abortion
Moderator: Moderators
Post #31
That would be true, assuming the woman was at fault, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'd like to ask what is stopping any man from making a claim on the fetus that is knowingly false?Lycan wrote:Yes, but it would not be his fault in that he was led to believe, by the mother, that it was his child. Once he believes it to be his and makes the claim, if it were to be discovered that it was not his, it would be on the mother for giving the man false information.The false father could be sued because the only reason she was forced to take the pregnancy to full term was because he made a claim on the fetus.
Post #32
If the man is not the father and was never assumed to be the father then he has no right to claim the child, so the situation of the mother waiting until "it was too late" would not be an issue because the man's original claim could not have been made.That would be true, assuming the woman was at fault, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'd like to ask what is stopping any man from making a claim on the fetus that is knowingly false?
Post #33
What's to stop the man from making the claim? A fetal paternity test takes about 20 days. Those twenty days could mean the difference between going from the first trimester to the second trimester, for which an abortion is not allowed in certain jurisdictions.Lycan wrote:If the man is not the father and was never assumed to be the father then he has no right to claim the child, so the situation of the mother waiting until "it was too late" would not be an issue because the man's original claim could not have been made.That would be true, assuming the woman was at fault, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'd like to ask what is stopping any man from making a claim on the fetus that is knowingly false?
Further, what's to stop a line of anti-abortion zealots from making continuous claims on the fetus, miring the case in court until the issue is no longer relevant?
Post #34
Then I am under the assumption the mother doesn't know who the father of the baby is and she needs to stop being a ho. But anyway.... If the paternity is in question and the man makes the claim, if that claim is discovered to be unsubstaniated by the test results then the mother is culpable, being the one to tell the man originally he was or possibly was the father. In essence she is SOL and needs to have the baby and put it up for adoption. But as I said before, the whole thing is that she does not have an abortion.What's to stop the man from making the claim? A fetal paternity test takes about 20 days. Those twenty days could mean the difference between going from the first trimester to the second trimester, for which an abortion is not allowed in certain jurisdictions.
Because they would have no legal right to the baby... the only legal rights existant to the baby would be the mother's and the father's until such time (if the baby is unwanted by both parents) that the baby is born and put up for adoption.[/quote]Further, what's to stop a line of anti-abortion zealots from making continuous claims on the fetus, miring the case in court until the issue is no longer relevant?
Post #35
Let me see if I can explain this better. Picture this situation. A woman is pregnant and she does not wish to continue the pregnancy. A man approaches the local jurisdictional court and says he is the father and wishes to claim the fetus as his own. The court does not know whether he is or is not the father. The woman says he is not the father. Whether she claims never to have known the guy or to have known him beforehand at all is irrelevant. The court does not know who to believe.Lycan wrote:Then I am under the assumption the mother doesn't know who the father of the baby is and she needs to stop being a ho.What's to stop the man from making the claim? A fetal paternity test takes about 20 days. Those twenty days could mean the difference between going from the first trimester to the second trimester, for which an abortion is not allowed in certain jurisdictions.
The woman has a vested interest in denying the man's claim because she does not wish to continue the pregnancy, so she has a motive for lying. The man may or may not have a motive for lying; because of the nature of pregnancy, the court does not know what his motives may be.
It sounds like what you are saying is that the court should automatically believe the woman when she says that the man is not the father, or if she points to who she says is the real father. If true, why should the court believe her in either case?
And this is the real issue, isn't it? No abortions by any means necessary?Lycan wrote:But as I said before, the whole thing is that she does not have an abortion.
Post #36
In my orginal post I made it clear that I was against abortion and in my orginal suggestion this would not be a problem due to there being time to test the man claiming to be the father before the baby was born. I also stated that my entire argument was against having an abortion but I would answer your question, having let myself be drawn into it, the conversation has curved a bit it seems.The woman has a vested interest in denying the man's claim because she does not wish to continue the pregnancy, so she has a motive for lying. The man may or may not have a motive for lying; because of the nature of pregnancy, the court does not know what his motives may be.
It sounds like what you are saying is that the court should automatically believe the woman when she says that the man is not the father, or if she points to who she says is the real father. If true, why should the court believe her in either case?
In the above case, where abortion is an option and the man was found not to be the father as he claimed and the pregnancy passed the legal point in which it could be aborted only because of his claim then yes, he should be held liable and could be sued to answer that question.
Of course the real issue is no abortions. I have stated this several times. The tangent in which our conversation has taken does not change that.And this is the real issue, isn't it? No abortions by any means necessary?
Post #37
I thank you for allowing this digression. My goal was to get at what kinds of responsibilities the mother and the father have. The original question was about how much say the father should have in the decision to carry out a pregnancy. If the man in the argument is given an equal say -- father until proven otherwise -- then we are saying that the mother gives up as much responsibility and decision-making power as we would give to the man. Note there is no distinction between woman and mother in this argument because the condition of pregnancy is self-evident.Lycan wrote:In my orginal post I made it clear that I was against abortion and in my orginal suggestion this would not be a problem due to there being time to test the man claiming to be the father before the baby was born. I also stated that my entire argument was against having an abortion but I would answer your question, having let myself be drawn into it, the conversation has curved a bit it seems.
But the reverse is not true. In this situation -- where the mother does not wish to continue the pregnancy -- the demonstrable father has all the power. He may elect to assert his claim over the fetus, and he may elect to wash his hands of the whole thing. Men do not have abortions.
Yes, I understand that, and again thank you for taking it to this corner. I want to know how far you would go to enforce that particular law.Lycan wrote:Of course the real issue is no abortions. I have stated this several times. The tangent in which our conversation has taken does not change that.And this is the real issue, isn't it? No abortions by any means necessary?
