Paper Abortions

[Darat]

On the other hand, she can abort at will, with no input from the father.

Why do you require the father's consent for adoption, but not for abortion?

Adoption requires a person to be adopted, an abortion requires a non person (in a legal and for most people a moral sense). Very different propositions.

 

[Darat]

Seems we have a disagreement here:





Can a biological father veto a woman's decision to give a child up for adoption, or not?

IANAL, but I assume that first his paternity would have to be established. I don't know all the ins and outs of this. Then, if it is legally established that he is the father with full parental rights, if she wants to give up the child for adoption he could just take full custody and even make her pay child support in some cases (if she doesn't want custody herself, or maybe even if she does).

I think the moral of the story is, be careful who you conceive a child with.

In the UK a person has a right to a family life (to try encompass a complicated series of rights) therefore the decision should be based on what best protects that right.

From reading about this in a general way the law seems to have settled on a scale, 2 biological parents together raising the child is the best, one biological parent plus a non biological parent the next best, then a single biological parent the next followed by adoption as the least desirable.


(Obviously this is based on all the parents being equally fit parents, when one or more are unfit different criteria come into play.)

 

[xjx388]

You seem to have forgot a simple fact, the man had a choice as to whether to engage in an activity that could result in a person being created.

Consensual sex is entirely voluntary, if a man doesn't want to have responsibility for creating a child don't have sex (with a biological female) .

It really isn't rocket science.

He should accept personal responsibility.

I totally agree. The simple fact is that if a woman does not want to have a child, she should also not engage in consensual sex. But we give women a right the man does not have -the right to unilaterally decide to terminate the pregnancy. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that she should also accept personal responsibility and thus abortion should be restricted to cases of non-consensual sex or life-threatening problems with the fetus or to the woman?

But no, that is punishing the woman. People who espouse this simple idea are derided as slut-shamers and religious nuts. Yet we have no problem punishing the man. I can understand where the idea of paper abortions comes from, even if I no longer believe it’s the right solution.

I mean, if we were space-robots, as theprestige might say, the logic behind paper abortions is sound as you yourself kinda illustrated above. But we are humans and we have to account for the thorny issues human nature introduces.

 

[Butter!]

I don't even think it's unfair if he didn't have any expectation in the first place that his one-night stand would result in a child.

Again, if a man wants to be a father, there's a pretty clear-cut time-tested way to do that: find a woman who's looking for a long-term partner and wants to have kids. In my opinion, if it was just a one-night stand, there's no commitment or obligation there (either way). Two strangers who have a one-night stand don't owe each other anything after it's over, including any subsequent communication, if they don't want to.

Oh, I don't disagree. I just meant "fair" in the strictly literal sense.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

I totally agree. The simple fact is that if a woman does not want to have a child, she should also not engage in consensual sex. But we give women a right the man does not have -the right to unilaterally decide to terminate the pregnancy. Wouldn’t it be fair to say that she should also accept personal responsibility and thus abortion should be restricted to cases of non-consensual sex or life-threatening problems with the fetus or to the woman?

But no, that is punishing the woman. People who espouse this simple idea are derided as slut-shamers and religious nuts. Yet we have no problem punishing the man. I can understand where the idea of paper abortions comes from, even if I no longer believe it’s the right solution.

I mean, if we were space-robots, as theprestige might say, the logic behind paper abortions is sound as you yourself kinda illustrated above. But we are humans and we have to account for the thorny issues human nature introduces.

To play the devil's advocate, I think the idea of paper abortions has to do with the idea that the woman has an opportunity to mitigate damages via abortion that a man does not.

An example. Say a man negligently hits a woman with his car, causing a slow internal bleed. That's bad and reckless, and he should be responsible for the damages. But let's say the woman is taken to the hospital and against all good medical advice and common sense, she refuses to have the medical condition treated. Days go on as the bleeding continues, but the woman, being of sound mind, still refuses treatment. As a result of this lack of treatment, her injury is much more severe and her damages are far greater.

Should the driver have to pay the woman damages that were easily avoidable had she had the medical procedure? No, because she failed to mitigate her damages. Even though he caused the injury, the woman failed to take reasonable steps to limit the scope of those damages, so the man is not found responsible for the full damages, only the smaller part that was unavoidable.

