Abortion Rights Question

[Ritterin Sophia]

There's a discussion over at SpaceBattles about abortion rights. (Link)

Now, I want it known I just added this link to give some background to the question. I want to know everybody elses opinion on this subject:

As most of us agree that a woman has full rights over her body and should be able to get an abortion if she chooses to do so, however, should the man have any ability to do the same? For example should the man have equal ability to say no and relinquish any responsibility or rights to the child before it is born?

My answer is yes, so long as he offers to pay for transport and the operation to have the fetus aborted. Note that I'm not saying force her to have an abortion, just that the man has equal oppurtunity to walk away from the situation.

Poll will last two weeks.

[ArcturusMengsk]

Yes. By no means should the father have any say over the abortion itself, but he should be freed from any commitment if he makes it clear that he does not wish to have the child and the mother goes against his wishes.

[Flagg]

Uhh... No. Too bad there wasn't a third option for "what are you fucking stupid?". The woman decides not to have the kid and that ends it, no kid, no responsibilities for the dad. She decides to have the kid, and there is a living breathing human being that needs to be taken care of. Daddy shares in that responsibility.

[Plekhanov]

There's a discussion over at SpaceBattles about abortion rights. (Link)

Now, I want it known I just added this link to give some background to the question. I want to know everybody elses opinion on this subject:

As most of us agree that a woman has full rights over her body and should be able to get an abortion if she chooses to do so, however, should the man have any ability to do the same? For example should the man have equal ability to say no and relinquish any responsibility or rights to the child before it is born?

My answer is yes, so long as he offers to pay for transport and the operation to have the fetus aborted. Note that I'm not saying force her to have an abortion, just that the man has equal oppurtunity to walk away from the situation.

Poll will last two weeks.

Men do have an 'equal right to walk away' right until they put their penis in a woman's vagina. After that point human biology, which obviously didn't evolve with fairness in mind, dictates that only the woman can decide what happens next.

Why the hell should men be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities and arbitrarily deny children the support they have an absolute right to receive from their parents?

[Molyneux]

There's a discussion over at SpaceBattles about abortion rights. (Link)

Now, I want it known I just added this link to give some background to the question. I want to know everybody elses opinion on this subject:

As most of us agree that a woman has full rights over her body and should be able to get an abortion if she chooses to do so, however, should the man have any ability to do the same? For example should the man have equal ability to say no and relinquish any responsibility or rights to the child before it is born?

My answer is yes, so long as he offers to pay for transport and the operation to have the fetus aborted. Note that I'm not saying force her to have an abortion, just that the man has equal oppurtunity to walk away from the situation.

Poll will last two weeks.

Men do have an 'equal right to walk away' right until they put their penis in a woman's vagina. After that point human biology, which obviously didn't evolve with fairness in mind, dictates that only the woman can decide what happens next.

Why the hell should men be allowed to walk away from their responsibilities and arbitrarily deny children the support they have an absolute right to receive from their parents?

As much as I hate a double-standard, sometimes biology forces one; to do otherwise would be just plain silly. I have to agree with Plekhanov on this.

[Starglider]

No, the man should not be able to 'walk away'. It is a nice idea in a highly abstract sense but the resulting harm to single-parent children would be far to grave to make it worth trying to fix this minor 'unfairness'. Men have plenty of opportunity not to get the woman pregnant in the first place.

Of course one of the things fairly high on the 'things to fix with genetic engineering' list is allowing males and females to consciously select whether they are fertile or not (probably with a lead time of a week or two to switch). This option will be locked on 'no' until the human is 21 years of age.

[Darth Wong]

As most of us agree that a woman has full rights over her body and should be able to get an abortion if she chooses to do so, however, should the man have any ability to do the same?

Physically, what you suggest is impossible. The female can eliminate parental responsibilities by ensuring that the baby will never be born. The father cannot do that, and once the baby is born, then both parents owe it a responsibility.

For example should the man have equal ability to say no and relinquish any responsibility or rights to the child before it is born?

He does. However, his window of opportunity to make this decision ends quite a few months earlier than the female's window of opportunity to make the same decision.

My answer is yes, so long as he offers to pay for transport and the operation to have the fetus aborted. Note that I'm not saying force her to have an abortion, just that the man has equal oppurtunity to walk away from the situation.

That's fucking bullshit; how is the child's natural claim upon its parents eliminated because the guy signed a waiver? A child's natural claim upon its parents belongs to the child, not to either parent. They can't negotiate it away, unless there is some major social imperative to do so.

[Ritterin Sophia]

Men do have an 'equal right to walk away' right until they put their penis in a woman's vagina. After that point human biology, which obviously didn't evolve with fairness in mind, dictates that only the woman can decide what happens next.

I just wanted to point out that all you need to do is reverse the genders and you have an anti-abortion argument. That doesn't seem rather hypocritical to you?

[Plekhanov]

Men do have an 'equal right to walk away' right until they put their penis in a woman's vagina. After that point human biology, which obviously didn't evolve with fairness in mind, dictates that only the woman can decide what happens next.

I just wanted to point out that all you need to do is reverse the genders and you have an anti-abortion argument. That doesn't seem rather hypocritical to you?

In what way?

[Flagg]

Men do have an 'equal right to walk away' right until they put their penis in a woman's vagina. After that point human biology, which obviously didn't evolve with fairness in mind, dictates that only the woman can decide what happens next.

I just wanted to point out that all you need to do is reverse the genders and you have an anti-abortion argument. That doesn't seem rather hypocritical to you?

What the bleeding fuck are you talking about? Are you trying to suggest that the father wanting the child and the mother not wanting to go through with the pregnancy is a valid anti-abortion argument? I'd think twice about going there, idiot. Especially considering the fact that the father bears no health risks in that situation.

[Molyneux]

Of course one of the things fairly high on the 'things to fix with genetic engineering' list is allowing males and females to consciously select whether they are fertile or not (probably with a lead time of a week or two to switch). This option will be locked on 'no' until the human is 21 years of age.

This notion is intriguing...it would probably get most religions up in a righteous tizzy, but seems one of the more useful changes to make to humans. The only question is, how could it be implemented?

[Dominus Atheos]

Of course one of the things fairly high on the 'things to fix with genetic engineering' list is allowing males and females to consciously select whether they are fertile or not (probably with a lead time of a week or two to switch). This option will be locked on 'no' until the human is 21 years of age.

This notion is intriguing...it would probably get most religions up in a righteous tizzy, but seems one of the more useful changes to make to humans. The only question is, how could it be implemented?

It doesn't sound that difficult. Just give people (some) conscious control over their pituitary gland. Then they could decide when it signals to the reproductive organs to produce sperm or go through the menstrual cycle.

[Darth Wong]

Men do have an 'equal right to walk away' right until they put their penis in a woman's vagina. After that point human biology, which obviously didn't evolve with fairness in mind, dictates that only the woman can decide what happens next.

I just wanted to point out that all you need to do is reverse the genders and you have an anti-abortion argument. That doesn't seem rather hypocritical to you?

So the argument that only females can physically have abortions while males cannot ... is one that can be simply gender-reversed? Are you fucking retarded?

[Howedar]

Of course one of the things fairly high on the 'things to fix with genetic engineering' list is allowing males and females to consciously select whether they are fertile or not (probably with a lead time of a week or two to switch). This option will be locked on 'no' until the human is 21 years of age.

This notion is intriguing...it would probably get most religions up in a righteous tizzy, but seems one of the more useful changes to make to humans. The only question is, how could it be implemented?

Naturally, any government-mandated and -required genetic engineering is going to be met by fanatical resistance, and with good reason.

[Molyneux]

Of course one of the things fairly high on the 'things to fix with genetic engineering' list is allowing males and females to consciously select whether they are fertile or not (probably with a lead time of a week or two to switch). This option will be locked on 'no' until the human is 21 years of age.

This notion is intriguing...it would probably get most religions up in a righteous tizzy, but seems one of the more useful changes to make to humans. The only question is, how could it be implemented?

Naturally, any government-mandated and -required genetic engineering is going to be met by fanatical resistance, and with good reason.

Oh, it definitely shouldn't be government-mandated - it's just something that would have interesting effects on human society, were it to become available. I probably would give consent for it to be done to my child, as well, with it locked to 'off' until at least 17 or 18.

[Starglider]

This notion is intriguing... but seems one of the more useful changes to make to humans. The only question is, how could it be implemented?

The exact implementation details would depend on how much of a redesign you're doing; from just splicing in a few genes, to designing a new organism from the molecular level up (including ditching DNA) that happens to look and feel human (at least as the default, presumably).

it would probably get most religions up in a righteous tizzy,

I was thinking of the Culture humans here - who also have the ability to change their gender by act of will (it takes a few months for the relevant anatomy to grow or be reabsorbed), something that would probably wind up religious nuts even more (but would be great for gender equality and satisfy a lot of curiosity).

Naturally, any government-mandated and -required genetic engineering is going to be met by fanatical resistance, and with good reason.

I didn't mention any government mandates. Upgrading can be done on a piecemeal voluntary basis.

However now that you mention it I am planning to take over the world with atomic war robots, for it's own good of course, and implement a mandatory program of transhumanist upgrades overseen from my orbital fortress. Of course as I am a member of Evil Geniuses For A Better Tomorrow this is hardly surprising.

[Darth Holbytlan]

No. This is based on a naïve notion of fairness, but the situation is inherently unfair. If the fetus grew in a vat, both parents could have equal termination rights, but it doesn't. It's not that mother as a right to get out of her responsibilities, it's that she has a right to control her own body—including getting rid of an unintelligent parasite growing inside her. OTOH, the responsibility is owed to the child, and that exists whether or not the father wanted it aborted.

[Darth Wong]

As long as we're looking out for the interests of gender "fairness" in defiance of all biological reality, perhaps we should also give fathers the right to breast-feed.

[rhoenix]

As long as we're looking out for the interests of gender "fairness" in defiance of all biological reality, perhaps we should also give fathers the right to breast-feed.

Not in defense or opposition to either side, but there have been cases of men lactating enough to nurse a baby. However, I also grant and understand that this isn't especially common.

(This was the most relevant link Google could find with a quick search)

With that said though, I absolutely do not think a man should be able to say "Yeah, whatever you do with the baby, it's not my problem," sign a form, and walk away from his failure to use protection properly. I voted "Hell, no."

[Starglider]

It's not that mother as a right to get out of her responsibilities, it's that she has a right to control her own body—including getting rid of an unintelligent parasite growing inside her. OTOH, the responsibility is owed to the child, and that exists whether or not the father wanted it aborted.

I've often thought it would be simpler if humans laid eggs. You could make it a flexible one that hardened after a few hours in the air as well, that would conveniently bypass the vaginal opening size issue (by coming out in a sausage shape) without having to go for anything as radical as making the abdomen split open for 'natural' cessarian section delivery.

The simple truth is that if humans were intelligently designed, we'd suck a whole lot less - unless the designer was as retarded as the average fundamentalist.

[Elfdart]

As long as we're looking out for the interests of gender "fairness" in defiance of all biological reality, perhaps we should also give fathers the right to breast-feed.

You mean I can't? Don't you oppress me!

[Alyrium Denryle]

As long as we're looking out for the interests of gender "fairness" in defiance of all biological reality, perhaps we should also give fathers the right to breast-feed.

I am reminded of a certain scene in The Life of Brian

"Why is it always about women Stan?"

"I... I want to be one, and I want you all to call me Laretta"

"Why do you want to be a woman stan..er Laretta?"

"I...I want to have babies"

"What? But you havent got a womb! Where is the fetus gonna gestate what are you going to do keep it in a box?"

...

"Laretta cant have babies, which is no fault of anyone's not even the romans, but we can fight for her RIGHT to have babies"

I just wanted to point out that all you need to do is reverse the genders and you have an anti-abortion argument. That doesn't seem rather hypocritical to you?

No, because saying that a man has a right to control a woman's body in any way shape or form is nothing less than condoning the bodily enslavement of women.

[Alyrium Denryle]

As long as we're looking out for the interests of gender "fairness" in defiance of all biological reality, perhaps we should also give fathers the right to breast-feed.

You mean I can't? Don't you oppress me!

You beat me too it, and I didnt notice your post!

*angry fist*

[Sir Sirius]

A third voted yes! A third!

I would very much like to hear the reasoning behind their moronic opinion.

[zircon]

At the start of the thread i imagined myself a story that played out something like this...

Guy has a one night stand with a girl. Two days later later she tracks him down, tells him she's pregnant.
Guy recoils in horror since this wasn't his plan at all. Guy says he wants nothing to do with it, offers to pay for pills/abortion but the girl wants the baby.

Suddenly the guy is stuck with no means to walk away.

Should the guy be able to walk away that early in a pregnancy? Yes