Should fetuses be considered property to which the non-birthing partner are entitled partial ownership?

[Alcoholic Actuary]

A man is diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer at a relatively young age. Because the cancer is at the early stages, he is given the following treatment options:

1. Active surveillance/watchful waiting. He is carefully monitored throughout his life to determine if his cancer progresses enough to warrant a more aggressive treatment. Urinary continence and sexual function are preserved. He is still fertile. His cancer may progress and such progression may not be noted until it has advanced, leaving him with more grim treatment options than those mentioned in this post.

2. Surgery. There are several different options for surgery but he is relatively young and healthy and his surgeon is very well experienced with extremely good track record for definitive cure of the cancer while preserving continence and sexual function. He will still need to be monitored in case of recurrence. He will no longer be fertile. If he thinks that he might wish to procreate in the future, he should arrange to freeze sperm for such prior to the surgery. There will be some urinary incontinence and no sexual function short term--for a week or a few and he will have some restrictions on physical activities until he is well recovered from surgery--a few months. Sexual potency will almost certainly return as will urinary continence.

3.Radiation: a. Brachytherapy. Small, radioactive rods are implanted that will direct low level radiation at the prostate and kill the cancer cells. The rods will remain in place throughout the man's lifetime. Pregnancy should be avoided and he should wear a condom to protect his partner(s) from any possible exposure to radiation from his semen. Potency and urinary continence will be preserved but will likely decline over years at a more rapid rate than a man without such issues would likely experience as general damage from radiation accumulates. There is some risk of damage to the bladder and of developing a fistula between bladder and rectum.
b: Proton Beam therapy: Much more expensive with limited centers offering this treatment at this time. In theory, this type of radiation spares nearby normal tissue, resulting in less tissue damage. It is relatively new so long term effects which might develop over years or decades (relevant as this is a young patient) are not well documented. It could be assumed that similar potential issues with developing incontinence and impotence may occur.

I am purposely not mentioning other therapies because they are used for more advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. This patient is a relatively young, healthy man with early stage prostate cancer.

He is also married. Prior to his diagnosis, he and his wife were considering having a child.

Whatever treatment option is chosen, his wife will be affected, perhaps profoundly. Short term, he will need some care regardless of treatment chosen and depending on option, she will at least temporarily need to assume any tasks that involve lifting or physical exertion. Her ability to have a child with her husband will be affected. Their sex life will be affected at least short term and perhaps long term. Potentially, permanently.

How much say should the wife get in the man's decision about treatment options?

And, would you consider the prostate cancer as some sort of jointly held property?

aa

 

[LordKiran]

Technically? Yes. Kidneys are property.

Could you cite that?[1]

Why should any other part of one's body be any different? What because one needs them? So what? What difference does that make in the distinction between person or property?

Because a person has a different significance than property. [2]

Further, I wouldn't call the bacteria growing in your large intestine as being explicitly a part of you, so why make that case for a fetus?

It most certainly would if somebody said the Government had a right to regulate the bacteria in my large intestine.[3]

Hey, sorry in advance if I don't get through all of this at once, there's a lot to think on and respond to.

1. How could they not be? They're commoditized easily enough (As are fetuses for that matter.) Or do they only count as property after severed from a body? In that case that changes things a lot. Broadly something becomes property as a consequence of being a commodity or asset with economic value, no? What's the point in useless property with no economic value, keepsakes aside?

2. Definitely. Which is where I got the question from.

3. Yeah that's a good point actually.

 

[Toni]

Could you cite that?[1]
Because a person has a different significance than property. [2]

Further, I wouldn't call the bacteria growing in your large intestine as being explicitly a part of you, so why make that case for a fetus?

It most certainly would if somebody said the Government had a right to regulate the bacteria in my large intestine.[3]

Hey, sorry in advance if I don't get through all of this at once, there's a lot to think on and respond to.

1. How could they not be? They're commoditized easily enough (As are fetuses for that matter.) Or do they only count as property after severed from a body? In that case that changes things a lot.