This is known in the law as a duty to mitigate damages.

Devil's advocate hat off now. I don't really find my own argument here convincing. Many wouldn't see abortion as preferable to unwanted pregnancy, so implying there is some requirement to act in that way is not reasonable. This is further complicated that support is for the child, not the mother, so even if you think the mother did not mitigate damages, the child should not suffer the consequences.

More broadly, such a law would be against the public good, if you consider that every child being supported by two parents as a generally good outcome.

 

[mumblethrax]

I totally agree. The simple fact is that if a woman does not want to have a child, she should also not engage in consensual sex.

That doesn't follow. Abortion is a perfectly good way for a woman to deal with her responsibilities surrounding an unwanted pregnancy.

Women have options that men don't, by virtue of the fact that the baby grows in the lady's tummy. Attempting to revoke those options, or to manufacture downstream options for men, in the name of fairness, is a deeply misguided Harrison Bergeron way of thinking about equality.

 

[Puppycow]

That doesn't follow. Abortion is a perfectly good way for a woman to deal with her responsibilities surrounding an unwanted pregnancy.

Women have options that men don't, by virtue of the fact that the baby grows in the lady's tummy. Attempting to revoke those options, or to manufacture downstream options for men, in the name of fairness, is a deeply misguided Harrison Bergeron way of thinking about equality.

This. The simple fact of biology is that the fetus is inside the woman's body, not the man's body, and therefore the decision of whether or not to have an abortion is hers and hers alone. I don't understand this logic whereby it's not fair that they get to have this choice but we don't, because the situations are not remotely the same.

 

[xjx388]

Hmmm...I don’t think the idea that mere biology gives women more rights is particularly viable. Not under an equality under the law framework.

Biology could be used to restrict rights. For example, it used to be that employers discriminated against women because they might get pregnant or their periods make them use more sick time, etc -biological realities that hurt productivity. Thus, men had a civil right that women didn’t, the right to better employment opportunities. We rectified that with anti-discrimination laws. We decided that men’s biology in this case shouldn’t give them an leg up on women when it comes to employment.

Like I said, there are thorny issues involved specifically with pregnancy and human feelings regarding it that must be factored in. Reference to biology doesn’t really help us sort them out.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

Anyone else thinking about "The Life Of Brian" right now?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Hey, you don't have to frame it as a Male/Female issue.

Just keep it generic as in: able or not able to get pregnant and give birth.

No need to bring gender into this.

 

[Dr. Keith]

Hmmm...I don’t think the idea that mere biology gives women more rights is particularly viable. Not under an equality under the law framework.

In its majestic equality, the law allows man and woman alike to cleans their own bodies of an unwanted pregnancy.

- Anatole France, probably

 

[mumblethrax]

Hmmm...I don’t think the idea that mere biology gives women more rights is particularly viable. Not under an equality under the law framework.

"Mere biology" is why we can vote and pigs can't. What kind of compensatory steps would you like to take in light of this fact?

 

[luchog]

He should accept personal responsibility.

Seems almost laughable to me that the folks that whinge the most stridently about "personal responsibility" with regard to other peoples' lives and lifestyles, are also the most strident about avoiding their own personal responsibilities.

 

[casebro]

"Mere biology" is why we can vote and pigs can't. What kind of compensatory steps would you like to take in light of this fact?

It depends. Are you the one that made my pig pregnant? Just sowing wild oats eh?

 

[luchog]

Hmmm...I don’t think the idea that mere biology gives women more rights is particularly viable. Not under an equality under the law framework.

Utter nonsense. There are numerous cases where law takes biological realities into account. It would be profoundly stupid and a violation of true justice if the law did not do that.

And claiming this gives women "more rights" is more reactionary-right BS. Men have just as much right to terminate their own pregnancy as women do, but since men cannot actually physically get pregnant, this right is irrelevant for men.

Reminds me of a great quote: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." -Gloria Steinem.

 

[xjx388]

Utter nonsense. There are numerous cases where law takes biological realities into account. It would be profoundly stupid and a violation of true justice if the law did not do that.

