The father's rights.

Lursa said:

Please read better. I never said she shouldnt.

And I wrote as much at the beginning of the thread. Sorry to spoil your gloating, now you just look silly.

Click to expand...

Just keep in mind that, like you and have been doing, he is responding to posts as he comes across them. He hasn't seen your counter points at the time of response. We were doing a lot of that yesterday.

maquiscat said:

The third premise counters the idea that the woman is forced into a procedure she does not want. If the woman is going to have the ZEF removed, and the procedure for both is exactly the same save whether the ZEF is terminated or not, what procedure is the woman forced into?

Click to expand...

I am trying to understand this premise.

Are you saying that the procedure a woman would undergo to abort is the same procedure to remove it and transfer they embryo or fetus to the alternate womb?

I mean....logistiacally.....you would have to remove the embryo or fetus without harming the embryo or fetus.....so either you would need to do a procedure akin to a c-section or significantly dilate the cervix in order to have a visual field significant enough so you do not harm the embryo or fetus.

'I am trying to figure out how that issue is just being glossed over. An abortion carries little risk.....but removing an intact fetus to transfer it to another womb would carry significant risk and anesthesia issues.

year2late said:

I am trying to understand this premise.

Are you saying that the procedure a woman would undergo to abort is the same procedure to remove it and transfer they embryo or fetus to the alternate womb?

I mean....logistiacally.....you would have to remove the embryo or fetus without harming the embryo or fetus.....so either you would need to do a procedure akin to a c-section or significantly dilate the cervix in order to have a visual field significant enough so you do not harm the embryo or fetus.

'I am trying to figure out how that issue is just being glossed over. An abortion carries little risk.....but removing an intact fetus to transfer it to another womb would carry significant risk and anesthesia issues.

Click to expand...

I did state that the actual mechanism was irrelevant to hypothetical as we are exploring rights and ethics, not medical tech. But if you need it....matter transporter technology is perfected, and is used medically to remove tumors, failed organs and ZEF's, among other possible uses. So once removed, the ZEF can either be beamed into the AW or have its atoms scattered. Does that satisfy your concerns?

maquiscat said:

Given that, then by what right does a woman have to violate my privacy of what I did with her to a government agency? This assumes consentual activity.

Click to expand...

The man and the woman both have a right to privacy regarding non harmful medical procedures.

From:

States can create laws to protect citizens from harmful practices, and it can ban medical procedures that are harmful. When abortion was initially banned by most states, it was a dangerous procedure. Medically, it is now safer than childbirth. Therefore there is no longer a good reason for states to ban it as a medical practice

Click to expand...

Roe v Wade - edited text

maquiscat said:

So why would it be a privacy violation before the child is born, but not after? I am looking at this whole privacy thing for her to have to reveal the father, assuming known, for the purpose of,giving him a chance to take the kid she is giving up prior to birth.

Click to expand...

It is her privacy that is infringed if she is forced to identify a father before birth. Her privacy if she is forced to divulge a pregnancy. And there's no need for her to do so, pregnancy tests are 99% accurate these days, no need to seek a dr.

You said we werent changing any laws and this is a fundamental Constitutional right.

maquiscat said:

The third premise counters the idea that the woman is forced into a procedure she does not want. If the woman is going to have the ZEF removed, and the procedure for both is exactly the same save whether the ZEF is terminated or not, what procedure is the woman forced into?

Click to expand...

You havent addressed some of my questions regarding this but if the embryo is removed, it then take on status similar to embryos in IVF facilities...which are considered property. Couples end up fighting over the disposal and use of these all the time.

The difference in procedures here is that one involves destroying the embryo, and one involved giving up her property.

--Except that according to any current laws I'm aware of, she'd still have rights to that embryo in incubation. Or wouldnt she?

--Can the man terminate that incubation? Can she?

--Can she decide right before 'birth' that she does indeed want to keep it? Currently women can do that, change their mind after birth to not give it up for adoption *even after the adoptive parents have paid all her expenses during pregnancy.*

So anyway, there are additional questions that need to be answered because if the process would requires her to be obligated to this kid after 'birth,' then there is no incentive for her to have a procedure to preserve the embryo.

And *that* is the difference in being able to choose procedures here: one may still obligate her later. One does not. And legally, she seems to have plenty of protection before her decision to not give up her 'property' to the man.

(Yeah, I know...the bold is the part that some keep objecting to and it seems are willing to convolute just about anything to demonstrate just how 'inequal' it is)

maquiscat said:

You still seem to be ignoring the premises.

Click to expand...

FALSE, as explained below.

maquiscat said:

The procedure to remove the ZEF from her body is exactly the same whether the ZEF is terminated or not.

Click to expand...

THE NORMAL PROCEDURE INVOLVES DISMEMBERMENT. Therefore the above premise is Stupidly False, since you need a different procedure to remove an unborn human from a womb and keep it alive during the process.

maquiscat said:

What about her body is affected if the ZEF remains viable after removal?

Click to expand...

BETTER QUESTION: Why does the average unborn human need to be viable? (Remember, for the human species to survive only about 10,000 unborn humans per year need to survive; all the rest, roughly 150 million per year (thus including the average one) are not necessary for the survival of the species.)

maquiscat said:

Whether or not it is worthy of staying alive is a subjective value.

Click to expand...

EXACTLY. Why is yours, or that of the involved man, a superior valuation to that of a woman who chooses to abort? Remember, the world is still overpopulated with humans, and you cannot offer any OBJECTIVE reason why the average unborn human must survive.

maquiscat said:

Women make this judgement all the time, with the vast majority of them deciding that it is worthy.

Click to expand...

TRUE. TO THEM. Not necessarily true for anyone else, since, as you clearly pointed out, their valuations are subjective.

maquiscat said:

Under the conditions given, men would also have the chance to make that determination without violating the woman's bodily sovereignty.

Click to expand...

FALSE. Because you have to violate her sovereignty to get at any unborn human inside her.

maquiscat said:

Unless you are saying the ZEF should be terminated as revenge for whatever it did to her body before she could go and get the procedure?

Click to expand...

IT IS HER CHOICE. That is the thing you seem to be ignoring, most of all. Even if there was a way to move an unborn human safely from inside a womb to the outside, you are talking about ignoring a person's personal choice, to save the life of something that demonstrably acts worse than a parasite. With respect to any other entity that acts that way, there is no question about what to do; killing it is normal. Only the fact that this entity is human seems to make a difference, and that difference is most simply explained by these 5 words: Stupidly Prejudiced Master Race Idiocy.

maquiscat said:

But what is her actual right? There is no doubt that it is her right to have anything she doesn't want in her body removed. That is not in question. The real question is, when we can retain that right as well as maintain the ZEF alive, does her right extend to terminating the ZEF when the father wants it? Right now we cannot separate the right and the ZEF's termination. To remove the ZEF currently is to terminate it. But when that is not automatically the case, we have to ask, is the right to terminate the ZEF an actual right or just a consequence we couldn't separate out?

Click to expand...

I am claiming that you are working under a false assumption that the fate of the ZEF, under the conditions given, are the woman's alone. Her true right is the removal of the ZEF from her body. As long as the procedure for abortion and transfer are the same with the only difference being what happens to the ZEF once removed, then she has lost no bodily sovereignty. Also keep in mind that I specifically stated that if the woman was not wanting to have the ZEF removed from her body, the decision to transfer the ZEF to an artificial womb could not be legally forced upon her.

Click to expand...

No, i disagree, her true right is complete autonomy. If a mutually agreed contract was drawn prior to conception then a father has a right to some ownership of the fate of the ZEF. If not then the woman must be given full authority to decide.
At the moment the law states permission from a doner must be aquired before a transplant can take place. Ownership and the right to decide what happens to our organs belong to the individual who has the organ, not the person requiring them.

maquiscat said:

We do not deny rights based on a lack of people exercising their right to do so. No one else could ever want to burn an American flag again, but the right would still exist. Assuming the early years of this tech coming out, and the procedure conditions necessary, it would probably be a slow start for men to realize that they can save their offspring from abortion. I would guess that the first times would be from before the procedure was the same for abort or transfer, and come from out of mother's willing to give fathers the ZEF.

Click to expand...

What comes first, a fertilized egg or an artificial womb?

I really get the premise...but it just doesn’t work for me.

The need for an AW product (for the intended use that you’ve described) truly sounds like an unnecessary product, in my opinion. Why? Again, because it will be way less expensive (monetarily, legally, and emotionally) to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the consequences that women and men are likely to be subject to - than to create high tech medical sites somewhere around the nation to artificially grow embryos/early stage fetuses.

If virtually no unwanted pregnancies exist, because of the creation of high tech (implantable, programmable) birth control products for women and men, then that significantly reduces the need for a very expensive artificial womb, which will probably be difficult for most men to access because of financial reasons. Somebody’s gotta pay, right? And prevention products would naturally reduce, if not eliminate, the demand for artificial wombs.

With substantially reduced demands - it would lessen the incentive for manufacturing an apparatus to allow the development of an embryo/early stage fetuses.

It also stands to reason that gaining some actual form of meaningful reproductive related rights - would be slim without a substantial need for AW facilities. Just saying. :shrug:

maquiscat said:

I did state that the actual mechanism was irrelevant to hypothetical as we are exploring rights and ethics, not medical tech. But if you need it....matter transporter technology is perfected, and is used medically to remove tumors, failed organs and ZEF's, among other possible uses. So once removed, the ZEF can either be beamed into the AW or have its atoms scattered. Does that satisfy your concerns?

Click to expand...

If we were at a place where matter transport tech was perfected...dont you think unwanted pregnancy would be a thing of the past?

jdog21 said:

negative both procedure remove the zef from the women. what the doctor does with the zef is up to the parents which at this time the mother has opted out of and the father then gets to chose

Click to expand...

Nope.. still different procedures with different outcomes. The decision of which procedure.. would have to be decided prior to the procedure.

Removable Mind said:

What comes first, a fertilized egg or an artificial womb?

I really get the premise...but it just doesn’t work for me.

The need for an AW product (for the intended use that you’ve described) truly sounds like an unnecessary product, in my opinion. Why? Again, because it will be way less expensive (monetarily, legally, and emotionally) to prevent unwanted pregnancies and the consequences that women and men are likely to be subject to - than to create high tech medical sites somewhere around the nation to artificially grow embryos/early stage fetuses.

If virtually no unwanted pregnancies exist, because of the creation of high tech (implantable, programmable) birth control products for women and men, then that significantly reduces the need for a very expensive artificial womb, which will probably be difficult for most men to access because of financial reasons. Somebody’s gotta pay, right? And prevention products would naturally reduce, if not eliminate, the demand for artificial wombs.

With substantially reduced demands - it would lessen the incentive for manufacturing an apparatus to allow the development of an embryo/early stage fetuses.

It also stands to reason that gaining some actual form of meaningful reproductive related rights - would be slim without a substantial need for AW facilities. Just saying. :shrug:

Click to expand...

And since no child was expected to begin with, certainly the case when birth control is used, then there can be no obligation for a woman to 'produce' the embryo for a man.

That's not a reasonable expectation when birth control was deliberately in place to prevent it.

Lursa said:

It is her privacy that is infringed if she is forced to identify a father before birth. Her privacy if she is forced to divulge a pregnancy. And there's no need for her to do so, pregnancy tests are 99% accurate these days, no need to seek a dr.

Click to expand...

So why is it not her privacy that is violated if she has to reveal the father for assistance? Isn't it his privacy as to whether he got someone pregnant or not?

But here is the other thing. Is it a violation of privacy if say they own a car together to have her reveal the location of the car that may be currently in her possession?

You said we werent changing any laws and this is a fundamental Constitutional right.

Click to expand...

I did not say that. I did fail to note any changes in law. But again, situations like this then call into question what the specifics of an actual right are.

maquiscat said:

So why is it not her privacy that is violated if she has to reveal the father for assistance? Isn't it his privacy as to whether he got someone pregnant or not?

But here is the other thing. Is it a violation of privacy if say they own a car together to have her reveal the location of the car that may be currently in her possession?



I did not say that. I did fail to note any changes in law. But again, situations like this then call into question what the specifics of an actual right are.

Click to expand...

It's not her privacy, it's that of the child. And no, he consented to providing his sperm, what was confidential about it?

On top of this, in both cases there is due process in order to obtain the information. (The state acting in the best interests of the child. And the mother can refuse and not accept assistance or get child support)


It is a violation of privacy re: the car unless there is probable cause for criminal or fraudulent acts: due process.

And if you object to application of current laws, then please present alternatives that would be legally plausible within the Constitution. Sorry, I'm not accepting any lost of Constitutional protections for women's rights. If they didnt do so for abortion, they're not doing so to move embryos around.

The third premise counters the idea that the woman is forced into a procedure she does not want. If the woman is going to have the ZEF removed, and the procedure for both is exactly the same save whether the ZEF is terminated or not, what procedure is the woman forced into?

Lursa said:

You havent addressed some of my questions regarding this but if the embryo is removed, it then take on status similar to embryos in IVF facilities...which are considered property. Couples end up fighting over the disposal and use of these all the time.

The difference in procedures here is that one involves destroying the embryo, and one involved giving up her property.

--Except that according to any current laws I'm aware of, she'd still have rights to that embryo in incubation. Or wouldnt she?

--Can the man terminate that incubation? Can she?

--Can she decide right before 'birth' that she does indeed want to keep it? Currently women can do that, change their mind after birth to not give it up for adoption *even after the adoptive parents have paid all her expenses during pregnancy.*

So anyway, there are additional questions that need to be answered because if the process would requires her to be obligated to this kid after 'birth,' then there is no incentive for her to have a procedure to preserve the embryo.

And *that* is the difference in being able to choose procedures here: one may still obligate her later. One does not. And legally, she seems to have plenty of protection before her decision to not give up her 'property' to the man.

(Yeah, I know...the bold is the part that some keep objecting to and it seems are willing to convolute just about anything to demonstrate just how 'inequal' it is)

Click to expand...

maquiscat said:

So why is it not her privacy that is violated if she has to reveal the father for assistance? Isn't it his privacy as to whether he got someone pregnant or not?

But here is the other thing. Is it a violation of privacy if say they own a car together to have her reveal the location of the car that may be currently in her possession?

I did not say that. I did fail to note any changes in law. But again, situations like this then call into question what the specifics of an actual right are.

Click to expand...

Lursa said:

It's not her privacy, it's that of the child. And no, he consented to providing his sperm, what was confidential about it?

On top of this, in both cases there is due process in order to obtain the information. (The state acting in the best interests of the child. And the mother can refuse and not accept assistance or get child support)


It is a violation of privacy re: the car unless there is probable cause for criminal or fraudulent acts: due process.

And if you object to application of current laws, then please present alternatives that would be legally plausible within the Constitution. Sorry, I'm not accepting any lost of Constitutional protections for women's rights. If they didnt do so for abortion, they're not doing so to move embryos around.

Click to expand...

Are we done here then? I still had some unanswered questions (blue bold).

It's been an interesting discussion.

maquiscat said:

So why is it not her privacy that is violated if she has to reveal the father for assistance? Isn't it his privacy as to whether he got someone pregnant or not?

.

Click to expand...

Because she is choosing to get assistance. And the requirement of getting that assistance is knowing the father so that the state can collect money for that child's assistance and reduce the cost to the taxpayer.

