quote: The National Center for Men has prepared a lawsuit -- nicknamed Roe v. Wade for Men -- to be filed Thursday in U.S. District Court in Michigan on behalf of a 25-year-old computer programmer ordered to pay child support for his ex-girlfriend's daughter.
The suit addresses the issue of male reproductive rights, contending that lack of such rights violates the U.S. Constitution's equal protection clause.
Heard this on the radio this morning and then saw it on the news so I had to look up the story. Although my inital reaction was distate for deadbeat dads, I started thinking about their argument.
The argument basically is this: If a girl gets pregnant she has the option to have the baby, give it up for adoption, or get an abortion. If a guy gets the girl pregnant, he obviously can and should not be able to make the choice for her. However, the guy has no way to opt out of the obligation like the woman does. One soundbite on the news blew my mind. It was some random pro-abortion woman off the street who said, "Well the guy has a choice. He knows he could get her pregnant so he should be responsible to prevent that. Otherwise he'll just have to live with the consequences." It kind of blew me away. Put that line in the context of talking about abortion and you'd have the same woman spouting off whatever the Institute for Men is saying. I mainly posted this because it was somewhat humorous (in an ironic sort of way), not because I expect anything to come of it.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
quote:It was some random pro-abortion woman off the street who said, "Well the guy has a choice. He knows he could get her pregnant so he should be responsible to prevent that. Otherwise he'll just have to live with the consequences."
Yeah, rewrite it as, "Well the girl has a choice. She knows she could get pregnant, so she should be responsible to prevent that. Otherwise she'll just have to live with the consequences." and you'll be crucified for being uncompassionate, sexist and possibly even Satan himself.
I've long thought that there needed to be a change there. If the guy gets no veto rights on whether the baby is carried to term or aborted (which requires the presumption that the growing cells inside her IS a baby) then he should be able to opt out of further responsibility, including full revocation of parental rights. I think that's fair.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
o_O
Sounds like a good argument to me, but then again, I'm not a supporter of abortion rights, so . . .
Posted by JoeH (Member # 5958) on :
Can a father-to-be (whether husband, boyfriend, etc.) prevent the mother-to-be from getting an abortion?
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
I don't think so.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
quote:Originally posted by JoeH: Can a father-to-be (whether husband, boyfriend, etc.) prevent the mother-to-be from getting an abortion?
Not legally, no. That doesn't mean that no man has ever prevented his wife/girlfriend from going through with an abortion through intimidation or the like.
Posted by JoeH (Member # 5958) on :
When I saw the father's rights phrase, I thought it would be about the father-to-be's lack of rights to prevent the abortion.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Well, that's part of it, isn't it? He has no rights one way or the other, but he does have responsibilities.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I don't think legally the argument makes any sense. Personally, I am pro-life. However, I dont' think the decision in Roe V. Wade even if it stands in anyway legitimizes the fathers position.
From my understanding, the reasoning behind Roe V. Wade is very much centered on the ability of women to have control over their own bodies. This right is derived from a right to privacy. A man would have a similar right over care of his own medical care but would have no such right over a women's body. Once the baby is outside of the body, or viable outside the womb, the decision no longer gives women absolute control over its decisions. Likewise, with something not a part of a man's body, control should not rest there.
Second, with regards to adoption, women can give up a child for adoption but not over the biological father's objections. They could give up custody to the father but theoretically if the monetary system warranted it, they would be responsible for child support. In a lot of instances, this right of the father is denied because of a lack of knowlege about the paternity of the job but if paternity is established, the man would have the ability to stop an adoption.
In short, I agree with the sentiment that the choice was made when the man choose to have sex. He can't give up financial responsibility for his child.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
I think the argument does make sense. If one parent can legally avoid their responsibilities, than the other parent ought to be able to as well.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
theresa, from a legal standpoint, and based on the precedent of Roe v. Wade, I think you're right. RvW is about the woman's right to control her body. But when you get into nebulous concepts like responsibility and who gets to avoid it (not what RvW was about), then it doesn't anymore. I don't think you succeed in supporting your last paragraph.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
As soon as a man becomes equally pregnant, I'm sure he'll have equal protection inregards to what he does with his own body.
[ March 10, 2006, 09:14 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
There are state decisions concerning frozen embryos that suggest that there is a right not to procreate. It hasn't been touched by SCOTUS, and there's no sense that such a right would trump the Casey rights (Roe is no longer controlling law). But it's not like this concept is brand new to the law.
quote:As soon as a man becomes equally pregnant, I'm sure he'll have equal protection inregards to what he does with his own body.
Let's give everyone equal protection over their own body, including unborn children.
Posted by aspectre (Member # 2222) on :
Ah, there's the nub of the question: at which point do the unborn become children? At the frozen embryo state? At the SacredSperm state as suggested by some recent popes? At the frozen SacredSperm state as technology now allows?
[ March 10, 2006, 09:46 PM: Message edited by: aspectre ]
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I guess I don't know where I have failed to support the conclusion. If a women can't give up a baby for adoption without the known fathers consent. Then she is not free to sever parental rights without the fathers consent. Thus, there is no reason that the father should have a greater right then the mother.
Other than adoption the other option to give up parental rights is to have an abortion. I think the first paragraph explains why I think women have the unique right to this currently.
I hope that clarifies some.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
It seems to me that the issue is not the woman's control over her body, that's established in law whether you like it or not, but rather the man's control over his money.
Posted by CoriSCapnSkip (Member # 9153) on :
Men trying to prevent a wife or girlfriend having an abortion has been tried several times. I remember one case where the guy was really distraught, saying, "They're killing my child." In another case, the couple were getting divorced and the wife said her husband knew having this baby would hurt her in the worst possible way which was what he was trying to do. I found her more believable than him.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
This is tricky, but I tend to favor a system that gives the father some say with out giving sleezeballs (sex and run) types an out of support for their unwanted pregnancies.
I'm imagining a system where if the woman is expecting to claim support from the father she must declare him the father early enough for him to opt out of it. If he opts out of it at that stage, she can choose to abort or she can choose to keep. If she chooses to keep then she is fully responsible for it. When the father opts out, he's basically petitioning for an abortion. So make it clear that by opting out, he petitions for abortion. It still kinda gives sleezeballs an out, but any control over the it is, and no control is gonna screw over a lot of well meaning people. I'd rather let some sleezeballs get away with it than screw over good people. If the father fails to request abortion at the early stage, then he is fully responsible (ie, as reponsible as he would be now).
So this system would still leave the ultimate choice in the hands of the female, while giving the father some say, but still some responsibility.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
This really isn't a surprise to me. This is just like the discussion going on over in the Feminist Family thread. Women are fighting tooth and nail to keep a system that is more or less geared towards giving them control over everything that has to do with the creation, existance, and destruction of the American family.
Women choose to have or not have children, they have NO personal responsibility forced upon them by law. Men have no choices.
Women (many or most feminists, and a lot of the others) think they are are the ones who should choose who is the stay at home mom or dad, if the man forces her to work, he's uncaring, if he makes her stay at home, he's oppressive. Women can do either and it's just fair, men shouldn't decide. (Edited for clarity)
Women get automatic favoritism in divorce, whether it comes to who gets the children or who gets the house.
As for the whole "men gave up their choice in the matter when they chose to have sex." I'm sorry, but that's bullshit. If we applied that the same way to women, abortion would be illegal. Women decide if the baby survives or dies, then if they want it, or it goes up for adoption, and the entire time the man is waiting in the wings to see what happens. What if he wants his kid and the woman doesn't? Too bad, it's her body. If he wants to absolve himself of financial responsibility? Well he should have kept it in his pants.
Being a man in American isn't hard at all, until he has a family. Then he's just along for the ride.
[ March 11, 2006, 01:36 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
quote:So this system would still leave the ultimate choice in the hands of the female, while giving the father some say, but still some responsibility.--Alcon
Some responsibility for men, but zero liability for men, if they "opt out." An aloof phrase which equals "good luck with Junior, I'm going fishin' "
It's not fair. Neither is the current system, but at least it has legal and moral precedence for men upholding their reproductive responsibilities.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
I do agree that the current abortion laws are unequal with respect to the sexes, I'm willing to suffer this unequality. Abortion is already a tragic circumstance, I'm not sure how committing another wrong, letting the father abdicate the responsibilities of paternity, mitigates the first wrong. In addition, I feel that this may have the adverse effect of leading to more abortions.
There is old argument about promoting justice through equality, which means that if we have two people with an inequal amount of goods, it's in the interest of justice of "level down" the higher person's goods so that they are equal with the lower person's goods. For those who dethrone humanity and worship equality instead, this argument holds an inordinate amount of sway. A similar argument can be made about allowing the man his paternity in the eyes of the law. If equality our highest good, then we should support such legislation, but equality is only one of our civic virtues.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'd go along with men not having an "opt out" option if fathers had veto rights over their children being aborted.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Women get should be the ones to choose who is the stay at home mom or dad, if they man forces her to work, he's uncaring, if he makes her stay at home, he's oppressive. Women can do either and it's just fair, men shouldn't decide.
Lyrhawn, are you suggesting that women can, and do, force men to work/stay at home?
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
Abortion is biologically disposed against men. The same way that rape is biologically disposed against women. It's okay to admit that the sexes are different. The only problem is that the difference, in this case, resides on political fault line. I think that this is one case that men should accept the inequality. I mean, I still think that in the some of all experiences, men get the easier deal in the balance.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm sure it happens, but do I think it happens in a majority of families? No, probably not.
But I think a great number of feminists, and women and general think it is/should be their decision to make that choice.
Regardless, it's socially acceptable for a woman to make that kind of choice, and really, it's socially preferred, but poor form and oppressive for a man to do the same.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Regardless, it's socially acceptable for a woman to make that kind of choice, and really, it's socially preferred, but poor form and oppressive for a man to do the same.
I really don't get what you're saying here.
I think it should be a person's choice whether they work or not. No-one has the right to force their partner to work or not.
And, quite frankly, I don't think women are forcing men to work.
The impression I get from your posts is you have a view that women can simply say, without consultation or previous discussion "Right, that's it. I'm staying home and that's the end of the story".
I think you'll find the norm is that couples actually discuss the issue and find out what works best for them, rather than a woman deciding to issue an order out of the blue.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: women and general think it is/should be their decision to make that choice
I'm a woman and a feminist and I don't.
Or rather, I think it is a woman's choice whether she works or not. And I think it is a man's choice whether *he* works or not.
It is a couple's duty to balance the two. We have examples on this board of men who have made the choice to stay at home and women who have made the choice to work.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Some responsibility for men, but zero liability for men, if they "opt out." An aloof phrase which equals "good luck with Junior, I'm going fishin' "
Yeah, one way to mitigate that would be to include some bit about unprotected vs protected. IE if the male didn't use a condum he can't opt out. If it did, then he's sorta done what he can to prevent the kid from happening (short of not having sex). Everything else is up to the female. If he had unprotected sex, then forget it, it was his choice and is his reponsibility.
Basically the case I'm thinking of is where a guy hooks up with a girl, on equal terms, does his best to have safe, protected sex, they go their separate ways, then the girl gets pregnant decides to keep it and tries to get support from the dad. Currently she can get away with it (often, at least as I understand it). This way, she'd have to a) notify the dad he was a dad early and b) let him know of her intentions with the child and give him a chance to either say "hey, I didn't want this and I did what I could to prevent it, its your turn" or "I'm in for it, lets try it".
My thought is basically that parenthood is a two way street. What I mean by telling him 'early' is basically as soon as she realizes she's pregnant. If she doesn't do it (tell him) then he has no say in the matter of whether or not the child comes into existance, and should have no responsibility when it does.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Basically the case I'm thinking of is where a guy hooks up with a girl, on equal terms, does his best to have safe, protected sex, they go their separate ways, then the girl gets pregnant decides to keep it and tries to get support from the dad. Currently she can get away with it (often, at least as I understand it). This way, she'd have to a) notify the dad he was a dad early and b) let him know of her intentions with the child and give him a chance to either say "hey, I didn't want this and I did what I could to prevent it, its your turn" or "I'm in for it, lets try it".
The problem I see with this example is that the girl also did her best to have safe, protected sex. She would then have all the financial burden to bear if the father "opted out" and she didn't want to have an abortion (for religous/moral reasons for example).
There is a difference between not wanting to get pregnant and automtically wanting an abortion when you accidentally fall pregnant.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
The whole thing is very sticky. But the idea of anyone having 'more' rights than anyone else is not a happy one. So the idea of females having more rights here than the father is one that very very much bothers me here. Don't get me wrong, I'm very much a femenist, but one whos for equality, not inequality.
There must be some way to give the father some say over the kid. I mean, as it is now the father can emphatically say "I don't want the kid, I'm not prepared for this." and have done everything he possibly could to prevent it. The mother can just say "To hell with you." have it and then sue for support. There's something not right about that.
quote:The problem I see with this example is that the girl also did her best to have safe, protected sex. She would then have all the financial burden to bear if the father "opted out" and she didn't want to have an abortion (for religous/moral reasons for example).
There is a difference between not wanting to get pregnant and automtically wanting an abortion when you accidentally fall pregnant.
It doesn't necesarily have to be abortion. It could be adoption too, if the father opted out. The opt out doesn't force the girl to have an abortion, it just forces to the girl to either find a new home for the baby or take care of it herself. The idea is to prevent a girl from single handedly deciding to have a child (against the fathers will) and then forcing child care out of him.
And I've never heard of a religion that was against giving a kid up for adoption.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by imogen:
quote: women and general think it is/should be their decision to make that choice
I'm a woman and a feminist and I don't.
Or rather, I think it is a woman's choice whether she works or not. And I think it is a man's choice whether *he* works or not.
It is a couple's duty to balance the two. We have examples on this board of men who have made the choice to stay at home and women who have made the choice to work.
I was specific in saying that I don't think ALL women think that way. So far as I'm concerned, and I've covered this in the other thread on the subject, I think it SHOULD be a balanced decision between the parents involved in the decisionmaking process. One gender shouldn't have the right to tell the other whether or not they can or cannot work/stay at home. I guess my point, which I was overenthusiastic in portraying, is that it is much more acceptable for women to clamor for the right to be in control of the family, whereas men are purely viewed as sexist and playing to 18th century views of men controlling women.
As for the scenario above, it only assumes the woman tried her hardest as well if she was on birth control. And if both sides fail, and the women chooses to abort the child whereas the man wants to care for it himself, can he do so over her objections? Afterall, the desire of men in general to opt out is trumped by the needs of the child to be supported. And in that I agree, the rights of that child to grow up supported should outweigh the complaints of the man almost every time, depending on the situation, so long as he is allowed equal parenting rights. But when the man wants to raise that child, which is clearly taking the rights of the child into the forefront, then neither the child nor the man's rights are respected. They are trumped by the right's of the mother.
It's a strange reality there. Women first, children second, men last. And men plus children still don't trump women.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: It doesn't necesarily have to be abortion. It could be adoption too, if the father opted out. The opt out doesn't force the girl to have an abortion, it just forces to the girl to either find a new home for the baby or take care of it herself. The idea is to prevent a girl from single handedly deciding to have a child (against the fathers will) and then forcing child care out of him.
That's true - I had skipped the can give birth doesn't necessarily mean raising the child step in my head.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The big problem I see with this argument is that every time a man and a woman have sex there is a possibility that conception can happen. Women who take birth control pills are well aware of the fact that it may not work but I am amazed at the number of men who assume that a condom will prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. Read the boxes folks they all have their percentage sucess rate on them.
I think that if abortion is legal it has to reside on the woman to choose because it is her body that will bear all the changes a pregnancy entails.
Bottom line, if men and women don't want to deal with an unexpected/unwanted pregnancy, the best way to avoid it is to not have sex. If you choose to engage in the sex act then both parties will have to bear responsibility for any child that may be conceived.
By the way, those financial responsibilities the court hand down are sometimes $400/month, sometimes less than that. $400/month doesn't come close to paying for half of a child's expenses.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by andi330: The big problem I see with this argument is that every time a man and a woman have sex there is a possibility that conception can happen. Women who take birth control pills are well aware of the fact that it may not work but I am amazed at the number of men who assume that a condom will prevent pregnancy 100% of the time. Read the boxes folks they all have their percentage sucess rate on them.
Ross - I don't, I don't understand. We used a condom.
Rachel - You know Ross, condoms are only effective like 99% of the time.
Ross -What? WHAT?! Well they should put that on the box!
Rachel - They do!
Ross - No they don't! *Checks the box* Well then they should put it in HUGE, BLOCK, LETTERS!
Rachel - Ross will you forget the condoms!
Ross - Well I may as well have!
Posted by Epictetus (Member # 6235) on :
First off, I am tired of hearing the argument that "if a man lets his wife work, he's seen as uncaring, if he let's her stay home, he's oppressive." Lyrhawn, I know you didn't mean it this way, but this kind of argument is about other people's perceptions, not about the reality and worrying about what other people think got old in High School. If you and your partner come to some arrangement about work, support, taking care of the kids, it's your own business, not your neighbors.
Now, on to the subject at hand. The guy filing the lawsuit, as he actually mentions in the story, doesn't have much to stand on. There are currently no laws (that I know of) that place any restrictions on men informing their partner know their preference when it comes to unplanned pregnancies, so I find his argument that "women have a myriad of options available to them and men have none" pretty empty. Now, she assured him that she couldn't get pregnant...it's still a good idea to use a condom against STD's etc. He furthermore complains that she knew he didn't want to have a child with her, as if she could had conscious control over her egg fusing with a sperm...I just gotta say, sex-cells have no regard for intentions and desires.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well come on, she assured him that it was medically impossible for her to have kids, and then she got pregnant. What was he supposed to do, ask for a medical report and have it notarized to prove it?
Had he known it was possible, he may have chosen not to have sex with her.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Another thing guys should know. And women, too.
"Pulling out" is not an effective method for preventing pregnancy.
Seriously.
It's not.
No.
Really.
Also, I was reading about various birth control methods, and a lot of people don't realize that the 99% for the pill only applies if the pill is taken exactly as directed. Otherwise, it's more like 95% (with the average woman's use, I mean. Obviously, the pill is NOT 95% effective if you don't color within the lines at ALL). Oh, and condoms START at 97% effective, and that figure drops when they're not used correctly, too.
But. I don't think that, "Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex" is a very defensible view, unless you want to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" angle, which is EXACTLY what that sounds like to me.
"Oh, boo hoo, didn't want to have a kid? Well, you should've thought of that before you opened your legs, skank! Wait until marriage like a GOOD, MORAL person!"
Yeah. That bothers me.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think people are confused about "mothers" suing for child support. Child support actions are brought on behalf of the child. Many (maybe most) states will bring an action on behalf of the child against the mother's wishes in certain cases.
Child support is simply a recognition that biological parents have a duty to to their children to provide for them.*
There are certain cases where a parent can be relieved of that responsibility. One is abortion. The others all require that someone else voluntarily accept that responsibility before the biological parent can relinquish it.
Just because we allow one particularly gruesome type of abdication of parental responsibility doesn't mean we should throw open the floodgates to allow another.
*There are outlier cases where non-biological fathers are stuck w/ child support.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But. I don't think that, "Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex" is a very defensible view, unless you want to bring up the "pregnancy as punishment" angle, which is EXACTLY what that sounds like to me.
"Oh, boo hoo, didn't want to have a kid? Well, you should've thought of that before you opened your legs, skank! Wait until marriage like a GOOD, MORAL person!"
How about I restate your view on abortion as "I should be able to vacuum out a baby's brain because I don't feel like being a little inconvenienced"? I'm pretty sure you'd feel that to be unfair and not conducive to discussion.
"Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex" is exactly the view being promulgated against the fathers trying to weasel their way out of child support. And it's appropriate to do so.
That doesn't mean it's punishment. It means that when one engages in an activity in which there is a chance of outcome A, they should be prepared to accept the consequences of outcome A when it happens.
As you pointed out, no birth control is perfect. So the chance of pregnancy exists pretty much every time a man and a woman have sex. Therefore both parties should be prepared to accept the consequences of that act. It's not punishment, any more than gaining weight is punishment for having an extra slice of pie.
Allowing one to avoid a natural consequence at the direct expense of another person (either to the actual life of that other person or denying that other person the means to be fed, clothed, sheltered, and otherwise cared for) simply because there is an unequal impact on the two people faced with the consequence is absurd.
This suit demonstrates that absurdity quite well.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee: it is possible (based on seat of my pants calculations) to lower the risk of pregnancy below the chances of dying in a car accident when riding or driving in a car. Should everyone who rides in a car be prepared to accept death as a consequence for their actions, in the same sense of being prepared to accept?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's a great analogy. Yes, everyone riding in a car has to be prepared to accept the risk of death. Of course, steps can be taken to lower that risk. Before the accidents happen, seat belts, airbags, crumple zones, and good driving techniques all reduce the risk.
Afterwards, good medical care reduces that risk.
Of course, we don't allow an accident victim to claim the heart for a transplant from a healthy person even when such actions would save the accident victim's life. Nor do we call it "punishing a person for driving" when we deny them the right to take another's heart.
Pregnancy differs from the car accident scenario only in that there is no way to "reduce the risk" to the mother of giving birth without taking another's life (edit: once the accident or conception has happened).
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Oh, I think there is a way to "reduce the risk" to the mother of giving birth without taking another's life. I think we need to ensure a universal, high, minimum level of care for expectant mothers.
Furthermore, the analogy does undermine the reaction of those who do say things like "well, if you weren't ready to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex" -- would it ever be appropriate to tell someone "well, if you weren't ready to have a debilitating injury you shouldn't have ridden in a car"? It doesn't even make sense.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
Alcon, I think you keep neglecting the fact that the biological circumstances for the man and the women ARE different. Look, men and women have equal control over their OWN bodies. Women can have or not have whatever medical procedures she wants on her body and men have the same option with their bodies. Personally, I believe that the child's rights supercede the women's so I am pro-life but I absolutely don't support a man having any say in what I do with my body.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
Of course there are biological differences.
You can either give men and women the same rights concerning their bodies, or give them the same rights concerning their (born or unborn) offspring.
You can't have both.
Some people feel that rights concerning our offspring should trump rights concerning our bodies. Others disagree.
Posted by Mean Old Frisco (Member # 6666) on :
I think the car analogy is a good one. You should be prepared to accept the consequences of riding in a car, no matter how low the risk. And if you want to completely eliminate the risk of receiving a debilitating injury then no, you should not be riding in a car. This is covered quite well in Driver's Education, actually. It's also common sense.
Would it be appropriate to *tell* someone these things? Probably not, since it would be sort of like rubbing salt in a wound as they lay in a hospital somewhere. It's also not something you tell their family at the funeral.
But being pregnant is not analogous to death, so it's not nearly as insensitive to say such things, especially in hypothetical situations.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The argument that the woman told him that she had a medical condition that caused an inability to get pregnant doesn't wash either. Maybe she had been told that by doctors and maybe she made it up. Regardless, women that have been advised by doctors that they cannot have children get pregnant every year. Doctors aren't God folks and they can be incorrect.
The reason that women are the ones who can choose an abortion is because there are physical and emotional outcomes to keeping the child and to having an abortion. Women who are pregnant go through nine months of being uncomfortable, there is often morning sickness (which can last all day), there are hormonal changes which will last for months after the baby is born etc. In addition women who have abortions face emotional and physical problems too. Again there are hormonal issues that come with having an abortion while the body readjusts to not being pregnant and a large number of women suffer for years from depression and feelings of guilt after having abortions.
For everyone making the argument that giving the child up for adoption is the woman's choice too, think again. In order for an adoption to be legal and uncontestable both parents must sign away their parental rights. The mother cannot force the father into signing his rights away and vice versa.
Children are not a punishment for having sex, but they can be a consequense of it. If two people have sex, they must be aware that pregnancy is always a potential outcome and be prepared to deal with the consequenses. Period.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Oh, I think there is a way to "reduce the risk" to the mother of giving birth without taking another's life. I think we need to ensure a universal, high, minimum level of care for expectant mothers.
I didn't mean the risk of harm to the mother should birth occur. I meant the chances of giving birth once pregnancy has occurred.
quote:Furthermore, the analogy does undermine the reaction of those who do say things like "well, if you weren't ready to get pregnant you shouldn't have had sex" -- would it ever be appropriate to tell someone "well, if you weren't ready to have a debilitating injury you shouldn't have ridden in a car"? It doesn't even make sense.
I think it would be appropriate to say to someone contemplating the death of another to avoid some of the consequences of that decision.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:For everyone making the argument that giving the child up for adoption is the woman's choice too, think again. In order for an adoption to be legal and uncontestable both parents must sign away their parental rights. The mother cannot force the father into signing his rights away and vice versa.
True. This is another counterbalance to the contention at the heart of the law suit.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Dagonee, whether or not my reading of that view is conducive to discussion, that IS my reading of that view. It looks like another way to force the "right" morality on other people.
I've said this before: It really, really upsets me how little the average person seems to know about birth control, and I think a lot of it stems from the fact that we as a society view sex as "dirty" and try to avoid discussing it with teenagers. I wish I could replicate my sex-ed program; I think it was really helpful. We had one day of sex ed in fifth grade and another couple of weeks in middle school. Then freshman year, we had a semester of health class, most of which focused on sex ed and eating habits. Plus, we had a section on the human reproductive system in both seventh grade and high school biology. Maybe everyone does this, and I just have a spectacular memory, but it just seems like most people have NO CLUE.
Oh, and our curriculum still managed to emphasize abstinence. Funny.
-pH
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Dagonee, that approach sounds exactly like an attempt to cast the pregnancy as a punishment and guilt the mother into a course of action.
Furthermore, it advances what I consider an extremely dangerous point of view: that a fetus is the mother's responsibility because she had sex. A fetus isn't a mother's responsibility because she had sex, its her responsibility because its her fetus! (note that I am not using the possessive to indicate any diminishment of right's for the fetus; this is a "her fetus" in the same way one might say "his father").
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, whether or not my reading of that view is conducive to discussion, that IS my reading of that view.
Then you're reading is flat out wrong.
It conflates the idea of "duty" with the idea of "punishment." When one takes a voluntary action, one bears the responsbibility for that action. Generally, there's no need to talk about such responsibility when someone accepts the responsibility.
Bearing the responsibility for an action doesn't mean taking the worst possible consequences. But it does mean that limits of morality don't change simply because the consequence is unpleasant to the person who took the action.
Worse than the confusion over duty and punishment, your reading equates the prevention of someone killing another human being with punishment.
quote:Dagonee, that approach sounds exactly like an attempt to cast the pregnancy as a punishment and guilt the mother into a course of action.
See the discussion of responsibility v. punishment above.
quote:Furthermore, it advances what I consider an extremely dangerous point of view: that a fetus is the mother's responsibility because she had sex. A fetus isn't a mother's responsibility because she had sex, its her responsibility because its her fetus!
It doesn't advance that view at all. It's a simpple acknowledgment of biological reality.
A fetus is the parents' responsibility because he's their offspring. This responsibility attaches at the moment of conception.
However, sex leads to conception. If one wants to reduce ones chance of having such responsibility, the single best way to do so is to not have sex.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's not a "he."
And do you want to tell me that we as a society don't look down on unwed mothers? That ALONE equates to the concept of pregnancy as punishment.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's not a "he."
True. He might actually be a she.
quote:And do you want to tell me that we as a society don't look down on unwed mothers? That ALONE equates to the concept of pregnancy as punishment.
It does not equate to the concept of pregnancy as punishment. To the extent it happens, it equates to the concept of disapproval of particular actions which the pregnancy is the evidence of.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
That you are capable of such complex distinctions does not mean that using statements with significant connotations for many is not an application of such connotations.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:That you are capable of such complex distinctions does not mean that using statements with significant connotations for many is not an application of such connotations.
"Duty" v. "punishment" is not a complex distinction. They are two different concepts.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
First, that's not the only distinction you're making; you're distinguishing very specific meanings in your words, for instance. Second, it extremely clearly is a complex distinction for a lot of people -- its not even the first level of moral consideration in common classifications.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:First, that's not the only distinction you're making; you're distinguishing very specific meanings in your words, for instance.
Then you'll need to be more specific as to what "such" refered to.
quote:Second, it extremely clearly is a complex distinction for a lot of people -- its not even the first level of moral consideration in common classifications.
The ideas are being conflated because of the views of the person doing the conflating. It is NOT the people saying, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with a pregnancy" who are advocating pregnancy as punishment.
It's the person who is saying that that statement equals punishment who is conflating the idea of punishment and pregnancy.
It's actually a fairly intellectually dishonest thing to be doing, because it slyly inserts premises into the mouths of the people making the statement.
It's one thing to advocate the idea that being forced to bear a child to term is punishment. That can be supported and refuted by various arguments. It's another to say that those who wish to do so intend it as punishment. And when pH makes the statements she has been making, she's doing the latter.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I'm not arguing pH's position, I'm arguing my position, which is what I always do.
I would think "such" is obvious: the distinctions you are making in the post responded to. For instance, the exact meaning of your statement, the notion of voluntary actions leading to responsibility for the consequences (a notion I reject in the general sense, btw, I think that even the responsibility involved for immediate effects of those actions is the least part of the responsibilities entwined in those effects), that you're "simply" acknowledging biological reality, all these things are distinctions.
Furthermore, you're completely missing one group that in many cases may view such statements as implying punishment: the ones being told such statements.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:It is NOT the people saying, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with a pregnancy" who are advocating pregnancy as punishment.
Well, not on this thread. But that's certainly where I've heard it the most.
Edit: I think it's a counterproductive and stupid argument. But I have heard it from people as both an anti-abortion argument and an ant-birth control argument.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm not arguing pH's position, I'm arguing my position, which is what I always do.
What position, exactly, are you arguing? You've stated that others can't draw such complex distinctions as I do. OK. What does that mean for my arguments (assuming I granted that such distinctions were complex, which I don't for a minute do).
quote:I would think "such" is obvious: the distinctions you are making in the post responded to. For instance, the exact meaning of your statement, the notion of voluntary actions leading to responsibility for the consequences ... that you're "simply" acknowledging biological reality, all these things are distinctions.
First, you specifically referred to distinctions - as in the differences between two entities being expressed. "The exact meaning" isn't something I would "obvious[ly]" refer to as a "distinction," nor is the notion of voluntary actions leading to responsibility for the results. Certainly "simply" acknowledging the biological reality that sex sometimes results in pregnancy isn't something I would immediately view as a distinction.
Second, how are any of these things complex?
quote:Furthermore, you're completely missing one group that in many cases may view such statements as implying punishment: the ones being told such statements.
I'm not missing them. I'm telling them that they are wrong. Their own views on pregnancy, coupled with those statements, imply punishment. Not the statements themselves. I expressly addressed this in my last post.
quote:a notion I reject in the general sense, btw, I think that even the responsibility involved for immediate effects of those actions is the least part of the responsibilities entwined in those effects
Hmm. I wonder where I said that there weren't other responsibilities attached to effects...
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:It is NOT the people saying, "Don't have sex unless you're prepared to deal with a pregnancy" who are advocating pregnancy as punishment.
Well, not on this thread. But that's certainly where I've heard it the most.
Edit: I think it's a counterproductive and stupid argument. But I have heard it from people as both an anti-abortion argument and an ant-birth control argument.
It's not a reason to make either illegal. But it is a response to the arguments in favor of legalized abortion based on the consequences of pregnancy to the mother.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Dagonee, your reasoning is correct, given your axioms. One of your axioms is that a zygote and a blastocyst are human beings. That's not an axiom that's generally accepted, nor is it supportable scientifically. Morally, most people don't even have the moral feeling that a cell or a small clump of cells is a human person. As an intellectual exercise, I suggest you go through your reasoning again with that axiom reversed. Take as your axiom instead that a clump of cells is specifically not a person, but it's a cell clump like hair or fingernails or scabs. Then what do you come up with?
I'm not asking you to believe that. I'm asking you to think it through as an intellectual exercise and see what happens.
I really appreciate your legal knowledge and your clear thinking on lots of subjects here at hatrack. I think you add a lot to most discussions that you take part in, and I enjoy reading your analysis of things. I think abortion is a subject that our society is not likely to settle for a while, but I do think real dialogue is worthwhile. That starts with the understanding on both sides that moral, intelligent, sincere, and well-intentioned people can hold the opposing view.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I believe that technically, gender is not determined until the end of the first trimester.
Which means that it's neither a he nor a she.
And by that, I mean the formation of the sex organs and not the actual XX or XY chromosomes.
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Theresea -
quote:Alcon, I think you keep neglecting the fact that the biological circumstances for the man and the women ARE different. Look, men and women have equal control over their OWN bodies. Women can have or not have whatever medical procedures she wants on her body and men have the same option with their bodies. Personally, I believe that the child's rights supercede the women's so I am pro-life but I absolutely don't support a man having any say in what I do with my body.
Yeah, but as you stated, the biological, and for that matter medical differences are vastly different for men and women. Men can get a vesectomy, which is not really reversable, and is not guaranteed to be reversible, whereas a woman can get an abortion and the extreme majority majority of them are still able to have children again.
For families that have decided they for sure don't want to have any more children, a vasectomy is by far the safest and most effective way to prevent any further conception, but it's not something the casual male is going to have done as a method of birth control, especially not if he is young.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I thought vasectomies were mostly reversible? They have vasectomy-reversal clinics...
-pH
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
No, they aren't.
There is a surgery that can be attempted to reverse the procedure, but families are told specifically going into the process that they should expect to never have children again.
From Webmd:
quote: A vasectomy is a permanent method of birth control. Only consider this method when you are sure that you do not want to have a child in the future.
quote:If you are considering a vasectomy, be absolutely certain that you will never want to father a child..... Surgery to reconnect the vas deferens (vasectomy reversal) is available. However, the reversal procedure is difficult, can be expensive, may not be covered by insurance, and may not always work.
It shouldn't be thought of as something that can be easily undone, or as a quick fix for men.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I didn't think it was EASY, but I thought it could be done...
quote: Depending on the changes following the vasectomy, the time that has passed since the vasectomy and the experience of the surgeon, about 40 percent to 75% percent of all men can expect to father a child again, but not immediately. The success rate is significantly higher in couples who have had children together already.
So yeah. Not spectacular odds, but...it's not absolutely impossible, either.
-pH
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Theresea -
quote:Alcon, I think you keep neglecting the fact that the biological circumstances for the man and the women ARE different. Look, men and women have equal control over their OWN bodies. Women can have or not have whatever medical procedures she wants on her body and men have the same option with their bodies. Personally, I believe that the child's rights supercede the women's so I am pro-life but I absolutely don't support a man having any say in what I do with my body.
Yeah, but as you stated, the biological, and for that matter medical differences are vastly different for men and women. Men can get a vesectomy, which is not really reversable, and is not guaranteed to be reversible, whereas a woman can get an abortion and the extreme majority majority of them are still able to have children again.
For families that have decided they for sure don't want to have any more children, a vasectomy is by far the safest and most effective way to prevent any further conception, but it's not something the casual male is going to have done as a method of birth control, especially not if he is young.
I don't think that you can compare an abortion with a vasectomy. The equivilant (sp?) operation on a woman is having her tubes tied. This operation is also not revearsable, much more invasive than a vasectomy and can cause problems down the line because women can still get pregnant and end up with a tubal pregnancy afterwards, something that is extremely dangerous.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
The reason I point out the above is that both vasectomy and tubal ligation are means to prevent pregnancy. Abortion is meant to terminate pregnancy after it has begun.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well I suppose in addition to her I was also addressing the point in the article, I think in the feminist family thread, (which I now realize doesn't mesh, but whatever) that said men can get sterilized, so they really have nothing to complain about with unwanted pregnancies. But that's hardly fair.
Regardless of the consequences, when it comes down to it women can use abortion as a method of birth control. Biologically, the only surgery that can be performed on a man to stop pregnancy is a vasectomy, and it shouldn't be considered reversable. But you're right andi, the analagous operation is tubal ligation.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, most of the menfolk take it all personal-like when anyone suggests that they do something about their swimmers, anyway.
If a couple really doesn't ever want children, I think a vasectomy is preferable to having the woman's tubes tied. It's definitely less dangerous. But a lot of men seem to take it as a personal affront.
-pH
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I can understand the idea that consequences equal punishment, if only because consequences can be negative and punishment always is.
Having said that, the distinction that I draw is external. Punishment is a negative situation that some external agent forces upon you. Consequences aren't enforced by or imposed by any agent, and aren't always negative. There are other differences, but to me this is the most important.
So, in the end, I think anyone who says pregnancy is a "punishment" for having sex isn't thinking straight. I also think that anyone labeling an opposing viewpoint as such is lobbing a grenade as an excuse not to actually think about the viewpoint presented.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Well, think about the cost of carrying a fetus to term. Not actually caring for the CHILD because I know then everyone will say, "Then she should give it up for adoption."
Think about the emotional, social, and financial costs of carrying a fetus to term.
And yes, there ARE social costs. There are PLENTY of people (and don't think a lot of you guys aren't in this category) who look at a pregnant woman differently when they realize that she doesn't have a wedding ring. There are plenty of FAMILIES (mine included) that aren't strictly opposed to premarital sex but that view an out-of-wedlock pregnancy as absolutely shameful.
As long as these situations exist on a large scale, I will continue to equate "consequences" with "punishment" so far as it pertains to pregnancy and premarital sex.
-pH
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I must say, I've never seen such a jaded view of pregnancy. I'm honestly surprised I didn't see the word "parasite" or a diatribe against religion show up. I'm betting there's a lot of painful backstory behind that negativity, not that I have any desire to know it. I do resent the vitrol that you seem to have for anyone with a "Puritan" sense of morality. I don't have to agree with anyone's decisions.
There are costs and difficulties with owning a pet, too - but I doubt most people would advocate putting it down if it became a nuisance. Find it a new home as soon as possible, sure. Of course I know my analogy is rudimentary - it's obvious that a pet isn't physically invasive like a child is. Still, it saddens me that a dog or a rabbit would be given a better chance to live than an unwanted, but undeniably human, pregnancy. I must again agree with Dag - an attitude like this makes discussing this issue with you difficult, if not impossible.
***
As a prolifer, I find this entire RvW for Men thing frustrating. Just because one side is allowed to completely abandon responsibiliy doesn't mean the other side should be. Too bad the political side of me disagrees with that idea. I do find it highly disturbing that the "he did it, he should be responsible" idea only applies to men. It seems to me that rights should be coupled with responsibilities.
Dag, I must say that your arguments express my point better than I could do myself. Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by pH: It looks like another way to force the "right" morality on other people.
Every existing or proposed law is an attempt to force the 'right' morality on other people.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:I must say, I've never seen such a jaded view of pregnancy.
I'm guessing you haven't been around many women in their first trimester.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
I don't think that's exactly what I meant.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I believe that technically, gender is not determined until the end of the first trimester.
Which means that it's neither a he nor a she.
And by that, I mean the formation of the sex organs and not the actual XX or XY chromosomes.
quote:Dagonee, your reasoning is correct, given your axioms. One of your axioms is that a zygote and a blastocyst are human beings. That's not an axiom that's generally accepted, nor is it supportable scientifically. Morally, most people don't even have the moral feeling that a cell or a small clump of cells is a human person. As an intellectual exercise, I suggest you go through your reasoning again with that axiom reversed. Take as your axiom instead that a clump of cells is specifically not a person, but it's a cell clump like hair or fingernails or scabs. Then what do you come up with?
I'm not asking you to believe that. I'm asking you to think it through as an intellectual exercise and see what happens.
I can safely say I've thought it through from both perspectives more than most people on the planet, and likely more than at least half the people on Hatrack.
However, that's not really relevant to the particular point being discussed. pH said, "But. I don't think that, 'Well, if people don't want to get pregnant, then they shouldn't have sex' is a very defensible view, unless you want to bring up the 'pregnancy as punishment' angle."
She has said this view isn't defensible from any angle other than the "pregnancy as punishment" angle. Whereas I think I've clearly demonstrated that it's also defensible from the "people have a duty not to kill their children" angle.
Whether pH buys the underlying axiom or not doesn't matter. It's clear that there is an underlying axiom other than "pregnancy is punishment for sex" that supports the statement she took issue with.
That's pretty much all I've been trying to get at.
quote:I do think real dialogue is worthwhile. That starts with the understanding on both sides that moral, intelligent, sincere, and well-intentioned people can hold the opposing view.
I agree. Which is why I've taken exception to a restatement of views which demonstrates such a lack of understanding.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irregardless:
quote:Originally posted by pH: It looks like another way to force the "right" morality on other people.
Every existing or proposed law is an attempt to force the 'right' morality on other people.
That's not SUPPOSED to be the purpose of law.
And quite honestly, I find discussing this subject with you guys just as frustrating and pointless as you find discussing it with me.
AND I don't have a jaded view about pregnancy. I have a jaded view about society's judgments concerning sex and unwed mothers. There is a huge, huge difference.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
pH, you've been very free telling other people what they think in this thread. It's rather rude and unproductive.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
All right. Clearly, I just don't understand the issue. That MUST be it.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: pH, you've been very free telling other people what they think in this thread. It's rather rude and unproductive.
Not really. What I said to start with was, "This is how what you're saying sounds to me."
You responded with, "Well, there's no point in discussing this with you as long as you think that." I find that pretty rude.
And you seem absolutely unwilling to address anything that I've brought up here.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
You have utterly failed to address my points with regard to your claim that such a position is indefensible by any other axiom than "pregnancy is punishment."
This is the only point of yours I've addressed, other than a brief foray into pronouns. I've addressed it extensively. You've declined to respond directly to it.
As to you telling people what they think, witness:
quote:There are PLENTY of people (and don't think a lot of you guys aren't in this category) who look at a pregnant woman differently when they realize that she doesn't have a wedding ring.
Further,
quote:All right. Clearly, I just don't understand the issue. That MUST be it. [Roll Eyes]
You can roll your eyes all you like. First, I didn't say you didn't understand the issue. I said that your description of others' views demonstrates a lack of understanding of those views.
Second, you still haven't acknowledged that starting from an entirely different axiom than "pregnancy is punishment" leads to the same statement that you decry.
quote:Not really. What I said to start with was, "This is how what you're saying sounds to me."
In addition, this isn't what you said. You said, essentially, "I don't see a way to defend X without believing Y." Since I can defend X without believing Y, and I've demonstrated such, it's clear that you didn't understand others' views when you made that statement.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Society itself is built on some kind of common moral framework. What is a law but a "thou shalt/shalt not?" Ought = moral judgement.
quote: AND I don't have a jaded view about pregnancy. I have a jaded view about society's judgments concerning sex and unwed mothers. There is a huge, huge difference.
What, that some of us think premarital sex is morally wrong? And who is this society you mention? Honestly, people can mope and moan till the cows come home about how backward and close-minded we are, but that won't change my moral structure one inch.
Having said that... casting stones is the worst sin I can come up with, so I'm completely with you on that part. Thinking premarital sex is wrong, Check. Acting on it by treating people differently, big no-no. Most vocal Christians forget how Jesus acted towards that woman at the well.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
And I'm saying that I don't think you can. Period. I don't see it happening.
In addition, there ARE plenty of people who think less of pregnant women without wedding rings. And I do believe that some of these people are present on Hatrack. That's not telling people what they think in the least. That's like saying, "Hey, there are people who think that rabbits make good housepets. In fact, I'm sure there are people who think rabbits are good housepets on this forum!"
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Swampjedi: Most vocal Christians forget how Jesus acted towards that woman at the well.
THAT is my biggest issue.
And, as I'm sure I've stated before, I'm Christian.
-pH
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And I'm saying that I don't think you can. Period. I don't see it happening.
You don't think I can defend the statement you decry without relying on the foundation of pregnancy as punishment?
Are you even going to bother acknowledging that I did defend that statement based on an entirely different foundation?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:In addition, there ARE plenty of people who think less of pregnant women without wedding rings. And I do believe that some of these people are present on Hatrack.
You didn't say some guys. You said "a lot of you guys," emphasis added.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
"people have a duty not to kill their children" presupposes, once again, that they have children. That's not something accepted by everyone. A pregnancy isn't universally understood to be a child. You do understand that?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:"people have a duty not to kill their children" presupposes, once again, that they have children. That's not something accepted by everyone. A pregnancy isn't universally understood to be a child. You do understand that?
Yes Tatiania. You are entirely missing my point here. I'm not mounting a general attack on abortion.
I am merely saying that a particular conclusion can be defended based on axioms other than the ones pH thinks they require.
Once again:
1.) pH said that a particular sentence could only be defended by equating pregnancy with punishment.
2.) I demonstrated that the particular sentence in question could. in fact, be defended by equating abortion with killing a child.
3.) The demonstration described in 2.) is a counterexample to pH's claim of exclusion described in 1.)
4.) Therefore pH's claim in 1.) is wrong.
I can't make it any clearer than that.
Posted by andi330 (Member # 8572) on :
Now that all attempts at a conversation other than he said she said have broken down, I'm going to another thread.
Posted by Will B (Member # 7931) on :
To make elective abortion gender-neutral, there'd have to be a period after birth in which the father is allowed to kill the infancy.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
I believe I see what you are saying, Dagonee. I think the thing that confused me was the absolutist terms you used. Anyone who does happen to equate abortion with killing a child can indeed defend that sentence. What sidetracked me is that you didn't seem to notice or acknowlege in your argument that not everyone does. It makes one's argument much clearer and stronger when one acknowledges the other side, and doesn't seem not to even see it, I guess. I think I need to learn that myself.
I'm not arguing with anyone anymore. I'm just discussing our various approaches to thought about these questions which seem to divide us so much, and of which we have so many different views, and upon which we display such different values.
I feel as though I can see everyone's view on the abortion issue. I'm interested in the differences in our perspectives that give rise to these differences in our focus.
One big difference I see is the focus on natural consequences of choices, versus focusing on punishment.
I think young people (those who were raised by loving parents) tend to think more in terms of punishment than natural consequences, simply because parents have shielded them from most of the natural consequences of their actions, and instead have meted out punishment. Children tend to see morality in terms of punishment, and getting caught.
It's only after many years of life, after experiencing the natural consequences for our mistakes, that most of us shift our moral understanding more toward seeing that bad things, even really horrible heartbreaking things, happen a lot in life, and there's a large degree to which our choices can affect or prevent them. That's when true responsibility begins, I think. Some get it earlier than others, and some never do. It's not about whether what we do is morally defensible or not, but rather, it's about the fact that we had a choice, and we chose, and about whether it turned out well or badly, and could we have known in advance what might have happened, and could we have chosen in such a way that the world would be a better place now.
Sister Celestine, Sister Emily and Sister Jeanne Marie, when I was growing up, were all about the punishment of a wrathful God for infractions of his (seemingly arbitrary) rules (as carried out by His servants, the Priests and Nuns of His Church.) I never felt any moral connection to any of that. They struck me as being unkind and unhappy people. There was a sadistic, cruel streak that ran through their teachings. The ones I loved, Father Allen and Father Pilato, the joyful and loving ones, both ended up leaving the church eventually.
I remember that joke about the kid who was so bad at math, and after he was sent to Catholic school began to get As in math and his parents asked him what was different now and he replied that he saw what happened to that guy they nailed to the plus sign. Jokes like this about Catholicism are funny mainly because they resonate with this sadistic streak that people feel runs in the church. I remember lessons in parochial school about a little boy who let himself be badly beaten by a gang rather than allow the sacramental hosts to be defiled. Lessons about the grisly martyrdom of various saints. I can clearly understand why people interpret the teachings of the Catholic Church in terms of a focus on punishment.
It seems clear to me that you are more about people taking responsibility for the natural consequences of their choices. I wonder if we experienced very different manifestations of the Catholic church as we were growing up.
Changing focus to another difference in our views, I wish I could understand why so many people seem to believe a blastocyst is a child. That seems really counterintuitive to me. It seems like a mistake, an error, and one that most people wouldn't naturally make. So how did it get so engrained into so many people's heads? I'm obviously not seeing something here. Is it just because there's no real easily determined dividing line during development when a baby comes into being? Is it because fertilization provides the only spot at which there is any sort of conceptual difference between a baby and some reproductive cells? At one point we have some cells of two people's bodies, then at some later point we undeniably have a baby, but there isn't an easily discernible moment at which one became the other? Because of that, you pick a random point that seems at least to have some discontinuity? But it's a point that's well before the point at which most people would see anything they would recognize as a baby?
I guess I understand that it's difficult to decide the moment when a baby comes into existence, but what I can't understand is why pick conception as that moment?
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Tatiana, for me it's pretty simple. I have no idea when the spirit attaches to the body. It's obviously not something science can tell us, and as far as I can tell the Bible is silent on the matter. So, I take the most conservative view possible. Better safe than sorry when it comes to human lives.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:I guess I understand that it's difficult to decide the moment when a baby comes into existence, but what I can't understand is why pick conception as that moment?
I think I can answer this one, and I think that it's tied to Jesus' conception.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Changing focus to another difference in our views, I wish I could understand why so many people seem to believe a blastocyst is a child. That seems really counterintuitive to me. It seems like a mistake, an error, and one that most people wouldn't naturally make. So how did it get so engrained into so many people's heads? I'm obviously not seeing something here. Is it just because there's no real easily determined dividing line during development when a baby comes into being? Is it because fertilization provides the only spot at which there is any sort of conceptual difference between a baby and some reproductive cells? At one point we have some cells of two people's bodies, then at some later point we undeniably have a baby, but there isn't an easily discernible moment at which one became the other? Because of that, you pick a random point that seems at least to have some discontinuity?
I can't speak to why other people might pick that point, but I do so because it simply a matter of biological fact. Prior to fertilization, you have some gametes floating around; after fertilization, you have a living human organism.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote: I do so because it simply a matter of biological fact. Prior to fertilization, you have some gametes floating around; after fertilization, you have a living human organism.
Yeah, I don't know about this. After fertilization, you have a zygote floating around, I don't know if that's much or less a human than the egg and swimmers.
Then again, in the US, you aren't fully human until you are 21 anyway.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
quote:Originally posted by Will B: To make elective abortion gender-neutral, there'd have to be a period after birth in which the father is allowed to kill the infancy.
That still wouldn't be gender-neutral, because the mother is still going through the pregnancy and birth.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
25, Irami. I can't rent a car until then, or so I'm told. Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by King of Men:
quote:Originally posted by Will B: To make elective abortion gender-neutral, there'd have to be a period after birth in which the father is allowed to kill the infancy.
That still wouldn't be gender-neutral, because the mother is still going through the pregnancy and birth.
The abortion would be gender-neutral. Of course the birth wouldn't be.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong: [QUOTE]Yeah, I don't know about this. After fertilization, you have a zygote floating around, I don't know if that's much or less a human than the egg and swimmers.
A (healthy) zygote has a full human genome, and it exhibits all the traditional criteria for life -- growth, cellular reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis/reaction to stimuli, etc. Gametes have half a genome and fail to exhibit some of these characteristics.
Posted by Irami Osei-Frimpong (Member # 2229) on :
quote:A (healthy) zygote has a full human genome, and it exhibits all the traditional criteria for life -- growth, cellular reproduction, metabolism, homeostasis/reaction to stimuli, etc.
If those are your traditional criteria, then I have a higher standard.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Nearly every cell in everyone's body has a full human genome, though.
Also, every unique egg plus sperm combination has a unique human genome.
We feel no feeling that we are killing people, either our potential children, nor our twin-sister clones, by allowing such potential to go unrealized.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
It doesn't seem to me that you can really morally equate a natural process with an artificial one.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
But perhaps artificial processes can shed light on moral questions that involve natural ones?
Posted by Theaca (Member # 8325) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: Also, every unique egg plus sperm combination has a unique human genome.
We feel no feeling that we are killing people, either our potential children, nor our twin-sister clones, by allowing such potential to go unrealized.
I'm not following this somehow... "every unique egg plus sperm" would be a human embryo, correct? There are going to be a lot of us who don't want to be included in "we feel no feeling".
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Perhaps, Tatiana. I'm just saying that the commonly heard "miscarriage happens all the time, how is abortion worse than that" line ignores the facets that make the two situations apples and oranges.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Yes, and no. It does show that the problem isn't a waste of genetic material, and that such "material" doesn't have a built in promise of birth. Most of the time they aren't born, showing that nature isn't forgiving or kind, and that the natural state is not an automatic birth process.
It highlights the fact that most differences of opinion in this are religious reasons, regardless of how they are phrased.
Those ways of phrasing these objections are important, though....because if it is a completely religious objection then it can't be used to force others to carry a fetus to term, because of the freedom of religion clause.
So there are many, many people who couch their objections in other ways, trying to make it seem (or express their thought) that a fetus has a right to life based on other criteria....most of which are flawed, IMO.
I am in the odd group who thinks that abortion is wrong most of the time, and is irresponsible, and would never consider having one (if I were a woman) or allowing my wife to have one....but I defend woman's rights to have one, because I don't feel I should have any say in what a woman decides to do with her own body.
If my wife wanted an abortion (she has the same views on this as I do, we discussed it before ever having sex:D), I couldn't stop her, but I would probably leave her over it, unless it was for her own safety/health. I feel that while it isn't a human being until it is born, it represents a potential human life to me, and I would be unable to live with that choice.
I have friends who had abortions, and one male friend who payed for a girl to have one (it was her choice), and I am still friends with them...but I will never agree with their choice.
Then again, they aren't asking me to, which is why we are still friends. I supported them while they were going through with it, and gave my opinion when asked for it. They had enough trouble deciding without me trying to preach to them.
In my personal final judgment, I have no right to judge them as people because of that, even though I disagree with their choices...it is their life, and their choices had consequences...
But I would have chosen differently, and that is what really matters in my life.
Kwea
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: if it is a completely religious objection then it can't be used to force others to carry a fetus to term, because of the freeedom of religion clause.
Show me the clause that says that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
You can't force someone adopt your religion...so if the only reasons to object are religious, then the objections can't be enforced.
If their religious beliefs allow it, and yours don't...then you don't have to have one, but you have no right to deny them one...on religious grounds, anyway.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
God says life begins at conception is not a valid legal argument.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:if the only reasons to object are religious, then the objections can't be enforced.
Again, show me the clause that says that.
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Um, "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion"? I don't recall the exact words, but that seems fairly straightforward to me. No law can establish a religion; a religious prohibition is an establishment; therefore no law can enforce a religious prohibition. As a less emotionally charged example, consider whether Congress can make a law forcing people to eat kosher, or eat fish on Fridays.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
WEll, I see where mph si giong with this, I think....
Most of our laws are based in Western Morality, which was partially founded by religions.
Still....
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:WEll, I see where mph si giong with this, I think....
No you don't, so I'll tell you.
The "no law establishing religion" clause in the constitution can be extrapolated to say that no laws concerning religious beliefs are allowed, but it is not the only extrapolation/interpretation that is consistent with the wording of the constitution. Many people have been taught their whole lives what "separation of church and state" means that they don't even question what the constitution is actually saying.
I'm not saying that there is nothing to support the view that religious beliefs should never affect our laws -- I'm just saying that there is no clause in the constitution that you can point to that says that.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
Ahh....according to established legal precedent, that IS what it means.
You can make laws that correspond with various religious beliefs, but if the only standard of proof is those beliefs then the law should be removed from the books without fail.
I am not saying it is even desirable to refuse to allow religious beliefs to color our laws (I doubt that is even possible), but you can't force someone to believe what you do based on religious beliefs.
Pardon the typos, btw, that was bad even for me. Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
What I don't understand about this whole case is why anyone thinks he shouldn't be required to pay child support. It seems to me that "She told me she couldn't get pregnant" is about on par with "She told me she was eighteen". Right?
Posted by BaoQingTian (Member # 8775) on :
I think the statement was more of an aside rather than central to his argument. His base argument seems to be that a woman has many legal options to avoid responsibility of caring for a child that she helped to conceive. The man has zero options. His contention is that there should be some way for the men to opt out as well.
Note: I'm not arguing his position, merely restating it. To be honest, there are many factors in this argument and I haven't quite decided what I think. I know what I would personally do though.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea: Yes, and no. It does show that the problem isn't a waste of genetic material, and that such "material" doesn't have a built in promise of birth. Most of the time they aren't born, showing that nature isn't forgiving or kind, and that the natural state is not an automatic birth process.
It highlights the fact that most differences of opinion in this are religious reasons, regardless of how they are phrased.
No more than the fact that many people die naturally of heart attacks and cancer makes laws against stabbing people a 'religious' matter.
quote:I feel that while it isn't a human being until it is born, it represents a potential human life to me, and I would be unable to live with that choice.
And your vague feelings and religious beliefs should no more be codified into law & public policy than those of someone who "feels" differently.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:And your vague feelings and religious beliefs should no more be codified into law & public policy than those of someone who "feels" differently.
Um, those of people that feel differently are codified into law & public policy.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:And your vague feelings and religious beliefs should no more be codified into law & public policy than those of someone who "feels" differently.
Um, those of people that feel differently are codified into law & public policy.
I was referring to the statement: "I feel that while it isn't a human being until it is born..."
Many pro-choice people invoke such nebulous and conveniently untestable criteria as 'personhood' or 'soul', etc., which are essentially philosophical or religious stances that have no more place in public policy than those of pro-life people.
Posted by Swampjedi (Member # 7374) on :
Then there's the idea that no morality has an objective basis - what answers you derive depend on your assumptions/axioms.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Ahh....according to established legal precedent, that IS what it means.
You can make laws that correspond with various religious beliefs, but if the only standard of proof is those beliefs then the law should be removed from the books without fail.
Can you say what precedent you're referring to? I can't tell if you're saying what I'm interpreting you as saying.
Posted by sarahdipity (Member # 3254) on :
And now that this thread is in an *entirely* different conversation I find that I want to make a statement about the original point.
I had a discussion with a friend once about abortion and I told him I really do believe in the separate choices fact. If I were to get pregnant and he didn't want a part he simply would not. My decision to keep a child has no bearing on him. And if he decided he wanted the child and I did not I would have the kid.
We were discussing the idea of abortion and I was telling him that I wasn't sure I could ever do it. The possibility of what might have been would haunt me forever. And I'm not sure if I could live with that. But I could understand the fear and desparation of people who do.
I hate when people argue about abortion because it seems like they don't feel with the person who is in that situation. I know for many people, perhaps many of you, this is a black and white conversation. But I've never been able to get over the emotional element to make that distinction of right and wrong. I think that all that is involved with a situation where this choise is being made is lots of hurt frequently and that just makes me sad.
Posted by Kyvin (Member # 9141) on :
The concept behind this lawsuit-and behind abortions legal status-is that poeple don't think they should have to take any responsibility for their own actions. abortion is one of the most selgish things in the world. the legacy of abortion is that babies must be killed so adults can do anything they want. abortion is a way for women to think only about themselves and shirk the responsibilities, to do what ever they want, and if they concieve, a human being will have to die. this lawsuit is a way for men to be able to shirk their responsibilities in the same way. each gender should have equal reproductive rights, but it should be that both genders must be responsible for their own actions, not neither.
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)