Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » Right to abortion = right to sex selective abortion (Page 3)

  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  9  10  11   
Author Topic: Right to abortion = right to sex selective abortion
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frisco, I am pretty pro-choice actually but I don't view abortion as opting out of care for kids. I view it as autonomy over body and health. I think in the best interest of the child, the man cannot be let off the hook. I think once baby is born, if mom wants to sign over for adoption, if the father is known and wants the baby, then the mother should pay child support, just like the man would have had to.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scholarette:
I think once baby is born, if mom wants to sign over for adoption, if the father is known and wants the baby, then the mother should pay child support, just like the man would have had to.

+1
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
While I suspect that abortion is rarely the best moral choice, I'm personally against the government making decisions about anyone's bodily agency. (That, and stridently pro-life men (in the sense of legally restricting another person's bodily agency) are creepy. Especially the slutty ones. [Razz] )
I will try not to take that personally. [Razz]

That said, I'm all for body autonomy. It's the killing of the OTHER body that squicks me out. It's not like a fetus is a tapeworm--it's something YOU put there.

And I still think it's strange that people find it okay to force a man to give up part of his life for a child he doesn't want, yet can still fight so hard to make it so women don't have to be held to the same standard.

But then many things in this world baffle me, so I try not to lose too much sleep over it. [Wink]

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frisco, once the baby is out of the woman's body, I am perfectly good forcing her to be held to the same standard.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And I still think it's strange that people find it okay to force a man to give up part of his life for a child he doesn't want, yet can still fight so hard to make it so women don't have to be held to the same standard.
Part of his life? Paying for a child you create is just being responsible, not "giving up part of your life". As to "the same standard" sending a check and having to carry a baby in your body and then push it out through an orifice are hardly "the same standard"...the next you time you go to write a check, slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum, give up all your preferred eating habits for nine months, gain forty pounds, puke up your food for about three months and then give yourself stretch marks and then we will talk about "the same standard".
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Hobbes
Member
Member # 433

 - posted      Profile for Hobbes   Email Hobbes         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum
I'm no expert, but I really thought there was already an opening there for most women.

Hobbes [Smile]

Posts: 10577 | Registered: Oct 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
Paying for a child you create is just being responsible, not "giving up part of your life". As to "the same standard" sending a check and having to carry a baby in your body and then push it out through an orifice are hardly "the same standard"...the next you time you go to write a check, slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum, give up all your preferred eating habits for nine months, gain forty pounds, puke up your food for about three months and then give yourself stretch marks and then we will talk about "the same standard".

AMEN!

Frisco, weren't you the one who thought it was ok to schedule heading out of town on a pleasure trip a few days after the birth of your child? I'm reminded of the difference between involvement and commitment, and how it relates to a bacon-and-eggs breakfast.

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anna
Member
Member # 2582

 - posted      Profile for Anna   Email Anna         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum
I'm no expert, but I really thought there was already an opening there for most women.

Hobbes [Smile]

Often enough, the opening is not big enough, and a cut or a tear are necessary to get the baby out. I don't know of many first mothers who gave birth vaginally and didn't need stitches.
Posts: 3524 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It's strange to me when men vs. women in terms of abortion starts to involve men's rights (that term, quite frustrating, though of course I'm the one who introduced it specifically). It's important to remember, I think, that when it comes to child care in this county, especially when mother and father are considered individually...men don't do so well. Take a look at deadbeat dad rates here in the old USA, or even late-paying child support. I mean, many times I've heard the notion like you expressed, Frisco, that it's strange or even unfortunate that there isn't equality of responsibility-mandated, enforced responsibility.

Even when there *is*, if given the chance (that is to say, not actually living with the kid and mom), dudes will in alarming proportions skedaddle.

Yeah, there *is* some inequality here-man and woman have sex, results in pregnancy, from that point on barring unexpected problems it will be the mother who decides whether or not there's going to be a child to be responsible for.

