Abortion and Paternity Rights

[My imaginary friend is GOD]

No, Aractus, it is not a good argument against abortion.

I disagree with the psych eval. A good psychopath can easily pass a psychological evaluation, and psychopaths are clearly unfit to be parents.

[festive1]

Not to mention the ethical issues surrounding a psych eval for a father when the mother wants to abort, yet any schmo on the street can have a child without one. Also, time frame counts. How could these psych evals be carried out quickly enough to still allow the woman a timely (pre 12 week) abortion in the case the father is deemed unfit? Too messy and would likely lead to a spike in later-term abortions.

[Minimalist]

Now the only flaw I forsee and maybe you can help with this is if the female is adamant of not wanting to give birth.

Then it is her choice. The male isn't the one who has to waddle around with sciatica and morning sickness and all the other potential problems of pregnancy.

It's her body, man.

[Violet]

I disagree with the psych eval. A good psychopath can easily pass a psychological evaluation, and psychopaths are clearly unfit to be parents.

Funny, here I thought all of the best parents were psychopaths.

[bladevalant546]

First of all thanks for the responses, Thanks Festive1 remaining civil.

I like to pose a double standard and logical issues with the "woman's body" term. Concerning this, here is a double standard first a female and unilaterally choose to keep the baby and force the father to pay for it. Even if the father does not want the child nor want to pay for it. Second a female unilaterally can abort a child against a willing father wishes. So which is it? Let use logic here, In situation A it is implying oppression to the male party to be force into an unwanted legal obligation. (and no Misandrist statements like, the dude impregnated her. Unless she was raped it was a mutual choice) Then there is situation B, when a male is more than willing to be financially obligated and that choice is also ignored. This is an apparent oversight and it strikes me as inequality.

Second is a well coined term, it's her body and the "baby" is just a clump of cells. So is it really part of the woman's body? Well by biological standards it is a foreign object. Now there is logical arguments to state the removal of foreign objects is a right of the person. That is a true statement and I consider that a compelling point. For the sake of this debate since a potential life is at stake I feel this is a different situation. So is it her body, yes that is a simple question, and is the child inside her body, yes it is. Since we cannot extract a fetus and grow it in an artificial test tube. We are stuck giving birth at least after 6 months the good ole, natural way. So the question is really this, "what is a fetus and is it considered part of her body? I am sure yall know what a fetus is, so let us look at the later part of the question. Is it part of the body, I say no this reasoning is because the simple fact that genetically is it different from the carrier. Now a good objection can be transplanted organs. While this appears to be a logical counter point. The flaw in this reasoning is that an organ serves a purpose with in the bodies role. A fetus on the other hand is merely "renting" space for protection from elements, predators, and disease.

So we can logical and scientifically show that a fetus is not "part of the female body" so in terms of rights in that regard are proven false. This comes to the foreign object debate. A fetus logically can be classified as a foreign object in its technical terms since it is not genetically belonging to the carrier (aka her DNA). However, typically a foreign object is usually identified as something outside the body. In this case that is only half true, it requires sperm cell and a zygote. This renders a logical dilemma, it did originate from the carriers body thus by definition not truly a foreign object. Infact it is less foreign than a transplanted organ, considering the female body will create an immune system exception to the fetus. Does this disprove this statement it is the woman's body. No what this does provide however, is insight of the complexity of this issue. This is showing that it is not a simple dismissal and this requires a lot more heavy scrutiny and objective analysis. I feel that typical argument as it stands is not a valid one for pro-abortion.

Now the second point that seems to be a common misconception and ill-conceived and obvious propaganda tactic. What is it to you it is only a clump of cells. Well anything with a certain negative tone otherwise known as misleading vividness. It is a dehumanizing tactic to make you more likely to ignore any possible ethical and moral issues that might arise. Now to every myth there is truth. Within most early trimester 1-3 weeks it is a clump of cells. However, that is about how far the similarities are. The zygote at this stage is alive, separate DNA from its mother after chromosome fusion and DNA replication. Thus it is not like a tumor, as a tumor is a genetic mutation cause by viral, radioactive exposure, or genetic errors. Roughly about 8-9 weeks into the pregnancy, brain activity forms (the source is what I learned in basic human biology courses in trimester stages while in school.). While it is very basic most likely automotive functions and nervous system tests. This is where the argument is merely clump of cells completely falls apart and thus is merely a logical fallacy. Now I understand according to most statistics most abortion occur within 3 weeks. That is okay in my book and is not the subject of debate here. I also like to point out even Christopher Hitchens understands this idea and I quote "[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up. I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be."

Now I am not against a woman reproductive choice and I believe we should not legislate morality. I think Humanism should be considered here however, in sort what we are doing is destroying what does not need to be destroyed in the first place. It is holding back progress we could be making in improving possible alternatives that can preserve the child in cases the male wants it. I am standing up for a minority here that deserves their voice to be represented and considered. In conclusion I think we should strive for better contraceptives that are not discrimatory (like only promoting vasectomies) and possible solutions other than pointless destructive means. I want to emphasize that I understand the sacrifices involved however I like to work with both sides for a peaceful and better solution than it is now. Again thanks for the thoughtful remarks I look forward to discussing this further.

[festive1]

First of all thanks for the responses, Thanks Festive1 remaining civil.

Nah, thank you for actually having a better argument than "But it's a baby!!!" I enjoy gray areas and though their discussion may not fix anything, I still think it important

I like to pose a double standard and logical issues with the "woman's body" term. Concerning this, here is a double standard first a female and unilaterally choose to keep the baby and force the father to pay for it. Even if the father does not want the child nor want to pay for it. Second a female unilaterally can abort a child against a willing father wishes. So which is it? Let use logic here, In situation A it is implying oppression to the male party to be force into an unwanted legal obligation. (and no Misandrist statements like, the dude impregnated her. Unless she was raped it was a mutual choice) Then there is situation B, when a male is more than willing to be financially obligated and that choice is also ignored. This is an apparent oversight and it strikes me as inequality.

You're absolutely right. This is a double standard, and men get the short end of the stick.

Second is a well coined term, it's her body and the "baby" is just a clump of cells. So is it really part of the woman's body? Well by biological standards it is a foreign object. Now there is logical arguments to state the removal of foreign objects is a right of the person. That is a true statement and I consider that a compelling point. For the sake of this debate since a potential life is at stake I feel this is a different situation. So is it her body, yes that is a simple question, and is the child inside her body, yes it is. Since we cannot extract a fetus and grow it in an artificial test tube. We are stuck giving birth at least after 6 months the good ole, natural way. So the question is really this, "what is a fetus and is it considered part of her body? I am sure yall know what a fetus is, so let us look at the later part of the question. Is it part of the body, I say no this reasoning is because the simple fact that genetically is it different from the carrier. Now a good objection can be transplanted organs. While this appears to be a logical counter point. The flaw in this reasoning is that an organ serves a purpose with in the bodies role. A fetus on the other hand is merely "renting" space for protection from elements, predators, and disease.

I agree. A fetus is a seperate entity from the mother and is only renting space in her body until it can sustain its life, more or less, on its own.

So we can logical and scientifically show that a fetus is not "part of the female body" so in terms of rights in that regard are proven false. This comes to the foreign object debate. A fetus logically can be classified as a foreign object in its technical terms since it is not genetically belonging to the carrier (aka her DNA). However, typically a foreign object is usually identified as something outside the body. In this case that is only half true, it requires sperm cell and a zygote. This renders a logical dilemma, it did originate from the carriers body thus by definition not truly a foreign object. Infact it is less foreign than a transplanted organ, considering the female body will create an immune system exception to the fetus. Does this disprove this statement it is the woman's body. No what this does provide however, is insight of the complexity of this issue. This is showing that it is not a simple dismissal and this requires a lot more heavy scrutiny and objective analysis. I feel that typical argument as it stands is not a valid one for pro-abortion.

I say the fetus is a foreign object. The mother's body does not develop an immune exception to the fetus. Rather, the placenta develops, which is what produces the hormones necessary for sustaining the pregnancy. Without a developing, functioning placenta the mother's immune system would identify the fetus as a foreign body, attack it, and result in a miscarriage.
I need to double check my sources, but I believe the placenta develops as a direct result from the male's contribution to the fetus. I'll post back on this, this evening with either my source or a correction.

Now the second point that seems to be a common misconception and ill-conceived and obvious propaganda tactic. What is it to you it is only a clump of cells. Well anything with a certain negative tone otherwise known as misleading vividness. It is a dehumanizing tactic to make you more likely to ignore any possible ethical and moral issues that might arise. Now to every myth there is truth. Within most early trimester 1-3 weeks it is a clump of cells. However, that is about how far the similarities are. The zygote at this stage is alive, separate DNA from its mother after chromosome fusion and DNA replication. Thus it is not like a tumor, as a tumor is a genetic mutation cause by viral, radioactive exposure, or genetic errors. Roughly about 8-9 weeks into the pregnancy, brain activity forms (the source is what I learned in basic human biology courses in trimester stages while in school.). While it is very basic most likely automotive functions and nervous system tests. This is where the argument is merely clump of cells completely falls apart and thus is merely a logical fallacy. Now I understand according to most statistics most abortion occur within 3 weeks. That is okay in my book and is not the subject of debate here. I also like to point out even Christopher Hitchens understands this idea and I quote "[an] unborn child seems to me to be a real concept. It's not a growth or an appendix, You can't say the rights question doesn't come up. I don't think a woman should be forced to choose, or even can be."