2. Definitely. Which is where I got the question from.

3. Yeah that's a good point actually.

In the US and in most of the world, kidneys and other organs are NOT commoditized. One may not sell one's kidney or other organ. One may donate and donors can expect that their medical care costs will be covered by the recipient/recipient's insurance. It is not legal nor is it considered ethical to attempt to buy or sell organs.

 

[LordKiran]

This isn't really about pro-choice/pro-life or at least not in the typical sense. I don't take issue with the concept of abortion. Nor do I take issue with its use as a form of avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

Lets alter your given scenario if you'll allow. Suppose the man was behind on his payments, but the woman then decides to make those payments for him in the interest of them both being able to stay in the house. Should the woman still have no say on what goes where? I suppose not legally if she's not on the lease/deed but lets even go past that for a moment, because this encompasses more than just law I think. Should that woman by virtue of contributing to the continued ownership of the property not have a say in the matters of its day-to-day management? Is that not just?

No. Simply helping to pay for it doesn't give any ownership rights unless those are specifically laid out as a condition of the payments. It's nice for him to give her those rights, especially if he wants the payments to continue, but if there's any disputes about the property, those disputes would always go in his favour because still really the only one with a say.

Having those conditions set up would be where the analogy falls apart, because in the case of abortion, a woman can't actually sign away her right to do what she wants with her body.

I know it doesn't currently! (Though I could make an argument for that too tbh...) Laws and social orders can be changed which is why we even bother with hypothetical topics at all. It's why we bother to ask ourselves what is right and what is not. Because we want the world to reflect our virtues as much as we can make it anyway. It's why I like to think about this sort of stuff and its why I ask you to leave the law aside for a moment and ask yourself if it is intrinsically right or not.

 

[Jayjay]

Now if we accept that fetuses are in fact property...

How in the heck did we get there? Is a woman's arm her "property"? Is a woman's uterus her "property"?

Technically? Yes. Kidneys are property. Why should any other part of one's body be any different? What because one needs them? So what? What difference does that make in the distinction between person or property? Further, I wouldn't call the bacteria growing in your large intestine as being explicitly a part of you, so why make that case for a fetus?

If one's kidney is "property", it is unequivocally the property of the person in whose body the kidney currently resides. It's inconceivable that if I donate a kidney, I would have some say as to what the recipient does with it. I cannot stipulate, for example, the an alcoholic who ruined his kidneys will have to stop drinking alcohol with my kidney, or alternatively, that he would not be able to get rid of my kidney and take another one should it develop kidney stones. His body, his choice. Same with a fetus. The man has no property rights to it, as he gave them up when he donated his genetic material.

A concept of "property" above where the "proprietor" is always the human being inside whom that particular property resides has so many restrictions that it doesn't make sense to even consider it a property. It's a thought experiment, but in practice it's a sufficiently distinct class that there is no sense to call it a property. That just invites poor analogies and all sorts of special stipulations to make it work.

 

[LordKiran]

Hey, sorry in advance if I don't get through all of this at once, there's a lot to think on and respond to.

1. How could they not be? They're commoditized easily enough (As are fetuses for that matter.) Or do they only count as property after severed from a body? In that case that changes things a lot.

2. Definitely. Which is where I got the question from.

3. Yeah that's a good point actually.

In the US and in most of the world, kidneys and other organs are NOT commoditized. One may not sell one's kidney or other organ. One may donate and donors can expect that their medical care costs will be covered by the recipient/recipient's insurance. It is not legal nor is it considered ethical to attempt to buy or sell organs.

Can you buy or sell fetal tissue?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2

Seems to suggest you can under certain rules but I could be misreading this as I am rather tired.

 

[LordKiran]

A man is diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer at a relatively young age. Because the cancer is at the early stages, he is given the following treatment options:

1. Active surveillance/watchful waiting. He is carefully monitored throughout his life to determine if his cancer progresses enough to warrant a more aggressive treatment. Urinary continence and sexual function are preserved. He is still fertile. His cancer may progress and such progression may not be noted until it has advanced, leaving him with more grim treatment options than those mentioned in this post.

