I'm a libertarian for bodily autonomy. Women have to carry and give birth to the baby. But that also means men have no say until the child is born. So there is an issue, no matter which side you fall on. What could be the solutions?
Voted D - neither A nor B as the rights and needs of the child are paramount. Adding to this then that the woman is obliged to carry the life she made - absent a threat to her life - and the man is similarly obliged to care for the little life that he helped to make. Both bearing the consequences of their actions and giving protection to the child who is here not by choice and who needs the care and consideration of the adults who made that baby.
First, the fetus is human. It cannot be anything other than human. It will not grow up, unless it is terminated by artificial means or natural accident, to be a cow or a chair. A thing can only ever be whatever it is at whatever moment in time its' development. Its' underlying reality and nature remain constant - and because human it is then entitled to the moral consideration and rights that inhere in all human beings.
Indeed, appropriate to the current cultural tumults, the arguments justifying slavery in the pre-Civil War era were either demonstrably false - Africans were not human but were a sub-species - or logically problematic - rights inhere in humans in varying degrees and are not universal and constant.
This then the problem with the argument that fetus do not have rights. Either the fetus is not human - which then begs the question of at what point it becomes human. Moreover, what are the moral and scientific differences in the fetus one second before it becomes human and one second after that moment.
Alternatively, if rights only inhere in the human person at a certain point in time, then who decides the moral criteria for what that point is and what factors determine it? This leading then to an ethic of power as rights will be granted by those who have the power to grant them and it thereby inherently becomes a subjective standard.
Thus effectively rendering the idea of rights null and void. Rights are what the powerful say they are and are granted when the powerful, that is those with the power to make that decision for others including the fetus him or her self, decide they will be conferred.
This then being the flaw in the question posted here. It is not about rights, but rather duty and obligations.
The British statesman and political philosopher Edmund Burke wrote, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." Therein lay the problem with laws that permit abortion on demand.
A society that premises its law as "Choice"- to use the locution of abortion rights advocates - effectively leaves open the question of the value of human life. It becomes not a standing principle, but a subjective judgment to each individual. In such a society, human life becomes not an end in itself, but mere instrument. Life becomes not an object whose preservation is the highest standard, but rather a convenience to be maintained or not according to the satisfaction of another's will.
Bottom line, the society has placed its' emphasis on freedom - an argument about the rights of the woman or the man - and has defined it as an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Thus anything defined as freedom is not logically limited and life becomes, itself, a means to an end and not inherently worthy of "moral consideration" in its' own right. Suffice to say, bad things tend to follow from such reasoning.
In order to impose a financial burden on men, one would need to prove that a man was in fact the father of the child, which is something that cannot be done until the child is born.
A man trying to recover money from a woman who had been mistaken or who had lied about paternity, yet who had extracted money from him prior to the birth of a child, would more than likely recover nothing. I say this because even the few men who are entitled to child support never get it, and even though they have the majority of custody or full custody, they are often required to pay women "child support" despite that. Very few men actuallycollect child support from women.
Exactly. I wonder how good that test is and if the results can be used in court. Knowing how courts are biased toward women, I would bet that the results can be used even if they are psychometrically invalid or unreliable.
in my country unwed pregnant women get on welfare the day they find out they are pregnant anyways. if the father can't support the child everyone else has to. the husband then goes to jail for failure of being a monetary father.
Girl's Behavior 
Guy's Behavior 
Flirting 
Dating 
Relationships 
Fashion & Beauty 
Health & Fitness 
Marriage & Weddings 
Shopping & Gifts 
Technology & Internet 
Break Up & Divorce 
Education & Career 
Entertainment & Arts 
Family & Friends 
Food & Beverage 
Hobbies & Leisure 
Other 
Religion & Spirituality 
Society & Politics 
Sports 
Travel 
Trending & News 
