posted
And I would find such a law abhorrent. Where would it end? How about if it were a kidney instead of bone marrow? Or instead of one's child, it was a sibling or stranger?
In my analogy driving carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making a mistake is analogous to having sex carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making one mistake.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Soy-based formula IS NOT THE SAME as soy milk
In fact, every brand of soy milk I know clearly specifies that it is not to be used as infant formula.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
From the nutritionist's testimony at the trial, the child's condition could in no way be explained by what the parents said they had fed him. He certainly would not have thrived on apple juice and (plain) soy milk, but he wouldn't have wasted away down to 3 and a 1/2 pounds after 6 weeks of life. It would have harmed him, but not nearly to the very extreme level of harm shown at the autopsy.
A key element of that prosecution's case was that if they had fed the child as they had said they did, the child wouldn't have starved down literally to skin and bones--nothing but a 3 pound skeleton covered by skin. The parents were prosecuted for abuse that they later attempted to shield under the cloak of veganism.
And that was a big part of why a murder charge was sought (and substantiated), not just neglect.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I would find such a law abhorrent. Where would it end? How about if it were a kidney instead of bone marrow? Or instead of one's child, it was a sibling or stranger?
If it was a sibling or a stranger, and if you the driver hadn't compelled them in some way to be in the car with you, then obviously the comparison falls apart completely, right?
quote:In my analogy driving carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making a mistake is analogous to having sex carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making one mistake.
Except that when you drive a car, when you're using public roads, your carelessness stopped being entirely your problem. Very much like careless sex in that respect.
Voluntary actions which then involve mistakes have consequences. Just because those consequences are especially onerous is not, in itself, enough to require that the law shield us from those consequences IMO.
Also, can we dispense with the notion that a pregnancy is as troublesome as a kidney transplant of all things? Certainly it can be. A given pregnancy can be that much of a health risk. But not very often, at the least.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Voluntary actions do have consequences. The law, though, limits its enforcement of consequences enacted on people's bodies to those who have broken the law.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pregnancy isn't a consequence inflicted by law - it is a natural consequence set in course by nature, and once it has started, the consequences of ending it are felt most sharply not by the woman but by the life that gets ended. The woman at least had a choice about whether or not to engage in activity that is designed to lead to pregnancy. The life that is ended because she doesn't like natural consequences never does.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Rather a lot easier to avoid enduring as well, I should think.
quote:Voluntary actions do have consequences. The law, though, limits its enforcement of consequences enacted on people's bodies to those who have broken the law.
It seems to me your argument is that it shouldn't be illegal because the law doesn't work that way. Seems kind of circular to me.
------
quote:Pregnancy is over a year of suffering.
Well, this can be set against the rather brief suffering the fetus would endure, I suppose.`
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I did a double take on the year of suffering thing, but in my wife's case it's true. Almost from day one, she's sick and struggles to hold anything down. Throughout the entire 9 month pregnancy, she struggled with one thing or another, and then with the pregnancy she had 4th degree tears or lacerations which had to be stiched up, and caused her further agony. The recovery time for a textbook pregnancy (before she is supposed to have sex again) is 6 weeks, so even with a textbook pregnancy, we're looking at about 11 months of endurance. With my wife, we are talking right up to about or beyond the year that was mentioned.
Also, the body in general takes abuse from the pregnancy, and takes at least 6 months or so to get the pregnancy weight off. When you consider the torture the body endures with weight gain and any other physical issues, we're talking about an easy 12 months or more of torture. Of course, as my wife put it- the end result is well worth the trouble.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every one seems to miss the single biggest problem with pre-natal father's rights.
Joe and Judy "hook-up" after a night of drinking.
A month and a half later Judy confirms that she is pregnant.
In our future Utopia, Joe steps in and says, "As the father, I demand that you have this child. I will care for him or her afterwards."
Judy's reply, "It may not be yours. See, I also hooked up with Sam, Fred, and some guy who's name I don't remember."
DNA testing of the fetus is a bit difficult while its still in the womb.
I had a teacher who explained why so many early societies were matriarchal, and why with the advent of patriarchal societies we see the advent of chastity requirements. "You always know who your mother is. With your father, not so much."
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Rather a lot easier to avoid enduring as well, I should think.
How could it be hard to avoid being a bone marrow donor? If you don't sign up for it it's something you'll never even be asked to endure.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I had a teacher who explained why so many early societies were matriarchal
I'd like to see the stats on how many early societies were matriarchal, and what measurement she's using to make that estimation.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Both tests are frequently done for other reasons. The risks are relatively small.
Also, the risks are definitely less than those of an abortion.
This is true. If someone is otherwise going to have an abortion, starting with this procedure is probably not going to increase the overall risk to the mother.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Rather a lot easier to avoid enduring as well, I should think.
How could it be hard to avoid being a bone marrow donor? If you don't sign up for it it's something you'll never even be asked to endure.
Calling it "easy" to avoid unwanted pregnancy rather ignores a lot of evidence. If it was easy to do the prudent and wise thing all the time, people would make a lot fewer mistakes.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
What if the mother was raped? Should the father have a say in whether she can have an abortion?
What if the sex was consensual, but the father has since that time severely abused the mother. Should an abusive father have a say in whether the mother can abort the child?
What if there is a condition that endangers the mother's life? Should the father still be able to force the mother to carry the child to term?
What if there is a condition that doesn't endanger the mother's life, but will cause permanent damage to her health? Say for example that carrying the child to term will leave the woman unable to have future children. What choice should the father have in a case like that?
And if you think the father shouldn't be allowed a say in one or more of these situations, where do you draw the line?
It's not an easy question to answer because the questions about risk to the mother's life and health really are a continuum. Very few people would suggest a woman doesn't have the right to choose an abortion (even against the will of the father) if she will certainly die without an abortion. But what if she has a 99% probability of dying with out an abortion? What if her chances are 50/50? What if there is only a 1% chance she will die or a 1/1000 chance she will die? There are no, zero risk pregnancies so where do you draw the line. How much risk should a woman be required to take (by either the father or soceity) for the sake of the fetus?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: DNA testing of the fetus is a bit difficult while its still in the womb.
Not if you do CVS (11-13 weeks) or amnio (at least 16 weeks) it's not.
But isn't the goal to have the abortion occur as early as possible? Lots of people believe the fetus should get more rights as it gets older. By 12 weeks, the baby has all the parts, just needs to be bigger- like lungs are present if not functional. So, someone might feel comfortable aborting at 6 weeks, but not at 12 weeks and so by making them wait for test results, it basically locks them into the pregnancy.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not arguing for a "dad's veto". I just pointed out that there was a flaw to Dan's objection. And remember: those pushing for the dad veto are trying to prevent abortions. Your point about timing may not be all that convincing. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The father shouldn't be able to force the mother to have the child but the mother shouldn't be allowed to kill the father's child.
If the mother alone determines life or death the man should't be held accountable for the child. If the mother is not bound to account, fathers should be able to opt out as well.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:The father shouldn't be able to force the mother to have the child but the mother shouldn't be allowed to kill the father's child.
I'm more in favor of respecting the rights of the life that exists in the fetus rather than tying that protection to 'father's child' or 'mother's child' ideas. That's not really why we, as a society, should protect children (or suspected children)
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you completely and I don't believe a father should be able walk away free and clear. I just like pointing out the inconsistencies since abortion is legal.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I also agree with Rakeesh and Malanthrop, and based on that logic have more questions. So the fetus has it's own rights, at what point is the fetus subject to those rights? Shouldn't there be a definition of when a fetus is recognized as a right-holding member of society? I think that cut off should be in the womb, but when?
