• 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.

Northern Light said:
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.
Click to expand...

Except that under the premises given she is electing to have the procedure. I covered the issue of forced procedure by making one of the premises that the procedure was only different in what happened to the ZEF. The autonomy of whether or not she has the right to end the pregnancy is not in question here. We are exploring whether or not, given the conditions presented, she has a right to terminate the ZEF against the father's wishes. The premises I gave allows a woman to end her pregnancy without the termination of the ZEF with the exact same procedure as she would get if it was terminated.

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.
Click to expand...

Save for the part where the procedure is exactly the same. I stated that the only difference was the fate of the ZEF.


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.
Click to expand...

I covered that as well. The assumption for the hypothetical is that the procedure is the same.
 
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...

Are you labeling the woman as a "sperm donor"? You keep saying "both" so that is confusing.

As to the question, what is a mother's right if she carries the child to term, gives it up for adoption and then later has regrets and wants it back? I would say that the same principles applies in this hypothetical. She can choose to not have the procedure (assuming she initially chose to do it) right up to the point that they do the procedure. That would be equivilant to her choosing to back out of the adoption right up to birth. Go from there.
 
blarg said:
sucking something out alive or killing it is not the same like you said in her body her choice
Click to expand...

What happens to the ZEF once removed does not have an impact on her body. The ZEF is not part of her body. As noted by the premises, the procedure is the same with the only difference being the fate of the ZEF.
 
Lursa said:
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?
Click to expand...

As a rule yes, although, if a father can be made to foot some of the bill for prenatal care when a woman does not abort, then certainly the mother can be made to foot some of the bill for the incubation. Equal application of law.

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.
Click to expand...

I am not giving the unborn any rights in this hypothetical. It is the rights of the father that are now in question. In the real world those rights are overridden by the woman's right to decide what happens to her body. But that changes in the hypothetical she can still choose to end the pregnancy (thus choosing what happens to her body) and the father can still have his child born.

Over all the question is, is the woman's right to terminate just the pregnancy or does she have the right to also terminate the ZEF against the father's wishes, given the conditions provided?
 
maquiscat said:
What happens to the ZEF once removed does not have an impact on her body. The ZEF is not part of her body. As noted by the premises, the procedure is the same with the only difference being the fate of the ZEF.
Click to expand...

i say it hers to do with as she sees fit while its in her body

you dont get to choose what procedure a woman has done to her
 
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...

No. The woman whose womb it's in has the rights, always will. So, let's say the pregnant woman transfers it to another. That woman will then hold all the cards, as far as rights are concerned. Fathers have no rights until the child is born.
 
blarg said:
i say it hers to do with as she sees fit while its in her body

you dont get to choose what procedure a woman has done to her
Click to expand...

Obviously, some people simply cannot bear that fact. Something about giving women the power over their own bodies freaks them out
 
calamity said:
No. The woman whose womb it's in has the rights, always will. So, let's say the pregnant woman transfers it to another. That woman will then hold all the cards, as far as rights are concerned. Fathers have no rights until the child is born.
Click to expand...

It is true that we have defined it that way for our society but it is not necessarily so. If a society wants differently and is willing to enforce it? Why not?
 
maquiscat said:
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.
Click to expand...

Of course he cannot.

Can any person have a say in the medical decisions of another when the person involved is an adult and competent to make medical decisions?

If sex is entered into consensually...both understand that even with contraception there is a risk of pregnancy.

If one does not want to risk pregnancy and the consequences (which may include birth of a child or abortion) he or she should not have sex,

The fact that women have the ability to make an extra decision base on physiology does not mean men get a free pass.
 
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...

Is the mother bound by law to inform the father of the pregnancy and her plans to abort?

Is the mother bound by law to undergo DNA tests if she claims it's someone else's baby?

Even if one suspends fundamental reason and accepts the fanciful premises as laid out, there are still practical hurdles that effectively kill the idea in the womb. Pun intended. :)
 
joG said:
It is true that we have defined it that way for our society but it is not necessarily so. If a society wants differently and is willing to enforce it? Why not?
Click to expand...

A society which says fetuses and men have more rights than women over their own bodies---not my idea of Utopia.
 
calamity said:
A society which says fetuses and men have more rights than women over their own bodies---not my idea of Utopia.
Click to expand...

That is not the eay it would be argued nor has it been in most societies that have forbidden couples having abortions. It's just that lots of out compatriots are stuck in mental ruts and fail badly, when it comes to understanding logic that has different axioms.
 
joG said:
That is not the eay it would be argued nor has it been in most societies that have forbidden couples having abortions. It's just that lots of out compatriots are stuck in mental ruts and fail badly, when it comes to understanding logic that has different axioms.
Click to expand...

What the hell are you talking about?
 
Bodhisattva said:
Run it through Google Translate?
Click to expand...

Excellent. This actually makes more sense,

Это не то, о чем было бы заявлено, и не было в большинстве обществ, которые запретили пары, имеющие аборты. Просто многие из соотечественников застревают в умственных колеях и плохо терпят неудачу, когда дело доходит до понимания логики, которая имеет разные аксиомы.
Click to expand...
 
Bodhisattva said:
Run it through Google Translate?
Click to expand...

