• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The father's rights.

maquiscat said:
There is also a switch that could be installed in the tube leading from the testicles that could block sperm from being added to the semen. Great idea, but both are non sequitur to the issue.

The logical answer to that is the parents supported by any insurance that wished to. However again a non-sequitur, especially given the premises. The issue at hand is the rights of the parents? For example is the right of the mother to have an abortion, or only to end her pregnancy? In the current world they end up being one in the same, but the premises given change that. Additionally I don't see the cost issues as ethical ones per se, but more logistical ones, no different from any other tech being currently developed. Sure there can be other ethical issues when it comes to the use of medical technology, but cost isn't one.
Click to expand...

(A heads up to all that reads my reply - my points aren’t related (in any respect) to men being forced to pay child support.)

In the context of a woman experiencing an unwanted conception, who chooses not to endure all that’s related to prenatal, giving birth, and postnatal care...

Given your premise regardlng the existence of an artificial womb, if circumstances existed that woman decides that she wants an abortion - the following would have to occur:

a) A law that doesn’t violate a woman’s current constitutional rights, which allows her to control her reproductive role, would have to be enacted to force her to disclose that she’s conceived (if she’s willing to disclose who the bio-dad is). From a Constitutional stance, I don’t think enacting such a law would get approval by the SC.

b) If a law was allowed, it could potentially force a woman to undergo the transfer the embryo/ early stage fetus into an artificial womb because she didn’t want to gestate and give birth - “based solely on the legal demand of the bio-dad”. For this intended purpose - a woman could well consider this as a form of sexual assault if the transfer procedure is against her will.

c) Just because, in your world, transferring an embryo/early stage fetus isn’t anymore medically complicated than an abortion. A woman who is forced into the transfer - it still violates her liberty to control her reproductive DNA. What possible “legal argument” could be made that the reproductive DNA of the bio-dad is more important or has greater value than the woman’s - especially since it has merged with the woman’s reproductive DNA and is now inside of a woman body?

d) And even if women could be legally obligated to submit to the above demands by the bio-dad, and an agreement was made that she wouldn’t be asked to pay support, the state wouldn’t automatically terminate the woman’s parental rights despite his or her request to do so. If the man sought public assistance - the woman would be pursued by the state to pay child support despite any agreements the woman had with the man. This forces the state to maintain agencies to enforce support issues. This impacts the liabilities of taxpayers.

e) As CA brought to the discussion, the woman may not want the man to have custody of an unwanted child. The reasons could be many, and valid. Would a woman maintain the right to Due Process as a means to argue her objections to the bio-dad’s demands to transfer an embryo/early stage fetus? If the answer is yes, that becomes a burden on the State and Taxpayers.

In most cases, both men and women can reproduce multiple times. What would make a specific conception worth all of the monetary resources, the psychological and physical infringement women would be subjected to, along with reframing of the Constitution to alter human reproduction rights - which enhances the power of government have a greater role over how many children will or won’t be born.

The above isn’t going to happen without significantly degrading or dismantling various Constitutional rights of women. The availability of an artificial womb, in this case, wouldn’t be relevant.

BTW, The tube transfer technology for men, as you described it, is virtually a vasectomy. Regardless, it’s still requires a surgical procedure. The microchip technology that I envision would be virtually non-invasion and would interrupt the biological process that leads to the production of viable sperm.

The above nightmarish scenario would be totally unnecessary if there was a “near” 100% effective, long-term high tech birth control (like microchips that I mentioned), which would be easily accessible worldwide AND FREE to women and men alike (even if it pissed off the Pope).
 
maquiscat said:
Are you of the mind that she should not be allowed to sue for child support if she keeps it and he doesn't want it?
Click to expand...

That is correct. I believe a woman should be legally bound to notify the potential father she is pregnant ASAP. Upon notification the potential father should sign a legal document either accepting or abdicating parental rights and responsibility. The potential mother can then weigh that information in deciding to bring the pregnancy to term. If she decides to have the baby despite the man abdicating his parental rights and responsibilities then she accepts full responsibility and cannot sue. From the biological father’s perspective it would be akin to giving up his child for adoption only it is the biological mother doing the “adopting”.

