Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[The Last Conformist]

I hate to sound like a vulcan, but that is not logical. When one is arguing about rights of one individual how can the same person ignore the rights of another.

By not recognizing any such rights in the first place.

thanks. if you can please do so. I would like see what other people think about the father's rights.

I'll be looking. It's been "dead" since a while, so it may be buried pretty deeply.

 

[The Last Conformist]

By the ears of Zog! It's been resurrected! Last post Aug 4th!

Choice: Is there a double standard?

 

[luiz]

Got a source for that? It's well above any prediction I've seen lately.

No, no sources.
The number is not terribly precise. I just remembered that the population growth rate of Brazil is slightest above the world average, and since I know for a fact that most analysts believe that it will take 80 years for Brazil to double its population, it will probably something like 60 to 75 years for it happen to the world.

 

[betazed]

Just because the father had sex with the mother (or didn't) does not give the father any claim on the mother's womb.

Why not? Leaving aside rape for now (in which case I am willing to concede that the woman can do whatever she wants), when a man and woman has consensual sex is it so hard to imagine that the man has some rights on the woman's womb. Doesn't marriage gives some right to one spouse over another's property? If marriage does then why not consensual sex? After all one is just the formalization of the other.

I believe we argued that the man's rights are in direct proportion to the quality of his relationship to the woman. As it should be IMO.

My thoughts are exactly on those lines. It is just hard to specify what we mean by "quality" of relationship.

@TLC: thanks. I guess I will spend the afternoon between working and reading 12 pages of that thread.

 

[luiz]

Accepting that figure, and assuming there's a few million responsible women in the world who have sex a hundred times a year on average, we're already looking at rather a few undesired pregnancies ...

A few in the entire world and nothing are basically the same thing.

 

[IglooDame]

The father is welcome to the fetus. He can claim it as soon as it is removed from the mother's womb. What he does with it then is up to him.

The machine in my example is not the fetus, it is the womb. The fetus does not belong to the mother, but the womb does. If she wants the fetus out, well, out it goes. If the father wants to keep in a jar...more power to him.

Just because the father had sex with the mother (or didn't) does not give the father any claim on the mother's womb. The womb still belongs to her. To say that the father can force the woman to carry his child in her womb against her wishes is equivilant to saying that TLC's father can force me to turn over my machine for TLC's use just because TLC needs it. Neither is true. If TLC needs the machine, that's his problem, (and his father's) not mine. It's my machine. And its her womb.

Thanks for bringing up this aspect of the debate, Betazed.

LittleRaven, does the womb still wholly belong to the mother if the couple is married and living in a joint property state?

Edit: Ah, crosspost, Betazed beat me to that question.

 

[The Last Conformist]

We did have that discussion here in CFC OT as well. I remember that Hitro, and possibly luiz, were on the 'force the woman to have the child' side and Akka and I were opposed.

No, that's not what lostnfound suggested on DAF - he wanted to give the father the right to force the mother to have an abortion.

 

[The Last Conformist]

No, no sources.
The number is not terribly precise. I just remembered that the population growth rate of Brazil is slightest above the world average, and since I know for a fact that most analysts believe that it will take 80 years for Brazil to double its population, it will probably something like 60 to 75 years for it happen to the world.

You mean the other way round, don't you? If Brazil's growth is above the world average, Brazil should double before the world at large.

Last prognosis I heard said the world population should plateau at about 10½ billion ca 2100 AD. I doubt I could find the reference again, tho.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A few in the entire world and nothing are basically the same thing.

To you perhaps. Not to a responsible woman who have taken all reasonable precautions and nonetheless ends up with an unwanted pregnancy, I'm pretty sure.

 

[Little Raven]

Why not? Leaving aside rape for now (in which case I am willing to concede that the woman can do whatever she wants), when a man and woman has consensual sex is it so hard to imagine that the man has some rights on the woman's womb.

I do not know of any state in which marriage conveys any form of ownership over the spouses body. Stewardship, yes, but not ownership. If I need a kidney, what state gives me the right to demand my wife give me one of hers? What state says that a woman can force her husband to donate his blood? If the spouse's bodies can be considered joint property, why the hell did we charge Lorena Bobbitt? Didn't the fact that she was married to the owner of the penis give her some right to exert control over its use? (or misuse) Can I force my wife to have sex with me? Didn't the fact that she married me give me some control over her vagina? Can I pimp her out?

And even if you accept the claim that marriage gives me some control over my wife's body, I think comparing marriage to consensual sex is a stretch. Marriage is a function of the state. (and, sometimes, the church) It is most certainly not merely a formalization of consensual sex. It is licensed, regulated, and taxed. No such process exists with consensual sex. Heck, at least in this country, a fair amount of sex occurs when the woman is legally incapable of giving consent. (ah, the miracle of alcohol) How do we judge those cases?

 

[betazed]

If the spouse's bodies can be considered joint property, why the hell did we charge Lorena Bobbitt?

A spouse's body is joint property. That is why you have cases for adultery. You cannot use your body and have sex with another woman because if you do and your wife can prove that adultery then she can take you to court for it and it is grounds for divorce with alimony. Don't know about Bobbit though, what happenned in that case? Who is she?

Can I force my wife to have sex with me? Didn't the fact that she married me give me some control over her vagina? Can I pimp her out?

Asking her to have sex with somebody is not the same as asking her to have your child. In asking her to have sex you have zero inputs in the affair and stand to only profit at her expense. That is not the case in having a child.

Also you may not have control on her reproductive organs but you do have some right on the foetus because a part of that foetus is from your body. So if she has rights on that then so do you. And the fact that the womb is in her body and the father can get the foetus but not the womb is not consistent because we still have not figured out how to make a baby without the foetus without the womb. So for better or worse the father has a right on the womb and the foetus. It is a package deal. Since the woman knew about that package deal before she had conensual sex I do not see how she can exticate herself from the responsibility of having the child just because the womb is completely hers.

Heck, at least in this country, a fair amount of sex occurs when the woman is legally incapable of determining consent. How do we judge those cases?

As I said if the woman is incapable of determining consent (which otherwise turns to a form of rape) I am willing to concede all the rights to that woman.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A spouse's body is joint property. That is why you have cases for adultery. You cannot use your body and have sex with another woman because if you do and your wife can prove that adultery then she can take you to court for it and it is grounds for divorce with alimony.

Adultery is illegal where you live?

 

[betazed]

Adultery is illegal where you live?

AFAIK, in the US is a spouse can prove adultery on the part of the other then that is grounds for the spouse to ask for divorce. That is what i meant by illegal. The adulterer then has to accept the divorce and pay alimony.

 

[The Last Conformist]

In Sweden, you can have a divorce because you don't like the colour on your spouse's t-shirt, and he/she can't prevent it. There's no alimony.

 

[Little Raven]

A spouse's body is joint property. That is why you have cases for adultery. You cannot use your body and have sex with another woman because if you do and your wife can prove that adultery then she can take you to court for it and it is grounds for divorce with alimony.

First of all, some clarification about divorce laws. Most states allow for no-fault divorce. (that is, you can divorce at any time for any reason) 15 states have made that the only form of divorce allowed, so adultery doesn't figure into things at all. I assume, by your reasoning, that in those states, the man has no claim to the woman's womb whatsoever.

Or are you talking about sodomy laws, which only exist in a few states and haven't been enforced for most of the last century? (because they tend to be overturned when they are)

Regardless, though, the idea that because adultery can be grounds for divorce a spouses body is joint property is ludicrous. Can I demand my wife give me a kidney? If not, how is her body joint property? She has two...can't I have one?

And if the spouses body is joint property, why can't I rape my wife? Isn't her vagina half mine? What right does she have to withhold it from me? I'm only asking a few minutes….if I can demand she give up her womb for 10 months, why can't I demand her vagina for 5 minutes?

Don't know about Bobbit though, what happenned in that case? Who is she?

Loreena Bobbitt declared that her husband was not providing her with satisfactory sex, and cut off his penis with a kitchen knife. But if the penis was half hers, as you seem to be arguing, shouldn't she be able to cut of half of it whenever she wants?

Asking her to have sex with somebody is not the same as asking her to have your child. In asking her to have sex you have zero inputs in the affair and stand to only profit at her expense. That is not the case in having a child.

Why not? If anything, sex is much, much less damaging for a woman than carrying a child to term. A woman's body is never the same once she bears a child. At least with sex she recovers.

Also you may not have control on her reproductive organs but you do have some right on the foetus because a part of that foetus is from your body. So if she has rights on that then so do you.

Sure. Have all the rights on the fetus you want.

And the fact that the womb is in her body and the father can get the foetus but not the womb is not consistent because we still have not figured out how to make a baby without the foetus without the womb.

That's your problem, not hers. The world isn't fair sometimes. That's life. You may need my dialysis machine to live, but that doesn't mean I have to give it to you. Now I'm a nice guy, so odds are I will give it to you, but I don't have to. Most of the time, women want to be mothers, but if they don't want to be….find another woman to bear your child.

So for better or worse the father has a right on the womb and the foetus.

No, he doesn't. He has a right to the fetus, not the womb. The fact that one doesn't work well without the other is unfortunate, as is the fact that TLC kidneys stopped working. But unfortunate circumstances for some people do not equal legal responsibilities for others. Moral ones, perhaps. Not legal ones.

As I said if the woman is incapable of determining consent (which otherwise turns to a form of rape) I am willing to concede all the rights to that woman.

What do you mean, otherwise turns out to be rape? Lots of women have consensual but drunk sex. They want to have sex, but they are legally incapable of making rational decisions. Should these women be compelled to surrender use of their womb for nearly a year or not?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Loreena Bobbitt declared that her husband was not providing her with satisfactory sex, and cut off his penis with a kitchen knife.

Is it only me, or does that sound like an extremely counterproductive solution?

 

[Little Raven]

Is it only me, or does that sound like an extremely counterproductive solution?

Well, she was later found to be not liable for her actions and sent to a medical facility...

 

[betazed]

Seems like I am confused about the adultery laws. Oh well, I am not a lawyer....

And if the spouses body is joint property, why can't I rape my wife? Isn't her vagina half mine? What right does she have to withhold it from me? I'm only asking a few minutes….if I can demand she give up her womb for 10 months, why can't I demand her vagina for 5 minutes?

Joint property does not mean arbitary rights. Say your house is jointly owned by you and your wife and you want to paint it blue. Can your wife object and/or have an opinion? Sure she can. In this case you are not damaging the house and it does not decrease the livability of the house for your wife. But even then she can because you and and your wife have jointly agreed to ownership of the house.

We are going round and round in circles. So let me ask you just one question.

A man and woman has consensual sex. The woman becomes pregnant. She wants to keep the child. The man cannot make her abort. Not only that after the birth the man has to pay for the maintenance of the child. i.e. the man has responsibility post facto for the act of consensual sex.

Then why should not the woman have responsibility post facto for consensual sex? In this case teh responsibility to bear the child and give it birth because the man wants it.

The entire framework of abortion rights is based on equality of rights for women etc. etc. I am all for equal rights. So let's make the responsibilities equal too.

 

[The Last Conformist]

If that's the goal, how about giving the man the right to "disown" the child during the early pregnancy; if he does this, and the mother decides to carry the child to term, he loses all claim to and all responsibility for the child.

 

[betazed]

If that's the goal, how about giving the man the right to "disown" the child during the early pregnancy; if he does this, and the mother decides to carry the child to term, he loses all claim to and all responsibility for the child.

That sounds fair to me. That makes the rights and responsibilites equal for the mother and the father.