Thread: Legal opposition to Roe V Wade?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

So then I thought, can we not then bring science to bear on the subject, and via DNA testing of the embryo/fetus clearly show that indeed the life now in the womb is genetically seperate from that of the mother, thereby making it not "her own body", and thus nullifying her "right" to do with it as she pleases?

Her body is feeding the unborn. She would still be allowed to cut the umbilical cord. And if not, she'd still be able to ingest what she wants, including herbs and meds to terminate the fetus.

Originally Posted by Bruno

Her body is feeding the unborn. She would still be allowed to cut the umbilical cord. And if not, she'd still be able to ingest what she wants, including herbs and meds to terminate the fetus.

Based on this logic, a woman should be able to put her baby down in the first months after birth. If you look at it based on need parents would be able to put their children down within the first 4 to 6 years.

Originally Posted by JMS

Based on this logic, a woman should be able to put her baby down in the first months after birth. If you look at it based on need parents would be able to put their children down within the first 4 to 6 years.

You're right, Mark. Currently child negligence and child abuse are only used as lawful accusations after birth

Originally Posted by JMS

Based on this logic, a woman should be able to put her baby down in the first months after birth. If you look at it based on need parents would be able to put their children down within the first 4 to 6 years.

No, she's not. The argument that she is able to do with -her- body what she wants. Once it's out of her body, that argument doesn't fly anymore.

Originally Posted by Bruno

No, she's not. The argument that she is able to do with -her- body what she wants. Once it's out of her body, that argument doesn't fly anymore.

only too true. whilst the woman is in the family way, she can't decide to do something else with her body without the fetus dying... it's not as if you can reliably give it to someone else.

once the baby is born, she can decide she isn't interested and someone else can take it (adoption)

i can see why a woman wouldn't want to carry a baby to term (emotional reasons, concerned for her physical well being, worried about it ruining her body, etc) so an abortion is the only choice she has to protect her body from the baby.

Originally Posted by JMS

Based on this logic, a woman should be able to put her baby down in the first months after birth. If you look at it based on need parents would be able to put their children down within the first 4 to 6 years.

yeah, there are a lot of other arbitrary lines that the law draws, i.e. selling cigarettes to somebody is only legal if they're over 18 and alcohol if they're over 21, they can't vote before 18, there's the statutory rape thing....

seems like the line when the child is actually not connected to the mother's body and uses his/her own lungs to capture oxygen is one of the least arbitrary ones.

After thinking about the subject for a few days and being prompted by new posts in this thread, these are my thoughts on the subject. Btw, in no means a legal opinion.

The father only contributes very little in actuality towards the fetus. Maybe he supports the mother through the term, but if the mother wants an abortion, something is wrong in that relationship. Anyway, point being, all the father does is have sex with the mother and contribute a single sperm to fertilize the egg. Thats it. His job is done, he does not *HAVE* to do anything else to ensure the egg matures into a new baby/person.

The mother OTOH has to not only carry the baby for a full 9 months, but must experience all the biological aches, pains, problems, risks, etc etc of 9 months of pregnancy. And then at the end, she must again risk her life giving birth to the baby, which I hear is quite painful. Looks and sounds painful as well.

The courts are not stupid and they have access to this information, they are going to look at this and make their decision.

After thinking about this...I'm not sure the father *should* have the ability to *force* a mother to carry a child to term *if* the state does not. After all, all he did was contribute a single sperm.

However, if the two parents come to an agreement whereby he pays the mother as a sort of surrogate mother to carry the baby to term and then the mother decides somewhere down the line that she wants to abort... thats a better argument for the father.

Of course, 3rd trimester abortions are still a no in my book. But like I said, if the state can't do it, neither should the dad IMHO.

Allowing the father to force the mother to carry the child for 9 months sounds a lot like slavery/indentured servitude/forced labor to me.

Originally Posted by Leighton

After thinking about the subject for a few days and being prompted by new posts in this thread, these are my thoughts on the subject. Btw, in no means a legal opinion.

The father only contributes very little in actuality towards the fetus. Maybe he supports the mother through the term, but if the mother wants an abortion, something is wrong in that relationship. Anyway, point being, all the father does is have sex with the mother and contribute a single sperm to fertilize the egg. Thats it. His job is done, he does not *HAVE* to do anything else to ensure the egg matures into a new baby/person.

The mother OTOH has to not only carry the baby for a full 9 months, but must experience all the biological aches, pains, problems, risks, etc etc of 9 months of pregnancy. And then at the end, she must again risk her life giving birth to the baby, which I hear is quite painful. Looks and sounds painful as well.

The courts are not stupid and they have access to this information, they are going to look at this and make their decision.

After thinking about this...I'm not sure the father *should* have the ability to *force* a mother to carry a child to term *if* the state does not. After all, all he did was contribute a single sperm.

However, if the two parents come to an agreement whereby he pays the mother as a sort of surrogate mother to carry the baby to term and then the mother decides somewhere down the line that she wants to abort... thats a better argument for the father.

Of course, 3rd trimester abortions are still a no in my book. But like I said, if the state can't do it, neither should the dad IMHO.

Allowing the father to force the mother to carry the child for 9 months sounds a lot like slavery/indentured servitude/forced labor to me.

Then why does the law also require the father to pay paternity support, etc? Legally speaking the father is not "done" after the Deed is done.

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

But what is the penalty for her destroying tissue cells that he willingly gave away? Could I sue someone for wiping my sneeze off the countertop?

You still have to prove that the embyro has individual human rights afforded the same protection by the law as any other or else the significance of such a case is isolated to what kind of rights should the law protect regarding cells and DNA that you freely gave up with no promise of return or protection

To all those arguing that an embryo is "just a group of cells...", well scientifically, aren't YOU simple a collection of cells as well? Why is there any legal protection for such a group of cells such as yourselves?

Originally Posted by Seraphim

To all those arguing that an embryo is "just a group of cells...", well scientifically, aren't YOU simple a collection of cells as well? Why is there any legal protection for such a group of cells such as yourselves?

It's a good question. It's a societal convention with unclear origin. One speculation is that it's the desire of a supernatural being. Other speculations are that it has to do with cooperation and the evolution of society.

For example, in some species like the praying mantice the father provides post conception support in the form of his own body becoming food, in other species like bees there is a single mother and some fraction of potential future fathers who do not provide absolutely nothing, just drain resources. In penguins for example the father does help with taking care of the egg. So there seems to be some correlation with the particular societal organization and the relative role of the two parents in caring for the offspring.

May be somebody else has a better answer but to me it seems like a question well beyond our current knowledge.

But it doesn't seem strange to me that under the current setup the father is required to contribute once such contribution is possible. I'm not sure if he is required to share in any medical costs before or at childbirth though where the woman has pretty much full control of the decision making.