I realize that is not how current law works, but it is how I think it should work.
 
maquiscat said:
I think you might be looking at that in isolation. I added that premise to highlight the fact that she cannot be forced into any medical procedure. The other two premises are predicted on the idea that she is otherwise planing on ending the pregnancy. The 2nd premise covers that regardless of the fate of the ZEF the procedure will have the same effect on her.
Click to expand...

It is not the procedure or the effect on her that is the issue. It still is about body autonomy. It is still her right to decide. Your qualifier of "if she intends to keep it" can only be an attempt to usurp that right. It can only be based on the idea that because artificial wombs exist then the ZEF now somehow gains rights which brings into question the whole abortion deal. Or that the father now has a right to demand a part of a woman for his own purpose. A law like that would be gender biased giving men control over women or if an equality of opportunity was introduced then woman would have to be given the right to demand sperm from any man.
 
Skeptic Bob said:
That is correct. I believe a woman should be legally bound to notify the potential father she is pregnant ASAP. Upon notification the potential father should sign a legal document either accepting or abdicating parental rights and responsibility. The potential mother can then weigh that information in deciding to bring the pregnancy to term. If she decides to have the baby despite the man abdicating his parental rights and responsibilities then she accepts full responsibility and cannot sue. From the biological father’s perspective it would be akin to giving up his child for adoption only it is the biological mother doing the “adopting”.

I realize that is not how current law works, but it is how I think it should work.
Click to expand...

Which leaves the expense of raising a child can only be done with public assistance through a single mothers benefit paid by the government. Which gives the govenment the right to extract payment from the biological father as he regaardless of whether he wants it or not is still responsible for his actions.

Or you can argue that only those who can afford a child should have one giving you a situation where only the rich can breed. So much for the concept of everyone being equal.
 
maquiscat said:
She made the choice to end her pregnancy, a decision that my hypothetical does not deny her. But given the premises (please make sure you have read them carefully) by what justification is she unilaterally allowed to terminate the ZEF if the father wants it but she doesn't?
Click to expand...

her body her choice of procedure done on it

and if you do tank the fetus id give either parent the right to terminate it if they dont want to be the parent of a future person
 
soylentgreen said:
It is not the procedure or the effect on her that is the issue. It still is about body autonomy. It is still her right to decide. Your qualifier of "if she intends to keep it" can only be an attempt to usurp that right. It can only be based on the idea that because artificial wombs exist then the ZEF now somehow gains rights which brings into question the whole abortion deal. Or that the father now has a right to demand a part of a woman for his own purpose. A law like that would be gender biased giving men control over women or if an equality of opportunity was introduced then woman would have to be given the right to demand sperm from any man.
Click to expand...
I am not sure how you are getting all that out of my premises. If, and only if, the woman decides to end her pregnancy does the father's rights come into play. Remember that I stipulated that the procedure is exactly the same whether the ZEF is terminated or not. The child is not part of the woman. Yes it is inside her system, her body, which is why she have the right to give it an eviction notice. And in today's world, based upon current medical technology and knowledge, that means the ZEF gets terminated. But we're are currently discussing a hypothetical where that is not the case. If the child was indeed a part of the woman, then it would always be so, and father's would have no rights at all with their children, gestating or born.

As to your last bit, that is a false equivalency. The equivalent would be the potential father demanding the egg, as opposed to the ZEF, to be comparable to the potential mother demanding the sperm. Both of those are solely part of the individual not a combination of the two.
 
blarg said:
her body her choice of procedure done on it
Click to expand...

The procedure itself does not change as far as her body is concerned. I specifically stated that. If she chooses to have an abortion and the father doesn't want it either, then the procedure is no different on her body, than if the ZEF remained alive. Her choice is ending the pregnancy. That remains intact. You have not yet shown me, under the given premises, what right to her body sovereignty has been lost.

and if you do tank the fetus id give either parent the right to terminate it if they dont want to be the parent of a future person
Click to expand...
The mother has first choice. It's in her body, and no one has the right to have it removed against her will, save nature itself (miscarriage). If she chooses not to continue the pregnancy then the father has a shot at it. If he declines, then the ZEF is terminated during the procedure. If he accepts, then it is transferred, with not difference on what happens to the mother's body.
 
maquiscat said:
I am not sure how you are getting all that out of my premises. If, and only if, the woman decides to end her pregnancy does the father's rights come into play. Remember that I stipulated that the procedure is exactly the same whether the ZEF is terminated or not. The child is not part of the woman. Yes it is inside her system, her body, which is why she have the right to give it an eviction notice. And in today's world, based upon current medical technology and knowledge, that means the ZEF gets terminated. But we're are currently discussing a hypothetical where that is not the case. If the child was indeed a part of the woman, then it would always be so, and father's would have no rights at all with their children, gestating or born.

As to your last bit, that is a false equivalency. The equivalent would be the potential father demanding the egg, as opposed to the ZEF, to be comparable to the potential mother demanding the sperm. Both of those are solely part of the individual not a combination of the two.
Click to expand...

As i said the technology is irrelevent. The concern is body autonomy. It remains her decision. With new technology her ability to decide outcomes is expanded but it still remains her decision.
And what fathers rights? A males rights are only at the beginning of the process, whether to have sex or not or whether to use protection or not. If he abdicates responsibility on those choices then what makes him think he can demand responsibility for thoughtless actions? If a woman gets pregnant then it is her right to decide, not the man to suddenly claim a right to decide.

And no, the last bit is not a false equivilence unless you argue that a man has a right to make demands about a womans body. That it is his choice as to what the outcome is and not the womans.
 
maquiscat said:
Inspired by this thread, I have a hypothetical I would like to present. I remind you that the responses should be framed within the context of the premises given. Anything outside of that is being dishonest. Additionally, please don't go nitpicking about the feasibility of the medical tech. We are looking at rights and ethics and such here, not about what it would take to make it happen medically. Hence the premises.

Premise 1: Artificial womb technology is at such a stage that it has a mortality rate equal to or less than natural gestation.

Premise 2: Medical knowledge and technology is at such a stage, that the procedure to transfer a ZEF from the mother's womb to an artificial womb causes the same or less physical trauma as a standard abortion. In fact, for the purposes of this discussion, the only difference in the procedure is whether or not the ZEF is terminated or transferred.

Premise 3: The mother cannot not be forced to have the ZEF transferred to an artificial womb if she is intending to keep it.

Given those parameters, what are the father's actual rights now? If the mother does not want the child and the father does, does he have the right to prevent the mother from terminating the ZEF and instead simply terminate the pregnancy by having the ZEF transferred to the artificial womb? In doing so, does the father now have the right to use the law and courts to make the mother pay child support?
Click to expand...

Bodily sovereignty, due process and privacy rights do not change at all between current status and anything proposed in the scenario.

So no.

However a discussion on ethically what both sperm donors should do if an unplanned pregnancy occurs is more important IMO. "Should" men have say? Yes, both should discuss and both's feelings and welfare should be considered. In an ideal world, it could be an equal decision, but that's not possible.

So outcome? Differs for every couple.

Ethically, it's not right at all to force taxpayers to have to pay for s child when parents are available to take on something they created. There are too many kids already without parents or in foster care, that would go with less.
 
maquiscat said:
Given those parameters, what are the father's actual rights now? If the mother does not want the child and the father does, does he have the right to prevent the mother from terminating the ZEF and instead simply terminate the pregnancy by having the ZEF transferred to the artificial womb? In doing so, does the father now have the right to use the law and courts to make the mother pay child support?
Click to expand...

The last sentence spells it out pretty clearly, doesnt it? If there is a child, either a non-custodial parent should pay support or a dual custody arrangement be made.

Who's paying for the incubation of this fetus? The father?

If so, I cant think of any reason why it would not be a reasonable thing to do however, it does conflict with my personal view that the unborn does not have a right to life that would negatively affect the best interests of born people. As such, I dont believe a woman should not have the choice to terminate. And if a man were able to carry a pregnancy, I would still believe the same.
 
maquiscat said:
The procedure itself does not change as far as her body is concerned. I specifically stated that. If she chooses to have an abortion and the father doesn't want it either, then the procedure is no different on her body, than if the ZEF remained alive. Her choice is ending the pregnancy. That remains intact. You have not yet shown me, under the given premises, what right to her body sovereignty has been lost.


