Claymantan
Active member
Skip to the end to find out. Don't try to debunk the argument without reading it.
Really the main problem with pro-lifers and Men's Rights Activists is that they want pregnancy to be this wonderfully equal, open, and simple process in which everyone's desires can be equally considered.
If we hold that the man and the woman have an equal say over the baby, and the mother and father have opposite viewpoints (the mother wants to terminate, the father does not), then how do we decide who wins out?
Without some other criteria for deciding when termination is viable, then upon this premise, no decision can be made. So 50/50 say simply does not work without added criteria. It's functionally impossible.
Now, the pro-lifers and those in favor of a 50/50 share of decision-making power generally deny that the following premises have any value, and cannot be used as criteria to override the father's 50% share in what happens to the fetus. They do not effectively argue why they have no value, but we will act like pro-lifers/MRAs and assume that these premises are useless:
We will not consider that the mother should be the dominant decisionmaker because of these criteria: That the mother should have greater say because:
#1 She must carry the child to term.
#2 Carrying the child to term exerts emotional and physical stress on the mother.
#3 Complications with pregnancy may cause long-lasting physical and emotional damage to the mother.
#4 Complications with actual birth may cause long-lasting physical and emotional damage to the mother (death, miscarriage, surgery that prevents future births), thus posing an overall tangible risk to the mother's well-being
#5 Overriding the mother's desires necessarily means that we must inflict physical damage to her body against her will in order to carry the child to term.
So, excepting these premises from the debate, what arguments are there that the father should be able to override the mother's wishes, if they have a 50/50 say?
#1 Some people would say that you need to incorporate morality in order to make a decision, so that we can easily distinguish between a right and wrong outcome. If you believe this, generally you argue that the preservation of life is the highest moral requirement for both father and mother, so if they disagree, then the mother should have to carry the baby to term for the sake of morality. If the mother desires to carry the child to term, and the father does not, then the mother will give birth to the baby. This argument generally argues that so long as someone wants the baby to be born, the baby must be orn. However, this argument may also be interpreted to state that so long as a child may be born, the child must be born; i.e., if neither parent desires that the child is carried to term, the moral force to preserve life overrides their desires. In this case, the parents never even had a 50/50 say, unless you can divide 0 into two separate pieces.
#2 Alternatively, you might make an economic argument. Whoever has the economic resources to provide a healthy and fulfilling life should have greater say over what happens to the child. If the father is more materially wealthy, then he should have a greater say over the fate of the fetus, and if he does not, then the mother should have a greater say. If we view this argument separately from argument #1, it implies that whichever parent is more materially wealthy can decide whether the child is carried to term or is terminated. If view this argument in tandem with argument #1, but view that Argument #1 holds equal weight with Argument #2, then it implies that if both parents have equal economic contributions, the baby should be carried to term because the preservation of life takes hold as the most important criteria for deciding. If Argument #1 overrides Argument #2, then Argument #2 is irrelevant, and the baby must always be carried to term. Again, this means that neither parent actually has a share in deciding the fate of the fetus.
#3 As an extension of Argument #2, you might argue that whoever has more connections or greater social status should have a greater say. This is because these connections (familial, professional, etc.) can help take care of the fetus. So a father with a larger and more prestigious family would override the desires of the mother, if the mother desired to terminate and the father desired that the child be carried to term. If you view this argument in tandem with Argument #1 and Argument #2, then if the parents have equal economic backgrounds and both desire that the fetus should not be carried to term, then the parent with greater status decides. Alternatively, if Argument #1 is held to be more dominant, the child is carried to term irrespective of social status or economic background. At this point, I'll stop describing every permutation of outcomes that might result depending on how you value the different arguments; it should be apparent.
#4 What the extended families of each parent desire may be taken into account. In this case, the 50/50 share is instead divided amongst the members of both mother's and father's families. Again, the 50/50 model does not function.
#5 Other arguments might place federal policies and goals as important; e.g: we need more births to increase our populations and labor force, we need more consumers, whatever. In this case, the state has some share in what happens to the unborn fetus, and the 50/50 ideal does not exist.
We can see that a 50/50 model of the mother's desires compared to the father's desires is generally unrealistic:
If, as in Argument #1, we hold that the moral force to preserve life is the most important criteria, then if both parents decide to terminate the child, the child must still be carried to term (0/0 share). However, if we hold that moral force only matters when a parent vocalizes the desire to carry the child to term, then whoever desires that the child be born wins, which is not a true 50/50 share. So the moral force to preserve a life cannot be effectively used as criteria, unless both parents uphold the moral force to preserve life (in which case, there is no disagreement, so the entire argument is irrelevant). Arugment #1 makes a determination on what should happen outside of the desires of the mother and father. Therefore, Argument #1 does not function as criteria.
Argument #2 seems to function as an effective means for determining who should win out in the 50/50 share.
Argument #3 seems to function as an effective means for determining who should win out in the 50/50 share.
Argument #4 defies the 50/50 model. If family may determine what happens to the unborn fetus, then the families necessarily have a share in decision-making. However, this means that the decision-making power is shared among family members, meaning that the mother and the father no longer have a 50/50 share over what happens to their own child. In the scenario where both parents desire to terminate, it is possible that families may override their desire. A scenario in which the family may only contribute to the decision-making sometimes, at will of the parents, is internally inconsistent. If the family has value in deciding the fate of the fetus, this value should always be present, and not simply at the behest of the parents themselves. Thus, you may end up with a scenario where both parents wish to carry the child to term, and the families demand an abortion. In which case, the abortion must take place. This is only unless we hold Argument #1 as superceding Argument #4, in which case, the very same problems with Argument #1 arise again. Thus, family is not an effective criteria.
Argument #5 defies the 50/50 model in a similar way to Arguments #1 and #4. Instead of decision-making power being shared between the parents, it is instead outsourced to a higher power, in this case, the government. Again, instead of a 50/50 share between parents, we might see something like a 40/40/20 share, a 30/30/40 share, or (extreme, but viable as in the case of population controls) a 0/0/100 share. We might find this undesirable for many reasons. Firstly, if we hold that totalitarian or fascist states are undesirable, Argument #5 lends legitimacy to those very same states; however, this is a slippery slope fallacy. Instead, we should recognize that the state is composed of laws, and laws may change. In other words, the terms of the criteria for decision-making are unstable. The amount of share the parents have in decision making would fluctuate according to regulations (abortion controls or population regulation, or deregulation of these same things). The state may even interfere with the decision-making process by simply privileging one parent over another, which pro-lifers and MRAs generally find undesirable. Thus, Argument #5 is not functional criteria.
Granted, a more nuanced framework for privileging some arguments over others might be more effective, but these same logical and moral inconsistencies would remain.
So, we are left with using social status and economic means to determine who should make the determining decision in what happens to a fetus. These criteria keep decision-making power within the confines of the preferred model shared decision-making between parents. Thus, they have the most potential to function as effective criteria in an idyllic 50/50 paradigm.
What are the real consequences of this framework in which those with greater socioeconomic resources may have greater decision-making power? Would it function fairly?
We can make the following observations (about American life, but the same holds true to varying degrees around the world):
1)
2)
3) That these previous occupations are great sources of economic and social resources.
4) That many cultures prioritize men as being breadwinners and women as being caretakers.
Thus, using socioeconomic criteria to decide on this 50/50 shared say necessarily favors men. In other words, the 50/50 ideal is a fallacy, because the only criteria which do not have to do with the impact that pregnancy has on women are either nonfunctional because they defy the 50/50 model by bringing in outside sources of authority, or are implicitly not 50/50 models because the real outcomes of society favor men.
TLDR; Therefore, we cannot assume that a 50/50 model of decision-making in regards to whether or not a child may be carried to term is possible. We must instead rely on the criteria which MRAs and pro-lifers deny.
Discuss.
