quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
I'm not saying this is an easy issue, but the question I just asked is valid, I think.
For that matter, spontaneous miscarriages happen all the time...should we make those illegal, since the mother may have unwittingly caused it by not eating a nutritious diet, or by some other means?
These issues are way more complex than the extremists paint them to be.
Posts: 3354 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
steven- my friends joke that while pregnant, they would not go to utah because a miscarriage there could lead to murder charges. I think another state has some thing similar that was recently in the news. But it is late and I am exhausted so now that baby asleep, I will be too.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
How onerous is the burden of proof?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, there's absolutely no requirement for it to be disregarded for either of these things.
Why not?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
True, it's the law telling them they can't do those things. Complete autonomy over one's body would mean freedom from all forms of government coercion.
Posts: 570 | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Whether the father wants the baby or not, it doesn't much matter. The mother chooses what kind of father he'll get to be or not be, and thus exerts MASSIVE amounts of control over his life.
No, the person who is putting their life at risk and definitely changing their body if they go through with it gets to decide if they want to go through with it. That it happens to be the mother and not the father, well, that's biology for ya!
The father can fight for his right for custody...this isn't just "determined by the mother".
I assume you mean child support when you say "MASSIVE amounts of control over his life", and to that I say it isn't mom making that choice, it is the system which we designed to take care of the child, and I'm good with it.
You call for the mother to stick it out with the pregnancy as she knew there was a risk when having sex but balk at the cost to the father...and let's be honest here, your health and life are way bigger of a risk then simply having less money.
No one says it's the most fair thing to the father that he doesn't get to decide to keep a baby or not (abortion wise), but if there is a child, he does have rights.
The case in the OP shows that sometimes they get stepped on, and -that- is wrong, and should be corrected immediately.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
How onerous is the burden of proof?
You tell me, it's your notion we're working with.
I assume that there has to be some manner of legal ruling that the sex was nonconsensual on her part if I am to be stripped of my "vote" in the matter. If not, she can re-acquire the right to decide on whether or not she is permitted an abortion back from me simply by claiming rape.
Other than that, it's exactly like I said. Under your system, if I impregnate a woman, it is entirely within my power to decide whether she is allowed to have an abortion. If I refuse her this right, she is forced to carry to term. The "third vote" gives me that weighted power. And I'm asking if, really, truly, this is an acceptable thing.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
The mother already made the decision when she had sex. She wants an opt-out clause after the fact.
Where two equal parties are concerned, the father almost always loses. It's no secret that preferential treatment is given to the mother. I think this speaks to a larger problem in society. We assume that the mother is the natural caregiver, which speaks to what I was talking about earlier regarding an ill-defined definition of fatherhood. We tell dads to get involved on one had, but on the other, we tell them they're inherently second fiddles to the mom. We're sending mixed messages.
I don't just mean child support. It's between a life where you are a parent or aren't a parent. And no, I don't balk at the cost to the father. I've said more than once that I think the child support issue is fine the way it is. After all, the man is bound under my idea of a tacit agreement as well, he has to pay up.
Once there is a child, his rights are not equal to the mother's. In the case in the OP, why was the child even taken by the adoption agency before the father signed off on it? If the father had been there, would he have been able to sign the kid away without the mother's consent? Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
True, it's the law telling them they can't do those things. Complete autonomy over one's body would mean freedom from all forms of government coercion.
Alcohol and tobacco are legal...or are you saying that the age restrictions on controlled substances are violating the sanctity of body principal?
You have a point with assisted (and non assisted) suicide though. Although it doesn't actually stop MDs from giving terminal patients in pain enough morphine to kill an elephant.
My step father died last week of stomach cancer...but it was the morphine that stopped his heart.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
How onerous is the burden of proof?
You tell me, it's your notion we're working with.
I assume that there has to be some manner of legal ruling that the sex was nonconsensual on her part if I am to be stripped of my "vote" in the matter. If not, she can re-acquire the right to decide on whether or not she is permitted an abortion back from me simply by claiming rape.
Other than that, it's exactly like I said. Under your system, if I impregnate a woman, it is entirely within my power to decide whether she is allowed to have an abortion. If I refuse her this right, she is forced to carry to term. The "third vote" gives me that weighted power. And I'm asking if, really, truly, this is an acceptable thing.
I'm asking a legal question that doesn't really bear on my own beliefs. How onerous is the burden of proof so the woman can prove sex was or wasn't consensual? Is it impossible? Is it relatively easy?
You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm asking a legal question that doesn't really bear on my own beliefs. How onerous is the burden of proof so the woman can prove sex was or wasn't consensual? Is it impossible? Is it relatively easy?