That's unequal. In many individual cases it will even be unfair. But...well, biology ain't symmetrical. Sometimes there will be differences. As it is, when both parties want the kid, the mother will bear an enormous (like, incredibly crushing majority) of the responsibilities and burdens. That's unequal too, and even unfair in the sense that the world ain't fair.

And then, after the birth...well, chances are women are gonna do more than their 'fair share' of the child rearin' gig too. Unfair and unequal. I'm talking overall, not for the ideal, egalitarian male that is so often spoken of in defense of these observations of unfairness.

I mean, how badly do dudes *really* want to go into this 'the gender split is unfair!' angle?

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well said, Jeff.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KirKis
Member
Member # 12454

 - posted      Profile for KirKis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Good Morning!

I feel like there have been so many times where a man just wanted to "skedaddle" out of child support and all responsibility that it has "tainted the water" for the rest of us having rights.

When a couple, in the heat of passion, decide to have sex they should both face the responsibility of having a child. This is your typical situation. My problem is in the non-typical situation.

If you are military you see this happen a lot. Fathers and Mothers alike getting their daughters to become pregnant with a soldier.

Obviously the rape situation was discussed before but thats another situation where the man has no protection when it comes to responsibility when it comes to the child.

There are women who attempt to "sabotage" the condoms. I feel like i've heard of this before but I don't know anyone that has actually gone through it. I'm sure it has happened somewhere before but we need protection here too!

Women who write down the man's name on the birth certificate. This doesn't happen as often as the others but it does (happened to my father).

*Even if you take a DNA test the courts can STILL hold a man responsible.* This is what my Lawyer told me when I was taking a DNA test to make sure my daughter was mine.

So really what i'm proposing is some sort of protection for these situations and others like it. Not for the "oops, we shouldn't have done that" but for the non-typical sitautions.

Of course, proving this in court might be difficult. Though still "something" should be done!

[ July 01, 2011, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: KirKis ]

Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Anna2112
Member
Member # 12493

 - posted      Profile for Anna2112           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is sort of a tangent, and I'm a lurker. So that's two points against me. But anyway:

I think that custody should be a question of what's best for the children. And that requires much more detailed attention than the system for divorce is currently able to give. @KirKis, I don't mean to be antagonistic, but is your child really benefiting from seeing his/her father for a week once a year? I can't imagine any world in which that's not an incredibly traumatic and complicated thing for the child to experience. I'm not saying it's your fault, but it still sucks for the kid. And I'm not sure what you should or could do to remedy the situation.

And increasingly now, there are groups that support the father in custodial disagreements. In my parents' divorce (anecdote warning!) I know my dad found a lot of advice from those groups, and I think that the judge was encouraged to grant him more time than he should have really had (in my opinion) because of those groups. Which had pretty disastrous results for my father and his relationship with his children in the long run.

And I'm pro-choice because I believe that there's no way to properly regulate who should or shouldn't be able to get an abortion, and because I believe in autonomy over your own body. There. Back on topic.

Posts: 15 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Frisco, weren't you the one who thought it was ok to schedule heading out of town on a pleasure trip a few days after the birth of your child? I'm reminded of the difference between involvement and commitment, and how it relates to a bacon-and-eggs breakfast.
Oh, how time plays tricks on our memory, especially when we're trying to prove a point. [Razz]

It was a 2-day trip that was scheduled and paid for long before the pregnancy, and it was when he was about 5 weeks. And I willingly canceled it. [Smile]

That said, I still think people are throwing out red herrings when it comes to child support vs. birth.

I'm speaking from a broad, moral opinion. Whether it's $700 a month for 18 years or 9 months of extreme displeasure and stretch marks, my point remains that we give women an escape from responsibility, and balk at the notion that a man be given even a similar right.

And just so nobody's confused, I don't think *either* party should be excused from the responsibility, unless the child was put there by force.

I just don't really get the moral reasoning behind giving an escape clause to one sex and not the other. I get *why* we do these things, just like I understand *why* we allow abortion. But not how we make it just.

There are very few things that I can't debate both sides of to myself. This just happens to be one of them. *shrug*

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Anyway, to rerail, my stance against abortion in general is why I don't find sex-specific abortion any less moral than any other (except in cases of rape or major health risk to the mother).

