My view on abortion, and both parents rights to the baby.

[BluePriest]

Maybe someday we will have Star Trek technology that allows us to create a male womb and beam the fetus out of the woman and into the man. Until that day comes, a man shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry the fetus for nine months. Babies are easy to make. If the man can't convince the woman to have one, he should find a woman who wants the same thing he wants.

as I said, the woman would be reimbursed for everything you could think of, perhaps even more so as she would practically make money off of the baby with what I proposed. This has many different things that it refers to. Say for example a couple was married, and then got a divorce. The husband found out that the ex wife was pregnant. That zygote is just as much his as it is hers. Why should she have a say in what happens to it and he has none when they both played a part in creating it?

[Nepycros]

Can we please not turn this into yet another topic about if abortion is moral or not? I have been trying very hard to make it clear that is NOT the point of this topic, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC

Agreed.

Abortion is, ultimately, up to the parents, sort of depending on age.

At a young age, there are several cases where there will be problems in labor (I have friends that have had complications with birth simply for being too young), and if a health problem is in the probable zone, the choice rests with the mother, the variable in question who can determine the health of both herself and the child-to-be.

At an older age, it's rather more difficult to handle. At this age, complications will (hopefully) have less chance of occurring, allowing the more detailed parts (such as commitment, responsibility) to be worked out. If the mother is in good health, but wants the abortion, while the father does not want the abortion, it should ultimately be the father's choice, but only if he can compensate by any means necessary.

[Neopergoss]

Can we please not turn this into yet another topic about if abortion is moral or not? I have been trying very hard to make it clear that is NOT the point of this topic, NOR DOES IT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THIS TOPIC

Agreed.

Abortion is, ultimately, up to the parents, sort of depending on age.

At a young age, there are several cases where there will be problems in labor (I have friends that have had complications with birth simply for being too young), and if a health problem is in the probable zone, the choice rests with the mother, the variable in question who can determine the health of both herself and the child-to-be.

At an older age, it's rather more difficult to handle. At this age, complications will (hopefully) have less chance of occurring, allowing the more detailed parts (such as commitment, responsibility) to be worked out. If the mother is in good health, but wants the abortion, while the father does not want the abortion, it should ultimately be the father's choice, but only if he can compensate by any means necessary.

Interesting. You know, if the parents are old enough complications start being more likely again

[QuantumT]

I personally always thought it was complete nonsense that the father has absolutely no rights as far as the discussion is concerned.

Basically I'll set it up like this.

Suppose person A wants to have the child but person B does not. How is this issue resolved?

Any solution that is remotely fair should be as gender neutral as possible.

[Belthus]

Suppose person A wants to have the child but person B does not. How is this issue resolved?

Any solution that is remotely fair should be as gender neutral as possible.

Suppose a man wants to have a vasectomy. Should his wife be able to use the force of law to stop him? Suppose he wants to smoke cigarettes, which would shorten his life (and thus his ability to support his family). Should his wife be able to call the police to stop him?

[OldTrees]

Suppose person A wants to have the child but person B does not. How is this issue resolved?

Any solution that is remotely fair should be as gender neutral as possible.

Suppose a man wants to have a vasectomy. Should his wife be able to use the force of law to stop him? Suppose he wants to smoke cigarettes, which would shorten his life (and thus his ability to support his family). Should his wife be able to call the police to stop him?

Bad analogy.
In the case of a child it takes 2 even if the mother (in humans) has to put a lot more effort into pregnancy than the father. A wife has no actual part in a vasectomy just as a husband has no physical part in tying tubes. Smoking is another unilateral activity even with children involved because families are not tied to the father or mother.
A better analogy would include something that both members were involved directly in but one member had a disproportionate investment and that can only have one decision.

[Astrocyte]

There isn't an equal resolution to this dilemma. It's an inherently unequal process: Ejaculating doesn't carry any permanent health risks. Pregnancy does.

Suppose the father could provide so much money to the mother that she could afford the finest medical care, plus expenses for time and trouble, and then raise the child himself so that the woman never has to put forth an erg of effort ever again. So what additional amount of money is equal to the time and trouble of a woman having to wear Poise pads for the rest of her life, because she got a massive vaginal fistula from a botched episiotomy? Or having to explain to her family and friends that she didn't want to be the way she was those past few months (knowing that a good chunk of people think depression isn't real and won't believe her), lose her job due to the length of treatment (taking a hit to lifetime earning potential), and then come up with an answer in job interviews for why she lost her last job and wasn't working those months, all because of postpartum depression? If she's comatose or dead from eclampsia, how much money (and paid to whom) fixes that?

Not all medical problems are fixable or reversible. To theorize that there's an amount of money that's "enough" to force a person to take significant and permanent medical risk -- to buy a person's body -- is to deny personhood, regardless of the perceived value of the result.

This is why drug companies don't offer you $10,000 to take either their pill or a sugar pill for a week. Once you offer enough money, everyone will say yes regardless of the risks, and the international medical community has agreed that this is an unethical thing to do.

Now suppose we're in a magical universe and there are spells that completely cancel out ALL the inconveniences of pregnancy and the healers at St. Mungo's can completely prevent or repair ALL the potential medical problems. Does this then force the debate over to the relative value of the pregnancy?

(Interesting that when I'm reading this thread, my ads turn to: Michele Bachmann; baby name websites; pictures of cute children playing on Stainmaster brand carpets; weight loss scams.)

[BluePriest]

There isn't an equal resolution to this dilemma. It's an inherently unequal process: Ejaculating doesn't carry any permanent health risks. Pregnancy does.

Suppose the father could provide so much money to the mother that she could afford the finest medical care, plus expenses for time and trouble, and then raise the child himself so that the woman never has to put forth an erg of effort ever again. So what additional amount of money is equal to the time and trouble of a woman having to wear Poise pads for the rest of her life, because she got a massive vaginal fistula from a botched episiotomy? Or having to explain to her family and friends that she didn't want to be the way she was those past few months (knowing that a good chunk of people think depression isn't real and won't believe her), lose her job due to the length of treatment (taking a hit to lifetime earning potential), and then come up with an answer in job interviews for why she lost her last job and wasn't working those months, all because of postpartum depression? If she's comatose or dead from eclampsia, how much money (and paid to whom) fixes that?

Not all medical problems are fixable or reversible. To theorize that there's an amount of money that's "enough" to force a person to take significant and permanent medical risk -- to buy a person's body -- is to deny personhood, regardless of the perceived value of the result.

This is why drug companies don't offer you $10,000 to take either their pill or a sugar pill for a week. Once you offer enough money, everyone will say yes regardless of the risks, and the international medical community has agreed that this is an unethical thing to do.

Now suppose we're in a magical universe and there are spells that completely cancel out ALL the inconveniences of pregnancy and the healers at St. Mungo's can completely prevent or repair ALL the potential medical problems. Does this then force the debate over to the relative value of the pregnancy?

(Interesting that when I'm reading this thread, my ads turn to: Michele Bachmann; baby name websites; pictures of cute children playing on Stainmaster brand carpets; weight loss scams.)

So what you are saying is that the man should have no say in it whatsoever correct?

btw started colorizing to bring it point by point but decided not to

[Astrocyte]

I am responding to your assertion that the mother should have no say in it whatsoever if the father is willing and able to provide for all her care plus a cash bonus.

[QuantumT]

I am responding to your assertion that the mother should have no say in it whatsoever if the father is willing and able to provide for all her care plus a cash bonus.

So I can take from that that you assume abortion is an acceptable solution to the issue.

In that case, why does the mother have the right to demand child support in the case that she wants the child and the father doesn't? That only makes sense as long as abortion isn't an option. Once abortion is on the table, the father's financial obligation should be limited to half the cost of an abortion.

[Belthus]

So what you are saying is that the man should have no say in it whatsoever correct?

The man does have a "say": voice but no vote. If he has a good relationship with the woman, she will listen. But he shouldn't be able to use the force of law to reduce a woman to a baby farm.

[OldTrees]

So what you are saying is that the man should have no say in it whatsoever correct?

The man does have a "say": voice but no vote. If he has a good relationship with the woman, she will listen. But he shouldn't be able to use the force of law to reduce a woman to a baby farm.

I would agree with this.