2. Surgery. There are several different options for surgery but he is relatively young and healthy and his surgeon is very well experienced with extremely good track record for definitive cure of the cancer while preserving continence and sexual function. He will still need to be monitored in case of recurrence. He will no longer be fertile. If he thinks that he might wish to procreate in the future, he should arrange to freeze sperm for such prior to the surgery. There will be some urinary incontinence and no sexual function short term--for a week or a few and he will have some restrictions on physical activities until he is well recovered from surgery--a few months. Sexual potency will almost certainly return as will urinary continence.

3.Radiation: a. Brachytherapy. Small, radioactive rods are implanted that will direct low level radiation at the prostate and kill the cancer cells. The rods will remain in place throughout the man's lifetime. Pregnancy should be avoided and he should wear a condom to protect his partner(s) from any possible exposure to radiation from his semen. Potency and urinary continence will be preserved but will likely decline over years at a more rapid rate than a man without such issues would likely experience as general damage from radiation accumulates. There is some risk of damage to the bladder and of developing a fistula between bladder and rectum.
b: Proton Beam therapy: Much more expensive with limited centers offering this treatment at this time. In theory, this type of radiation spares nearby normal tissue, resulting in less tissue damage. It is relatively new so long term effects which might develop over years or decades (relevant as this is a young patient) are not well documented. It could be assumed that similar potential issues with developing incontinence and impotence may occur.

I am purposely not mentioning other therapies because they are used for more advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. This patient is a relatively young, healthy man with early stage prostate cancer.

He is also married. Prior to his diagnosis, he and his wife were considering having a child.

Whatever treatment option is chosen, his wife will be affected, perhaps profoundly. Short term, he will need some care regardless of treatment chosen and depending on option, she will at least temporarily need to assume any tasks that involve lifting or physical exertion. Her ability to have a child with her husband will be affected. Their sex life will be affected at least short term and perhaps long term. Potentially, permanently.

How much say should the wife get in the man's decision about treatment options?

Well I suppose I should start by saying that I don't think much of marriage as a political institution which you might find funny given the subject of the thread. That said if we assume that institution is supposed to mean something then yes, she should have an equal say in his treatment, because that's what it means to be a member of a team. You sacrifice personal autonomy to a certain degree in the pursuit of shared goals usually related to children. I know to some people here that might sound absolutely crazy but it just seems right.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

This isn't really about pro-choice/pro-life or at least not in the typical sense. I don't take issue with the concept of abortion. Nor do I take issue with its use as a form of avoiding unwanted pregnancy.

Lets alter your given scenario if you'll allow. Suppose the man was behind on his payments, but the woman then decides to make those payments for him in the interest of them both being able to stay in the house. Should the woman still have no say on what goes where? I suppose not legally if she's not on the lease/deed but lets even go past that for a moment, because this encompasses more than just law I think. Should that woman by virtue of contributing to the continued ownership of the property not have a say in the matters of its day-to-day management? Is that not just?

No. Simply helping to pay for it doesn't give any ownership rights unless those are specifically laid out as a condition of the payments. It's nice for him to give her those rights, especially if he wants the payments to continue, but if there's any disputes about the property, those disputes would always go in his favour because still really the only one with a say.

Having those conditions set up would be where the analogy falls apart, because in the case of abortion, a woman can't actually sign away her right to do what she wants with her body.

I know it doesn't currently! (Though I could make an argument for that too tbh...) Laws and social orders can be changed which is why we even bother with hypothetical topics at all. It's why we bother to ask ourselves what is right and what is not. Because we want the world to reflect our virtues as much as we can make it anyway. It's why I like to think about this sort of stuff and its why I ask you to leave the law aside for a moment and ask yourself if it is intrinsically right or not.

Very true. However, I think that giving people the option to sign away their basic human rights is the worst of all possible decisions and there is no way to apply property law over things in a person's body to a third party without doing that. It is an intrinsically wrong thing to do.

There is no aspect of your OP which would not end up making things worse than allowing women to be in charge of their own bodies would be.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Could you cite that?[1]
Because a person has a different significance than property. [2]

Further, I wouldn't call the bacteria growing in your large intestine as being explicitly a part of you, so why make that case for a fetus?

It most certainly would if somebody said the Government had a right to regulate the bacteria in my large intestine.[3]

Hey, sorry in advance if I don't get through all of this at once, there's a lot to think on and respond to.

1. How could they not be? They're commoditized easily enough (As are fetuses for that matter.) Or do they only count as property after severed from a body? In that case that changes things a lot. Broadly something becomes property as a consequence of being a commodity or asset with economic value, no? What's the point in useless property with no economic value, keepsakes aside?

That isn't a citation.

2. Definitely. Which is where I got the question from.

Clearly.

3. Yeah that's a good point actually.

You have a point?

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

Well I suppose I should start by saying that I don't think much of marriage as a political institution which you might find funny given the subject of the thread. That said if we assume that institution is supposed to mean something then yes, she should have an equal say in his treatment, because that's what it means to be a member of a team. You sacrifice personal autonomy to a certain degree in the pursuit of shared goals usually related to children. I know to some people here that might sound absolutely crazy but it just seems right.

I bolded the part where you lose me. Even in our best democracies we don't get an equal say (see: 'Hilary Clinton Wins Popular Vote').

Why should someone carrying an unequal amount of the burden get an equal position on the decision making process?

aa

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well I suppose I should start by saying that I don't think much of marriage as a political institution which you might find funny given the subject of the thread. That said if we assume that institution is supposed to mean something then yes, she should have an equal say in his treatment, because that's what it means to be a member of a team. You sacrifice personal autonomy to a certain degree in the pursuit of shared goals usually related to children. I know to some people here that might sound absolutely crazy but it just seems right.

I bolded the part where you lose me. Even in our best democracies we don't get an equal say (see: 'Hilary Clinton Wins Popular Vote').

Why should someone carrying an unequal amount of the burden get an equal position on the decision making process?

aa

The only time someone else gets a say is when guardianship is involved (children or see cases like Terri Schiavo). But I do appreciate the legalese of "member of a team" and what apparently that means, according to LordKiran.

 

[Toni]

Hey, sorry in advance if I don't get through all of this at once, there's a lot to think on and respond to.

1. How could they not be? They're commoditized easily enough (As are fetuses for that matter.) Or do they only count as property after severed from a body? In that case that changes things a lot.

2. Definitely. Which is where I got the question from.

3. Yeah that's a good point actually.

In the US and in most of the world, kidneys and other organs are NOT commoditized. One may not sell one's kidney or other organ. One may donate and donors can expect that their medical care costs will be covered by the recipient/recipient's insurance. It is not legal nor is it considered ethical to attempt to buy or sell organs.

Can you buy or sell fetal tissue?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2

Seems to suggest you can under certain rules but I could be misreading this as I am rather tired.

Donate and sell are not the same thing.

Fetal tissue is not the same thing as an organ. Blood or blood products are not the same as an organ. Sperm is not the same thing as an organ.

 

[Toni]

Well I suppose I should start by saying that I don't think much of marriage as a political institution which you might find funny given the subject of the thread. That said if we assume that institution is supposed to mean something then yes, she should have an equal say in his treatment, because that's what it means to be a member of a team. You sacrifice personal autonomy to a certain degree in the pursuit of shared goals usually related to children. I know to some people here that might sound absolutely crazy but it just seems right.

I bolded the part where you lose me. Even in our best democracies we don't get an equal say (see: 'Hilary Clinton Wins Popular Vote').

Why should someone carrying an unequal amount of the burden get an equal position on the decision making process?

aa

The only time someone else gets a say is when guardianship is involved (children or see cases like Terri Schiavo). But I do appreciate the legalese of "member of a team" and what apparently that means, according to LordKiran.

Until relatively recently, a woman seeking out a tubal ligation might be required to get her husband's permission before the procedure. At one time, a woman seeking birth control pills was required to get her husband's permission.

As far as I am aware, no man has ever been required to get his wife's permission before he was given a vasectomy. Or Viagra, for that matter.

 

[Toni]

A man is diagnosed with early stage prostate cancer at a relatively young age. Because the cancer is at the early stages, he is given the following treatment options:

1. Active surveillance/watchful waiting. He is carefully monitored throughout his life to determine if his cancer progresses enough to warrant a more aggressive treatment. Urinary continence and sexual function are preserved. He is still fertile. His cancer may progress and such progression may not be noted until it has advanced, leaving him with more grim treatment options than those mentioned in this post.

2. Surgery. There are several different options for surgery but he is relatively young and healthy and his surgeon is very well experienced with extremely good track record for definitive cure of the cancer while preserving continence and sexual function. He will still need to be monitored in case of recurrence. He will no longer be fertile. If he thinks that he might wish to procreate in the future, he should arrange to freeze sperm for such prior to the surgery. There will be some urinary incontinence and no sexual function short term--for a week or a few and he will have some restrictions on physical activities until he is well recovered from surgery--a few months. Sexual potency will almost certainly return as will urinary continence.

3.Radiation: a. Brachytherapy. Small, radioactive rods are implanted that will direct low level radiation at the prostate and kill the cancer cells. The rods will remain in place throughout the man's lifetime. Pregnancy should be avoided and he should wear a condom to protect his partner(s) from any possible exposure to radiation from his semen. Potency and urinary continence will be preserved but will likely decline over years at a more rapid rate than a man without such issues would likely experience as general damage from radiation accumulates. There is some risk of damage to the bladder and of developing a fistula between bladder and rectum.
b: Proton Beam therapy: Much more expensive with limited centers offering this treatment at this time. In theory, this type of radiation spares nearby normal tissue, resulting in less tissue damage. It is relatively new so long term effects which might develop over years or decades (relevant as this is a young patient) are not well documented. It could be assumed that similar potential issues with developing incontinence and impotence may occur.

I am purposely not mentioning other therapies because they are used for more advanced or recurrent prostate cancer. This patient is a relatively young, healthy man with early stage prostate cancer.

He is also married. Prior to his diagnosis, he and his wife were considering having a child.

Whatever treatment option is chosen, his wife will be affected, perhaps profoundly. Short term, he will need some care regardless of treatment chosen and depending on option, she will at least temporarily need to assume any tasks that involve lifting or physical exertion. Her ability to have a child with her husband will be affected. Their sex life will be affected at least short term and perhaps long term. Potentially, permanently.

How much say should the wife get in the man's decision about treatment options?

Well I suppose I should start by saying that I don't think much of marriage as a political institution which you might find funny given the subject of the thread. That said if we assume that institution is supposed to mean something then yes, she should have an equal say in his treatment, because that's what it means to be a member of a team. You sacrifice personal autonomy to a certain degree in the pursuit of shared goals usually related to children. I know to some people here that might sound absolutely crazy but it just seems right.

How you feel about marriage is irrelevant to this discussion.

Both husband and wife will face consequences depending on treatment chosen and outcomes (short and long term). It is obvious that the man will face the most serious consequences of any decision made. The wife will not die because of metastasized prostate cancer nor will it make her incontinent or impotent. She will not even have a scar from surgery, nor will she personally experience a prolonged recovery from a surgery.

 

[prideandfall]

gonna give my take on this because it's a somewhat different approach, and one that i suspect will be unpopular and if certain people on this forum were to read it might make their heads explode (which could be amusing)

For my part, I am wondering if men should infact have rights to impact the decision to abort with a few additional stipulations:

the short answer is no, because it's not their body. the end.
the long answer is no, because it's not their body. the end.

that's really all it comes down to - it's not your body, so it's not your choice.
this whole cultural thing where men have this idea that they control the destiny of their progeny and this notion of "lineage" and some sense of ownership over the very idea of their spawn is a relic of a time when women were baby-making factories and nothing else, when men owned literally everything that existed, and when vague notions held in the heads of powerful people were treated as objective reality.

this is one of those situations where... well, reality isn't equitable.
if you're a guy and you have any feelings one way or the other about the state of the thing growing inside of another person... tough shit, you don't get a say in the matter.
biology just trumps everything else here and that's simply the bottom line of the argument.
it may not be fair, but oh well that's just how it is on this subject.

 

[southernhybrid]

What good is it to allow the two parties to have equal say? What if they don't agree? Who gets to break the tie? Sure partnered people in good relationships should and usually do discuss such issues, but if they don't agree, shouldn't the one who actually lives in the body that will be impacted, be the one that makes the ultimate decision? Sure, one partner might influence the other one's decision, but that doesn't give that partner the right to force the other to do something against his or her will.

 

[Playball40]

If you give me some land to build a house, the subsequent property while under construction does not become yours especially while I have the leasehold. To put it simpler. You leave your property in my establishment and I have the right to evict or gain a writ of possession.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What good is it to allow the two parties to have equal say?

It allows the male to have control. Isn't that what this is about after all? I mean, why else bring it up?

What if they don't agree? Who gets to break the tie?

Penis always beats Vagina is Penis-Vagina.

Sure partnered people in good relationships should and usually do discuss such issues, but if they don't agree, shouldn't the one who actually lives in the body that will be impacted, be the one that makes the ultimate decision? Sure, one partner might influence the other one's decision, but that doesn't give that partner the right to force the other to do something against his or her will.

I ponder if even that is reasonable. My wife, her life, I'll support the decision. Mature relationships should already know, but in the end, you really can only best address these issues in the here and now. I can provide guidance is needed, but pregnancy, child birth... all I can say is I support your choice.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

For my part, I am wondering if men should infact have rights to impact the decision to abort with a few additional stipulations:

The fundamental problem here is that there are only two people involved, a partition isn't possible and there's no doubt the burden is greater on the woman. Thus giving him a say is quite problematic in practice.

A) The would-be father/mother can directly prove his lineage

Big problem--DNA testing carries risks and can't be done until soon before the abortion window closes anyway.

Something I feel often gets lost in these discussions is that babies are the result of a union, and both parties often have an interest in the fruits of their joint labors and that the state's refusal to recognize that shared interest is from a reasonable perspective, unjust. kind of a raw deal to ask one partner to contribute his/her labor to the development in a property he/she has no legal say in the destiny of. How does this person then go about recouping their losses if they put time and money into a terminated property?

How often does this scenario even arise?

Now, something I would consider if they disagree: Either party may declare their lack of desire for the fetus. Doing so terminates all rights and responsibilities but comes at a cost:

For the man: He must provide half the all-in cost of an abortion 1 week from the point of the notice, perhaps with a minimum amount of the actual cost of an abortion. This must be provided in certified funds at the time of the notice. She is not obligated to have an abortion, however--if she does not she is considered the only parent.

For the woman: She is not allowed an abortion for non-medical reasons. She gets her medical bills through delivery covered. He is considered the only parent. (In effect, she becomes a surrogate.)

 

[ronburgundy]

Hey, sorry in advance if I don't get through all of this at once, there's a lot to think on and respond to.

1. How could they not be? They're commoditized easily enough (As are fetuses for that matter.) Or do they only count as property after severed from a body? In that case that changes things a lot.

2. Definitely. Which is where I got the question from.

3. Yeah that's a good point actually.

In the US and in most of the world, kidneys and other organs are NOT commoditized. One may not sell one's kidney or other organ. One may donate and donors can expect that their medical care costs will be covered by the recipient/recipient's insurance. It is not legal nor is it considered ethical to attempt to buy or sell organs.

Can you buy or sell fetal tissue?

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/289g-2

Seems to suggest you can under certain rules but I could be misreading this as I am rather tired.

Only after it is separated from the woman's body. If you could sign a contract to pay a billion dollars for a woman's fetal tissue and cut her the check. But it would be meaningless and unenforceable until after that fetal tissue was separated from the woman by her will and consent alone. IF she changes her mind is decides to keep that tissue in her body you would have zero legal grounds to do anything but get your money back for fraud. Contrast that with actually "property" where you could force a person give you physical possession of something you already paid for and they had contractually agreed to give you.