Such as?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I agree with you in principle with the question of financial responsibility, but I have a feeling there would be a minefield of loopholes and legalities in there, and as usual it would be the wrong people getting hurt by it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:A pregnant woman has the burden of carrying the foetus. It is her wishes that should predominate - OBVIOUSLY.
However, since the state has made the genetic father financially responsible for the next 16+ years it has forced a moral dilemma. If the pregnancy is not planned, and the "father" does not want the pregnancy to go full term then either the woman should abort, or take full responsibility for the up-keep of the child, releasing the father from his legal responsibility, and, of course, any parental rights.
A foetus has no rights, naturally. However the state decides who does or does not enjoy rights. As a foetus is not a person, and not viable without the support of the pregnant woman, the state judges when personhood is viable, and as early births become more viable, personhood can be bestowed on younger foetuses.
It's my view that every effort must be made to help any woman to make an informed choice is as timely manner as is possible. Current cut offs for elective abortions are about right, as long as systemic delays do not impede the rights of women to abort as they see fit.
Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
People can lie, or change their mind, or have changes in circumstances...There are all kinds of scenarios. Even now some women will say they don't know who their baby's father is in order to save him from paying support as an extra tax if she's on a Govt. benefit. Western Govts. have not yet gone back to the time where women and babies were left to starve or live off the streets. A woman could lose her means of support and then be accused of being a burden on the Govt., then the Govt. wouldn't be able to make the father pay child support if he had wanted her to have an abortion. Everyone would be put in the position of having to sign legal documents to say which one or other did/didn't want the pregnancy to go ahead etc. etc. etc. Given the complexity of the human condition, every scenario you can think of is going to come up at some point in one form or another.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Such as?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:I agree with you in principle with the question of financial responsibility, but I have a feeling there would be a minefield of loopholes and legalities in there, and as usual it would be the wrong people getting hurt by it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:A pregnant woman has the burden of carrying the foetus. It is her wishes that should predominate - OBVIOUSLY.
However, since the state has made the genetic father financially responsible for the next 16+ years it has forced a moral dilemma. If the pregnancy is not planned, and the "father" does not want the pregnancy to go full term then either the woman should abort, or take full responsibility for the up-keep of the child, releasing the father from his legal responsibility, and, of course, any parental rights.
A foetus has no rights, naturally. However the state decides who does or does not enjoy rights. As a foetus is not a person, and not viable without the support of the pregnant woman, the state judges when personhood is viable, and as early births become more viable, personhood can be bestowed on younger foetuses.
It's my view that every effort must be made to help any woman to make an informed choice is as timely manner as is possible. Current cut offs for elective abortions are about right, as long as systemic delays do not impede the rights of women to abort as they see fit.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
I asked who would get hurt?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:People can lie, or change their mind, or have changes in circumstances...There are all kinds of scenarios. Even now some women will say they don't know who their baby's father is in order to save him from paying support as an extra tax if she's on a Govt. benefit. Western Govts. have not yet gone back to the time where women and babies were left to starve or live off the streets. A woman could lose her means of support and then be accused of being a burden on the Govt., then the Govt. wouldn't be able to make the father pay child support if he had wanted her to have an abortion. Everyone would be put in the position of having to sign legal documents to say which one or other did/didn't want the pregnancy to go ahead etc. etc. etc. Given the complexity of the human condition, every scenario you can think of is going to come up at some point in one form or another.Hobbes' Choice wrote:Such as?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I agree with you in principle with the question of financial responsibility, but I have a feeling there would be a minefield of loopholes and legalities in there, and as usual it would be the wrong people getting hurt by it.
A person giving birth to a child needs to require the consent of both donors of genetic material. If a man donates to a sperm bank - do you think he ought to have financial responsibilities? And if not, they how is it different from an accidental pregnancy were all the opportunities of the day-after pill or prompt painless abortion are available for free?
Whatever the scenario, basic principles need apply. I do not think I have said anything that transgresses that idea.
Sex is not primarily about reproduction, and initial intentions take priority over other considerations.
If pregnancy was not an intention in the first place then I assume that you would agree that a man ought not to be able to force a woman to go full term? The same rubric needs apply to the man's responsibility. Without mutual consent then no responsibility for child care ought to apply.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
I thought I just gave you a bunch of scenarios. I must have imagined it.Hobbes' Choice wrote:I asked who would get hurt?vegetariantaxidermy wrote:People can lie, or change their mind, or have changes in circumstances...There are all kinds of scenarios. Even now some women will say they don't know who their baby's father is in order to save him from paying support as an extra tax if she's on a Govt. benefit. Western Govts. have not yet gone back to the time where women and babies were left to starve or live off the streets. A woman could lose her means of support and then be accused of being a burden on the Govt., then the Govt. wouldn't be able to make the father pay child support if he had wanted her to have an abortion. Everyone would be put in the position of having to sign legal documents to say which one or other did/didn't want the pregnancy to go ahead etc. etc. etc. Given the complexity of the human condition, every scenario you can think of is going to come up at some point in one form or another.Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Such as?
A person giving birth to a child needs to require the consent of both donors of genetic material. If a man donates to a sperm bank - do you think he ought to have financial responsibilities? And if not, they how is it different from an accidental pregnancy were all the opportunities of the day-after pill or prompt painless abortion are available for free?
Whatever the scenario, basic principles need apply. I do not think I have said anything that transgresses that idea.
Sex is not primarily about reproduction, and initial intentions take priority over other considerations.
If pregnancy was not an intention in the first place then I assume that you would agree that a man ought not to be able to force a woman to go full term? The same rubric needs apply to the man's responsibility. Without mutual consent then no responsibility for child care ought to apply.
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
It's called ignoring what you disagree with, Hobbes' is good at that.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I thought I just gave you a bunch of scenarios. I must have imagined it.
- Hobbes' Choice
- Posts: 8364
- Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
If you were as clever as you seem to think you are you will have noticed that the underlying rules I suggested would not allow these scenarios to be relevant.thedoc wrote:It's called ignoring what you disagree with, Hobbes' is good at that.vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I thought I just gave you a bunch of scenarios. I must have imagined it.
But what you seem to be good at is not actually comprehending anything above the most simple ideas.
Vege-brain poses a system of obligation she is not capable of expressing. By ignoring the possibility that underlying . The spread of the principle imposes on the whole world an obligation to become identical, to become total. But if we denied the principle abstractly—if we proclaimed, to the greater glory of the irreducibly qualitative, that parity should no longer be the ideal rule—we would be creating excuses for recidivism into injustice. And here Vege simply has not thought out the consequences of the ethical positions I suggest, as it is only in the breach of these ethical pointers that her scenarios hold any problems; problems which they are designed to avoid.... obvioulsy!
.... or maybe you just did not follow the thread?
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
I just thought I'd tip you off, Hobbes: The Plain English Campaign have just put out a contract on you.Hobbes' Choice wrote:By ignoring the possibility that underlying . The spread of the principle imposes on the whole world an obligation to become identical, to become total. But if we denied the principle abstractly—if we proclaimed, to the greater glory of the irreducibly qualitative, that parity should no longer be the ideal rule—we would be creating excuses for recidivism into injustice.
- vegetariantaxidermy
- Posts: 13983
- Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
- Location: Narniabiznus
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
I think he was having a 'walker moment'. (He's actually quoting some pseud. A crafty way of avoiding a counter-argument).Harbal wrote:I just thought I'd tip you off, Hobbes: The Plain English Campaign have just put out a contract on you.Hobbes' Choice wrote:By ignoring the possibility that underlying . The spread of the principle imposes on the whole world an obligation to become identical, to become total. But if we denied the principle abstractly—if we proclaimed, to the greater glory of the irreducibly qualitative, that parity should no longer be the ideal rule—we would be creating excuses for recidivism into injustice.
Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?
Did you mean to say "walker" or should the "l" have been a "n"?vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I think he was having a 'walker moment'. (He's actually quoting some pseud).