I live on Mars, but I am not a little green man. Frankly the entire ethical argument has many sub-areas of conflict and of contention, such as abortion. If you are pro-life you are indeed against the death of a fetus, therefore you believe in all children being born. But what happens if the woman is raped? Well then you throw a wrench in the argument and have to add a circumstantial exception. Well then ok, make Abortion illegal UNLESS of rape. Then comes in the medical necessity for the mother - if the pregnancy becomes dangerous. Another exception is added in - thus making it even more complicated when multiplied by even smaller and smaller and smaller subsets of issues. Now what happens if the pregnant woman breaks off her relationship to the man, and the man wishes to not have the child - since it is 50% of his genetic material does he have a right? Technically yes he does - however when has 50% and 50% ever had one side win? It doesn't! It is a tie - and thus other circumstantial information must be submitted to take one side to 49% and the other to 51%. As you can see - there can really be no "right" thing to do in a situation where there is a clear 50% split. A tiebreaker is always needed, and thus this is where laws and rulings start to become tedious and ineffective. Instead, each case must be handled on a one by one issue with no precedent being set by one or the other for full fairness - but again you have human beings deciding the verdict - and human beings are easily swayed by emotions of the situation. The reason I support the mother's right to have the child in this instance is that her circumstance has the extra 1% - she can never have a child of her own genetic progeny without these embryos. The male in this case could ask to sign a legal binding document stating that he need not take any role in the child's welfare or life, and sign away his entire rights to it. There might be a law that states welfare - but legal documentation signed by both parties is binding, and thus cannot be broken without penalty. If this isn't legal to do in the UK, then the UK needs some reforms in my opinion.
It's not like she was already pregnant and he was allowed to abort... On that subject though, I think this is a step in the right direction for mens rights. For instance, let's say a women wants an abortion and the father does not. Can the father "CHOOSE" to keep the baby? Food for thought.. Things work both ways you know.
Again, the father cannot chose to keep the child since he does not win out in the marginal score - the mother is carrying the child and it is her body, she gets the 1% favor. Thus making it woman 51% father 49% However you are right about men usually being at a disadvantage in the situation involving children to do the societal views and norms perpetuated by each generation to the next with advancements being brought about by social movements - however there is always a lack of equilibrium. Men get paid more, women have more rights with kids, there's always sexism and all other kinds of isms. My example of percentages shows my idealistic view of how each situation should be assessed, rather than a broad ruling by a single body of law that applies to all.
That makes no sense to me.. The life is 50/50 in terms of mother/father... Kinda explains the real point that "choice" is no choice...
Well, since it is 50/50, there must always be a tiebreaker. This is why I say there is no "right" choice when it comes to morality in the broad picture. You have to consider everything that goes along with it. Can the mother provide? Was the father coerced? Can the mother be capable of stability? Can the father prove his side? It's all about the tiebreaker when you look at it. Personally I don't actually take many stances on the overall issue of abortion - I find making a broad statement or generalization doesn't work in every situation - while taking it as a situation by situation does. To be quite honest I don't know whether any choice made under the conditions today is really right or wrong when there is an obvious tie. It's not like football, there's no overtime - because if you do an overtime the child will probably be born before litigation is complete.
For me the crux of this arrangement that they had about the fertilised eggs was that they both entered into it freely and in the full knowledge that either of them could invoke a 'get out' clause. They both accepted that either party had the right to cancel this procedure but when one did, the other did not accept this. Whilst they both entered into the agreement to at some future point use the eggs to create life they did so in the full understanding that if one or other of the parties objected the eggs could not be used. You have to ask the question, if this 'get out' clause had not been available at the time of donation, would both parties have consented to the harvest of the eggs and sperm? I doubt it.
No the father can't choose to have the baby because it is the females choice to do what she wanted with her body. Don't force the mother to abort or to have it. Something more realistic like the father gives up rights/responsibilities if he chooses to abort and she doesn't. An equal trade off for the females right to choose is the males right not to contribute to the childs support if he opts out early on. Cruel to the woman? unfair to the child? maybe but men need some rights too. And husbands who are married to cheating women are forced to care for and pay for other mens babies while thier wives are screwing around simply because they married a bad woman. Is that fair? My point is there has to be some equity somewhere. I say men should be able to have a choice too. The choice being this: when a woman approaches a man saying she is pregnant by him: #1 prove it beyond doubt #2 if she can abort her responsibilty then he should be able to abort his. His body his choice. If he is to sacrifice his body/mind/soul for the rest of his life caring/supporting for a child he should have a choice too.
I bet if he lost they would still hit him up for child support!!! (Sorry special tax refund for fathers as not a cent of it actually gets to the child).
No, it's the "childs" body we are talking about here, not hers or his... That body belongs to both equally. It never ceases to amaze me how people who support abortion will want to convict or hang people like Scott Peterson for killing his unborn son, but if Lacy where alive and had killed her son, that would be ok. What a phucked up conundrum that is.
One big thing that people don't seem to be looking at here is what happens to the child? Any prenuptial or pre-conception agreement regarding children is basically worthless in courts, as courts decide matters not based on the wishes of the parents, but rather based on what they believe is in the best interests of the child. If a child has two clearly identifiable parents then both of them are responsible for that child, unless they give the child up for adoption, which legally requires both of them to agree to it. Thus the problem with adopting a child from the mother when the father has disappeared for a while. He might return, demand his 'rights' as a parent, and take the child away from a loving adoptive couple. In any case, any legal document absolving the father of responsibility for the child would be thrown out the mother decided she needed monetary help raising the child, or paying for his tuition. As cruel as you may think it may be to her, if he doesn't want to have a kid with her, it's wrong for the courts to force this on him, especially if he's someone who would feel a moral obligation to the child.
And assuming long terms studies showing no side effects of aborting the fetus? The moral quandary is a bit less in that case, but at this point, I'm honestly not sure.
The ultimate conundrum... The same court that will gladly call abortion legal, will prosecute a person that kills an unborn child. Manslaughter charges for a person that kills an unborn child in say, a car accident... Why when someone else, either intentionally, or accidentally kills an unborn child is the fetus a living person? Yet, if the mother intentionally aborts the child, that is considered ok... What if a pregnant mommy was gonna get an abortion, but got in a fight with the daddy, and the daddy punched her in the stomach and the child is killed? What then... My guess is dad is going to jail for murder. What if she made it to the clinic before getting punched? It's more than a moral quandary. It's just a complete and utter conundrum.
If it were not for the fathers (good swimming) sperm, the baby would not be there to begin with...so I would wonder if this is really all on the woman...furthermore, what makes this egg more of an egg than every other egg the woman has produced? Couldn't all the previous eggs lost in the form of a period be considered reckless abandonment (since they weren't obviously be seeked by sperm)?
without mans sperm = no baby woman's period where she was not having sex for the purpose of procreation = reckless abandonment
I got that part. I just don't get how you got to that conclusion, even based on exaggeration of principle or the "let's take this to it's logical conclusion" argument.