What would your system do in either case?
quote:You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
We're still in the exact same position - the tie always going in favor of forcing the pregnancy. I am still given the power to force a woman to bring a child to term in her own body if I was the one who impregnated her. So, as a man, I am granted that power over women without any equivalent jeapordy to my own bodily autonomy. I can dictate to a woman whether or not she is permitted an abortion. So, is that right? What conditions make this morally permissable where me having the right to dictate to her whether or not she is permitted to bring the baby to term would be presumably morally abhorrent, despite being a similar exercise of exerting control over what is to be done with her body?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
True, it's the law telling them they can't do those things. Complete autonomy over one's body would mean freedom from all forms of government coercion.
Alcohol and tobacco are legal...or are you saying that the age restrictions on controlled substances are violating the sanctity of body principal?
You have a point with assisted (and non assisted) suicide though. Although it doesn't actually stop MDs from giving terminal patients in pain enough morphine to kill an elephant.
My step father died last week of stomach cancer...but it was the morphine that stopped his heart.
Despite some of what has been said in this thread, there is no constitutional protection for absolute and complete control over your life. We've had a sliding bar on what constitutes "inalienable rights" since the constitution was drafted, though, also remember that that line was originally in the non-legally binding Declaration of Independence. There exist several legally acceptable ways in which we surrender control over our lives. Otherwise you could argue that jail time for crimes was illegal.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm asking a legal question that doesn't really bear on my own beliefs. How onerous is the burden of proof so the woman can prove sex was or wasn't consensual? Is it impossible? Is it relatively easy?
What would your system do in either case?
I don't know, I'd have to see specifics.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
This is the heart of the matter. A father can impregnate the mother and walk away and never see either the mother or child ever again. The woman can not. She is stuck with a parasite growing in her, which vastly limits her physical ability AND if she doesn't treat it right, she might end up being thrown in jail! Some father stick around and are a big part of the process, but not all, and so if we tie the hands of the mother in giving up the child by requiring the father to sign off, and the dude skipped town the second he heard his old squeeze had a growing middle...then what? She has to keep it?
It really is a simple matter. Women take the hit from biology physically, they get to call the shots. Don't like it? Invent an artificial womb. Until then, be happy your body will always be your own.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Okay, then, it's my word versus hers. Nothing more. Can I be stripped of my right to veto her abortion based off of this alone, or must she offer more?
quote:You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
We're still in the exact same position - the tie always going in favor of forcing the pregnancy. I am still given the power to force a woman to bring a child to term in her own body if I was the one who impregnated her. So, as a man, I am granted that power over women without any equivalent jeapordy to my own bodily autonomy. I can dictate to a woman whether or not she is permitted an abortion. So, is that right? What conditions make this morally permissable where me having the right to dictate to her whether or not she is permitted to bring the baby to term would be presumably morally abhorrent, despite being a similar exercise of exerting control over what is to be done with her body?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And no, I don't balk at the cost to the father. I've said more than once that I think the child support issue is fine the way it is. After all, the man is bound under my idea of a tacit agreement as well, he has to pay up.
Glad to hear it! Thanks for making that clear for me.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
This is the heart of the matter. A father can impregnate the mother and walk away and never see either the mother or child ever again. The woman can not. She is stuck with a parasite growing in her, which vastly limits her physical ability AND if she doesn't treat it right, she might end up being thrown in jail! Some father stick around and are a big part of the process, but not all, and so if we tie the hands of the mother in giving up the child by requiring the father to sign off, and the dude skipped town the second he heard his old squeeze had a growing middle...then what? She has to keep it?
It really is a simple matter. Women take the hit from biology physically, they get to call the shots. Don't like it? Invent an artificial womb. Until then, be happy your body will always be your own.
You're missing the point.
I'm talking about the way our society as a whole views mothers and fathers. Our views on mothers are very, very well defined.
Our views on fathers are ill-defined, contradictory, and unhelpful. We don't treat them with the requisite kind of attention required to make them achieve what we claim is our goal.
And you're missing the point regarding having a man sign off versus sign in. This baby was out the hospital door within hours, and out of the state within days, and the father never even knew! I'm obviously not saying the mother should be stuck with it, but there should be some sort of good faith effort to locate the father and see what he thinks.
What about cases where mothers never even tell the father there's a baby, and it is given up for adoption? How is the father supposed to assert parental rights to a baby he doesn't even know exists?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Okay, then, it's my word versus hers. Nothing more. Can I be stripped of my right to veto her abortion based off of this alone, or must she offer more?
quote:You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
We're still in the exact same position - the tie always going in favor of forcing the pregnancy. I am still given the power to force a woman to bring a child to term in her own body if I was the one who impregnated her. So, as a man, I am granted that power over women without any equivalent jeapordy to my own bodily autonomy. I can dictate to a woman whether or not she is permitted an abortion. So, is that right? What conditions make this morally permissable where me having the right to dictate to her whether or not she is permitted to bring the baby to term would be presumably morally abhorrent, despite being a similar exercise of exerting control over what is to be done with her body?
The rape question is a good one. How often does it simply come down to her word versus yours? Is it because she didn't tell the police and had a rape kit done? Did she fail to pursue the matter appropriately and it ended up coming down to her word against his?
Your problem is far bigger than the rape question though. You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread. So on the one hand, since biology dictates that the woman bears the brunt of the burden, she gets to choose, but having chosen to enter into a reproductive act in the first place doesn't matter at all?
This is why the medical argument bears less weight with me, I focus more on the initial decision, you focus more on the secondary decision. It's like you hand someone a six shooter with a single bullet and tell them to shoot you, then get indignant when you end up shot. What did you think was going to happen? Just fun and games? Guns are meant to kill. Sex is meant to impregnate.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I'm talking about the way our society as a whole views mothers and fathers. Our views on mothers are very, very well defined.
Our views on fathers are ill-defined, contradictory, and unhelpful. We don't treat them with the requisite kind of attention required to make them achieve what we claim is our goal.
I really don't care about "our society's views". How can you even claim that "our society" has one particular view or another? Turn on the TV and flip through the channels, there are more cultures and view points then stars in the night sky.
And even if there really was a view as you describe, who exactly would have the power to change it? This line of argument comes off as simply complaining and I doubt will come to anything of value.
quote:...there should be some sort of good faith effort to locate the father and see what he thinks.
What about cases where mothers never even tell the father there's a baby, and it is given up for adoption? How is the father supposed to assert parental rights to a baby he doesn't even know exists?
And who is going to pay for this good faith? Let's throw some more red tape and expense into our adoption process...a friend of mine adopted and it was a hugely time consuming, costly and rigorous process.
If this poor man's experience was common, I might agree with you. That he was wronged and had his daughter kidnapped from him and given away is tragic, and wrong wrong wrong, but it is hardly an epidemic of poor fathers who get lied to or abused like that. In most cases if the father isn't hold the mother's hand and telling her to push it is because he abandoned her and his child, which is very common by the way.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread.
The ease by which an unwanted pregnancy can be medically terminated via abortion is just as much a part of the biological argument as contraception is. So too is the biological fact that pregnancies are risky medical events, and wear at the body in multiple ways that can be 'solved' via an abortion if the host is willing. All important, 'biologically' or otherwise.
Perhaps the disagreement I have here (or at least one that's being read beyond the initial standpoint i made abundantly clear: woman has right to her own body in this case, period, there's no up or down vote between the possessor of HER OWN BODY and another person who is voting on behalf of what is to be done with her body) is not that I don't think having sex is a 'reproduction agreement' (even though that concept itself is kind of tricky in implementation, because people still have sex without any sort of informed 'agreement' about the risk of pregnancy), but that you could just as easily say that the reproduction agreements that people make are quite reasonably cognizant and inclusive of the fact that the woman has the right to decide whether or not she is going to have an abortion. A system which hinges on those 'reproduction agreements' necessarily creating an (informed) obligation towards a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system .. requires a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system to be enforced in the first place.
Hypothetical scenario, to work towards illustrating. A woman says to a man, prior to sex, "I'm never having a child, so if this results in an unintended pregnancy, I'm terminating it. Capiche?" Man accepts this as a condition to having sexual relations that might hypothetically result in pregnancy. It's a one night stand, then he gets on a plane and travels back to where he came from. Lightning-strike conception occurs through multiple forms of birth control. Woman maintains her position and heads out to get an abortion.
Does this not count as a 'reproduction agreement' — or, under your terms, not? Does she have the obligation to hunt down the guy to tell him before she gets the abortion?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The rape question is a good one. How often does it simply come down to her word versus yours? Is it because she didn't tell the police and had a rape kit done? Did she fail to pursue the matter appropriately and it ended up coming down to her word against his?
Prevalence of this situation notwithstanding, the situation as it stands is that they are in court. She wants an abortion but has been prohibited from having it because the man has disallowed her the option of having an abortion. She is claiming that he raped him, and has brought the case forth today intending to reclaim the ability to have an abortion from him. He denies that the sex was nonconsentual. They provide different stories. They will not bargain (he won't allow her to get an abortion if she drops the rape charge). There's no physical evidence one way or another, no witnesses. She asserts that she didn't charge him earlier because she was traumatized and couldn't face a court because of a panic disorder related to the rape.
even beyond this individual scenario under your system, what's the standard? not for individual cases, what's the standard by which a woman can use rape to get out of an abortion veto? Conviction in court? How long can an average rape trial drag on?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Stone Wolf: I really don't care about "our society's views". .... Let's throw some more red tape and expense into our adoption process
Hm, so you think society's view on the paternal role in a family is irrelevant, and you think attempting to notify fathers about adoptions is too burdensome.