The mother has first choice. It's in her body, and no one has the right to have it removed against her will, save nature itself (miscarriage). If she chooses not to continue the pregnancy then the father has a shot at it. If he declines, then the ZEF is terminated during the procedure. If he accepts, then it is transferred, with not difference on what happens to the mother's body.
Click to expand...

sucking something out alive or killing it is not the same like you said in her body her choice

both parents should have a veto once its no longer in any ones body
 
blarg said:
both parents should have a veto once its no longer in any ones body
Click to expand...

That does raise an interesting question. Currently a woman has up to several weeks to decide to keep a pregnancy. Her feelings may go back and forth (it's a very big decision) What if the woman decides, after handing off the embryo, that she does want a baby? Has she forfeited that right? Women can decide not to give up the unborn to adoption up to and after birth.

Is the obligation now equal for both sperm donors (after gestation)? I would think so.
 
Lursa said:
That does raise an interesting question. Currently a woman has up to several weeks to decide to keep a pregnancy. Her feelings may go back and forth (it's a very big decision) What if the woman decides, after handing off the embryo, that she does want a baby? Has she forfeited that right? Women can decide not to give up the unborn to adoption up to and after birth.

Is the obligation now equal for both sperm donors (after gestation)? I would think so.
Click to expand...

not sure about custody
 
soylentgreen said:
As i said the technology is irrelevent. The concern is body autonomy. It remains her decision. With new technology her ability to decide outcomes is expanded but it still remains her decision.
And what fathers rights? A males rights are only at the beginning of the process, whether to have sex or not or whether to use protection or not. If he abdicates responsibility on those choices then what makes him think he can demand responsibility for thoughtless actions? If a woman gets pregnant then it is her right to decide, not the man to suddenly claim a right to decide.

And no, the last bit is not a false equivilence unless you argue that a man has a right to make demands about a womans body. That it is his choice as to what the outcome is and not the womans.
Click to expand...

Rights are what society make them to be... evolving values can see rights altered.

All you are doing is arguing an Appeal to Tradition.

He choice because that is how it is... not a particularly strong argument.
 
soylentgreen said:
As i said the technology is irrelevent. The concern is body autonomy. It remains her decision. With new technology her ability to decide outcomes is expanded but it still remains her decision.
Click to expand...

What of her body autonomy is she losing under the conditions given? She chooses whether or not to end the pregnancy. If she chooses not to end it then the father has no rights beyond what he already has in the current world. If she chooses to end the pregnancy, then regardless of the ZEF's final condition, there is no difference for the woman. How has she lost any body autonomy?

And what fathers rights? A males rights are only at the beginning of the process, whether to have sex or not or whether to use protection or not. If he abdicates responsibility on those choices then what makes him think he can demand responsibility for thoughtless actions? If a woman gets pregnant then it is her right to decide, not the man to suddenly claim a right to decide.
Click to expand...

There seems to be a lot of assumption in the abdicating of his rights. Maybe he took all the due diligence and the birth control failed. Or they initially wanted the child and she changed her mind.

And no, the last bit is not a false equivilence unless you argue that a man has a right to make demands about a womans body. That it is his choice as to what the outcome is and not the womans.
Click to expand...
Yeah it is. The man's sperm is something that is solely his and in no part hers and thus she has no right to demand it. The woman's egg is the same, solely hers, and he has no right to demand it. The ZEF is both of theirs, and while yes, she does get to initially decide whether it stay in her or is removed, once removed, under the conditions given, how does she have to right to destroy it if the father wants it. There is no body autonomy involved here. Under the conditions given the procedure is exactly the same regardless of the fate of the ZEF.
 
Here's a more fundamental question to this thread.

Should an individual have control over what happens to their DNA?

If I spit in a sample container because I'm supposed to be getting a DNA test, but then they use my DNA to create an embryo, is that violating me somehow?

I ask because... I feel like a man inseminating a woman is similar to this. You're giving something up that has a known potential consequence. If it worked in reverse and a woman had to give her egg to a man to be housed for pregnancy, I would believe the same thing. Now, if a woman says she is on birth control but actually isn't, then that is a form of stealthing just like when a man removes a condom during sex. So it could be argued that he shouldn't have responsibility for what comes of that. However, if she gets pregnant while on BC because the BC failed, then why should the man not be responsible? BC does not have 100% guarantee.

Now... the reverse. The woman wants to get an abortion but the man wants to keep the offspring. An unfortunate situation. Medical ethics tend to trump the man's wishes because you can't force a woman to undergo a medical procedure (childbirth, c-section, etc.) against her wishes. According to social ethics, maybe the man should've shacked up with a more reliable mother figure if that's what he wanted. If the pregnancy is unplanned or the woman changes her mind then it's kind of hard to change that given she is the host of the pregnancy and has autonomy.

I don't think artificial wombs would change this dynamic. You'd still require the woman to undergo a medical procedure to extract the embryo for relocation, and that would carry risks. Right of refusal still applies. And since such a procedure doesn't exist yet, we don't know if it would be more or less risky than abortion itself. If more risky, then woman choosing abortion would still be medically ethical.

I just don't see how you can ethically force a woman to get an abortion or force her not to get an abortion as a "sperm donor". You're not actually a father nor is she a mother until a child is born, legally speaking. Until then it's a potential child/person and it doesn't have full rights. There are plenty of mothers-to-be and fathers-to-be out there who disagree and that's fine. They're usually in a situation where they get to project various parental roles onto their unborn offspring. But in realpolitik that's not relevant. The State does not care about the unborn in terms of personhood dynamics.
 
Last edited:
Northern Light said:
Here's a more fundamental question to this thread.

Should an individual have control over what happens to their DNA?

If I spit in a sample container because I'm supposed to be getting a DNA test, but then they use my DNA to create an embryo, is that violating me somehow?

I ask because... I feel like a man inseminating a woman is similar to this. You're giving something up that has a known potential consequence. If it worked in reverse and a woman had to give her egg to a man to be housed for pregnancy, I would believe the same thing. Now, if a woman says she is on birth control but actually isn't, then that is a form of stealthing just like when a man removes a condom during sex. So it could be argued that he shouldn't have responsibility for what comes of that. However, if she gets pregnant while on BC because the BC failed, then why should the man not be responsible? BC does not have 100% guarantee.

Now... the reverse. The woman wants to get an abortion but the man wants to keep the offspring. An unfortunate situation. Medical ethics tend to trump the man's wishes because you can't force a woman to undergo a medical procedure (childbirth, c-section, etc.) against her wishes. According to social ethics, maybe the man should've shacked up with a more reliable mother figure if that's what he wanted. If the pregnancy is unplanned or the woman changes her mind then it's kind of hard to change that given she is the host of the pregnancy and has autonomy.

I don't think artificial wombs would change this dynamic. You'd still require the woman to undergo a medical procedure to extract the embryo for relocation, and that would carry risks. Right of refusal still applies. And since such a procedure doesn't exist yet, we don't know if it would be more or less risky than abortion itself. If more risky, then woman choosing abortion would still be medically ethical.

I just don't see how you can ethically force a woman to get an abortion or force her not to get an abortion as a "sperm donor". You're not actually a father nor is she a mother until a child is born, legally speaking. Until then it's a potential child/person and it doesn't have full rights. There are plenty of mothers-to-be and fathers-to-be out there who disagree and that's fine. They're usually in a situation where they get to project various parental roles onto their unborn offspring. But in realpolitik that's not relevant. The State does not care about the unborn in terms of personhood dynamics.
Click to expand...

I am not going to try to edit that on a pad. The point of the third premise is to indicate that the woman cannot be forced into any procedure she doesn't want. The second premise establishes that procedure is exactly the same on the woman regardless of the fate of ZEF. Between those two, for the father to have any claim to the ZEF going into an artificial womb would be for the mother to elect to have the pregnancy ending procedure. I really don't get where you people are getting the idea she is forced into any procedure against her will.
 
Northern Light said:
Here's a more fundamental question to this thread.

Should an individual have control over what happens to their DNA?