Whether you just ran out of apples or oranges, you're still not having fruit for breakfast.

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
KirKis
Member
Member # 12454

 - posted      Profile for KirKis           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anna2112:
@KirKis, I don't mean to be antagonistic, but is your child really benefiting from seeing his/her father for a week once a year? I can't imagine any world in which that's not an incredibly traumatic and complicated thing for the child to experience. I'm not saying it's your fault, but it still sucks for the kid. And I'm not sure what you should or could do to remedy the situation.

Well I also see her on Webcam every tuesday for no less than 30 minutes so I get to talk to her and see her on the computer so she can tell me how school is going etc.

The whole reason why it was so hard for me to get what I got was because of the mother. She started making lies that I had to defend in court. I won't get too much into it but... it was a very nasty process. I am glad that she didn't put my daughter in the middle of it... At least she is a good mother to my daughter!

Oh and I don't know if I mentioned it or not but I see her every first weekend of each month and one week during the summer (and Webcam every tuesday). I actually head out shortly to go pick her up! I have to drive 2 hours each way but well worth it!

Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm speaking from a broad, moral opinion. Whether it's $700 a month for 18 years or 9 months of extreme displeasure and stretch marks, my point remains that we give women an escape from responsibility, and balk at the notion that a man be given even a similar right.
You are drawing and equivalence that simply doesn't work. Being required to make child support payments and being required to carry a baby in your womb are not comparable. Once the baby is born, the woman and man are held to the same level of reponsibility.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I think I get were the other side of this discussion is coming from...

The woman decides if she will carry the baby or not...and the man does not get a say about it.

If she decides to abort, the man's responsibilities are done. If she keeps the baby, he is on the hook for child support. Regardless of the wishes of the man to have or not have a child.

I think Rakeesh is right...the biology is not even, and so the result is unfair, yet I'm okay with it. Anyone who said life is fair wasn't paying attention.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
fugu13
Member
Member # 2859

 - posted      Profile for fugu13   Email fugu13         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yeah, that position's not coherent. The common justifications for abortion (not that you have to agree with them, just realize that they are used) have no symmetry with men. Having the same rights does not mean "being able to rearrange things so each outcome is as parallel as possible", it means having the same protections, but possibly different outcomes insofar as those protections are triggered by different circumstances. The circumstance of pregnancy is one circumstance that is not parallel in men and women, and thus we don't expect there to be an exact parallel realization of rights for men.

There's no need for pro choice people to address your argument in public discourse, because it isn't much of an argument.

Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm trying to give issues like these a fair amount of consideration in my mind, but this is in spite of the fact that Men's Rights Advocacy is, at present, a festering cesspool of inane depredations and barely-veiled misogyny, where most of its adherents wallow in their own gender-orientated victim complex.

It's really, really possible for men to get completely screwed by the system for virtue of being men, and there are numerous stories abound of the system being preferential the mother to the detriment of the child, but it's very hard to postulate a less-bad system that will actually be less bad in practice.

Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
...Men's Rights Advocacy is, at present, a festering cesspool of inane depredations and barely-veiled misogyny, where most of its adherents wallow in their own gender-orientated victim complex.
[ROFL] Don't hold back Samp, tell us how you really feel.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Hobbes:
quote:
slice open the area from anus to below your scrotum
I'm no expert, but I really thought there was already an opening there for most women.

Hobbes [Smile]

