• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

When does life begin?

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
You do realize we were discussing a theoretical future in which there were artificial wombs and there life courses were therefore basically the same?

To the extent there exists a difference (even among robots) there is a difference... and that difference must be considered.
 
Last edited:
This, in a nutshell. (See, not all nutshells are bad.)

As long as the baby can survive only in the mother's body, the mother's preferences rule, even though if someone else causes that baby to be harmed they can be held accountable. Much as the state cannot force a mother to give a kidney to her child, the state cannot force a mother to bring a child to term. I also agree that the health of the mother outweighs the health of the child, given proportionality. If the mother is at serious risk of dying or suffering grave physical damage, she should be free to have them take or destroy the baby at any stage. She should however not free to kill a baby because she is depressed.

The bolded statements seem incompatible. Could you elaborate?
 
But apparently it must only be considered in ways that benefit the woman.

As seen by the courts and a reasonable assessment of the facts, those aspects that relate solely to the woman ought to and do recognize the clear Life Course difference and, therefore, from the perspective of the man, benefit the woman.
We are not speaking to anything other than the choice to carry a fetus to term or abort it. The financial aspects that attach for BOTH parties is mutual in most all jurisdictions should a child be produced and to neither if one is not.

The motive for the decision to abort or not, which rests with the woman - her life course - is irrelevant.

The motive for having sexual intercourse which resulted in the pregnancy is also irrelevant... The only thing that is relevant is; only the woman gets pregnant and because of that difference only she should be empowered to decide the issue.

I've not given much thought to a situation where the man is raped by the woman, litigated in court and found to be true and any subsequent financial responsibility that may arise related to the victim of that event.
I'd think the man in this case should have no say in the abortion and no financial responsibility for the child BUT if he seeks parental rights he also assumes parental responsibiltiy....
 
Last edited:
Back
Top