Doesn't seem to be too much more to discuss here.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread.
The ease by which an unwanted pregnancy can be medically terminated via abortion is just as much a part of the biological argument as contraception is. So too is the biological fact that pregnancies are risky medical events, and wear at the body in multiple ways that can be 'solved' via an abortion if the host is willing. All important, 'biologically' or otherwise.
Perhaps the disagreement I have here (or at least one that's being read beyond the initial standpoint i made abundantly clear: woman has right to her own body in this case, period, there's no up or down vote between the possessor of HER OWN BODY and another person who is voting on behalf of what is to be done with her body) is not that I don't think having sex is a 'reproduction agreement' (even though that concept itself is kind of tricky in implementation, because people still have sex without any sort of informed 'agreement' about the risk of pregnancy), but that you could just as easily say that the reproduction agreements that people make are quite reasonably cognizant and inclusive of the fact that the woman has the right to decide whether or not she is going to have an abortion. A system which hinges on those 'reproduction agreements' necessarily creating an (informed) obligation towards a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system .. requires a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system to be enforced in the first place.
Hypothetical scenario, to work towards illustrating. A woman says to a man, prior to sex, "I'm never having a child, so if this results in an unintended pregnancy, I'm terminating it. Capiche?" Man accepts this as a condition to having sexual relations that might hypothetically result in pregnancy. It's a one night stand, then he gets on a plane and travels back to where he came from. Lightning-strike conception occurs through multiple forms of birth control. Woman maintains her position and heads out to get an abortion.
Does this not count as a 'reproduction agreement' — or, under your terms, not? Does she have the obligation to hunt down the guy to tell him before she gets the abortion?
That would seem to be pretty clear. You're taking it from a tacit agreement to an oral contract, which is even more concrete. I'm betting a judge today would void that as an argument if she changed her mind and the guy came back later and said "but wait, she said she wanted an abortion!" I'd claim a broken contract, as well as fraud, but I bet both would get shot down, she'd have the baby, and he'd pay child support.
But under such a hypothetical, if they both agree beforehand, I don't see why it wouldn't supersede the tacit agreement.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But under such a hypothetical, if they both agree beforehand, I don't see why it wouldn't supersede the tacit agreement.
Yet now in this case if he is told about the pending abortion, he can still veto the abortion and strip the girl of being allowed to have the abortion.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've never known Samp to be so dogged in his attempts to make a point...usually you get one or two terse sentences and if you didn't catch his meaning...too bad for you!
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, to go back to the other thing
quote:The rape question is a good one. How often does it simply come down to her word versus yours? Is it because she didn't tell the police and had a rape kit done? Did she fail to pursue the matter appropriately and it ended up coming down to her word against his?
Prevalence of this situation notwithstanding, the situation as it stands is that they are in court. She wants an abortion but has been prohibited from having it because the man has disallowed her the option of having an abortion. She is claiming that he raped him, and has brought the case forth today intending to reclaim the ability to have an abortion from him. He denies that the sex was nonconsentual. They provide different stories. They will not bargain (he won't allow her to get an abortion if she drops the rape charge). There's no physical evidence one way or another, no witnesses. She asserts that she didn't charge him earlier because she was traumatized and couldn't face a court because of a panic disorder related to the rape.
even beyond this individual scenario under your system, what's the standard? not for individual cases, what's the standard by which a woman can use rape to get out of an abortion veto? Conviction in court? How long can an average rape trial drag on?
There are more than a million abortions a year in the United States, and I can't even fathom how tiny the theoretically small number of cases would be where a woman is raped and the rapist demands she carry the child to term where she wouldn't be able to prove it was a rape.
I would have to see numbers on all of this before I could give you a definitive answer. You keep posing interesting questions that complicate the issue, and that's fine, but without the numbers that go along with them, there's no way to give you the answer you want. I'd have to actually see where all this goes before I could make a decision.
It just seems like such a convoluted and unlikely scenario that it seems odd, on the face of it and with no numbers, to toss out the entire system because of an unlikely hypothetical. But I remain open to changing my mind.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:But under such a hypothetical, if they both agree beforehand, I don't see why it wouldn't supersede the tacit agreement.
Yet now in this case if he is told about the pending abortion, he can still veto the abortion and strip the girl of being allowed to have the abortion.
How so? That's based on the initial tacit agreement that sex is a reproductive act. If they both agree before hand that it's not, then they are changing this tacit agreement and firmly creating a different agreement. The tacit agreement is simply the default position if nothing else is formally created.
As I said, I'm betting a real court today would throw that out in the case of the mother changing her mind, but certainly not for the father. You're arguing that my system would reverse this, but I don't think it would or should.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I've never known Samp to be so dogged in his attempts to make a point...usually you get one or two terse sentences and if you didn't catch his meaning...too bad for you!
I catch his meaning, and he's more than made his point.