Anna's right about what I mean, it's called episiotomy.
quote:
Episiotomy is done as prophylaxis against soft-tissue-trauma. Vaginal tears can occur during childbirth, most often at the vaginal opening as the baby's head passes through, especially if the baby descends quickly. Tears can involve the perineal skin or extend to the muscles and the anal sphincter and anus. The midwife or obstetrician may decide to make a surgical cut to the perineum with scissors or scalpel (episiotomy) to make the baby's birth easier and prevent severe tears that can be difficult to repair. The cut is repaired with stitches (sutures). Some childbirth facilities have a policy of routine episiotomy.[2]
My aunt didn't have one when birthing my cousin and basically blew out her parts...nuff said. I hesitate to offer any other personal anecdote...as they are...personal.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frisco, I apologize for misremembering the details. But I suspect you're spinning a few as well. Especially that "willingly" bit. [Razz]
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am all about equality. I would strongly support any man's right to remove any parasite from his body, regardless of how that parasite got there. That is the equivalent right.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'm speaking from a broad, moral opinion. Whether it's $700 a month for 18 years or 9 months of extreme displeasure and stretch marks, my point remains that we give women an escape from responsibility, and balk at the notion that a man be given even a similar right.
Well, not quite. What happens is that women, in addition to having much greater responsibilities, burdens, and risks while the pregnancy goes on, *also* have an additional 'chance to escape responsibility'. If we're gonna frame this in justice for both sexes, why should men have an exactly equal 'escape clause' during this period? They're doing either much less or none of the work (as far as dealing' with the pregnancy angle).

If they want an escape clause, they've got it: behave differently earlier. Once things get goin', though, there will be some divergence when biology necessitates that the split will be so big.

There's no injustice-to the man-in him not having a say at that point. None of what's happening affects his body, only his future-and he shoulda thought of that before setting that future in motion.

Much like the woman should've, too-but with her we get into a whole tangle of problems that simply don't exist for the dude. Problems like telling a person what will be done with their body, problems of compelling someone to undergo a hugely burdensome process with not a few risks, etc. Just like men don't have an 'escape clause', they don't have *that* either.

Is there an injustice going on in a lot or abortions? Well as a matter of fact, I think there's a very real chance that the answer is 'yes'. But men aren't the wronged party.

----------

quote:
I feel like there have been so many times where a man just wanted to "skedaddle" out of child support and all responsibility that it has "tainted the water" for the rest of us having rights.
Let's be clear: we've got rights. We just don't have *exactly the same rights* at all points in time, along with not havin the same responsibilities. That seems pretty consistent to me.

What *has* been tainted is this rhetoric in which men as a group are the aggrieved party here. As a group, they're just not-no more than a woman is an aggrieved party if she feels it's unfair that she has to do the huge share of the work in pregnancy.

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Being required to make child support payments and being required to carry a baby in your womb are not comparable.

Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
If they want an escape clause, they've got it: behave differently earlier. Once things get goin', though, there will be some divergence when biology necessitates that the split will be so big.

There's no injustice-to the man-in him not having a say at that point. None of what's happening affects his body, only his future-and he shoulda thought of that before setting that future in motion.

Biology necessitates a whole list of things the pro-choice crowd chooses to completely disregard. Why be so selective in choosing what should happen according to biology?

Common sense suggests women, knowing the many costs associated with pregnancy and other factors relating to it, would realize the huge incentive of behaving differently earlier. Theirs are the lives which will be most drastically altered by pregnancy therefore you think they'd accept more readily a larger portion of the onus of pregnancy prevention.

As for 'None of what's happening affects his body, only his future-and he shoulda thought of that before setting that future in motion,' the forced payment of child support certainly does affect a man's body, unless he can make money instantaneously and by mental projection alone. A man can't demand the woman abort the child nor can he abort fiscal responsibility for the child. You're claiming a man's choice should end at intercourse which simply isn't just. I don't see how the pro-choice reconcile the blatant two-faced nature of their stance.

And how does your argument differ from a pro-lifer's use of the 'she shoulda thought of that before she spread her legs' argument? Women have an escape clause too: nine months after conception they can put the child they detest so much up for adoption.

Personally, I don't think the man's responsibilities should be voided any more than those of the woman. Both had sex knowing the possible consequences and neither merits a legal sanction to shirk their responsibilities.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Frisco, I apologize for misremembering the details. But I suspect you're spinning a few as well. Especially that "willingly" bit. [Razz]
Any more personal attacks we need to get out of the way? What you know about that period in the life of my son and I is the contents of one thread on Sakeriver. While you may not realize it, there is much that goes on in my life that I do not post in online forums. [Smile]

quote:
There's no need for pro choice people to address your argument in public discourse, because it isn't much of an argument.
There's no need for *them*. They really don't care, I suspect. But if they're arguing from a platform that people should be able to choose whether or not they want to become a parent, it definitely does fall in a similar category. I understand *why* the Pro-Choice movement doesn't care about the issue, but I still don't find it moral, just by their own standards.

I see lots of people dismissing the point because there's no completely direct comparison, but they're really not addressing what I'm saying.

To reiterate, I don't think either sex should be able to shrug off the responsibility. But since we live in a society where I can't even take a shower with my microwave without some label yelling at me to STOP because some moron sued General Electric...

quote:
Let's be clear: we've got rights. We just don't have *exactly the same rights* at all points in time, along with not havin the same responsibilities. That seems pretty consistent to me.
After conception, men don't really have many rights. Unless you get in front of the rare judge who will give you custody. Pay 30% of your income for 18 years or go to jail. While women can abort, or give a child up for adoption, and their responsibilities for that child's life are over.

..............

It's very difficult for me to debate this, since I'm against it in the first place. But in the process of arguing this on principle, I get assigned motive based on my sex, I find. Maybe I need to make a female board name so people won't be biased. [Razz]

At least I don't get accused of being some closet religious nut, like I do when I have this discussion on Atheist forums. [Big Grin]

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I am pretty sure in some states at least if a woman wants to give up her kid for adoption but the birth father wants the kid, she has to pay child support. Unfortunately, adoption laws are different in every state (as are rules about custody) so inequality may exist in some states that doesn't in others.

The big problem for men is that they are conflating rights. A woman has a right to her body. It is not a right to discard the responsibility to a child (though the right to her body has a side affect of that). A man also has just as much sovereignty over his body. That is why pro-choice people don't defend men's rights on this. Both men and women have equal rights to their own body. If a man wanted child support from a woman who wanted to give the kid up for adoption and the courts ruled against that man, I bet a whole lot of people would be standing up for the man.

Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.
Is this a serious question? The one involves a 24/7/270 commitment of one's physical body, that is at best often...well, uncomfortable (hello understatement!). In all cases it involves risk, pain, discomfort, and could even result in death or not inconsiderable injury. *And* the pregnant party *still* has to be doing work to support herself. What's the man chipping in during those nine months, midnight runs for pickles and ice cream? (Assuming he is involved, and since we're talkin' men-in-general that's not at all a given.)

Then after the pregnancy, the mother is *rarely* going to be dealing with child care exclusively via child support checks. You're some sort of conservative, thus you know throwing money at a problem doesn't solve it, right?

The idea that child support payments are similarly onerous as *pregnancy* is, well, pretty strange. Does it indicate a vast ignorance of pregnancy, or a bitterness of child support payments? I'm struggling to imagine a mindset where the two are 'adequately similar'.

quote:
Biology necessitates a whole list of things the pro-choice crowd chooses to completely disregard. Why be so selective in choosing what should happen according to biology?
Things such as?

quote:
... the forced payment of child support certainly does affect a man's body, unless he can make money instantaneously and by mental projection alone. A man can't demand the woman abort the child nor can he abort fiscal responsibility for the child. You're claiming a man's choice should end at intercourse which simply isn't just. I don't see how the pro-choice reconcile the blatant two-faced nature of their stance.
Alright, lemme be more clear: affect his body akin to pregnancy. But then somehow you think forced child support and pregnancy are equivalent, so that won't be persuasive I expect.

As for justice and two-faced arguments...men cannot carry and bear children, remember? Greater burden, different rights. Pretty straightforward. I don't have the right to break into someone's house and threaten them at gunpoint because of a crime. A cop might. Different rights.

quote:
And how does your argument differ from a pro-lifer's use of the 'she shoulda thought of that before she spread her legs' argument? Women have an escape clause too: nine months after conception they can put the child they detest so much up for adoption.
First of all, I wonder how much your choice of words indicates about your attitude towards women in general?

Second, you're changing the discussion. I'm not talking about what is just *overall* (my personal opinion is that we don't actually know *when* it's unjust to abort), but rather to the question of justice between men and women. Women have different rights because *things happen differently* for them. Very, very differently.

Men don't have to cut back on a variety of substances during pregnancy, women do. Men aren't going to have swollen body parts during pregnancy, women do. Men's bodies aren't at risk of death or injury during pregnancy, women's are. Etc.

Again, as a conservative this is supposed to be the kind of thing you like: legislating as things actually *are*, not mandating some sort of artificial equality at the outset.

Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:

Originally posted by The Rabbit:
Being required to make child support payments and being required to carry a baby in your womb are not comparable.

quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.

I have no idea if the poster was serious, but this made me laugh out loud. Because... no.

Although I'd love to see someone paid to say 'Breathe! Push!' to some poor guy as he writes out his checks every month.

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Men's bodies aren't at risk of death or injury during pregnancy,
How many pregnant women have YOU known?! [Razz]

quote:
Alright, lemme be more clear: affect his body akin to pregnancy. But then somehow you think forced child support and pregnancy are equivalent, so that won't be persuasive I expect.
I don't think anyone is comparing the effect on a man's body versus a woman's. Only the effect on their life. So 9 months of pregnancy (plus lasting effects) versus 30% of income for 18 years. I'm not saying they're equal, but the effects on the life of the unwilling parent are similar...yet the consequences for avoiding them are on opposite ends of the spectrum. About $300-700 to get rid of the former, and jail for the latter.
Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Capax has explicitly compared the two.
Posts: 16403 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Frisco: A man and a woman decide to have sex (we are not discussing rape here), and use or do not use birth control and end up pregnant regardless of use or lack of aforementioned birth control.

They both made the decision. Now, inside the woman's body grows their child. It is now the woman's decision as to if she is going to carry the child in her body or not, simply because it is her body. If it were growing in the man's body, it would be his decision. If there were a way technology could be used so that the baby could be gestated outside of a woman's body, the man would most definitely have a say.

If the woman does choose to use her body to gestate the child, but does not want the child, the man should retain parental rights, and the woman should pay child support. If the woman wants to keep the child, the man should retain parental rights and pay child support. If neither of the parents wish to have custody then the child goes up for adoption. If the woman does not wish her body used as an incubator, then she has the ability to get an abortion.

capaxinfiniti: Saying that a man uses his body to make money to pay to help support his offspring is the same as a woman being pregnant is just...stupid. Sorry, I tried to come up with a more charitable word there, but failed. It is nonsensical.

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
I have no idea if the poster was serious, but this made me laugh out loud. Because... no.

Although I'd love to see someone paid to say 'Breathe! Push!' to some poor guy as he writes out his checks every month.

quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Is this a serious question? The one involves a 24/7/270 commitment of one's physical body, that is at best often...well, uncomfortable (hello understatement!). In all cases it involves risk, pain, discomfort, and could even result in death or not inconsiderable injury.

I already conceded the point that the two aren't exactly the same. I even specified that I was approaching the comparison from a rights/responsibilities angle. But it doesn't surprise me that some jump straight to the physical aspects, especially woman who likely have a profoundly intense remembrance of the pains of child birth.

quote:
I'm struggling to imagine a mindset where the two are 'adequately similar'.
See above.

quote:
But then somehow you think forced child support and pregnancy are equivalent, so that won't be persuasive I expect.
I already addressed this above. I never said the physical impacts are parallel - I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.

quote:
As for justice and two-faced arguments...men cannot carry and bear children, remember?
No, that slipped my mind. But that fact the you are a condescending ass didn't. Every time you address someone with a different opinion you don't have to bolster your arguments by slighting the other poster. Different burdens, different responsibilities, yes. But ultimately, if an abortion is performed, the unborn child is killed. It's equally definitive for the man as it is the woman, yet men receive practically no legal course to prevent this.

quote:
Second, you're changing the discussion. I'm not talking about what is just *overall* (my personal opinion is that we don't actually know *when* it's unjust to abort), but rather to the question of justice between men and women.

