A secular debate about abortion

[Seth]

Seth wrote: "indeed, and deliberately so, because it confuses the issue. The essence of that consideration is who is it that created the obligation to support the child? In the case of a woman who chooses to keep a child unwanted by the father, it's the mother who has created that obligation without the consent of the father."

So in that case, a man may avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child he doesn't want by refusing any kind of support, but a woman may not avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child she doesn't want, if the man decides he wants it?

No, he's not liable for one-half of the necessary support because he did not consent to the pregnancy. The woman, as I said elsewhere, if she's compelled to carry a child to term by the contract is due compensation for her duties as gestator, including full pre-natal medical care. I'd even go so far as to say that she's owed a wage and other compensation necessitated by her having to take time off to bear the child. If she's to be required to gestate a child, she should be treated as a gestational professional and appropriately compensated for that work.

You are blatant here in favoring the rights of men over women in this scenario. I pity your sexual partners, and I am deeply grateful you aren't in charge of American reproductive policy.

Now that was unnecessarily snarky and mean. This is an abstract philosophical debate, please try to maintain a degree of debatorial objectivity and refrain from personalizing it too much. Thanks.

Seth, I'm also curious why you so devoutly pursue the rights of a human being before it's born, but disclaim any responsibility for that same human being after it's born.

What makes you say that? I'm merely arguing that the burden of responsibility be placed where it should be placed and not shifted wrongfully to others just to suit the political desires of radical feminists.

[hadespussercats]

Seth wrote: Consent to sex constitutes consent to the implied contract, which may include compulsory gestation. If you don't want to consent to that contract, don't have sex. It's just that simple.

hadespussercats wrote: And I'll repeat, "if there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children," then men who want children but can't find women to bear them are shit out of luck until medical science advances to meet their needs, as it has in the case of women who get abortions. Until then, well, as you say, cry me a river.

I'm with ya there.

How can you be "with [me] there," if you believe in "compulsory gestation"? Particularly when you don't believe in compulsory child support? Why is money an entity that deserves more legal protection than control over one's own body, and the right to refuse to undergo avoidable physical risk?

Your thinking on this matter is so muddled, it's hard to discuss the issue at hand in any sensible way.

[Coito ergo sum]

To the OP, the problem there is that the courts won't buy it. It's far easier to ban abortion than it is to give men a pass. This is because the courts already acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for children they father, but the courts, and society in general, subscribe to the "do it for the children" argument that says it doesn't matter what's fair or equitable, or even rational, the only thing that matters is what's in the "best interests of the children."

I don't agree with this. Courts don't acknowledge the inequity of making men pay for the children they father. Quite to the contrary, they find that children have an absolute right to child support from their parents, except in the case of donors to a sperm bank and such.

A distinction without a difference. If men had the right to control whether or not the child is brought to term, it wouldn't be an issue. They don't. And you're simply confirming what I said in different words.

No. The words you used were that the "courts acknowledge the inequity." Which courts have so acknowledged? Is there a published court opinion where the court has said, "We acknowledge that it is inequitable to impose a support obligation on a man for children he fathers...." I'd love to see that case.

I recognize that you are saying that YOU think it's inequitable. But, the courts have not acknowledged that at all.

I would also state that IMHO it is not "inequitable." It's "unequal," yes, but not "inequitable."

In that regard, the legal tomes are replete with cases of husbands who have discovered that the children they have been raising aren't theirs, but rather are the product of an adulterous affair, and yet the courts will still mandate that the man support the children, even though they aren't his, and what's more, they WILL give a pass to the true father.

Those cases do occur, and they are travesties of justice, but that's a different issue entirely.

Not really. It's all part of the privilege that women enjoy when it comes to cavalier and imprudent operation of their vaginas.[/quote]

Yes, really, because the issue of a man being forced to pay for a child that he did NOT father is different from the issue of him being made to support the children that he DID father. A man being falsely accused of being a father by a woman is a victim of fraud, but the one who is told to support the children he fathers is not.

Moreover, incidentally, every father is well advised to have a paternity test done when the child is born. They're obviously worth every penny. If you find out in the first few months of the child's life that the child was not yours, the courts will not force you to pay support.

I don't think that most people, women included, think that men should have to support other men's children.

If they don't, then why aren't there laws to that effect?

There aren't. There are court opinions, usually resulting from lengthy periods of time where a guy thought he was the father and ACTED TOWARDS THE CHILD as if he was the father, so the courts impose the "de facto parent doctrine," the "parent by estoppel doctrine," or the "equitable parent doctrine" or the "psychological parent doctrine" - all basically the same judge made principle. It's not just used by courts to impose an obligation on a father to support a child that isn't biologically his but has been treated as his for an extended period of time, but it is also used by non-biological parents who have acted in the parental role to assert rights where they have been the de facto parent for so many years (i.e. - non-fathers who have thought for years that they were the father have asserted equitable or de facto parentage to maintain visitation rights over a child they love but only learned later wasn't really there's). These are not statutes, however, they are judge made doctrines. The use of this doctrine to force a father to support a child he was totally fraudulently induced to support has been very rare.

In my view, the man put in that situation by a woman should have a lawsuit against the woman for fraud and intentional infliction of emotional distress, etc. She should have to pay him back for the amount of money he had to pay to support some other guy's child. That, of course, doesn't happen, and the courts have thus far protected women who commit this kind of fraud.

I agree. But the courts are a reflection of the moral beliefs of the society. And from the pragmatic standpoint, a woman who is requesting child support isn't likely to be able to pay a judgment.

Most people sued for things, unless they have insurance, aren't likely to be able to pay the judgment. But, collectibility and liability are two different things. And, the courts are a reflection of the law, generally speaking. Where statutes aren't on point, they courts apply common law principles. The idea that a father must support his child is not a new product of modern moral beliefs of the society, but a longstanding principle that has always applied.

This is why the "give the father a pass" won't work. When a child is born, the courts WILL hold the man accountable. This being the case, absent a substantial shift in precedent or explicit laws overruling the existing precedents, the only way to be to the man is to give him a say in whether the child is born or not. This means that if she wants the kid, and he doesn't, the child should be aborted (if abortion is allowed at all). For a conceived child to be permitted to gestate, it should require the consent of BOTH parents.

Oh - I didn't think you were advocating that. I find that an impossible rule to create. If I were a woman, my medical procedures would be none of anybody's business. I mean, a husband doesn't need his wife's permission to get a vasectomy, so I don't see why the wife would need hubby's permission to dust and clean the uterus.

Because killing a living human being is not "dusting and cleaning."

Ah, there we go. Well, it's not a human being, and it's part of the woman's body. Under traditional principles going back centuries, abortion wasn't a crime of any kind until after the quickening of the fetus. Even after that point, it wasn't murder. You'll have to establish that for some reason what was not common law murder before must now be considered murder.

Moreover, Hadespussercats' points have to be given their due, don't they? The woman by bearing the child is inherently bearing risk the father does not bear.

Sucks to be a woman. That's no reason to impose a burden on men. Life isn't fair.

The only "burden" being imposed is the burden that a man support the children he fathers. Whether he picked the wrong girl or couldn't pull out in time isn't the rest of our problems, and it isn't the problem of the baby once it's born, right? So, but the same token, sucks for him, but the child has the right to father, doesn't it?

Of course there's no way this is acceptable to women, because it requires they submit to an abortion against their will.

And, any law that would require women to submit to an abortion against their will is an abomination to individual liberty.

Correct. But remember there's a nuance in the contract theory, which is that under the contract theory, the woman is WAIVING her right to absolute reproductive autonomy, and is therefore CONSENTING to some degree of control as a part of the contract. Thus, in that scenario, compelling a woman to have an abortion would simply be enforcing a contract she agreed to be bound by.

I don't know where you get the idea that consenting to sex is an implied waiver of absolute reproductive autonomy? I mean - is this a verbal contract? A written contract? Or a contract implied in law? I see nothing in the act of having sex that implies that the woman must be giving up her right to empty her uterus.

What if you're right and she does give up that right. What if she smokes and drinks while pregnant, or doesn't eat right, doesn't take vitamins, and doesn't get enough sleep? Does the man now have the right to dictate her behavior because that behavior impacts what goes on in the womb? I don't see why that wouldn't be the case under your contract theory. After all, he has as much right to that fetus as she does, so she can't just have a glass of wine, even if she subscribes to the idea that one glass of wine is o.k. - if he thinks zero glasses of wine is better, then she has to follow his directions. Or, if she doesn't follow all of his directions, and there is a birth defect, then it's her liability, right?

It's a real conundrum. Nowhere else in the law that I can think of is "ownership" of something determined by the whims and caprices of one party. When the child is a fetus, it's "the woman's body" and a "lump of cells," unless the woman WANTS the fetus, in which case it's a ticking time bomb for the father.

Well, the embryo is, in fact, part of the woman's body, and remains so. It's connected to her nervous system and her cardio vascular system. That's how humans develop - the fertilized egg starts dividing in the uterus and then attaches to to the uterus wall and becomes part of the woman's body.

Nope. it's a separate, distinct living human being from the instant that the parental chromosomes align along the spindle apparatus. It has it's own unique DNA that is distinct and different from either the mother or father, and it's essential nature as a unique human being never changes from zygote to fetus to infant to adult to death. It's never anything other than a separate, distinct human being that is being gestated and is developing inside the mother. It "attaches to" the uterine wall, it's not "part of" the uterine wall. It develops a placenta and has its own blood supply. It's the definition of a "parasitic organism." But it's NOT "part of" the mother.

It has unique DNA, but that's not the defining characteristic of what constitutes a separate human being. It's connected to the mother's blood stream. It's connected to the mother's nervous system. It cannot survive if separated from the mother for most of its time in the uterus. Moreover, as noted above, whatever it is, killing it has never generally been thought to be legally the killing of another human being. The common law rule was that abortion was not a crime of any kind until the unborn had passed the state of "quickening." After that, it still wasn't generally considered murder.

And, the issue is not one of property ownership. It's one of liberty and privacy, and then one of obligation to support and a child's rights vis-a-vis parents. We're not talking about property ownership.

It's a metaphor of sorts.

That's fine. I still haven't heard you address the right of the child to support from its parents after birth.

Therefore, the only equitable solution that I can see is the "contract for sex" theory I put forward. In it, women accept certain contractual obligations by having sex and becoming pregnant. By mutual consent, the child can be terminated according to law, but if either party objects, she's required to carry the child to term. And if she does not wish to keep the child, while she is obligated to carry it to term, at delivery, the child is removed and given to the other party, who becomes completely responsible for the child. The same legal burden accrues to the woman if she decides to keep the child over the father's objection.

I think if you did this, the woman would be entitled to charge the father of the child rent for the compelled use of her uterus.

Yes, there is a valid argument to be made in that respect.

It's her body, so in a free market she'd be able to charge whatever she likes, right? How's a million dollars a month? If he can't pay, the rent then he loses the right to compel the pregnancy. So, his right is gone. If she wants the abortion, she just raises the price of uterus rent to a level he can't afford and he either accepts and breaches the lease or he rejects the price and she can do as she likes. That is, unless you'd be looking for the State to regulate the uterus rental market and set a price based on some analysis of fairness and equity.

Nine months of illness, nausea, pain, aches, vomiting, mood swings, and other such effects of pregnancy, plus doctors appointments, bearing the health and medical risks of carrying the child, etc. Plus time off work, loss of income during the time where the father is compelling the pregnancy. To make it completely fair, wouldn't there have to be compensation to the woman in the instances where she says "I want an abortion" and he says that he wants her to have the child?

Yes, I believe that would be fair and equitable.

If so, that destroys your plan, because she can set the price of rent at an unaffordable level.

Then, one the child is born, what if when the child is 5 or 6 he or she wants to know who mommy is? Is the child now legally prohibited from contacting mom? Or, can mom get involved in the child's life, while still disclaiming financial obligations? What ought we say to the crying child who feels abandoned by mom, who lives maybe one town over but who will never even say hello....?

That's a commonplace problem that society deals with every day as the result of divorce or death of a parent. No real changes in the law needed except that the unwilling parent should be required to sign a document relinquishing all parental rights.

That's not a commonplace problem, actually, because in a divorce, every state has some form of either custody/visitation or "time sharing" between the parents. Fathers and mothers can't disclaim their obligation to support the child, so they are on the hook to pay support. They can, of course, refuse to associate with the child, but that's not the same issue at all. What I gave an example of was where the parent has disclaimed the child in utero, but later the child wants to associate with the parent AND the parent has no problem associating with the child. The parent just wants to continue to refuse to pay support - i.e. take the good without the bad.

That's completely different than kids putting up with parents who refuse contact. Yes, kids are still upset by parents who refuse contact, but they aren't faced with a situation where a fit parent wants contact but is prohibited from seeing the child simply because of the disclaimer. That would be an entirely new issue, and would result in a child being deprived not only of support from that parent but also parental association with that parent.

It's not as simple as "you make your decision and you're bound by it" - because the child never got to make the decision. So, now you're system would say to the child - now that you have a sentient brain and can think and decide, you don't get the opportunity to associate with your parent, and you don't get the opportunity to obtain child support from your parent. That was all decided when you were a blastocyst or an embryo, and your interests don't matter.

[hadespussercats]

Women forced to be "gestational professionals," eh, Seth?

You should read A Handmaid's Tale. You'd love it-- a handbook for your proposed social order.

I don't see why women should be forced into nine months of indentured servitude for what is now, thanks to the wonders of modern science and forward-thinking society, an avoidable aspect of personal biology.

[Seth]

The one canard that I continue to vigorously argue against is the specious notion that a fetus is not a "human being." This is scientific nonsense. Science has thoroughly established that a new, living human being comes into being at the formation of the zygote, and it remains a genetically-unique living human being at ever stage of development thereafter.

To the contrary, science doesn't define what a "human being" is. Is an anencephalic child a "human being"? Is the heart removed from a corpse for transplant a "human being"? Science doesn't say - it's a matter of personal opinion.

Now, science does say that it's "human life", in the sense that it's alive and has human genes. So is the heart removed from the corpse, though, or a clump of human cancer cells.

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

Therefore, it is a "human being." Other definitions may also apply, such as "human life" or "human organism." But it's quintessentially a "human being."

[hadespussercats]

The one canard that I continue to vigorously argue against is the specious notion that a fetus is not a "human being." This is scientific nonsense. Science has thoroughly established that a new, living human being comes into being at the formation of the zygote, and it remains a genetically-unique living human being at ever stage of development thereafter.

To the contrary, science doesn't define what a "human being" is. Is an anencephalic child a "human being"? Is the heart removed from a corpse for transplant a "human being"? Science doesn't say - it's a matter of personal opinion.

Now, science does say that it's "human life", in the sense that it's alive and has human genes. So is the heart removed from the corpse, though, or a clump of human cancer cells.

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

Therefore, it is a "human being." Other definitions may also apply, such as "human life" or "human organism." But it's quintessentially a "human being."

Who cares if the fetus is a human being or not? What does that have to do with whether or not aq woman has to submit to having her body dominated by the needs of another?

You should read the rest of this thread, Seth-- particularly the posts regarding the violinist thought experiment.

[Seth]

Seth wrote: Consent to sex constitutes consent to the implied contract, which may include compulsory gestation. If you don't want to consent to that contract, don't have sex. It's just that simple.

hadespussercats wrote: And I'll repeat, "if there is inequity as a result of the fact that women have the children," then men who want children but can't find women to bear them are shit out of luck until medical science advances to meet their needs, as it has in the case of women who get abortions. Until then, well, as you say, cry me a river.

I'm with ya there.

How can you be "with [me] there," if you believe in "compulsory gestation"?

It may only be compelled as a part of enforcing a contract. As I said elsewhere, it may be preferable to have a contract that calls for money damages rather than duties of specific performance. That would remove any compulsion in such a sensitive situation.

But the essence of my argument is that because there is a contract that requires specific performance, it is reasonable to enforce that contract through the common methods of contractual enforcement, and it's not "compulsion" to do anything other than what was previously agreed to.

Particularly when you don't believe in compulsory child support?

Who said I don't believe in compulsory child support?

Why is money an entity that deserves more legal protection than control over one's own body, and the right to refuse to undergo avoidable physical risk?

It's not. But one is permitted to contractually sign away one's "control over one's own body." That happens every time someone joins the Army. And the Army can compel specific physical performance even if it kills you.

Your thinking on this matter is so muddled, it's hard to discuss the issue at hand in any sensible way.

Actually, if you want to throw snark about, it's your thinking that's muddled. Perhaps it's that time of the month.

[Seth]

The one canard that I continue to vigorously argue against is the specious notion that a fetus is not a "human being." This is scientific nonsense. Science has thoroughly established that a new, living human being comes into being at the formation of the zygote, and it remains a genetically-unique living human being at ever stage of development thereafter.

To the contrary, science doesn't define what a "human being" is. Is an anencephalic child a "human being"? Is the heart removed from a corpse for transplant a "human being"? Science doesn't say - it's a matter of personal opinion.

Now, science does say that it's "human life", in the sense that it's alive and has human genes. So is the heart removed from the corpse, though, or a clump of human cancer cells.

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

Therefore, it is a "human being." Other definitions may also apply, such as "human life" or "human organism." But it's quintessentially a "human being."

Who cares if the fetus is a human being or not?

Evidently a good many people, including the Justices of the Supreme Court.

What does that have to do with whether or not aq woman has to submit to having her body dominated by the needs of another?

A woman doesn't have to submit, that's rather the entire point. She's completely free NOT to submit. But if she DOES submit, voluntarily, she undertakes certain contractual responsibilities in the event of pregnancy. It's kind of like gravity. If you jump off of a cliff without a parachute, you submit to gravity, and you don't get to change your mind halfway down and expect to be relieved of the consequences of your poor decision making. Some decisions are irrevocable.

You should read the rest of this thread, Seth-- particularly the posts regarding the violinist thought experiment.

Perhaps I will. But right now I'm quite busy defending my thesis.

[Coito ergo sum]

There's no implied contract when a couple decides to have sex, though-- at least not currently, in the United States.

I'd argue that there is an implied contract in the U.S., and it has two clauses:

1. The woman, in her sole discretion, may decide to abort the pregnancy.

2. If the woman decides to bring the pregnancy to term, the man and the woman share equally in the responsibility for supporting the resulting child.

If you don't like that implied contract, write an explicit contract that says what you want it to say - if both agree the man shouldn't have responsibility, the woman can agree to indemnify and hold harmless the man from any paternal support costs, for example. If the man thinks the implied contract is unfair, he should make sure a satisfactory contract is signed before sticking his dick in.

Generally speaking, any contract that would sign away the child's right to support from one or the other parent is void and unenforceable. I know of one state where a statute that allowed a mother to compromise the child support obligation permanently was unconstitutional because the right is not the mother's right to sign away. It's the child's right to support. The parent that has primary custody of the child receives the child support on behalf of the child, but it is technically not a payment to the parent - it's a payment to the child (who is not able to make decisions for himself or herself and the parent acts for the child).

[Warren Dew]

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

By that definition the cancer cell is a "human being", since it's human and also exists.

That's the wrong definition, though. The relevant definition of "being" for the purposes of the meaning of "human being" is "a living creature".

[Seth]

Women forced to be "gestational professionals," eh, Seth?

No, women voluntarily agreeing to become gestational professionals.

You should read A Handmaid's Tale. You'd love it-- a handbook for your proposed social order.

Haven't read the book, but I've seen the movie. Quite good, but having nothing whatever to do with what I propose, which does not require any woman to have sex with anyone, ever.

I don't see why women should be forced into nine months of indentured servitude for what is now, thanks to the wonders of modern science and forward-thinking society, an avoidable aspect of personal biology.

I don't see why they shouldn't be required to accept the consequences of their voluntary actions. I'm a firm believer in personal responsbility and acceptance of the consequences of one's decisions. Abortion on demand is merely a convenient way to avoid the consequences of bad sexual decision making at the expense of the live of a living human being. I'm not at all certain that a woman's convenience and desire to escape from her poor judgment outweighs the life of a human being.

Like gravity, some decisions have life-changing consequences, and people ought to be encouraged by the law to be careful, prudent and make good decisions, not encouraged to make rash, selfish hedonistic decisions that affect others negatively.

[hadespussercats]

Seth wrote: "indeed, and deliberately so, because it confuses the issue. The essence of that consideration is who is it that created the obligation to support the child? In the case of a woman who chooses to keep a child unwanted by the father, it's the mother who has created that obligation without the consent of the father."
...
So in that case, a man may avoid the consequences of one-half responsibility for conceiving a child he doesn't want by refusing any kind of support, but a woman
You are blatant here in favoring the rights of men over women in this scenario. I pity your sexual partners, and I am deeply grateful you aren't in charge of American reproductive policy.

Now that was unnecessarily snarky and mean. This is an abstract philosophical debate, please try to maintain a degree of debatorial objectivity and refrain from personalizing it too much. Thanks.

Seth, I'm also curious why you so devoutly pursue the rights of a human being before it's born, but disclaim any responsibility for that same human being after it's born.

What makes you say that? I'm merely arguing that the burden of responsibility be placed where it should be placed and not shifted wrongfully to others just to suit the political desires of radical feminists.

I'm sorry you see my comment as unnecessarily snarky and mean-- I was not impugning you as a sexual partner per se; I was expressing my pity for women who would want to sleep with a man who has so little respect for their autonomy. And as for this debate being abstract, well, it's easy for a man who claims no responsibility for the results of his sexual behavior to see this subject in an abstract way. When my body is on the line because of societal views or public policy, I tend to take it personally.

I'm sorry I seemed mean.

Why are women the sole bearers of responsibility for the undesired results of sexual congress? i.e.-- why are women either required to carry children they don't want, when a man does want them, or required to be the sole support of a child for life, if a man doesn't want it? I still don't understand how this is placing responsibility where it should be.

And by-the-by, radical feminists are hardly the only people that believe women should get to choose whether or not women should have an abortion, or that men should be held financially responsible for their offspring. Take as perfect examples Coito and Warren Dew-- both intelligent, articulate men, but in both cases about as far from being radical feminists as it's possible to be.

[Seth]

Any dispute that the organism involved is of human origin, and is therefore "human?" I mean it's not a turtle or a chicken zygote, is it?

So, it's indisputably human.

And it has achieved "the quality or state of having existence."

By that definition the cancer cell is a "human being", since it's human and also exists.

That's the wrong definition, though. The relevant definition of "being" for the purposes of the meaning of "human being" is "a living creature".

Sophistry and pettifoggery. A zygote is a different sort of cell entirely, as is a collection of normally functioning cells called a blastocyst, embryo or fetus. Any rational person can distinguish between a "living human being" and a "living cancer cell."

[Warren Dew]

Generally speaking, any contract that would sign away the child's right to support from one or the other parent is void and unenforceable. I know of one state where a statute that allowed a mother to compromise the child support obligation permanently was unconstitutional because the right is not the mother's right to sign away. It's the child's right to support. The parent that has primary custody of the child receives the child support on behalf of the child, but it is technically not a payment to the parent - it's a payment to the child (who is not able to make decisions for himself or herself and the parent acts for the child).

That's why I suggested the "indemnify and hold harmless" wording. The man's still obligated for child support, but the woman is obligated to reimburse him for it. And yes, the child still receives it, either way.

[Seth]

Gotta go, folks. It's been a rousing debate, and I look forward to returning to it later. I have to go watch Glenn Beck just now.

Ta ta for now!