Perhaps someone can help me to understand something. I'm not going to say if I am pro-life or pro-choice, because that will bring an irrelevancy to what it is I am asking about.
A fertilized egg is genetically half the father's, half the mother's. I don't think there is any dispute there. Why, then, is it legal for a woman to abort her child without the father's consent, but it is illegal for the father to abort his child without the mother's consent? I raise this question in light of the situation surrounding Manishkumar M. Patel, who is charged with first-degree murder of an unborn child after slipping his girlfriend RU-486. We will leave aside for the moment the other things he is otherwise charged with: "second-degree recklessly endangering safety, placing foreign objects in edibles, possession with intent to deliver prescriptions, stalking, burglary, possession of burglary tools, and two counts of violating a restraining order," the first three of which are clearly associated with the incidents in question. My question is: if it is not murder for a women to abort her child, why is it murder for a man to abort his? This seems like a double standard. If you are going to use the argument that for a women it is an issue of it being her body, then he still should not be charged with murder, as all the rest of the charges deal with that issue.
So my question is: why should it be either legal or, to go further, okay, for a woman to abort her child, even if the man doesn't want her to do so, but it is not legal (or okay) for the man to abort the child even if she wants to keep it?
I don't care about the details about this creep, who was apparently married to someone else, to boot. My question is not specific to him. I am only interested in the principle.
8 comments:
I can't wait for someone to come up with a very logical, coherent argument regarding abortion. Until then, I'll stick with federalism.
this question, and all the other abortion related issues, rest on how we define the existence of an unborn child. is it a cognitive human being? i think it is, or at least has the potential to be one. but, a more important question is, it a separate entity from the mother? and, to this i'm not sure that it is. (i don't know enough about pre-natal development to say for sure.) and so, to the question of whether or not an unborn child is a separate entity from the father, i'm more sure that those are two separate human beings. and so, the father doesn't have a right to decide on the existence of an unborn child, which is, i think, still an integrated part of the mother's existence.
The egg, blastocyst, fetus, infant is a genetically distinct entity. It is at the interface known as the umbilical cord that there is any question of distinction between mother and child. Even the sack the baby is in is genetically identical to the baby.
This post was almost verbatim the points Roe Conn of WLS radio, Chicago, said on his Friday(11/30) program. I know similar questions have been circulating, but his exact words were so similar to yours. I'm wondering if he stole your post. Or is he you?
It is that umbilical cord that nourishes the baby via the mother until it can survive on its own outside the womb. Therefore, until that time of development, the mother should be able to control the fate of anything growing within her body including fetus, tumor, cyst, etc., as they are extensions of her body and which she should have all rights.
As science progresses, the point of time when the fetus can survive on its own will shorten. Currently I believe this is about 21 weeks.
In a libertarian world, the father does not have a right to abort the baby as it interferes with the rights of the woman's body. It would be similar to the government forcing a patient to have medical treatments she doesn't want to undergo.
No, Catcher, I'm not him. ANd I have no idea if he took my ideas -- though it would be nice if he did.
Prairie -- tumors and cysts are genetically identical to the woman. I have heard the argument that we could consider the fetus to be a parasite, but I think that puts us on very shaky ground. Of course, the people who argue this are typically consistent and see human beings in general as parasites on the earth. And I don't disagree with you that he should be prosecuted for all the other things he's charged with, relating to the woman's body -- I just don't think he should be charged with murder. If she can't be charged with murder, then neither can he. Or, if he can, then women who abort their babies can.
The definition of parasite is one organism living off another. In the case of a fetus, perhaps it is commensalism in most cases, but there are some predatory aspects that one might define as parasitic.
The Wisconsin law defining attempted murder of an unborn child apparently applies to anyone (including the fetus' biological father)harming a pregnant woman. I have not read the statute, only the article you linked.
My personal opinion is that he should not be charged with murder if the fetus is less than 21 weeks and he is the biological father. He should be charged with assault and perhaps battery (if it caused medical complications to the woman)in addition to the other charges.
It is so unfortunate that these issues even arise. If he didn't want a pregancy, he could have easily used a condom.
That seems to be the bottom line, doesn't it? If a man doesn't want to have children, he should use a condom. And if a woman doesn't want children, she can take the pill or use spermicide or and one of a number of birth control devices. Nobody wants to be responsible, and then, when it comes back to bite them in the behind, they want to take a way out that hurts others.
Post a Comment