abortion

[concerro]

Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything

[ST88]

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.

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.

You're not wrong. What I'm saying is that there is not an exact half/half genetic expression that we can point to and say this is half father and half mother. And therefore the argument can't be from genetic material -- it can only be a "moral" or a "philosophical" half/half.

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 --

This is an assumption on your part. What evidence do you have that confirms this?

The same amount of evidence that the pro-abortion side has about the trauma of abortion -- anecdotal information and post hoc gut-level supposition.

...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

...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.

That's fine. Again, you're right, she shouldn't have sex if that is what will happen to her. But she will. And so will millions of others.

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.

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?

It's different because the father can walk away at any time without physical repercussions. If the mother wants the child, there is obviously no question that she be allowed to have it because she is the one with the pregnancy. She does not have to "force the issue" because she is the issue. The father need not be involved if he so chooses, so there's nothing to force.

[Lycan]

That's fine. Again, you're right, she shouldn't have sex if that is what will happen to her. But she will. And so will millions of others.

Yes, they will but lack of self control is not a excuse in my book.

It's different because the father can walk away at any time without physical repercussions. If the mother wants the child, there is obviously no question that she be allowed to have it because she is the one with the pregnancy. She does not have to "force the issue" because she is the issue. The father need not be involved if he so chooses, so there's nothing to force.

Physically,no, but as of right now if a man does not want the child and the woman does, he is still financially responsible for that child, so the knife cuts both ways.

I agree that it will never be physically or emotionally equal in any situation, but life is not fair. We deal with our responsibilities and we move on. That is why it is so important for people to really think about the decisions they make before they make them... People are too quick to act on impulse and rarely use common sense any more, where their lives and the lives of others are concerned. In society today, life seems to be so meaningless, and responsibility for one's actions almost non-existant. Abortion is just one of the "quick fixes" to a self imposed problem.

[ST88]

That's fine. Again, you're right, she shouldn't have sex if that is what will happen to her. But she will. And so will millions of others.

Yes, they will but lack of self control is not a excuse in my book.

Well... it's not a good excuse. But like I was saying to Dilettante, impulsiveness and unpreparedness is a romantic ideal in our culture. For many people, being swept away by the moment is one of the great experiences in life.

It's different because the father can walk away at any time without physical repercussions. If the mother wants the child, there is obviously no question that she be allowed to have it because she is the one with the pregnancy. She does not have to "force the issue" because she is the issue. The father need not be involved if he so chooses, so there's nothing to force.

Physically,no, but as of right now if a man does not want the child and the woman does, he is still financially responsible for that child, so the knife cuts both ways.

If the court can find him and deal with the situation competently. That's something that the state has to impose upon him in order to make the situation as "fair" as possible. Absent such a system, (or absent the competence of such a system) the father can walk away.

I agree that it will never be physically or emotionally equal in any situation, but life is not fair. We deal with our responsibilities and we move on. That is why it is so important for people to really think about the decisions they make before they make them... People are too quick to act on impulse and rarely use common sense any more, where their lives and the lives of others are concerned. In society today, life seems to be so meaningless, and responsibility for one's actions almost non-existant. Abortion is just one of the "quick fixes" to a self imposed problem.

You make a lot of sense, but, as Mark Twain said, "Common sense isn't so common." Essentially, what you're saying is that we shouldn't go out of our way to help people who lack self-control.

[rant]And this gets into the heart of the current "culture war" debate. Because the Right is pro-business -- the profit motive by any means necessary -- they are perfectly fine with allowing marketers to break down and subvert the little common sense that we all have left after years of being told these and those lies by purported authority figures. Why do people lack self-control? Is it because we've banned the Bible from school rooms or tried to marginalize religious expression? Of course not. It's because we are conditioned from birth to have all our needs and our desires met through the acquisition of "stuff." Pardon me if I find it hypocritical to expect that people will have self control when their society tells them that it's a virtue to be impulsive. Not you personally, I don't know your beliefs well enough to make that judgment. But in general, neoconservative free-market capitalists and evangelicals are currently in bed with one another. Whether it's a conspiracy to produce enough guilt to get us to purchase "Left Behind" tchatchkes and handpainted Jesus plates is another matter. But the fact remains that we're getting two incompatible signals from the same source.

But where you see meaninglessness in life, I see freedom and possibility. Freedom from pointless beliefs and the social anchor of inflexible doctrine. Unfortunately, when framing the debate, the meaningless side wins because guilt and shame are better motivators than hope and acceptance. I'm a pragmatist. I don't believe that there is any way we can put the sex genie back in the bottle (not even by circumcising all little boys). The way I see it, things are going to happen. And when they do, society should be there to help. If this means we have to legislate charity to ensure that someone is going to give the help, then so be it. [/rant]

Now, if the father is to have an equal say in the outcome of the pregnancy, should he have to show that he is absolutely serious about taking care of the resulting child? Should he have to prove competence, or should the court take his word that he would be able to take care of the child? The reason I ask this is because it is generally assumed that the single mother will be competent until proven otherwise, and she does not require a court order to have the child and then be allowed to care for it.

[Lycan]

Well... it's not a good excuse. But like I was saying to Dilettante, impulsiveness and unpreparedness is a romantic ideal in our culture. For many people, being swept away by the moment is one of the great experiences in life.

And that is all fine and well if they are willing to deal with the consequences of those great experiences....

Essentially, what you're saying is that we shouldn't go out of our way to help people who lack self-control.

No, that is not what I am saying... I am saying that lack of self control is not an excuse to be irresponsible...

Judging by your rant I will assume you think I am a christian... I am not.

I don't have a problem with people haveing sex. They can go have monkey sex with every man/woman/whatever on the face of the earth and I couldn't care less... I have a problem with the way unexpected results of their decisions are delt with... It is always some excuse or blame of people or circumstance and then want of a "quick fix".

The way I see it, things are going to happen. And when they do, society should be there to help. If this means we have to legislate charity to ensure that someone is going to give the help, then so be it.

And as far as society being responsible for the lack of self-control, I think that is just another excuse. It is not society's fault. It is the fault of the individual. Regardless of what a person sees, hears, learns, the decisions they make are up to them. Barring some mental illness, people in general know the consequence for such actions, but with the easy outs and societal coddling why should people care?

Now, if the father is to have an equal say in the outcome of the pregnancy, should he have to show that he is absolutely serious about taking care of the resulting child? Should he have to prove competence, or should the court take his word that he would be able to take care of the child? The reason I ask this is because it is generally assumed that the single mother will be competent until proven otherwise, and she does not require a court order to have the child and then be allowed to care for it.

If the mother doesn't have to, why should the father?

[ST88]

Well... it's not a good excuse. But like I was saying to Dilettante, impulsiveness and unpreparedness is a romantic ideal in our culture. For many people, being swept away by the moment is one of the great experiences in life.

And that is all fine and well if they are willing to deal with the consequences of those great experiences....

That's a bit much to expect, isn't it? Assuming consequences means second-guessing everything you do. The impulse is the first thing that enters into your head. But we are conditioned to trust the impulse rather then count to ten and take a look at our choices. And I'm not talking exclusively about the media. Baby Boomer angst has created a class of children whose base motives are similar to the acquisition insitinct in the amboeba. Mine mine mine. I am here because I want to be here, not because I have a responsibility to be here.

There are too many irresponsible people to ignore, and there are too many signals that irresponsibility is a virtue to be strived for. Sure, it's like putting a bucket underneath a leak in the roof instead of fixing the roof, but you can't fix the roof while it's raining.

Essentially, what you're saying is that we shouldn't go out of our way to help people who lack self-control.

No, that is not what I am saying... I am saying that lack of self control is not an excuse to be irresponsible...

Truthfully speaking, that is really the best excuse to be irresponsible. Self-control is not an instinct. It must be learned and practiced. If one does not learn it or learn that it actually confers some benefits then it will not be a part of one's nature.

Judging by your rant I will assume you think I am a christian... I am not.

You're right, I guess I was assuming that. I apologize. You get into a certain "groove" debating these things, and assumptions creep in while you aren't looking. I hope I didn't cause offense.

I don't have a problem with people haveing sex. They can go have monkey sex with every man/woman/whatever on the face of the earth and I couldn't care less... I have a problem with the way unexpected results of their decisions are delt with... It is always some excuse or blame of people or circumstance and then want of a "quick fix".

I think this is placing the barn door in front of the horse when there isn't a barn to begin with. I understand what you're saying and to some extent you're right. But I don't think you can say that restricting access to legal abortion is a deterrent for irresponsible sex any more than the death penalty is a deterrent for murder. The consequence is just too far off and coldly clinical to override the immediate impulse. Lust is a very powerful motivator, more powerful than the conscious mind can handle. And though it's true that we tend to rely on "quick fixes" for our problems, I don't think that enters into the decision for behaviors that override one's own common sense (if it was there in the first place).

The way I see it, things are going to happen. And when they do, society should be there to help. If this means we have to legislate charity to ensure that someone is going to give the help, then so be it.

And as far as society being responsible for the lack of self-control, I think that is just another excuse. It is not society's fault. It is the fault of the individual. Regardless of what a person sees, hears, learns, the decisions they make are up to them. Barring some mental illness, people in general know the consequence for such actions, but with the easy outs and societal coddling why should people care?

To reverse this, why should people care that there are others who don't take the consequences into account? Stupidity is not a crime and it drives the economy forward. (insert appropriate smilie here). If lack of self-control is an individual issue, then why is it such a widespread societal problem? When does self-control become anacronistic Puritanism, and when does it become romantic idealism?

Oh, sure, it's easy to say that we should blame the individual for his own crime, and I'm not saying we shouldn't do that. However, an individual who is conditioned to react in a certain way will most likely react in that certain way when faced with the condition. If the conditioning is toward self-control, so much the better. But the fact is, only a handful of U.S. parents are conditioning their children towards self-control (and by conditioning, I don't mean having them read their Bibles and lecturing to them about the dangers of various iniquities). We can't ignore societal influence when trying to glean the motives of any wrong-doer. Legal punishments in this country are largely unconcerned with the motivations behind the crime, and I would hazard a guess that the vast majority of self-conditioning crimes are left unpunished by law (yet I suspect that many are punished via other means). The consequences-based behavioral ideal you are talking about seems to me to be a Vulcan pipe dream

Now, if the father is to have an equal say in the outcome of the pregnancy, should he have to show that he is absolutely serious about taking care of the resulting child? Should he have to prove competence, or should the court take his word that he would be able to take care of the child? The reason I ask this is because it is generally assumed that the single mother will be competent until proven otherwise, and she does not require a court order to have the child and then be allowed to care for it.

If the mother doesn't have to, why should the father?

Fair enough.

For one thing, there are no physical repercussions for the father during the pregnancy, and any decision the mother would make would have a very different impact on the father than the other way around.

If we are to assume that the father will automatically receive the resulting child, we should also be ready to assume that the father's right to the fetus would supercede the mother's right to do with her body as she wishes. This means that the court could side with the father if the mother is diagnosed with a condition whose treatment would conflict with the survival of the fetus. The court could also side with the father if the mother is faced with loss of employment due to her pregnancy. She could also be charged with homicide if something goes wrong with the pregnancy -- whether intentional or unintentional (motivation is hard to determine). The court could side with the father to force the mother to undergo surgery for any reason the court determines will protect the integrity of the fetus. In effect, the woman is powerless over her own body. You seem to be arguing that she is getting what was coming to her. But I would argue that the father does not have the right to exert this kind of control using the court as a proxy.

[steen]

And that is all fine and well if they are willing to deal with the consequences of those great experiences....

one such consequence being a possible abortion. No different than smoking can end up with cancer surgery.

No, that is not what I am saying... I am saying that lack of self control is not an excuse to be irresponsible...

So we are legislating "responsibility" by forcing people to give up decision-making and control over their own bodies? That's like slavery.

I don't have a problem with people haveing sex. They can go have monkey sex with every man/woman/whatever on the face of the earth and I couldn't care less... I have a problem with the way unexpected results of their decisions are delt with... It is always some excuse or blame of people or circumstance and then want of a "quick fix".

Like smokers getting surgery to remove the tumor?

The way I see it, things are going to happen. And when they do, society should be there to help. If this means we have to legislate charity to ensure that someone is going to give the help, then so be it.

And as far as society being responsible for the lack of self-control, I think that is just another excuse. It is not society's fault. It is the fault of the individual.[/quote]And yet, we provide medical treatments for what are peoples "own fault" all the time. Should we shut down the Emergency Rooms?

Regardless of what a person sees, hears, learns, the decisions they make are up to them.

Including the decision to have an abortion.

Barring some mental illness, people in general know the consequence for such actions, but with the easy outs and societal coddling why should people care?

Is it societal "coddling" to allow medical treatment of the unwanted outcomes of people's own actions?

[Dilettante]

ST88 wrote:

If the conditioning is toward self-control, so much the better. But the fact is, only a handful of U.S. parents are conditioning their children towards self-control (and by conditioning, I don't mean having them read their Bibles and lecturing to them about the dangers of various iniquities).

IMO this is a big part of the problem. In the education systems of many countries (including mine) there's a huge emphasis on fostering self-esteem, but almost nothing is said about self-control. Besides that, there's a whole industry of self-help, pop-psychology books and tapes telling people that whatever they do or have done, they're OK and they should be happy. There's a whole culture of "following your heart", acting on impulses, etc, and this no-guilt, whatever-feels-good-is-right type of mindset is a big mistake that is going to be hard to correct. But we need to do it. We must teach our kids to be responsible for their actions.
(I'm sorry for rambling a bit off topic here).

[Nyril]

And that is all fine and well if they are willing to deal with the consequences of those great experiences....

I want to go off hiking by myself and become lost. Under your system, I would die as you've determined rescue teams would be preventing me from the consequences.

I hug a girl I know has the flu, because she's feeling depressed that nobody will be around her (because of the flu). Under your system, I cannot receive any sort of medical treatment, because that would be dealing with the consequences.

When I change my oil, I drop the plug into the vat of oil and have to fish it out with my fingers. Under your system, I can't wash my hands because that would be denying me the consequences of my actions.

Your system stinks.

[Dilettante]

Nyril wrote:

I want to go off hiking by myself and become lost. Under your system, I would die as you've determined rescue teams would be preventing me from the consequences.

I hug a girl I know has the flu, because she's feeling depressed that nobody will be around her (because of the flu). Under your system, I cannot receive any sort of medical treatment, because that would be dealing with the consequences.

When I change my oil, I drop the plug into the vat of oil and have to fish it out with my fingers. Under your system, I can't wash my hands because that would be denying me the consequences of my actions.

Your system stinks.

The consequences need not be those. Maybe in the first case, if you were a wreckless hiker, you would have to pay a heavy fine to help cover the cost to society of expensive mountain rescue operations involving helicopters and other public resources. In the second case, maybe your health care premium would increase. (In the third case you're not wasting common resources). Still think the system stinks?

[steen]

The consequences need not be those.

Not in a pro-choice society, yes. But in the society where you have to "suffer the consequenses," you would indeed not be able to seek help for things that ails you if you in any way had a hand in the outcome.

Maybe in the first case, if you were a wreckless hiker, you would have to pay a heavy fine to help cover the cost to society of expensive mountain rescue operations involving helicopters and other public resources.

And in the case of an unwanted pregnancy, you can pay for the medical care needed to restore you to your pre-pregnant self. Not so in a "pro-life" world, where you can not be helped because you have to "face the consequenses."

In the second case, maybe your health care premium would increase.

What, you mean that you are allowed treatment? How un-prolife that you don't have to "take responsibility" for your own actions!

(In the third case you're not wasting common resources).

But you are not allowed to do anything to rectify the situation either? Would you like to wash your hands? Well, then you get to avoid the consequenses, so we can't have that, can we now?

Still think the system stinks?

The pro-life system? Yes, absolutely.