It seems more like he's trying to get me to change my mind.
I really don't mind though. To be perfectly honest, this is a subject that has really bothered me for a long time, and I've wrestled with philosophically to come up with an answer I'm really comfortable with. I'm still not there, and this conversation is further than I've ever taken it. But Samp's questions are all good ones that it's interesting to grapple with, and it's really complicating my position on the subject.
I should still point out, however, that in the OP, and I think once post since, I've said that I'm not in favor of legislating my views on this into law. It might be how I feel, but I'm not going to force it on anyone. I think it makes much more sense to focus on issues like adoption law and custody where paternal rights are concerned. This is just something I'm wrestling with internally.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do understand that it is a tragedy, abortion. I doubt you will find any sane person who sees abortion day as a happy time. When it comes down to it, it is the lessor evil, and trying to put rules around it to make it even lessor just tip the scale toward the larger evil.
If I'm understanding Samp's point correctly, it is that -any- system which hampers a woman's right to body autonomy can be misused to make her a slave of biology.
There are lines in the sand that should not be breached, and as sad and tragic as the loss of potential lives are, this is one of those lines.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It just seems like such a convoluted and unlikely scenario that it seems odd, on the face of it and with no numbers, to toss out the entire system because of an unlikely hypothetical.
The issue is that this is no longer an 'unlikely hypothetical' were we to suddenly exist in a world where a man can decide whether or not a woman he impregnated is allowed to have an abortion, and pretty much the only way out of that is to claim rape. It creates a perverse incentive alongside the need for secret abortions. It creates issues that make it important to know whether or not a woman is legally obligated to tell the potential father(s) before she's even allowed to have an abortion, or whether the procedure is allowed to remain medically confidential or if a man who claims to have had sexual relations with you can apply for a release of those records.
If this is all about Hammering A Point as stone wolf seems to think it is, it's a point consequentially exposed by/towards the actual legitimate interest i have in the particulars of the moral theory and me wondering whether or not (and how) the system addresses external moral, legal, and medical problems that you could predict it would create via its implementation, and what that says about the overall ethical theory itself. Whether or not I personally morally agree with it or think it's medically justifiable can stand on its own and could, in fact, be gotten out of the way right at the start. this is still interesting because you are far from the first or last person to suggest a male's veto right or similar situation and there are plenty who would implement it by force if they could.
It's like i said earlier: we get the intentions. Where does the road look like it's headed, once we start paving it out brick by brick. What are the complications (and it's amazing to think of how many) we come up with looking at with how the moral system addresses the man's newfound veto right. How would women respond to this assault on their bodily rights?
For instance, when I outline this to another woman who works in the field of women's medical care, she winces and says "I could guarantee you that the outcome of a system like this is that you would see most women, millions and millions, lining up to do things like get an IUD." In response to having other methods of contraception leave them at risk of having their access to abortions vetoable by men, the solution is to use a form of contraception that turns practically any accidental pregnancy into a high-risk, potential medical emergency in order to retain the ability to keep terminations justifiable on those grounds. That they would literally put themselves at much higher risk of complications, device rejection, and death, because of the perverse incentives of the veto threat. And that this would become the new status quo. It makes sense, it mirrors the myriad of ways women have compensated for the illegality of abortions in various countries.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: -------------------------- If the adoptive parents realized the father of "Emma" is looking for her, why the hell did they not give her up asap, the longer they were to hold on... the more they could use their incredibly crappy excuses like "WE ARE ALL SHE KNOWS" +frowny faces... ---------------------------
Exactly.
Disagreement between state courts or not, the adoptive parents could have easily resolved everything by giving the child back to the father.
What rationalizing could they possible have used to justify keeping the child? Especially when they knew the father was looking for his daughter within a month (or less?) of the adoption!
Whatever the adoptive parents may claim, it boils down to one of two main sentiments: 1)"But we REALLY want a baby!...so much so that we don't mind if we take yours!", or 2)"Single fathers are so ill-equipped or incapable of raising their own child that it's better for us to keep the child against the father's will." Both are deplorable sentiments.
Posts: 293 | Registered: Apr 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, and even beyond that, I think there's more than enough information in this case (so far, appearances-wise) to show that likely it should not be their choice whether or not to keep the child.
the way this has happened is extremely suspect.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The issue is that this is no longer an 'unlikely hypothetical' were we to suddenly exist in a world where a man can decide whether or not a woman he impregnated is allowed to have an abortion, and pretty much the only way out of that is to claim rape. It creates a perverse incentive alongside the need for secret abortions. It creates issues that make it important to know whether or not a woman is legally obligated to tell the potential father(s) before she's even allowed to have an abortion, or whether the procedure is allowed to remain medically confidential or if a man who claims to have had sexual relations with you can apply for a release of those records.
It IS still an unlikely hypothetical. Again, I don't have any specific numbers, but I can't imagine there would be more than a handful of cases where a rapist would demand a woman carry the child to term, and the number that couldn't be proven to be rapists has to winnow that down to a near negligible number. It's not like he can do it out of spite and then wash his hands of it.
As far as petitioning past records go, I guess I don't much care after the abortion already happens. On the one hand, I guess you could say that by letting the man check into the records to see if he was the dad and his baby was aborted, you give him some sort of vehicle to go after the mom later on? But that's a bizarre form of deterrence. If the whole point is to allow him to play a role in the decision making process, giving him access in the aftermath, without any proof that he was the father, doesn't seem right. Proving it would require all babies get DNA tested in cases where the mom aborts the fetus without the father signing off on it because he isn't around. That seems onerous.
And I would think its obvious that she has to tell the father before she can get an abortion. It's sort of the binding facet of this whole thing.
quote:How would women respond to this assault on their bodily rights?
For instance, when I outline this to another woman who works in the field of women's medical care, she winces and says "I could guarantee you that the outcome of a system like this is that you would see most women, millions and millions, lining up to do things like get an IUD." In response to having other methods of contraception leave them at risk of having their access to abortions vetoable by men, the solution is to use a form of contraception that turns practically any accidental pregnancy into a high-risk, potential medical emergency in order to retain the ability to keep terminations justifiable on those grounds. That they would literally put themselves at much higher risk of complications, device rejection, and death, because of the perverse incentives of the veto threat. And that this would become the new status quo. It makes sense, it mirrors the myriad of ways women have compensated for the illegality of abortions in various countries.
That's an interesting question I hadn't quite considered, but I'm not sure how much it would sway me. If the initial argument is that a woman more or less waives some of her rights when she agrees to have sex, then I can't consider that an assault on her "bodily rights," she's already agreed to give up part of that control.
You're going to have to explain the inherent dangers of an IUD to me a little bit. Are they particularly dangerous, or only dangerous when they're implanted and then conception occurs anyway? How effective are they?
Beyond that, there IS another out, and it's one you proposed. If they agree on an abortion before hand, then the potential father surrenders his right of control. For a guy looking for a fling, and apparently, for a bunch of these women willing to risk death for consequence-free sex, I'm betting 99% of people out there would merrily sign off on that, and for the 1% who don't, well, don't sleep with that guy! Maybe condom wrappers could be reworked to have a little release agreement on the back that a guy could sign.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sure, but that starting point was like five decades ago. I don't have numbers on what parity with mothers would be, so I don't know what the stopping point is, do you?
quote:I'd argue that there's also a far more fundamental problem (and I think you'd agree with this) with regards to paternal roles in families. We've yet to really establish as a society what the male role should be. We have more or less created a stereotypical role for a mother in a family. There's no such role for a father. It's sort of an ad hoc exhortation to "get involved!" But boys growing up have no idea what that means. Considering that obstacle, I think fathers are doing pretty well with the learning curve. They need to do better, but they're deserving of praise as a whole.
Well, no, not really. I don't consider less than half of American fathers paying the full child support they owe to be 'pretty well'. I consider it a sign of how very far there is to go. And as for creating the stereotypical role of mother-where we are now with regards to what we think of motherhood seems to me to be a pretty natural (no pun intended) result of the big disparities in biology. Does it lead to some disparities and injustices down the road? Well, of course. 6 billion of us and counting.
quote:Okay, what about what happens for the next several decades after the first 9 months are over? In the case of the abortion, the burden is minimal.
When the first nine months are over, then (all other things being equal), the burden/responsibilities/rights split should be equal between the mother and the father. There are lots of reasons why they're not. One reason they're not is because, as you say, society learns slowly and has yet to adapt to the changing role of fatherhood. But another reason is that all other things often aren't equal. You appear to be suggesting that the split we generally have is immoral, but I just don't follow how you come to that conclusion given the many, many signs there are that men generally just aren't there yet, in terms of actually shouldering equal responsibilities.
quote:A situation where a man would like his child born but the money chooses an abortion is only one scenario that I've proposed, there are others. As I said at the very top of this thread, I've pretty much made my peace with this biological imbalance. It's not fair, but the only way to settle that fairness is to have a nice long argument with Evolution, who isn't exactly around to argue with. So it's not fair, oh well, can't fix it.
So you just want to...ignore this imbalance? There's nothing men can do about this imbalance, it's built in, and since there's nothing they can do, well, women just have to live with it? I don't understand your thoughts here, I feel I'm not reading you right.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have no numbers, but I think that the number of unprovable rapists is a whole lot higher than Lyrhawn does. There was a rape discussion thread here where it was pretty clear that lots of people have differing viewpoints of rape and consent. Also, the numbers do say that a woman is most likely to be raped by someone they know. So, the man may very well believe that he is not a rapist and he may know and care about the woman, making the likelihood he views the baby as his and wants to keep it much higher.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, no, not really. I don't consider less than half of American fathers paying the full child support they owe to be 'pretty well'.
