Why would anyone support the practice of abortion?

[betazed]

Ok let's take the FredLC argument more relevant to abortion and go with that one. You cannot draw as well as Fred. So you and Fred both consensually decide on starting a drawing, both of you knowing fully well that Fred will do the lions share of work because he is a better painter. Then after you have drawn a little and Fred has drawn a little Fred goes back on his word and tells you that he is going to tear the painting.

Is that ok with you? Is not Fred throwing away part of your labors? Just because he is a better painter what right does he have in treading over you?

You cannot ask Fred to draw for you, but once you and Fred have agreed to and started to draw on the same painting you can ask him to finish it for you otherwise he is going back on his word.

While you talk of a woman's right on her womb, I am talking about accepting responsibility for ones actions. Once a woman has decided to have consensual sex with a man knowing fully well that in the process she may get pregnant then she must also have some responsibilities and if that means her having a baby so be it. You say too bad technology cannot help the father; I say too bad she has to change permanently to carry thru her end of the bargain. That's the way nature is set up biologically. Too bad the father cannot share part of the process. When technology catches up we will make the father share part of the process.

I just fail to understand why where you are coming from should be logical while where I am coming from is not.

You are using the limitations imposed by biology to justify the rights of the mother and I am using the same limitations to justify the rights of the father.

You are saying that the rights of the father will catch up when technology is there, and I am saying teh rights of the woman should catch up when the technology is there.

I cannot see why one of us should be correct while the other is not.

It seems to me that this debate cannot be decided by either bilogical limitations of technological limitations. Any such argument can be turned easily either way for or anti abortion.

Anybody else has any other ideas/arguments for or against this?

 

[Mise]

Wouldn't Fred get more credit at the end for the drawing? I mean, Fred has done more work on the painting, so shouldn't Fred, (a) get more of the end result, and (b) get more say in the "creative process"?

The implication of (a) in the act of making a baby means that the woman has more responsibility towards the baby's well-being than the father. In reality, this is not true, so the analogy is flawed (although the flaw is very minor, perhaps I shouldn't mention it in fact).

Looking past the flaw, we come to (b), the implication of which is obvious - the father has "less rights" over the unborn and born baby than the mother. Current laws seem to reflect this.

 

[betazed]

Wouldn't Fred get more credit at the end for the drawing? I mean, Fred has done more work on the painting, so shouldn't Fred, (a) get more of the end result, and (b) get more say in the "creative process"?

The implication of (a) in the act of making a baby means that the woman has more responsibility towards the baby's well-being than the father. In reality, this is not true, so the analogy is flawed (although the flaw is very minor, perhaps I shouldn't mention it in fact).

Looking past the flaw, we come to (b), the implication of which is obvious - the father has "less rights" over the unborn and born baby than the mother. Current laws seem to reflect this.

yes the analogy is flawed because any such analogy will be if taken too far...

In the drawing case yes Fred does the lions share of the drawing and it is done, he probably has more rights etc. etc.. But in the case of a child the birth of a child is but a small portion of the total effort of bringing up a child. The father puts in a lot of commitment and effort too after that. Who is to say who puts in more effort in the long run?

I can say in my case it was my father. He taught me everything I knew when I was a child. My mother just gave me birth in 9 months. My father made me a man in 18 years. How can you say easily who put in more effort?

 

[Little Raven]

Ok let's take the FredLC argument more relevant to abortion and go with that one. You cannot draw as well as Fred. So you and Fred both consensually decide on starting a drawing, both of you knowing fully well that Fred will do the lions share of work because he is a better painter. Then after you have drawn a little and Fred has drawn a little Fred goes back on his word and tells you that he is going to tear the painting.

But that isn't a fair analogy. A better one would be that Fred and I start a painting together, then halfway through, Fred gets bored and says he's quitting. He doesn't tear up the painting, he just decides he doesn't want to do it anymore and gives the half-finished result to me.

But I can't paint as well as Fred, so the painting will never be finished.

Is that ok with you? Is not Fred throwing away part of your labors? Just because he is a better painter what right does he have in treading over you?

Of course it's not ok with me. I really wanted that painting! Fred is a bastard! I'm probably never going to speak to him again. I may even tell my friends nasty things about him, so none of them get burned by him either.

But Fred has the right to be a bastard. If I didn't have a contract with him, then legally, there's nothing I can do. He didn't destroy my work, he just refused to finish it with me, even though I don't have the ability to finish it myself.

You cannot ask Fred to draw for you, but once you and Fred have agreed to and started to draw on the same painting you can ask him to finish it for you otherwise he is going back on his word.

Yeah, he is. And yeah, that makes him a prick. But what's the alternative? Surely you aren't suggesting that just because I lack the ability to draw as well as Fred that I should have the ability to force him to finish a painting? If I want to have the power to force Fred to finish the painting, I can always draw up a contract for Fred to sign. Then he has to finish it. Why does that approach not work for the fetus?

I just fail to understand why where you are coming from should be logical while where I am coming from is not.

Because my position protects the rights of the individuals involved to the greater extent than yours does, and is more ideologically consistent. You haven't been able to explain to me why I can't force my wife to have sex with me if I can force her to have a baby. Shouldn't she accept sex whenever I want it as the potential consequence of marrying me?

My approach explains why I can't rape my wife. Her body is hers, and I have only as much access to it as she allows. How does yours explain it? Or can I rape my wife under your rules?

 

[Mise]

In the drawing case yes Fred does the lions share of the drawing and it is done, he probably has more rights etc. etc.. But in the case of a child the birth of a child is but a small portion of the total effort of bringing up a child. The father puts in a lot of commitment and effort too after that. Who is to say who puts in more effort in the long run?

Well, that's fair enough. If the father wants the baby, the father can ask the mother to carry the baby for 9 months, and at the end of it, the mother gives the baby to the father and leaves them both. I suppose this is a unique case, where the mother has no attachment to the child (apparently, the natural maternal instinct is usually quite strong), and so it isn't unreasonable for the father to ask the mother to carry it and give it up, if the mother so wishes.

I guess I see the father's perspective now. But at the same time, the agreement really has to be mutual. The father just can't force the mother to carry the child, in the same way the father can't force the mother to have sex in the first place. Certainly, a trip to the courts might be necessary.

 

[betazed]

Because my position protects the rights of the individuals involved to the greater extent than yours does,

Why? You are protecting the rights of the mother and I am protecting the rights of a father. How are we being any different?

and is more ideologically consistent. You haven't been able to explain to me why I can't force my wife to have sex with me if I can force her to have a baby. Shouldn't she accept sex whenever I want it as the potential consequence of marrying me?

She should; provided she has the reciprocal right, i.e. she should be able to get sex from you whenever she desires. { Now how many men will agree to that one? }
So how am I inconsistent?

@Mise: Glad you see the father's perspective now. As you pointed out the my entire argument does stand on the edifice of "mutuality". If the original sex act is not mutual then of course none of this applies.

 

[Little Raven]

Why? You are protecting the rights of the mother and I am protecting the rights of a father. How are we being any different?

Because the 'right' of the father that you are trying to protect isn't really a 'right' at all. You're confusing two things:

• The right of a father towards his offspring.
• The ability of the father to provide for said offspring.

A father has the right to be involved in the life of the child he helped create. He does not have the right to everything that child needs to live.

Assume for a moment that TLC is your child. (boy, the familial relations of CFC board members are getting downright bizarre) If he does not have dialysis, TLC will die. You do not have the ability to give him dialysis. Do you have the right to demand a dialysis machine from someone else just because your child needs it?

She should; provided she has the reciprocal right, i.e. she should be able to get sex from you whenever she desires.
So how am I inconsistent?

Fair enough. Now the fun starts. Tell me, how far do you extend this? If I have the right to my wife's vagina and her womb, can I say, take one of her kidneys if I need it? Can she have one of my corneas removed if it's determined that she needs it? Should Loreena Bobbitt have been tried? Wasn't the penis half hers?

I'm curious to see where, or if, you drop the line.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm sure. They are, after all, a special interest group, and they have (surprise surprise) special interests in mind. Like all such groups, they want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm not sure feminists can be labeled a special interest group, or that if they can, that it's relevant in this case. Sure, a female feminist can easily be accused of pursuing her special interests when arguing this line, but a male one? Arguing that he shouldn't have the option cannot possibly be in his interests.

And frankly, in my gut, I don't like the idea of letting fathers off the hook just because they feel like it. But I can't construct a rational defense for keeping them on it.

I'm much the same - all my upbringing tells me that a man who makes a woman pregnant and then tries to shirk responsibility for the child is a bastard, but I'm hard pressed to argue why he shouldn't be allowed to be one if the woman can get off the hook by having an abortion.

 

[betazed]

Because the 'right' of the father that you are trying to protect isn't really a 'right' at all.

You have lost me here completely. Why doesn't the father have a right? Did he not contribute the sperm?

And no I am not equating/confusing a father's right with ability. I am equating a father's responsibility with right, which IMO goes hand in hand. If you have rights then you have responsibilites and vice versa.

A father has the right to be involved in the life of the child he helped create. He does not have the right to everything that child needs to live.

No he does not have right to "everything". But he has some rights. I am arguing for some rights only.

Assume for a moment that TLC is your child. (boy, the familial relations of CFC board members are getting downright bizarre) If he does not have dialysis, TLC will die. You do not have the ability to give him dialysis. Do you have the right to demand a dialysis machine from someone else just because your child needs it?

TLC is a very intelligent guy. I would be happy to have him as my adopted child.

Be that as it may, I do not have the right to demand a dialysis machine from anybody but if there was somebody with whom I have agreed consensually to bring up and look after TLC and that somebody had a dialysis machine then of course I have the right to ask for it. I ask because that somebody has already agreed to.

Tell me, how far do you extend this? If I have the right to my wife's vagina and her womb, can I say, take one of her kidneys if I need it? Can she have one of my corneas removed if it's determined that she needs it? Should Loreena Bobbitt have been tried? Wasn't the penis half hers?

I'm curious to see where, or if, you drop the line.

I am willing to go as far as necessary provided both sides have agreed to equal rights/responsibilities. Yes you can have a right on her kidney and corneas as long as she has reciprocal rights on yours. Lorenna Bobbit did not use her husband's penis by cutting it off. She did not need it in that way. You can have right on your wife's cornea if yours is not working and if your wife has reciprocal rights on yours. Did Lorenna Bobbit need a penis? And is her cutting it off a justified way of providing for her need? Did her husband have the reciprocal right?

 

[WillJ]

Yup. If you can demonstrate that forcing me to allow TLC access to my machine is in the interests of the public good, then by all means do so. But remember that we're discussing public good, not TLC's good, which will make the math much more complicated.

But I reject the notion that just because TLC needs the machine I am legally obligated to provide him with it.

Surely society should hang on to the last person that conforms with it?

Well, whether it's in the interests of the public or not depends on the specific nature of TLC. For all we know he could be a serial rapist, or on the other hand, perhaps a great philanthropist. But I think it's safe to say that he contributes more good to society than bad, and that everyone either knows him and wants him to live, or doesn't know him and wants him to live by default.

 

[Little Raven]

You have lost me here completely. Why doesn't the father have a right? Did he not contribute the sperm?

As I said, the father has a right to be a part of his child's life. He does not have the right to demand whatever it takes to see his child's life continue.

And no I am not equating/confusing a father's right with ability. I am equating a father's responsibility with right, which IMO goes hand in hand. If you have rights then you have responsibilites and vice versa.

I agree, which is why I have reluctantly conceded that a father must have the right to 'disown' a fetus even if the mother wants to carry it.

No he does not have right to "everything". But he has some rights. I am arguing for some rights only.

And what exactly would those rights be? Can he demand food for his child? Medical care? A new heart? How do we lay out what rights he has and what rights he does not?

Be that as it may, I do not have the right to demand a dialysis machine from anybody but if there was somebody with whom I have agreed consensually to bring up and look after TLC and that somebody had a dialysis machine then of course I have the right to ask for it. I ask because that somebody has already agreed to.

But what constitutes an agreement? A contract? I'd agree to that. A night of consensual sex? I'm not sure that's a reasonable base for a lifetime commitment. A night of drunken sex? I'm quite sure that isn't a reasonable base. And even you have ruled out rape. What about failed birth control? Do we leave this to judges to sort out? On whom does the burden of proof fall?

I am willing to go as far as necessary provided both sides have agreed to equal rights/responsibilities. Yes you can have a right on her kidney and corneas as long as she has reciprocal rights on yours. Lorenna Bobbit did not use her husband's penis by cutting it off. She did not need it in that way. You can have right on your wife's cornea if yours is not working and if your wife has reciprocal rights on yours. Did Lorenna Bobbit need a penis? And is her cutting it off a justified way of providing for her need? Did her husband have the reciprocal right?

Maybe she wanted to use it for a bookmarker. Is there some rule that she has to use it the same way her husband did?

Seriously, though, I can't quite believe that you really mean this. Are you seriously saying that when a person gets married, they give up the right to control their own body? If a person doesn't have control of their own body, what do they have left? Can a woman force her husband to make her pregnant? Shouldn't he have foreseen that as a possible consequence of marrying her?

If you are really saying this, then perhaps we truly do part ways here. I hold a persons control over their body to be nearly supreme. (only the good of society trumps it, and even then only in the most extreme case) If you really believe that such control is signed away just because you get married or choose to engage in sex, then maybe we can't find common ground. But I'm really curious to know what a person has left if they can't even control their body.

 

[Little Raven]

Well, whether it's in the interests of the public or not depends on the specific nature of TLC. For all we know he could be a serial rapist, or on the other hand, perhaps a great philanthropist. But I think it's safe to say that he contributes more good to society than bad, and that everyone either knows him and wants him to live, or doesn't know him and wants him to live by default.

If we're approaching this from a social angle, we can't reliably determine whether TLC (or any other individual case) contributes to the public good or not. So instead, we have to look at the generalized case and treat every example of that case the same.

So the question ceases to be "Should we force someone to provide TLC with dialysis?" and instead becomes "Should we force someone to provide everyone who needs dialysis with dialysis?"

American society has answered this with a resounding "no." Europe is much more hazy...they recognize a right to health care, but they also recognize that there is a limit to how much care can be provided, and that you do not always have a right to whatever is required to save your life.

 

[Benderino]

May I ask when this "clump of cells" becomes human?

Is a sperm a human? Is an ovum? Should mastubating and ovulating (without sex) become illegal?

The fact is, due to masturbation, we're already killing off a gazillion children everytime...you know...

 

[WillJ]

If we're approaching this from a social angle, we can't reliably determine whether TLC (or any other individual case) contributes to the public good or not. So instead, we have to look at the generalized case and treat every example of that case the same.

So the question ceases to be "Should we force someone to provide TLC with dialysis?" and instead becomes "Should we force someone to provide everyone who needs dialysis with dialysis?"

American society has answered this with a resounding "no." Europe is much more hazy...they recognize a right to health care, but they also recognize that there is a limit to how much care can be provided, and that you do not always have a right to whatever is required to save your life.

Well, assuming this is supposed to be connected to abortion, a better question is, "Should someone with a dialysis machine be allowed to refuse dialysis to the one person who can get it from the machine?"

I'd say the answer "yes" is in the best interests of the public. Then again, the costs (dialysis w/ the dialysis machine, likely welfare w/ abortion) make it complicated.

Of course, my objective with this argument was to simply point out that your argument of, "It's his machine" [of course, perhaps this wasn't your entire argument; like I said, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread] is a bit too simplistic, and now that you've said that violating property rights in the interests of the public good is justified, and thus your beliefs aren't self-contradictory, my work here is done.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Is a sperm a human?

Nope. Sperm are sacred, while humans are unholy bastards.

 

[Little Raven]

Then again, the costs (dialysis w/ the dialysis machine, likely welfare w/ abortion) make it complicated.

Exactly. It's very hard to argue against abortion on social grounds, (but if you care to try, I'd love to hear the argument!) because honestly, we already have more unwanted kids than we can handle. (and unwanted kids tend to be drains on society) It's probably slightly easier to argue for a net social gain in my superbly simplified example.

I don't mind you calling me on what would seem to be a contradiction in beliefs. Hell, I'm attempting to use consistency as a lever on betazed, so I'd better expect to defend my own consistency.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

Betazed, nice to have you back. There were already some 2,3 threads where a betazed was needed to sort things out

On the topic at hand, there are some inconsistencies:

1. There is no law that says marriage means the spouses co-own each other (or the woman's womb). In the absence of something more explicit, your hypoteses seem arbitrary.

2. Ignoring point 1, two spouses do co-own the woman's womb. Does the father have any right if he is not married to the mother? Say the father is just as emotionally involded as a married man.

2'. How can we gauge "emotional involveness" as to asess wether or not a father has a right to the foetus in the mother's womb?

3. If a couple has protected, consensual sex does the mother have full rights to an eventual pregrancy?

4. If a couple has unprotected, consensual sex, but have no intention to produce a baby and also are ignorant about contraception methods what happends?

 

[betazed]

But what constitutes an agreement? A contract? I'd agree to that. A night of consensual sex? I'm not sure that's a reasonable base for a lifetime commitment. A night of drunken sex? I'm quite sure that isn't a reasonable base. And even you have ruled out rape. What about failed birth control? Do we leave this to judges to sort out? On whom does the burden of proof fall?

Does every agreement between two individuals have to be a written contract? Have we stooped so low or become so pedantic/unreliable that we cannot be taken for our words and actions? Why should not a night of consensual sex (and yes drunken sex too, so long as the drink was not forced down the gullet using mechanical contraptions) lead to responsibilites? And failed birth control too. Every sex act using birth control means that the chances of conception are small and not zero.

As for proof whatever proof is required to prove that sex was consensual, suffices.

Are you seriously saying that when a person gets married, they give up the right to control their own body?

Yes, they do somewhat; and that does not happen just when you are married. That happens always. Can you kill your body? Suicide is illegal. Can you walk around nude? Can you always sell your sexual favors to anybody or everybody? These are rights on your body that you hold so dear and are already taken somewhat. So why are you so shocked when I say that someone else may have rights on a woman's womb.

Also please remember, rights do not mean arbitrary rights. All rights have limitations. Lorenna Bobbit may (no; not may she does) have some rights on her husband's penis. But not to cut it off.

But I'm really curious to know what a person has left if they can't even control their body.

yeah, makes me wonder too. Maybe we do not have much left. Maybe most of it is an illusion of control and posession that we have. Sometime ago I started a thread briefly stating my hypotheses how all the control that we think we have on life maybe just illusory. The thread died owing to lack of interest so I did not feel like expanding on my ideas.

Are you sure all the rights and control that you think you have are real and not just illusions?

If you are really saying this, then perhaps we truly do part ways here.

Oh no. We have not. I am just telling you that there is a different road going to the horizon to a different direction. (I may or may not be on that road but I do not doubt its validity or the reality of its destination)

I must take leave now for the day. Good night. We will continue this tomorrow.

@Alphex_Twin: Thanks. I am glad to be back too.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Suicide is illegal.

If this is true, the Atlantic is rather wider than I thought.

 

[Aphex_Twin]

@Betazed. Care to take a shot at my points?