Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Thu Apr 06, 2017 10:55 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
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.
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.
Such as?

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7464
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Apr 07, 2017 12:23 am

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
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.
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.
Such as?
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.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:18 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
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.
Such as?
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.
I asked who would get hurt?
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.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7464
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Fri Apr 07, 2017 7:22 pm

Hobbes' Choice wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote:
Hobbes' Choice wrote:
Such as?
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.
I asked who would get hurt?
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.
I thought I just gave you a bunch of scenarios. I must have imagined it.

thedoc
Posts: 6442
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2012 4:18 pm

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by thedoc » Sun Apr 09, 2017 2:42 am

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I thought I just gave you a bunch of scenarios. I must have imagined it.
It's called ignoring what you disagree with, Hobbes' is good at that.

User avatar
Hobbes' Choice
Posts: 8364
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 11:45 am

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Hobbes' Choice » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:36 am

thedoc wrote:
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I thought I just gave you a bunch of scenarios. I must have imagined it.
It's called ignoring what you disagree with, Hobbes' is good at that.
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.

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?

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Harbal » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:19 pm

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.
I just thought I'd tip you off, Hobbes: The Plain English Campaign have just put out a contract on you.

User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 7464
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by vegetariantaxidermy » Sun Apr 09, 2017 9:55 pm

Harbal wrote:
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.
I just thought I'd tip you off, Hobbes: The Plain English Campaign have just put out a contract on you.
I think he was having a 'walker moment'. :) (He's actually quoting some pseud. A crafty way of avoiding a counter-argument).

User avatar
Harbal
Posts: 3941
Joined: Thu Jun 20, 2013 10:03 pm
Location: Yorkshire
Contact:

Re: Abortion: whose wishes should predominate?

Post by Harbal » Sun Apr 09, 2017 10:03 pm

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: I think he was having a 'walker moment'. :) (He's actually quoting some pseud).
Did you mean to say "walker" or should the "l" have been a "n"?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests