Parental Rights. Read description
When we are at the point where an embryo can be removed from the womb at any stage, and raised in a test tube, should the father have the right to sue for custody prior to an abortion?
Yes, It's half his.
Side Score: 3
|
 |
No, He will never have a say.
Side Score: 2
|
|
|
|
|
2
points
I'm taking this side of the argument on principle, but with some alterations to the initial layout. This because I have the somewhat unfair advantage of Jace's post having been laid out ahead of this one, even so. Jace is absolutely right that custodial cases take too long for a pregnancy term. Based on that I wouldn't advocate for the father's right to sue for embryonic custody, but rather advocate for a law stating that he has the custody option if her choice is to abort. There should be no issue concerning the type of procedure so long as the mothers body is left the same regardless. By this I mean that if removal is essentially the same either way, there are no grounds for a stance against. The last point that Jace mentioned was economic. There are two potential stances I can see for the fathers rights and potential privileges here. One is that he cover not only the procedure, but also all subsequent cost affiliated with synthetic gestation. The other option would be that, since a pregnant woman in poverty can receive governmental assistance for the situation of pregnancy and motherhood, the father can receive financial assistance for test tube pregnancy and fatherhood. The controversy over the latter option would be directly related to the cost associated. Thanks Jace for pointing out some important details. If they are accounted for in the manner that I have done, would your position switch to this side of the debate? Side: Yes, It's half his.
Very interesting points of clarification. Automatic conversion of custody to the paternal party is a sensible solution I suspect, and honestly not a consideration that had crossed my mind. I'm not entirely certain the procedure for removal would be the same for abortion versus removal with intent of perpetuity. Further, I think the element of consent remains at issue here... unless we assume the procedure is identical, in which case I consider the matter resolved. Regarding the economics of the matter. My impression is that synthetic gestation is considerably more expensive than a run of the mill pregnancy. That said, you raise a fair point regarding the financial support women receive; if it is the principle of a nation to support the maternal party then I suppose it ought also to extend equitable support to the paternal party... and relative cost should not factor into that any more than it does between easy and complex in-the-womb pregnancies . If they are accounted for in the manner that I have done, would your position switch to this side of the debate? Yes, though upon the assumption of identical procedure as qualified above. You have presented a compelling case; quite well done. Side: Yes, It's half his.
|
Genuinely great debate prompt. I had to think on this one a good deal longer than most. The presumption of an embryo viable outside the womb and consideration of paternal rights constitute an interesting twist. Ultimately, however, I negate for these reasons: Firstly, I do not know that the paternal custodial right would trump the right of the maternal party to their body. Requiring that the embryo be removed rather than aborted is presumably a different medical practice, and even if similar were it done without maternal consent would be a forced action. Secondly, my understanding of custodial cases is that they are not quick processes of adjudication (like virtually all other legal cases in most judicial systems). Requiring the maternal party to bear the child until adjudication of the case is determined seems legally tenuous, as would forcing the maternal party to bear the child past the point of legal abortion age while waiting for the adjudication. Thirdly, economic considerations should be made. Who will front the costs of the embryo during its development outside the womb? Who will pay for the medical costs incurred by the maternal party in the forced medical removal? Presumably, these costs would be quite considerable. Side: No, He will never have a say.
|
