05-27-2004, 07:41 PM #1
Interesting Legal/Moral/Philosophical question
Given that I think about this **** during my day, is it any wonder I'm heading to law school?
Anyway, I was just curious as to how you guys would view this hypothetical. NOTE: it *does* involve abortion, so please let's not let this degrade into an abortion debate....save it for another thread; hell, go create that thread if you're so inclined.
To get to the point, however, give me your thoughts on this: suppose a couple discovers that the female is pregnant and in a very early stage, i.e., but days along (further note...this has NOTHING to do with me and my recent situation, though it may have sparked the curiosity). Now, while I have no access any longer to lexis, westlaw, et al, I imagine that the woman's right to choose supercedes the male's "right" to say, "you're NOT having that baby"...in fact, i'm sure that comes up often and would wager that the courts and our moral system/foundations have tended to view it as 'the norm' for the woman to have that right to give birth without the father's approval or even with his vehement DISapproval.
However, imagine a hypothetical in which a couple is in the above situation and the female is opposed to having the child while the male very much so desires to have the child. In this situation, does the female still have the "right to choose" (i don't expect any of us have a concrete legal answer)? Should she have this right (this is the more important question here for lounge purposes)? In such an instance, do we ignore the father's "claim" to the forming child and say it's acceptable for a female to make this decision solely? Or do we recognize that the female is but the vehicle (biologically speaking, not culturally or sociologically, so don't start) for the birth and "ownership" (a crass term i know) is 50/50 and the male, should he be demonstrably able to care for said forming child, has the right to insist on the birth of his child? Food for thought.........
05-27-2004, 07:48 PM #2
my opinion would be this, if i were a judge. if the male will accept full rights to the child, repay the female for wages, time or anything lost durning the pregnancy, then yes, she should have the child, if complications arise, then the male is to retain all paid fees and cost given to female till point of complication. by doing this the female inevitiably gives up all parental consent for the child and rights to see or participate in the childs life(excluding the male wants her involved). simply put, they both decided to act in a manner which results in a child, if one of the two wishes to care for the infant, then the right is giving.
05-27-2004, 07:51 PM #3
this judgement would exclude any male who committed any harsh felony, murder, rape, armed robbery. and women who become pregnant thru rape, this excludes those males completely and the decision lies fully with the female, as the male forced his actions and wasnt invited into the equation. also males who show a past of domestic violence or a inability to provide adequate care for the child. i can go on for a hour or more, but ill just stop with this short response...
05-27-2004, 07:57 PM #4
that post made me think of another hypothetical situation....If a pregnant women is on her way to the abortion clinic, gets hit by another car, loses the baby, does the driver of the other car get charged with vehicular homicide????
05-27-2004, 08:00 PM #5Originally Posted by damiongage
05-27-2004, 08:01 PM #6
and actually you would have to displayed wreckless actions in order for it to be considered murder instead of manslaughter.... which youd prolly get out of if its just ****bad luck
05-27-2004, 09:07 PM #7Originally Posted by damiongage
05-27-2004, 09:14 PM #8
You don't have to think of this in the hypothetical. There has been a precedent set. A man did take his ex-girlfriend to court to try to prevent her from getting an abortion. i don't think it went all the way to the Supreme Court but it did get appealled at least twice - she won.
05-27-2004, 09:26 PM #9Originally Posted by bad_man
05-27-2004, 09:27 PM #10
Knowing what I know about the apellate process, how in the word did they *ever* manage to squeeze in a trial of some form, let alone TWO appeals not only before the baby could be born, but before it would be developed to such a degree that abortion was still legal!?!?
05-27-2004, 09:31 PM #11Originally Posted by BigGreen
You dont have home access through your school?
05-27-2004, 09:36 PM #12
05-27-2004, 09:39 PM #13
As the above article stated, its up to the woman entirely, however, there have been cases of kidnapping of the woman until abortion was no longer possible
05-27-2004, 10:06 PM #14
i feel that the women has the right to deside what happens to her body and whatever comes out of it ....
05-27-2004, 10:38 PM #15New Member
- Join Date
- May 2004
I know of no case law where a court ordered a woman to stay pregnant upon the motion of the sperm donor.
I have seen agreements worked out under similar terms proposed by the Honorable Judge 'decadbol'.
The case of vehicular homicide is interesting. The statutory law varies state by state, but the rule of criminal procedure usually do not take into account any culpability of the victim during the trial. The fact that woman was on her way to a provider of pregnancy termination services to have an abortion could be introduced at the sentencing phase.
05-27-2004, 10:41 PM #16
Originally Posted by big daddy k de
05-28-2004, 01:57 AM #17Originally Posted by big daddy k de
I agree, too.
She really should have the right to have an abortion up until the baby starts coming out, IMHO. Don't know that there's any really good reason to draw a line anywhere in the gestation process where it can and can't be done.
But, I don't have a dog in this fight, don't have strong opinions about either way . . . would much prefer the issue be settled by reason rather than religion, though . . .
05-28-2004, 02:21 AM #18Originally Posted by Tock
Users Browsing this Thread
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)