There's another edge case: what if the fetus mom wants to keep the baby, the fetus dad wants to abort, and technologies for abortion are vanishingly non-invasive (like, swallowing an idealized abortion pill with no side effect)? Should the father be able to mandate an abortion?
On a moral ground I'm not sure - there's some value to the your-body-your-choice doctrine, although we do give pills to people without consent already so exceptions may sometimes be ok. On a pragmatic ground, I'm pretty sure a world where fathers can request early abortions (assuming the idealized tech above) is a better world, if anything because growing up without a father appears to be harmful to the child and to society. Maybe some fathers also attribute some sacred value to parenthood or genetic material and may just not want to have a child if they don't want to, regardless of rearing or alimony. In these cases, it's not clear why these "sacred values" should be less worthy of respect than the "sacred value" of people not taking a pill if they don't want to. What do you think?
(To be really clear, I don't know what current abortion tech feels like, but I think there's a threshold of invasiveness below which the dad should have the right to request an abortion. Whether there will ever be a technology that goes below the threshold is another question!)
I disagree. I think, in an *ideal* world, neither party should be able to force abortion if the other party doesn’t want it. The only reason I think it’s right that the mother can unilaterally decide to get an abortion in the *real* world is because being forced to continue a pregnancy conflicts with her bodily autonomy. Towards the end of the piece I imagine a world where the baby is incubated outside of the woman’s body, and in that world I say that I think the father should be able to keep the baby even if the mother doesn’t want it. My opinion here is probably informed by me being very pronatalist. While I agree that growing up without a father is not ideal I expect most of those lives are still well worth living. Generally I think any babies that are wanted by one or more parent should get to live, I just don’t think parents who didn’t want those kids to be born should be forced to pay for them, and I don’t think women who don't want a baby should be forced to continue a pregnancy.
When a contract goes bad, it's NOT typical for a judge to force completion of the contract. Most often, it makes sense to end it, with the non-performing party made to pay damages.
If a woman wants to abort in a context where it's a breach of promise, I can see her being forced to pay damages to compensate for the man's disappointment. But, asking her to have the child would, in my mind, be cruel and unusual punishment.
How hard it is for adults to deal with the consequences of their decisions and actions! This whole topic and the scenarios and imagined future worlds, technologies and arguments are all so we can figure out ways to not deal with an inconvenient consequence of sex (pregnancy). Sometimes we as humans need to take a step back and take a look at what we’re arguing over. The perspective might help.
How hard it is for adults to deal with the consequences of their decisions and actions! This whole topic and the scenarios and imagined future worlds, technologies and arguments are all so we can figure out ways to not deal with an inconvenient consequence of sex (pregnancy). Sometimes we as humans need to take a step back and take a look at what we’re arguing over. The perspective might help.
From the pronatalist perspective, I'd point out that a father-requested abortion doesn't actually prevent someone from having a child - it just means the wannabe mother will have to find another partner who actually consents to having a child with her. I don't know how long you have to wait before getting pregnant again after an abortion - maybe a few months? That might not even matter, since the right for fathers to refuse to have a child would incentivize wannabe mothers to pick a partner with compatible life plans in the first place. Currently the incentives are the opposite - people may use pregnancy to prevent a partner from leaving. I'm all for incentivizing fertility, but I'd focus more on people who want children and don't have them because of work/daycare/education conflicts, than on people who don't want them and have them because of accidents or deception.
I think we probably disagree because I give some small but non-zero status to the fetus even early in pregnancy. So if the mother wants it I think she should of course be able to keep it even if she shouldn’t be able to demand child support. And if pregnancy didn’t require a woman’s body I’d think men should have a right to keep the baby on their own as well. If you have a business with someone that isn’t worth anything yet, and you decide you don’t want to do it anymore, I don’t think you should be able to force them to shut down the business and no longer pursue the idea just because you were involved and no longer want to be. They also shouldn’t be able to force you to remain involved. And I feel the same for pregnancy.
I see what you mean. The business analogy is compelling, though my own analogy would have been something "Eminem filing a cease and desist order against Vivik Ramaswamy".
There's another edge case: what if the fetus mom wants to keep the baby, the fetus dad wants to abort, and technologies for abortion are vanishingly non-invasive (like, swallowing an idealized abortion pill with no side effect)? Should the father be able to mandate an abortion?
On a moral ground I'm not sure - there's some value to the your-body-your-choice doctrine, although we do give pills to people without consent already so exceptions may sometimes be ok. On a pragmatic ground, I'm pretty sure a world where fathers can request early abortions (assuming the idealized tech above) is a better world, if anything because growing up without a father appears to be harmful to the child and to society. Maybe some fathers also attribute some sacred value to parenthood or genetic material and may just not want to have a child if they don't want to, regardless of rearing or alimony. In these cases, it's not clear why these "sacred values" should be less worthy of respect than the "sacred value" of people not taking a pill if they don't want to. What do you think?
(To be really clear, I don't know what current abortion tech feels like, but I think there's a threshold of invasiveness below which the dad should have the right to request an abortion. Whether there will ever be a technology that goes below the threshold is another question!)
I disagree. I think, in an *ideal* world, neither party should be able to force abortion if the other party doesn’t want it. The only reason I think it’s right that the mother can unilaterally decide to get an abortion in the *real* world is because being forced to continue a pregnancy conflicts with her bodily autonomy. Towards the end of the piece I imagine a world where the baby is incubated outside of the woman’s body, and in that world I say that I think the father should be able to keep the baby even if the mother doesn’t want it. My opinion here is probably informed by me being very pronatalist. While I agree that growing up without a father is not ideal I expect most of those lives are still well worth living. Generally I think any babies that are wanted by one or more parent should get to live, I just don’t think parents who didn’t want those kids to be born should be forced to pay for them, and I don’t think women who don't want a baby should be forced to continue a pregnancy.
When a contract goes bad, it's NOT typical for a judge to force completion of the contract. Most often, it makes sense to end it, with the non-performing party made to pay damages.
If a woman wants to abort in a context where it's a breach of promise, I can see her being forced to pay damages to compensate for the man's disappointment. But, asking her to have the child would, in my mind, be cruel and unusual punishment.
How hard it is for adults to deal with the consequences of their decisions and actions! This whole topic and the scenarios and imagined future worlds, technologies and arguments are all so we can figure out ways to not deal with an inconvenient consequence of sex (pregnancy). Sometimes we as humans need to take a step back and take a look at what we’re arguing over. The perspective might help.
How hard it is for adults to deal with the consequences of their decisions and actions! This whole topic and the scenarios and imagined future worlds, technologies and arguments are all so we can figure out ways to not deal with an inconvenient consequence of sex (pregnancy). Sometimes we as humans need to take a step back and take a look at what we’re arguing over. The perspective might help.
From the pronatalist perspective, I'd point out that a father-requested abortion doesn't actually prevent someone from having a child - it just means the wannabe mother will have to find another partner who actually consents to having a child with her. I don't know how long you have to wait before getting pregnant again after an abortion - maybe a few months? That might not even matter, since the right for fathers to refuse to have a child would incentivize wannabe mothers to pick a partner with compatible life plans in the first place. Currently the incentives are the opposite - people may use pregnancy to prevent a partner from leaving. I'm all for incentivizing fertility, but I'd focus more on people who want children and don't have them because of work/daycare/education conflicts, than on people who don't want them and have them because of accidents or deception.
I think we probably disagree because I give some small but non-zero status to the fetus even early in pregnancy. So if the mother wants it I think she should of course be able to keep it even if she shouldn’t be able to demand child support. And if pregnancy didn’t require a woman’s body I’d think men should have a right to keep the baby on their own as well. If you have a business with someone that isn’t worth anything yet, and you decide you don’t want to do it anymore, I don’t think you should be able to force them to shut down the business and no longer pursue the idea just because you were involved and no longer want to be. They also shouldn’t be able to force you to remain involved. And I feel the same for pregnancy.
I see what you mean. The business analogy is compelling, though my own analogy would have been something "Eminem filing a cease and desist order against Vivik Ramaswamy".