On each parents' rights to a fetus.

[Beery Swine]

The title pretty much sums it up. It is genetically half the mother's and half the father's, yet its termination is entirely up to the mother. Somewhat understandable, but why termination? What if the father wants it? Shouldn't there be some means of maintaining outside the womb in an ideal world should such an occasion arise? And what if the mother wants it but the father wants to destroy it? I suppose that's not a big deal.

Also, this thread is not about legalities, so please don't bring the law into this. For Christ's sake, we're INTJs, people!

[niffer]

Okay, so are we first establishing that this is in an ideal world in which babies can be magically teleported out of wombs and childbirth and stuff isn't troubling at all? Then the mother and father play rock paper scissors, problem solved.

Oh my, I went back and read that again.

I think that in both cases it should be up to the mother, because the mother will have contributed more cells and stuffs into the development of the fetus, whereas the father will have only put one sperm into the making of it. The father can go sperm up some other lady again in most cases anyway. My opinion is only based on this, because it really can get much more complicated, and depending on the nature of the relationship between the mother and the father the weights of their wishes can be very equal and difficult to outweight one another with.

[Antares]

The title pretty much sums it up. It is genetically half the mother's and half the father's, yet its termination is entirely up to the mother. Somewhat understandable, but why termination? What if the father wants it? Shouldn't there be some means of maintaining outside the womb in an ideal world should such an occasion arise? And what if the mother wants it but the father wants to destroy it? I suppose that's not a big deal.

Also, this thread is not about legalities, so please don't bring the law into this. For Christ's sake, we're INTJs, people!

What if the father wants it? Well, it's still the woman's body. She can do what she wants. She should probably consider the father's opinion though, but the father would be wrong to make her do with her body what she does not want. Or they can make an agreement (if she doesn't mind her body being used or risking her life for the fetus), that the fetus would be given to the father and the mother can cut ties with it (assuming that they'd separate). If they won't separate, then it should be up to the woman. Sorry, men, but you're not the ones living with back pains, potential death, morning sickness, the burden of carrying a heavy fetus etc.

What if the mother wants it but the father does not? In my opinion, the father should be able to cut all ties with it if the mother does not consider his opinion or his wishes; she can't hold it over him and demand money for the child he did not want once a month; it's simply unfair that you get to decide someone else's life that way. This is the practical world; not an ideal world. It's very much flawed, and the father and mother do not share equal roles in bring the child into the world.

[EsoteriEccentri]

What if the father wants it? Well, it's still the woman's body. She can do what she wants. She should probably consider the father's opinion though, but the father would be wrong to make her do with her body what she does not want. Or they can make an agreement (if she doesn't mind her body being used or risking her life for the fetus), that the fetus would be given to the father and the mother can cut ties with it (assuming that they'd separate). If they won't separate, then it should be up to the woman. Sorry, men, but you're not the ones living with back pains, potential death, morning sickness, the burden of carrying a heavy fetus etc.

What if the mother wants it but the father does not? In my opinion, the father should be able to cut all ties with it if the mother does not consider his opinion or his wishes; she can't hold it over him and demand money for the child he did not want once a month; it's simply unfair that you get to decide someone else's life that way. This is the practical world; not an ideal world. It's very much flawed, and the father and mother do not share equal roles in bring the child into the world.

The money is so that despite having just one parent the child will still be able to have adequate food and clothing. I think it's rather stupid when people say that the father shouldn't have to pay child support. It goes to the child, taking the money away from the father (who, if he just wanted to cut all connections with it probably didn't deserve the money - to go to the mother who can buy basic necessities with it)
Besides, if he did not men would be more likely to go about just sleeping with women all over the place, not even bothering to use protection, because they would know that if a child was conceived they could just say they didn't want anything to do with it. It's not easy, choosing whether you want an abortion or not. It can traumatize some women, especially if it goes against their religion. Besides, abortions can cost money aswell.
Or the father could convince the women to keep the baby because he says he wants it, and then abandon her and the child at the last minute.

I think child support is definitely needed.

[SmileyMan]

I don't believe the woman should be able to claim child support from the man if he had been against the pregnancy before and after the minute he was notified about it. When the woman knows the position her partner has taken in this, she can either get an abortion or choose to give birth and support it alone. The man should have no obligations when he isn't considered in the decision-making of the woman.

The money is so that despite having just one parent the child will still be able to have adequate food and clothing. I think it's rather stupid when people say that the father shouldn't have to pay child support. It goes to the child, taking the money away from the father (who, if he just wanted to cut all connections with it probably didn't deserve the money - to go to the mother who can buy basic necessities with it)

If the man wished an abortion and the woman gave birth anyway, then it isn't the man's problem if the woman can't support the child alone. The woman had a choice. She knew that if she gave birth, it would against the man's wishes. If the woman is allowed to ignore the wish of the man (Abortion), then why is the man not allowed to ignore the wish of the woman (Child support)? It is idiotic to give birth if you know you won't be able to support a child, especially when you do it against the wishes of the man, because then you stand alone in the fight.

