Did I ask an unanswerable question?

Question

My philosophy class was having a debate today on abortion. Well the 2 sides gave their arguments. Then we were allowed to ask questions, and I asked the side that was for abortion,
"Why does the man not get a choice in the abortion decision making process?"
She said, "Its the womans body."
Then I said, "I have a follow up question. What if the guy wants the abortion, and the woman does not? Does that mean the man does not have to take care of the child, or pay for child support?"
My philosophy teacher applauded me for asking the question. Do you have an answer to it?

bonecrush, the woman can take the birth control pill, she can close her legs, and I have not heard of men forcing women to get an abortion.

The reason it was in philosophy class is because of my question for instance represented a great example. The question was not simple, but logical. That is all philosophy is, logic

She applauded the question because she knew no one could answer that without sounding stupid, and the logic to it, is not always seen

Justin H. you serious? The exact same thing could be said about women.

I notice, that a lot of people missed the point of this question. Essentially I am saying, that the "Its my body argument" for abortion is completely flawed.

Answer 1

The answer is actually very simple.

There are four discrete parts/stages to the pregnancy and child raising process. Becoming pregnant, remaining pregnant (pre-viability), remaining pregnant (post viability) and providing for the child after it is born. These stages define, both medically and legally, the rights of those involved.

Your philosophy teacher has apparently studied neither law nor medicine, for the answer to the question is obvious once you look at the medical and legal statuses involved. Some people might not like the medical terminology that this answer uses, but it is the clearest to make the point.

The 'becoming pregnant' stage requires a minimum of two participants, in three roles -- the sperm donor (aka father) and the egg donor (aka mother), and the person providing the womb to carry the embryo (aka host-mother or surrogate). The latter two roles (mother and host-mother) are often the same person, but medically they do not need to be.

Look at it first medically. Before pregnancy, both (or all three) are involved. During pregnancy, only the host-mother is involved, with one more person (the child) becoming involved at the point of independent viability. After pregnancy, none of the original two/three is directly involved -- only the child is.

Let’s break that down into more detail. Before and during concept, both the egg and sperm donor, and the host-mother must all consent to the process. At this stage, both donors have equal say in whether they contribute, and thus have equal rights as to their involvement (or not). And the host-mother certainly has a legal say over whether she becomes pregnant in the first place. In other words, any one of them refusing prevents the pregnancy from ever occurring. So, because they must all consent to become involved, as a matter of law, they all have equal rights to prevent the pregnancy from ever occurring.

OK. But during pregnancy, neither the egg donor nor the sperm donor are involved medically. Neither is continuing to provide any support, medically, for the child -- unless the egg donor also happens to be the host-mother. But whether she is or not, the two legal roles are distinct for a very important reason.

During the pregnancy, the host-mother is the only one medically involved. In fact, she is only involved in her capacity as the life-support system for the child, providing nourishment literally out of her own body. In the case where the egg donor is different than the surrogate, it is only the surrogate -- the person whose body is undergoing the life-sustaining process, the host-mother -- only she is directly physically involved.

Since she is the only one medically involved in this stage of the process, she is the only one who can consent, or withhold her consent, to remain involved. As such, she is the only one who has legal rights at this stage whether to choose an abortion or not. Nobody else is physically involved, so nobody else has the physical ability to affect the process by withholding consent.

Also note that right to choose only applies during the pre-viability portion. Once the fetus can survive on its own, it has its own independent rights as a living being, and all the mother can do is have the child put on external life support. In other words, while she can still choose (consenting or withholding consent) as to whether she remains involved in the process, that choice cannot override the fetus’s rights, because the fetus can be put in an incubator even if the host-mother decides to opt-out. Notice the important fact that the host-mother granting or withholding consent only affects her personal medical involvement, not what happens to anyone else involved.

After birth, none of the original two (father / mother) or three (sperm donor / egg donor / host-mother) is involved medically. None of them. So, none of them have the option of withholding consent to their continued biological involvement, because none of has any continued physical involvement.
However, as a matter of low, both parents (egg donor and sperm donor) again share equal legal responsibility and have equal legal rights (unless modified by court order). Both parents are financially responsible for the child, and both have rights as biological parents based on their continued involvement.

The law follows the medicine. Before pregnancy, everyone is involved equally and everyone has equal rights. During pregnancy (pre-viability) only the host-mother is involved, so only the host-mother has a legal right to choose. Once the fetus reaches viability, both the child and the host-mother are involved, so both have rights, and either can opt-out without affecting the other. And once the child is born, the child and the donor parents all have rights, with the best interests of the child controlling.

The answer to your question is simple. The man does not get a choice in the abortion process because during the pregnancy, he is not medically involved. Granting or withholding his consent to his continued biological or medical involvement has no effect on the process. Same as the egg-donor, by the way, if she is different than the host-mother/surrogate. So, because the man has no medical involvement during the pregnancy, his choice to withhold consent or refuse participation has no medical or biological effect.

After birth, the state asserts the rights of the child as paramount. As such, the state requires that both parents (specifically, the egg and sperm donors) be held financially responsible, absent some specific legal exception that might apply -- such as anonymous donors, adoption, custody orders, etc.

Because the rights of the child are paramount, neither biological donor-parent can legally refuse to participate financially, because of the best interests of the child. Of course, either or both parents can refuse to participate physically or biologically -- that aspect of consent is still inviolate. But that choice to be involved (or not) physically has no effect on their ability to refuse financial responsibility.

Once you look at it from the physical consent perspective, the answer becomes obvious. Anyone who is physically (biologically) involved in the process can give or refuse consent, thus choosing whether to be involved physically or biologically in the process.

But nobody can choose to abdicate financial and legal responsibility, unless the court or the laws grants them some specific legal exemption.

Answer 2

When the man wants abortion but the woman does not, it does not change the fact that it's the woman's body. She still decides. Child support is the ancillary issue. Had the man not impregnated the girl, there is no issue of abortion. Because pregnancy occurred, the man is partly responsible whether the decision is to abort or not. In other words he is not off the hook for child support.

Answer 3

I say you are still responsible, as the father. When you make the decision to engage in sexual activities, you always have that nasty risk of a baby being made. I don't know why your instructor would applaud the question. In this case, the father is not taking responsibility for actions by trying to coerce the woman into an abortion.

Answer 4

Thats a good one!

Tough question!!

Way to go!!!!

I can't answer it....

...I'm kind of wanting to say that either way its still the womans body and the man had a responsibility to prevent pregnancy, but then again so did the woman, however, if the man really felt this strongly about not having a child he should not have simply put all of the responsibility upon the woman to use contraceptives... he is well of aware of how babies are made... and apparently feels strongly enough about not having a baby that he would ask a woman to have an invasive procedure that some consider to be murder in order to aviod the consequences of his actions... could he not have taken certain steps to avoid being in this specific situation?

Is that an okay response? I'm sure it full of holes!!

That was a really good question!!!!
*******************************************************************
Your edit:
"""""""""I notice, that a lot of people missed the point of this question. Essentially I am saying, that the "Its my body argument" for abortion is completely flawed."""""""""
****************************************************


you asked if it was an unanswerable question and people gave you thier responses... i dont think you shoud say they've missed the point untill you've debated each of thier answers.

Answer 5

I think the problem with this line of reasoning is it still hinges on the womans right to decide what to do with her body. She is already pregnant. Therefore she has the superior right to decide. A man has no leg to stand on if she does not want the baby, and he does. Conversely, he has no right to force an abortion. It's really a matter of she is first in line, and the man is second. Whether he wants to pay or not is immaterial.

Add: Boys will be boys, and girls still want to have fun.

Answer 6

At this time your question cannot be answered at least at the legal level however here in the state of Michigan a short while ago this subject did come up and it did reach the court system. A man and women where engaged in well you know and the woman told the man she was on birth control. Well it was not true and she wanted to have the child. He at the time made it perfectly clear he was not ready for a child and asked her to terminate it. She refused and he took her to court to suspend any legal obligation to the child. I believe the case is still pending at this time so watch for it in the news.

Answer 7

The only answer I have is that I wholeheartedly agree. If the man wants an abortion, he should not have to pay child support. If the man wants the child and the woman aborts it...well, whats his rights? Its a terribly difficult question, one with an answer, but one that not many CAN answer, and I myself am included. I hope one day it will be answered. Until then, continue asking questions, that's the only way to get answers

Answer 8

It is complicated because it can be argued that it is part of the man's body too. Does he have rights to the fertilized embryo if she doesn't want it. Also what are the implied contractual rights of the man, is she in breech of contract if they agreed to have a baby then she changes her mind. Couldn't he sue her for specific performance?

I think the man gets left out of the equation too often when considering woman rights. Perhaps both parties should have to consent to abortion, there was implied consent during procreation.

Answer 9

I do believe that if you decide to play in the bed, be prepared to pay for the consequence.

I totally DESPISE Abortion! I do not see a reason at all for it, other then Incest (Forced) and Rape.

There is absolutely NO reason for Partial Birth Abortions. You are Birthing a child that in most cases CAN survive.. They might need to be incubated for lung development, but that are alive and well.

The health of the mother being a reason is totally FALSE! Her mental health should not be considered, only when it has to do with Mom living or dying. If that is the case.. Birth the child and let nature take it's coarse, or incubate and let someone adopt!

Answer 10

Ah, you forgot the hierarchy of rights. Don't you know that of the four sexes, males are at the bottom?

So, not only does the man not get a say (which personally I think he made his choice when the zipper came down), he gets to pay for at least the next 18 years.

Something to think about the next time you trust your life to a thin piece of latex with a 25% chance of failure.

Answer 11

A great deal of men have forced women to have an abortion. They should not be allowed to do that nor should they have any decision in the abortion matter.

The man had a choice to put his thing where it goes and he had a choice to use protection. His choices ended there.

Why in the world would you be speaking of abortion in a philosphy class anyway? That's not a class for such matters.