It's been discussed aborting at 6 weeks as being more acceptible than 12, but is that just because at 6 wks a fetus isn't considered as much human because it doesn't have all it's organs and it doesn't look like a little baby yet? Does abortion at 6 wks allow us to sleep better at night, since what was killed didn't LOOK like a baby yet?
When would a fetus be subject to these rights? What would these rights include? A right to live no matter who the father is perhaps? Should a fetus' right's usurp those of his parents, as long as we're talking about a healthy pregnancy situation?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
"Should a fetus' right's usurp those of his parents, as long as we're talking about a healthy pregnancy situation? "
Regardless of all the other questions, many of them valid and crucial, I feel like this, right here, is the key.
Whose rights are more important? The fetus, or that of the woman carrying it?
Now, the answer to this feels, to me, to be one of those value-laden things that sounds simple on paper, but in reality turns out to be the center of a maelstrom of beliefs, assumptions (in the sense that for any system of logic, you must assume something to be true, don't you? In any sense, I don't mean it in a bad way) and feelings.
I personally say the woman's rights have priority over the fetus, while she's carrying it. Now, when it's viable, such as late in the pregnancy, I feel that things such as not allowing abortion seems reasonable.
However, that doesn't mean I think abortion should be the first choice, or in fact should be something common or something one should be blase about. It's a serious decision, and in most cases, I would be ultimately against it, from the personal perspective. But it should be an option. My personal feelings on the matter is that we need to stress, both to teenagers and adults, how big a decision this is, and how important it is to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with.
Posts: 1577 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: I also agree with Rakeesh and Malanthrop, and based on that logic have more questions. So the fetus has it's own rights, at what point is the fetus subject to those rights? Shouldn't there be a definition of when a fetus is recognized as a right-holding member of society? I think that cut off should be in the womb, but when?
It's been discussed aborting at 6 weeks as being more acceptible than 12, but is that just because at 6 wks a fetus isn't considered as much human because it doesn't have all it's organs and it doesn't look like a little baby yet? Does abortion at 6 wks allow us to sleep better at night, since what was killed didn't LOOK like a baby yet?
When would a fetus be subject to these rights? What would these rights include? A right to live no matter who the father is perhaps? Should a fetus' right's usurp those of his parents, as long as we're talking about a healthy pregnancy situation?
On your point, I brought up earlier that we have allowed our ability in medical science to define this for us. When the extent of medical science was a doctor to assist in delivery, this question was not in doubt. The ability to abort has been available longer than the ability to keep a seriously premature baby alive. Now that we can keep baby's alive who are born signifigantly premature, this moves the threshold further into the preganancy. It is repugnant to know a viable baby is killed, even for most pro-choice advocates.
With medical science, is it a right to conduct any procedure, with our bodies within our capabilities?
If we have scientific ability to save a life, is there an obligation to do so?
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Now we're getting into religion and morals. Who's playing God? It is my belief God is the creater of life, so for medical science to decide God's new creation isn't good enough (of course, the woman decided first) reeks of presumption.
I understand our medical advances have been the means of curing disease and prolonging life(which is great), but at what point does our advances become presumption? I've suggested it has with abortion.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree with you on this. But unfortunately ones religious beliefs will have no sway over changing the law. Separation of church and state proponents have redefined many fundamental rights as government granted vice God given. Under this view, if it's legal, it's ok. Even the athiest humanist might be compelled against abortion, knowing the child was viable at the point of termination. Will our advances in saving the child, earlier and earlier in pregnancy change the attitude towards when life begins? At least this is my hope.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If we have scientific ability to save a life, is there an obligation to do so?
It's circumstantial. There are many circumstances where doctors could save a life but they opt not to due to various reasons. There are many circumstances where spouses or relatives have to choose between medically prolonging life or terminating life. "Obligation" is absent in many of these regards.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When it comes to reproduction, men and women aren't equal. That isn't a philosophical or legal question, its a biological fact. Any law that didn't recognize that indisputable biological inequality would be unjust.
I think there are many of inadequacies in current law regarding father's rights (and father's responsibilities) so I think there is plenty of room for debate about what rights men should have -- but to start off by saying that the law should treat men and women equally is patently ridiculous. Men and women are not equal when it comes to child birth -- they are indisputably and biologically different. Any just law has to recognize that fact.
I thought this should be repeated. Fathers have the right to not have their bodies be host to somebody else against their will. With the law as it currently stands, women have that right, too.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
It's been discussed aborting at 6 weeks as being more acceptible than 12, but is that just because at 6 wks a fetus isn't considered as much human because it doesn't have all it's organs and it doesn't look like a little baby yet? Does abortion at 6 wks allow us to sleep better at night, since what was killed didn't LOOK like a baby yet?
It isn't just about looks. While both have potential, what they actually are at the moment still matters. A bunch of cells lacking a heartbeat is a lot harder to argue for rights then something with a heartbeat. Something that feels pain gets more rights then something that doesn't (though feeling pain is more a third trimester thing).
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
This statement holds truth when talking about rape, but otherwise I disagree with the part about being a host against their will. Rape is the only time women are used when it might cause them to host another being against their will. Otherwise, all women should know that every time they consent to sex they invite the possibility of pregnancy.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And men invite the possibility of getting someone pregnant as well. Yet, they still have the right to not have their body invaded.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: By Scholarette: It isn't just about looks. While both have potential, what they actually are at the moment still matters. A bunch of cells lacking a heartbeat is a lot harder to argue for rights then something with a heartbeat. Something that feels pain gets more rights then something that doesn't (though feeling pain is more a third trimester thing).
I know what you're saying, but it's AT 6 weeks the embryo has a heartbeat. Check it out Here. I understand at a certain point a fetus graduates from being a group of DNA strands and cells into an embryo with a heart, then into a fetus. There are stages, and before the cells become an embryo, gains that beating heart, one might accept abortion as an acceptible solution to whatever problems. My question now becomes, what about the potential? The group of cells, growing insanely quickly through the cycles is still life, so again, when does it become presumption?
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
It takes two to tango, kmbboots, and unfortunately when it comes to baby-making, the women must ultimately be the ones to show the most restraint if she doesn't want to get pregnant. The woman should still know the possible repercussions to having sex, and with whom she's decided to have sex. Of course, I believe the men must show restraint and then responsibility if they screw up. I can't argue with you though, it's the woman that has the responsibilities of pregnancy.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: It takes two to tango, kmbboots, and unfortunately when it comes to baby-making, the women must ultimately be the ones to show the most restraint if she doesn't want to get pregnant. The woman should still know the possible repercussions to having sex, and with whom she's decided to have sex. Of course, I believe the men must show restraint and then responsibility if they screw up. I can't argue with you though, it's the woman that has the responsibilities of pregnancy.
So arguing that men should have equal rights is pointless. Men don't have equal responsibility.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't find any magical moment at the first heartbeat. It occurs when the primitive heart is just a tube, not even folded and separated into chambers, and the beats are more uncoordinated shudders.
In both the fetus and the adult, just about any cardiac cell can initiate a beat. Little chunks of heart tissue left over after surgery will beat on their own if suspended in the proper nutrient broth. I wouldn't ascribe special rights to such chunks of tissue leftover after surgery, though, merely because it quivers in a nutrient broth, and I wouldn't ascribe special rights to anything else merely for that reason, either.
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I thought this should be repeated. Fathers have the right to not have their bodies be host to somebody else against their will. With the law as it currently stands, women have that right, too.
Bollocks. With the exceptions of rape faulty birth control (not improperly used birth control), women even without the law as it currently stands have the right not to let their bodies be 'invaded' against their will.
While Rabbit and you are right that the biological situation isn't split down the middle, that it is unequal, the distinction you go on to make is a false one. Women have just as much ability to stop their bodies from being host to fetuses as men do. What they don't have is the ability to have as much sex as they want without any fear of ever being pregnant like men do. But that's not the same thing.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't find any magical moment at the first heartbeat. It occurs when the primitive heart is just a tube, not even folded and separated into chambers, and the beats are more uncoordinated shudders.
In both the fetus and the adult, just about any cardiac cell can initiate a beat. Little chunks of heart tissue left over after surgery will beat on their own if suspended in the proper nutrient broth. I wouldn't ascribe special rights to such chunks of tissue leftover after surgery, though, merely because it quivers in a nutrient broth, and I wouldn't ascribe special rights to anything else merely for that reason, either.
Thanks, CT--that was very well worded, and along the lines of what I was thinking about saying.
[Edit - but much better informed than my post would have been]
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not in the same way that men do which was my point.
When the responsibility and the consequences are not the same for men, it doesn't make sense to argue that the rights should be the same.
ETA: And Rakeesh, I understand that you have very fervent feelings about this, but is that language helpful?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't make sense that the rights should be the same, but it doesn't make sense that the baby has no rights at all either. It also doesn't make sense to pretend that, except for the obvious exceptions, getting pregnant is something that happens to a woman the same way getting a cold does. There is definitely, definitely actions on the part of the woman that are essential to getting pregnant.
Pretending that those actions have no natural consequences don't eliminate the natural consequences, but instead push the consequences of the woman's choice onto the most innocent and least responsible person in the group.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
Sorry about the language, I wasn't intending to be harsh. I guess to me 'bollocks' isn't much past, "Wait, I think that's really wrong." Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I think that; it's my personal connotation, not the definition, my bad. Anyway, sorry.
quote:When the responsibility and the consequences are not the same for men, it doesn't make sense to argue that the rights should be the same.
You're sidestepping the problem of whether or not there is a third party involved. If there is, biological inequality between the man and the woman might not be as weighty to the situation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
But this thread isn't about whether there's a third party involved. It's about "equal rights for men."
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The existence of the third party matters. That's why it isn't solely of concern to the woman - that's the man's child, and he should be able to protest if the child is going to be destroyed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saying that a father has the right to protest because it is his child is completely different from saying that a fetus is a person with his or her own right to life.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it all depends on what you mean by a right to protest. The right to free speech pretty much guarantees the father the right to express his objection in all kinds of ways. But since you are arguing that a man should have a right to protest, I suspect you think he should have more voice than is simply guaranteed him as free speech. But its a rather pointless argument unless you specify how much more.
Should the mother be legally required to
a) inform the father? b) consult with the father? c) receive permission from the father?
d) Should a father be able to demand some sort of compensation if his child is aborted without his consent?
Should those requirements be enforced if
a) the father raped the mother? b) the father has abused the mother? c) the mother's life is at risk? d) the mother's health is at risk?
I think it is very difficult for a person who opposes abortion to separate the issue of the father's rights from the overall opposition to abortion. I think the hope that requiring the father's permission might stop some abortions overrides the underlying issues.
Which is why I keep asking these question. In my mind it boils down to this. Are there any circumstances in which you would find abortion an acceptable choice if it were made by both mother and father together but would not find it an acceptable choice if it was made by the mother alone?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm against abortion and I have no difficulty all in separating "father's rights" from the overall opposition to abortion.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But this thread isn't about whether there's a third party involved. It's about "equal rights for men."
I forgot that all threads adhere strictly to the opening post, and expanded discussions don't occur.
quote:I'm against abortion and I have no difficulty all in separating "father's rights" from the overall opposition to abortion.
Likewise, Dobbie. I've known people who are upset at rights they feel a father should have being ignored or violated, but I can't say I ever recall knowing someone whose opposition to abortion was founded on an opposition to violating a father's rights.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
My point was that it's not fair to accuse kmboots of "sidestepping" an issue that was not in the question she was responding to.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My point was that it's not fair to accuse kmboots of "sidestepping" an issue that was not in the question she was responding to.