Besides, if he did not men would be more likely to go about just sleeping with women all over the place, not even bothering to use protection, because they would know that if a child was conceived they could just say they didn't want anything to do with it.
Or the father could convince the women to keep the baby because he says he wants it, and then abandon her and the child at the last minute.

You really hate men, don't you? No sane man would ever do any of those things you mentioned in the quote. You think of men as vicious barbarians, who pillage and rape without a conscience, but men do have a conscience.

It's not easy, choosing whether you want an abortion or not. It can traumatize some women, especially if it goes against their religion. Besides, abortions can cost money aswell.

How about the man? The man will be forced to interact with a child he never wished had existed. I'm sure such a thing can cause serious psychological problems in the mind of the man. It can ruin his life.


I think child support is definitely needed.

Me too, if the man wasn't always against getting a child.

[EsoteriEccentri]

Hate men? No... I just think that the child should be the most important factor in the equation.


I was just suggesting some of the worst scenarios, there are many for women too.

[PHS Philip]

But that doesn't answer the question. Why should the father be forced to care for a child that is, in effect, not his? Genetically it may be his, but he didn't want the child. The child is the mother's child only, because she is the one that decided it should be born.

The father tried to avoid the child's birth. Maybe he knew they couldn't support a child, and the mother is being irrational. Maybe he had plans for what he wants to do with his life, and having a child will ruin his life and stop him from ever managing to do anything worthwhile. Why should the mother have such total control over his life? "Shit happens." Birth control doesn't always work. It isn't always his fault.

The woman has the right to refuse to have the child even if the father wants her to, because it is a much greater risk to her, etc. And she has the right to have the child against the father's wishes. But she doesn't have the right to tie the father to someone he didn't want.

[azelismia]

I don't believe the woman should be able to claim child support from the man if he had been against the pregnancy before and after the minute he was notified about it. When the woman knows the position her partner has taken in this, she can either get an abortion or choose to give birth and support it alone. The man should have no obligations when he isn't considered in the decision-making of the woman.



If the man wished an abortion and the woman gave birth anyway, then it isn't the man's problem if the woman can't support the child alone. The woman had a choice. She knew that if she gave birth, it would against the man's wishes. If the woman is allowed to ignore the wish of the man (Abortion), then why is the man not allowed to ignore the wish of the woman (Child support)? It is idiotic to give birth if you know you won't be able to support a child, especially when you do it against the wishes of the man, because then you stand alone in the fight.



You really hate men, don't you? No sane man would ever do any of those things you mentioned in the quote. You think of men as vicious barbarians, who pillage and rape without a conscience, but men do have a conscience.



How about the man? The man will be forced to interact with a child he never wished had existed. I'm sure such a thing can cause serious psychological problems in the mind of the man. It can ruin his life.



Me too, if the man wasn't always against getting a child.

I agree with this. I think if the guy was against the pregnancy from the beginning and didn't wish it to happen then he should not be held responsible for it ( for long term care of the kid). If the woman is poor I think he should be willing to help with the costs of abortion if that is the route he thinks she should take, but that is all

[Antares]

Hate men? No... I just think that the child should be the most important factor in the equation.


I was just suggesting some of the worst scenarios, there are many for women too.

The woman would be unreasonable if she insists on having the child then making the unwilling father pay for it. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

[Beery Swine]

The child support issue is off-topic, but that's okay, I like it. I think if a man says up front that he wants nothing to do with any child that might accidently come about, especially if she is either on birth control or just telling him that she's on it, he should have absolutely no financial responsibility to the child. That would basically be economic slavery. Furthermore, if she tries to trap him with it, I think abortion should probably be mandatory in that case. If anyone would use a child as leverage then they don't deserve to be a parent. If a fetus's termination ultimately rests with it's host, then it's upbringing should ultimately rest with it's host as well. With great power comes great responsibility.

Someone else brought up the point about him saying he wants it only to abandon at the last minute. If he stuck with it for 9 months without a peep, I think he's obliged at that point. Hell, even after 6 months.

It was also mentioned that lack of paternal economic responsibility would mean any man could boff women bareback and willynilly. I would counter that it takes two to tango.

SmileyMan said men have a conscience. I can't back you up on that one, man. In my experience I am quite the exception to the rule i.e. I have a conscience.

[Antares]

Someone else brought up the point about him saying he wants it only to abandon at the last minute. If he stuck with it for 9 months without a peep, I think he's obliged at that point. Hell, even after 6 months.

It's his fault that he waited too long.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

In my opinion, there is no occasion where a woman should be forced to have an abortion or forced to carry a fetus to term. As far as the rights of the father, they should definately be considered in every capacity except with regard to the woman's body and how it is used. This is far from ideal, but more ideal than a woman being forced to use her body in any way in which she hasn't consented to.

[Beery Swine]

In my opinion, there is no occasion where a woman should be forced to have an abortion or forced to carry a fetus to term. As far as the rights of the father, they should definately be considered in every capacity except with regard to the woman's body and how it is used. This is far from ideal, but more ideal than a woman being forced to use her body in any way in which she hasn't consented to.

Naw, if anyone tries to use a child as any type of bargaining chip, they have proven their irresponsibility and lose any kid they have or that's on the way. What kind of mother do you think a woman who treats her child like something to be parlayed would make? Not in my world.

Of course, this topic is about idealism and not realism, so take what I said in that context.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

Naw, if anyone tries to use a child as any type of bargaining chip, they have proven their irresponsibility and lose any kid they have or that's on the way. What kind of mother do you think a woman who treats her child like something to be parlayed would make? Not in my world.

Of course, this topic is about idealism and not realism, so take what I said in that context.
O.K. well if you're talking idealism, then every would-be parent should be forced to go through a training program that includes a pass/fail outcome, as well as, extensive psychological, intellectual, and other sorts of tests that would measure their abilities as parents. They should also have to be deemed financially able to care for any offspring they are attempting to produce. All individuals engaged in sexual activity should be rendered infertile until such time as they are able to meet the rigorous standards required to be allowed to even begin the process of reproduction.

Ideally.

[Motor Jax]

i think it should be in the common agreement of both parents, not just one

it takes 2 to tango

[Beery Swine]

O.K. well if you're talking idealism, then every would-be parent should be forced to go through a training program that includes a pass/fail outcome, as well as, extensive psychological, intellectual, and other sorts of tests that would measure their abilities as parents. They should also have to be deemed financially able to care for any offspring they are attempting to produce. All individuals engaged in sexual activity should be rendered infertile until such time as they are able to meet the rigorous standards required to be allowed to even begin the process of reproduction.

Ideally.

WOOHOO! Benevolent dictatorship it is. That's a liberal's wet dream. Idealogically speaking I find myself flip-flopping often on total government control vs. libertarian state or anarcho capitalism, but that's a different thread altogether.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

WOOHOO! Benevolent dictatorship it is. That's a liberal's wet dream. Idealogically speaking I find myself flip-flopping often on total government control vs. libertarian state or anarcho capitalism, but that's a different thread altogether.
"Of course, this topic is about idealism and not realism, so take what I said in that context."

[Terian]

Genetically, the fetus is not the mother's or the father's property. If individuality is determined by one's genes, the fetus is every bit as unique as either parent, and has every right that its parents have (just as you, ostensibly, have the same rights as your parents).

Sigh. I just got out of a class on genetics.

[zoophilia]

What about having the ability to dispose of legal obligation by either party?

[Beery Swine]

What about having the ability to dispose of legal obligation by either party?

That sounds good to me. If the mother wants nothing to do with it but the father does, it would be nice if there could be a proxy for the fetus, say, a mechanical womb like in The Matrix, or maybe just transplantation to a surrogate mother.

[PortInStorm]

OK no one's addressing the ideal world scenario of having an environment that can support and nurture a fetus if the mother doesn't want to. I'm all for that! Yes, it's the woman's body, but every abortion doctor will tell you that it causes tremendous pain to the fetus to be 'terminated'. And if there are so many waiting to adopt babies, then why not put time and funding into inventing such an environment? I mean, we do amazing things for premies as it is...

[Beery Swine]

Yes, it's the woman's body, but every abortion doctor will tell you that it causes tremendous pain to the fetus to be 'terminated'.

Color me the skeptic, but could you provide a source for that assertion?

[Antares]

OK no one's addressing the ideal world scenario of having an environment that can support and nurture a fetus if the mother doesn't want to. I'm all for that! Yes, it's the woman's body, but every abortion doctor will tell you that it causes tremendous pain to the fetus to be 'terminated'. And if there are so many waiting to adopt babies, then why not put time and funding into inventing such an environment? I mean, we do amazing things for premies as it is...

We have no qualms about causing tremendous pain on other things, like the fish we skin, the boar we slaughter. Many of them are more advanced mentally than the fetus and can feel pain more intensely (pigs, for example, are immensely intelligent beings with a highly sophisticated brain. They are bound to be more advanced than the fetus in most stages of development). Double standard?

[Danisty]

OK no one's addressing the ideal world scenario of having an environment that can support and nurture a fetus if the mother doesn't want to. I'm all for that! Yes, it's the woman's body, but every abortion doctor will tell you that it causes tremendous pain to the fetus to be 'terminated'. And if there are so many waiting to adopt babies, then why not put time and funding into inventing such an environment? I mean, we do amazing things for premies as it is...I'm skeptical about the issue of fetus feeling pain, but even if it did feel tremendous pain, I wouldn't really care.

Even in this ideal world scenario, I don't think any parent should be forced to let the child be born no matter who's body it's in. There are some very compelling reasons that a person might not want their genes passed on at all even if they don't have to raise the child. This is one of the many reasons I would choose abortion over adoption. Even in a perfect scenario, I don't want a child out there that has any ties to me.