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

[QuantumT]

Well the significant difference I can see is that the ice sculpture doesn't threaten Mary's physical well being, which is the basis for giving the mother the sole right to decide to abort or not.

[OldTrees]

Well the significant difference I can see is that the ice sculpture doesn't threaten Mary's physical well being, which is the basis for giving the mother the sole right to decide to abort or not.

I was asking about who the creator was not who had the right to decide the fate of the ice.

So in your opinion who were the creator(s)? (repeat for each case.)

[QuantumT]

Both Mary and Bob created the sculpture. Since there are no other things in play, it remains the property of them both.

Mary created the child. While both participated in the formation of the child, when Mary was given the choice to abort or not abort, Bob's 'property right' to the baby was completely taken away.

Decent analogy though. I'll admit that while I felt the situations were fundamentally different at once, I definitely had to think for a bit about what it was that made them different.

[OldTrees]

Both Mary and Bob created the sculpture. Since there are no other things in play, it remains the property of them both.

Mary created the child. While both participated in the formation of the child, when Mary was given the choice to abort or not abort, Bob's 'property right' to the baby was completely taken away.

Decent analogy though. I'll admit that while I felt the situations were fundamentally different at once, I definitely had to think for a bit about what it was that made them different.

So if Bob sold his share of the sculpture to Mary before taking the day trip, she would be the creator?
What about the ice cube/puddle case?

[UTAlan]

Both Mary and Bob created the sculpture. Since there are no other things in play, it remains the property of them both.

What about Mary's choice of whether to destroy the ice sculpture or not? I don't see where this analogy breaks down.

Would a similar analogy about baking a cake be better? If Bob and Mary both work to create the cake, and Mary chooses to not take it out of the oven before it is done cooking, does this mean that she created it?

[QuantumT]

Both Mary and Bob created the sculpture. Since there are no other things in play, it remains the property of them both.

What about Mary's choice of whether to destroy the ice sculpture or not? I don't see where this analogy breaks down.

For a child, at the act of conception, both have a certain 'right/responsibility' to the child. After conception however, Mary is given the choice to abort the pregnancy, which completely overrides any claim that Bob might have to the potential child. Bob could be completely and totally against the abortion, but that doesn't matter in the slightest.

For the ice sculpture, there is never a point later in the process where Mary is given sole control over the sculpture, because it never threatens her well being. As such, it remains the property of both.

On a side note, I don't think that 'creator' is the best word to be using, as who exactly counts as a creator is really rather subjective. I think it would be better to talk about the 'right/responsibility' of each party involved, as this can be more easily traced to their participation in various decisions in the process.

Basically, I think we should be able to answer this question:

Person A is involved in a pregnancy but doesn't wish to support a child. Do they have to?

without having to ask any additional questions about the gender of person A.

[Belthus]

The problem with rights-based reasoning is that it tends to be abstract and disconnected from the real world. It tends to be about rules and process while ignoring the consequences of those rules and process. Lying is bad, so tell the truth to the Nazis about Ann Frank hiding in your attic.

Women and men are biologically different. If there is a birth, the woman will be present 100% of the time. The man may or may not be there. The woman is almost always the primary caretaker. Women get paid less and promoted less often in part because they are perceived as being pulled in two directions - career and children - more than men are. Given the different circumstances that women and men are in, giving them the same reproductive rights would be disastrous for women and children. Do a Google search on single mothers and poverty. That is what exists with child support from fathers and the government. People who want to take that support away are waging a war on women and children in the name of "family values."

[QuantumT]

 

The problem with rights-based reasoning is that it tends to be abstract and disconnected from the real world. It tends to be about rules and process while ignoring the consequences of those rules and process. Lying is bad, so tell the truth to the Nazis about Ann Frank hiding in your attic.

That's an easy one. Anne Frank's keeping her life trumps not lying.

Women and men are biologically different. If there is a birth, the woman will be present 100% of the time. The man may or may not be there. The woman is almost always the primary caretaker. Women get paid less and promoted less often in part because they are perceived as being pulled in two directions - career and children - more than men are. Given the different circumstances that women and men are in, giving them the same reproductive rights would be disastrous for women and children. Do a Google search on single mothers and poverty. That is what exists with child support from fathers and the government. People who want to take that support away are waging a war on women and children in the name of "family values."

I'm waging a war for equality between men and women. That goes both ways though. If the woman is the primary caretaker more often than the man, it's because when she doesn't want to be caretaker, she simply aborts the pregnancy. The child is a result of a choice that is hers alone, so the responsibility for the child is as well. If the man decides during the pregnancy that he wants nothing to do with the child, then he can simply walk out of the mother's life. The fact that later on their is a poor child is the result of poor decision making on the part of the mother, and has nothing to do with the father.

[Belthus]

That's an easy one. Anne Frank's keeping her life trumps not lying.

I'm glad you come to the decent answer. It involves recognizing that some rules ("Don't lie") should be broken when following them would lead to a negative outcome (Anne Frank's death). One could say that the Nazis are responsible for their actions. If they break a moral rule ("Don't kill innocents"), that's not your fault and you should still - according to an absolutist perspective - follow the non-lying rule. But the point is that you might be able to change the course of events, away from the predictable death camp.

I'm waging a war for equality between men and women.

Women on average are much less financially secure than men. There is no equality of outcome. The overall deal that women get in our society is worse than the overall deal that men get. To take a group (single mothers) that is already having a hard time and to take away what supports exist - as meager as they are in American society - is a war against women and children.

What I said about process vs. outcome is evident in your post. Your post is all about blaming women for choosing to be single mothers and punishing them by making sure that more of them would be destitute. The outcome doesn't seem to matter to you as long as you can figure out who made what choice.

[QuantumT]

Women on average are much less financially secure than men. There is no equality of outcome. The overall deal that women get in our society is worse than the overall deal that men get.

By forcing the father to participate, you're perpetuating the image that women are weaker and need help. I posit that at least part of the reason women make less money is because we tell them that they can't with stuff like this.

To take a group (single mothers) that is already having a hard time and to take away what supports exist - as meager as they are in American society - is a war against women and children.

I'm not saying that they shouldn't get any kind of help. What I AM saying is that the father has no more obligation to the child than society as a whole.

What I said about process vs. outcome is evident in your post. Your post is all about blaming women for choosing[/size] to be single mothers and punishing them by making sure that more of them would be destitute. The outcome doesn't seem to matter to you as long as you can figure out who made what choice.

Highlighted the key word there. Why is this the only choice where we'll bend over backwards to meet the needs of the person?

Look at it like this:

Person A made a poor financial decision and is now broke. Should they be assisted? If so, by whom?

[Belthus]

Some combination of support from the father and the government is best. The problem with exempting the father altogether is what economists call "moral hazard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)." The father participated in making the fetus, even if his participation is not the last decision point. (Similarly, when you tell the truth to the Nazis at the door, that is not the last decision point before Anne Frank's death.) We still want fathers (as well as mothers) to think about the possibility of a pregnancy before sex and to use birth control if a pregnancy is unwanted. Exempting fathers completely from financial support means that birth control will be used less often than it is today because one of the parties will have no economic incentive to prevent an unwanted pregnancy.

It is also the case that requiring fathers to support children is politically more viable than having government do it. That may be different in some countries, and attitudes may change over time in the US. But today, government aid for single mothers and their children is on the defensive. Expanding it, whatever the merits of the particular proposals, is unlikely to happen in the near future.

[helltank]

Personally, I think the father and the mother should debate the matter and make their decision.
Can't go wrong with that.