This post will most likely offend someone by it’s mere existence. I am not asking this question merely to tweak PC sensibilities; that is just an interesting side effect.
If a man impregnates a woman, the resulting fetus is considered (by the majority of the people on this board, I think) to be part of her body. It is, therefore, under her “juristiction”.
Nobody can tell her what to do with it or about it. That choice is hers alone.
It is, it seems, totally hers in every respect.
Why then, does it suddenly become hers and his once it is born? If the baby was not his while under development, what makes it suddenly his once it is born?
It can’t be his DNA; it was there all along.
It can’t be his participation in the sex act; that, too, was there “all along”.
It can’t be his choice for the baby to be born; he does not have that choice to make.
So, what causes the shift in “juristiction” and responsibility?
Because, as you exactly said, the fetus is reliant on the body of the pregnant woman who has to house it for 36 weeks.
A fetus would be considered joint property, I believe, if it was viable outside the womb. We know that premies (essentially fetuses outside the womb) are under the “jurisdiction” of both parties. And I believe that laws regarding fertilized embryos would be consistant with this.
*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, three weeks, four days, 37 minutes and 19 seconds.
8321 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,040.13.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 21 hours, 25 minutes.
I’ve often wondered about this myself. There are many cases in which a couple “agrees” not to have children, then the woman, unbeknownst to the man, stops using birth control, gets pregnant, and the man is then responsible for supporting the resulting offspring.
Steve Martin said it in “Parenthood”- “Women have choices, men have responsibilities.”
Yeah. I remember that. And I remember Mary Steenburgun’s reply to such a assinine statment-
Well then I choose you to gain thirty pound. I choose you to get hemmeroids. I choose you to put your career on hold for another three years.
Actually I paraphrase. I think her’s were better. But the point is being the one who actually gets pregnant is hardly- Christ how can you even type that?- free from resposiblities. I don’t even know where to start. Feh.
betenoir I dont think gaining 30 pounds or hemmeriods are responsibilities. And im totally sure putting your carrer on hold for 3 years is not either. (i would call that a luxury)
I think was talking about the limits of this “choice”. And I did say her’s were better. And mine could have been better. But I stick by my basic idea. Since when does being the impregnatable one really mean less responsibility?
“Women have choices, men have responsibilities” is unspeakable stupid, just as the converse would be.
That, not the original quote, has got to be the most asinine statement I’ve ever heard come out of Hollywood, and that’s saying quite a bit.
I mean, as long as abortion is legal, it is the woman’s own decision whether or not to undergo the weight gain, hemmerhoids, etc. So what’s she bitching about? I can see that as a response to an anti-abortion statement, but that’s not what it was in response to.
Yo, Mary. You do have that choice. Don’t bitch as if you don’t.
Oh dear Lord, a luxury to put your career on hold for years? Let me guess- no kids?
Whatever…
As to the OP, I would hope that if I am in a committed relationship, the fetus would be “ours” just as the baby would be. Obviously this is not a legal argument.
But a man can choose whether or not he wants to take responsibility for the kid just like the mother can choose whether or not to get an abortion. I don’t see some major difference here.
Really? Like through court-ordered child support? By losing his driver’s license through the federal dead-beat dad program? By having his paycheck garnisheed? That’s a choice?
Horrible isn’t it? I mean it is the man’s body. Why should he be forced to use it to support a child for 18 years? Doesn’t that violate the Due Process ammendment to the constitution?
A man can be forced to pay child support. But he can not be forced to have all the responsibilty of being a father. There is much more to having children then paying for them. A man can walk away with nothing more then a monthly bill and leave all the responsiblity of child raising to a mother.
Sigh. Because the baby needs to be supported and, assuming the mother alone cannot do it, either the father or the taxpayers will have to. It is more equitable to put this burden on the father, whether or not he wanted the child. Disagree? Feel free to step over here:
And, as far as the OP is concerned, I agree that a non-viable fetus is the mother’s, but a baby is the parents’. I see no other way to allot these “rights and responsibilities” that would not allow men to force or prevent pre-viability abortions over the wishes of the woman, a concept I abhor.
In a perfect world it would be. For example, if pregnancy did not involve serious health risks and to put it mildly, discomforts, then the man might just have more of a say in the matter.
You also have to remember that the fetus isn’t totally the woman’s property either. If she wants to say, stick a knife in her stomach and kill the damned thing… no dice. And the abortion debate should be proof enough that a lot of people don’t think the fetus should under the mother’s jurisdiction at all.
I think that a man should be able to ‘abort’ a baby just as a woman can.
To clarify, before the baby is born, or to be fair at the time when a woman can no longer legally abort, the man should be able to say “I don’t want this”. I don’t mean to say he shouldn’t pay out the ass for the first few years or so, just not the full 18. Also this act would mean he has NO say in the baby’s life and no visiting rights and all that.
-ps harold
damn this forum moves fast