If I spit in a sample container because I'm supposed to be getting a DNA test, but then they use my DNA to create an embryo, is that violating me somehow?

I ask because... I feel like a man inseminating a woman is similar to this. You're giving something up that has a known potential consequence. If it worked in reverse and a woman had to give her egg to a man to be housed for pregnancy, I would believe the same thing. Now, if a woman says she is on birth control but actually isn't, then that is a form of stealthing just like when a man removes a condom during sex. So it could be argued that he shouldn't have responsibility for what comes of that. However, if she gets pregnant while on BC because the BC failed, then why should the man not be responsible? BC does not have 100% guarantee.

Now... the reverse. The woman wants to get an abortion but the man wants to keep the offspring. An unfortunate situation. Medical ethics tend to trump the man's wishes because you can't force a woman to undergo a medical procedure (childbirth, c-section, etc.) against her wishes. According to social ethics, maybe the man should've shacked up with a more reliable mother figure if that's what he wanted. If the pregnancy is unplanned or the woman changes her mind then it's kind of hard to change that given she is the host of the pregnancy and has autonomy.

I don't think artificial wombs would change this dynamic. You'd still require the woman to undergo a medical procedure to extract the embryo for relocation, and that would carry risks. Right of refusal still applies. And since such a procedure doesn't exist yet, we don't know if it would be more or less risky than abortion itself. If more risky, then woman choosing abortion would still be medically ethical.

I just don't see how you can ethically force a woman to get an abortion or force her not to get an abortion as a "sperm donor". You're not actually a father nor is she a mother until a child is born, legally speaking. Until then it's a potential child/person and it doesn't have full rights. There are plenty of mothers-to-be and fathers-to-be out there who disagree and that's fine. They're usually in a situation where they get to project various parental roles onto their unborn offspring. But in realpolitik that's not relevant. The State does not care about the unborn in terms of personhood dynamics.
Click to expand...

First and foremost....all other issues aside....what you are speaking to is cloning to create a human being. Is that legal anywhere?

Spitting in a container has zero expectation of potential pregnancy (unless you are in the habit of keeping a mouthful of sperm around Captain Turkey Baster)

Having vaginal sex clearly has the potential for causing pregnancy. So when you ejaculate, you ejaculate knowing the potential for fatherhood. You can reduce the potential for fatherhood by using a condom each and every time.

I cannot believe you see the scenarios as remotely similar.
 
maquiscat said:
I am not going to try to edit that on a pad. The point of the third premise is to indicate that the woman cannot be forced into any procedure she doesn't want. The second premise establishes that procedure is exactly the same on the woman regardless of the fate of ZEF. Between those two, for the father to have any claim to the ZEF going into an artificial womb would be for the mother to elect to have the pregnancy ending procedure. I really don't get where you people are getting the idea she is forced into any procedure against her will.
Click to expand...

Then I'll explain. You're saying that if a woman opts to terminate a pregnancy, that gives the man the option to enforce the artificial womb. How exactly do you plan on getting said ZEF out of the woman without a medical procedure that she has to consent to?

That she would consent to abortion yet not to transplanting the ZEF to an artificial womb makes no difference because medical freedom allows for this.
 
year2late said:
First and foremost....all other issues aside....what you are speaking to is cloning to create a human being. Is that legal anywhere?

Spitting in a container has zero expectation of potential pregnancy (unless you are in the habit of keeping a mouthful of sperm around Captain Turkey Baster)

Having vaginal sex clearly has the potential for causing pregnancy. So when you ejaculate, you ejaculate knowing the potential for fatherhood. You can reduce the potential for fatherhood by using a condom each and every time.

I cannot believe you see the scenarios as remotely similar.
Click to expand...

My analogy and your scenarios are all the same in that if I knowingly give up part of my body, do I have rights to what happens to it? If I donate a kidney do I have rights to the person it goes into? Because really that's what this comes down to. If there's no implicit agreement or consent to create offspring then how can you have any kind of entitlement to it, or disentitlement for that matter? It doesn't matter that it's your DNA incubating in her. If she doesn't want to have a kid or your kid why should you get to control her body?