Again, as a conservative this is supposed to be the kind of thing you like: legislating as things actually *are*, not mandating some sort of artificial equality at the outset.

I didn't intend to change the discussion and I don't feel I did. And you could claim I was demanding artificial equality if I argued the man must be subjected to 9 months of X,Y, and Z. But that's silly and not at all what I was suggesting. A cursory reading of my comment shows that.

I don't accept using the mothers's rights to justify aborting the child just as I don't accept the father dodging his support responsibilities. But if the pro-choice crowd is going to use this argument, I think the double standard should be made evident.

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
Perhaps you could explain to us how they significantly differ? Granted, you can't draw a perfectly straight line between the two, but when it comes to rights and responsibilities, the two are adequately similar.

I .. oh my god, no.

quote:
Women have an escape clause too: nine months after conception they can put the child they detest so much up for adoption.
This is not an escape clause from pregnancy. Only the child that is made after the pregnancy has taken its toll, physically and financially. I suppose you could have 'escape clause' parity if you were able to, say, split the costs right down the middle from disparate mom & dad entities, and figure out a way to redirect half the health issues to the father too, with like a, say, preeclampsia distribution beam and other star trek gizmos. Or no, no, this isn't going to happen.

Fortunately, they do have an escape clause from pregnancy, too.

Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
If the woman wants to keep the child, the man should retain parental rights and pay child support.
quote:
If the woman does not wish her body used as an incubator, then she has the ability to get an abortion.
You hit the nail on the head, Stone Wolf. And here lies the discrepancy. If the woman decides she doesn't want to be a parent, she simply gets an abortion or gives the child up for adoption. If a man decides the same...well, tough luck.

A woman does not want to be an "incubator", but we expect men to play the role of "bank account".

I understand *why* it's done, practicality-wise, just not how forcing a man to be an ATM at the expense of his own life is moral, but forcing a woman to be an incubator is cruel.

Are our bodies really that much more important than our lives?

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
capaxinfiniti: Saying that a man uses his body to make money to pay to help support his offspring is the same as a woman being pregnant is just...stupid. Sorry, I tried to come up with a more charitable word there, but failed. It is nonsensical.

The equivalence is in the fact that they are both being compelled to do so. The physical duress the woman/man must endure is entirely situational which is why I made no attempt to address it.

And I'd prefer my argument be called stupid than to receive a snarky, condescending fake-rebuttal. So in this case you're terse summation of my comment is appreciated. [Smile]

Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
The act of laboring to make a living and the denial of whatever quality of life increases could have be gained had the time/physical actions/money forfeited to child support been use by the father and his (possible) current family. Again, as I said in my comment to Stone Wolf, the discomfort would be vary from case to case for both sexes.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just because it hasn't been brought up yet, there are numerous women facing life in prison for murder charges for losing their babies.

I don't know how I feel about it. On one end if they have an abortion and the baby dies it is ok, but if the mother does drugs and the baby dies it is murder?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/24/america-pregnant-women-murder-charges

From the article:

quote:
"If it's not a crime for a mother to intentionally end her pregnancy, how can it be a crime for her to do it unintentionally, whether by taking drugs or smoking or whatever it is," Robert McDuff, a civil rights lawyer asked the state supreme court.


Posts: 1877 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Just because it hasn't been brought up yet, there are numerous women facing life in prison for murder charges for losing their babies.
I brought it up a couple of pages back, but it got ignored. Thanks for bringing this subject to people's attention. [Smile]

I'll say it again - that article really freaked me out, and the idea of using laws created to protect pregnant women as a way to punish women who lose their child - sometimes in cases where those in question are somewhat mentally unbalanced or suffering from addictions already - seems needlessly cruel.
Anyone know if there's more to this story, or if it really is what it looks like?

