posted
I never claimed anyones opposition to abortion was founded on an opposition to violating the father's rights.
My point was that many peoples concerns about a father's rights during pregnancy were founded on an opposition to abortion.
If you think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, then how do father's rights come in to it. You think the abortion should be illegal whether the father consents or not. Its a non-issue.
But if you think there are any cases where a woman might be justified in choosing to have an abortion, then you need to ask yourself whether the father's consent makes a difference in any of those cases. If it doesn't, then once againt father's rights are a moot issue. If it does, then lets talk specifics about what rights a father should have in particular situations.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, I am not side stepping anything. We already discussed where I stood on weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the woman.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: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.
That is a very unusual way of looking at it. I was talking strictly about the biological differences and you seem to be expanded it to legal, technological and social differences. Let me be very specific.
When a man and woman engage in sex, they both have exactly equal probability that their gametes will fuse to form a zygote and exactly equal probability that this zygote will develop into a child. But from this point on, the biological equality diverges dramatically.
The zygote will implant itself in the mother's uterine wall. It will begin taking nutrients from her body. It will send signals to her body that cause changes in her immune system, hormone production and fundamentally alter her body chemistry. For the zygote to develop into a child, it must remain intimately attached to the mother for at least 7 months but more commonly 9 and the mother's body will undergo enormous physical and chemical changes to accommodate the growing child. At times, this process can cause serious and permanant damage to the woman's body. It can even kill her. There is zero probability that any of this will happen to the man.
The man has made his full biological contribution when he ejaculates. After sex, there are no added biological demands on the man. He could drop dead the second after ejaculation or live a thousand more healthy years and it would make no difference.
Those are the biological facts. Until a technology is developed that changes those facts, any discussion of parental rights that does not account for that fundamental biological difference isn't just.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: By Rabbit: 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 don't need the more detailed description of your point to give my own opinion on this topic.
As I understand this discussion, about a man's role and rights when it comes to child birth, I can say YES, he should be informed of the pregnancy, consulted on any decisions, and must give his consent before any decisions such as adoption or abortion. I don't think there is any way to properly compensate a man who wants to be a father in the case of an abortion, or adoption. I also think your exceptions listed just below are also good. Certainly the man's role is forfeited if he is a rapist, or abuser. If the woman's life is in danger or health is at risk, I would hope the father would be close by, but understand these to be valid exceptions as well.
I'm choosing these as options I hope even the president might consider could be attached to the current abortion policy. I am against abortion, but understand it's practiced. Since it IS practiced, the father's role should play a bigger part with the decision-making. My biggest wish is for abortion to go away, leaving only the exceptions listed as acceptible or even legal reasons for abortion.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:[Roll Eyes] 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.
*rolleyes* Except that she and I were having a different discussion about our difference of opinion on abortion, one in which father's rights didn't much come into it at all.
------
Rabbit,
quote:I never claimed anyones opposition to abortion was founded on an opposition to violating the father's rights.
I guess that's true. It was sort of implied, but never outright stated. My mistake. Well, in response to your statements I'll say this instead: in my experience, few people I know, whose positions I know, rate father's rights very high on their list of reasons why they oppose abortion.
quote:Those are the biological facts. Until a technology is developed that changes those facts, any discussion of parental rights that does not account for that fundamental biological difference isn't just.
Interesting. Do you take this stance on discussions of parental rights after birth as well?
Anyway, I don't think anyone serious is arguing that there isn't biological inequality once the pregnancy is started. At least, I'm not. My point, rather, is that talk of a woman's body being 'invaded' is an exaggeration, because she has complete control over whether that 'invasion' happens or not. Except in cases of rape or faulty birth control.
-----
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, I am not side stepping anything. We already discussed where I stood on weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the woman.
It didn't come up at all when you said this, which is what I was responding to:
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.
The relevance of the biological inequality fades when there is the presence of another human life in the equation. Or if there is, of course.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: As I understand this discussion, about a man's role and rights when it comes to child birth, I can say YES, he should be informed of the pregnancy, consulted on any decisions, and must give his consent before any decisions such as adoption or abortion.
Strangely, the notion that a man must give his consent before an abortion can be done makes me uneasy, now that I consider it and respond to it.
Since I'm opposed anyway for other reasons, my uneasiness isn't really very relevant, but still. Common ground on some things I suppose, heh: I really don't think the man's consent should be necessary when the inequalities are so vast.
