A secular debate about abortion

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, there are too many contenders for quotes for me to list them all, but I am a big fan of your "unconditional gift of sperm" argument. I almost want to make a sex film, just so I can use the title "A Gift of Sperm."

And as for LP's worries about a woman using that sperm against a man's wishes, well, there are many, many good reasons for sexually active men to wear condoms-- pregnancy prevention being one of the lesser of them. And if a man is concerned about the contents of said condom after the act, well, he doesn't have to leave it lying around, does he? He can take it with him, or flush it down the toilet, or...

Why thank you hadespussercats. Haven't gotten any counter-argument directed at that yet. It seems to have been largely ignored.

[Coito ergo sum]

You may have missed this, or I might have missed your reply, or you just don't have one. Whatever is the case, I'll just put it to you again.

He is probably waiting for you to answer his question about what your definition of "human being" is, since he can't very well compare definitions without knowing what he's comparing against.

I asked Seth repeatedly why he keeps bemoaning the lack of objectivity in the comments of others, while neglecting to explain what makes his assertions any different in that regard. It has nothing to do with the definition of what a human being is, but if he is in fact waiting for me to provide my version, here it is: A human being is a carbon-based organism that can - among other things - think abstractly, fear the future regret the past and generally possesses self-consciousness.

The problem I see with that definition is that it would render newborn babies something other than human beings.

[Copyleft]

No, I'm agreeing with Seth from the other direction. I don't suggest that the man should be granted a say in the woman's decision; I'm saying that his LACK of rights in the situation entail a commensurate lack of responsibility for the outcome. "Her choice (which is absolute) = her consequences."

And, on that issue, your and Seth's analysis forgets one interested party and renders that party, an actual living, breathing human being, irrelevant to the discussion. The child. If that child is born, he has not had any opportunity to waive the 1/2 of the child support that is supposed to come from one or the other of the parents. The child is simply stripped of the right to support from the father because the mother had the last possible chance to prevent the birth.

What child? We're discussing an unwanted pregnancy; no child exists in that situation, only a fetus. And a fetus has neither rights nor standing in the debate.

Once a child is born, then yes, it obviously has rights and deserves support. But an unwanted fetus has no rights and no particular value to look out for.

[Hermit]

You may have missed this, or I might have missed your reply, or you just don't have one. Whatever is the case, I'll just put it to you again.

He is probably waiting for you to answer his question about what your definition of "human being" is, since he can't very well compare definitions without knowing what he's comparing against.

I asked Seth repeatedly why he keeps bemoaning the lack of objectivity in the comments of others, while neglecting to explain what makes his assertions any different in that regard. It has nothing to do with the definition of what a human being is, but if he is in fact waiting for me to provide my version, here it is: A human being is a carbon-based organism that can - among other things - think abstractly, fear the future regret the past and generally possesses self-consciousness.

The problem I see with that definition is that it would render newborn babies something other than human beings.

So do I. I just wanted to get Warren Dew's objection out of the way in order that Seth won't take it as a pretext to avoid addressing my question to him for even longer than he already has.


So: Seth, you inveterate libertarian, tell me this: In light of your repeated (and correct) mention that my opinions lack objective standards, what makes you think that your ideas are based on a better foundation? If your ideas are better for reasons other than objective standards, on the other hand, why do you keep bothering to point out the lack of objective standards?

[Seth]

Even though it happens as a result of a man's sperm, it's not his body to control, it's hers. He does not have a right to compel her to either have an abortion or to not have an abortion.

He does if she consented to it, which she does by inviting his semen inside her vagina. Consent to the sex act is what creates these obligations that she may be compelled to adhere to. Because she has absolute control over who and what gets into her womb, it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and accept that when a child is formed, there are other legal, moral and ethical interests in play. If she doesn't want to take those risks or subscribe to that implied contract, then she can simply refuse to have sex, as is her right. But society is not obligated to relieve her of the natural consequences of her voluntary decision to have sex.

1. She didn't consent to it. Merely inviting his semen inside her vagina is not consent to cede control of her body to him. It's more logical to say that he cedes control of his sperm to her, and that by voluntarily shooting his load into her vagina he is giving her a gift of sperm. Unless he specifically conditions that gift in some way, then she can do with the sperm gift what she likes - whether it be swallowing it, spitting it in the sink, holding in her uterus, or whatever. It's certainly not more reasonable to assume that by accepting his gift of sperm that she is giving him control of her uterus for 9 months. What maniac would make that trade?

Fair enough. That's a rational approach. But since when does the giving of a gift burden the giver with obligations that may be arbitrarily imposed by the receiver? If I give you a car as a gift, am I agreeing to pay for fuel, oil and maintenance in perpetuity? That would be an "agreement" or a "contract." Are you now admitting that there IS a contract involved?

2. Yes - and he has absolute control over where he shoots his load. If he chooses to shoot it in her hand, she is free to take that load and do what she wants with it. If he shoots it on her, then it's hers. He's giving her a gift. He is impliedly ceding his authority over that sperm to the woman, and if she uses it to fertilize an egg, then the natural consequence of that - of which he is fully aware is a distinct possibility when he gives his sperm to the woman - is that she will be pregnant. If, for whatever reason, the fetus survives to birth, then it's his baby.

But he has no control over that gift once given, so why should he be held responsible for how it is used? If I give you a gun as a Christmas gift, and you go rob a liquor store with it, I'm not responsible for your crime, now am I? It's implicit in the gift that I bear no responsibility for your use, misuse or non-use of the gift. If I give you candy, I'm not responsible if you get fat.

