quote: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.
As has been noted, this isn't universal. I realize that men are often, well, discriminated against in custody cases, but that serves as a reason to deal with that specific problem: not to suggest that it's unjust that women get extra outs when men don't.
Unless it's being suggested that human biology is unfair, and that's not what I'm hearing-but I could be mistaken about that.
quote: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.
Actually, if the woman wants to give up the child for adoption...no, it's not as simple as just doing so against the man's wishes.
quote:A woman does not want to be an "incubator", but we expect men to play the role of "bank account".
This is another thing: we expect women to be the bank account too. It's not as though the stay-at-home-mom schtick is in any way a given anymore. Tons of moms work, more and more work early after the birth too-before the birth in fact as well.
quote:Are our bodies really that much more important than our lives?
I personally agree, it is troubling, the way body sovereignty trumps everything even morally in the eyes of our society (well, not all of it, obviously-far from it), but body responsibility is not something that's encouraged as strongly as sovereignty is defended.
But let's also be clear about something, dude (I use that term carefully): there isn't an 'our bodies' in this situation. I mean, there just ain't.
quote: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.
She also bore more of the risk. It's not just a question of doing more work.
---------
quote: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.
You sort of said they weren't the same, but also right up front suggested they were very similar.
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.
They significantly differ in that the woman has many, many more responsibilities and burdens-and thus more rights. It's pretty straightforward: it is deeply stupid to suggest that the difficulty-sharing between men and women during pregnancy is 'significantly similar'.
quote: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.
You went a bit further than that, but if you're modifying your initial stance, alright.
quote: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.
Coming from you, the well known conservative hack of the `Rack, well-thanks! I was condescending to your position, though, because it was ridiculous: you suggested men and women don't have significantly different problems to deal with-that pregnancy and child support payments were pretty comparable. It was dumb. Just cop to it and move on, man. Geeze.
As for what happens when an abortion is performed...well, is it an unborn child? What does that term mean? I don't know. (Neither do you, for that matter.) For the record, my own stance is that since we don't know, and since it's easily preventable, well-prevent it rather than dealing with it after it's happened. But once it's happened, things are very different for the two genders. Period. Hell, it ain't even 'equally definitive' for the man as for the woman when the abortion is performed. Exactly how much health risk to the man is there in this sometimes risky surgery?
quote: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.
Sometimes you're talking about 'definitve changes', sometimes about 'rights and responsibilities', but the first thing you responded to that earned you varying degrees of disagreement, ridicule, and scorn was that child support payments and pregnancy are comparable. I mean, I can quote you again if you'd like to show you where you did just that. 'Cursory reading' indeed.
quote: 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.
Again, not a double standard. A double standard is when differing measures are used to judge the same group. Men and women, once the pregnancy is begun, are self-evidently not the same group.
What this results in is a disparity in rights and responsibilities for men and women, sure. But it also results in a disparity of problems-a helluva lot more women have suffered physical discomfort or even injury, and then of course mental illness, even death, as a result of pregnancy than men. The genders are different, in some respects. In pregnancy? That's a friggin' given. To suggest that morally, much less legally, they should be treated the same is...well, ridiculous.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to me, the way this conversation has me expressing myself. See, overall my opinion could be explained along these lines:
1. Life (human life) starts somewhere before conception. 2. We don't know when that is (outside of religious ideas on the subject, which this being a secular society oughtn't count). 3. Therefore abortion simply because the child isn't wanted, absent other considerations, is wrong because it could be the killing of an unborn child. 4. Taking legal action on this would involve telling fully-grown human beings about what must be done concerning a at least very burdensome and possibly very dangerous health decision. 5. Don't make it illegal, but make it much less likely to be chosen-tons of effective sex education (social conservatives, looking at you here), lots of government support especially for low-income/poor expectant mothers and couples (social and fiscal conservatives, also looking at you).
So generally, I would be more on the side of Frisco and even-much as I cringe-on capax's side of things in a discussion about these topics. But when it starts to be framed that men are somehow gettin' a raw deal, that things are unbalanced or even unjust, when compared to women...well. Just gets my dander up, I s'pose. Lots of nastiness starts cropping up. Some dudes (and even ladies) will start throwing out terms like 'detests the child', 'spread her legs', and so on and so forth, as though women are somehow getting a sweet deal on the whole procreation biz already. Like they're getting uppity somehow, or at least sticking it to men.
If this were a discussion about the often default presumption of mother-superiority in child custody cases, I could even get on board with some of those beefs. But it's not.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
And if you want to remind everyone why the mother is going to and should reserve the right to determine her own course of care when pregnant (up to and including abortions), we can just bring up In re A.C. — a subtle reminder that a pregnant woman's body is her own, we're not going back to this.
quote:So generally, I would be more on the side of Frisco and even-much as I cringe-on capax's side of things in a discussion about these topics. But when it starts to be framed that men are somehow gettin' a raw deal, that things are unbalanced or even unjust, when compared to women...well. Just gets my dander up, I s'pose. Lots of nastiness starts cropping up. Some dudes (and even ladies) will start throwing out terms like 'detests the child', 'spread her legs', and so on and so forth, as though women are somehow getting a sweet deal on the whole procreation biz already. Like they're getting uppity somehow, or at least sticking it to men.
I haven't seem much nastiness pop up at all. It's one thing to play devil's advocate to avoid a dogpile on one side or the other, it's another to give weak arguments you don't believe in an attempt to maintain a sort of balance.
I'm not saying men have it worse than women, just pointing out what I see as a moral inconsistency.
---------------------------------
Scenario 1: Woman wants child, man wants child. How much "this sucks" each side experiences is pretty subjective. One the low end, regardless.
Scenario 2: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Man gets the short end of the stick by far. The woman has decided that whatever side effects come with the child are worth the happiness from having said child. Man is just out a lot of money. For a long time. This will definitely affect his life, and not in a good way.
Scenario 3: Man wants child, woman doesn't. We'll call it even. Emotional distress for the man, physical distress for the woman. Depending on the situation, the $500 for the abortion may tip the scales, but probably not.
Scenario 4: Woman doesn't want child, man doesn't want child. Woman gets the short end of the stick. 1/400,000 chance of death, the man risks nothing.
--------------------------------
So the situation *I'm* talking about is the only one where the joy/suck scale is totally out of whack--Scenario 2.
Does the fact that women bear a slight disadvantage in the other 2 unequal situations outweigh the fact that this particular man gets a giant shaft? Is it moral to take our frustrations out on this hypothetical man in situation 2, even though he had nothing to do with hurting the women in situations 1 and 4?
This is the question I'm looking at.
quote:Hell, it ain't even 'equally definitive' for the man as for the woman when the abortion is performed. Exactly how much health risk to the man is there in this sometimes risky surgery?
Was curious myself about how risky abortion is. About 1 in every 400,000 women die from the procedure according to womensmedcenter.com.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scenario 1: Woman wants child, man wants child. How much "this sucks" each side experiences is pretty subjective. One the low end, regardless.
Scenario 2: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Man gets the short end of the stick by far. The woman has decided that whatever side effects come with the child are worth the happiness from having said child. Man is just out a lot of money. For a long time. This will definitely affect his life, and not in a good way.
Scenario 3: Man wants child, woman doesn't. We'll call it even. Emotional distress for the man, physical distress for the woman. Depending on the situation, the $500 for the abortion may tip the scales, but probably not.
Scenario 4: Woman doesn't want child, man doesn't want child. Woman gets the short end of the stick. 1/400,000 chance of death, the man risks nothing.
There you go again, continuing to consider equality of outcome to be the source of morality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The mortality rate for intentional abortion is strongly tied to context. The fewer safe, accessible, regulated, and legal centers there are, the higher that rate will tend to be.
I'm not intending to imply anything further than that, by the way. Just to flag that the number cited in a given context may well change (and possibly dramatically) as the context may change. [One cannot take the number as a given once it is established.]
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:There you go again, continuing to consider equality of outcome to be the source of morality.
Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense?
Whenever I hear you argue, it's like reading a textbook answer to a question that may or may not be on the subject at hand.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense?
The most common argument for being pro choice is based on a woman's right to control what happens with her body. Saying that "well, the outcomes are roughly equivalent" isn't dealing with that argument at all. It is entirely ignoring that argument, and anyone making the most common argument for being pro choice is just going to look at your statements about similar outcomes and go "so what?"
I can't even think of a common moral position that's based on equivalence of outcomes as the determinant of morality, but that's what you seem to be interested in as trumping other commonly considered rights. Your argument that a fetus has rights that trump the right of a woman to control her own body is, on the other hand, at least defensible, if just something people are going to disagree on the premises for. I advise sticking with that argument.
And I don't think I was talking over anyone's head; numerous people responding make the same or closely related points.
quote:Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense?
Hopefully it makes a little more sense to you now that I've explained it a second time.
quote:Whenever I hear you argue, it's like reading a textbook answer to a question that may or may not be on the subject at hand.
Maybe you should read more textbooks.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Does the fact that women bear a slight disadvantage in the other 2 unequal situations outweigh the fact that this particular man gets a giant shaft? Is it moral to take our frustrations out on this hypothetical man in situation 2, even though he had nothing to do with hurting the women in situations 1 and 4?
Again, he's not getting a 'giant shaft'. Get a woman pregnant, and you just might have to pay for it once the pregnancy has begun. That's...life.
If a woman gets pregnant, well, she will certainly have to pay for it at least a little in physical ways. Along with her much greater responsibility and discomfort naturally goes an additional time of decision for her that doesn't exist for the dude. That's generally the way things work: if you're responsible for something, if you bear more of the burdens of something, you have more rights of decision associated with that thing.
As for no one getting nasty, I'll direct you to some of capax's remarks about 'she spread her legs' and 'child she detests so much'. Or are we gonna pretend that kind of rhetoric isn't indicative of certain less-than-polite attitudes?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
While one is adding up the discomforts of pregnancy and childbirth, don't forget to include the risks of uterine prolapse, urethral prolapse, rectocoeles, and everything else that can come with stretching out the pelvic floor. Hemorrhoids, urinary incontinence, and other problems can (not necessarily will, but can) be lifelong problems that may or may not be able to be addressed by surgery. If they can be addressed, it usually isn't a full return to normal state, and that often is only a temporary amelioration.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: Do you have any substance to add, or are you going to just talk cryptically so we all marvel at how smart you must be to say so much that *must* be over our heads because otherwise it makes no sense?
He's not talking cryptically, honestly. He's waving a big, big, big, very important point and clarifying it multiple times. It highlights a central deficiency that should be addressed.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Apologies, Fugu, I didn't realize that you had been in this thread before that comment, but now I see that I responded to you earlier.
The comment I was responding to was the one right before my post. The sentence didn't remotely convey what I was trying to say, so rather than assume you didn't get it, I assumed you were being a jerk. I should know better.
And yes, I think deep down I understand that many Pro-Choice folk hold the stance that all women want is control of their bodies...but I automatically connect that with life in general.
Is it really the 9 months of physical change that causes women to get abortions, or the 18 years of responsibility after that?
When I read about reasons for abortion, I see reasons like "I'm not ready for the responsibility" or "I'm not ready financially". Less often I see complaints about stretch marks and gaining weight.
So that's why I connect the two issues on a "quality of life" level. The blanket reason is "I want control over my body", but the end result is having control over one's life.
So to disconnect the two and say that it doesn't correspond with a *man's* quality of life at all seems a little narrow-minded.
quote:Is it really the 9 months of physical change that causes women to get abortions, or the 18 years of responsibility after that?
When I read about reasons for abortion, I see reasons like "I'm not ready for the responsibility" or "I'm not ready financially". Less often I see complaints about stretch marks and gaining weight.
Coulda *sworn* there was more to pregnancy than stretch marks and weight gain...
quote:So to disconnect the two and say that it doesn't correspond with a *man's* quality of life at all seems a little narrow-minded.
It still doesn't, because at the end of the question, you've *still* got the woman on the one hand whose quality of life will be drastically changed due to the child (and there the man has some equality), but she's *also* got the pregnancy itself. Which carries risks and drawbacks and trade-offs well beyond 'did she die or not'.
That's before we even get into the question of, in this country, which gender's lives are more substantially impacted by parenthood. About which gender will more likely take care of the domestic tasks (whether both work or not), which gender will more likely be involved in the child's day-to-day, their schooling, their medical care, their...etc.
In this country, we expect different things of men and women concerning parenthood-more time and effort is generally expected of women than of men. So even here, after we set aside the foolish notion that men and women are equal (in any way, much less physically) during the pregnancy, well...*ideally* both will shoulder the burdens of parenthood straight down the middle. That is quite often not what happens, though.
Being expected to be a bank account is not, actually, as burdensome as being expected to, y'know, raise a child.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is it really the 9 months of physical change that causes women to get abortions, or the 18 years of responsibility after that?
You're conflating the reason with the right. The right is to control of their bodies, which is what happens when a person gets an abortion -- they are controlling their bodies. The reason is personal, and not tied up in the right -- can't afford, doesn't want, is freaked out by, whatever.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It still doesn't, because at the end of the question, you've *still* got the woman on the one hand whose quality of life will be drastically changed due to the child (and there the man has some equality), but she's *also* got the pregnancy itself. Which carries risks and drawbacks and trade-offs well beyond 'did she die or not'.
To equate the change in the willing mother's life to that of an unwilling father's isn't all that relevant. In that situation, the mother has decided that having the child outweighs the risk of the pregnancy, AND it's likely that because she WANTS a child she will be HAPPIER having it.
Health risks and financial burden included, her quality of life has gone up.
All the other stuff you posted is another issue altogether, and I agree.
quote:Being expected to be a bank account is not, actually, as burdensome as being expected to, y'know, raise a child.
Except that for a willing parent, the burden is offset by little things like joy, happiness, pride, and cheap labor. Also macaroni pictures and badly crafted clay ashtrays.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:You're conflating the reason with the right. The right is to control of their bodies, which is what happens when a person gets an abortion -- they are controlling their bodies. The reason is personal, and not tied up in the right -- can't afford, doesn't want, is freaked out by, whatever.
Perhaps, but since I'm not really talking about the law, I don't think that connecting what is said to what is meant is all that far-fetched.
I feel that if 90% of abortions are performed because the woman or couple feels that it would negatively affect their quality of life (regardless of the legal reasons for being able to do so), to NOT give the same consideration to men is a double standard. And I think 90% might be lowballing it a bit. Been a few years since I've done much research, though.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I feel that if 90% of abortions are performed because the woman or couple feels that it would negatively affect their quality of life (regardless of the legal reasons for being able to do so), to NOT give the same consideration to men is a double standard. And I think 90% might be lowballing it a bit. Been a few years since I've done much research, though.
