal from both parents(in rearing children, sorry ladies, I can think of no way to equalize bearing them) Jim, I wasn't asking if a man should be able to force a woman to terminate a pregnancy.As long as abortion is legal, that can never happen.I was asking that if a woman has the legal right to terminate a pregnancy, should a man have the legal right to terminate his responsability if a woman decides to carry a pregnancy to term? [This message has been edited by Jason Lyle (06-16-2003 10:47 AM).] |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Jason: The issues are not the same. Once the child is born, the playing field changes and both parents are legally, and I think morally, obligated to contribute toward the needs of the child. As Ron put it, it's called responsibility. Dad does have an out in most jurisdictions, however, if the mother marries or remarries or if another assumes responsibility for caring for the child (i.e., adoption). Every man, by the way, has the right to choose whether or not to plant the seed in the first place. Or he can have a vasectomy. Jim |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Ahh, but you are now talking about thinking ahead, that would have avoided this whole discussion.My question was before the birth...or after it is the same.the out you are talking about happens way later. The adoption does not take place until said loser dad refuses to take care of his obligations, and a better man steps in. Jason |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Setting aside the humanity of the fetus matter for a moment, are you suggesting that the State should be able to compel women to undergo potentially harmful medical procedures without their consent? Sounds like despotism to me (and a little like rape). Assuming a man is given the "right to choose" a forcible abortion, if something goes wrong with the procedure and the woman dies or is rendered infertile, should the man be liable for damages? If she dies, should he be prosecuted for murder or manslaughter? Jim |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Again, I am not suggesting a woman should be forced to have an abortion.That would be absurd.I am suggesting a man should be able to sign a peice of paper that legally states that he will not be responsable for a child he does not want, should the women decide to carry it to term.Which is also absurd. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Jason, But how can you say that an absurdity should be? Only if the grounds for that absurdity will inevitably result in absurdity. 1) A = B 2) A = C 3) C must also equal B A = 1 B = 1 C = 2 The third statement is true only if the second statement is true. If you start off assuming the second to be true, then it logically follows that the third has to be true. But if the third is shown to be false, then the second must be false. I know moral issues are not really comparable to logic, but I did this to illustrate the similar relation of things. If women have these rights then men should have these rights. But clearly Men should not have these rights. Then neither should women have these rights. Giving legal freedom to end an unborn life in the womb leads to absurdity ... Though not precisely similar, men's potential rights as to the fetus follow from the same grounds that female "rights" do. Maybe it is the "grounds" that lead to absurdity ... the grounds that anyone should have the power to end an otherwise healthy life process ... which (if you don't accept it's humanity now) will inevitably be human. I think the presumed "rights" for either a man or a woman to end life in utero is the source of the confusion we see. Stephen. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
1) A = B 2) A = C 3) X must also equal B That logic is a little closer to what I see being bandied. If you are to ask if a man should be able to sign away his responsibilities for a child, it should then be compared to the abandonment laws discussed earlier in this thread. Do those apply only to women? Is the mother the only parent who can deliver a new-born to medical authorities and then walk away? I honestly don't know. But at least the comparison is a valid one. Now, if you want to compare men and women in terms of abortion issues, let's talk about vasectomies. Snip, snip. All those hundreds of thousands of unborn spermatozoa, two or three or four of which might have realized their potential and grown into loving and caring adults, who in turn would have had children who would have had children who would have had more children. Snip, snip, and generations of unborn people die. Why? So the man could have sex with no responsibility for his actions. What? Gametes don't count? Go look any three-year-old in the eye and realize as you do that had either parent been using birth control, that child would not even exist. Right? Wrong? I don't know. But at least the comparison is a valid one. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Now, if you want to compare men and women in terms of abortion issues, let's talk about vasectomies. Snip, snip. All those hundreds of thousands of unborn spermatozoa, two or three or four of which might have realized their potential and grown into loving and caring adults" Ron, one is a done thing ... the other a "might do". It may be the difference between a signed contract and one left blank. There is a big difference between a gamate and a zygote. A gamete will never by itself turn into a baby ... not in a million years. Because it is not an organism, it is a somatic cell of an organism. The human embryo is a separate organism. You will of course say that it's still just an arbitrary judgement on our part, but a compelling one. The difference is compelling enough to consider that for a sperm to join an egg and form a zygote, an active choice must be made to do so... usually with full knowledge. With the fetus, nothing must be done moreso than the general care of oneself and birth will happen ... and even that doesn't have to be done to the utmost. I've seen babies born out of the most careless situations imaginable. But when a scaple or a suction device is introduced, the unborn child doesn't have a chance. You might point out the differences of my comparison. But are you blind to the differences of yours? Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-17-2003 12:53 AM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Of course there are differences, Stephen. Until you or I give birth, those differences are a bit inevitable. But I'm comparing apples and oranges, while earlier comparisons were between apples and tennis balls. The one is not a "done thing," not until the fetus is viable, and the "might do" is pretty much a will do for most men outside the clergy and under the age of a hundred. No, a gamete will never by itself turn into a baby. Neither, by itself, will a zygote. And, yes, it an arbitrary judgement, but not at all a compelling one. You are essentially saying that one has "more" potential for life than the other. You might as well argue that a child with an I.Q. of 120 should be educated, but a child with an I.Q. of only 90 should not. Human life cannot be easily defined by a point on a line. My life didn't suddenly spring into being during a brief second when my parents were having sex. Had my mother miscarried, perhaps never even knowing she was pregnant, I would not today exist. Had either parent been using birth control, I would not today exist. Had my grandfather been killed in war, I would not today exist. Had my great-grandmother been executed by the state, I would not today exist. The decisions and actions that led to me go back hundreds of years, and each is so vitally important that the elimination of even one would surely eliminate me. At what point during those few hundred years did the potential for my life suddenly deserve the protection of society? Why is that point more important than any before it? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, Your stretching this back to Adam does very little to prove that gametes should be treated as individual human life. Regardless of what this type of muddling does for the argument, there is a basic scientific recognition that conception is the beginning of a unique human organism. Embryology textbooks state that fertilization is the place where somatic cells make the transition into another organism. Can we pinpoint an exact moment as to fertilization? No, but can we pinpoint exactly anything? We can get pretty close. Your argument about the possibility of inserting infinitely smaller slices of individual moments between points on a continuum proves what? That's philosophical bologna. A positive pregnancy test, or a missed menstrual period, and we're safely past the uncertainty regarding fertilization. Is the unborn viable to live without the mother? No. It wasn't meant to. Neither can a week old infant survive without the mother's constant care. "My life didn't suddenly spring into being during a brief second when my parents were having sex." How do you know? You definitely had a beginning as an individual organism. And I would say valuable as a human from the moment of your beginning. "Had my mother miscarried, perhaps never even knowing she was pregnant, I would not today exist." Miscarriages are regrettable. But we have no moral responsibility to what we cannot control. "At what point during those few hundred years did the potential for my life suddenly deserve the protection of society?" I would daresay that all along the line, your ancestors were recognized as human beings and protected, which also protected your potential life. But where you do not yet exist as an organism, you yourself cannot be protected as a person. You can't even be adequately predicted! If you want to compare gametes in the loins of your Great Great Greats, with a human embryo, you are comparing dirt and apples! Embryology may have nothing to say about "personhood", but it is definitive about the beginning of the human organism. Oh and I just read recently (correct me if I'm wrong) but people can be charged with manslaughter in twenty some odd States for killing a fetus through an accidental act, or an act of violence. Yet we can also abort them. The point needs to be defined, and if we pin the point on developed properties rather than mere pregnancy, these properties will always spill over into the born community as well. There is a strong argument that a newborn is not self aware either. Does that make him or her non-human? The human organism has an identifiable beginning. Perhaps this beginning is not indentifiable to the infintesimally small and discrete point you would like to exact from me to prove your argument. But I think every young lady can tie down a moment of realizing her pregnancy. And practically this is all we need. Given that we, as human organisms, require a beginning (with conception being the naturally given, and traditionally accepted line of recognition), it would make much more scientific, philosophical, moral, and legal sense to ascribe intrinsic human value according to what we are in essence and nature, rather than what properties we might come to develop. Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-17-2003 03:07 AM).] |
||
|
JP Senior Member
since 1999-05-25
Posts 1343Loomis, CA |
