Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Greg or e who wrote (5805)	2/14/2001 12:57:26 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

If you approach the abortion issue from your perspective that it is morally wrong period, then I agree there is no dilemma. I tend to oppose abortion myself, but I also think it is a more complex issue that I am prepared to take an absolute stand on. But if you accept, in your case for the sake of argument, that abortion is not morally wrong, then you get into the very challenging question of whether it is ONLY a mother's right to choose to abort or not to abort, or whether society has a right in representing its interests (or what it sees as its interests) to force abortions. That is, the moral question shifts from abortion yes or no to who has the right to decide who does and doesn't get born. A much harder question, IMO. Yes, your other point is well taken. Most feminists I know do have a real problem with the issue of abortion for sex selection and tend to oppose abortion of girls simply because they are girls. But so far I have yet to hear a principled argument for why it is a woman's absolute right to decide to abort a child because it will be financially draining on the family, or will interefere with career or life plans, or has a genetic defect, but the mother has no right to decide to abort the child because it will be the "wrong" sex. (This could be either, maybe the family can only afford three children and has two boys and wants a girl so aborts a boy and tries again, but you're right, it is usually to abort girls to get a boy who will support the parents in old age which is the only social security system in effect in some countries.) But why does the State have no right to force a woman to carry a child to term if she wants to abort it for personal convenience, but has a right to force a woman to carry the child to term if she wants to abort it for purposes of sex selection? It's another part of the swamp we wade into when we accept the principle of abortion on demand. Another part which I am waiting on the right case to take to court is whether a man who has gotten a woman pregnant has a right either to demand that the child be aborted or to terminate his parental rights and require the woman, if she chooses to bear the child, to carry all the cost of raising it herself. It takes two, one of eachsex, to make a child (leaving out scientific intervention and virgin birth.) Under present law, once two people have made a child, whether by intent or mistake, it is entirely up to the woman whether the child is aborted or carried, and the man has no right. If the woman can't afford to raise the child, she can choose to abort it no matter how much the man wants it. Or she can bear it and force the man to pay for 18 (or more) years of support for a child he has no interest in and can't afford either, but has to work to pay for (or go to jail). It's an obvious sex disparity which IMO may well violate our State's constitutional equal rights provisions. The argument would be that the mother is required to notify the father (known or presumed) within one week of knowing of the pregnancy, and the father would then have the right to accept or abort his interest in the child, just as the woman has the same right. If he aborted his interest, the woman could still bear the child, but the father would have no rights or obligations toward the child. As a family law attorney I have seen way too many young lives ruined because of an unwanted pregnancy where the father didn't want and couldn't afford a child but the mother insists on carrying it an forcing the father into 18 years (or more) of support. (If the child is unable to become self-supporting because of physical or mental disabilities, it's a lifetime obligation under law.) I know, the easy answer is "don't have sex." But we don't use that argument to deny the mother the right to an abortion, so why is it equitable to use that argument to deny the father the right to a functional abortion? Just another one of the dilemmas the abortion issue raises.