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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

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

They should be considered corporations.

 

[ronburgundy]

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.)

The last part would pose a serious threat to the principle of bodily sovereignty that is the foundation of all rights and secular ethics. No person have any legal rights to determine what another person does with their body or whether or not they have any type of medical procedure, unless the person is psychologically incapable of conveying their own will at the time. There should be no legal contract that allows a person to forfeit that right to exert their own will over their own body at any time. Current surrogacy contract law is potentially problematic. Some of it does seem to give dna donors rights to dictate whether or not a surrogate can get an abortion.
However, I suspect that even there the surrogate cannot actually be forced to have or not have an abortion, but rather they merely can be sued for the costs incurred by the other party.

A father relinquishing any rights in exchange for a lack of financial responsibility is less problematic because it does not relate to the issue of bodily sovereignty.

 

[RVonse]

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.

What if she has no financial means?

 

[RVonse]

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.)

The last part would pose a serious threat to the principle of bodily sovereignty that is the foundation of all rights and secular ethics. No person have any legal rights to determine what another person does with their body or whether or not they have any type of medical procedure, unless the person is psychologically incapable of conveying their own will at the time. There should be no legal contract that allows a person to forfeit that right to exert their own will over their own body at any time. Current surrogacy contract law is potentially problematic. Some of it does seem to give dna donors rights to dictate whether or not a surrogate can get an abortion.
However, I suspect that even there the surrogate cannot actually be forced to have or not have an abortion, but rather they merely can be sued for the costs incurred by the other party.

A father relinquishing any rights in exchange for a lack of financial responsibility is less problematic because it does not relate to the issue of bodily sovereignty.

Your bodily sovereignty claim is only important to you and not anyone else. As a matter of fact, I actually agree with your view but no one else in society does. Because if they did, ALL abortions would be allowed and they clearly are not. If it were left up to me, the government would be completely staying out of abortions neither paying for them or making them against the law.

That being said, the OP points out your opinion is still as good as anyone's else since we are not supposed to consider what is the current law.

 

[ruby sparks]

I'm generally in favour of the woman being allowed, in the final analysis, to decide.

The only thing that snags me up is this:

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Few feminists, including Brake, would grant men the right to coerce a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, because they recognize a woman’s right to control her own body. However, if a woman decides to give birth to a child without securing the biological father’s consent to raise a child with her, some scholars and policy makers question whether he should be assigned legal paternity."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yeah, that is a bullshit argument. The guy has the choice not to do a damn thing than pay financial support. Anyone who has a kid knows that being a parent, especially of a newborn, is a lot more about money.

Want to put a value to the time a newborn, baby, toddler, etc... requires? He’s getting a bargain!

 

[RVonse]

I'm generally in favour of the woman being allowed, in the final analysis, to decide.

The only thing that snags me up is this:

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Few feminists, including Brake, would grant men the right to coerce a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, because they recognize a woman’s right to control her own body. However, if a woman decides to give birth to a child without securing the biological father’s consent to raise a child with her, some scholars and policy makers question whether he should be assigned legal paternity."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/

The only right and just solution is to not force the child support. But in order to do that the welfare state must be abandoned. Meaning if the woman has no financial means she will be left on the streets.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.



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.)

Are you fucking serious, a woman becoming a surrogate by force?!

Leave it to a male to think the consequences of pregnancy and birth start and end at the pocket book.

 

[bilby]

I'm generally in favour of the woman being allowed, in the final analysis, to decide.

The only thing that snags me up is this:

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Few feminists, including Brake, would grant men the right to coerce a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, because they recognize a woman’s right to control her own body. However, if a woman decides to give birth to a child without securing the biological father’s consent to raise a child with her, some scholars and policy makers question whether he should be assigned legal paternity."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/

The only right and just solution is to not force the child support. But in order to do that the welfare state must be abandoned. Meaning if the woman has no financial means she will be left on the streets.

Wha??

Forcing the biological father to pay support is an ALTERNATIVE TO the "welfare state" - to all intents and purposes, forcing fathers to pay to support their children is abandoning the "welfare state". If you don't force child support, then the state must pick up the tab. Because otherwise, if the woman has no financial means she will be left on the streets.

The "welfare state" not only need not be abandoned if fathers are not required to pay support; It must be strengthened.

Somebody has to pay. If the father needn't, and the mother can't, then the only 'someone' left is the public at large, as represented by the government.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

I'm generally in favour of the woman being allowed, in the final analysis, to decide.

The only thing that snags me up is this:

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Few feminists, including Brake, would grant men the right to coerce a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, because they recognize a woman’s right to control her own body. However, if a woman decides to give birth to a child without securing the biological father’s consent to raise a child with her, some scholars and policy makers question whether he should be assigned legal paternity."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/

I don't think this is the only snag, but it may be to some extreme people. Imagine two persons. They agree at a timepoint to conceive and have children. One gets pregnant then aborts. The partner loses, time, energy and shared material investment.

 

[RVonse]

Somebody has to pay. If the father needn't, and the mother can't, then the only 'someone' left is the public at large, as represented by the government.

And that's exactly why Loren's idea won't work. The government will not be paying in that circumstance. Or there will be never ending families without fathers on welfare.

But what they do today going after deadbeat dads who never wanted to be dads is even worse.

 

[bilby]

Somebody has to pay. If the father needn't, and the mother can't, then the only 'someone' left is the public at large, as represented by the government.

And that's exactly why Loren's idea won't work. The government will not be paying in that circumstance. Or there will be never ending families without fathers on welfare.

But what they do today going after deadbeat dads who never wanted to be dads is even worse.

Except that in Europe, it is routine for the government to pay; and they don't have never ending families without fathers on welfare.

When will Americans learn that theoretical possibilities do NOT need to be considered when actual real world evidence is available? You don't need to try to work out what MIGHT happen; You can look at places where it is already done that way, and see what DOES happen.

 

[RVonse]

That makes sense to me bilby. Maybe more others can be convinced as well.

 

[Patooka]

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

I honestly cannot think of a scenario where the man's opinion should be taken into account if it is against the woman's wishes. Every scenario I can think of where a pregnant woman would say "He will not have a say in what happens next" involves a situation where the man would disqualify himself in any event. And if a couple are not on the same page about pregnancy and children, it's probably not the best of ideas to insert a child into such an environment.

To be honest, a scenario where a man should decide against a woman's wishes for a pregnancy to continue I consider to be as likely as a dingo attack at a primary school. Possible but so rare that they should be resolved on a case by case basis.

 

[ruby sparks]

Somebody has to pay. If the father needn't, and the mother can't, then the only 'someone' left is the public at large, as represented by the government.

And that's exactly why Loren's idea won't work. The government will not be paying in that circumstance. Or there will be never ending families without fathers on welfare.

But what they do today going after deadbeat dads who never wanted to be dads is even worse.

Except that in Europe, it is routine for the government to pay; and they don't have never ending families without fathers on welfare.

When will Americans learn that theoretical possibilities do NOT need to be considered when actual real world evidence is available? You don't need to try to work out what MIGHT happen; You can look at places where it is already done that way, and see what DOES happen.

As far as I'm aware, the situation here in the UK is that the government seeks to force biological fathers to pay. The state can step in with welfare payments to the mother (if she applies for them and can demonstrate need). I do not know if the process of going after fathers garners more money than it costs to operate and administer the process, but I do believe it is costly. I think it's fair to say that the overall operating principle in these things is the welfare of the child, and I think this is one reason that the law tries to enforce support from biological dads.

The way I see it, both the philosopher writer of that NY Times article and the philosopher she cites (both female and both feminist as it happens) are correct, imo, in principle, that there is unfairness against fathers, in this specific aspect of the general issue. The trouble is that in practice it gets very muddy and messy. It may even be that going after fathers is, at the end of the day, the most effective and pragmatic approach, for a variety of reasons. That said, it would be good if at least the principle of the issue was recognised and at least something, some slight adjustment to the mechanism, was done to address those cases which might be especially unfair on a father (which imo seem likely to only be a very small minority of all cases) who either expressed his desire, at an early stage in the pregnancy, not to raise a child, or wasn't given a chance to do that (by for example not being told about the pregnancy). Even doing that could be seen as controversial. In truth, I don't know exactly what could be done to address the 'in principle' unfairness to fathers.

But if one of my young girlfriends back in the young-free-and-single day had fallen pregnant, I know I wouldn't necessarily have wanted to become a father at that time, and if my girlfriend at the time had said she wanted to have the child, I would have felt it was fair, in principle, to ask her to leave me out of it (allowing that I should contribute to any costs during the pregnancy and might freely volunteer assistance thereafter if I chose to). Luckily for me, this never happened and I do not know anyone to whom it happened, so I'm unfamiliar with any realworld cases.

Trying to wear my gender egalitarian hat, I would have to admit that despite the unfairness in principle, in practice it might be overall (ie in general) utilitarian to seek payments from fathers. Perhaps there could be some mitigating adjustments brought in to cover specific cases, but I am not sure what they might be or how well they might work.

 

[LordKiran]

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

aa

I guess I don't really have an answer when you put it that way. The idea this was coming from was that if you can't include people affected by a decision in the process of reaching an answer then why even bother? You might as well just use people if you can't be considerate of what they want or need. From this view I didn't consider it as a form of tyranny but as a way of reinforcing one person's position within their family.

In retrospect that probably wouldn't work out the way I pictured it if it actually were put into law.

 

[LordKiran]

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.

You know I actually gave this some thought but couldn't find a particularly good answer. I flitted between ideas of an agreed upon tie-breaker or having the doctor break the tie but I don't like any of those and don't think anyone else will either.

 

[Toni]

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.

You know I actually gave this some thought but couldn't find a particularly good answer. I flitted between ideas of an agreed upon tie-breaker or having the doctor break the tie but I don't like any of those and don't think anyone else will either.

Ultimately, only the pregnant woman's health and body will be affected by whether a pregnancy occurs, continues until birth or is terminated. Disproportionately, women face negative impacts on education, career, economic well being and sometimes also negative social consequences.

For this reason alone, ultimately, the decision about whether to carry a pregnancy to term or terminate should reside with the pregnant woman.

 

[Alcoholic Actuary]

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

aa

I guess I don't really have an answer when you put it that way. The idea this was coming from was that if you can't include people affected by a decision in the process of reaching an answer then why even bother?

I don't think it's that binary in most relationships - either equal or none. Most people making a decision like this will invite input particularly from those affected by the ultimate decision. That you might be impacted doesn't make you an equal trading partner.

But you are right, there is no great way to codify the process into law.

aa

 

[Jayjay]

I'm generally in favour of the woman being allowed, in the final analysis, to decide.

The only thing that snags me up is this:

"If a man accidentally conceives a child with a woman, and does not want to raise the child with her, what are his choices? Surprisingly, he has few options in the United States. He can urge her to seek an abortion, but ultimately that decision is hers to make. Should she decide to continue the pregnancy and raise the child, and should she or our government attempt to establish him as the legal father, he can be stuck with years of child support payments.

Few feminists, including Brake, would grant men the right to coerce a woman to have (or not to have) an abortion, because they recognize a woman’s right to control her own body. However, if a woman decides to give birth to a child without securing the biological father’s consent to raise a child with her, some scholars and policy makers question whether he should be assigned legal paternity."

https://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/06/12/is-forced-fatherhood-fair/

I don't think this is the only snag, but it may be to some extreme people. Imagine two persons. They agree at a timepoint to conceive and have children. One gets pregnant then aborts. The partner loses, time, energy and shared material investment.

I don't see that as a problem, any more than many other such "investments" in relationships that don't pan out. If a couple dates for 12 months, and the one of the partners decides to break up, the other partner clearly has lost "time, energy and material investment" in that relationship. But generally we don't think this is a reason to force the couple to stay together. Same applies to having children,applying for jobs or other positions, and a multitude of other mundane social interactions each of us has countless times in our lifetimes.

If a couple makes a contractual agreement to have a child, then that would be a different matter. The man should have reparations if he has made an explicit legal agreement to provide financial support during the pregnancy, in exchange for the woman not aborting it. And that's just for voluntary abortions. A contract that would demand that the woman not abort even if her life was in danger would probably be illegal.