I think the original question is well worth investing time in considering and answering. If a couple gets pregnant (by accident let us say, defective condoms, a little leakage, something inadvertant), if the conception were not a result of negligence, and the couple does not agree on the outcome of the pregnancy (she decides to keep it, he doesn't want it), how is it fair that the man cannot abort his legal obligation to the baby he does not, did not, and will not want? Yes it takes two to cause the pregnancy but that is hardly sufficient reason to force someone to pay for something for 18+ years is it? When the decision to end or endure the pregancy is made (by the woman, without consideration of the wishes of the man) then the legal responsiblities of the man should end. The act that concieved the child was consensual, two were invovled, two were responsible. After that the man has no rights in determining the path of the pregnancy. At that point the man should no longer be held responsible for the rest of the 'situation'. Yesterday is ash, tomorrow is smoke; only today does the fire burn. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: The "naturally given and traditionally accepted line of recognition," Stephen, is still the birthday. We don't celebrate Washington's or Lincoln's conception day, do we? And I won't even ask when you might want to celebrate Christmas? I understand, of course, that in YOUR mind the line has already been drawn. You see no reason to push your line backwards and very compelling reasons to not move it forwards. What I'm hoping to accomplish, Stephen, is to show you that your truths are neither self-evident nor inescapable. They are based as much on faith and belief as on logic and reason, and while there's certainly nothing wrong with that, you should realize that YOUR faith and YOUR belief are unlikely to be as compelling to others as they are to you. quote: In my opinion? It's more than sufficient reason. Actions beget responsibilities. And while there are many, many circumstances outside the man's control that may later absolve him of those responsibilities, there is nothing that will ever negate those responsibilities. In the vernacular, "You play, you pay." |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Tim, What you speak of (and Ron) are both indicators of the cultural divide. What is the dillema of the teenage pregnant daughter of Jerry Falwell as compared to Gerry Ford, Jerry Seinfeld, Geraldine Ferraro, or Jerry Garcia? |
||
|
jbouder Member Elite
since 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
Tim: quote: Fatherhood certainly does involve sacrifice. Sometimes far more than you expect. But I think the return you stand to gain from your investment in the 18+ years of that child's life far exceeds the investment, even under the most difficult of circumstances (and the circumstances can get very difficult sometimes). But as LR pointed out, we find ourselves in the "cultural divide." Maybe I'm just "old-fashioned" like Ron, but I'm with him on this one, though. Jim |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Quote: "In my opinion? It's more than sufficient reason. Actions beget responsibilities. And while there are many, many circumstances outside the man's control that may later absolve him of those responsibilities, there is nothing that will ever negate those responsibilities. In the vernacular, "You play, you pay." I agree Ron, but how is this argument any differant for the male, than it is for the female? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Ron, So we don't celebrate formally someone's "conception day". So? How does that illustrate in any way that Conception is not a traditional point of recognition? Even today, ultrasounds are shown with parental pride, and recieved with joy by friends and family ... never thought of as merely showing off uterine tissue. Sorry Ron, though I will concede that we respond to the recognition of different points with varying amounts of celebration, this does not mean that the knowledge of pregnancy is not traditionally a point of recognizing that a human life is already begun in the womb. If we do not retain this traditionally accepted view of pregnancy, then we must create our own line ... where do we stop it Ron? How come embryology text books know where individual human life starts, but we want to pontificate about why philosophically we should be able to arbitrate when human life begins? You may say that even those who define embryology are making arbitrary judgements, but this is your usual attempt to render all judgements of equal value, and so none can be right or wrong. If it happens so naturally in the scientific realm, why can't we have the same clarity in the moral and legislative realm? I think we can. But we want to establish our own code and path for what is moral and immoral, based upon our convenience and desires. Is it more immoral to kill a late term fetus, than to kill a week old infant? If yes, then why? If no, you are in a quandary. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"You play, you pay." Yes, I too would like to know why this does not apply to women who desire abortions. Because once the "tissue" is removed, there can be no more responsibility about it. It is counter-intuitive to the argument of responsibility. Stephen. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"What I'm hoping to accomplish, Stephen, is to show you that your truths are neither self-evident nor inescapable. They are based as much on faith and belief as on logic and reason, and while there's certainly nothing wrong with that, you should realize that YOUR faith and YOUR belief are unlikely to be as compelling to others as they are to you." Follow the path of your view to it's full implications. Do you believe it is "self evident" that you should be able to walk out in your front yard without being severely flogged? Neither is this written with indelible ink across the brows of all men. But I would think that you might still argue that it should be pretty much universally accepted. What I am getting at, and what I am trying to get you to see, is that by your apparant standards there is NOTHING in life which is self evident. This is a great supposition that all totalitarian governments and many despots have quite enjoyed acting on as well. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-17-2003 08:13 PM).] |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: In my opinion, it's not any different, Jason. Both mother and father assume a responsibility for the child. quote: Whose morality would you like me to cite, Stephan? Mine? Yours? The conscientious objector who would go to prison or even die at the hands of an enemy rather than take a human life? The vegan who prizes all life so dearly she will neither eat the meat nor wear the skin of any animal? Whose morality would you like deciding how you must live your life tomorrow? Morality, if it is to have weight, is something someone believes. Not something legislatively shoved down their throat. Now, if you will allow me to change your question to address legality and social practicality, I'll try to answer as best I can. Is there ever a legitimate reason to terminate a late-term fetus? Sadly, yea, there is. If the life of the mother is judged to be in serious jeopardy, her life will take precedence over that of the unborn child. Is there ever a legitimate reason to terminate a week-old infant? I don't know how legitimate it is, but it very tragically happens every single day. When there isn't enough food to feed all the children in a family, parents make some very hard choices, which even more tragically are predicated on the choices of governments. All of which is completely irrelevant. No one in society is advocating abortion of a late-term fetus or a week-old infant. No one denies that a child deserves the protection of the law. quote: Then I'm obviously not making my standards clear, Stephen. I believe there are many, many things which are self-evident truths. Your definition of when life begins just isn't one of them. And please realize that is not the same as saying your definition can't BE a truth. It may well be so. But it's not a self-evident one that can be accepted on your faith or your belief. If you are to convince a woman that the two ounces of undifferentiated cells growing in her womb is precious, I honestly think you have to come up with something better than "because I say so." |
||
|
Kamala Member
since 2003-04-17
Posts 59CA, USA |
I have a friend who is deeply christian and was ALWAYS anti-abortion... naturally. well, she was in a relationship with a guy who didn't treat her all that well, and just a few weeks before their break up they had sex and she became pregnant. She called him, they met up, and she told him in person about her pregnancy. He responded by saying that he would be there for her whatever she decided, that he would support her decision, etc. etc. etc. All of the stuff that sounds good. Four days later, she caught him with another woman. He proceeded to not make good on ANYTHING he had told her, and she became a nuisance to him. It was *extremely* difficult for my friend to make the decision to have an abortion (as you might imagine). It went against EVERYTHING she believed in. But this was clearly a situation of this guy not really valuing the child he had conceived and "aborting" his responsibility for it. So, she got the operation and has had to live with all of the physical, emotional, and religious turmoil that has ensued for her. And the fact of the matter is that this is the scenario in an overwhelming majority of cases. The fact is, men have been aborting their responsibilities/obligations to the children they conceive for YEARS. Just compare the number of single moms to the number of single dads. Child support laws and such have been put into place to try and prevent women from being ****ed out in the cold over and over again. Even still, men continue to abort their responsibilities to the babies they conceive. So, I find this argument pretty annoying and a lot of the views rather ignorant of the way these situations normally work. Stephanos is talking as if every guy would WANT the baby and should have the right to make a woman have it for him. And quite frankly, no man -- as has been pointed out -- can POSSIBLY understand what it is to be pregnant and what it is to have a child OR what the intricacies of individual situations may be. To me, Toad seems to me to be on the right track here. And there are plenty of demographics to support this all around us. Women assume or are left with or must take the overwhelming responsibility for any child they bring into this world (even when they are in loving partnerships with supportive husbands). Thus, women should be the ones making the choice. Because -- maybe not physically, but -- men have been making the choice to "abort" as defined by this discussion for a long, long time. And they haven't needed a law to tell them whether or not they can do it. Kamala |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Amen sister. Unfortunately, you are correct. |
||
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
I have been purposely staying out of this discussion due to the fact that I am too close to it at this moment. I am currently in the situation that Jason described as far as (possibly) having kids and not having any rights. I ended up with a one nighter with the friend of a friend(stupid, I know) and a few months later, I get that dreaded phone call. She knew my thoughts on the subject (I wasn't looking for anything past that night), and she got my number from my friend, and my cell number, and she called them both numerous times a day (even before the "guess what" call). Fast forward: I find out she was taking fertility drugs to attempt to get pregnant, and would sleep with one guy every month. I also found out that the birth control pills she showed me were not being taken, and were being used to convince her "victim" that she was safe. Now she is insisting that we are getting married, and moving in together, and the whole bit. If they are my kids (We are waiting for the DNA results now... which I had to threaten legal action to get)I am willing to be there for the kids financially... however, with this girl actually having done everything that she was, and acting as psychotically as she is, and tricking me into the situation and attempting to trap me like this, I have absolutely ZERO rights