Btw I don't see this as being related to the general abortion debate. This is about parental rights or lack thereof. I understand what men are arguing for here but you can't control a woman's body like this, even if she is doing something unfair to you. The answer is never going to be to turn around and remove human rights from women. The answer actually is reform of the family court system.
 
Northern Light said:
My analogy and your scenarios are all the same in that if I knowingly give up part of my body, do I have rights to what happens to it? If I donate a kidney do I have rights to the person it goes into? Because really that's what this comes down to. If there's no implicit agreement or consent to create offspring then how can you have any kind of entitlement to it, or disentitlement for that matter? It doesn't matter that it's your DNA incubating in her. If she doesn't want to have a kid or your kid why should you get to control her body?

Btw I don't see this as being related to the general abortion debate. This is about parental rights or lack thereof. I understand what men are arguing for here but you can't control a woman's body like this, even if she is doing something unfair to you. The answer is never going to be to turn around and remove human rights from women. The answer actually is reform of the family court system.
Click to expand...

Clearly the answer is in reform. But I see reform being further away when men and women do not take responsibility for the children they create.

Reform to me should be about reasonable child support and custody arrangements that are not mom-centric.

I would LOVE to see some way for the parents to be penalized for using their children as pawns in the court system.

But my bottom line is that no way no how as a tax payer am I going to be ok with supporting a child when both parents are not supporting the child they created, But support should be reasonable.
 
Northern Light said:
Then I'll explain. You're saying that if a woman opts to terminate a pregnancy, that gives the man the option to enforce the artificial womb. How exactly do you plan on getting said ZEF out of the woman without a medical procedure that she has to consent to?

That she would consent to abortion yet not to transplanting the ZEF to an artificial womb makes no difference because medical freedom allows for this.
Click to expand...
Under the premises given the procedure for an abortion and the procedure for a transfer is exactly the same. No differences. To consent to one is no different than consenting to the other. The only difference is what happens to the ZEF after removal. Think of it this way. You have a tumor removed. Whether you choose to have it placed in a jar to preserve it or have it incinerated, the procedure to remove it is the same.
 
Northern Light said:
My analogy and your scenarios are all the same in that if I knowingly give up part of my body, do I have rights to what happens to it? If I donate a kidney do I have rights to the person it goes into? Because really that's what this comes down to. If there's no implicit agreement or consent to create offspring then how can you have any kind of entitlement to it, or disentitlement for that matter? It doesn't matter that it's your DNA incubating in her. If she doesn't want to have a kid or your kid why should you get to control her body?
Click to expand...
What control of her body is occurring here? The only time the man gets a say is if she elects to have the procedure. Since she is the one choosing the procedure, no control of her body is occurring. The procedure for both results is the same per the premises. The woman's right is to remove the ZEF from her body if she doesn't want it there, and that is not getting denied. If there is no difference, then why should she get the final say over the father once that has occurred?
 
year2late said:
Clearly the answer is in reform. But I see reform being further away when men and women do not take responsibility for the children they create.

Reform to me should be about reasonable child support and custody arrangements that are not mom-centric.

I would LOVE to see some way for the parents to be penalized for using their children as pawns in the court system.

But my bottom line is that no way no how as a tax payer am I going to be ok with supporting a child when both parents are not supporting the child they created, But support should be reasonable.
Click to expand...
I agree with you here, but it is a completely separate issue as to whether or not a father can over ride the termination of a ZEF (but not the termination of the pregnancy) if that is the path the mother chooses. We see all kinds of problems that occur after a child's is born, and those issues are separate from this one.
 
year2late said:
First and foremost....all other issues aside....what you are speaking to is cloning to create a human being. Is that legal anywhere?

Spitting in a container has zero expectation of potential pregnancy (unless you are in the habit of keeping a mouthful of sperm around Captain Turkey Baster)

Having vaginal sex clearly has the potential for causing pregnancy. So when you ejaculate, you ejaculate knowing the potential for fatherhood. You can reduce the potential for fatherhood by using a condom each and every time.

I cannot believe you see the scenarios as remotely similar.
Click to expand...
I get what he is trying to say though. He is asking if you give up some part of your body, in any form, for a given express purpose, is it a violation of you to have it used for another purpose?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom