I used the sperm rights analogy as a thought experiment, illustrating a more extreme example of how absurd it is to talk about the “rights” of things that live inside our body. I don’t mean to compare a fetus to a sperm, although one must admit that without sperm, the fetus would not exist. If one claims the fetus has rights, however, why not admit that the sperm should have some rights also, if maybe of a lesser order? In some cultures, such as the old testament and much of Christianity, masturbation is considered a sin precisely because the sperm is “spilled”, rather than put in a vagina where it can produce a child. Same with prohibitions against oral and anal sex and constraception. Any spilling of sperm not inside a vagina for purposes of reproduction is sin, and punishable. I’m just using that as an example of a potential legal system, and transposing our current logic of “rights” to it. I think it makes a valid point, but not a literal one.

You are the one who is defining things as you wish to obtain the result you want

I am defining the thought experiment for rhetorical purposes. The basic idea is to show how obvious it is to us that living things inside our body do not have rights that supercede our own. Once outside our body, that changes dramatically. It’s why personhood historically has always only been attributed to those who are born. It’s why we celebrate birthdays rather than conception days. You can say that’s all wrong, and we should change how we see these things, but I think you need much better reasons than you’ve put forward, and the argument about “rights” will always favor the woman rather than the fetus. Check our Larison on that issue if you think that’s a liberal bias.

whether something has distinct DNA or not is an matter of empirical observation, not religious belief. you are making a speciouos analogy of a fetus to sperm,.

In the first place, where did the fetus get its DNA? Half came from the sperm, which means that the sperm is necessary for the fetus’ existence. If the sperm has no right to an egg, the fetus has no right to even exist. And clearly, if sperm never make it to an egg, no fetus will exist. So the fetus’ DNA is not its own, it’s taken from the sperm, and the egg. It’s not the fetus’ invention or something original to the fetus. The fetus is dependent on the sperm, but you say we should give all rights to the fetus, and none to the sperm? By your own logic, that makes no sense. My logic of rights, however, has nothing to do with our DNA or its origins, but has to do with our functional capacity as independent beings who exist outside the bodies of our mothers. There’s nothing written in any legal or moral literature about human rights being somehow derived from our DNA or immunological identity. So its silly to argue this way. I do so for rhetorical reasons, to demonstrate how silly it is.

“The question is whether the woman will carry the child in her body or not.”

That’s the question that interests you, but that is not “the” question, that is not the question I stated. Try to stay on topic – the question was which person’s rights matter or should matter more to the father. That was my question.

If the fetus were inside the father, that would matter the most. But the question of what matters most to the father isn’t relevant, since the fetus doesn’t live inside his body. The father might not care about the mother at all, or what she wants. She might hate him. He might have raped her. Or, she might love him, and might be persuaded to have the child out of love for him. If the man loves the mother, I’d say he ought to care most what the mother wants, and if he wants her to have the child, he’s got to convince her that he loves her so much he’ll be around to make sure everything turns out right. But he can’t treat her as his property, and tell her how she must live and procreate. Not legally at any rate. But that’s one of the major reasons behind the feminist movement and the legalization of abortion – the claiming by women of the right to do with their bodies what they want, and not to be owned by a man as chattel or breeding stock.

“The man doesn’t have a right to insist that she do that. ”

This is a statement of opinion, not of fact. Rights are really never a matter of fact; they are social conventions or features of legal systems. That is not what we are discussing here.

It’s both my opinion about our social conventions and its the law. Rights only exist as matters of social construct and law. On what basis are you presuming them to exist otherwise?

“Before then, he can be as persuasive as he wants to be, but he can’t force her to carry a child to birth.”

Considering how dependent a pregnant woman is, typically on her husband, what degree of compulsion do you say she is entitled to apply to him?

What century are you living in? A whole lot of women give birth out of wedlock these days, and are not dependent on their children’s fathers for their livelihood. She can’t compel him to do anything. But the state can compel him to pay child support after the baby is born. Those are the risks men take sticking their wee-wees into a woman’s woo-woo.

Would you say she has a right to carry the child to term if she wants and to force him to assume all legal responsibilities to raise that child for considerably longer than she will be pregnant with him or her? If so, how so?

It’s not a right, it’s just the law. The law covering child support is not based on the woman’s rights, but on the government’s addressing the pressing social problem of deadbeat dads. It sometimes sucks, but the only other solution – forcing the woman to have an abortion – sucks even worse.

And if so, what enforcement mechanism do you posit? How is going to prevent him from triggering a miscarriage, anything she can do on her own?

