Another problem is the Judicial system. The great American push for rights has resulted in an attitude that individual rights should always prevail over personal responsibility.
I would argue that one cannot have responsibility without rights; any system which attempts to do so will fail in time. The courts aren't enforcing rights over responsibilities, they are enforcing rights
so that we may have responsibilities.
Rights never free us from responsibility; one requires the other. The right to vote, for example, does not free an individual from the responsibility of being educated in how one votes. The right to speech does not free an individual from the responsibility of ensuring that one's speech is meaningful. If men have a responsibility in this matter (and we do), then there must be an associated right. Violation of that right removes the responsibility. If we wish to return that responsibility, we must likewise return the right.
The “right” I refer to is not that men get to make the choice for women in any regard. At no point would a man become the “arbiter of the frozen flame” for the woman. Rather, it would take the form of a legal standing. If a man wants a woman to abort a child that has his genetic information and she chooses to keep it, then that is all well and good. The man should thus be freed from all legal responsibilities and rights there associated. She can’t go after him for child support, and he cannot demand visiting privileges. Unfortunately, currently there is no legal president protecting sperm donors from being forced to pay child support, much less unwilling fathers. Just as it would be fundamentally wrong to force a woman to have a child, so too is it fundamentally wrong to force a man to have a child.
If the woman desired to abort the child but the man wanted to keep it? Well the woman has "51% of the vote, that's all the right she needs;" the abortion goes through. However, there should be legal recourse for the man. He might have the legal right to make a monetary offer to compensate the woman for the inconvenience and risk of carrying the child to term. If she rejects the offer, then that is all well and good, but let it be required that the man at least has the right to make the offer. Of course, in issues of what we might call illegal impregnation (the instances of rape which often get mentioned in these discussions), the perpetrator's unlawful actions have voided their rights.
End of the day, the woman still has her rights of choice intact, but the rights of men are not discarded in the process either. As such, we can then reasonable expect men, having rights, to have responsibilities and in turn fulfill those responsibilities. To require men to be responsible without rights will just not work.
As a side note, it occurs to me that the argument that a child is 50% genetically the father's and therefore he should have some say on those grounds is incorrect. While the DNA found in the nucleus might be 50/50, the mitochondrial DNA is 100% the mother’s, and so a fetus/child is always genetically more similar to the mother than father. If genetic similarity may give a say in the matter, then it doesn’t matter. The woman's rights are still supreme.
Obviously it would be better for such patients to seek amputations in a hospital...
What about if they sought professional help to treat the disorder without amputation at all? That seems like that would be better still.
Though again, the amputation corollary was just a stepping stone to the euthanasia conundrum. If any person has absolute authority over their own body and can determine what aspects of it live or die (such as a fetus), then does that authority extend to the whole body? Generally, western society says no; suicide or anything that might be labeled as such is not good. Western society has thus placed a limit on an individual’s right in that regard. Having allowed for society to impose on our bodies to some extent, the issue is no longer if regulations as a concept are good or bad, but how far those regulations ought to go.
But I suspect I'm the only one (or one of the few) who finds this issue, and the issue of dualism, relevant and central to the abortion debate.
In my vision of a perfect society in which there are birth pods, conception could presumably take place either in vitro...
Unfortunately there has been a blow to the birth pods:
In vitro fertilization has been linked with changes in genetic expression.
Apparently even the very act of pipetting a fertilized embryo will alter how it develops.
But, now I do find it odd that the issue of the personhood of the fetus seems to trump the freedom of the mother in the majority of debates.
As the saying goes, "my freedom to swing my fist ends where you're face begins." If we have to rank rights, the right to life would seem to be more fundamental to most people than any other right. Therefore, from such a perspective, it is better to step on the lesser right of choice than the greater right to life. While I happen to agree which this hierarchy, my intent here is not to argue or defend but rather to explain.
I think that people can choose to grant a fetus personhood...
allow me to play devil’s advocate for a few minutes…If personhood is something that can be willingly granted, is it also something that a parent can refuse to grant? So that even a born "fetus" might not be granted personhood? Or does leaving the womb in some manner inherently grant personhood apart from the mother's wishes? If so, then I am afraid Faust's beloved birth pods are under attack, since there would never be a proper birthing to grant that personhood. This would also seem to make abortions a rather mean spirited affair; the fetus is barely a few inches away from the rights that would grant it life, yet abortion procedures, though they would eliminate that barrier, would also take away life before the fetus can get a right to it.
Or perhaps is personhood granted by time since conception? We would say that killing a 2 week old child is wrong, yes? But what if that child was born a month premature? Instead of 9.5 months since conception, it is only 8.5 months. I suspect most of us would still find that objectionable, regardless of stance on abortion.
Allow me to be materialistic in this matter: is there a physical mechanism in the mother's body that grants personhood at some point during development or childbirth? If not, then is there a mechanism in the fetus' body that grants personhood at some point during pre or post natal development? If not, then I must propose that personhood is fundamentally an intellectual construct of society and does not exist in nature. We, as a society, choose to grant it to those on whom we find favor. If we choose to grant it to an adult but not a fetus, that is, within the established parameters, fine. But if we choose to grant it to both an adult and a fetus, that is also within the established parameters and it becomes hypocritical for a single adult to gainsay society's choice. It is no more "liberal," "enlightened," or "whatever-word-you-would-like-to-use" to deny one person's right than white men attempting to argue that black men should not have been given the right to vote. Unless there is a real, physical difference that necessitates special treatment, let all humans be treated equivalently.
If there is not a materialistic cause of personhood, then we as a society are free to label those whom we choose as persons. If we so choose to label an unborn fetus as a person, that does not preclude the possibility of an abortion. But it must strip away the veil of innocents from abortion. If one desires an abortion, get an abortion, but do not fool yourself into believing that it is entirely and solely the woman's choice. It is
ultimately the woman's choice, but not
entirely or
solely.
... if, of course, we attempt to bring personhood into the matter, and if there is no materialistic cause of personhood, and if we so desire to label a fetus as a person. That is a lot of if's.
As a side note, Lake of Fire has been added to my “to watch” list.