This is the same mistake, again. People can have many reasons for exercising a right that is independent of those reasons. For instance, many people use the right to free speech to engage in speech that is cruel; this doesn't mean we should give other people rights to do cruel things not involving speech. Similarly, just because many people exercising their right to control what happens to their body do something to avoid the responsibilities involved a child does not mean we should give other people rights to abrogate their responsibilities towards children. It just doesn't make sense in any except the most selfish moral calculus.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think my husband and I should have to pay the exact same cost for permanent sterilization. That would be the only equal and fair solution. Therefore, all doctors should offer both services for the same cost. So what if a vasectomy is an easier procedure. I also should have the same recovery time. Yeah, biology says it will take longer to heal so to make that equal, I propose we do a little extra damage to the men in the vasectomy. It is only fair that the end result is equal after all.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Scenario 1: Woman wants child, man wants child. How much "this sucks" each side experiences is pretty subjective. One the low end, regardless.
Scenario 2: Woman wants child, man doesn't. Man gets the short end of the stick by far. The woman has decided that whatever side effects come with the child are worth the happiness from having said child. Man is just out a lot of money. For a long time. This will definitely affect his life, and not in a good way.
Scenario 3: Man wants child, woman doesn't. We'll call it even. Emotional distress for the man, physical distress for the woman. Depending on the situation, the $500 for the abortion may tip the scales, but probably not.
Scenario 4: Woman doesn't want child, man doesn't want child. Woman gets the short end of the stick. 1/400,000 chance of death, the man risks nothing.
So in order to gain more 'equality', we ban abortion. Now, not only Man 2, but also a whole lot of Man 4 are out by 18 years of child support checks. Because a lot of Women 4 will keep the baby even if they didn't want it, because that is preferable to handing the poor thing over to Social Services to be potentially neglected and abused in Care, or going to jail for having an abortion. A lot of them will find an instinct to care for the child regardless.
And Man 4, who previously would have sailed merrily off into the sunset, now has to cough up. Or, Woman 4 has illegal abortion with serious health risks or death. Now a lot of Man 4 are out one previously healthy girlfriend and have a pile of guilt to deal with. If girlfriend is not dead, but needs medical attention, she goes to jail for killing the foetus.
Man 3 either gets to raise his child, with the mother paying child support to him, or his partner goes and gets an illegal abortion and ends up in jail for murder.
Man 2 is just as badly off as he was before, but now gets to pat himself on the back and tell himself - at least it's fair! Although, since abortion was illegal, it doesn't actually matter if Woman 2 really wanted the baby or not.
That is, if no-one is suggesting that instead of banning abortion, men should be able to sign a 'Do no want, abort, abort!' clause when he discovers his partner is pregnant. Which is clearly just daft.
What other (more positive) options are there?
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Most of the men's groups I have heard complaining want to sign over custodial rights and not have to have anything to do with the child ever. You get until like 20 weeks pregnancy to sign this paper and then you never have to acknowledge paternity of the child in any way.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frisco...you are looking at this situation from the side of the father.
Try flipping it on it's ear and look at from the side of the child. Your father doesn't want anything to do with you, your mother has to work and can barely make ends meet, you don't get to see her much as she is always working, and the only thing keeping your tiny little family afloat is the check that the man who is apart of you doesn't want to send.
Sure, not all single mothers struggle financially, nor do all single mothers not have time for their children because they have to work. But a lot do.
I get that you are upset that the mother has a choice, and the father does not. But please realize this is because of the repercussion of society giving the right people the right choices for the right reasons. It is not completely fair to everyone one involved, but it is morally right.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's not just repercussion-based, though. Greater risk, greater involvement, greater responsibility during the pregnancy-these all tilt towards the side of the mother. Now, granted, this isn't because dudes are *slackers* or something-men don't *sign up* to bear less of the assorted burdens during pregnancy. That's one of the things that's an involuntary fact of human biology.
But because of that, it's not unreasonable or unfair and *especially* not a double-standard that women have an extra set of choices to go along with the big ole set of other stuff.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:This is the same mistake, again. People can have many reasons for exercising a right that is independent of those reasons. For instance, many people use the right to free speech to engage in speech that is cruel; this doesn't mean we should give other people rights to do cruel things not involving speech. Similarly, just because many people exercising their right to control what happens to their body do something to avoid the responsibilities involved a child does not mean we should give other people rights to abrogate their responsibilities towards children. It just doesn't make sense in any except the most selfish moral calculus.
No, not a mistake. I will continue to try and clarify.
I agree that because the spoken intent is control over one's body and NOT the choice over controlling one's life that from the outside, it seems there is no inconsistency. But since everything we choose about our lives affects our body, and every choice we make about our body affects our life, it seems disingenuous to claim to be fighting for one and not the other.
Why do we even disconnect the two?
Are there other examples of laws or beliefs that deal with one and not the other? (aka Do my homework for me because it is lunchtime )
quote:Frisco...you are looking at this situation from the side of the father.
Try flipping it on it's ear and look at from the side of the child. Your father doesn't want anything to do with you, your mother has to work and can barely make ends meet, you don't get to see her much as she is always working, and the only thing keeping your tiny little family afloat is the check that the man who is apart of you doesn't want to send.
Again, I have said that I understand the practical reasoning behind it. In fact, I agree with you AND the law fully. I'm just pointing out what I see as inconsistencies in a particular position.
I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body. And I don't feel, as Rakeesh does, that because of inherent differences between the genders that the consequences for each should be so grossly different.
quote:I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body. And I don't feel, as Rakeesh does, that because of inherent differences between the genders that the consequences for each should be so grossly different.
I think you'll find few people sympathetic to the idea that the right to control your body is a technicality.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body. And I don't feel, as Rakeesh does, that because of inherent differences between the genders that the consequences for each should be so grossly different.
The consequences are already so grossly different, before any intervening legal authority whatsoever. Consequences being grossly different is the *default*. That's why, morally speaking, rights and responsibilities should also be different. It's not reasonable to treat two fundamentally different groups identically in all cases.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frisco, can you think of another right where a consequence is actively balanced? For example, freedom of speech- When say Glen Beck speaks, he can actually affect national discourse. He has a great deal more power than I do when using that right, yet no one suggests that the right is unfair and needs to be changed.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think you'll find few people sympathetic to the idea that the right to control your body is a technicality.
The technicality of which I spoke was that of the complete disconnect between body and life, even though the two are so clearly closely connected.
I don't think I can make it much clearer than that last post, so I guess I'll give up if that's what you got out of it.
And Rakeesh, I agree that when viewed as a whole, obviously pregnancy is skewed based on gender. But the double standard I'm speaking of doesn't involve most of that.
It sounds like saying one woman deserves the right to have abortions because some other woman risked their life to become pregnant. What does one situation have to do with the other? Can rights be saved up by one person and transferred to another so they can use them for an entirely different scenario?
I don't mean to dismiss your arguments, if it seems like I have, because they're certainly good points. I think women wield too little sexual power for the amount of risk they bear.
But I can't see what that has to do with the specific moral scenario of man's live weighed against a woman's body (and, directly and inseparably, life), even if, legally, the lack of choice in the matter of child support is there as a sort of reparations for women in addition to supporting the life of a child.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I haven't read the rest of the posts yet because I've been gone for a few days. However, I have to point out that I clearly said I was pro-choice for the variety of reasons including that you pointed out.
However, being pro-choice doesn't mean I don't have to find it morally ok.
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I hear you tripleD...but the reality of the situation is that if abortion is outlawed, then they will still happen, but instead of a doctor in a clinic, it will be...a non-doctor in a less sterile and health conscious place.
As to a possible single teenage mother vs a married couple seeks a son, I just do not agree that they are both doing the same amount of evil. I can forgive the teen (I was once young and stupid too), but those married couples just disgust me.
As to comparing child support to pregnancy/childbirth, I'd like to point out that paying child support doesn't carry ANY type of death risk above normal life. Child support is determined by the man's income and will never be set at a level that requires him to starve, and I've never heard of it being set as high as 30% for a single child either. In most states a man with only one child will pay approximately 20%. If it comes to that, having an abortion also has a risk of death higher than paying child support.
However, I'll agree with you that it's really crappy that a woman can just kill the unborn child because she doesn't want the responsibility. If I could take away that right, without creating serious other problems, I would. The problem is that it is impossible. You can't PROVE why someone wants an abortion, so attempting to restrict it by reason is impossible. Even if you were able to do so legally, the woman would still have access to increasingly dangerous illegal abortions, and it just goes downhill from there. Nature has, unfortunately, dictated that a father has little control over the safety of his unborn offspring.
Also, someone brought up some stuff about adoption. First, a mother cannot LEGALLY give up a child for adoption without giving the father a chance to block it. This does happen illegally, and it is a problem. People are working to stop it. I think it's important to realize though, that in those cases the mother is acting ILLEGALLY, and if caught WILL face consequences. Our legal system isn't just saying that it's ok.
If the mother carries to term and does not want the child, she can attempt to place the child for adoption. If the father agrees, this is a simple process. If the child is a healthy infant, it almost always goes straight to the adoptive parents, and there isn’t really any problem about state support, etc. However, in the case that the child is placed with state social services, the state CAN go back and collect child support from both the mother and the father. The state doesn’t always pursue support, but every state I’ve researched allows this option. (The same thing is true if the child is placed with a grandparent, aunt, uncle or other relative as guardian without an actual adoption.)
However, if the mother wants to place but the father refuses to sign, the child does not automatically go to the father. Assuming the parents are unmarried (most of the time, I’m going to assume this), the mother will retain custody until the paternity is established in court, and then either parent can file for custody and a judge decides what will happen. Custody and child support are then decided based on the state guidelines and what the judge feels is the best interest of the child.
Of course, either parent could voluntarily give up parental rights, and thus be freed from child support as long as a judge agrees it is in the best interest of the child. This does vary by state however. Sometimes judges will only allow it if another person is willing to adopt the child. (Step-parent or “other-parent” adoption usually.) However, some states will allow it as long as the remaining parent can prove he/she is self-sustaining and not likely to need government assistance to raise the child.
As far as custody in general goes… it is not NEARLY as mother centric as it was back in the 60’s and 70’s. In fact, judges in many areas are almost father-centric now. Fathers have a lot more resources available most of the time, because there are tons of groups willing to do pro-bono legal work for dads. Mothers typically have an advantage in unmarried situations because they will have default custody when the child is born, since that is dictated by biology and our legal process. However, in cases of divorce, or in cases where both parents have been active and present in a child’s life, the bias is pretty neutral. If you’re talking about simple visitation cases, it isn’t all that uncommon to see Dad’s being given more and more visitation rights, even when they aren’t currently using the visitation they’re currently given. It’s the visitation cases where Dad’s are often given the preference. It’s annoying but probably a natural consequence of the old “mom always wins” scenario.
In most places, joint legal custody is the norm. Physical custody is shifting towards 50/50, but will probably never get too close to 50/50 because studies are finding that it’s actually NOT good for kids to not have a designated primary residence if the parents can’t work together on co-parenting.
As for being tricked into being a dad….
Sabotaging the condom goes back to the whole, “No birth control is foolproof, if you don’t want a baby, keep your reproductive parts to yourself, argument.”
And as for being named the father on the birth certificate… most states won’t allow a father, other than the woman’s husband, to be put on the birth certificate unless the father has taken a DNA test OR has signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. In the states that will allow a father (I think maybe Hawaii and a couple of others???), being listed on the Birth Certificate doesn’t actually confer a legal relationship, and has no bearing on child support or custody.
So the ONLY way you can get to be listed as a legal father without being the genetic dad, is if you voluntarily sign a piece of paper saying you want to be named the father without a DNA test OR if you’re married to the mother. The marriage thing is a whole different ballgame and basically happens because the law considers any child born to a woman in the marriage to be the legal child of the husband. The husband would have to legally deny the child within a certain time frame of the birth to not be the legal father. There have been attempts to overturn that presumption, but most people don’t want to. If the father is skeptical up front, he CAN still challenge it with a test shortly after birth. The thinking here is about what is in the child’s best interest, and honestly that’s what society SHOULD be thinking about. It really wouldn’t be fair to the child if, after 7 or 8 years, Dad gets suspicious and suddenly decides he doesn’t want to be Dad anymore. I agree that those situations can suck for the Dad, and that’s why there is debate about the presumption, but so far society seems to feel it isn’t a big enough problem to change the law.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wow 3D, that was a lot of info...I'm curious, where did you get it all? I'm not saying your inaccurate, just that that was a lot of detail for "common knowledge" and I wonder at your sources.
I also don't have anything in particular that you said that I disagree with...
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have a friend who adopted and I learned most of what DDDash said listening to her problems (mom was good, dad was good the he wasn't then genetic test said dad wasn't the dad and mom is claiming random hookup with no last names exchanged). I can see that all as common knowledge.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
I have two parents who adopted from foster care, so I've paid alot of attention to adoption law, etc.
I also belong to several custody issues groups online because I've had issues with my own situation involving my son, his father, his grandparents, his half-sister, etc. You eventually pick up on stuff. Most of the details will shift from state to state, but themes remain pretty consistent.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh yeah, and most states have their laws listed online. I've actually read through the family law sections of about half a dozen of them. It's mostly dull, but you do pull out nuggets now and then.
Posts: 1321 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body.
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: And I wonder why so many doctors felt it was inadvisable for the baby's health as well
I don't know the details, although it is a case I'll read up on.
I can say that this case appears to have occurred in the mid-1980s, and viability & prognosis for preterm infants was quite different then (roughly 25 years ago). Plus, the woman was missing half her pelvis, and I don't know how that affected the uterus, so it may have altered things.
Posts: 831 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: I wonder if people's opinions of that case would change if the baby had lived...
And I wonder why so many doctors felt it was inadvisable for the baby's health as well...
too premature, among other complications. they just knew that the odds of being able to keep the baby alive outside of the womb were just freaking nil.
so, unsurprising, at the end of the facts section:
quote:At age thirteen, Angela Stoner was diagnosed with a rare and usually fatal form of cancer, Ewing's sarcoma. Despite numerous doctors warning her of imminent death she survived. After years of chemotherapy and radiation therapy she was declared to be in remission. She got married and sought her doctor's advice on whether she could become pregnant with her health history. Since her cancer had been in remission for several years, her obstetrician said to go ahead and get pregnant, which she did. In 1987, when Carder was twenty-six weeks pregnant, her cancer was discovered to have recurred and metastasized to her lung. Her initial plan was to begin radiation and chemotherapy immediately as she had been through too much already not to at least try to prolong her life, regardless of risks to the fetus. The doctors at George Washington University Hospital in Washington, D.C. immediately gave Carder only days to live and disagreed with her choice to put her own life ahead of that of the fetus. Instead of treating the cancer, they ignored her protests and inserted an oral feeding tube into her and administered sedatives in an effort to delay her death and increase her fetus' chance of continued development. Whatever her choice, the administrators of the hospital – who were also the liability risk managers – were concerned that she had not elected to have an immediate C-section. Fearing a lawsuit by aggressive pro-life activists, they convened a court hearing at the hospital and obtained separate counsels for Carder, her fetus, and the hospital. At the hearing, family members, including Carder’s husband, opposed the C-section on the grounds that she would be unlikely to survive it and that she would not want it (Carder herself, now gravely ill and heavily sedated, did not testify). Her treating physicians also opposed the procedure. However, a neonatologist not personally familiar with her medical status testified that the fetus would have at least a 60% chance of survival – nearly that of a healthy woman’s fetus at the same gestational age. Carder’s own long-term oncologist was not contacted; he has since stated that he would have called the procedure "medically inadvisable both for Angela Carder and for the fetus". Nonetheless, and despite medical testimony that such a procedure would probably end Carder’s life, an order was issued authorizing the hospital to perform an immediate C-section. Obstetricians at the hospital initially refused to carry out the procedure, but eventually one reluctantly agreed. A three-judge appellate panel upheld the decision in an emergency telephone appeal, despite Carder’s own repeated pleas of "I don’t want it done." Exactly how long the fetus survived is a matter of some dispute; the most commonly cited figure is two hours. Susan Faludi quotes the obstetrician who performed the surgery as saying attempts to inflate the fetus’s lungs were "like trying to ventilate a rock". Angela Carder was informed of her baby's death and survived her surgery for two days before lapsing into a coma and dying thereafter.
quote:I wonder if people's opinions of that case would change if the baby had lived...
I'm sure some opinions would change, but mine wouldn't-particularly given that it was unlikely, medically, that the baby would survive in any event. Compelling the procedure, even if it turns out to work, involves a host of what should be deeply troubling implications concerning the question, "Hey, what are women *for*, anyway-and who decides?"
Anyway, no one here has specifically affirmed the initial decision to do the procedure over protest. So my thoughts aren't an argument to anyone here.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't feel, as fugu does, that a technicality is enough to warrant an entire disconnect between a man's choice about his life and a woman's choice concerning her body.
The distinction between ones physical body and ones money is hardly a minor technicality. What is rightfully ones property is a matter of social consensus. A persons physical body is a biological fact.
If you get money by selling cars or computers, we consider it legally yours. If you get money by selling heroin, stolen goods or state secrets, its not. If you get your money by providing medical care, teaching, or building houses, its legally yours. If get your money by stealing or embezzlement, its not. Why? Because we agree that this is so.
But my physical body isn't my property -- it is me. It isn't something I possess by common consent -- it is integral and inseparable from me. If a person is not free to do what they choose with their body, they are not free by any reasonable definition of the word.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: As for being tricked into being a dad….
Sabotaging the condom goes back to the whole, “No birth control is foolproof, if you don’t want a baby, keep your reproductive parts to yourself, argument.”
And as for being named the father on the birth certificate… most states won’t allow a father, other than the woman’s husband, to be put on the birth certificate unless the father has taken a DNA test OR has signed a voluntary acknowledgement of paternity. In the states that will allow a father (I think maybe Hawaii and a couple of others???), being listed on the Birth Certificate doesn’t actually confer a legal relationship, and has no bearing on child support or custody.
So the ONLY way you can get to be listed as a legal father without being the genetic dad, is if you voluntarily sign a piece of paper saying you want to be named the father without a DNA test OR if you’re married to the mother. The marriage thing is a whole different ballgame and basically happens because the law considers any child born to a woman in the marriage to be the legal child of the husband. The husband would have to legally deny the child within a certain time frame of the birth to not be the legal father. There have been attempts to overturn that presumption, but most people don’t want to. If the father is skeptical up front, he CAN still challenge it with a test shortly after birth. The thinking here is about what is in the child’s best interest, and honestly that’s what society SHOULD be thinking about. It really wouldn’t be fair to the child if, after 7 or 8 years, Dad gets suspicious and suddenly decides he doesn’t want to be Dad anymore. I agree that those situations can suck for the Dad, and that’s why there is debate about the presumption, but so far society seems to feel it isn’t a big enough problem to change the law.
For sabotaging the condom... That's really unfair to the guy. A woman that does this on purpose and proven in a court of law should be punished greatly, imo.
As for the Birth Certificate situation... My father was in this situation. He made money and a woman knew it so she listed his name on the child birth certificate then took him to court to get child support. Luckily my father was able to save enough money to buy the best lawyer he could find and the lawyer caught the woman in a lie about the weather during conception. If it wasn't for that, he would have lost almost certainly. This was in PA.
Granted this was some time ago and perhaps things have changed since. I can only speak from personal experience on the matter.
As for me, I had to fight just to get a DNA test to prove my daughter was mine. I paid $300 for an out-of-court DNA test which the mother flat out refused when she got the notice. Then I had to hire a lawyer and get an court ordered DNA test.
When my daughter was born I did not have to take a DNA test, we were in Montana at the time.
And like I pointed out before... My own lawyer told me, before finding out the results, that even if I wasn't the father through DNA I can still be labeled as the father by law and have to pay child support. I live in Virginia.
Lawyer said she had seen it happen before and I have no reason not to believe her. She said it was because the courts look at what is "best interest of child." So yeah.
Just because you aren't the father doesn't mean you aren't going to be appointed as the father by the courts. This isn't fair. A woman can say you're the father and now its practically a dice roll.
posted
If it is true that the court makes men pay for child support of children who have been proven to not be the father of, that is outrageous. If it is true. I personally doubt it.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
BTW KirKis, your first link is to a discussion board, which quotes from a news story, the same exact story as your third link, although on a different site, and your fourth link is just an opinion on the story.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So, why are you not advocating for more fairness in child support (such as ensuring that the man is the father) instead of allowing the actual DNA proven father to abandon his child? Also, the first story seems to come from the fact that the man did not come to the trial originally. He received a summons and ignored it. If he had come to court on that original trial, where it all started, and said, hey wrong guy, then this chain probably wouldn't have happened. the last link is mostly opinion- not enough to figure out what actually happened and what is biased view.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
Anyways you can see how it actually happens. It even made it on CNN.
@Scholarette - LOL interesting that you word it that way. Since my previous posts were, in fact, advocating for rights to men who are in "extreme situations" and in either forced, tricked, and/or manipulated to become a father. Not trying to get deadbeats to drop all responsibilty.
I applaud you for saying "actual DNA proven father to abandon his child?" to make it seem like I want men to just abandon their children.
I'm sure you didn't mean anything by that... right?
Anyways the point of my links was made. The issue is real. Along with the issues I brought up before are actually real.
Sure you can say that one of the links I made just didn't have enough information... really? You want more information? All you need to know is a guy is paying for a child that isn't his. He became a father by trickery... Which... like previously stated... I am against.
That is all I really need to know to be upset about this. Okay so he got a summons and ignored it. Sure he should have paid more attention but still? Because of that he becomes the father? If that is your idea of fair play... I fold.
Posts: 91 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the guy should be a father, but I don't think it was a nefarious plot. It was a clerical error that spun out of control. It should have been fixed but it doesn't prove a widespread issue. With the other case, if I was a woman and admitted the dad was not the father, I would return the checks and not make a fuss. So, I guess I figure there must be more to the story. Why was this even before the courts if the mother wasn't making an issue? And if she was, was there a reason for that? One of my relatives had a case where his gf had many potential fathers and was considering an abortion. He told her if she had the child, regardless of DNA, he would be the father. If there was some agreement like that in play, then I might side with him having to pay. Another relative's wife had an affair and everyone but wife said there was no possible way the kid was his. When he decided to reconcile with wife, he said I know not mine, but I am going to raise him like mine. The actual father didn't want to be a father and was relieved and went about his life. When my cousin and his wife did divorce, he got full custodial rights over the child. If he were to now change his mind, after years of being the only father this child has had, I would not be too upset with the court saying no.
I think I confused the arguments you and Frisco were making, so I apologize if I accused you of something you didn't support.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to the wrong guy being held accountable by the law for child support, there is no excuse. The state needs to get this 100% right, and pay back every cent of wrongfully collected child support, as well award some damages to those who were wrongfully imprisoned.
When it comes to actual biological father's waving their rights and not paying child support...well, I'll keep it simple. I don't agree at all.
ETA: Now I'm confused as well...sorry if that last comment should be aimed at someone else.
quote:I think you'll find few people sympathetic to the idea that the right to control your body is a technicality.
The technicality of which I spoke was that of the complete disconnect between body and life, even though the two are so clearly closely connected.
They are not "clearly closely connected". Being required to relinquish property happens all the time. Being required to relinquish sovereignty over our own bodies when we have not committed a crime turns us back into property.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Every single law abiding citizen relinquishes "part of their life" once a year...around April 15th.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I was condescending to your position, though, because it was ridiculous: you suggested men and women don't have significantly different problems to deal with-that pregnancy and child support payments were pretty comparable. It was dumb. Just cop to it and move on, man. Geeze.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