Are you serious? There are laws against assault and battery and poisoning that cover this pretty well.

You are going to say that it is her body – well, dandy. That’s hardly going to stop a two-by-four across the belly. So why should anyone respect the rights of someone who doesn’t respect his rights?

You have an interesting imagination. Let me introduce you to your new cellmates.

You are the one who is defining things as you wish to obtain the result you want ; whether something has distinct DNA or not is an matter of empirical observation, not religious belief. you are making a speciouos analogy of a fetus to sperm,. You might as well compare a fetus to any other mass of cells. i might as well compare a living child to a mass of cells, or to a piece of live stock that the family can sell at need – there is no real biological difference beyond viability, and an eight-month fetus is pretty viable. You may posit some difference between an eight-month fetus and a two-month infant, but that is a social, cultural or legal diffenrence, not biological and empiricaly verifiable. That was the point of my illustration above. For starters.

“The question is whether the woman will carry the child in her body or not.”

That’s the question that interests you, but that is not “the” question, that is not the question I stated. Try to stay on topic – the question was which person’s rights matter or should matter more to the father. That was my question.

“The man doesn’t have a right to insist that she do that. ”

This is a statement of opinion, not of fact. Rights are really never a matter of fact; they are social conventions or features of legal systems. That is not what we are discussing here.

“Before then, he can be as persuasive as he wants to be, but he can’t force her to carry a child to birth.”

We go back to the issue of individual rights, which obviously rest on the reality of the individual in the first place. Considering how dependent a pregnant woman is, typically on her husband, what degree of compulsion do you say she is entitled to apply to him? Would you say she has a right to carry the child to term if she wants and to force him to assume all legal responsibilities to raise that child for considerably longer than she will be pregnant with him or her? If so, how so?

And if so, what enforcement mechanism do you posit? How is going to prevent him from triggering a miscarriage, anything she can do on her own?

You are going to say that it is her body – well, dandy. That’s hardly going to stop a two-by-four across the belly. So why should anyone respect the rights of someone who doesn’t respect his rights?

As for the dispute of father and mother, again, that fetus is inside the woman, not the man. The question is whether the woman will carry the child in her body or not. The man doesn’t have a right to insist that she do that. If she does, he has the parental rights, because the fetus is now a child outside the woman’s body. Before then, he can be as persuasive as he wants to be, but he can’t force her to carry a child to birth. That’s not within his rights. If men want that kind of right, they will have to develop exogenesis to the point where a woman’s womb is not necessary for procreation. Coming soon to a dystopian future near you.

Sperm are not immunologically distinct beings, fetuses are. immunological distinctness is the biological standard for being and independent organism. A pregnant female (whatever the species as long as it’s viviparous) is more analogous to conjoint twins. This is only a problem when the female is human; then we get all conflicted about rights and whose rights and all.

Let’s take the naturalistic approach. SayI am the woman’s mate and in this case actually the fetus’ father. She wants to abort and I want the child. (For the purpose of argument let’s say it’s a simple disagreement; in actual practice I would always give in and agree to an abortion for a number of reasons, chief among them it’s pretty pointless to ry to raise a child with someone who doesn’t want him or her.) So OK.

Question: Whose rights do I actually care about (and in Confucian terms, to whom do I have the greater duty) – my own flesh and blood, or someone else’s daughter?

Yes, but why?

Because the unborn only exist inside the body of the already born. (except for ecto-embryos). The rights of the woman carrying a fetus are considered inherently greater than that of the fetus, since the fetus lives inside her body, as a part of her, and people are considered to have the right to control what goes on inside their own body.

Imagine how it would be if I proposed laws regulating what you could do with your sperm? That, say, you had no right to masturbate, or engage in non-reproductive sex, but only to use your sperm to impregnate a fertile female, because your sperm have the right to impregnate a woman rather than be wasted for your own personal pleasure. Would you think that your own rights are superior to the rights of the sperm who live in your testes?

I support full-rights for abortion up to and including the moment of crowning because I believe in, among other things, a government that doesn’t have the power to interfere with such choices that individuals may want to make that fall quite plainly under a “Right To Privacy”. I’m pretty sure that you would disagree with the size of the category that I would consider “Private”, now that I think about it.

But, maybe, a government powerful enough to interfere but always interferes correctly because, this time, the right people are making the decisions for everybody else will work out this time.

I SAID Beck can say what he likes, but I don’t think it cost-viable for your cause, like BillO’s 28 episodes of Tiller attacks inspiring Roeder.
I think BillO and Scott Roeder have badly damaged the prolife brand.
It will be interesting to see the next round of polling.