except to pay child support, and deal with her (this according to my lawyer). Getting back to Jason's question: Should I be forced to even be a part of this situation that I had no desire and no intention to get into. As everyone on here knows, I have 2 kids and would do ANYTHING for tham, and am in a custody fight over them, so I don't want to hear about the "accepting fatherhood" argument. Should I be legally forced to sacrifice a substancial portion of my paycheck to a woman who lied to me to have kids, and to get a husband??? Should I be allowed to tell her (legally) to hose off??? I think so, actually. However, that is just me. Day after day I'm more confused, |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Kamala, Sadly, you speak much the truth about alot of these "situations".I agree with most it. Many of us are also good fathers.Despite what you have said, you have not invalidated the question.You have only stated that because alot of men are louts, they have no rights in the matter.thats the same kind of argument as... "more men speed, only women should drive" "men tend to be more violent, only women should own guns" "women are not as physically strong, only men should be in the military" All true statements, that do not logically justify the conclusion. Ringo, That is one of those rare situations that led to the question.I feel for you and wish you the best.Most of all, I feel for the child, should she deliver it. What a psycho Good luck Jason |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
"Morality, if it is to have weight, is something someone believes. Not something legislatively shoved down their throat." We are discussing legislation by the way. And don't merely tell me your philosophical opinion how law is never based on morality. If there were no universal concept of right and wrong among humans, law would never have arisen. Am I suggesting that the ultimate enforcement of morality should be legislative? Of course not. So don't go there. It is illegal to kill 1 week old infants no matter if we believe in infanticide or not. It is "shoved down our throat", as the law is enforced, regardless of beliefs. Your use of the phrase "shoved" is nothing more than an attempt to make those who believe abortion should be illegal look tyrannous somehow. But really anyone who feels strongly and pushes for legislation of anything is open to like criticism. It is hollow criticism. "Is there ever a legitimate reason to terminate a late-term fetus? Sadly, yea, there is. If the life of the mother is judged to be in serious jeopardy, her life will take precedence over that of the unborn child." How common is this? Really? Tell me from a medical standpoint, how often a late term fetus causes a mother's life to be in serious jeopardy. "No one in society is advocating abortion of a late-term fetus or a week-old infant" Your just plain wrong here. Read the news about how different groups are reacting to Partial Birth Abortion (D&X) being banned. There are many advocating this very thing. I'm not saying that you are advocating abortion of late-term fetuses, but it is mistaken to say that there is no one in society pushing for this right. "If you are to convince a woman that the two ounces of undifferentiated cells growing in her womb is precious, I honestly think you have to come up with something better than "because I say so."" I have never just based what I say, upon "I said so". I have stated that the universally accepted scientific line of where the individual human organism begins is conception. Undifferentiated cells? Ron either you are ignorant of this biology, or you are being the obscurantist again. This just isn't true. Immediately after fertilization, the zygote is profoundly different from any other cell in the female's body. In fact it is the only one which will develop into an infant from it's own set of code, rather than the mother's. The speed of differentiation (for organ systems etc... is extrememly fast). Remember this clump of cells has a 4 chambered beating heart in 3 weeks, and often has a different blood type than the mother. I could talk a lot about how this should be deemed precious. But mere value in the eyes of the parent is not, and has never been what I am arguing in this thread. Many parents do not value their 10 year old children. But that does not make them non-human. And the law should protect them regardless of the parental estimation. The law should protect them because they are human. So I could with equal weight mirror your own words and say: If you are going to convince anyone that the fetus is essentially non-human because of some unacquired quality of your choosing, you have to come up with something better than "because I say so". "And quite frankly, no man -- as has been pointed out -- can POSSIBLY understand what it is to be pregnant and what it is to have a child OR what the intricacies of individual situations may be." This is philosphy class, and no argument can be discounted merely because of the gender of the arguer. It is the arguments themselves that must be considered. Because there are many females who are pro-life also, who would give the same reasons. If arguments are discredited because they come from males, then a large part of the arguments are discounted here on this thread, even the ones different than my own. The problem is, that many who do understand the intricacies of pregancy and of individual situations (women) view this quite differently. So the question remains: which view is best? Stephen. [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-18-2003 05:23 PM).] |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Jason- In a word... Twins. (3 months early) Day after day I'm more confused, |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Ringo, If congratulations are in order, congratulations. And best wishes for the children, 3 months early! I pray for thier health. Jason [This message has been edited by Jason Lyle (06-19-2003 03:31 PM).] |
||
|
Kamala Member
since 2003-04-17
Posts 59CA, USA |
Ringo -- I am extremely sorry for your situation. It is reprehensible that a woman would do such a thing to "trap" a man, and I have no respect for that kind of behavior. I hope that you are able to reach some sort of compromise with her about the situation. I have a friend who was put in a similar situation when he found his psycho ex poking holes through a condom with a needle. He was only 20 at the time. She carried the child to term and they decided to place it up for adoption, and they found a great home for the baby. Although it may be a different end, I hope your child (if it is yours) finds an equally happy one. --------------------- Having said that... I do want to point out that men in such situations could avoid the whole thing by NOT leaving the responsibility of protection up to the woman. Especially a one-nighter. And this is something else that upsets me about sexual relations. SO MUCH of the responsibility is placed on women to protect themselves. The overwhelming buffet of protective devices all relate to and/or alter the female body. And frankly, that sucks. Because it can take such a toll. Just last week, for instance, I was in the ER because of complications related to the BCP. And I just don't think it's fair that I should have to be the one to think about it all the time. I think that if guys DO NOT want to be in this situation, they should put on a condom. It's so much easier and less complicated for them than so many methods are for women. And if a one-night-stander says she's on the pill... why not say, "Well, but I insist." ESPECIALLY if you don't know the person that well. You know? And I'm not saying this to make Ringo, specifically, feel bad. And obviously, she is also indubitably in the wrong. But I hope you all understand what I'm getting at. ------------------- Jason, i think you somewhat missed my point. my whole point was that as far as the initial question goes (Should men be allowed to legally "abort" their responsibility for a child?)... men ALREADY do that and have BEEN doing it for many, many years. The whole notion of making men legally take responsibility for the children they conceive is a pretty friggin new one. And thus, I basically find the original question sexist and uninformed. That being said, I DO think that women who abuse those new laws -- as in my friend's ex's case or the psycho in Ringo's case -- should be held accountable or prosecuted in some way. But as I said above (at least in Ringo's case), the situation could've been prevented by his taking responsibility for protecting himself and not relying on her/trusting her to do it. In a situation like my friend's, where he WAS taking responsibility for protecting himself and wearing a condom but the woman was sabotaging it, there's no excuse. I think by all means, he should've been allowed to say -- "This was a cruel and devious deception, I do not want to take responsibility for this child." And there should've been some legal action there that he could take. So basically... I DON'T think that my views are as simple as "men are louts, only women should decide." I was merely pointing out that men have been "aborting" responsibility without the need for laws for a long long time. And as far as who should be held responsible and who should be allowed to make decisions... I do still think that women should more often than not be the primary decision bearers re: their own bodies and offspring. But in cases where men are victimized -- as in my friend's case -- I'm not completely black and white about it. In Ringo's case, I don't think that he should be allowed to tell her to "hose off" simply because he made the mistake of trusting someone he hardly knew and not protecting HIMSELF. Still, that doesn't make her any less psycho and I in no way support/condone her actions. I'll stop there. Kamala |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
No,I got your point.You missed mine.I do not think anyone here has stated that men have not been doing exactly what you have stated for a long time. What you misunderstood, was that this statement did not justify your argument. It would be just as easy to argue with this logic, that abortion should not be legal at all.You screwed up, live with it.I do not believe that, but that is the kind of logic you have employed with your reply. |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Your response, Kamala, seems far more sexist than the question. People have been abrogating that responsibility for many, many years. Men. And women. The difference that was posited in the original question is whether it's fair that one is sometimes legal and the other is usually not. While I'm certainly sympathetic to anyone who makes mistakes, because heaven know we all do, it seems exceedingly foolish to me for someone to risk pregnancy (and there is always a risk) based on the promises of someone else. Especially someone who already treats them badly or they don't even know. I'm not trying to throw rocks, but let's face it, guys, bad judgement too often carries a high price. Hell, good judgement does, too. Even if the promises are sincere, even if the trust level is high, you're still gambling that someone will be alive next year to keep those promises. And what is it being gambled? The life of a child against a few minutes of feeling good? Russian roulette makes more sense than that. The bottom line, for me, is that everyone, male and female, needs to take responsibility for their own actions and stop blaming the results of those actions on others. Sex equals babies, and if you want the one, you better have contingency plans to care for the other. Leaving that up to someone else, or even just depending on someone else, is naïve and irresponsible. |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
And that,Ron, is the best answer yet. Jason |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