So we're just singling out child support paying fathers? If fathers paying child support is the ONLY metric you care about, then I agree, we have a long way to go. I fundamentally disagree, however, that that's all that matters. Your report even said that the number of custodial children in the country is only 26% of all children, so what, the fathers of the other 74% simply don't matter when we're talking about overall job performance? I'm not saying child support isn't important, it is, but it seems like you're really missing the bigger picture.
There are some other interesting numbers in your study that I wouldn't have guessed. I'm going to read this at length later, but the percentage of deadbeat moms out there appears almost exactly equal as the percentage of deadbeat dads. I would have guessed that mom number was a lot lower. And by the way, if the percentage of those not paying full child support is all that matters, then by your logic, moms suck just as much as dads do.
quote:When the first nine months are over, then (all other things being equal), the burden/responsibilities/rights split should be equal between the mother and the father. There are lots of reasons why they're not. One reason they're not is because, as you say, society learns slowly and has yet to adapt to the changing role of fatherhood. But another reason is that all other things often aren't equal. You appear to be suggesting that the split we generally have is immoral, but I just don't follow how you come to that conclusion given the many, many signs there are that men generally just aren't there yet, in terms of actually shouldering equal responsibilities.
Well, in my defense, most of this moral framework I'm developing here is a theoretical fantasy, so, I have a much higher burden of responsibility for men than they are currently bearing. I would also suggest that under this system, if a man is demanding that a woman carry a child to term that she doesn't want, then he's likely to be the sole custodian of the child. Short of him giving the baby of for adoption afterward, his role is automatically that of primary caregiver, not a support role, which sort of eliminates the level of slacking he's allowed to achieve.
quote:So you just want to...ignore this imbalance? There's nothing men can do about this imbalance, it's built in, and since there's nothing they can do, well, women just have to live with it? I don't understand your thoughts here, I feel I'm not reading you right.
The other way around. Like the rest of you have said, there's nothing men can do about the imbalance, men have to live with their share of the negatives just like women do. One of those negatives is a total loss of control.
quote:On the one hand, I guess you could say that by letting the man check into the records to see if he was the dad and his baby was aborted, you give him some sort of vehicle to go after the mom later on? But that's a bizarre form of deterrence.
It's not bizzare. Without a form of enforceable legal requirement that the man be informed (public record/mandatory informing of the man involved) with punitive results for those who fail to comply, all your system is really changing is forcing the women who want to get abortions to purposefully keep it secret from any men related. Since it allows them to reclaim their ability to decide for themselves whether they will have an abortion, that's what they will do. It would be how your system works in practice.
quote:And I would think its obvious that she has to tell the father before she can get an abortion. It's sort of the binding facet of this whole thing.
How does that work? Does a person claiming to be the inseminator have to sign off on the abortion procedure before it can take place? Or can she just state that the man involved agrees?
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have no numbers, but I think that the number of unprovable rapists is a whole lot higher than Lyrhawn does. There was a rape discussion thread here where it was pretty clear that lots of people have differing viewpoints of rape and consent. Also, the numbers do say that a woman is most likely to be raped by someone they know. So, the man may very well believe that he is not a rapist and he may know and care about the woman, making the likelihood he views the baby as his and wants to keep it much higher.
That's entirely possible. And like I said, I'd be quite willing to re-work my belief system if I read hard numbers that suggested a necessary change.
I'd need the numbers on unprovable rapes, and pregnancies resulting from those unprovable rapes, and maybe a general idea of how many of them possibly could have been proven.
I'm betting hard numbers on all those things would be near impossible to find, because reporting is such a problem.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:On the one hand, I guess you could say that by letting the man check into the records to see if he was the dad and his baby was aborted, you give him some sort of vehicle to go after the mom later on? But that's a bizarre form of deterrence.
It's not bizzare. Without a form of enforceable legal requirement that the man be informed (public record/mandatory informing of the man involved) with punitive results for those who fail to comply, all your system is really changing is forcing the women who want to get abortions to purposefully keep it secret from any men related. Since it allows them to reclaim their ability to decide for themselves whether they will have an abortion, that's what they will do. It would be how your system works in practice.
quote:And I would think its obvious that she has to tell the father before she can get an abortion. It's sort of the binding facet of this whole thing.
How does that work? Does a person claiming to be the inseminator have to sign off on the abortion procedure before it can take place? Or can she just state that the man involved agrees?
Alright then. I guess the answer to both your questions is to criminalize not informing the father.
I'm not really sure how enforcement works though. I can think of a number of ways, but almost all of them rely on the mother not lying to the father, and on the father not thinking to randomly check into a mother's medical files, or on mandating that the father sign off on it.