Really the main problem with pro-lifers and Men's Rights Activists is that they want pregnancy to be this wonderfully equal, open, and simple process in which everyone's desires can be equally considered.
If we hold that the man and the woman have an equal say over the baby, and the mother and father have opposite viewpoints (the mother wants to terminate, the father does not), then how do we decide who wins out?
Without some other criteria for deciding when termination is viable, then upon this premise, no decision can be made. So 50/50 say simply does not work without added criteria. It's functionally impossible.
Now, the pro-lifers and those in favor of a 50/50 share of decision-making power generally deny that the following premises have any value, and cannot be used as criteria to override the father's 50% share in what happens to the fetus. They do not effectively argue why they have no value, but we will act like pro-lifers/MRAs and assume that these premises are useless:
We will not consider that the mother should be the dominant decisionmaker because of these criteria: That the mother should have greater say because:
#1 She must carry the child to term.
#2 Carrying the child to term exerts emotional and physical stress on the mother.
#3 Complications with pregnancy may cause long-lasting physical and emotional damage to the mother.
#4 Complications with actual birth may cause long-lasting physical and emotional damage to the mother (death, miscarriage, surgery that prevents future births), thus posing an overall tangible risk to the mother's well-being
#5 Overriding the mother's desires necessarily means that we must inflict physical damage to her body against her will in order to carry the child to term.
So, excepting these premises from the debate, what arguments are there that the father should be able to override the mother's wishes, if they have a 50/50 say?
#1 Some people would say that you need to incorporate morality in order to make a decision, so that we can easily distinguish between a right and wrong outcome. If you believe this, generally you argue that the preservation of life is the highest moral requirement for both father and mother, so if they disagree, then the mother should have to carry the baby to term for the sake of morality. If the mother desires to carry the child to term, and the father does not, then the mother will give birth to the baby. This argument generally argues that so long as someone wants the baby to be born, the baby must be orn. However, this argument may also be interpreted to state that so long as a child may be born, the child must be born; i.e., if neither parent desires that the child is carried to term, the moral force to preserve life overrides their desires. In this case, the parents never even had a 50/50 say, unless you can divide 0 into two separate pieces.
#2 Alternatively, you might make an economic argument. Whoever has the economic resources to provide a healthy and fulfilling life should have greater say over what happens to the child. If the father is more materially wealthy, then he should have a greater say over the fate of the fetus, and if he does not, then the mother should have a greater say. If we view this argument separately from argument #1, it implies that whichever parent is more materially wealthy can decide whether the child is carried to term or is terminated. If view this argument in tandem with argument #1, but view that Argument #1 holds equal weight with Argument #2, then it implies that if both parents have equal economic contributions, the baby should be carried to term because the preservation of life takes hold as the most important criteria for deciding. If Argument #1 overrides Argument #2, then Argument #2 is irrelevant, and the baby must always be carried to term. Again, this means that neither parent actually has a share in deciding the fate of the fetus.
#3 As an extension of Argument #2, you might argue that whoever has more connections or greater social status should have a greater say. This is because these connections (familial, professional, etc.) can help take care of the fetus. So a father with a larger and more prestigious family would override the desires of the mother, if the mother desired to terminate and the father desired that the child be carried to term. If you view this argument in tandem with Argument #1 and Argument #2, then if the parents have equal economic backgrounds and both desire that the fetus should not be carried to term, then the parent with greater status decides. Alternatively, if Argument #1 is held to be more dominant, the child is carried to term irrespective of social status or economic background. At this point, I'll stop describing every permutation of outcomes that might result depending on how you value the different arguments; it should be apparent.
#4 What the extended families of each parent desire may be taken into account. In this case, the 50/50 share is instead divided amongst the members of both mother's and father's families. Again, the 50/50 model does not function.
#5 Other arguments might place federal policies and goals as important; e.g: we need more births to increase our populations and labor force, we need more consumers, whatever. In this case, the state has some share in what happens to the unborn fetus, and the 50/50 ideal does not exist.