Here, I'll quibble. I prefer to think of it as a potential baby. You're right in that fairly early on various organ systems develop (neurological and circulatory systems amongst others). This is some form of seperation from the mother, but a fetus does not become viable until somewhere around 24 weeks gestation, and only then with a lot of medical assistance.
You're correct in your dates of rough fetal development, however, I think your context is a bit off. A woman ovulates around 8-10 days after the first day of her last menstural cycle. The first week of pregnancy takes place before the woman can know she is pregnant. Home pregnancy tests detect levels of HGC in the woman's urine and generally can't pick them up until around the time of her first missed period. So she's already in her 3rd to 5th week of pregnancy at that point. Blood tests can detect HGC earlier, but we're talking unplanned pregnancies, not women who are actively trying to conceive.
So most pregnancies that end in abortion do so by 12 weeks. However, fetal development is somewhat further along than you are saying.

Now I am not against a woman reproductive choice and I believe we should not legislate morality. I think Humanism should be considered here however, in sort what we are doing is destroying what does not need to be destroyed in the first place. It is holding back progress we could be making in improving possible alternatives that can preserve the child in cases the male wants it. I am standing up for a minority here that deserves their voice to be represented and considered. In conclusion I think we should strive for better contraceptives that are not discrimatory (like only promoting vasectomies) and possible solutions other than pointless destructive means. I want to emphasize that I understand the sacrifices involved however I like to work with both sides for a peaceful and better solution than it is now. Again thanks for the thoughtful remarks I look forward to discussing this further.

I'd be all for a transplanting of the fetus to an artificial womb, but, alas, modern medicine is not there yet. I think it is also necessary to consider the very real risks to a woman's health in carrying a pregnancy to term. America has one of the worst maternal morbidity and mortality rates in the developed world. Carrying a pregnancy to term, even an "easy" pregnancy poses serious threats (not only to the mother and child's life, but also to the woman's future fertility), especially around the time of birth. I don't believe a woman should face the prospect of birthing a child solely for the man to take full responsibility of said child.
There's also emotional issues to wrestle with. A woman will typically feel the first fetal movements somewhere around 16-20 weeks. This produces, in many cases though certainly not all, a sense of bonding between mother and fetus. Labor is caused by the hormone oxytocin (synthetic form being pitocin). Oxytocin is also the hormone that causes orgasm and feelings of love. The largest dose of oxytocin a man will ever recieve in his life is diring his birth (assuming it is an oxytocin birth, as pitocin doesn't have the same effect on the brain). This is why I view adoption as problematic as a solution to unwanted pregnancy, also. Because a woman can not want or be able to care for and support a child and then find herself bonded with and loving a child, which can lead to problems in the mother-child relationship (resentment). This isn't healthy for either mother or child.
So here we are...

[Zen Badger]

Personally I think we should have better contraceptives and birth control and this would be a none issue.

No, some people are just stupid.

Plus an aborted foetus might live for 8 years, and then people could find it and hail it to be an alien, pretty solid argument again abortion don't you think?

That has to be the lamest argument against abortion I have ever seen Danny.

Seriously.

[bladevalant546]

((Here, I'll quibble. I prefer to think of it as a potential baby. You're right in that fairly early on various organ systems develop (neurological and circulatory systems amongst others). This is some form of seperation from the mother, but a fetus does not become viable until somewhere around 24 weeks gestation, and only then with a lot of medical assistance.
You're correct in your dates of rough fetal development, however, I think your context is a bit off. A woman ovulates around 8-10 days after the first day of her last menstural cycle. The first week of pregnancy takes place before the woman can know she is pregnant. Home pregnancy tests detect levels of HGC in the woman's urine and generally can't pick them up until around the time of her first missed period. So she's already in her 3rd to 5th week of pregnancy at that point. Blood tests can detect HGC earlier, but we're talking unplanned pregnancies, not women who are actively trying to conceive.
So most pregnancies that end in abortion do so by 12 weeks. However, fetal development is somewhat further along than you are saying.))

I had to quickly fact check so my fact might be off a little. So more pinpoint facts will be welcomed. I will admit I might have taken the context slightly far off, here is my reasoning. Main reason why I think there should be some heavily scrutiny in regards to this area. While I might have had a factual error, I think there should be a cut off once the baby is actively responding to stimuli and having some sort of neural data being maintained. Now that is sci fi right now so currently since we do not have instruments to measure this. MY point is merely conjecture. Now I am not fully knowledgeable on 12 week fetus development. However, I am almost against after 5 months, as you stated 6 month baby can survive with immense medical care.

((I'd be all for a transplanting of the fetus to an artificial womb, but, alas, modern medicine is not there yet. I think it is also necessary to consider the very real risks to a woman's health in carrying a pregnancy to term. America has one of the worst maternal morbidity and mortality rates in the developed world. Carrying a pregnancy to term, even an "easy" pregnancy poses serious threats (not only to the mother and child's life, but also to the woman's future fertility), especially around the time of birth. I don't believe a woman should face the prospect of birthing a child solely for the man to take full responsibility of said child.
There's also emotional issues to wrestle with. A woman will typically feel the first fetal movements somewhere around 16-20 weeks. This produces, in many cases though certainly not all, a sense of bonding between mother and fetus. Labor is caused by the hormone oxytocin (synthetic form being pitocin). Oxytocin is also the hormone that causes orgasm and feelings of love. The largest dose of oxytocin a man will ever recieve in his life is diring his birth (assuming it is an oxytocin birth, as pitocin doesn't have the same effect on the brain). This is why I view adoption as problematic as a solution to unwanted pregnancy, also. Because a woman can not want or be able to care for and support a child and then find herself bonded with and loving a child, which can lead to problems in the mother-child relationship (resentment). This isn't healthy for either mother or child.))

I understand the risks involved the choice, however usually before a baby even close to term threat level can be tested. In my time listen to my dad (also a former maternity ward in the air force) and watching plenty of baby shows with my mother...i know it is weird.....dont judge me! They can usually tell if there will be major complications with birth ahead of time, such size of utero walls and what. I have also seen plenty of c-sections because of other unforeseen things. I believe you bringing up those chemical and those attractions give more justification and is a valid side I have not thought of. I however think you bring up medical risks rather than the flawed "but she feels pain" argument is way more convincing. Now I would like to pose a question on the lines of the information you provided. Would you considering limiting abortions to after the said "bonding" chemicals are added. This seems to me like a biological clock stating it is too late now or something. Thanks for the response, offered some different perspectives I have not considered, need more none propaganda fueled emotional arguments!

[The Grand Nudger]

Just as a minor nitpick to both of you, the situation is not a double standard. It is two separate standards for two distinctly separate situations. I'm not one to defend the oddness of paternity rights or child support enforcement, mind you - but lets not call it something it;s not.

If there were some measure of equality between the two scenarios (say a male could assume gestation by some means) but was not allowed to do so if the female wished to abort -that- would be a double standard. Ultimately, there is no equality in the scenario we have before us as-is because there is no equivalency between the respective claims of the male or female in this regard. The male simply -cannot- lay claim to the child without simultaneously laying claim to the females body - a no-no. meanwhile, the female can lay claim to her uterus without laying any claim over the males body. As a fetus is regarded as neither property (the male cannot lay claim to destruction or seizure of property) or a person (no claim to itself, and no grounds for a claim from either party that a persons rights are being encroached upon) we're left in a situation where the female is the only party with any grounds for a legitimate claim in any dispute of this kind.

[Minimalist]

Then there is situation B, when a male is more than willing to be financially obligated and that choice is also ignored. This is an apparent oversight and it strikes me as inequality.

There is much more to raising a kid than just paying child support. Having "daddy" show up for an hour or two a week to play with the kid and then leave it with "mommy" the rest of the time may seem equitable to you but not to me.

The process does not end at birth...much as the religious right likes to pretend that it does. A woman who is forced to have a baby against her will is stuck raising it. The concept of viability is pretty useless since a human child is just about the most helpless thing on earth for years. But the same people who are trying to make it impossible for her to have an abortion in the bible belt are perfectly willing to say "all yours, sister...don't come looking for welfare from us good xtians!" once the little bastard pops out of the hole.

And if she fails in her duties as a mother those same fine xtians will sic the law on her and lock her ass up as fast as possible for being a bad mother which is ironic because they forced her to be a mother in the first place.