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

[LordKiran]

So with cards thrown on the table I want to just get right into this and I'll start with the train of thought that lead me to arrive to this question. Also I'd like to add that we're solely discussing fetuses which may be legally terminated while also including the usual caveats (sperm bank babies/Rapists/pregnancies which threaten the mother's health are exempt from this discussion)

It is a commonly held conclusion that fetuses are not people. It is believed further that because they are not people, that there are few (If any moral implications) toward terminating them that wouldn't also apply to the animals we own. Well lately I've come to a rather troubling conclusion: if they're not people that makes them property. They can't be neither. Your organs may be part of the person or person's property depending on your viewpoint but they cannot be neither.

Now if we accept that fetuses are in fact property then what implications does that have for the current state of affairs regarding the issue of abortion and parental rights at that stage of development?

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

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

B) The would-be father/mother has directly subsidized the fetuses' development (Supporting the expecting mother financially usually)

C) The pregnancy isn't terminated sufficiently early enough after conception. (What is "Sufficiently early?") I include this one because I personally feel it would be ridiculous to ensue in legal battles over a few dividing cells that can be easily replicated and that neither party has a tangible vested interest in.

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?

Dunno, just some late night musings that might even alter some perspectives!

 

[Tigers!]

So with cards thrown on the table I want to just get right into this and I'll start with the train of thought that lead me to arrive to this question. Also I'd like to add that we're solely discussing fetuses which may be legally terminated while also including the usual caveats (sperm bank babies/Rapists/pregnancies which threaten the mother's health are exempt from this discussion)

It is a commonly held conclusion (by some people) that fetuses are not people. It is believed further that because if they are not people, that there are few (If any moral implications) toward terminating them that wouldn't also apply to the animals we own. Well lately I've come to a rather troubling conclusion: if they're not people that makes them then they are not property.

FIFY

 

[LordKiran]

So with cards thrown on the table I want to just get right into this and I'll start with the train of thought that lead me to arrive to this question. Also I'd like to add that we're solely discussing fetuses which may be legally terminated while also including the usual caveats (sperm bank babies/Rapists/pregnancies which threaten the mother's health are exempt from this discussion)

It is a commonly held conclusion (by some people) that fetuses are not people. It is believed further that because if they are not people, that there are few (If any moral implications) toward terminating them that wouldn't also apply to the animals we own. Well lately I've come to a rather troubling conclusion: if they're not people that makes them then they are not property.

FIFY

neat

 

[Tigers!]

If you are saying that the father must be considered/consulting before an abortion takes place then I agree with you.

 

[LordKiran]

If you are saying that the father must be considered/consulting before an abortion takes place then I agree with you.

Meh. I try to come from a place of consideration rather than outright assertion these days when I post topics. Makes people more willing to consider them and it makes me more fluid and able to accept counter-positions. I didn't post this like I'm Martin Luther nailing his paper to the church door. I posted it because I have questions and hope to divine answers through discussion.

if unborn fetuses aren't people then what are they? Property? If so then what are the implications to that? If not then are there any other material organisms in the legal realm regarded as neither person nor property?

 

[Toni]

No.

 

[LordKiran]

No.

Care to elaborate?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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"?

 

[Toni]

No.

Care to elaborate?

Not willing to bang my head against a brick wall, so: no.

 

[LordKiran]

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?

 

[LordKiran]

No.

Care to elaborate?

Not willing to bang my head against a brick wall, so: no.

Toni do I really strike you as someone who will argue past the point of being proven wrong? Maybe sometimes, i'm not perfect but would you really consider that a defining characteristic of mine?

 

[Tom Sawyer]

No.

Care to elaborate?

Not willing to bang my head against a brick wall, so: no.

I'm willing to.

The issue on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate isn't the fetus, it's the woman. It's her body, so she gets the say about what does or does not happen with it. That makes the status of the fetus a secondary concern.

If you want to use the property analogy, fine. A man and a woman buy a chair together and put that chair into the man's apartment. He then no longer wants the chair in his apartment. At this point, the chair is removed from the apartment, regardless of whether the woman does or does not want it kept in the apartment. The fact that the woman is a co-owner of the chair doesn't provide her rights over the apartment the chair is located in. If there's some aspect of the nature of the chair which causes it to be destroyed if it's removed from the apartment before a certain date then the chair gets destroyed at that point, because the chair isn't the issue, the issue is a man's right to decide what furniture is or is not in his apartment.

 

[LordKiran]

Not willing to bang my head against a brick wall, so: no.

I'm willing to.

The issue on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate isn't the fetus, it's the woman. It's her body, so she gets the say about what does or does not happen with it. That makes the status of the fetus a secondary concern.

If you want to use the property analogy, fine. A man and a woman buy a chair together and put that chair into the man's apartment. He then no longer wants the chair in his apartment. At this point, the chair is removed from the apartment, regardless of whether the woman does or does not want it kept in the apartment. The fact that the woman is a co-owner of the chair doesn't provide her rights over the apartment the chair is located in. If there's some aspect of the nature of the chair which causes it to be destroyed if it's removed from the apartment before a certain date then the chair gets destroyed at that point, because the chair isn't the issue, the issue is a man's right to decide what furniture is or is not in his apartment.

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?

 

[Toni]

Not willing to bang my head against a brick wall, so: no.

Toni do I really strike you as someone who will argue past the point of being proven wrong? Maybe sometimes, i'm not perfect but would you really consider that a defining characteristic of mine?

I’m not willing to engage with someone who would consider a fetus to be property. In all honesty, I should have simply ignored the thread.

 

[Tom Sawyer]

Not willing to bang my head against a brick wall, so: no.

I'm willing to.

The issue on the pro-choice side of the abortion debate isn't the fetus, it's the woman. It's her body, so she gets the say about what does or does not happen with it. That makes the status of the fetus a secondary concern.

If you want to use the property analogy, fine. A man and a woman buy a chair together and put that chair into the man's apartment. He then no longer wants the chair in his apartment. At this point, the chair is removed from the apartment, regardless of whether the woman does or does not want it kept in the apartment. The fact that the woman is a co-owner of the chair doesn't provide her rights over the apartment the chair is located in. If there's some aspect of the nature of the chair which causes it to be destroyed if it's removed from the apartment before a certain date then the chair gets destroyed at that point, because the chair isn't the issue, the issue is a man's right to decide what furniture is or is not in his apartment.

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.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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.

Could you cite that?

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.

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.

 

[Keith&Co.]

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

Not unless/until the technology is available to transfer the fetus to either the partner's belly or an artificial uterus.

As it is, medical procedures are decided by the patient and the surgeon, except in those situations where a parent or guardian is given medical proxy. Then, it's not about the procedure or the status of the organ being operated on (or parasite, or tumor, or whatever), it's about the legal right to make decisions for that person's body.

If a person has or is given the right to block an abortion performed upon a woman, would that also mean they can block a hysterectomy because he still wants kids? Can a woman block a man's vasectomy if they have, or think they have, a legal right to the issue? Can a man who's just turned Jehovah's Witness challenge a blood transfusion, or surgery requiring blood, for his still-sane wife?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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?

Let's not alter the scenario. Let's look at the problem at hand, not create stupid and ridiculous parallels and analogies that don't address the actual issue of women having to endure pregnancy, birth, and the consequences of both for the rest of their life because some third party player thinks it is necessary.

 

[ronburgundy]

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?

Bad analogy, the bacteria in your large intestine are absolutely "part of you" and a part of you that you would die without. They are a more vital, neccessary aspect of a person than their arms and legs.

Something more akin to a fetus would be an appendix which serves no vital function for the person and can be removed with no effect to them beyond the effects/risks of the medical procedure itself.

But even then, the appendix is not "property" because it is inside a person's body. The most essential right of modern morality and our legal system is the right of each person to have 100% control over their own body, which includes everything contained within it. While in some loose sense, this means people are the sole "owners" of all aspects of their body, the concept of "property" does not fully apply.
Anything physically contained within a body is by any reasonable definition, part of that body so long as it is within it. If part of the body, then it is part of the person in a real physical and legal sense. Property is something legally possessed by a person, implying that the object is not part of the person. Regardless, the essential right of bodily control means no part of a person's body can be subject to anyone else's contr. No one can even willingly give up this right of control. You can allow someone to do something to you, but your continued will of allowing it keeps 100% of control with you alone. There is no enforceable contract anyone can sign that can away that right for a person to change their mind at any moment for any reason to stop allowing it. Even if organ sales were not illegal, I could sell you one of my kidneys, sign a contract saying I would, then change my mind at the last second and there is nothing you could legally do to force me to go through with it.
The only exception is control of movement when one is being detained for investigation or punishment of a criminal action.

When you kiss someone, they leave saliva and part of their dna inside you. Should they temporarily own part of your mouth, blood stream and digestive system so long as that part of you is inside them? Of course not. Once something is separated from one person and inside another person, sole rights of control belong to person whose body those things are not physically a part of.

 

[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?