If you use the lowest burden of proof possible, that the mother can just be trusted to talk to the father and work it out, there's almost no point in doing it. Women will simply lie to their sexual partners, or not tell them anything at all, and it will only be the occasional woman actually bound by the rule, even as millions break it. The only way to figure it out would be for the man to check the records after the fact, dispute it, and press charges against the woman. But even then, what's the charge? I don't know. Breaking a contract? Murder? Fraud seems the most likely I suppose.
In the other scenario, where you force the woman to need the man's signature, you're going to come across many situations where she simply can't get it. Maybe it was a one night stand. The only way I see out of that is to create some sort of policing or court system just for abortion cases, where a woman could give them the name of the guy she can't find, and the court could seek him out. If the court can't find him within a reasonable amount of time, then she can have the abortion anyway. In some ways I don't think this would end up being highly problematic. After a certain amount of time goes by, she gets the abortion. That way, hell, she can STILL lie about it to the court, but that carries with it a lot less room for error. The simpler way would simply be to actually have a conversation with the father and work it out.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with any of that though. Too much of this relies on the honesty of the mother, and given your description of the lengths women will go to to avoid this, I have to imagine non-compliance would be near universal. But do we scrap a law just because people keep breaking it? I don't have an answer to that yet either.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You can change the statement above to "our views on mothers are far more well defined than our views on fathers," if you like.
If you disagree with that, then I'm not sure I see as much where you're coming from. It's only in the last decade or two that we've really decided as a society that paternal involvement in a child's life, beyond merely writing a child support check, is something we really need to focus on, and yet, adn I've pointed out throughout this thread, society has no idea at all what it wants from fathers. We want them involved in some vague way, but many of our laws and expectations are based on limited or no involvement, or on them not caring at all.
Some of what you're talking about is just too microscopic. I'm not saying those aren't big debates among child rearing, but how are a couple of those mother-specific?
For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
It seems to me that a couple decades ago things were well-delineated: moms raised the kids and stayed at home, dads brought home the bacon. I don't think there's a great deal of argument that this was the American stereotype, and more often than not, the American reality (with exceptions, yes). But as things changed, I think our exploration of what was available for moms, and what was acceptable for moms, or even just the general conversation about what moms SHOULD be doing, was much, much more vocal than our conversation about what was acceptable for dads, or what dads should be doing. Men in general get a lot of "oh boo hoo" responses when a conversation forms about new ideas of what it means to be a man in the 21st century. Some of that is true, and some of it is nitpicky, like what scholarette mentioned earlier, but look at the decades of feminism studies and look at the paltry offering of masculinity studies. What it means to be a woman in the new era has been discussed and explored a lot more than what it means to be a man. And by extension, what it means to be a mother and a father.
I'd also say that, with regards to your list, what's demanded and what's accepted are different as well.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
Not really. One more time: IT'S HER BODY. (And I say that as someone who is very pro-breastfeeding.)
You seem to be conflating an awful lot of very disparate groups into the one collective umbrella of "society". In my slice of it, expectations for men are (in many ways) far more concrete than those for women (because the later have changed more than the former). This has both good aspects and bad.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was under the impression that there is some dispute as to the health effects and value of breast versus formula feeding. So, in a case where a woman has no preference, a father should play no role in this decision? I don't know where I suggested she should be forced to breastfeed, but it shouldnt even be a conversation?
In what other aspects of child rearing should men just butt out?
And yeah, you're right, in a way, about old ideas regarding fathers. But from where I sit, its not that they are better defined, but ill-defined. Clearly we don't want men to just fulfill the role they filled in the fifties. So....what role do we want them to fill?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I was under the impression that there is some dispute as to the health effects and value of breast versus formula feeding.
Not really. Breast is best. However, that does not necessarily mean that breast is best in every situation, and it is a decision that every family must make (and re-make, as situations change, or with each child.)
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, in a case where a woman has no preference
HAH! I don't believe there is such a mother. I do believe there are women who have been encouraged to do one or the other by their spouse, and I'm not sure why you think I'm opposed to that. I don't think there's anything wrong with the father expressing his opinion on whether or not she has an abortion, either (or encouraging her to choose a specific option). But when push comes to shove -- they're her breasts. Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to believe that "society" (whoever that is) has clearly defined what it means to be a mother. I still disagree.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that it is also difficult to ask the question, what about the men's rights because for so long they got full choice. Breast or bottle- what does your husband want? So, a lot of woman are fine having a conversation with their husband about what works for their family but shy away from giving a generic man any right to an opinion on these issues. You also get a lot more trouble when you go with an issue that is so intimate to a woman. You could maybe go with something like parental discipline and the father's role to get away from being the woman's body.
Posts: 2223 | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Thanks for making that clear for me.
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