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
One thing that has be brought up here that I don't get is this: If on parent wants to keep a child, the other owes child support. If neither wants the child, neither pays. This makes sense if there is an adoption waiting for them, but what if the child goes to foster care? Then the state pays for them right? If that is how it goes, it doesn't seem right.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
In the stated scenario, while the man is writing his check each month, the woman is raising a child. I am willing to bet her life has changed far more than the man who is compelled to write a check once a month. As a mom, I cant think of anything more life changing than having a baby I am responsible for. So, odds are the woman who didn't get an abortion is doing a hell of a lot more work than the man who writes the checks.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
To Bella and Geraine RE jailing moms...I didn't comment the first time because it boggles the mind. Seriously...I don't even know what to do with it.
Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Frisco
Member
Member # 3765

 - posted      Profile for Frisco           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
In the stated scenario, while the man is writing his check each month, the woman is raising a child. I am willing to bet her life has changed far more than the man who is compelled to write a check once a month. As a mom, I cant think of anything more life changing than having a baby I am responsible for. So, odds are the woman who didn't get an abortion is doing a hell of a lot more work than the man who writes the checks.
And in that scenario, the woman who wanted the child, in addition to doing more work, is reaping all the joy of having the child. While the father who didn't want the child is grudgingly paying 30% of all his earnings and possibly not even seeing the child.

I'd rather be that woman than that guy any day!

Posts: 5257 | Registered: Jul 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
The act of laboring to make a living and the denial of whatever quality of life increases could have be gained had the time/physical actions/money forfeited to child support been use by the father and his (possible) current family. Again, as I said in my comment to Stone Wolf, the discomfort would be vary from case to case for both sexes.
How is this inescapable?
Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scholarette
Member
Member # 11540

 - posted      Profile for scholarette           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If he wanted involvement, assuming he is not abusive, I think he should get 50% custody. Also, we don't know if the mom wanted the child or was just as surprised as the dad but thought abortion was immoral. After 9 months with the baby, perhaps she got attached. If men were fighting for fairer visitation I would strongly support that. Men's rights would do much better if they were fighting for increased access to child as opposed to permission to abandon a child. And once the kid is born, I really don't care much about the mom and what she did right or wrong. Now there is a child that is innocent and needs to be protected.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
capaxinfiniti
Member
Member # 12181

 - posted      Profile for capaxinfiniti           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:
Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
Also.

quote:
I'm not envisioning men with morning sickness, labor pains, etc - just that both are indeed affected physical and neither escapes some physical discomfort.
Tell me what this inescapable physical discomfort is.
The act of laboring to make a living and the denial of whatever quality of life increases could have be gained had the time/physical actions/money forfeited to child support been use by the father and his (possible) current family. Again, as I said in my comment to Stone Wolf, the discomfort would be vary from case to case for both sexes.
How is this inescapable?
It's not, but there would be legal consequences for failing to do so. This whole discussion is concerning legal obligations so I assumed what I said would be interpreted that way.
Posts: 536 | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not even the legal consequences are inescapable. This is another point of equivalence that is anything but.
Posts: 14151 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Amanecer
Member
Member # 4068

 - posted      Profile for Amanecer   Email Amanecer         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I'll say it again - that article really freaked me out, and the idea of using laws created to protect pregnant women as a way to punish women who lose their child - sometimes in cases where those in question are somewhat mentally unbalanced or suffering from addictions already - seems needlessly cruel.
I'm pro-choice for exactly the reasons scholarette has stated, but I feel conflicted on this issue. It is certainly highly immoral for a pregnant woman who wishes to remain pregnant to do drugs- most especially hard drugs. Putting these women in jail for killing does seem... weird, but having a crime associated with most likely permanently damaging a child does seem somewhat appropriate. Women should be allowed to get rid of a parasite on their bodies if they want, but if they choose to keep it, they have to be good to it. Is that hypocritical?
Posts: 1944 | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Stone_Wolf_
Member
Member # 8299

 - posted      Profile for Stone_Wolf_   Email Stone_Wolf_         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Women should be allowed to get rid of a parasite on their bodies if they want, but if they choose to keep it, they have to be good to it. Is that hypocritical?
Not by my standards.

It is so hard to judge this issue for me, truly I have find myself at a loss for words (and you all know how rare that is).

Posts: 5081 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 11 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  ...  9  10  11   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2