I believe it's often quite a bit easier for the man to say do it or don't do it. He's got a less tangible investment in the situation, even if his intangible investment (emotional considerations) may be just as big.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Certainly the man's role is forfeited if he is a rapist, or abuser.
Presumably he would have to be legally convicted of some offence. However the conviction rate for rape is tiny (especially if it takes place within a pre-existing relationship), and many spousal abusers still get some rights over their kids from the relationship - after all, they don't always abuse them - so this might be difficult to regulate.
Another thing I've been wondering about - what if the mother can't remember the father's name? Or the day after conception he goes to the Amazon rainforest for nine months with no mobile phone? What then if they can't track him down soon enough? Would the mother have to get a court order to grant her rights over the foetus, or would she have to keep the baby on the basis that dad, all unknowing that he's a father, might come back and claim it later?
posted
Interesting how people use fundamental biological differences to advance an argument when they see fit. Perhaps the fundamental biological difference between men and womon should preclude women from being a police officer, fire fighter or military member. Afterall, men are stronger.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
However, there are plenty of roles within those careers where physical strength is not the quility which counts - things like bravery, common sense, mental acuity etc, which both male and female can possess.
At the moment it is not gender, but ability which dictates who can hold those roles, which makes sense. Even so, military women are often kept as much as possible from close contact combat, where physical limitations would count most. Those differences are not overlooked.
Fathers can be as good at parenting as mothers. Like in the careers you suggest, both sexes can bring many of the same wonderful qualities. However, men cannot give birth. They can't go to the mother and say - 'hand the foetus over right now and I'll care for it'. That difference is also not overlooked.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting how people use fundamental biological differences to advance an argument when they see fit. Perhaps the fundamental biological difference between men and womon should preclude women from being a police officer, fire fighter or military member. Afterall, men are stronger.
No! Although it may be true that most men are stronger than most women, some women are in fact stronger than some men. And some women are strong enough do the work required of a police officer, fire fighter or military member.
If you want to argue that those professions shouldn't have different standards for men and women, I will agree. Standards should be based on what is required to perform the job. But if a woman can meet those standards, she should not be prevented simply because most other women can't do it.
The situation with parenthood is fundamentally different. It isn't a case of most of the time women are the ones who get pregnant. This is a true binary phenomenon. A law dealing with the issue wouldn't even need to say anything about gender. If the law said, "the parent who is pregnant" -- it would be fully sufficient to recognize the biological differences. If some future technology made it possible for men to get pregnant, the law would still be completely adequate to deal with the biological difference.
[ March 29, 2009, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Interesting how people use fundamental biological differences to advance an argument when they see fit. Perhaps the fundamental biological difference between men and womon should preclude women from being a police officer, fire fighter or military member. Afterall, men are stronger.
What's interesting is that you say this, and then go on to make an argument that's not only wrong but also totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:[Roll Eyes] 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.
*rolleyes* Except that she and I were having a different discussion about our difference of opinion on abortion, one in which father's rights didn't much come into it at all.
And I was responding to the people who were talking specifically about the father's rights. In that part of the thread, I was not specifically addressing you.
(snip)
quote:
Anyway, I don't think anyone serious is arguing that there isn't biological inequality once the pregnancy is started. At least, I'm not. My point, rather, is that talk of a woman's body being 'invaded' is an exaggeration, because she has complete control over whether that 'invasion' happens or not. Except in cases of rape or faulty birth control.
Other people were, those were the people I was addressing at the time.
quote:
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, I am not side stepping anything. We already discussed where I stood on weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the woman.
It didn't come up at all when you said this, which is what I was responding to:
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.
The relevance of the biological inequality fades when there is the presence of another human life in the equation. Or if there is, of course.
I think that, in most cases, the father should be consulted and his wishes taken into consideration. Even more than this, I think that the rights of the fetus should be weighed against the right of the woman.
But, no. I don't think that the law should enforce those rights against the rights of a woman to sovereignty over her own body.
And, no, I don't think that a woman relinquishes that sovereignty when she has sex.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Alright. Difficult to know who is talking to whom about what exactly, sometimes.
quote: But, no. I don't think that the law should enforce those rights against the rights of a woman to sovereignty over her own body.
And, no, I don't think that a woman relinquishes that sovereignty when she has sex.
The thing is, we don't need the law in order for a woman to have sovereignty over her own body-excepting rape, of course. The sovereignty already exists. You're speaking in support of something additional, total rights in all cases despite any consequences or other considerations.
I think 'sovereignty' is an incomplete word for that sort of control. 'Unfettered sovereignty' seems more appropriate to me, because even though the definition fits your use, even sovereigns have checks on their power, rules that must be followed, people that must be consulted in certain instances.
quote:And, no, I don't think that a woman relinquishes that sovereignty when she has sex.
I'm having a really hard time understanding how you can believe this, and yet also claim that the fetus has some sort of rights too. Because it seems to me that if the fetus only has rights if the woman thinks it has rights...well, can something really be a right if it's completely and in all cases subservient to the rights of another?
Edit: I know you've explained your belief in the difference between moral and legal rights. But don't the two intersect anywhere, at any point? And if they don't...exactly what value does a moral right have?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that society is made up of the places your rights and mine bump against each other. My right to do what I want to on my own property bump up against my neighbor's right to do what he wants to on his property. As a society, we decide where the compromise is. The law enforces those compromises
In the case of pregnancy, though, there is no compromise. Either the woman stays pregnant or she doesn't. Either the law fails to protect whatever rights the fetus may have or it denies the woman the right to her own body. The law has to pick one absolute.
The value of moral rights is that they inform our decisions - both individual and as a society. Not all those decisions are encoded in law.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:In the case of pregnancy, though, there is no compromise. Either the woman stays pregnant or she doesn't. Either the law fails to protect whatever rights the fetus may have or it denies the woman the right to her own body. The law has to pick one absolute.
Except that it doesn't, really. The law only has to pick an 'absolute' as you describe it if we as a society decide the time of decision is after the pregnancy has happened. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation, unless we as a society make one.
Aside from ensuring that women have the right to abort pregnancies, is there any reason for choosing the time of the decision has to be after the pregnancy?
Put another way, why exactly should a woman have right over her own body to terminate a condition in her own body that she voluntarily created in the first place, when that condition may or may not (and the later it gets, the smaller the 'may not' becomes) have rights as a human being in, well, its own right?
quote:The value of moral rights is that they inform our decisions - both individual and as a society. Not all those decisions are encoded in law.
This is true. In matters of life and death, however, I won't say it's untrue...but it rarely is. I can't think of many moral direct questions of life and death that aren't encoded in law, can you?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't think of many moral direct questions of life and death that aren't encoded in law, can you?
I can't think of any other matters of life and death where the life of one individual depends directly on another person in the same way that the life of the fetus depends on the life and body of the mother. There are no common comparable situations.
If a blood transfusion were needed to save a persons life, we would not require a compatible individual to donate blood, even if they were the only compatible donor available. Even if that person initially agreed to make the donation but then changed their mind, we wouldn't consider it just to force them to make the donation. Even though I think the person should make the blood donation under those circumstances and even though I believe the person has a moral obligation to make the donation under those circumstances, I would consider it unjust to force that person to make the donation.
If person A were drowning in a lake and there was only one person (person B) on shore who had the ability to jump in and rescue that person. I think person B has a moral obligation to save person A, even though it might put person B at risk. But I would also find it unjust to enact a law that required person B to risk their selves to save person A unjust.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: If a blood transfusion were needed to save a persons life, we would not require a compatible individual to donate blood, even if they were the only compatible donor available. Even if that person initially agreed to make the donation but then changed their mind, we wouldn't consider it just to force them to make the donation.
This sort of comparison gets made frequently. The reason it's not very persuasive to me at all is simply this: if the person's need of blood was created by the person who may or may not donate blood, I'm not so sure our government wouldn't in fact compel the second person to donate that blood. Unless the second person was anemic or something or might die from it somehow.
Would you consider it unjust to force the second person to donate if the second person had, in fact, created the shortage in the first person? And in a case of pregnancy and abortion, the blood donation comparison is actually understated.
quote:If person A were drowning in a lake and there was only one person (person B) on shore who had the ability to jump in and rescue that person. I think person B has a moral obligation to save person A, even though it might put person B at risk. But I would also find it unjust to enact a law that required person B to risk their selves to save person A unjust.
Again, what if person B pushed person A into the lake?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you're wrong. If person A stabbed person B, and B was in the hospital and A was the only compatible blood donor around, B would be arrested and tried for their crime, but would not be forced to donate blood. Same with the lake example. They would be prosecuted for what they did, but would not be pushed in the lake after their victim and not let out unless they rescued B.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Sorry, I should've been clear. I didn't mean that would happen now, the way things in society are today. I meant that if we posed the question to our society, I think we would as a society approve it.
Unless of course those scenarios were tied to abortion.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sorry, I should've been clear. I didn't mean that would happen now, the way things in society are today. I meant that if we posed the question to our society, I think we would as a society approve it.
posted
I should also add that in both those cases, the only person who can help is the second person involved.
That is, with someone needing blood there's usually more than one source available, to say the least. And in the second case, there are lifeguards and cops and paramedics and such. So that's another way the comparison doesn't hold up.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I should also add that in both those cases, the only person who can help is the second person involved.
Understood.
In both cases I would say they have a moral obligation (stronger than the moral obligation everyone has to help when they can). But the law has no place making that a legal obligation.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why not? If person B created the need person A has, person B is the only one who can fulfill that need, person B won't be killed or harmed in a lasting way by filling that need, and person A will die if the need isn't met...why shouldn't the law make it a legal obligation?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Because the fact that they caused the situation places a moral obligation upon them. It does not necessarily place a legal obligation. You seem to think that the two ought to be conflated. I don't.
Both of those situations have existing legal redresses. None of which involve forcing someone to give blood or go jump in a lake.
Also, there is a risk of death in both cases. It's low in the blood donor case, but quite high in the lake case. In neither case is it zero.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why not? If person B created the need person A has, person B is the only one who can fulfill that need, person B won't be killed or harmed in a lasting way by filling that need, and person A will die if the need isn't met...why shouldn't the law make it a legal obligation?
quote:Because the fact that they caused the situation places a moral obligation upon them. It does not necessarily place a legal obligation. You seem to think that the two ought to be conflated. I don't.
Well, obviously. The thing is, though, legal obligations are effectively what we say they are. We could make it a legal obligation if we wanted to. My question is, why don't we want to?
quote:Both of those situations have existing legal redresses. None of which involve forcing someone to give blood or go jump in a lake. [Wink]
My response to this is the same as above, and to point out that the comparison isn't quite valid, because person A will certainly die if person B fulfills only the current legal obligation.
quote:Also, there is a risk of death in both cases. It's low in the blood donor case, but quite high in the lake case. In neither case is it zero.
The risk of death in the lake is quite high? I'm not talking about someone who can't swim.
------
natural_mystic,
quote:You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours...
It's a lengthy paper, so if there's a specific part of it you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to. I just quoted this part to point out a pretty clear way in which the paper doesn't address the realities of abortion.
Very few women of all those who become pregnant simply awake one morning and discover they're pregnant. An incredibly tiny minority, in fact.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, he deals with that. The point of that example is to reach a starting point where just the presence of the right to life does not clearly trump control of one's own body. That is, for the right to life argument to be successful, there must be an additional component.
I don't agree with everything in the paper, but I suggest you read it all.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The thing is, though, legal obligations are effectively what we say they are. We could make it a legal obligation if we wanted to. My question is, why don't we want to?
My response to this is the same as above, and to point out that the comparison isn't quite valid, because person A will certainly die if person B fulfills only the current legal obligation.
You are the one who wants to change how the law works. So the burden is upon you. And the fact is, for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with the complexity involved, our legal system does not generally apply penalties that involve the direct risk of the criminal. We stick 'em in jail, or fine them, or both.
Make a case for these exceptions. So far, I'm not seeing one that gives sufficient cause to change how our legal system works.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Also, there is a risk of death in both cases. It's low in the blood donor case, but quite high in the lake case. In neither case is it zero.
The risk of death in the lake is quite high?
Sure. The easiest way to drown accidentally is to try to rescue a thrashing drowning person. More often than not, unless the rescuer is well-trained (and often even then), both end up dead.
That's the first thing they teach prospective lifeguards, IIRC.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Yes, he deals with that. The point of that example is to reach a starting point where just the presence of the right to life does not clearly trump control of one's own body. That is, for the right to life argument to be successful, there must be an additional component.
If I'm not mistaken, it's a she who wrote it?
Anyway, she does deal with it, but the very first comparison she makes is not, in my opinion, valid as a solid comparison. I'm still reading it now, and will re-read it again later at a stretch when I'm not working, but the comparison she makes doesn't bode well for being very serviceable. To my opinion that is, of course.
quote:
But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of another person's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? No doubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her body? If so, then her aborting it would be more like the boys taking away the chocolates, and less like your unplugging yourself from the violinist--doing so would be depriving it of what it does have a right to, and thus would be doing it an injustice.
For example, here. I don't grant the premise in bold anymore than I grant that a man can have sex with a woman who then gets pregnant and beg off his parental responsibilities just because he didn't 'invite' a pregnancy-because he did.
He didn't invite that specific pregnancy, but - and I regret the associations* this comparison makes, and don't intend them - if you run a hotel and put a 'vacancy' sign up outside, you're inviting people to come and stay if there are any looking.
------
Natural mystic,
I'm not opposed morally nor do I think it should be made a crime to have an abortion in the case of rape.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
That paper does address the "she had sex so she has given up her right to her own body" argument at about point 4. Not very well, but it is addresses. ElJay addressed it better above.
I don't agree that society (at least Western society) would approve of the blood donation scenario. In fact, I think one of the few scenarios where a large part of society approves of such a thing is in the case of pregnancy.
ETA:
We, I think, are rightly appalled with the idea that of criminals being used for medical experiments - even though they have committed an actual crime.
We do not force even those on death row to become organ donors when they are put to death.
In fact, we try allow dead people to have control (if they have made their wishes known or by proxy) over what is done with their remains.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are the one who wants to change how the law works. So the burden is upon you. And the fact is, for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with the complexity involved, our legal system does not generally apply penalties that involve the direct risk of the criminal. We stick 'em in jail, or fine them, or both.
What, so the entire burden is on me? I can't ask, "Why do you think this should be the way it is now," but must instead propose a detailed plan of action and say, "Why shouldn't we do this?"
I don't really have any good idea how the law could deal with it. But I don't think, "It would be really hard," is a very good reason at all for not trying, and certainly not for not answering the question, "Why is the way it is the way it should be?"
------
quote:That paper does address the "she had sex so she has given up her right to her own body" argument at about point 4. Not very well, but it is addresses. ElJay addressed it better above.
Not very well is putting it mildly, again from my perspective of course. It only addresses the argument at all if you first accept the premise that a woman (and therefore a man) has any moral or should have any legal right to voluntary sex with freedom from the possible consequence of pregnancy.
Here's a question that diverts a bit back to the original topic of this thread: if a woman should have the freedom from pregnancy and subsequent child-rearing if she wants it, what is the reason a man shouldn't also have that freedom if he wants it?
ETA:
quote:We, I think, are rightly appalled with the idea that of criminals being used for medical experiments - even though they have committed an actual crime.
We do not force even those on death row to become organ donors when they are put to death.
In fact, we try allow dead people to have control (if they have made their wishes known or by proxy) over what is done with their remains.
If we're talking about just a general criminal, of course I would be appalled too. If, however, we're talking about a mad scientist criminal who inflicted a disease on a person to study it...well, I'm not sure I would be much appalled at least. I'd have to think about it.
As for death row, well, talk about an absurd distinction. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but if we're going to do it - if we're going to say, "This person is so foul we need to kill them," I can't understand what principal we're serving to start affording them respect post mortem.
Finally, again, you're talking about general dead people.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
I'm not opposed morally nor do I think it should be made a crime to have an abortion in the case of rape.
I agree that Judith Thomson is not terribly convincing in arguing against your position.
What is your argument for why it is ok to abort after rape, but not in the case of a consensual pregnancy? Presumably, the intrinsic value of the fetus does not change.
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is your argument for why it is ok to abort after rape, but not in the case of a consensual pregnancy? Presumably, the intrinsic value of the fetus does not change.
In my opinion, you're right, the value of the fetus doesn't change. It's just that once the 'voluntary' component is removed, my opinion on what a woman's body-sovereignty should be much more closely resembles, I think, that of kmbboots and others.
If for example person A needed a blood transfusion to live, and person b just happened to walk past the hospital having absolutely nothing to do with person A's need of blood, I would be completely against making it a legal obligation for person B to give blood, even if it's a relatively minor imposition, even if the health risk is small, even though a life is still at risk.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: You are the one who wants to change how the law works. So the burden is upon you. And the fact is, for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with the complexity involved, our legal system does not generally apply penalties that involve the direct risk of the criminal. We stick 'em in jail, or fine them, or both.
What, so the entire burden is on me? I can't ask, "Why do you think this should be the way it is now," but must instead propose a detailed plan of action and say, "Why shouldn't we do this?"
The burden of proof is on you because no action is a win in the opposite direction. This is the way it is. You want the change. You must overcome inertia.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Or to rephrase what Christine said, you can ask. But without a better argument, you are likely to be ignored.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it because it's hard. I'm saying it is upending some of the basic ways our system works. And you better have a really good argument and some ideas about how to make them reality for that not to just be dismissed.
And since you're bringing them up as a starting point in a theoretical debate, and not on their own merits, I'm not surprised you don't want to put in the time and energy to back them up.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| 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?
Why should we consider "potential" as a factor when deciding where to draw the line for acceptable/unacceptable abortions?
Posts: 1327 | Registered: Aug 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:What is your argument for why it is ok to abort after rape, but not in the case of a consensual pregnancy? Presumably, the intrinsic value of the fetus does not change.
In my opinion, you're right, the value of the fetus doesn't change. It's just that once the 'voluntary' component is removed, my opinion on what a woman's body-sovereignty should be much more closely resembles, I think, that of kmbboots and others.
If for example person A needed a blood transfusion to live, and person b just happened to walk past the hospital having absolutely nothing to do with person A's need of blood, I would be completely against making it a legal obligation for person B to give blood, even if it's a relatively minor imposition, even if the health risk is small, even though a life is still at risk.
What if person B was voluntarily driving and got into a car accident with person A? Neither of them did anything wrong, but of course there are consequences to driving.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it because it's hard. I'm saying it is upending some of the basic ways our system works. And you better have a really good argument and some ideas about how to make them reality for that not to just be dismissed.
It seems to me that's precisely why you're saying we shouldn't do it: it would upend some of the basic ways our system works, which is a big and difficult thing.
quote:And since you're bringing them up as a starting point in a theoretical debate, and not on their own merits, I'm not surprised you don't want to put in the time and energy to back them up.
Should I be unsurprised as well that you haven't actually answered my question of why things should be the way they are, aside from saying, "That's the way things are."
And of course it's an assumption that massive portions of our legal system would be upended. And I even agree with you, if we were to apply the inaccurate comparisons that keep getting made. The two people and the lake for example.
In the real world, it's never even an issue for the person who caused the other to be in the lake being compelled to dive in and save them. We've got lifeguards, police officers, paramedics, the Coast Guard, various trained contingencies in place for that situation. People who are likely better equipped to save the poor dope who got pushed into the lake anyway, for that matter.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's a question that diverts a bit back to the original topic of this thread: if a woman should have the freedom from pregnancy and subsequent child-rearing if she wants it, what is the reason a man shouldn't also have that freedom if he wants it?
Well, men are free from pregnancy. From the child-rearing, does anyone here actually know the laws regarding termination of parental rights? It is going to vary from state to state, but I know fathers are supposed to sign away rights for an adoption to take place. And I know mothers often are asked to pay child support if they are the non custodial parent. So, while the judge may apply the rules unevenly, I am not convinced that this inequality actually exists officially.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, men are free from pregnancy. From the child-rearing, does anyone here actually know the laws regarding termination of parental rights? It is going to vary from state to state, but I know fathers are supposed to sign away rights for an adoption to take place. And I know mothers often are asked to pay child support if they are the non custodial parent. So, while the judge may apply the rules unevenly, I am not convinced that this inequality actually exists officially.
I don't see how you can say the inequality doesn't exist.
As things stand currently, women in the United States have a legal right, throughout most of the pregnancy, at any point on their own to decide, "I don't want to be a parent anymore. I will end this pregnancy and I won't be a parent."
Men have no such right. I'm not suggesting they should, I'm just pointing out that there is in fact inequality working against both genders here. And for those who don't believe pregnancy should be a consequence of sex for women, why should it be for men then?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What if person B was voluntarily driving and got into a car accident with person A? Neither of them did anything wrong, but of course there are consequences to driving.
The problem with that analogy -- and I agree with Rakeesh on this point -- is that it views getting pregnant as something other than the expected consequence of sex. As an accident.
That's not true biologically. Especially without birth control, but even with it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Should I be unsurprised as well that you haven't actually answered my question of why things should be the way they are, aside from saying, "That's the way things are."
I did. You keep saying it boils down to something I don't think it does boil down to. I sense an impasse.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Rakeesh, try thinking of it (just to see the other side) as not deciding not to be a parent, but as deciding not to have your body be used by another being.
I know the two are (with the current state of medical science) inextricably linked. But if you can think of them as separate, there are two burdens on the woman, one of parenthood and one of host. If the two could someday be separate, then, yes, I think that both parents should have equal rights and obligations to the child.
ETA: Rivka, I would think that car accidents are an almost inevitable consequence of driving. I know very few drivers who have avoided any kind of accident and a lot of people who have had sex without accidentally getting pregnant.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Biologically the point of human sex is a lot more than procreation. Many of our nearest relative animals (and some not-so-near ones) use sex to work out dominance relationships and soothe tensions. And some of them are engaged in even when there's absolutely no chance of pregnancy.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