3. If he doesn't want to take those risks or make the unconditional gift of sperm, then he can condition the gift by asking the woman to agree to a limited use license agreement for the sperm, or to merely rent the sperm, such that it could not be permanently used for fertilization purposes. Absent such agreement, though, he's made an unconditional gift.

But an unconditional gift is just that, unconditional, from both sides of the gifting experience. Giving a woman sperm is not a bailment, or mere transfer of possession but not ownership, it's a gift:

A gift, in the law of property, is the voluntary transfer of property from one person (the donor or grantor) to another (the donee or grantee) without full valuable consideration. In order for a gift to be legally effective, the donor must have intended to give the gift to the donee (donative intent), and the gift must actually be delivered to and accepted by the donee.

Gifts can be either:

* lifetime gifts (inter vivos gift, donatio inter vivos) - a present gift made and delivered in the donor's lifetime; or
* deathbed gifts (gift causa mortis, donatio mortis causa) - a future gift made in expectation of the donor's imminent death. A gift causa mortis is not effective unless the donor actually dies of the impending peril that he or she had contemplated when making the gift.

Gifts can also be:

* outright - made free of any restrictions, such as being subject to a trust;
* onerous - made with a burden or obligation imposed on the donee;
* remunerative - made to compensate for services rendered
Source: Wikipedia

Gifts do not incur obligations upon the giver (donor) but MAY include a burden or obligation on the part of the donee (the receiver). One such burden or obligation upon the donee that might apply to the gift of sperm is an obligation to consult the donor before destruction of the products of conception. The duty upon the donee would then be to reject or return the gift, or in this case, kill the sperm or prevent conception, if no child is wanted. On the other hand, if the gift is accepted, and a child is conceived, the gift of sperm does not infer the acceptance of an obligation on the part of the donor towards that child.

[Coito ergo sum]

No, I'm agreeing with Seth from the other direction. I don't suggest that the man should be granted a say in the woman's decision; I'm saying that his LACK of rights in the situation entail a commensurate lack of responsibility for the outcome. "Her choice (which is absolute) = her consequences."

And, on that issue, your and Seth's analysis forgets one interested party and renders that party, an actual living, breathing human being, irrelevant to the discussion. The child. If that child is born, he has not had any opportunity to waive the 1/2 of the child support that is supposed to come from one or the other of the parents. The child is simply stripped of the right to support from the father because the mother had the last possible chance to prevent the birth.

What child? We're discussing an unwanted pregnancy; no child exists in that situation, only a fetus. And a fetus has neither rights nor standing in the debate.

If and when it is born, however, it does have rights. And, nobody is asking the father to pay child support for a fetus. The "consequence" that Seth is suggesting be avoided is the subsequent consequence to pay child support. He's stated that specifically.

Once a child is born, then yes, it obviously has rights and deserves support. But an unwanted fetus has no rights and no particular value to look out for.

And, fathers aren't asked to support the mother during pregnancy. Child support obligations don't start until birth. There are no other "consequences" in terms of responsibilities foisted upon the father of an embryo or a fetus (other than perhaps living with the knowledge that the woman is pregnant).

Seth raised two issues:

Whether a man should have the right to disclaim the result of sexual intercourse after fertilization, such that only the mother is obligated to support it (including post birth child support).

And,

Whether a man should, if he wants a child and the woman does not, be able to compel her to carry to term and then turn it over to him (or, if she goes ahead and aborts against his wishes, be liable to him for money damages).

On the first issue, if all we're talking about are the financial obligations of the father from fertilization to (but not after) birth, then there really aren't any. Are there?

[Seth]

... what's the principled ethical argument that absolves the woman of all responsibility for accepting the consequences of her poor reproductive judgment by allowing abortion at will merely because she does not wish to be inconvenienced? Should we repeal gravity because a woman throws herself off a cliff without a parachute and then changes her mind half-way down?

Yes - if there was a way to allow people who throw themselves off cliffs without parachutes and land safely and unharmed below, then absolutely, we why not do it?

Why should we? Let me rephrase the analogy slightly to illuminate the principle under discussion: Is society OBLIGATED to repeal gravity, or for that matter provide safety nets at all cliffs, in order to relieve the woman of her responsibility for accepting the consequences of her imprudent behavior? I say no. If she wants to jump off a cliff and die, that's her RIGHT.

Why should we? For the same reason it's not a problem for people to use parachutes and avoid the natural consequence of BASE jumping. It's a free country and people can do what they please with their own body.

Okay, I agree, but that's a reason why we should NOT use state authority to find ways to "allow people who throw themselves off cliffs without parachutes and land safely and unharmed below." If they don't want to land safely, it's not society's obligation to protect them from themselves.

Society doesn't repeal gravity. Society merely doesn't block humans from avoiding the consequences of gravity. The real question is, should society prohibit the use of parachutes to make base jumpers suffer the consequences of leaping off a bridge? Is society obligated to do that?

Society doesn't have to provide safety nets at cliffs, but that's not what society is doing when abortion is legal. Abortion being legal is analogous to allowing people to put up their own safety nets. Why should society actively block the construction of safety nets?

Because there are other parties and other interests involved in abortions. The analogy is why we put up anti-suicide barriers on the Empire State Building observation deck and make it illegal to try to jump or throw anything off the building: there are other people below who become involved when you throw yourself from a tall building who might suffer harm. The same thing is true of abortion. The interests of the father, and of the fetus, and of the State all appear when a child is in utero, and it's no longer entirely up to the mother what she does to that living human being.

Yes, absolutely, it is her right to jump off a cliff and die. It's also her right to jump off a cliff that has a privately constructed safety net below it and land unharmed.

Unless in doing so she harms others.

If your analogy is that having sex is like jumping off a cliff, and getting pregnant is like hitting the ground, then clearly if there is a way to either not get pregnant or not hit the ground, but still be allowed to fuck and jump off cliffs, then there is no principled reason why we ought to force people to have babies or hit the ground. Is there?

Sure there is, it's called the "Did it hurt when you did that? Yes? Then don't do that" principle of operative conditioning. Society has a legitimate interest in quelling unbridled promiscuity, and requiring women to accept and experience the consequences of promiscuity provides them with a valuable lesson in the merits of sexual self-control.

Actually, society has not such interest. The number of times and the number of partners that a person has is not "society's" concern in the least.

Sorry, but sex has been closely regulated throughout history, to one degree or another, and in most cases "society" acting through legislatures and courts, have upheld society's authority to regulate and constrain sexual activity in the public interest, so what you say is simply not true. By way of example, sex between a 50 year old and a 10 year old is illegal in most civilized nations.

Just because you don't like the fact that society has such interests, and such authorities, doesn't mean that it doesn't and cannot legitimately exercise such authority.

The principled, ethical argument that would permit a woman to have an abortion, and be the sole decision maker, is that it is her body and the medical procedure is done to her, not someone else.

But the argument here is that once she agrees to have sex, and a child is conceived, she is no longer the sole decision maker because she has voluntarily entered into a contract with other interested parties, and has therefore voluntarily forfeited her right to absolute control of the fetus and indeed her body.

I know that's your argument, but an agreement to have sex is not an agreement to cede control of her uterus.

This is where we disagree. I believe under certain circumstances that's exactly what happens as a function of voluntary consent to such constraint.

Like I noted above, it makes more sense to simply state that a man's consent to sex is ceding of control of his semen to the woman to do with as she pleases, and to accept the consequences of a baby born of that congress. After all: (1) he knows the possible consequences of having sex, (2) he has total control over whether he ejaculates and where, (3) by ejaculating into the woman he is delivering to her complete possession and control of the semen, (4) if he has not expressly conditioned the delivery of possession and control of the semen on anything, then it's an outright gift, (5) since he knows that by giving a woman this gift he may father a child,

Addressed and disposed of. Gifts do not impose obligations on the giver, but may impose obligations on the receiver. Contracts, however, might impose such an obligation. Do you wish to return to the contract discussion now?

he is fully cognizant of the potential for being subject to the right OF THE CHILD to support.

I'm ignoring the arguments about the rights of the child for the moment so as not to muddy the waters in a debate about the obligations of the mother. I'm willing to address that aspect, but want to keep it separate so that things don't become muddled. I acknowledge that there are issues with the rights of the child, but let's discuss those separately.

[Coito ergo sum]

Even though it happens as a result of a man's sperm, it's not his body to control, it's hers. He does not have a right to compel her to either have an abortion or to not have an abortion.

He does if she consented to it, which she does by inviting his semen inside her vagina. Consent to the sex act is what creates these obligations that she may be compelled to adhere to. Because she has absolute control over who and what gets into her womb, it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and accept that when a child is formed, there are other legal, moral and ethical interests in play. If she doesn't want to take those risks or subscribe to that implied contract, then she can simply refuse to have sex, as is her right. But society is not obligated to relieve her of the natural consequences of her voluntary decision to have sex.

1. She didn't consent to it. Merely inviting his semen inside her vagina is not consent to cede control of her body to him. It's more logical to say that he cedes control of his sperm to her, and that by voluntarily shooting his load into her vagina he is giving her a gift of sperm. Unless he specifically conditions that gift in some way, then she can do with the sperm gift what she likes - whether it be swallowing it, spitting it in the sink, holding in her uterus, or whatever. It's certainly not more reasonable to assume that by accepting his gift of sperm that she is giving him control of her uterus for 9 months. What maniac would make that trade?

Fair enough. That's a rational approach. But since when does the giving of a gift burden the giver with obligations that may be arbitrarily imposed by the receiver? If I give you a car as a gift, am I agreeing to pay for fuel, oil and maintenance in perpetuity? That would be an "agreement" or a "contract." Are you now admitting that there IS a contract involved?

No, I'm not admitting that there is a contract involved. There is only a contract involved if there is an offer, acceptance, consideration and manifestation of mutual assent, whether expressly made or implied IN FACT. So, whether there is a contract depends on each individual circumstance, and what actually happened and what was actually said between two people.

My argument was that IF we assume - without admitting - also stated as "assuming arguendo" - that there was some kind of agreement between two parties who consented to sex, but expressly agreed to nothing else, what is more reasonable to infer from their actions: (a) ceding of authority and control over a uterus for 9 months in exchange for the woman receiving the consideration of a man's ejaculate, or (b) that the ejaculate is either an unconditional gift on the part of the man or given in exchange for an orgasm. I would submit that while neither can, in fact, be necessarily inferred, (b) is far more reasonable than (a).

As for the consequences of that gift, at the time sperm is ejaculated into the womb of a woman, the man knows full well that the natural result of doing that is often to fertilize an egg and ultimately have a baby born, and he knows that he is obligated by law to support his natural children. If he proceeds through the sexual act in the face of that knowledge without having obtained the woman's agreement to indemnify him and hold him harmless from any liability or responsibility with respect to that risk, then she hasn't indemnified him or held him harmless (A is A).

2. Yes - and he has absolute control over where he shoots his load. If he chooses to shoot it in her hand, she is free to take that load and do what she wants with it. If he shoots it on her, then it's hers. He's giving her a gift. He is impliedly ceding his authority over that sperm to the woman, and if she uses it to fertilize an egg, then the natural consequence of that - of which he is fully aware is a distinct possibility when he gives his sperm to the woman - is that she will be pregnant. If, for whatever reason, the fetus survives to birth, then it's his baby.

But he has no control over that gift once given, so why should he be held responsible for how it is used? If I give you a gun as a Christmas gift, and you go rob a liquor store with it, I'm not responsible for your crime, now am I? It's implicit in the gift that I bear no responsibility for your use, misuse or non-use of the gift. If I give you candy, I'm not responsible if you get fat.

Ah, but as you say....the child is a separate human being, right? I'm not talking about your responsibility to the woman. I'm talking about your responsibility to the child. You're not responsible if she gets fat from your sperm. Your responsible for child support to a child that results from your sperm.

3. If he doesn't want to take those risks or make the unconditional gift of sperm, then he can condition the gift by asking the woman to agree to a limited use license agreement for the sperm, or to merely rent the sperm, such that it could not be permanently used for fertilization purposes. Absent such agreement, though, he's made an unconditional gift.

But an unconditional gift is just that, unconditional, from both sides of the gifting experience. Giving a woman sperm is not a bailment, or mere transfer of possession but not ownership, it's a gift:

A gift, in the law of property, is the voluntary transfer of property from one person (the donor or grantor) to another (the donee or grantee) without full valuable consideration. In order for a gift to be legally effective, the donor must have intended to give the gift to the donee (donative intent), and the gift must actually be delivered to and accepted by the donee.

Gifts can be either:

* lifetime gifts (inter vivos gift, donatio inter vivos) - a present gift made and delivered in the donor's lifetime; or
* deathbed gifts (gift causa mortis, donatio mortis causa) - a future gift made in expectation of the donor's imminent death. A gift causa mortis is not effective unless the donor actually dies of the impending peril that he or she had contemplated when making the gift.

Gifts can also be:

* outright - made free of any restrictions, such as being subject to a trust;
* onerous - made with a burden or obligation imposed on the donee;
* remunerative - made to compensate for services rendered
Source: Wikipedia

Gifts do not incur obligations upon the giver (donor) but MAY include a burden or obligation on the part of the donee (the receiver). One such burden or obligation upon the donee that might apply to the gift of sperm is an obligation to consult the donor before destruction of the products of conception. The duty upon the donee would then be to reject or return the gift, or in this case, kill the sperm or prevent conception, if no child is wanted. On the other hand, if the gift is accepted, and a child is conceived, the gift of sperm does not infer the acceptance of an obligation on the part of the donor towards that child.

To make that condition on her use of the gift, you'd have to specify that burden prior to giving the gift. Like, if you give her a load of wood, and don't want her building a house with it, you would have to specify that condition ahead of time: I'm giving you this load of wood, but only on condition that you don't build a house with it.

You could conceivably state prior to sex that you are only going to allow the woman to have your sperm if she agrees not to use it for baby-making purposes. Likewise, a woman could condition access to her uterus on your absolute commitment that you not let any sperm leak into her uterus or that your sperm not fertilize her egg(s). Absent any such agreement, though, if a baby is born, rights attach and among those rights is the right to receive support from its natural parents, absent legal adoption, etc.

[Seth]

The same reason it is up to me, and me alone, that I have a tooth removed, or a vasectomy, the abortion is a medical procedure performed on an individual - that individual is the decision maker.

Your tooth is not a separate, unique, living human being with its own DNA and developmental future. Nor was your tooth created as the result of a voluntary act involving another party whose rights and expectations are due consideration.

Neither is an embryo or a fetus. The embryo and fetus is not separate. Yes, it has its own DNA, but it is not also separate.

It's "separate" in the sense that it's not a part of the mother's body. It's a dependent organism certainly. It could even be called a parasite and be scientifically accurate. But it's still distinct from the mother and unique in its genetic makeup.

It is the issue of its parasitic nature, of the fact that it's a dependent organism that requires the mother for gestation that is at the bar. You cannot minimize or mischarcterize the nature of the fetus in order to bolster a moral argument allowing for it to be killed by falsely claiming that it's part of the mother's own body. It's not. It's within the mother's body. It's nurtured and supported by the mother's body, but it is not part of the mother's body. Therefore, the argument that it's "her body" is specious, because there are now TWO bodies, with two distinct genetic codes that are different from one another, involved. This is scientific fact.

To be otherwise - to give someone else the power over that decision - would be to (a) violate the woman's right to privacy in her own body, and (b) render her an involuntary servant, peon or slave.

Nope. She is a VOLUNTARY gestational parent. Her consent was given through the act of allowing a man to ejaculate insider her and deposit sperm inside her. When she allowed that to happen, she accepted the know risks of pregnancy and took upon herself the risk of being obligated to nine months as a gestational parent. Unless she was raped, in which case I support her right to abort.

The act of allowing a man to ejaculate inside her is not consent to his control over her uterus for 9 months.

It can be.

It makes at least as much sense to say that the woman accepts the man's unconditional gift of sperm which, since it was given without any conditions attached, is hers to do with as she pleases - like if he gave her earrings. He knows full well what sperm can be used for, and if she uses it to make a baby, he knows full well that that child has a right to support from both its parents.

The gift issue has been disposed of elsewhere. The giver of a gift is never burdened with any obligations through the giving of a gift, but the receiver of that gift CAN be so burdened. See the Wikipedia entry on "Gift(law)" for information.

You are merely parroting the common canard that women ought to be absolved of all personal responsibility and consequences from the results of their poor sexual decision making. I don't buy that argument for an instant, and there is no principled ethical argument that supports this specious argument.

No, I think both parents are responsible, and should be responsible, for the support of their minor children. I think the mother does and should bear the consequences of pregnancy by herself - she is fully subject to the consequences. If a child comes out of her womb, she has a legal obligation to support it.

She is the only party, however, that actually faces the consequences of abortion, because she is the only party that can have an abortion. Abortions require uteruses to have. So, while she makes the decision to have an abortion, she also bears the consequences of the abortion.

I've not suggested that women ought to be absolved of any consequences. Abortion is not an absolution.

This is patently not true. The father has an intense interest in the outcome of the pregnancy in either case. So does the State. So does the child.

This is about society refusing to facilitate bad behavior and bad judgment on the part of women who wish to engage in promiscuous sex without any regard for the consequences or the rights of others.

Whether a woman's behavior is "bad" is not the issue.

It's exactly and precisely the issue.[/quote]

It really isn't the issue - although, you have certainly just proven what LP was chastised for characterizing your argument as a few pages back -- your real concern is not abortion, but punishing the sluts.

No, it's about acceptance of the consequences of one's decisions, good or bad. It has nothing to do with "sluts." If a woman decides to have sex, and that's a decision which I do not dispute in the slightest, I merely hold that society has the authority, and the moral right, to demand that she endure the consequences of her actions, for better or for worse, without burdening or infringing upon the rights of other persons she has voluntarily made party to the proceedings, which includes the father, the child, and the State. That's the consequences of having sex. It's not just about the woman, there's more at stake if a child is conceived, and society is not obligated to provide or permit that woman to escape the natural, ordinary, expected consequences of having sex by giving her plenary authority to obtain an abortion on demand. Society has a moral right, and some maintain a moral duty to examine the facts and balance the competing interests in such situations so that the rights of EVERYONE are protected as much as is possible under the circumstances. Pro-abortion-at-will advocates simply deny any liability or responsibility on the part of a woman to give any consideration whatsoever to anyone other than herself when it comes to procuring or not procuring an abortion. As a result, under that construction, the woman may damage the father, the child and the State's interest with impunity, and that is unfair and unreasonable, since she was a party to the act that occasioned the result she wishes to exercise plenary control over. She involved OTHER PEOPLE in her decision to have sex, and so she owes them a duty of care and consideration.

If she fucks a dildo, well, dildos don't have rights. But when she fucks another human being, she is no longer the sole and only one deserving of consideration.

She can get pregnant whenever she wants and is physically able.

Yup. But when she does, she incurs some obligations to the other party to the transaction, and thereby surrenders some part of her absolute autonomy over the products of conception, and therefore necessarily her body.

The parents have 50/50 control over the child and 50/50 obligation to provide support. Each parent has full control over their own bodies.

Once again - why is it, in your mind, the woman ceding control of her uterus, and not the man ceding control over the sperm unconditionally?

If it's unconditional, then the man cannot be burdened with an obligation to the child. But as we've seen, gifts never impose obligations on the giver. The woman, as the recipient, may incur an obligation however.

Even though it happens as a result of a man's sperm, it's not his body to control, it's hers. He does not have a right to compel her to either have an abortion or to not have an abortion.

He does if she consented to it, which she does by inviting his semen inside her vagina.[/quote]

That's the key thing, isn't it? No - she does not consent to cede control over her uterus to the man merely because she let him fuck her. It is far more reasonable to assume he is giving her an unconditional gift of semen, isn't it?

Asked and answered.

Hey - what if he said he'd pull out, but didn't? Does she get to sue him for fraud now?

If she told him to pull out before ejaculation, certainly. If she told him to use a condom, and he didn't, same thing. But remember that pre-seminal fluid also contains sperm, which can cause pregnancy, so she might get pregnant even if he does withdraw. That's why they call Catholic women who use the "Rhythm Method" "mothers." Also, she can become pregnant from the leakage of semen from anal sex or ejaculation outside her body if the sperm get into her vagina somehow.

Consent to the sex act is what creates these obligations that she may be compelled to adhere to. Because she has absolute control over who and what gets into her womb, it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and accept that when a child is formed, there are other legal, moral and ethical interests in play. If she doesn't want to take those risks or subscribe to that implied contract, then she can simply refuse to have sex, as is her right. But society is not obligated to relieve her of the natural consequences of her voluntary decision to have sex.

Yes - it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and she DOES deal with ALL the consequences. The ONLY consequences that the male MUST adhere to are the consequences owed to the child. He doesn't have to be there for her during the pregnancy. He doesn't have to pay her rent or alimony. He doesn't have to visit or share time with the child.

Not true. Courts can impose all such requirements on a man, against his will, merely because the woman chooses to remain pregnant in defiance of a prior agreement not to do so. And if she chooses to abort, she is harming his interests if he wants the child. So no, she does NOT "deal with ALL the consequences."

She does, but once she voluntarily agrees to have those rights constrained, she can be held to that agreement. Consent negates any argument that her liberty is being infringed. She has SURRENDERED some liberty in return for sexual pleasure. She's not compelled to do that, but there's no reason she cannot be compelled to accept the consequences of doing so.

She hasn't though. It's doesn't logically follow that two people having sex means the woman cedes control of a portion of her body.

Why doesn't the man accept the consequence of giving her his sperm without qualifying the gift? He certainly could say, "Janey, I'm going to give you a few teaspoons cum, and in consideration of your receipt of said cum, you agree that you will use said cum for the purposes of enjoyment only and not for procreation." If she agrees to the limited use of the semen, then maybe you'd have something there - but, absent such express limitation, we can only conclude from the guy unconditionally donating his semen to her that he was giving her the semen in exchange for an orgasm. Anything more would be an unwarranted assumption. He received his orgasm, and she received the semen.

Your logic is like a gas station retaining control of a persons vehicle because there is an implied contract that by allowing the gas station to shoot a load of gasoline into it, that the gas tank is now ceded to the station owner.

The control of the gas tank IS ceded to the station owner... until the bill is paid. Drive and dash without paying and see what happens. The same principle applies to the woman. By involving others in her sex act, she creates certain obligations to those other interests. Until those obligations are fulfilled, those other persons may control how she proceeds.

[lordpasternack]

LP, I never approved of women tricking men into fatherhood. It's a risk associated with heterosexual sex, I suppose. I don't think it's common enough to warrant deep discussion.

I don't know that it warrants deep discussion, but it might be more common than you realize.  It happened to my brother.  I've seen it advised on fertility boards when women complain about their husbands not making good on statements that they want children "someday".  It's usually done by "accidentally" skipping birth control pills; I don't think sabotaging of condoms is at all common - or easy for the woman - so if the man wants to be safe from it, he's well advised to use a form of birth control that he has control over.

It also happened to my brother, at least twice. Well, his partner of that time had a handful of abortions - and it makes it difficult to separate genuine contraceptive failure/incompetence from "accidental" pregnancies that she may have got cold feet about. What is certain is that she was adamant that their first son wasn't going to be an only child...

 No matter how many ways you cut it, it's a galling, calculated abuse of trust - as much as it would be if a guy purposely lied to a woman about his intent to "pull out". In either case, you could say that the "victim" should have been more responsible - but it just doesn't make the wilfullness of the deception any less reprehensible. And even if you acknowledge in practical terms that the father still can't compel the woman to abort, and in many cases just shouldn't abdicate responsibility even if they were able to - it just rankles me in principle. 

I'm certain that there are far worse atrocities perpetrated against women around the world with respect to forced reproduction/parenthood/abortion. Atrocities I probably don't want to contemplate right this instant. And I suppose again, much of my line of thinking comes from the privilege of the culture I live in - where such atrocities are rare, and women have good access to proper reproductive healthcare - and I'm more likely to hear about women accidentally-on-purpose getting pregnant than I am to hear about a man fiddling with his wife's contraception, or doing far more horrid things, to impregnate her against her will.

[Seth]

It's certainly servitude, but it's not involuntary because she consented to a term of voluntary servitude as the gestational parent by consenting to have sexual relations.

Indentured servants agreed to the indenture period in advance, yet it's still "involuntary servitude" under the U.S. constitution. If it's involuntary at the time of the servitude, it's prohibited, even if the person agreed in advance. To put it another way, in the U.S., you're not allowed to sell yourself into slavery.

Good point. Thanks for finally bringing it up. This means that you are correct in saying that a woman cannot be compelled by another to serve a term of involuntary servitude to gestate a child. But if the State simply makes abortion illegal, then there is no "involuntary servitude" because no requirement is being imposed by another, rather conduct by the woman is being prohibited. That much we know is the case in the law as it exists now. The Supreme Court, in Roe v. Wade said that at some point, the interests of the State in preserving life come into play, and that therefore the individual States are permitted to regulate or ban abortion after the second trimester. This is not seen as imposing "involuntary servitude."

Also, if we now discard the notion that a woman may be compelled by either the father or the State to gestate the child, but leave in place a right to an abortion, we now come to tort law, where the harm to the interests of the father, and the State, become compensable injuries.

[Coito ergo sum]

... what's the principled ethical argument that absolves the woman of all responsibility for accepting the consequences of her poor reproductive judgment by allowing abortion at will merely because she does not wish to be inconvenienced? Should we repeal gravity because a woman throws herself off a cliff without a parachute and then changes her mind half-way down?

Yes - if there was a way to allow people who throw themselves off cliffs without parachutes and land safely and unharmed below, then absolutely, we why not do it?

Why should we? Let me rephrase the analogy slightly to illuminate the principle under discussion: Is society OBLIGATED to repeal gravity, or for that matter provide safety nets at all cliffs, in order to relieve the woman of her responsibility for accepting the consequences of her imprudent behavior? I say no. If she wants to jump off a cliff and die, that's her RIGHT.

Why should we? For the same reason it's not a problem for people to use parachutes and avoid the natural consequence of BASE jumping. It's a free country and people can do what they please with their own body.

Okay, I agree, but that's a reason why we should NOT use state authority to find ways to "allow people who throw themselves off cliffs without parachutes and land safely and unharmed below." If they don't want to land safely, it's not society's obligation to protect them from themselves.

I agree, and in the abortion context abortion is not something "society" or "the State" is doing. Abortion is a procedure invented by people - in the old days it was tossing oneself down stairs or taking abortifacients, and now it's medical procedures. Society and the State need only stay out of the way and let people make their own parachutes and abortions.

Society doesn't repeal gravity. Society merely doesn't block humans from avoiding the consequences of gravity. The real question is, should society prohibit the use of parachutes to make base jumpers suffer the consequences of leaping off a bridge? Is society obligated to do that?

Society doesn't have to provide safety nets at cliffs, but that's not what society is doing when abortion is legal. Abortion being legal is analogous to allowing people to put up their own safety nets. Why should society actively block the construction of safety nets?

Because there are other parties and other interests involved in abortions. The analogy is why we put up anti-suicide barriers on the Empire State Building observation deck and make it illegal to try to jump or throw anything off the building: there are other people below who become involved when you throw yourself from a tall building who might suffer harm. The same thing is true of abortion. The interests of the father, and of the fetus, and of the State all appear when a child is in utero, and it's no longer entirely up to the mother what she does to that living human being.

There are other parties and other interests involved in BASE jumping too. A married BASE jumper with children has the interests of his wife and kids to consider.

Moreover, you persistently ignore the interests of the born child. A child, once born, we both agree is a separate human being. As such, it has a right to support from its natural parents.

It's up to the owners of the Empire State Building what barriers they put up. Mainly, they're looking to avoid liability for negligence. It's illegal to try to throw things off the building because of the unreasonable risk of harm to people and property below.

If he has the interests of which you speak, then you would have to also saddle him with the responsibilities associated with the pregnancy - he would have to pay 1/2 the medical expenses associated with the pregnancy, and he would have to pay some portion of the mother's food and liquids, and medications, because part of the mother is being used for the benefit of the child.

When I am a child of 12 years old, I have an interest in whether my father and mother survive until my adulthood. I have a right to expect support from both of them. However, I do not then have any authority over them. If they want to go skydiving and take those attendant risks, I have no right to stop them and Society or the State has no right to stop them, does it? Sometimes, even when we have an "interest" in something, we don't get control of the outcome. Happens all the time.

Yes, absolutely, it is her right to jump off a cliff and die. It's also her right to jump off a cliff that has a privately constructed safety net below it and land unharmed.

Unless in doing so she harms others.

Depends on the harm. Clearly, if someone is emotionally scarred by watching people BASE jump - which is often quite emotionally disconcerting to people or scares them - just the mere fact of people jumping off cliffs might be considered "harmful" to some people. Some harm, however, like being "offended," "hurt feelings," or generally negative emotional reactions are things that in most instances we have to live with. Further, we are often saddled with financial obligations because of the actions of another - a father of 3 children might be a big fan of extreme sports, and risk-taking - he takes high risks and dies as a result, saddling his wife and kids with financial burdens they would not otherwise have. Does the wife have the right to order the husband not to engage in extreme sports because his decision to do so has a chance of saddling her with high financial responsibilities over a long period of time?

[Seth]

I'm in the curious position of agreeing with Seth here, even though I'm staunchly pro-choice (and indeed, pro-abortion).

She is the only party, however, that actually faces the consequences of abortion, because she is the only party that can have an abortion. Abortions require uteruses to have. So, while she makes the decision to have an abortion, she also bears the consequences of the abortion.

...Yes - it's her responsibility to deal with the consequences, and she DOES deal with ALL the consequences. The ONLY consequences that the male MUST adhere to are the consequences owed to the child.

... whose existence was a consequence of the CHOICE the woman made, 100% on her own, as was her right. He had no say in that choice and yet he is told he has a responsibility for the outcome of the choice. Does she deal with ALL the consequences, or only SOME of them? I'd say being the legal and financial hook to pay child support is a significant consequence.

It is not the child's fault that the parents decided to have sex - the child never waived his right to child support and the mother has no power to waive that right.

That right does not exist until the child is born... and whether that birth occurs is entirely up to the woman. So she in fact DOES have the power to waive that right--by aborting.

It also brings up the question of whether the father has a right to injunctive relief by way of a court order requiring her to abort the child.

It also points out the interesting dichotomy, or hypocrisy of the notion that a fetus in utero is a worthless nothing, a part of the body of the woman that can be disposed of without any consideration or concern for anyone else's rights, but at the moment of delivery, when nothing fundamental in the nature of the fetus except its physical location, it suddenly becomes an object of value, and a human being with full rights. Birth is an arbitrary point in time that societies have sometimes (but not always) chosen as the time when a fetus becomes a "person," but there is no scientific basis upon which one can make this distinction. Even the SCOTUS, in Roe v. Wade, reviewed ONLY the historical LEGAL record in determining when various societies have acknowledged the existence of a "person." The Court did NOT state that there was any scientifically objective point of demarcation at which a fetus "becomes" a person, and that's part of the problem we face now. By booting it's responsibility to make such a determination, we are left with ambiguity that extends from the formation of the zygote to the instant before the head leaves the vagina.

I think that there needs to be some objective, scientifically-determinable point in the development of a fetus at which it becomes, legally, a "person" endowed with rights.

My personal metric is either the formation of the primitive stripe, or notochord, which is the point at which the nervous system begins to develop, and after which embryologists refrain from experimentation on the theory that the embryo may be able to experience pain, or that point at which science can objectively demonstrate nervous system response to external stimuli, which is the point at which I think it's reasonable to conclude that the fetus can feel pain.

Setting such an objective standard would go a long way towards resolving many, but not all, of the problems we face. My thought is that it's appropriate to prohibit abortion after a particular point in its development, absent some pressing medical need occasioned by legitimate threat to the mother's health, or obvious and provable fatal deformity such as anacephaly, on the theory of estopple, which means, "if you sit on your rights for too long without exercising them, you may lose the right to do so." In other words, if you're going to get an abortion, do it early, because if you wait too long, you might not be allowed to have one.

I think that's a perfectly reasonable compromise.

[Coito ergo sum]

If your analogy is that having sex is like jumping off a cliff, and getting pregnant is like hitting the ground, then clearly if there is a way to either not get pregnant or not hit the ground, but still be allowed to fuck and jump off cliffs, then there is no principled reason why we ought to force people to have babies or hit the ground. Is there?

Sure there is, it's called the "Did it hurt when you did that? Yes? Then don't do that" principle of operative conditioning. Society has a legitimate interest in quelling unbridled promiscuity, and requiring women to accept and experience the consequences of promiscuity provides them with a valuable lesson in the merits of sexual self-control.

Actually, society has not such interest. The number of times and the number of partners that a person has is not "society's" concern in the least.

Sorry, but sex has been closely regulated throughout history, to one degree or another, and in most cases "society" acting through legislatures and courts, have upheld society's authority to regulate and constrain sexual activity in the public interest, so what you say is simply not true. By way of example, sex between a 50 year old and a 10 year old is illegal in most civilized nations.

Yes, sex has been highly regulated throughout history, but when the natural rights of man were acknowledged in the Age of Enlightenment, and as embodied in the United States Constitution, who, what, where, when and how anyone fucks is not the government's business.

Sex between a 50 year old and a 10 year old is illegal because a 10 year old is legally incapable of consent to sex with a 50 year old. That's not the same thing at all.

Just because you don't like the fact that society has such interests, and such authorities, doesn't mean that it doesn't and cannot legitimately exercise such authority.

I've never suggested that the government doesn't have authority. It does. And, those authorities are limited by the natural rights of man as embodied (in the US) by the Constitution and globally by the jus cogens principles embodied in the UN Declaration on Human Rights, and other such principles purporting to defend the individual liberties of human beings.

The principled, ethical argument that would permit a woman to have an abortion, and be the sole decision maker, is that it is her body and the medical procedure is done to her, not someone else.

But the argument here is that once she agrees to have sex, and a child is conceived, she is no longer the sole decision maker because she has voluntarily entered into a contract with other interested parties, and has therefore voluntarily forfeited her right to absolute control of the fetus and indeed her body.

I know that's your argument, but an agreement to have sex is not an agreement to cede control of her uterus.

This is where we disagree. I believe under certain circumstances that's exactly what happens as a function of voluntary consent to such constraint.

Other than decreeing it yourself by fiat, I don't think you have any basis for your assertion. I've never heard a single woman state that by agreeing to have sex, she believes that she is giving up control of her uterus to the man who she has sex with if fertilization results. I've never even heard a guy say that, until you came up with it. There doesn't appear, as I've previously noted, to be any reason "in fact" that in instances where people consent to have sex with each other that they are agreeing to anything else at all besides the sex.

There are plenty of other agreements that one could imagine flow from the consent to have sex. Compared to what you're claiming, I think it's far more reasonable for a woman to claim that implicit in her agreement to have sex with you, that you are agreeing to ensure that she is satisfied by that sexual experience and give her at least one orgasm. To the extent that you have sex with her and orgasm ahead of her, leaving her dissatisfied, she should have a cause of action against you for breach of contract and you should have to write her a check for her hedonic damages suffered as a result of your failure to perform.

If you reject the "implied agreement to provide an orgasm" argument, I would submit to you that the same reasons you have for rejecting that implied agreement are equally applicable to your implied agreement of ceding of authority of the uterus for 9 months. Yes?

[Coito ergo sum]

he is fully cognizant of the potential for being subject to the right OF THE CHILD to support.

I'm ignoring the arguments about the rights of the child for the moment so as not to muddy the waters in a debate about the obligations of the mother. I'm willing to address that aspect, but want to keep it separate so that things don't become muddled. I acknowledge that there are issues with the rights of the child, but let's discuss those separately.

LOL - the bulk of your argument is rife with reference to there being "other interests" involved and that's why the State must rush in and defend the father's interests and because of those other interests the mother no longer has autonomy over her uterus...but, for moment, you'll just ignore one of those interests completely.

Here - it's separated - discuss away!

Note, one could just as easily say: "I'm ignoring the arguments about the rights of the FATHER for the moment so as not to muddy the waters in a debate about the RIGHTS of the mother. I'm willing to address that aspect, but want to keep it separate so that things don't become muddled..." - so, now, address the abortion argument without reference to the father, and we'll discuss the issue of the father separately..... You can't have these things both ways - if "other interests" are the reason why the mother loses autonomy, then you can't just pick and choose which interests you want to argue about, and leave out the ones you find "muddling."