The father's rights.

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?

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...

Given all the premises, and the father signing legal documents accepting the child as his progeny and committing to all care and raising, then I don't see why not.

Especially accepting Premise #2.

The only concerns I would have are the same as those currently faced by mother's who have a child the father doesn't want.

In your scenario, the mother later "regrets" the decision and seeks a claim to some parental rights over the child months or years later.

Interesting concept and we've had something slightly similar before.

I would say that transferring the ZEF could be a "option" but that it should not be forced upon the woman if she doesn't want to go that route. However, if a male is intent on being a father, he could easily buy eggs from an egg-bank, the opposite of a sperm-bank and grow his baby.

If, however, the two people chose that route, I would say "yes," the mother would be liable for child support, as long as the law allows the same for the male. If we ever get to the point where child support is not an issue, then she wouldn't have to worry, then again, neither would the male.

HowardBThiname said:

Interesting concept and we've had something slightly similar before.

I would say that transferring the ZEF could be a "option" but that it should not be forced upon the woman if she doesn't want to go that route....

Click to expand...

The woman has already chosen an abortion. The second premise indicates the procedure would be similar to an abortion, at least in terms of removing the ZEF. As the man has NO CHOICE if a woman elects to abort, why would the woman have any choice about what happens to the ZEF after removal?

And before anyone argues that it was her egg and thus still her choice, I counter that it was HIS sperm...and no one credits that contribution with any right to a choice should she opt to abort.

HowardBThiname said:

If, however, the two people chose that route, I would say "yes," the mother would be liable for child support, as long as the law allows the same for the male. If we ever get to the point where child support is not an issue, then she wouldn't have to worry, then again, neither would the male.

Click to expand...

I don't think it should matter whether or not the mother want's to allow the ZEF to be transferred so it can be born and raised by the father after she has opted to abort it.

For the same reason above, as the ZEF contains equal parts of genetic material from each parent, when the mother choses to abort, then IMO the rights should transfer to the father if the OP option is available.

By the same token, she should not be obligated for child support...nor should a man who does not want a child but the woman elects to have it anyway.

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...

You are a provocative SOB today for sure....That's a compliment in case you are not sure....

The problem is that women have been able to regulate their fertility for 50 years and we have not been able to work that into our customs and laws, so even if we all agree on this is we are looking at what, maybe 100 years before we can get this done?

Captain Adverse said:

In your scenario, the mother later "regrets" the decision and seeks a claim to some parental rights over the child months or years later.

Click to expand...

Nothing more than what men do today. So I have no more issue with women doing this than i do men.

HowardBThiname said:

I would say that transferring the ZEF could be a "option" but that it should not be forced upon the woman if she doesn't want to go that route.

Click to expand...

If you are saying that she doesn't want an abortion regardless of whether she plans to keep it past birth or not, I agree. However, given the premises given, why should she have say on whether or not the ZEF is terminated if the father wants it?

Captain Adverse said:

By the same token, she should not be obligated for child support...nor should a man who does not want a child but the woman elects to have it anyway.

Click to expand...

Am I correct that while you would prefer that neither party be legally responsible if they do not wish to be, decision to be taken within a given window, you would be alright if the legal obligation remained as long as it was applied equally to either parent not wanting to keep the child?

Hawkeye10 said:

You are a provocative SOB today for sure....That's a compliment in case you are not sure....

The problem is that women have been able to regulate their fertility for 50 years and we have not been able to work that into our customs and laws, so even if we all agree on this is we are looking at what, maybe 100 years before we can get this done?

Click to expand...

Given the premises I don't see where this is an issue. Seems kind of non-sequitur to me. Could you elaborate more?

If transfering the ZEF was as safe as an abortion he should be allowed to gain control of the life and raise it and she pays child support.

maquiscat said:

Am I correct that while you would prefer that neither party be legally responsible if they do not wish to be, decision to be taken within a given window, you would be alright if the legal obligation remained as long as it was applied equally to either parent not wanting to keep the child?

Click to expand...

I am somewhat confused by your question.

If both parties wanted the child, then they should both be legally responsible for it.

If the man did not want the child, but the woman decides unilaterally to go ahead and have it, then IMO the man should not be obligated by law to provide support unless he agrees to do so.

Under your scenario, if the man wants the child but the woman does not want it and decides to abort it unilaterally, then it can be removed per your scenario and becomes the sole obligation of the male to raise. The woman would have no legal obligation unless she agrees to do so.

Does that answer your question?

Captain Adverse said:

I am somewhat confused by your question.

If both parties wanted the child, then they should both be legally responsible for it.

If the man did not want the child, but the woman decides unilaterally to go ahead and have it, then IMO the man should not be obligated by law to provide support unless he agrees to do so.

Under your scenario, if the man wants the child but the woman does not want it and decides to abort it unilaterally, then it can be removed per your scenario and becomes the sole obligation of the male to raise. The woman would have no legal obligation unless she agrees to do so.

Does that answer your question?

Click to expand...

Let me try it from a different angle.

I understand and acknowledge that you would prefer if either parent wanted, they would have the option to opt out of all rights and responsibilities if the other wants to keep the child. My question is, if it doesn't look like the law will allow for that possibility, do you consider it proper and fair that she be forced into child support if he is keeping it, but she didn't want it?

maquiscat said:

Let me try it from a different angle.

I understand and acknowledge that you would prefer if either parent wanted, they would have the option to opt out of all rights and responsibilities if the other wants to keep the child. My question is, if it doesn't look like the law will allow for that possibility, do you consider it proper and fair that she be forced into child support if he is keeping it, but she didn't want it?

Click to expand...

If the law currently requires that the male provide child support for an unwanted child, then the law should also apply to the female is she does not want it.

maquiscat said:

Let me try it from a different angle.

I understand and acknowledge that you would prefer if either parent wanted, they would have the option to opt out of all rights and responsibilities if the other wants to keep the child. My question is, if it doesn't look like the law will allow for that possibility, do you consider it proper and fair that she be forced into child support if he is keeping it, but she didn't want it?

Click to expand...

Right now there is the development of a microchip underway, which can be implanted under the skin, programmable that controls hormones that will prevents ovulation (or allows it) and will last up to 15 years. This type of technology should be available worldwide and free.

The invent of a microchip for men would be great.

There’s too many ethical issues around artificial wombs. The cost to make them, transfer embryos, and monitor them over the gestation period will be paid for by whom?

I think the solution to abortion is prevention. That would be good for men, women, States, and taxpayers.

Interesting hypothetical. Given the premises I would say yes, the man should be allowed to take custody of the ZEF. And no, he shouldn’t be allowed to sue for child support.

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...

nope still her body and choice

maquiscat said:

If you are saying that she doesn't want an abortion regardless of whether she plans to keep it past birth or not, I agree. However, given the premises given, why should she have say on whether or not the ZEF is terminated if the father wants it?

Click to expand...

My thoughts are (and this is based on what happened to one of my daughter's friends) that the young woman who is aborting might be aborting because she was hesitant to raise a child with the father, with or without marrying him. My daughter' friend was one of those possessive types from the start and I saw it when they came to dinner once, but she seemed to like him. She ended up pregnant but by then they were having trouble and some mild abuse had taken place. She told my daughter that she knew she couldn't have a kid with him (she was afraid the abuse would accelerate) and she didn't want to raise the kid by herself. She aborted. He didn't know until months later - she broke up with him but he kept calling, driving by her house, her work. When he found out, he went to ask her to confirm - she did and he punched her. That's all, just a punch, but it was enough to have him arrested and get a restraining order. Nothing else ever happened. He left town after that.

But, because I was around to witness that relationship, I couldn't support forcing any women to abort only to have the father of the baby take the child. It probably wouldn't be that bad in most of the cases, but to think that the law would hand a kid to guy like that makes me very hesitant.

I say it's a good "choice" for the woman, and if the guy is a great guy who wants a kid, she very well might support doing that.

But force the issue? No, I can't go that far. Women are natural nurturers. Some males are. Many are not.

blarg said:

nope still her body and choice

Click to expand...

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?

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...

Because it's her body.

Removable Mind said:

Right now there is the development of a microchip underway, which can be implanted under the skin, programmable that controls hormones that will prevents ovulation (or allows it) and will last up to 15 years. This type of technology should be available worldwide and free.

The invent of a microchip for men would be great.

Click to expand...

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.

There’s too many ethical issues around artificial wombs. The cost to make them, transfer embryos, and monitor them over the gestation period will be paid for by whom?

Click to expand...

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.

I think the solution to abortion is prevention. That would be good for men, women, States, and taxpayers.

Click to expand...

I am not looking at abortion solutions here, per se'. We are looking at the rights of abortion. What are the father's actual rights that medical technology simply cannot cover currently? Is her right to end the ZEF or just the mother pregnancy?

Aristaeus said:

Because it's her body.

Click to expand...

And? What exactly is being denied her?

HowardBThiname said:

But, because I was around to witness that relationship, I couldn't support forcing any women to abort only to have the father of the baby take the child. It probably wouldn't be that bad in most of the cases, but to think that the law would hand a kid to guy like that makes me very hesitant.

I say it's a good "choice" for the woman, and if the guy is a great guy who wants a kid, she very well might support doing that.

But force the issue? No, I can't go that far. Women are natural nurturers. Some males are. Many are not.

Click to expand...

We do not deny the rights of the many based upon the actions of a few. We would not deny a father his rights to his children based on the idea that some men are abusive. The same principle applies here. Yes, I can see if the father is shown to be abusive then he can be denied the right to claim the ZEF if she is going to give it up. But unless that is shown, it does nothing to change the base issues presented.

Let's turn your situation around. She is shown to be abusive and he is the current caretaker of children, with no abuse issues (whether those kids are both of theirs or not does not affect the issue). She wants to abort. Why shouldn't he be allowed to keep the kid? What should he not be able to say that while she can end the pregnancy, she can terminate his child?

Skeptic Bob said:

Interesting hypothetical. Given the premises I would say yes, the man should be allowed to take custody of the ZEF. And no, he shouldn’t be allowed to sue for child support.

Click to expand...

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?

maquiscat said:

I

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

Click to expand...

Justify that qualifier. You are saying that she can be forced to undergo medical procedure. That a man's right to be a father is more important than a womens right to her own body?

soylentgreen said:

Justify that qualifier. You are saying that she can be forced to undergo medical procedure. That a man's right to be a father is more important than a womens right to her own body?

Click to expand...

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.