I have to echo this answer, with the addition that existing laws would be used to prosecute women who obtained or procured “miscarriages,” and new laws such as the proposed one in Texas would be passed.
OK, Bricker…so now explain to me why there should be a law that a man is required to provide a kidney to a person who needs it - because that person was conceived using sperm that the man donated to a sperm bank 25 years before, and why there should not be a law that you need to provide a kidney to a stranger.
I’ve noticed that the quid pro quo in terms of asking and and answering questions here seems a bit tilted towards you. I am happy to respond to this question, but as I compose my reply, perhaps you can answer the questions I have asked you, without again asserting a “woman’s prerogative?”
When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage. But in thinking about your question, I think perhaps a better framework would be the societal expectation associated with parental obligations. After all, it’s this expectation that gives rise to my belief that a pregnant mother owes a greater duty of care to her unborn child than she owes to an unrelated stranger.
So if that’s the right model, then the sperm donor father is off the hook; the very concept of sperm donation is that the father does not wish to undertake parental responsibilities, and that society is prepared to recognize that wish as a reasonable one.
So that’s my notional answer: society rightly considers parents to have an obligation to their children which is not lightly cast aside. But a stranger has no such claim on a kidney, and a child conceived from a sperm bank donation likewise has a weak claim to paternal support.
But I’m designing this as we talk, so perhaps there are other flaws I don’t see.
I do, but I’d be referencing an earlier thread in which you participated which is further complicated by me using a smartphone in a place with very shaky Internet access, limiting my ability to search/copy/paste. As a result, I cannot immediately cite this so I’ve no problem with it being dismissed out of hand.
The gist stems from your comments on mandatory ultrasounds, after I suggested the patient need not be subjected to the procedure herself but simply have available to her ultrasound images of someone else’s pregnancy at a roughly similar stage of development. As I recall, you felt that insufficient. The woman had to be able to see her OWN fetus, in order to imcrease the chances of emotionally manipulating her into bonding with it and deciding not to abort.
I think I can reasonably draw from this that you believe SOME women are stupid in the sense that no matter what circumstances prompted her to consider abortion initially, her lady-feelings will prevail.
Compared to now? Yes, you’d see a “sharp rise in illegal abortions”. But that doesn’t mean much. And, yes, you’d also see an increase in births but, no, you wouldn’t see a “massive” increase in births, as some women will use birth control when they don’t now, some will use more effective forms of birth control, and others will forgo risky sex all together.
The rest of what you typed is just leftist talking points. Even prior to Roe v Wade, the majority of “illegal abortions” were done by licensed medical practitioners. And, furthermore, why would someone abandon a child-- risking jail time-- when they can simply give it up for adoption?
You quoted me as saying: When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage. But in thinking about your question, I think perhaps a better framework would be the societal expectation associated with parental obligations.
Can you explain, without emoticons, what makes you dubious?
When I replied to you, I was using the term exactly as I said. (“When I spoke of parents, above, it’s true that I focused solely on the biological aspect of parentage.”) But in considering the question she asked, I realized that a better framework might be the societal expectation we assign to parents.
Now, you leapt to the conclusion I was insinuating the societal expectation issue when I wasn’t. But after considering the matter, it seemed to make more sense to adopt it. So I did.
So to be clear, in your opinion, society recognizes that something happens at birth that relieves a mere genetic parent of all responsibilities to save a child’s life by providing biological support, but prior to birth society believes the birth mother is responsible for provide a host because that saves a child’s life? Remember, more Americans identify as pro-choice than pro-life.
That’s not really correct. The Wisconsin law we were discussing in 2013 clearly mandated “No person may require a pregnant woman to view the ultrasound images that are required to be displayed for and reviewed with her or to visualize any fetal heartbeat. No person, including the pregnant woman, may be subject to any penalty if the pregnant woman declines to view the displayed ultrasound images or to visualize any fetal heartbeat.”
And you knew that, and knew I didn’t favor making her look:
You’re wrong, but only because you either did not see, or do not remember, Part II of that discussion. As it happens, I said that if I were to learn after some period of time that seeing such images did not significantly reduce the number of abortions, I would concede that the assumptions underlying the requirement were flawed and I would no longer support it.
Unfortunately, society doesn’t have near the problem with men walking away from a woman they made pregnant as they do with that woman having an abortion.
Damn the dumb is strong in here. It doesn’t matter that there will be a sharp rise in illegal abortions?
“some women will use birth control when they don’t now, some will use more effective forms of birth control, and others will forgo risky sex all together” Do you really believe that? Women just don’t bother being responsible because they know they can go have surgery to take care of any oops moments?
Also, aside from the fact that giving a baby up for adoption isn’t simple, abandoning a baby tends to be done by those who didn’t want anyone to know they were pregnant in the first place. Like girls in high school.
I thought I made it obvious, though apparently not obvious enough, that the woman was not being forced to see the images, though she WAS being forced to undergo the procedure to produce the images, even though images from other pregnancies can be readily available to convey the same information.
I retain some skepticism that you have fully abandoned the notion that women (some, at least) are too dumb to know what’s best for them just because of a trivial notion like there being no evidence for it.
At best I might offer the mildest possible applause if you have indeed allowed evidence or lack thereof to inform your opinion, though tempered by your more recent stated approval of making the process “uncomfortable” for no apparent medical reason.