Isn't it his privacy as to whether he got someone pregnant or not

Click to expand...

Yes.. for the most part it is. Unless he is not being responsible for the baby and therefore the baby is going onto assistance.

But here is the other thing. Is it a violation of privacy if say they own a car together to have her reveal the location of the car that may be currently in her possession?

Click to expand...

there would have to be probably cause that some crime was committed with the car for her to be compelled to reveal the location of the car. Wait.. actually she could not be compelled even in that case because she has a constitutional right not to incriminate herself.

Lursa said:

The third premise counters the idea that the woman is forced into a procedure she does not want. If the woman is going to have the ZEF removed, and the procedure for both is exactly the same save whether the ZEF is terminated or not, what procedure is the woman forced into?






Are we done here then? I still had some unanswered questions (blue bold).

It's been an interesting discussion.

Click to expand...

You might have to give me a bit. Holidays and all. While I might still be making quick comments here and there, some posts deserve more thought out responses.

Poke me after the 1st if I haven't responded by then. I've got a mind like a steel sieve

maquiscat said:

You might have to give me a bit. Holidays and all. While I might still be making quick comments here and there, some posts deserve more thought out responses.

Poke me after the 1st if I haven't responded by then. I've got a mind like a steel sieve

Click to expand...

Ha! No worries.

If this system developed I would not only agree to this, but I would supporting using tax dollars to create a adoption policy where people unable to have children or deciding to adopt could witness the birth of their baby.

So no child needlessly dies.

Cable_Extreme said:

If this system developed I would not only agree to this, but I would supporting using tax dollars to create a adoption policy where people unable to have children or deciding to adopt could witness the birth of their baby.

So no child needlessly dies.

Click to expand...

Keep reading.

There are over 100,000 children already available for adoption (not in foster care, but up for adoption)...and they are waiting. What is the justification for creating more unwanted kids and thus taking away further the chances of those children being adopted?

And that's very poor use of my tax dollars, just IMO. There's nothing stopping people from doing that now if they arrange it.

Cable_Extreme said:

If this system developed I would not only agree to this, but I would supporting using tax dollars to create a adoption policy where people unable to have children or deciding to adopt could witness the birth of their baby.

So no child needlessly dies.

Click to expand...

Against the wishes of the woman giving birth?????

Seriously??????

Wow.

Just wow.

I think I said this on another thread....you put the rights of the woman lower than a man.

year2late said:

Against the wishes of the woman giving birth?????

Seriously??????

Wow.

Just wow.

I think I said this on another thread....you put the rights of the woman lower than a man.

Click to expand...

If you read back in this thread, you will see I am talking about an incubation type scenario where a fetus could be removed and still survive instead of being aborted.

Cable_Extreme said:

If you read back in this thread, you will see I am talking about an incubation type scenario where a fetus could be removed and still survive instead of being aborted.

Click to expand...

Holy crap....another artificial womb-er.

Good grief.

I ask you this. Assuming an artificial womb for humans comes into existence...who is going to pay for the months of incubation?

Do you see the safe extraction of the embryo or fetus as a procedure as simple as an abortion? Who will pay for the extraction,?That will certainly require ansesthesia and an operating room. If there are complications...who will pay? How will the woman support her family during recovery?

year2late said:

Holy crap....another artificial womb-er.

Good grief.

I ask you this. Assuming an artificial womb for humans comes into existence...who is going to pay for the months of incubation?

Do you see the safe extraction of the embryo or fetus as a procedure as simple as an abortion? Who will pay for the extraction,?That will certainly require ansesthesia and an operating room. If there are complications...who will pay? How will the woman support her family during recovery?

Click to expand...

Tax payers, I have no problem paying more in taxes to afford this. You have a tendency to commit fallacies directed at my character. Stating stuff like "Another slut shamer found" "or another artificial womb-er" isn't a good debating tactic. You are trying to dismiss me by avoiding my argument.

It should be decided between the mother and father.