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

[Lycan]

I am 100% against abortion, but since it is legal at the moment, I will address the OP...

I feel the father should have equal say in whatever decission is to be made concerning a pregnancy. If the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't then the mother terminates her parental rights, has the baby and the father gets full custody without support. If the mother wants the baby and the father doesn't then he terminates his parental rights, and the mother gets full custody without support.... but should the baby be born without termination of parental rights of either parent then if they are not raising the baby together, or do not have joint custody, then child support should be paid.

This would be fair for both parents, IMHO....

[ST88]

I feel the father should have equal say in whatever decission is to be made concerning a pregnancy. If the father wants the baby and the mother doesn't then the mother terminates her parental rights, has the baby and the father gets full custody without support.

Do you feel that the right of the mother to live as she chooses should be forfeited in favor of the rights of the fetus? I.e., once she becomes pregnant, she should be required to do everything in her power to go to full term. I don't mean this to sound adversarial, I just want to get to where you're coming from. Essentially, you are taking 5, 6, 7, months out of the woman's life and telling her that she needs to live that long with a condition she does not want.

[Dilettante]

This is not entirely true. Fertility clinics make you sign statements to the effect that any unused embryos are your property until you sign them over to the clinic to be discarded.

Oh, I guess I overlooked that, you're right. In any case, they would be "property" only in a very limited sense of the word (or are you allowed to sell them?), and only while they are embryos, I suppose. A six month old fetus would be a different case I hope.

Not to be picky, but what falls under the category of "no good reason"?

Reasons such as "not wanting the baby at this stage of life" would, in my opinion, qualify as insatisfactory reasons. When a woman freely decides to have unprotected sex, she surely knows about the possible outcome. Of course, a person who refuses to accept the consequences of his/her actions would probably be a bad parent, so putting the baby up for adoption would be best.

How is it different when either the mother or the father do not want the baby? I submit it is different because the mother is the possessor of the fetus. If so, then the desire of the mother takes precedence. In how many other situations would a government agency be able to monitor and control the bodily functions and behaviors of one of its citizens? 1) Prisoners, 2) Employees, 3) The Military. I suppose you could argue that to be a citizen of a country is to give up one's right to procreate as one chooses.

I wouldn't say you give up your right to procreate as you choose, but you must at least be responsible about how you procreate, if you do. Actually, greater freedom implies that your responsibilities are also greater.

Would there be a question for in vitro fetilization? The mother could abandon the project while the father finds a different surrogate birth mother for implantation.

Would there be a question for same-sex male couples? Well, Other adoptive couples?

Well, I was speaking in general. We can certainly encounter many difficult cases, and we would have to think very carefully about them. For example, think about a pair of pregnant Siamese twins who share the same uterus. One of them wants an abortion and the other one wants to keep the baby. Which one is the possessor of the fetus? Just because we can't foresee every possible contingency does not mean we can't have general guidelines.

In your example, however, the fetus is already outside the body of one of the parents, and so the choice is not as clear.

I tend to think it's the developmental stage of the fetus rather than its physical location that matters.

You must know that the argument that underage people shouldn't have sex so we shouldn't worry about it is untenable. Even abstinence pledges don't keep the youngsters away from each other, it just lowers the rates of vaginal sex -- and teen pregnancy -- at the cost of increasing risky sexual behaviors. So pick your poison.

I am not saying we shouldn't worry about it. We should (especially the parents). But we should teach them responsibility. Better sex education could help, since some teens think they won't get pregnant the first time, or if they do it standing up.

In our culture, unpreparedness is a romantic ideal.

I know, and it's a huge mistake. I am against romanticism in general.

The idea of being "swept away" by the moment is much celebrated in literature and movies and throughout the culture in general. If you are unprepared for such an encounter, and it happens anyway, it says to the other person that they had such a dramatic impact on you that you lost your head. This is generally seen as a compliment to the other person.

Those ideas are doing a lot of harm, unfortunately. If love requires losing one's head, we're in trouble.

Sex between consenting adults is not a punishable crime (as of a year-and-a-half ago -- thank you Texas!), and it there is no requirement to use contraceptives. And unlike the seatbelt argument, there are actually religions that forbid the use of contraceptives. Imagine if there were a religion that forbade the use of a seatbelt.

Sex bewteen consenting adults should never be a crime, and I'm not for making contraceptives a requirement. People must be free to make their own choices (and not every morally questionable action should be a crime). What I'm saying is that they can't pretend they didn't know about the consequences.
It's ironic that the countries in Europe with the lowest fertility rates are Catholic countries (Spain and Italy). Sometimes it seems to me that people in my country use contraceptives more often than seatbelts (judging from the high number of road fatalities every weekend). Perhaps if religion forbade seatbelts, people would start using them!

[ST88]

Not to be picky, but what falls under the category of "no good reason"?

Reasons such as "not wanting the baby at this stage of life" would, in my opinion, qualify as insatisfactory reasons. When a woman freely decides to have unprotected sex, she surely knows about the possible outcome. Of course, a person who refuses to accept the consequences of his/her actions would probably be a bad parent, so putting the baby up for adoption would be best.

If I'm hearing you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that the woman has an extra added responsibility to ensure that she not have unprotected sex. If true, then the woman would have the decisionmaking power as to whether or not pregnancy is possible. After all, it is possible for a woman to use contraception without the man's knowledge, but it is not currently possible for a man to use contraception without the woman's knowledge (barring a surgical procedure, and even then false negatives are very rare). This would mean that the man does not have any intrinsic rights to the pregnancy that the woman did not give him.

I believe you're also saying that the degree of "unwantedness" can vary by the subjectivity of the judgment as to the woman's state of mind. For example, where is the line between "I just don't want this baby" and "if I have this baby, my life will be ruined"?

How is it different when either the mother or the father do not want the baby? I submit it is different because the mother is the possessor of the fetus. If so, then the desire of the mother takes precedence. In how many other situations would a government agency be able to monitor and control the bodily functions and behaviors of one of its citizens? 1) Prisoners, 2) Employees, 3) The Military. I suppose you could argue that to be a citizen of a country is to give up one's right to procreate as one chooses.

I wouldn't say you give up your right to procreate as you choose, but you must at least be responsible about how you procreate, if you do. Actually, greater freedom implies that your responsibilities are also greater.

Responsibilities, yes, but to whom? If there is a responsibility to one's own life and well-being, then the decision is up to the woman. If the responsibility is to the relationship between the two parties, then the decision should be shared. But in virtually all of the cases where the two biological parents disagree about taking the pregnancy to full term, the relationship no longer exists.

In effect, the man is saying that he wants that woman -- that one, over there -- to become an incubator for his seed for however many months it takes. If a court agrees with him, then it becomes that third party who has no choice but to force the woman to comply.

Would there be a question for in vitro fetilization? The mother could abandon the project while the father finds a different surrogate birth mother for implantation.

Would there be a question for same-sex male couples? Well, Other adoptive couples?

Well, I was speaking in general. We can certainly encounter many difficult cases, and we would have to think very carefully about them. For example, think about a pair of pregnant Siamese twins who share the same uterus. One of them wants an abortion and the other one wants to keep the baby. Which one is the possessor of the fetus? Just because we can't foresee every possible contingency does not mean we can't have general guidelines.

That wasn't quite what I was getting at, though I see your point. What I mean is, with those other examples where the fetus is not being sustained by either party in the dispute, the choice does not seem as clear, does it? The fact that the woman in the example of this thread is carrying the fetus would seem to give her something akin to "possession is 9/10 of the law".

In your example, however, the fetus is already outside the body of one of the parents, and so the choice is not as clear.

I tend to think it's the developmental stage of the fetus rather than its physical location that matters.

Well, one would assume that a viable newborn would be in that developmental stage where it could survive outside the womb in such a rural environment (i.e., >38 weeks).

I am not saying we shouldn't worry about it. We should (especially the parents). But we should teach them responsibility. Better sex education could help, since some teens think they won't get pregnant the first time, or if they do it standing up.

This is absolutely true. There are too many parents who think that discussing sex will cause sex to happen.

[Dilettante]

ST88 wrote:

If I'm hearing you correctly, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you're saying that the woman has an extra added responsibility to ensure that she not have unprotected sex.

Not exactly. Both are equally responsible. However, the woman does have the fortune/misfortune of being the only one one with a uterus, and we all know what this means. There is an old European movie where, if I remember correctly, Marcello Mastroianni becomes the first pregnant man (in the American version of the same theme it's the current governor of California who becomes pregnant). That's still science-fiction I guess.

This would mean that the man does not have any intrinsic rights to the pregnancy that the woman did not give him.

If the man has no rights, perhaps then he doesn't have any obligations afterwards (no alimony, for example). But I don't think this makes a lot of sense.

I believe you're also saying that the degree of "unwantedness" can vary by the subjectivity of the judgment as to the woman's state of mind. For example, where is the line between "I just don't want this baby" and "if I have this baby, my life will be ruined"?

Actually, I'm trying to leave subjectivity out of it as much as possible. "If I have this baby my life will be ruined" is too vague a statement. If it's a matter of "I have been raped and this baby will constantly remind me of the odious criminal who raped me", then I would understand (although the option of adoption is still there). But "my life will be ruined" could mean something much less serious, like "I will have to postpone college".

Responsibilities, yes, but to whom?

