abortion

[concerro]

Is it right that a woman can terminate a pregnancy without the father's consent even if her life is not endangered by the pregnancy but if the father does not want the child and the woman wants to keep it he cant do anything

[Corvus]

What I am asking is, is it fair that the woman's opinion is the only one considered in whether or not a child lives and the father just has to accept the consequences whatever they may be

Of course not. Although there could be extreme cases where the life of the mother is in danger (but this is uncommon nowadays), in general we must remember that the fetus/child came into existence because of the combined action of both mother and father, so it is also his child as much as hers. A fetus is not part of the woman's body.

Yes, but it's growing within it, which complicates the issue. I am not so sure that sex performed with no intention of having a child, but which in any case results in one, should automatically result in the father taking possession of it if unwanted by the mother. Because we are talking about unwanted pregnancies, I assume there was no prior agreement over wanting the child before the act , and because the baby is in the woman's womb, it should be her decision alone to make. It's something like one farmer telling another farmer that he will work his land, but not supplying any conditions. The second farmer then harvests the crop and makes a stew out of it, and then the first farmer demands his share. Although it would be nice to repay the first farmer's kindness, the second farmer is not obliged to do so, even if the entire crop goes to waste.

[AlAyeti]

The irony is that every single person that can see the words of this post were once a fetus.

How incredibly hypocritical that a person who was a fetus can have the right to kill one.

Murder.

[Corvus]

I must remind everyone that the topic for debate is; "is it fair that the woman's opinion is the only one considered in whether or not a child lives and the father just has to accept the consequences whatever they may be" and not "how do you feel about abortion?" Other topics exist for debate about the latter.

So far there have only been two posts that directly address the question.

[Dilettante]

What I am asking is, is it fair that the woman's opinion is the only one considered in whether or not a child lives and the father just has to accept the consequences whatever they may be

Of course not. Although there could be extreme cases where the life of the mother is in danger (but this is uncommon nowadays), in general we must remember that the fetus/child came into existence because of the combined action of both mother and father, so it is also his child as much as hers. A fetus is not part of the woman's body.

Yes, but it's growing within it, which complicates the issue. I am not so sure that sex performed with no intention of having a child, but which in any case results in one, should automatically result in the father taking possession of it if unwanted by the mother. Because we are talking about unwanted pregnancies, I assume there was no prior agreement over wanting the child before the act , and because the baby is in the woman's womb, it should be her decision alone to make.

I agree that the fact that the mother is the "carrier" complicates an already involved issue. But why should we grant the mother the ius utendi et abutendi over the fetus, particularly if most of us agree she does not have the right to physically punish or abuse the baby after birth? the farmers analogy would work much better if the crops were at least animated beings. Imagine a situation in which a couple of Chinese farmers are contemplating infanticide right after the birth of a female baby. One parent (it doesn't matter which) decides it's best to kill the baby, the other strongly opposes the idea. Should we privilege the opinion of the one whose body carried the baby for nine months?
Also, in the developed world, where contraceptives are widely available, not having planned the pregnacy is a lame excuse. In such a case the partners are guilty of grave negligence and perhaps such irresponsible behavior should be restricted as much as possible through disincentives such as fines, sanctions, and other forms of punishment.

[ST88]

I agree that the fact that the mother is the "carrier" complicates an already involved issue. But why should we grant the mother the ius utendi et abutendi over the fetus, particularly if most of us agree she does not have the right to physically punish or abuse the baby after birth?

Arguing the morality of abortion itself should not be a part of this discussion. Does the mother have the right to ingest an overdose of apiol, thereby causing a miscarriage?

Turn the original question around. Assume for the moment that the state does not have an interest in the pregnancy. If the father wants the baby aborted and the mother wants to keep it, who do we listen to?

Now assume that the state has an interest in the pregnancy. The father wants the baby and the mother doesn't. Does (should) the state have the right to force the mother to go to term using any means necessary?

the farmers analogy would work much better if the crops were at least animated beings. Imagine a situation in which a couple of Chinese farmers are contemplating infanticide right after the birth of a female baby. One parent (it doesn't matter which) decides it's best to kill the baby, the other strongly opposes the idea. Should we privilege the opinion of the one whose body carried the baby for nine months?

Again, abortion is not infanticide, by definition. At best it is fetacide. The situation in this case is obvious. The abortion case is not.

Also, in the developed world, where contraceptives are widely available, not having planned the pregnacy is a lame excuse. In such a case the partners are guilty of grave negligence and perhaps such irresponsible behavior should be restricted as much as possible through disincentives such as fines, sanctions, and other forms of punishment.

I disagree here. There are too many examples where contraception is unavailable for a variety of reasons -- including shame, being underage, and the items being out of stock. It is sometimes the case that a sexual encounter (even a consenting one) arises out of a completely unplanned situation. I suppose it would be incumbent on all of us to carry around contraception for just such an encounter, but we can't count on this for everyone (many bathing suits do not have such a pocket -- or at least a pocket of that size and shape).

Perhaps you are arguing that the RU486/morning after pill be more widely available?

[Corvus]

What I am asking is, is it fair that the woman's opinion is the only one considered in whether or not a child lives and the father just has to accept the consequences whatever they may be

Of course not. Although there could be extreme cases where the life of the mother is in danger (but this is uncommon nowadays), in general we must remember that the fetus/child came into existence because of the combined action of both mother and father, so it is also his child as much as hers. A fetus is not part of the woman's body.

Yes, but it's growing within it, which complicates the issue. I am not so sure that sex performed with no intention of having a child, but which in any case results in one, should automatically result in the father taking possession of it if unwanted by the mother. Because we are talking about unwanted pregnancies, I assume there was no prior agreement over wanting the child before the act , and because the baby is in the woman's womb, it should be her decision alone to make.

I agree that the fact that the mother is the "carrier" complicates an already involved issue. But why should we grant the mother the ius utendi et abutendi over the fetus, particularly if most of us agree she does not have the right to physically punish or abuse the baby after birth?

ST88 is on the right page as me when he says that morality should not enter into the discussion. The question already involves the premise that it is entirely acceptable for a mother to abort a child if the father gives his permission or is indifferent towards the action, so it is clear that the value of the life of the fetus is not intrinsic or in any way something recognised by government, but something applied by the parent/s. Therefore, the question is, I believe, entirely one of possession and property rights. The father has an emotional investment in the fetus, but to maintain this, a huge commitment is required from the mother, and I don't think that's entirely fair.

Also, in the developed world, where contraceptives are widely available, not having planned the pregnacy is a lame excuse. In such a case the partners are guilty of grave negligence and perhaps such irresponsible behavior should be restricted as much as possible through disincentives such as fines, sanctions, and other forms of punishment.

With the life of a fetus legally not having any value except one applied by the parents, I can't see how the law can recognise any negligence and irresponsibility. That seems to me a contradiction in what the law states or implies.

[Dilettante]

ST88 and Corvus, you are right: I shouldn't have crossed the line into the morality of abortion, which belongs in another thread. I apologize for the digression. Let me try to answer you both, however.

To Corvus:

1. Property rights, at least in western cultures, do not apply to human beings (no legal slaves) or human organs (try advertising your kidney instead of your car in the classifieds page of the paper and you'll hear from the police).

2. The irresponsibility I was referring to is that of unnecessarily getting oneself in a situation where scarce common resources (I'm speaking from
the perspective of a country with a national health care system) such as operation theaters, hospital rooms, medical equipment and personnel, are used for something which would have been entirely preventable had the person been responsible. Perhaps the law should discourage that.

To ST88:

1. Except in a few extreme cases (rape, danger to the mother's life, severe birth defects) I don't really think the mother has a right to freely terminate the pregnancy. Both mother and father should be listened to, but if there is no good reason to abort the baby, why do it? Having said this, I don't really think the State should be allowed to use "any means necessary". That sounds too much like totalitarianism. But maybe the State should actively discourage sexual irresponsibility, though I don't want to give it a blank cheque.

2. Abortion is not infanticide, but my example was set in rural China, where both are considered morally permissible. It may be obvious to you that a baby is a person, but it is not obvious to everyone (ancient Greeks, Peter Singer, etc). There seems to be no agreement about the beginning of personhood.

3. It's ironic that some people should be afraid (or rather ashamed) of buying contraceptives and not of being sexually irresponsible. If someone is underage, he or she probably shouldn't be having sexual intercourse in the first place since that person is probably not mature enough (the legal limits are there for a reason). And, in the developed world, which was what I was referring to, I have never heard of a shortage of contraceptives.

2. In case of unpreparedness, it's best to postpone the sexual encounter or at least avoid penetration (and thus impregnation). The fact that not everyone can be expected to behave responsibly should, in my opinion, not be an excuse. Many people do not use seat belts and /or disregard speed limits, yet we do not exempt them from responsibility.

3. The RU486/morning after pill is already widely available, at least here in Spain (I don't know about the US). If a woman is ashamed of asking a doctor for a prescription, I've read that she can get it from a pharmacist for just 18 euros. In any case, it's still best to use contraception instead.

[Corvus]

ST88 and Corvus, you are right: I shouldn't have crossed the line into the morality of abortion, which belongs in another thread. I apologize for the digression. Let me try to answer you both, however.

To Corvus:

1. Property rights, at least in western cultures, do not apply to human beings (no legal slaves) or human organs (try advertising your kidney instead of your car in the classifieds page of the paper and you'll hear from the police).

Hah, yes, indeed. But still, the fetus is a peculiar thing, which can't exactly be equated to a human being, and I find it extraordinarily difficult to deal with the subject cleanly and efficiently, which is why I resort to the language of properties, transactions and contracts. Everything else I have written still holds true; that the value of a child is one applied by the parents and there would be a huge disparity between the commitment an unwilling mother would have to make for an emotional attachment only the father feels.

2. The irresponsibility I was referring to is that of unnecessarily getting oneself in a situation where scarce common resources (I'm speaking from
the perspective of a country with a national health care system) such as operation theaters, hospital rooms, medical equipment and personnel, are used for something which would have been entirely preventable had the person been responsible. Perhaps the law should discourage that.

I completely overlooked that! Yes indeed, I have to agree, preventative measures should be taken. Sex education, accessible contraceptives, maybe even the more drastic measure of charging people a percentage of their income for an abortion should be implemented, since making abortions prohibitively expensive seems far more destructive than anything else. But these are questions for another thread.

[Dilettante]

Corvus wrote:

Hah, yes, indeed. But still, the fetus is a peculiar thing, which can't exactly be equated to a human being, and I find it extraordinarily difficult to deal with the subject cleanly and efficiently, which is why I resort to the language of properties, transactions and contracts. Everything else I have written still holds true; that the value of a child is one applied by the parents and there would be a huge disparity between the commitment an unwilling mother would have to make for an emotional attachment only the father feels.

The fetus is a human life-form, to be sure. Perhaps what you mean is that it is not a person (and this is probably what the whole abortion issue hinges on--but I won't digress). The problem is that there is no consensus on the status of the fetus, and that there is no official definition of "person". That's why it is so difficult to deal with.

There are situations where the life (or death) of the child would have a value to society in general, and more frquently, to the extended family, the tribe, the clan, etc. It's a fascinating topic.

[ST88]

1. Property rights, at least in western cultures, do not apply to human beings (no legal slaves) or human organs (try advertising your kidney instead of your car in the classifieds page of the paper and you'll hear from the police).

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

1. Except in a few extreme cases (rape, danger to the mother's life, severe birth defects) I don't really think the mother has a right to freely terminate the pregnancy. Both mother and father should be listened to, but if there is no good reason to abort the baby, why do it? Having said this, I don't really think the State should be allowed to use "any means necessary". That sounds too much like totalitarianism. But maybe the State should actively discourage sexual irresponsibility, though I don't want to give it a blank cheque.

Not to be picky, but what falls under the category of "no good reason"? How is it different when either the mother or the father do not want the baby? I submit it is different because the mother is the possessor of the fetus. If so, then the desire of the mother takes precedence. In how many other situations would a government agency be able to monitor and control the bodily functions and behaviors of one of its citizens? 1) Prisoners, 2) Employees, 3) The Military. I suppose you could argue that to be a citizen of a country is to give up one's right to procreate as one chooses.

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

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

2. Abortion is not infanticide, but my example was set in rural China, where both are considered morally permissible. It may be obvious to you that a baby is a person, but it is not obvious to everyone (ancient Greeks, Peter Singer, etc). There seems to be no agreement about the beginning of personhood.

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

3. It's ironic that some people should be afraid (or rather ashamed) of buying contraceptives and not of being sexually irresponsible. If someone is underage, he or she probably shouldn't be having sexual intercourse in the first place since that person is probably not mature enough (the legal limits are there for a reason). And, in the developed world, which was what I was referring to, I have never heard of a shortage of contraceptives.

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

For years, the contraceptive sponge was unavailable because the makers had taken it off the market. But I was speaking more to short-term out-of-stock shortages rather than long-term situations. Naturally, anyone can buy a "family pack" of condoms at any time and be ready for any situation in the near future. But even this doesn't address the issue of actually using the darn things. I find it curious, for example, that there is a "pill" for the woman to avoid pregnancy, but there isn't a pill for men to avoid fertility.

2. In case of unpreparedness, it's best to postpone the sexual encounter or at least avoid penetration (and thus impregnation). The fact that not everyone can be expected to behave responsibly should, in my opinion, not be an excuse. Many people do not use seat belts and /or disregard speed limits, yet we do not exempt them from responsibility.

In our culture, unpreparedness is a romantic ideal. The idea of being "swept away" by the moment is much celebrated in literature and movies and throughout the culture in general. If you are unprepared for such an encounter, and it happens anyway, it says to the other person that they had such a dramatic impact on you that you lost your head. This is generally seen as a compliment to the other person. Sex between consenting adults is not a punishable crime (as of a year-and-a-half ago -- thank you Texas!), and it there is no requirement to use contraceptives. And unlike the seatbelt argument, there are actually religions that forbid the use of contraceptives. Imagine if there were a religion that forbade the use of a seatbelt.

And even the seatbelt law is a misdemeanor. If, God forbid, there were an accident and the seatbelt weren't used, the ticket would be meaningless.

3. The RU486/morning after pill is already widely available, at least here in Spain (I don't know about the US). If a woman is ashamed of asking a doctor for a prescription, I've read that she can get it from a pharmacist for just 18 euros. In any case, it's still best to use contraception instead.

RU486 is not available in the US pending the results of clinical trials (since 1992/4[?]). Non-prescription alternative morning after pills (Plan B) are being blocked by a highly partisan FDA decision. A confusing array of laws in various states either restricts its use or bans it altogether. Mind you, this is purportedly a Protestant country, where contraception is legal, and these pills are coming from purportedly Catholic countries. Go figure.