Subject:
|
Re: Abortion, consistent with the LP stance? (Re: From Harry Browne
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 11 Nov 2000 21:05:39 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
943 times
|
| |
|
|
Please note in the following discussion that my own feelings on when if
ever abortion is appropriate are very undecided. The following is a
thought exercise. Don't assume that just because I make a statement
below that it equates to how I really feel. That being said, I will say
that I am generally in favor of the availability of abortion.
Christopher Weeks wrote:
>
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Frank Filz writes:
>
> > In the case of abortion, it is equally important to examine everyone's
> > rights (including the father's).
>
> Agreed, but what are they? There is a clear incongruity in the US, in that the
> father has _no_ say in whether the child is aborted -- it all rests with the
> mother, and yet the father is financially burdened with no recourse.
It would certainly seem that at any stage in which the woman would be
allowed to chose abortion to avoid the future responsibility of caring
for the child, that the father ought to have some comparable right of
being able to say "I'm not going to support this child." Now there's a
pretty radical statement... Thinking about the implications of that
suggest that possibly the decision to abort should be a join decision to
the extent that the pregnancy does not significantly affect the mother's
health. Or perhaps it really does suggest that while the father has a
role in providing the genetic material and the catalyst for conception,
that the father is not in fact obligated to support the child.
Another situation in which the father would seem to have some applicable
rights is his interest in the health of the mother.
> > There are certainly circumstances where
> > the continuance of a pregnancy will most likely result in neither the
> > baby nor the mother surviving. In this case, the mother most probably
> > has the strongest right to chose the action which gives her the most
> > chance of survival (but she also has the right to chose to hope that the
> > outcome will be different and possibly sacrifice her life).
>
> What about an instance where one but not both will probably survive, and the
> physicians can act differently depending on which one they want to survive?
> Who's right are to be protected? Why?
Obviously this is a tough case. Probably, in general, the rights of the
mother are dominant. One reason I would lean in this direction is that
in general, the baby is dependent on the mother for survival. Now, at
the point in which the baby could be removed from the mother's womb and
have it's life continue is probably a point at which killing the baby is
not an available option (though if the baby were to die in the
operation, and there was no negligence on the part of the doctor, oh
well).
> In other
> > circumstances, it will be clear that the mother was fully consenting and
> > informed before conception, and that the baby will do just fine when
> > born, and then the mother's rights are most probably pretty limited (and
> > in fact, most probably has an obligation of support to the child).
>
> Note that adoption is a possible (societally condoned) out.
Right, but the mother (and father? see above) is ultimately responsible
for the child until it is adopted.
> > On the other hand, there are very muddy circumstances. What if the
> > conception occured as a result of rape?
>
> I have yet to be convinced that this matters. I'm not set on a stance wrt
> abortion's legality, but I don't think I buy that progeny via rape is an out
> for whatever responsibilities we settle on for the pregnant mother.
I'd also say I'm not absolutely convinced it matters either. It does
seem that especially if the mother doesn't have the option of an
abortion (even if the only option is a "morning after" pill), that the
mother can not be forced into having responsibility to bring up the
child, but then who does (assuming we can't pin sufficient
responsibility on the perpetrator)?
A less charged way of examining that might be to construct a similar
case where a child's life is not involved. If a drunk driver sideswipes
me on the highway, and my car crashes into your house doing a million
dollars of damage while the drunk driver hits a tree on the other side
of the road and is killed. Who pays the $900,000 damage that the drunk
driver's liability policy doesn't cover? Is it fair to stick me with it?
Is it fair to stick you with it? It certainly isn't fair to stick the
taxpayer with it. It might be fair to stick the drunk driver's insurance
company with it. The practicality under current law I think would
generally be that your insurance company would eat it, which probably is
fair. Depending on the situation, your insurance company might sue me.
Back to the child of a rape: A morning after pill sure sounds like a
good solution if we can accept it. Another good solution is for
"society" to make sure the child gets adopted (note I'm not advocating
the government take the responsibility, but that there are enough
charities or parents wanting to adopt to absorb babies conceived by
rape). Another good solution is for the mother to be able to separate
the "pain" of the rape from the incidence of the baby, and accept the
baby fully as her own.
Of course we also need to weigh the circumstances of the rape against
the action taken. If the rape was just the fact that the mother either
changed her mind after having sex with the guy, or horribly
mis-communicated with the guy, then the guy may have some rights here
(to the extent that fathers have rights with respect to the potential
child).
> > What if it occured just because the mother was uninformed?
>
> For me, same as above.
>
> > What if there is a medical prediction that
> > the baby could be born alive, but has some condition which will cause it
> > to live at most a few weeks,
>
> For sure? My vote (though it's practicality, not rights-based) is to flush it.
>
> > and by the way, will cost an astronomical
> > amount of money to protect the mother and keep the child alive for those
> > few weeks?
>
> And that's an issue even further of practicality. I'm not sure it's fair to
> bring that into the equation.
I think it does have bearing. Often, one must compare the magnitude of
conflicting rights (and if all rights are property rights, ultimately,
they ought to be express able in dollars).
One way it has bearing is that clearly, if the cost to keep the baby
alive for those few weeks will far exceed the available resources of the
mother, then to ask that we even start spending the money to keep it
alive would seem to be demanding that "society" pay for it. Clearly the
baby's right to survive for those few weeks does not exceed some third
party's right to it's own property (i.e. we can't use tax dollars to pay
for the baby's care).
Now, if some charity want's to pay for the care of the baby, we need to
re-examine the rights question. I'm not convinced in such a situation
that the charity should be able to force the mother to proceed with the
pregnancy.
This of course brings up the related debate: When is it appropriate to
exert control on the behavior of the mother, and to what extent?
Frank
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
279 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