And claiming this gives women "more rights" is more reactionary-right BS. Men have just as much right to terminate their own pregnancy as women do, but since men cannot actually physically get pregnant, this right is irrelevant for men.

Reminds me of a great quote: "If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament." -Gloria Steinem.

Woah woah . . . I am not a proponent of paper abortions. I've already given the reasons why I am not. I just don't agree with some of the reasoning laid out here.

But while we are on it, what laws take biological realities into account? Laws that prohibit discrimination against the disabled might be one that you are thinking about, but those are aimed at making disabled people equal before the law -we require employers and public places to make accommodations for them so that they have equal access. IOW, the law aims to make their rights equal to the rights of the non-disabled.

That's not what is happening with abortion law. The aim there isn't to make women's rights equal to men's rights but specifically to give them a right that men do not have. Further, you are subrogating the rights of the man to the woman's.

As I said, I don't think that assigning rights based solely on biology is compatible with the idea of equality under the law. There have to be other factors at play and it's those factors that provide better reasoning for the unique right of abortion.

 

[mumblethrax]

As I said, I don't think that assigning rights based solely on biology is compatible with the idea of equality under the law. There have to be other factors at play and it's those factors that provide better reasoning for the unique right of abortion.

Nobody is "assigning rights based on biology"--they are reasoning from one principle (medical autonomy) to another (reproductive liberty). Reproductive liberty, for those that can get pregnant, implies the right to an abortion. It does not imply a right to abortion for those who can't. Do we really need to go into further detail as to why that is?

The fact that people can unjustly discriminate on morally irrelevant biological differences is neither here nor there, because having a womb is not irrelevant to having an abortion. It's a necessary contingency.

There might be some good reasons to reform our child support regime, but this argument is just silly.

 

[Dr. Keith]

That's not what is happening with abortion law. The aim there isn't to make women's rights equal to men's rights but specifically to give them a right that men do not have.

Twice it has been pointed out to you that men certainly do have the right to terminate their own pregnancies. And yet you keep saying they don't have this right. Seems weird.

Further, you are subrogating the rights of the man to the woman's.

How so?

 

[luchog]

But while we are on it, what laws take biological realities into account? Laws that prohibit discrimination against the disabled might be one that you are thinking about, but those are aimed at making disabled people equal before the law -we require employers and public places to make accommodations for them so that they have equal access. IOW, the law aims to make their rights equal to the rights of the non-disabled.

There's also numerous laws specific to children and child care, which are predicated entirely on the biological (developmental and neurological) differences between children and adults.

Employment law on the subject of maternity also takes into account the biological differences between men and women.

Civil rights and criminal law with regard to mentally ill, developmentally disabled, and other "mentally incompetent" persons take biological realities into account; predominantly for the purpose of protecting such persons from exploitation and abuse.

I'm sure I'm missing a few.

Any law that does not take biological reality into account when needed is not a just law, nor a law that promotes true equality.

That's not what is happening with abortion law. The aim there isn't to make women's rights equal to men's rights but specifically to give them a right that men do not have. Further, you are subrogating the rights of the man to the woman's.

As I said, I don't think that assigning rights based solely on biology is compatible with the idea of equality under the law. There have to be other factors at play and it's those factors that provide better reasoning for the unique right of abortion.

Nope, this is utter nonsense again. Women do not have any rights that men do not have: abortion is all about a woman's right to decide what to do with her own body. Men already have that right protected more than women do. This is about creating equality under the law that does not currently exist in many places. Bodily autonomy is a right that men have always had more protected than women have.

Abortion is a special case, because pregnancy is a special case. When men start getting pregnant, then they can start whinging about women having access to abortion without their say-so.

What you are asserting is an appeal to equality is not; it's an appeal to equity, which is not the same thing, and will not produce true equality or true justice under the law.

 

[Puppycow]

Saw this video from a former member of this forum. She makes some interesting points.



Now, I'm not sure she's arguing here for "paper abortions" exactly. Just for the right of men to have nothing to do with raising the child beyond paying child support, I think. Or maybe not even that. She didn't exactly state her position on child support in a situation like this.