We can see that a 50/50 model of the mother's desires compared to the father's desires is generally unrealistic:
If, as in Argument #1, we hold that the moral force to preserve life is the most important criteria, then if both parents decide to terminate the child, the child must still be carried to term (0/0 share). However, if we hold that moral force only matters when a parent vocalizes the desire to carry the child to term, then whoever desires that the child be born wins, which is not a true 50/50 share. So the moral force to preserve a life cannot be effectively used as criteria, unless both parents uphold the moral force to preserve life (in which case, there is no disagreement, so the entire argument is irrelevant). Arugment #1 makes a determination on what should happen outside of the desires of the mother and father. Therefore, Argument #1 does not function as criteria.
Argument #2 seems to function as an effective means for determining who should win out in the 50/50 share.
Argument #3 seems to function as an effective means for determining who should win out in the 50/50 share.
Argument #4 defies the 50/50 model. If family may determine what happens to the unborn fetus, then the families necessarily have a share in decision-making. However, this means that the decision-making power is shared among family members, meaning that the mother and the father no longer have a 50/50 share over what happens to their own child. In the scenario where both parents desire to terminate, it is possible that families may override their desire. A scenario in which the family may only contribute to the decision-making sometimes, at will of the parents, is internally inconsistent. If the family has value in deciding the fate of the fetus, this value should always be present, and not simply at the behest of the parents themselves. Thus, you may end up with a scenario where both parents wish to carry the child to term, and the families demand an abortion. In which case, the abortion must take place. This is only unless we hold Argument #1 as superceding Argument #4, in which case, the very same problems with Argument #1 arise again. Thus, family is not an effective criteria.
Argument #5 defies the 50/50 model in a similar way to Arguments #1 and #4. Instead of decision-making power being shared between the parents, it is instead outsourced to a higher power, in this case, the government. Again, instead of a 50/50 share between parents, we might see something like a 40/40/20 share, a 30/30/40 share, or (extreme, but viable as in the case of population controls) a 0/0/100 share. We might find this undesirable for many reasons. Firstly, if we hold that totalitarian or fascist states are undesirable, Argument #5 lends legitimacy to those very same states; however, this is a slippery slope fallacy. Instead, we should recognize that the state is composed of laws, and laws may change. In other words, the terms of the criteria for decision-making are unstable. The amount of share the parents have in decision making would fluctuate according to regulations (abortion controls or population regulation, or deregulation of these same things). The state may even interfere with the decision-making process by simply privileging one parent over another, which pro-lifers and MRAs generally find undesirable. Thus, Argument #5 is not functional criteria.
Granted, a more nuanced framework for privileging some arguments over others might be more effective, but these same logical and moral inconsistencies would remain.
So, we are left with using social status and economic means to determine who should make the determining decision in what happens to a fetus. These criteria keep decision-making power within the confines of the preferred model shared decision-making between parents. Thus, they have the most potential to function as effective criteria in an idyllic 50/50 paradigm.
What are the real consequences of this framework in which those with greater socioeconomic resources may have greater decision-making power? Would it function fairly?
We can make the following observations (about American life, but the same holds true to varying degrees around the world):
1)
You must be registered for see links
2)
You must be registered for see links
,
You must be registered for see links
3) That these previous occupations are great sources of economic and social resources.
4) That many cultures prioritize men as being breadwinners and women as being caretakers.
Thus, using socioeconomic criteria to decide on this 50/50 shared say necessarily favors men. In other words, the 50/50 ideal is a fallacy, because the only criteria which do not have to do with the impact that pregnancy has on women are either nonfunctional because they defy the 50/50 model by bringing in outside sources of authority, or are implicitly not 50/50 models because the real outcomes of society favor men.
TLDR; Therefore, we cannot assume that a 50/50 model of decision-making in regards to whether or not a child may be carried to term is possible. We must instead rely on the criteria which MRAs and pro-lifers deny.
Discuss.
Last edited:
