Whose fetus is it?

[pldennison]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
All this adversarial who-gets-victimized-worse squabbling is exactly why I feel, as I said in the other thread, that we ought to regard explicit voluntary consent to parenthood as necessary for both men and women before we start mandating their legal responsibilities for support—and if that consent isn’t forthcoming, those responsibilities should be assumed by society as a whole

While I agree with you that there is a rather disheartening amount of whininess on this topic (not to mention several disingenuous implications of the “Unless you’re an adult female, in which case you are adult enough to choose whether or not to support the child” nature), don’t you think it’s a little odd to recommend that, if two people don’t want to support children against their wills, 300 million should be made to do so? How is that more moral than telling the actual, physical parents, “You created it, you pay for it”?

[h_thur]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**

*Originally posted by h_thur *
When a woman is pregnant, the developing fetus robs her nutrients

Oh, man. So you mean a pregnant women might have to eat more? Oh the humanity of it all!! :rolleyes: **

…robs her of nutrients…for example calcium, which results in bone density loss during pregnancy and the first 6 months of lactation no matter how much extra calcium is consumed. [http://www.findarticles.com/cf_0/m0833/n28_v352/21055863/p1/article.jhtml"]Read]( [url) about it here.

I consider any developing thing inside my body that causes me to be ill, kicks and prods my innards (cervix, ribs, etc.), and robs my body of nutrients invasive.

[KellyM]

*Originally posted by Kimstu *
Demanding that individual parental responsibilities be borne by people who don’t want to bear them and who never explicitly consented to bear them, even if they did choose to have sex, does not seem to be the most effective way to get everybody focusing on what’s best for the children.

You have a lot of obligations that you are required to bear that you never explicitly consented to. Or do you think that “I never consented to pay this tax so I’m not going to pay it” is a meaningful argument? “I never consented to fight a war.” “I never agreed not to kill you, so I can if I want.” Clearly, consent is not a prerequisite to duty or obligation.

Why shouldn’t the parents of the child, who are quite clearly the proximate cause of the child’s existence, be the most appropriate bearers of this obligation? What makes, in the general case, society at large a better bearer of this obligation?

As far as I can tell, the only “merit” to the rule you propose is that it allows people to pass the consequences of their actions off onto other people. That seems inconsistent with the fundamental concept of personal liberty, which is “you do what you want, but you take the consequences for your actions.”

[Jodi]

I said:

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.

To which BOB COS replied:

This is a little circular, isn’t it? Yes, your assignment of rights keeps intact your concept of a women’s unencumbered right to abort a “pre-viability” child. Can you explain why this right is inviolable, perhaps in terms that would make a father understand why his right to choose is a lesser one? “Because it’s occuring in the woman’s body” might not be consistent with your assertion that the baby belongs to both parents prior to birth but after “viability.” Or else I’m misunderstanding.

The father’s right to choose is a lesser one because it isn’t his body. What’s so hard about this? He cannot compel the woman to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one, without violating her right to autonomy over her body. This doesn’t strike me as a particularly contentious point; we as a society do not generally compel ANYONE over the age of consent to undergo ANY medical procedure they do not assent to.

And I don’t think granting women absolute autonomy over pre-viable fetuses is inconsistent with apportioning responsibility for babies to BOTH responsible parties. I speak in terms of “viability” because my personal belief is that the point at which the fetus can survive outside the womb without extraordinary medical intervention is the point at which we are talking about an actual baby, with all the rights we extend to living human beings (including, as a child, the right to be supported by its parents). Again, this is not to my mind a particularly contentious point; we do not allow women to kill full-term babies at will, be they in the womb or out.

In other words: At some point, a fetus becomes a baby. Since this is not a thread arguing the pros and cons of abortion, pick a time to assign that conversion – conception, birth, sometime in between, whatever. My position is that a woman has the sole and absolute right to determine what happens to the fetus (which is part of her and not an independent entity) UP UNTIL THAT TIME. AFTER that time, her right to self-determination must be weighed against the baby’s right to exist and since we do not allow people to kill their children just to be free of them, the baby wins – even though the woman’s autonomy is clearly being violated without her consent for as long as society requires her to carry the baby around (ie, until it is full-term).

Once the baby is born, BOTH parents are responsible for its care because they created it. The fact that one or the other or both of them does not want the child does not absolve them of responsibility for it.
KIMSTU says:

All this adversarial who-gets-victimized-worse squabbling is exactly why I feel, as I said in the other thread, that we ought to regard explicit voluntary consent to parenthood as necessary for both men and women before we start mandating their legal responsibilities for support—and if that consent isn’t forthcoming, those responsibilities should be assumed by society as a whole.

See, and I, on the other hand, do not care about the “victimization” at all. You created it; you pay for it. I join you in deploring the “whining” on those who bleat about how unfair this is, but I don’t consider whining to be reason enough to absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions. And I continue to be affronted by the very idea that the rest of us, as a society, should be made responsible for the actions of men OR women just because those men or women choose not to face up to the consequences of those actions.

Demanding that individual parental responsibilities be borne by people who don’t want to bear them and who never explicitly consented to bear them, even if they did choose to have sex, does not seem to be the most effective way to get everybody focusing on what’s best for the children.

Sure it is. You put the responsibility for the children on the parents by expecting and demanding that they do, in fact, parent their kids. This is exactly what is best for the children – far better (and, in my mind, self-evidently so) that making such kids into wards of the State – an entity that manifestly is NOT very good at “parenting,” even when it has to assume that role.

And if you will allow men (or women) to shirk their parenting duties upon the birth of a child, just because they didn’t want the child, why not allow them to disavow those duties when the child is three or nine or fifteen? Heck, let’s just let parents leave their kids on society’s doorstep whenever they want to! Your argument – that resentful or involuntary parents should be let off the hook – seems to support such an idea.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by h_thur *
Obviously you are a man, and thus never been pregnant. When a woman is pregnant, the developing fetus robs her nutrients, much like a parasite (not a nice comparison, but accurate), to grow and develop.

I was under the impression that “invade” had connotations of force. Indeed, the dictionary definition you provided seems to support this. Is a woman’s body “invaded” if she willingly has sex which she knows has the chance of producing a baby?

[jmullaney]

*Originally posted by h_thur *
I consider any developing thing inside my body that causes me to be ill, kicks and prods my innards (cervix, ribs, etc.), and robs my body of nutrients invasive.

Yeah, OK, a temporary loss of calcium with no long term effects.

no long-term adverse bone effects have been demonstrated, irrespective of calcium intake

I consider any developing thing outside my body that causes me extra effort every day for 18 years to feed and clothe it just as much of a parasite. I still fail to see why men have a moral obligation of support and women don’t.

[KellyM]

*Originally posted by jmullaney *
**

*Originally posted by h_thur *
I consider any developing thing inside my body that causes me to be ill, kicks and prods my innards (cervix, ribs, etc.), and robs my body of nutrients invasive.

Yeah, OK, a temporary loss of calcium with no long term effects.
**

I have a friend who nearly died because of her first (and only) pregnancy. The only thing that saved her was an abortion. I think that, at least in her case, “invasion” is a wholly appropriate term.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
The father’s right to choose is a lesser one because it isn’t his body. What’s so hard about this? He cannot compel the woman to have an abortion if she doesn’t want one, without violating her right to autonomy over her body.

Once more, with feeling: Nobody here supports allowing men to force women to abort their pregnancy. At least, I haven’t read any post supporting this.

And I don’t think granting women absolute autonomy over pre-viable fetuses is inconsistent with apportioning responsibility for babies to BOTH responsible parties.

If you could explain your reasoning for this, it would go a long way towards answering the question I posed in the OP.

See, and I, on the other hand, do not care about the “victimization” at all. You created it; you pay for it. I join you in deploring the “whining” on those who bleat about how unfair this is, but I don’t consider whining to be reason enough to absolve anyone of responsibility for their actions.

I appologize if I have come across as whiny. I do believe there is at least a little more substance to my posts in this thread than mere whining, though.

And if you will allow men (or women) to shirk their parenting duties upon the birth of a child, just because they didn’t want the child, why not allow them to disavow those duties when the child is three or nine or fifteen? Heck, let’s just let parents leave their kids on society’s doorstep whenever they want to! Your argument – that resentful or involuntary parents should be let off the hook – seems to support such an idea.

Interesting slippery slope.

Imagine:
If we allow women to abort their children when they are fetuses, why not allow them to abort their children when they are nine or fifteen? Heck, let’s just let parents kill their kids whenever they want to!

[Jodi]

JMULLANEY says:

I still fail to see why men have a moral obligation of support and women don’t.

Please point out where anyone has said that men have a moral obligation of support that women don’t.

BLACK KNIGHT says:

Once more, with feeling: Nobody here supports allowing men to force women to abort their pregnancy. At least, I haven’t read any post supporting this.

Then what are you supporting? The woman has the right to carry on with a pregnancy – or terminate it – without the man’s consent because it is HER body. The obvious opposite of this would be to deny women the right to continue or terminate the pregnancy without the man’s consent. So if she wants to continue but he wants to terminate, she must terminate – ie, forcing women to have unwanted abortions. Or if she wants to terminate but he wants to continue, she must continue – ie, forcing women to have unwanted children. In other words, if we theorize that the woman and the man have opposing wishes and that (obviously) only one can have their way, AND you DENY the women the ultimate right to make this decision, then you are AUTOMATICALLY granting that ultimate right to the men. Result: a man can compel a woman to have an abortion. If you AGREE that a man should be able to compel a woman to have an abortion you are also implicitly agreeing that this ultimate decision should be made by the woman.

If you could explain your reasoning for this, it would go a long way towards answering the question I posed in the OP.

Reluctantly, I begin to suspect you of being deliberately obtuse. I have explained this repeatedly.

1. If we are talking about a fetus and not a child – ie, something without an existence independent of its mother – then it seems to me obvious that the decision for what happens to that fetus should rest with the woman who carries it, pursuant to her right to autonomy over her body.

2. Once we agree that we are talking about a child and not a fetus – ie, someone capable of independently existing outside the womb – then the mother’s right to physical autonomy is trumped by the child’s right to exist.

3. Why does the child not have a right to exist pre-viability? Because, IMO, we are then not talking about a child but rather a fetus. If you disagree with this – as you are of course free to do – then our disagreement arises out of the abortion debate, not the child support debate.

4. None of this has anything to do with the responsibilities of BOTH parents – male and female – to support their children.

I appologize if I have come across as whiny. I do believe there is at least a little more substance to my posts in this thread than mere whining, though.

No apology necessary. The accusation of “whininess” was not originally mine. I do admit, however, that I have little sympathy for men who wish to disavow responsibility for their own children – product of their own voluntary actions – just because they don’t feel like being parents. It seems to me almost self-evident that an innocent child’s right to support outweighs its parents’ – EITHER parent’s – right to be free from obligation.

Imagine: If we allow women to abort their children when they are fetuses, why not allow them to abort their children when they are nine or fifteen? Heck, let’s just let parents kill their kids whenever they want to!

This assumes, of course, that “fetuses” = “children” and that abortion = killing a child – propositions it should be obvious I reject. It is also totally unresponsive to my main point, which is this: regardless of how you might feel about the issue of abortion, children who ALREADY EXIST – not pre-birth children or potential children or fetuses but actual, living-outside-their-mothers children – are entitled to be supported by the parents – both their parents, regardless of whether the parents are happy about that obligation or not.

[Jodi]

This:

If you AGREE that a man should be able to compel a woman to have an abortion you are also implicitly agreeing that this ultimate decision should be made by the woman.

Should read:

. If you AGREE that a man should NOT be able to compel a woman to have an abortion you are also implicitly agreeing that this ultimate decision should be made by the woman.

Otherwise it doesn’t make any sense.

[h_thur]

The fetus belongs to the mother, as it is part of her body. When the fetus develops into a baby, it still belongs to the mother until paternity is declared/claimed.

So there!

[Satan]

*Originally posted by BlackKnight *

[BInteresting slippery slope.

Imagine: If we allow women to abort their children when they are fetuses, why not allow them to abort their children when they are nine or fifteen? Heck, let’s just let parents kill their kids whenever they want to!
**

yawn

Yes, it is a slippery slope. One that has nothing to do with the issue.

If you want to start an abortion thread, get in line.

If you want to talk about this particular issue, try not using fallacies as you go.

If you are trying to twist this debate into your own versions of why being pro-choice is hypocritical, don’t bother.

---

Yer pal,
Satan

*I HAVE BEEN SMOKE-FREE FOR:
Six months, four weeks, 21 hours, 0 minutes and 9 seconds.
8475 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,059.38.
Extra life with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 15 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

[single_files]

No, it isn’t fair. If I accidentally get pregnant and feel that I don’t want to support a baby at this time in my life, then I don’t have to. This is a choice that men do not get. If you decide that you don’t want to support a baby, you are at the mercy of whether or not I agree with you. But, as was stated earlier, it is not a right that you have lost along the way … it is a right that I have gained.

[Kimstu]

pldennison: don’t you think it’s a little odd to recommend that, if two people don’t want to support children against their wills, 300 million should be made to do so?

Hi Phil! Yes, I admit it sounds a little odd, but I think that in the long run it would be best for parents, children, and society as a whole. I’ll just quote myself from the other thread:

I think we ought to value the conscious act of consenting to parenthood—not just getting laid, but explicitly accepting responsibility for a particular child who exists or is about to exist—highly enough to refrain from insisting that people who have never given that consent, for whatever reason, are still obliged to be parents.

Yes, that means that society has to pick up the slack when there aren’t enough consenting parents to handle that responsibility. But as I said, society has an interest in picking up that slack, and I think it’s a better solution in the long run than saying that the responsibility automatically belongs on the people who got laid. As the pro-choice slogan says, “Every child a wanted child”—and to my mind, that means that the child should be wanted first and foremost by the people who bear responsibility for supporting him or her. If the only people who want the child are the taxpayers, then so be it. I think we have a duty to share responsibilities as a society that we don’t have a right to demand from unwilling individuals, whether or not they had sex.

Which should also set KellyM’s mind at rest about whether I believe I don’t have to pay taxes or refrain from murdering people because I never signed a paper to that effect.

And I also want to apologize to all participants for my irritable use of the term “whiny”: while I do think that my approach to the problem would promote a more constructive and child-friendly attitude, I don’t mean to disparage the sincerity and validity of other people’s concerns about the rights-and-obligations issues either.

[Jodi]

Just to wade back in . . .

As the pro-choice slogan says, “Every child a wanted child”—and to my mind, that means that the child should be wanted first and foremost by the people who bear responsibility for supporting him or her. If the only people who want the child are the taxpayers, then so be it.

But, as I said in the other thread, there is no indication the taxpayers want these children. What the taxpayers want is for children to be supported by their parents, willing or not.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Satan *
**Yes, it is a slippery slope. One that has nothing to do with the issue.

If you want to start an abortion thread, get in line.

If you want to talk about this particular issue, try not using fallacies as you go.

If you are trying to twist this debate into your own versions of why being pro-choice is hypocritical, don’t bother.**

Please reread the post I was responding to, and then my response. I was showing why someone’s particular argument was bogus by making a similar argument that was obviously fallacious.

[Satan]

BlackKnight

My bad… I should spot a devil’s advocate, shouldn’t I?

*Originally posted by single files *

**No, it isn’t fair. If I accidentally get pregnant and feel that I don’t want to support a baby at this time in my life, then I don’t have to. This is a choice that men do not get.

**

Sorry you seem to think that common sense is “unfair.” You spend much time looking in mirrors wishing you had tits? Isn’t this unfair too?

When a man can carry a child to term inside his body, then that guy will have the same rights as anyone else who has a fetus develop in them. Until then, are you suggesting that a man can make a woman get a divorce?

---

Yer pal,
Satan

*TIME ELAPSED SINCE I QUIT SMOKING:
Six months, four weeks, one day, 5 minutes and 30 seconds.
8480 cigarettes not smoked, saving $1,060.02.
Extra time with Drain Bead: 4 weeks, 1 day, 10 hours, 40 minutes.

David B used me as a cite!*

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Satan *
**BlackKnight

My bad… I should spot a devil’s advocate, shouldn’t I? :)**

S’ok Satan!

My posts aren’t always the easiest things to sift though, I admit.

[BlackKnight]

*Originally posted by Jodi *
Then what are you supporting?

The OP merely asked a question, which, IMHO, hasn’t been answered yet. (Or perhaps I should say, nobody has given an answer that they can support rather than assert.) I do not support a specific plan at this time; however, I think something along the lines of what is often called a “paper abortion” sounds good.

**

If you could explain your reasoning for this, it would go a long way towards answering the question I posed in the OP.

Reluctantly, I begin to suspect you of being deliberately obtuse. I have explained this repeatedly.**

I afraid that if you have, I have missed it.

1. If we are talking about a fetus and not a child – ie, something without an existence independent of its mother – then it seems to me obvious that the decision for what happens to that fetus should rest with the woman who carries it, pursuant to her right to autonomy over her body.

I’m with you so far. I would go further and say that since the decisions are hers, and it is only her body directly involved, then all the responsibilities for the fetus are hers as well.

2. Once we agree that we are talking about a child and not a fetus – ie, someone capable of independently existing outside the womb – then the mother’s right to physical autonomy is trumped by the child’s right to exist.

Again, I’m with you so far.

3. Why does the child not have a right to exist pre-viability? Because, IMO, we are then not talking about a child but rather a fetus. If you disagree with this – as you are of course free to do – then our disagreement arises out of the abortion debate, not the child support debate.

While even I am not clear on where I stand on the abortion issue, I will grant for the sake of argument your statements above.

4. None of this has anything to do with the responsibilities of BOTH parents – male and female – to support their children.

This is the very point that the OP questions. WHY does the man have responsibility? WHERE does this responsibility come from? WHY does the man’s responsibility suddenly appear after 9 months of the fetus being the woman’s responsibility?

It is also totally unresponsive to my main point, which is this: regardless of how you might feel about the issue of abortion, children who ALREADY EXIST – not pre-birth children or potential children or fetuses but actual, living-outside-their-mothers children – are entitled to be supported by the parents – both their parents, regardless of whether the parents are happy about that obligation or not.

I know that’s your main point; even I am not so dense or obtuse as to miss that. However, I’m wondering WHY children are entitled to be supported by both parents.

I’m beginning to think that we aren’t going to make any progress by continuing to discuss this.

[Sterra]

I think so too:)

and it is only her body directly involved

I wonder why people think that abortion has that much to do with the woman? It has a hell of alot more to do with the fetus. The fetus is not a part of her body, it is simply inside it.

But thats my only contention, even if the fetus does not have rights it is alive.