quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Obviously, yes. But on which bases does a male parent get rights over a child and not over a fetus? How does a child suddenly become his at birth, while it was only mother's when it was concieved?

because the foetus is part of the woman, and i dont mean the 50% part. its in her body. it is as much a part of her as all her other bits and pieces.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 Or take this case for example. A guy kills a woman in 8th month of pregnancy who really wanted a child. Should his punishment be equal to killing a non-pregnant woman?

actually, no, i think he should be punished for killing the child as well, however i know (at least in the US) this isnt how it works.

what you have to answer though, is what rights a man should have over a foetus? coz i really cant see any. then you have to justify how a man ultimately gets rights over a woman's body.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because the foetus is part of the woman, and i dont mean the 50% part. its in her body. it is as much a part of her as all her other bits and pieces.

So I suppose you think that as long as a child is physically dependant upon mother's body it's as good as her property, regardless of the fact that it has 50% genes from her father? On the other hand, as soon as it stops being physically dependant, it becomes father's as well as mothers?

But, take this example into consideration - you have siamese twins, one of wom controls the body and the other is basically a lump hanging on it. A conscious lump, however. Admittedly, not an everyday scenario, but possible nevertheless. So do you think that the controlling twin has the right to a surgery that would remove the non-controlling twin from his body, effectivly killing him? Admittedly, though, I really don't know what to say on this one myself

quote:

actually, no, i think he should be punished for killing the child as well, however i know (at least in the US) this isnt how it works.

But why? Isn't killing a woman same as killing that woman + a part of that woman? You can't kill only half of her anyways, so it should be the same.

quote:

what you have to answer though, is what rights a man should have over a foetus? coz i really cant see any. then you have to justify how a man ultimately gets rights over a woman's body.

The rationale behind a man having rights over a foetus is the same as a man having rights over a baby. He participated in its creation, and the baby is carrying half of his genes. However, I'm not saying here that the man should have the right to abort the baby either.

___________________
1+1=10

That's exactly what I didn't have the energy to put into words at this moment. Plus uno for Tito.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 So I suppose you think that as long as a child is physically dependant upon mother's body it's as good as her property, regardless of the fact that it has 50% genes from her father? On the other hand, as soon as it stops being physically dependant, it becomes father's as well as mothers? But, take this example into consideration - you have siamese twins, one of wom controls the body and the other is basically a lump hanging on it. A conscious lump, however. Admittedly, not an everyday scenario, but possible nevertheless. So do you think that the controlling twin has the right to a surgery that would remove the non-controlling twin from his body, effectivly killing him? Admittedly, though, I really don't know what to say on this one myself

no, not 'physically dependant', 'inside'. the baby remains physically dependant on the mother for a pretty long while after birth

no, i dont support the killing of the other twin (unless its a decision made by the mother whilst the twins are in the womb). however, i dont think the analogy is that great. i dont define a foetus as a child until it is born, or the mother indeed wants it to become a child, and intends to keep it (re your murder scenario).

however, if its one or the other, i would consider it preferable to just punish the murderer for the woman, as it opens all kinds of abortion debate if you extend the right to life to a foetus.

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 The rationale behind a man having rights over a foetus is the same as a man having rights over a baby. He participated in its creation, and the baby is carrying half of his genes. However, I'm not saying here that the man should have the right to abort the baby either.

yes, but you have to *articulate* what you think these 'rights' entail? how can the man have rights, if there isnt anything he can do about it? if he cant force an abortion or birth, what rights remain?

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by DrUg_Tit0 But, take this example into consideration - you have siamese twins, one of wom controls the body and the other is basically a lump hanging on it. A conscious lump, however. Admittedly, not an everyday scenario, but possible nevertheless. So do you think that the controlling twin has the right to a surgery that would remove the non-controlling twin from his body, effectivly killing him? Admittedly, though, I really don't know what to say on this one myself

Actually, I'd imagine this happens pretty frequently. In the case of siamese twins, the doctors / parents often have to chose which twin lives and which twin dies when there aren't enough fully formed organs to sustain them both. In these sorts of cases, the rights of the twin with the greatest likelihood of surviving the surgery are given precedence over the rights of the twin least likely to survive. It may sound harsh, but unfortunately if one of them isn't fatally severed from the other then the odds are that they will both die. So, to answer your question, there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral about killng a "conscious lump" if it saves the life of the other twin.

quote:

The rationale behind a man having rights over a foetus is the same as a man having rights over a baby. He participated in its creation, and the baby is carrying half of his genes. However, I'm not saying here that the man should have the right to abort the baby either.

In principle, I'd agree with you: it would be great if a man could somehow have equal rights over the fetus he helped to create, but - practically - how could such principles be implemented? It would be unthinkably immoral to either force a woman to have an abortion or to unwillingly go through 9 months of labour, so what other options are there? How could these theoretical "rights" be implemented in practice?

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

Last edited by Renegade on May-31-2006 at 08:21

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade In principle, I'd agree with you: it would be great if a man could somehow have equal rights over the fetus he helped to create, but - practically - how could such principles be implemented? It would be unthinkably immoral to either force a woman to have an abortion or to unwillingly go through 9 months of labour, so what other options are there? How could these theoretical "rights" be implemented in practice?

I know you won't like this, but there's a pretty simple answer to that. You can find it in the Bible, Quran, & Torah.

___________________
"The Greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking
"First they came for the communists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a communist;
Then they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a socialist;
Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist;
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out— because I was not a Jew;
Then they came for me— and there was no one left to speak out for me." -Martin Niemöller

IMO the father should have no rights over a child- but equally, should have no responsibilities.

In other words, if/since the father has no say in whether the mother has an abortion (which he doesn't and souldn't) he also should have absolutely no responsibility for child support, etc.

The idea that men can be held responsible for a child, but have no say in if the child is kept, appalls me.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN because the foetus is part of the woman, and i dont mean the 50% part. its in her body. it is as much a part of her as all her other bits and pieces. actually, no, i think he should be punished for killing the child as well, however i know (at least in the US) this isnt how it works. what you have to answer though, is what rights a man should have over a foetus? coz i really cant see any. then you have to justify how a man ultimately gets rights over a woman's body.

That's how it works in my state (Pennsylvania). When you kill a lady who's pregnant, you get charged for killing both - the woman and the child (I believe this applies to foetus as well).

quote:

Originally posted by ali92 That's how it works in my state (Pennsylvania). When you kill a lady who's pregnant, you get charged for killing both - the woman and the child (I believe this applies to foetus as well).

That's the classic double-standard of abortion in the US.

If someone kills a pregnant woman (along with the fetus) they will be charged with double homicide.

If someone causes a pregnant woman distress to the point that the fetus is spontaneously (or otherwise) aborted, they will be charged with homicide.

If a woman has an abortion...they aren't charged with anything.

(And leave out the damn "o")

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z I know you won't like this, but there's a pretty simple answer to that. You can find it in the Bible, Quran, & Torah.

Any verses in particular? From my own reading of the Bible, I certainly can't remember any specific passages about abortion or paternal rights.

quote:

Originally posted by NeoPhono That's the classic double-standard of abortion in the US. If someone kills a pregnant woman (along with the fetus) they will be charged with double homicide. If someone causes a pregnant woman distress to the point that the fetus is spontaneously (or otherwise) aborted, they will be charged with homicide. If a woman has an abortion...they aren't charged with anything. (And leave out the damn "o")

That's a failure of law rather than a failure of logic or morality.

I have no problem with the law recognising that an assault which destroys the life of an unborn fetus is quantitatively "worse" than any other assault of the same nature, but this stems from the rights of the mother rather than the rights of the fetus. If a mother loses a fetus during the course of an assault that she would have otherwise carried through to nascency, then her "injuries" are far greater than those of a regular assualt and this should be reflected in the law. I support the rights of women to "choose" when it comes to pregancy and this support unreservedly runs both ways - removing a woman's right to terminate her pregnancy is abhorrent, but then so is removing her right to give birth.

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/

quote:

Originally posted by Renegade So, to answer your question, there is nothing necessarily wrong or immoral about killng a "conscious lump" if it saves the life of the other twin.

...

Just because something is justified, does not mean there is nothing "wrong or immoral" with it.

Part of this whole argument is: "What defines a human being?"

Is a fetus a human being? Is a "conscious lump" or malformed siamese twin a human being?

I do not know how you answer these questions. But if you answer "yes" to either and then justify the killing of either it is still "wrong or immoral".

If you answer no to either and then justify the killing of either, I would contend that it is still "wrong or immoral", but that is just my opinion.

quote:

Originally posted by NebulousQ ... Just because something is justified, does not mean there is nothing "wrong or immoral" with it.

If the concept of "justification" incorporates any element of morality at all (and I would argue that it does), then yes - that which is "justified" is neither "wrong or immoral".

quote:

Part of this whole argument is: "What defines a human being?"

I'm running with:

• Human DNA (therefore it is "human")
  
• Biological independence (therefore it is a "being")

___________________
http://eschatonnow.blogspot.com/