Not only to oneself and one's family but to society as a whole. No (wo)man's an island.

If there is a responsibility to one's own life and well-being, then the decision is up to the woman. If the responsibility is to the relationship between the two parties, then the decision should be shared. But in virtually all of the cases where the two biological parents disagree about taking the pregnancy to full term, the relationship no longer exists.

Such a decision affects more people than we usually think. One's own life and well-being does not occur in a vacuum and can't be separated from the lives and well-being of others around us.
However, it's true that in most cases where there is disagreement about the pregnancy, the relationship is dead. I just wonder what causes what.

This is absolutely true. There are too many parents who think that discussing sex will cause sex to happen.

I totally agree with you here. Parents must realize that they can't very well expect their children to make responsible decisions about their sexuality if they withhold information from them.

[Lycan]

Do you feel that the right of the mother to live as she chooses should be forfeited in favor of the rights of the fetus?

Yes... she made the conscience decision to have sex (protected or not), she should have to deal with the consequences of that decision.

I.e., once she becomes pregnant, she should be required to do everything in her power to go to full term. I don't mean this to sound adversarial, I just want to get to where you're coming from. Essentially, you are taking 5, 6, 7, months out of the woman's life and telling her that she needs to live that long with a condition she does not want.

Yes.... It is all in taking responsibility for one's actions. There is always a price in whatever we do. For the decision to have sex (knowing she is not ready for or does not want a baby) that is her price.

[ST88]

Do you feel that the right of the mother to live as she chooses should be forfeited in favor of the rights of the fetus?

Yes... she made the conscience decision to have sex (protected or not), she should have to deal with the consequences of that decision.

I.e., once she becomes pregnant, she should be required to do everything in her power to go to full term. I don't mean this to sound adversarial, I just want to get to where you're coming from. Essentially, you are taking 5, 6, 7, months out of the woman's life and telling her that she needs to live that long with a condition she does not want.

Yes.... It is all in taking responsibility for one's actions. There is always a price in whatever we do. For the decision to have sex (knowing she is not ready for or does not want a baby) that is her price.

This would seem to assign extra responsibilities to the woman. What responsibility does the man have if he does not want the pregnancy to go forward? Could he be made to stay in the jurisdiction and/or have his wages garnished to (help) pay for the care of the pregnancy? What would be the punishment if he refuses? The woman's condition for non-compliance would be fairly clear -- she could be forced to have the child. But how should the man's non-compliance be treated?

What if it is discovered that the man claiming to want the pregnancy has no biological ties to the fetus? If the woman goes too far into her pregnancy to safely abort (or legally, depending on jurisdiction), can he be sued? Further, if there are no repercussions to finding out this information, what would stop any man from claiming the fetus before it is born?

[Lycan]

This would seem to assign extra responsibilities to the woman. What responsibility does the man have if he does not want the pregnancy to go forward? Could he be made to stay in the jurisdiction and/or have his wages garnished to (help) pay for the care of the pregnancy? What would be the punishment if he refuses? The woman's condition for non-compliance would be fairly clear -- she could be forced to have the child. But how should the man's non-compliance be treated?

I would agree that women have more responsibility when it comes to pregnancy, her being the physical vessel for the development and delivery of a child. It is not fair, but hey that is life...

There are 4 scenerios:

1. Both parents want the child.
2. The mother wants the child, the father does not.
3. The father wants the child, the mother does not.
4. Neither parent want the child.

Financial responsibility in these situations...

1. Both parents obviously
2. the mother only
3. the father only
4. Both parents for duration of pregnancy (or an agency) upon which time child is born and put up for adoption

What if it is discovered that the man claiming to want the pregnancy has no biological ties to the fetus? If the woman goes too far into her pregnancy to safely abort (or legally, depending on jurisdiction), can he be sued? Further, if there are no repercussions to finding out this information, what would stop any man from claiming the fetus before it is born?

The whole point of my arguement is not to have an abortion.... but to answer your question... Why should he be sued? How did he come to believe himself the father?? I would assume by the mother, in which case he is not at fault. Him having claim to the child would then come under adoption.

[ST88]

The whole point of my arguement is not to have an abortion.... but to answer your question... Why should he be sued? How did he come to believe himself the father?? I would assume by the mother, in which case he is not at fault. Him having claim to the child would then come under adoption.

I realize that your stance is against abortion, and I apologize for dragging you through a discussion where it is allowable.

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. If there were no claim, the woman would be free to terminate the pregnancy. Therefore the false claim would have put her through the unwanted pregnancy under false pretenses. And one of my questions was whether or not it mattered why he believed he was the father.

And yes, I realize these dilemmas would be eliminated if abortion were illegalized. In my opinion, there would just be different dilemmas.

[Lycan]

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.

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.