Is it safe to assume that along with responsibility comes equal rights and that once the child is born that the father should be given equal preference as being designated the custodial parent and have equal authority to make parenting decisions? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ringo, Ringo, Ringo.....  you're lucky all you caught were twins!Get a new lawyer (preferably a woman) and go for full custody (on the grounds that the mother is a loon.) Then let her pay you child support. Do you feel comfortable with your children being raised by her? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
Tim asked: quote: In my opinion, Tim? Absolutely. With the proviso that each case is unique and the ultimate decision should be based on merit. I have to add that because, even though I think each father should be given equal consideration, my personal experience has been that mothers generally make better single parents than do fathers. They multitask better, I think? But generally definitely isn't always, and it should not be the "given" that we all too frequently see in many (not all) courts. I also think the extended family should be a consideration. The ideal goal, of course, is to avoid single parent families entirely. 'Cause no one can ever really multitask well enough to replace the missing parent. |
||
|
Ringo
since 2003-02-20
Posts 3684Saluting with misty eyes |
Kamala- There was no offense taken at your reply, and in fact, there is much wisdom in your words. I am actually more upset at myself than at her. She is, in my opinion, a complete and total psychopath, yet the whole sordid affair (did I actually say that word???? lol) is severely sad to think of. SHe is THAT unhappy within herself and her life that she must resort to these tactics to find love for herself. I didn't post the event to bring responses to my particular situation, and to my own screw up, but only to add to the original discussion at hand about father's rights. LR- Don't think I don't realize my "luck" in this (lol). Once in a dream, far beyond these castle walls... |
||
|
Kamala Member
since 2003-04-17
Posts 59CA, USA |
What you misunderstood, was that this statement did not justify your argument. Argh. But my observation about what men have been doing was not related to any argument regarding the question. It was simply an observation that what you're questioning has already been going on without laws. But Ron is right. In reality, *people* have been doing this. It is both men and women, although I think that prevailing demographics most certainly show that more men than women do it. Nevertheless, I do not mean to say that it's only men and I apologize for coming off that sexist myself. As far as an argument regarding the question, I think I said in my previous post that I am in agreement with Toad's argument. Because women make more of an investment -- in terms of body, health, labor, caretaking, etc. -- I think they should be primary decision makers regarding their pregnancies. But -- also as I said above -- I believe their should be recourse for men who find themselves victimized by women abusing pregnancy or trying to use it as some sort of entrapment tactic. I am not blind to that and find it just as appalling as men who take no responsibility for the children they conceive. Both are jacked up ways of behaving. With the proviso that each case is unique and the ultimate decision should be based on merit. I have to add that because, even though I think each father should be given equal consideration, my personal experience has been that mothers generally make better single parents than do fathers. They multitask better, I think? But generally definitely isn't always, and it should not be the "given" that we all too frequently see in many (not all) courts. Now THAT I am in complete agreement with. I feel the same way about the initial question. Generally, women should be the ones to make the decision and I am in agreement with that, but generally isn't definitely. I know a gay couple that recently went through hell and back to adopt their now daughter. Here's a situation where neither of them was responsible for the pregnancy and couldn't claim any blood rights. But their mother was a former (possibly still) crack addict. So, even though my gay friends had raised this girl FROM BIRTH (because they were her foster parents), her mother still put up a hell of a fight to gain custody of her and take her away from the only loving home she had known. This woman was erratic about taking medications, a former drug addict, and (it seems to me) really wasn't considering the overall welfare of her child. In that kind of a situation... clearly I DON'T think the mom should've had as much a say -- based on the merit point that Ron raised above. I am glad, however, that it worked out and that the little girl now has a loving home with two supportive and able parents. Kamala |
||
|
Jason Lyle Senior Member
since 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
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 2003-04-17
Posts 59CA, USA |
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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
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 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
Good answer. Jason |
||
|
Tim Senior Member
since 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
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 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
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 1999-06-08
Posts 1794 |
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 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
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 1999-09-18
Posts 2534Whole Sort Of Genl Mish Mash |
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 2003-02-07
Posts 1438With my darkling |
quote: |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