Post #38
And why should the father not have equal say? Just because the woman is the vessel of development of the baby does not mean it is not equally his baby. He gave half of the DNA.If the man in the argument is given an equal say -- father until proven otherwise -- then we are saying that the mother gives up as much responsibility and decision-making power as we would give to the man.
How?But the reverse is not true. In this situation -- where the mother does not wish to continue the pregnancy -- the demonstrable father has all the power.
As can the woman, once the baby is born... In the end isn't that the whole reason women want to end pregnancies? because they aren't ready for a baby. In either situation, whether the father asserts his claim or no, after the birth she will no longer lay claim to that child and is done with it. So neither have more power than the other. I agree that the woman will have to go through more physically than the father, but that is true in any situation (keeping the baby, adoption, abortion, whatever).He may elect to assert his claim over the fetus, and he may elect to wash his hands of the whole thing.
Post #39
But he does not bear half the responsibility. And I'm not talking about financial assistance. The father has no physical responsibility to the mother or to the fetus in order for it to survive. God did not see fit to give the father any role after impregnation -- it is possible for a woman to carry out a pregnancy without the father around. The status of the fetus as genetically "half mother" and "half father" is not even true. The father suppies half of the genetic material, it's true, but the genetic expression of the fetus is not split 50-50. Look at any family and see which children look more like which parents. "Half mother" and "half father" is a convenient metaphor for a description of the offspring, but has no basis in genetic reality. You may argue that the father has half the moral responsibility because he suppied half of the DNA, but the woman must bear more than half of the physical responsibility, which is where the law is based. You say that you agree the woman has more of the physical responsibility -- she must go through the pain and trauma of chidbirth (&/or surgical removal). Why do you see a distinction between the role of the mother as the physical vessel, bearing the majority of the physical action of pregnancy, and the role of the mother as half of the moral responsibility for the pregnancy?Lycan wrote:And why should the father not have equal say? Just because the woman is the vessel of development of the baby does not mean it is not equally his baby. He gave half of the DNA.
You have a point, and it would be lovely if we could settle the argument this way, but there are several different issues to consider: 1) the time between the discovery of the pregnancy and giving birth is a matter of months out of the life of the mother -- her life will be altered against her will during this time. 2) the psychological trauma of being forced to have a child against her will could be as great or greater than the purported trauma of having an elective abortion, especially in a society which has made abortion illegal -- the alternative would not be having a legal abortion, it would be having an illegal abortion, with all of the underground surgical procedures that this implies. 3) The adoption and foster care infrastructure in this country is a joke. If Conservatives on this issue were really serious about trying to "save the children", they would do something concrete about taking care of unwanted children. But most see these programs as just another financial rat-hole "handout". I suspect many of them would like the free market to take care of this. The country is not prepared to deal with the children that an anti-abortion law would create, and we would have another generation of unwanted children who were abused by the system. (This, of course does not address the father wanting the child, but I was responding to your above assertion that it would be just hunky dory if the woman went to term and then handed over the resulting child.)Lycan wrote:How?But the reverse is not true. In this situation -- where the mother does not wish to continue the pregnancy -- the demonstrable father has all the power.As can the woman, once the baby is born... In the end isn't that the whole reason women want to end pregnancies? because they aren't ready for a baby. In either situation, whether the father asserts his claim or no, after the birth she will no longer lay claim to that child and is done with it. So neither have more power than the other. I agree that the woman will have to go through more physically than the father, but that is true in any situation (keeping the baby, adoption, abortion, whatever).He may elect to assert his claim over the fetus, and he may elect to wash his hands of the whole thing.
This is why the father has all the power. Once the mother has made her wishes about ending the pregnancy known, the father has the option of forcing the issue.
Post #40
But it is half mother/half father. The genetic traits are determined through dominate/recessive genes of both parents. The fact that the child looks more like one parent than the other is moot. The combination of both parents A & B create C.The status of the fetus as genetically "half mother" and "half father" is not even true. The father suppies half of the genetic material, it's true, but the genetic expression of the fetus is not split 50-50. Look at any family and see which children look more like which parents.
Yes and a few months is worth the probable 50-60ish years that child will live.1) the time between the discovery of the pregnancy and giving birth is a matter of months out of the life of the mother -- her life will be altered against her will during this time.
This is an assumption on your part. What evidence do you have that confirms this?2) the psychological trauma of being forced to have a child against her will could be as great or greater than the purported trauma of having an elective abortion, especially in a society which has made abortion illegal --
...But this brings me back to the point that if a woman does not want a baby bad enough to have an abortion, then she should not have sex. I will not feel sorry for someone that made a decision and is not willing to be responsible for it....the alternative would not be having a legal abortion, it would be having an illegal abortion, with all of the underground surgical procedures that this implies
I do agree about the foster care system being a joke, but most of the children "stuck" in the system are older, people want babies. Most wait years for a baby. I am not saying it is right, just fact. I don't believe an anti-abortion law would over run the system because of the above.3) The adoption and foster care infrastructure in this country is a joke. If Conservatives on this issue were really serious about trying to "save the children", they would do something concrete about taking care of unwanted children. But most see these programs as just another financial rat-hole "handout". I suspect many of them would like the free market to take care of this. The country is not prepared to deal with the children that an anti-abortion law would create, and we would have another generation of unwanted children who were abused by the system.
Not to mention there are many homosexual couples that want to adopt but can't. This would also help relieve the situation also.
I never suggested it was "hunky dory", but a better alternative for the child than death.....your above assertion that it would be just hunky dory if the woman went to term and then handed over the resulting child.
But that is not more power because if the father did not want the child and the mother did, the mother would be "forcing the issue"... How is it different?This is why the father has all the power. Once the mother has made her wishes about ending the pregnancy known, the father has the option of forcing the issue.