Or exchsnge "w" for the "e" and a "t" for "r". Of course, it is not the logic one wants to hear in our society.
 
joG said:
Or exchsnge "w" for the "e" and a "t" for "r". Of course, it is not the logic one wants to hear in our society.
Click to expand...

What do I exchange for the "s"?
 
maquiscat said:
Are you labeling the woman as a "sperm donor"? You keep saying "both" so that is confusing.

As to the question, what is a mother's right if she carries the child to term, gives it up for adoption and then later has regrets and wants it back? I would say that the same principles applies in this hypothetical. She can choose to not have the procedure (assuming she initially chose to do it) right up to the point that they do the procedure. That would be equivilant to her choosing to back out of the adoption right up to birth. Go from there.
Click to expand...

Sorry, misspoke when referred to both as sperm donors!

Meant both contributing to the pregnancy.

Reading through your responses, I see no upside for a woman to do this over abortion. Altho since you made it mandatory in your scenario that this is her only choice, then I'd say women would then choose to take advantage of their rights to privacy and due process and then find a Dr for an abortion, either legally or illegally. It would be an invasion of privacy for the govt to find out 'why' a woman decided to have an abortion.

Case in point: would abortion be illegal for women that chose pregnancy but then needed one for medical reasons? Probably not, that would never be legally justifiable. So women would be able to use this and their rights to due process and privacy to abort.

Because what you describe leaves them open to child support or other responsibilities later, even if unlikely.

--As far as I know, men are not legally bound to pay for anything during a pregnancy, so in your scenario, that cost would be all on the man. I imagine it would be $$$$.
--------Ethically, he'd also be able to terminate that incubating fetus at anytime, correct? LOL so in other words, you are taking away a woman's right to choose but enabling it for men.
--------If that's a woman's fetus incubating, according to current law, it's still her property (thinking of frozen embryos). I'm not sure she ever gives up that right, no matter what contract she signs. So in this case, she would have a choice DURING incubation and after. She could decide anytime. Altho there's no need to do so until it's born (and the man is still stuck with all the incubation expense, just like women are stuck with pregnancy) And so at 'birth,' she could still decide to exercise her rights as a parent. That would be current law. I think that would really a) be unfair to the men (just like women telling adoptive parents she wont give the baby up) and b) stop men from ever undertaking this route period.

--Yes women would still have to pay for child support under current law if the man sought it or if he ever applied for public assistance. The tax payers still should not be stuck with the bill. So again, there is no incentive for women not to seek out abortions one way or another.

--I can see alot of less-likely scenarios, like a woman or a child she has later has the same blood type and is a match for the test tube kid and needs to make contact to request tissue matching for organs or something (and vice versa for the test tube kid reaching out), because altho unlikely, stuff like this comes up anyway, but since I dont think the progam would really be feasible, I wont explore further. But if the kid is still a minor....she could have some legal rights there.
 
maquiscat said:
Except that under the premises given she is electing to have the procedure. I covered the issue of forced procedure by making one of the premises that the procedure was only different in what happened to the ZEF. The autonomy of whether or not she has the right to end the pregnancy is not in question here. We are exploring whether or not, given the conditions presented, she has a right to terminate the ZEF against the father's wishes. The premises I gave allows a woman to end her pregnancy without the termination of the ZEF with the exact same procedure as she would get if it was terminated.
Click to expand...

You are taking away her choices. She now has the right to terminate a pregnancy with no strings attached after taking the risks of the abortion procedure. This is always the main sticking point in this discussion. With your mandate that she must hand off the embryo rather than abort, she is now open to child support later on.

I see what you are trying to do but there's no such thing as 'fair' here. Taking away the right to abort...while giving it to men...is just punitive. It's not any more fair than it is for men now, but in this case, you are intentionally creating that inequality, and shifting it...not eliminating it.

Because in your scenario, the man can still terminate the incubation, correct?
 
Bodhisattva said:
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.
Click to expand...

Actually no, tradition usually gives the male superior rights over the women. After all it has traditionally been men in politics who decided the vote on what a woman can do with their body.
And ther arguement by maquiscat
is an appeal to giving men rights over women again.
 
maquiscat said:
Over all the question is, is the woman's right to terminate just the pregnancy or does she have the right to also terminate the ZEF against the father's wishes, given the conditions provided?
Click to expand...

Your scenario gives men the right to terminate the pregnancy against her wishes as well. As I mentioned earlier, women have weeks to decide if they want to terminate or not. It's a big decision, going back and forth. She may change her mind, her circumstances may change, after she hands off the embryo.

Current law would still give her rights to the embryo (property in IVF facilities)...current law even gives both parents some rights after a their bio child has been adopted. So making one law doesnt necessarily cancel out the precedents set for these other laws.

IMO this just makes a usually unfortunate and complicated situation (unwanted pregnancy) more complicated and potentially harmful to all involved.
 
soylentgreen said:
Actually no, tradition usually gives the male superior rights over the women. After all it has traditionally been men in politics who decided the vote on what a woman can do with their body.
And ther arguement by maquiscat
is an appeal to giving men rights over women again.
Click to expand...

True, traditionally once out of her body, men had complete dominance and decision over both's lives in most western societies. Men could generally take the children and kick the women out. Happened alot to mistresses but also when there were questions of protecting family assets.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom