Human Development and Abortion Laws

[JoeTheJuggler]

How, exactly, does the observation that a fetus is biologically dependent upon and battening on the physical resources of a single individual lead to the conclusion that it's "OK to kill a patient who can no longer breather {sic} without a respirator"? (Hint: How many people can attend to a respirator? How many people can provide bodily resources for a specific fetus?)

The OP is looking for a non-arbitrary (i.e. logical) standard for drawing the line between when it's OK to abort a fetus and when it is not. Someone has suggested physical separation (when the baby is outside the womb) as a standard, and I've been showing why that standard fails. It can't be used in other cases (or even in abortion--since it goes against our current moral convention--see below).

The standard I've been offering (Desirism) is superior because, I believe it answers all of these questions (abortion, euthanasia or withholding food in brain-dead patients, the question of how we treat pets or food animals, etc.)

So the standard of physical separation doesn't work in many cases. (And it also doesn't fit the conventional consensus that is fairly accurately echoed in our current law which doesn't allow late term abortions for any or no reason whatsoever. It does recognize a growing state interest in the fetus/baby in later pregnancy corresponding roughly to something about its neural development.)

ETA: Again, this is also how language works too. When linguists come up with a proposed "rule" of grammar, you can show it to be a good one if it covers many different kinds of utterances (generating or allowing those that "sound" right and not allowing those that "sound" wrong), and you can show it's bad if you come up with examples of bad utterances it allows or generates or good ones that it disallows.

 

[Loss Leader]

You can't kill a terminally ill child the way you can kill a first trimester fetus. The thing lacks whatever we require to give it moral consideration.

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise.

 

[quixotecoyote]

You can't kill a terminally ill child the way you can kill a first trimester fetus. The thing lacks whatever we require to give it moral consideration.

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise.

I agree. True, you may have to sharpen the coat hanger a little bit for the terminally ill child, but I think it should still count.

 

[Neally]

Second of all, even if we were to limit all discussion only to those things raised in the opening post, the topic still wasn't about the morality considerations of abortion.
See? No mention of morality whatsoever.

From the OP:

Whose to say who is wrong and who is right?

"Right and wrong" certainly has to do with morality. The discussion is about how to determine when the fetus acquires human rights and thus when it is morally right or wrong to kill it, not when it may or not be legal to do so or what legal framework abortion laws are based on.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your conclusion does not necessarily follow from your premise.

What conclusion and what premise?

I'm just pointing out that you cannot legally (or morally) kill a terminally ill child as you can abort a first trimester fetus (for any or no reason at all).

Again, DNR orders and aggressive palliative care for a terminal patient are exactly because we consider that person worthy of moral consideration (recognizing that they can suffer), something we don't extend to first trimester fetuses.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

"Right and wrong" certainly has to do with morality. The discussion is about how to determine when the fetus acquires human rights and thus when it is morally right or wrong to kill it, not when it may or not be legal to do so or what legal framework abortion laws are based on.

Again, I agree.

However, I do think there is a relationship between discussions of morality and laws when it comes to abortion. While I assume the OP is aware of what is legal and not, he might consider a "position" on the issue being something about how the laws are or how they should be. That is, agreeing or disagreeing with abortion laws is one of the positions the OP is talking about, I think.

 

[The True Scotsman]

Not entirely true, is it? The fetus is not going to be "left alone" under any circumstance. It is sitting inside somebody else. That person is their breathing machine. That person is their medication. Allowing the fetus to "develop naturally" is impossible without forcing some other person to expend her energies, health, and emotional wellness on that fetus.

So, I am absolutely all for removing the fetus intact from the mother and allowing natural processes to take hold. At the time that the 12-week fetus is removed from the mother, my understanding is that it would be gravely, gravely ill, would suffer greatly, and would die unquestionably. At that point, the mother should be allowed to choose to withhold medical treatment and nutrition from the 12-week old.

Problem solved.

True. Perhaps I will frame this discussion differently. If we were to consider a fetus analogous to a car crash victim who needed artificial means to stay alive, but only for (oh, let's say) 9 months (after which point, he would be able to survive without them), would it be legal to disconnect the artificial means which are keeping him/her alive?

 

[The True Scotsman]

Okay, well yes we know there are laws that permit abortion as there are laws permitting the death penalty, killing in self defense, etc . The topic is the about the morality considerations of abortion.

To clear things up, the topic of the thread has to do with what the law should be in the case of abortion cut-off dates (or when we should consider a fetus a human). My discussion with Loss Leader is one which assume the law considers fetus as humans at all stage of development and what the rights of those fetus' are.

 

[EatatJoes]

But why not? Why shouldn't we have laws on this issue? What about adult conjoined twins? If one decides to kill the other, don't you think we should have laws that criminalize that?

ETA: What makes the cutting of the umbilical cord (or being "outside the womb") so significant? Does something magical happen at that instance, and the baby wasn't worthy of moral consideration an hour earlier but is after this point?

Because the state should have zero say in what a woman does with her body, child inside the women or not. If we are going to use the reasoning of "consideration" then we should be passing laws limiting what a pregnant woman can and cannot do/ingest while pregnant. A woman's activity while pregnant can greatly affect the child both positively and negatively. I don't think a woman should smoke or drink to excess while pregnant. I think those two acts are immoral but I don't think the government should legislate those behaviors.

Once the child is outside of the mother is can be recognized as an individual and protected as one. This may seem magical to you but it seems pretty damned pragmatic to me.

As to conjoined twins...both can be protected by the state. They are not "inside" another person. However, if one twin is literally dependent on the other, the "dominant" twin should not be held legally obligated to support the twin. If the dominant twin wants separation, even at expense of the other twin, the dominant should be able to separate themselves from the dependent twin. Does the dominant twin have a moral obligation to support the dependent twin? Perhaps but, again, it's something that the state should not be involved in. Does the twin have a right to abuse the dependent twin? No.

Even though I do find value in these types of discussions, when we are asking whether or not a certain set of circumstances should be legislated or not, I think that we must first ask if those set of circumstances occur often enough to warrant them being legislated.

That's roughly how I'd characterize the law in the U.S., except I wouldn't call it especially liberal--especially the issue of "compromises".

We prohibit spending government funds for abortion. There have been any number of laws requiring parental consent for young women seeking abortion. The latest thing in Missouri was an attempt to pass a law that would require a woman seeking an abortion to listen to pro-life propaganda and look at an sonogram of the fetus. (How strange is that? Can you imagine if we required bypass surgery candidates to look at images of their diseased hearts and listen to Christian Science propaganda trying to talk them out of the surgery?)

I heard of one state (N.Dakota perhaps) in which the vague wording of the law could possibly severely limit what a pregnant woman could or could not do because of that woman miscarries, that woman could face punishment.

I suppose one could argue whether or not our laws are "liberal"...

 

[Neally]

Because the state should have zero say in what a woman does with her body, child inside the women or not.

Most people recognize a hierarchy of rights and values. Life is more valuable than property. You can't shoot to kill someone for shoplifting, for example. Likewise the life of a child is more important than the right of a woman to do as she wishes with her pregnancy, so most recognize that the government can and should dictate the terms of abortion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Because the state should have zero say in what a woman does with her body, child inside the women or not.

This is merely re-asserting your position. The fact is the state recognizes the interests of late term normally-developing, and I've provided a reasonable moral framework for why it should.

So again, why should the state have zero say in whether or not a late-term fetus deserves consideration as a moral entity? Especially on this point, you're the one proposing we change laws and go against convention. Surely you've got something to support your case?

Once the child is outside of the mother is can be recognized as an individual and protected as one. This may seem magical to you but it seems pretty damned pragmatic to me.

Yes, it's magical thinking to suppose that the fetus/baby is somehow not a moral entity an hour before birth, but is an hour after birth.

Your position goes against our society's convention and has no reasonable justification. Neurologically, a late term normally-developing baby is just as much an independent person as a new born. I appreciate that a born baby can be dependent on people other than the mother, but that's a change in external circumstances and not in the condition of the baby.

As to conjoined twins...both can be protected by the state. They are not "inside" another person.

They certainly can be.

And both are protected by the state. It would be murder to kill one of them intentionally. In cases where the rights of two people conflict, we can make decisions about whose rights "trump". For example, if there is a complication in a pregnancy, and the choice is between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, there is no problem deciding in favor of the mother. (Again, Roe v. Wade spells out a gradual change in the weights of those rights. In the first trimester, you could say it's 100% for the woman and 0% for the fetus, later, things change. In the first trimester, a woman can give any or no reason to abort the fetus. Later on, the health of the woman may be enough.)

However, if one twin is literally dependent on the other, the "dominant" twin should not be held legally obligated to support the twin.

Really? You think if it's certain that only one of a set of conjoined twins could survive a separation, and it's certain that the other would die (pretty much the definition of "dependent"), that it's OK to kill one for any or no reason?

If the dominant twin wants separation, even at expense of the other twin, the dominant should be able to separate themselves from the dependent twin.

Again, your position runs contrary to convention (and the law).

Even though I do find value in these types of discussions,<snip>

Frankly, I don't see much value in a discussion where you're not willing to support your position, but merely keep reasserting it.

 

[EatatJoes]

This is merely re-asserting your position. The fact is the state recognizes the interests of late term normally-developing, and I've provided a reasonable moral framework for why it should.

So again, why should the state have zero say in whether or not a late-term fetus deserves consideration as a moral entity? Especially on this point, you're the one proposing we change laws and go against convention. Surely you've got something to support your case?

That entity is essentially a medical condition. The decision on whether or not to abort should be considered a medical decision. That entity can't be granted rights until it is separated from it's mother. I think of rights as a blanket, if you can't wrap it, it can't be granted rights. Yes my thinking goes against convention. I support the mother's right to abort at anytime for any reason. It's my body. Also, the "moral consideration" that we grant to fetuses is laughable considering that the mother can ingest what ever legal substance she is able to and engage in any activity that she can legally engage in. If we, as a society, really wanted to grant the fetus legally recognized moral consideration, we would prohibit the mother from ingesting and participating in activities that could endanger the life of the fetus. For instance, the woman would have to be made to have a c-section if a vaginal birth was determined to be dangerous for the fetus. As of now, she can decline any medical procedure because she is granted the right to ignore doctor's orders. The laws as they stand are not consistent.

Yes, it's magical thinking to suppose that the fetus/baby is somehow not a moral entity an hour before birth, but is an hour after birth.

Legally? No it's not magical thinking. If we are simply discussing the morality of late-term abortion, it's my contention that the woman should have a damn good reason to abort.

Your position goes against our society's convention and has no reasonable justification. Neurologically, a late term normally-developing baby is just as much an independent person as a new born. I appreciate that a born baby can be dependent on people other than the mother, but that's a change in external circumstances and not in the condition of the baby.

The condition of the baby inside v outside of the womb is different. They are not the same. Once the baby exists the mother a cascade of changes occurs so the child is able to survive outside of the womb. However, I'm guessing that is not exactly what you meant. Being able to grant an entity rights should be dependent on that entity being independent. Residing inside of another person is anything but independent.

They certainly can be.

And both are protected by the state. It would be murder to kill one of them intentionally. In cases where the rights of two people conflict, we can make decisions about whose rights "trump". For example, if there is a complication in a pregnancy, and the choice is between the life of the mother and the life of the fetus, there is no problem deciding in favor of the mother. (Again, Roe v. Wade spells out a gradual change in the weights of those rights. In the first trimester, you could say it's 100% for the woman and 0% for the fetus, later, things change. In the first trimester, a woman can give any or no reason to abort the fetus. Later on, the health of the woman may be enough.)


Really? You think if it's certain that only one of a set of conjoined twins could survive a separation, and it's certain that the other would die (pretty much the definition of "dependent"), that it's OK to kill one for any or no reason?



Again, your position runs contrary to convention (and the law).



Frankly, I don't see much value in a discussion where you're not willing to support your position, but merely keep reasserting it.

A person's actual person should not be held legally responsible to support another person. I believe that a person's right to autonomy should be held sacred. Why shouldn't you have a right to do what you want with your body?

 

[EatatJoes]

Most people recognize a hierarchy of rights and values. Life is more valuable than property. You can't shoot to kill someone for shoplifting, for example. Likewise the life of a child is more important than the right of a woman to do as she wishes with her pregnancy, so most recognize that the government can and should dictate the terms of abortion.

Not in TX.

 

[Neally]

If we are simply discussing the morality of late-term abortion, it's my contention that the woman should have a damn good reason to abort.

And if she doesn't?

Not in TX.

The "castle law" in TX pushes the line farther than any other state and is an exception. The principle remains however, that there are a hierarchy of rights and life is higher than the rights of personal choice in terms of abortion.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That entity is essentially a medical condition.

You mean a full term baby an hour before delivery? Again, what do you have to support this assertion?

The decision on whether or not to abort should be considered a medical decision. That entity can't be granted rights until it is separated from it's [sic] mother.

So you've said, but why? That's not the current law, and it goes against society's convention.

I think of rights as a blanket, if you can't wrap it, it can't be granted rights.

I hope you're being facetious. This standard would fail on many accounts.

Yes my thinking goes against convention. I support the mother's right to abort at anytime for any reason. It's my body.

Again, this is the assertion of a position, and not support for that assertion. I've offered a reasonable argument for my position (actually for more or less the legal status quo and what is by and large the convention of our society).

Also, the "moral consideration" that we grant to fetuses is laughable considering that the mother can ingest what ever legal substance she is able to and engage in any activity that she can legally engage in. If we, as a society, really wanted to grant the fetus legally recognized moral consideration, we would prohibit the mother from ingesting and participating in activities that could endanger the life of the fetus.

There's a logical flaw in this argument. Essentially you're saying there can be no moral consideration unless or until such consideration is equal to that of a live, adult person. But that's not true even after the baby is born. We have status offenses all the way up to the age of majority. (In most states--probably all by now--it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy, possess or drink alcoholic beverages, for one example.)

The conventional position is that the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus go through a continuous change and balance. In the first trimester, it's 100%:0%, but near the end of term, it's much closer to 50:50 or the way we evaluate conflicting rights of two adults. (Closer, but not quite yet 50:50 as I have noted earlier.)

For instance, the woman would have to be made to have a c-section if a vaginal birth was determined to be dangerous for the fetus. As of now, she can decline any medical procedure because she is granted the right to ignore doctor's orders. The laws as they stand are not consistent.

I disagree. I think you're holding up an absurd standard. Similarly, we recognize some level of parental neglect (of already born children) to be a crime, but it doesn't mean we let the state make those decisions for the parent(s). All the state does is say basically that this behavior is a crime, but it doesn't mean that the state has an opinion on whether or not a lot of non-criminal behavior optimally reflects moral consideration for the children.

If we are simply discussing the morality of late-term abortion, it's my contention that the woman should have a damn good reason to abort.

That's a different position than what you expressed earlier. In fact, that position is consistent with current law and moral convention. It is not consistent with statements you have made earlier:

Because the state should have zero say in what a woman does with her body, child inside the women or not.

and especially:

I'm pro-choice, at whatever time for whatever reason.

Residing inside of another person is anything but independent.

But again, a newborn baby is also anything but independent. Therefore, independence (in this sense) isn't a good standard, is it? It doesn't even support your position (your first position, that is, not your new position which I have no problem with).

A person's actual person should not be held legally responsible to support another person. I believe that a person's right to autonomy should be held sacred.

So a woman should be allowed to give birth and then put the baby on someone's doorstep? After all, that is her doing with her person just what she wants, and she ought not, according to you, have her actual person be held legally responsible to support another person.

(I think you're making some distinction between what we hold a person responsible for, and holding their "actual person" responsible for something, but I don't think there is such a distinction. Taking care of a born baby is a legal responsibility that falls on the mother or legal guardian--and it applies to their "actual person".)

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Disclaimer: I'm a very strong pro-choice person myself. Even though I'm a pauper, Planned Parenthood is one of very few organizations I actually donate money to.

I think the position that it is the woman's choice to have an abortion for any or no reason at all even in late term is no more valid than the religiously-motivated position that terminating a pregnancy at the zygote or blastocyst stage is the moral equivalent of murder. I think Roe v. Wade has it about right, though I would prefer the rationale not be expressed in terms of viability alone (for the reasons I've outlined earlier).

And I oppose these attempts to erode women's reproductive rights that have been pushed by the right in recent years.

On a side note, if anyone is interested, I have a very cool story connected to the early days of contraception in the U.S. and my old house. The first owner of my house was a woman named Nellie Ferguson who ran a couple of "agency" businesses--that is, she ran a couple of businesses supplying door-to-door salesmen with kits for orders which she filled from my address. One was a typical patent medicine, but the one of greater interest is that she sold one-side fits all contraceptive diaphragms (aka "a womb veil") this way. I've researched things enough to be reasonably confident these were made by a Dr. Edward Bliss-Foote, an early supporter of women's reproductive rights, suffrage and also a freethinker. He was a big opponent of the Comstock Laws too. Here's a bit more of the story.

 

[EatatJoes]

BUMP

Sorry if you got all excited thinking I had responded. I'm hoping to tonight. (I've been BUSY!!)

 

[EatatJoes]

You mean a full term baby an hour before delivery? Again, what do you have to support this assertion?

LOL, how is it not a medical condition?? I have squeezed out two and will do so for the 3rd (and LAST) time in March. The changes that your body goes through are fairly extreme. It's one that we have evolved for, but it can also kill you in some instances if you do not have proper medical care. Now, that doesn't mean I don't think it's also a child (for ME, it's a child, or at least worthy of MY considering as soon as I know I'm pregnant) but it is also, very much, a medical condition until it exits my body.

EatatJoes' Quote:
The decision on whether or not to abort should be considered a medical decision. That entity can't be granted rights until it is separated from it's [sic] mother.

JoeTheJuggler's Quote:
So you've said, but why? That's not the current law, and it goes against society's convention.

I've also stated that to grant an entity rights that reside inside another person would stripe rights away from that person. Rights that were there but then are gone because the person is pregnant. That person did nothing wrong, did not break any laws but is now having rights stripped from them. I don't think this is OK. I'm aware that this not current law and it goes against the majority opinion. The legalities of an issue and the majority opinion of an issue doesn't always matter to those with a dissenting view. I do also recognize that my position would matter very little in the majority of states with "liberal" abortion laws. Women do not abort late in pregnancy "just because". The current laws that are in place do not necessarily prevent women from getting the abortion they want because those women are aborting after they find out that there is an issue with their child that they feel they could not support and also feel that the child would be better off aborted. I'm a pragmatist but this just happens to be an issue where I will argue my point in light of the fact that if my way were to happen the net effect wouldn't be much different.

EatatJoes' Quote:
I think of rights as a blanket, if you can't wrap it, it can't be granted rights.


JoeTheJuggler's Quote:
I hope you're being facetious. This standard would fail on many accounts.

You grant rights to a person and those rights are granted by people. You need a person in order to have rights. It makes practical sense to have a person, in which rights are to be granted, if that person is not inside of another person.

There's a logical flaw in this argument. Essentially you're saying there can be no moral consideration unless or until such consideration is equal to that of a live, adult person. But that's not true even after the baby is born. We have status offenses all the way up to the age of majority. (In most states--probably all by now--it's illegal for someone under the age of 21 to buy, possess or drink alcoholic beverages, for one example.)

The conventional position is that the rights of the woman and the rights of the fetus go through a continuous change and balance. In the first trimester, it's 100%:0%, but near the end of term, it's much closer to 50:50 or the way we evaluate conflicting rights of two adults. (Closer, but not quite yet 50:50 as I have noted earlier.)

You misunderstood my point. You cannot pour liquor down an infants throat or bring them with when you go whitewater rafting. But when a pregnant woman drinks, her child is also receiving alcohol (a child that has been exposed to too much alcohol in-utero is said to have fetal alcohol syndrome). When a pregnant woman whitewater rafts, she is increasing her risk of injury and possible miscarriage. If we were serious about giving a fetus legal consideration, we would prohibit certain activities that could increase injury or death to the fetus. Would you suggest such prohibitions on a pregnant woman?

EatatJoes' Quote:
For instance, the woman would have to be made to have a c-section if a vaginal birth was determined to be dangerous for the fetus. As of now, she can decline any medical procedure because she is granted the right to ignore doctor's orders. The laws as they stand are not consistent.

JoeTheJuggler's Quote:
I disagree. I think you're holding up an absurd standard. Similarly, we recognize some level of parental neglect (of already born children) to be a crime, but it doesn't mean we let the state make those decisions for the parent(s). All the state does is say basically that this behavior is a crime, but it doesn't mean that the state has an opinion on whether or not a lot of non-criminal behavior optimally reflects moral consideration for the children.

I'm confused on what you have stated here. But, a couple had their daughter taken away from them because the woman refused a c-section. Their daughter was fine but they had to fight to get her back from the state regardless.

That's a different position than what you expressed earlier. In fact, that position is consistent with current law and moral convention. It is not consistent with statements you have made earlier...

Allow me to clarify...I think a woman should have the legal option to abort at any time for any reason. However, I don't think that women should be aborting their late-term fetuses "just because". I'll give you another example...I think that prostitution should be legal, but I don't think that most people should use prostitutes. Another example...I think that all recreational drugs should be legal to use. This doesn't mean that I think that people should take up a meth habit. It's currently legal to drink yourself into a stuper every night if you wish. That doesn't mean I would encourage that kind of behavior. Just because you "can" doesn't mean you "should".

But again, a newborn baby is also anything but independent. Therefore, independence (in this sense) isn't a good standard, is it? It doesn't even support your position (your first position, that is, not your new position which I have no problem with).

So a woman should be allowed to give birth and then put the baby on someone's doorstep? After all, that is her doing with her person just what she wants, and she ought not, according to you, have her actual person be held legally responsible to support another person.

(I think you're making some distinction between what we hold a person responsible for, and holding their "actual person" responsible for something, but I don't think there is such a distinction. Taking care of a born baby is a legal responsibility that falls on the mother or legal guardian--and it applies to their "actual person".)

Actually in some jurisdictions it is legal for a woman to leave her newborn at a hospital or any other qualifying place. Those municipalities figure it's better that a woman have that option rather than leaving the poor thing in a dumpster or toilet or closet...Even if those cities do not have those options, if the mother were to skip town and leave her baby in the hospital, the child would be cared for.

It's possible I'm making a distinction without a difference...Let me just go back to what I said about how a fetus is a medical condition. No one else can take on the medical condition except the one who has it. I can't take my husband's elevated cholesterol and he sure in the hell can't take this pregnancy (although I really can't complain, except for losing the ability to sleep on my stomach).

Now having children can drain you both physically and mentally. I can't legally give my children up to the state or someone else unless there is evidence that my children are being neglected or abused. Then the state takes my children away from me. And there are also legal consequences. However, even in those sad cases, those children will still be cared for (although how well they will be cared for is quite debatable, depending on the city). Legalities aside, there are options for most people. But there is no option when you are pregnant. I guess that is the distinction I was referring to.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I've also stated that to grant an entity rights that reside inside another person would stripe [sic] rights away from that person.

But doesn't this happen whenever the rights of 2 people are in conflict? It doesn't only pertain to one person being inside the other. We deal with such conflicts all the time--legally and morally. I don't think it's legitimate to ignore the conflict for arbitrary reasons.

Sorry--I'm on my way out the door again. I haven't even read further than this in your post. I promise I will later on.

ETA: FWIW, I've heard the current law and moral consensus described thusly: yes, it's your body and your decision. However, if you haven't had an abortion by a certain point in a normal pregnancy, by the time you are at full term, you have already made the decision, and killing the baby an hour or so before it would be born is not morally acceptable.

 

[EatatJoes]

But doesn't this happen whenever the rights of 2 people are in conflict? It doesn't only pertain to one person being inside the other. We deal with such conflicts all the time--legally and morally. I don't think it's legitimate to ignore the conflict for arbitrary reasons.

Can you give me an example of when the rights of two people are in conflict in which the rights of one are stripped from another? [That is twice you have pointed out my grammar errors! I was really trying to avoid it with that post too...]

Sorry--I'm on my way out the door again. I haven't even read further than this in your post. I promise I will later on.

How dare you have a life!! I hope your Turkey Day was wonderful!

ETA: FWIW, I've heard the current law and moral consensus described thusly: yes, it's your body and your decision. However, if you haven't had an abortion by a certain point in a normal pregnancy, by the time you are at full term, you have already made the decision, and killing the baby an hour or so before it would be born is not morally acceptable.

Pretty much. Although I suppose I am arguing that to legally deny the woman the ability to do so would be even more of an injustice. But I DO think that aborting a full-term infant is repugnant. But again, I'm fairly certain this doesn't happen and it wouldn't happen if women were legally allowed to do so.