So....another abortion thread.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3
 

thaluikhain:

ERaptor:
Also, most people i see arguing that Pro-Life Bullcrap are guys. And hey, its terribly easy condemning that shit as a Dude. And its terribly easy taking a morale "high-ground" for an issue that does not impact you as much in most cases.

Well...yes, though there are more than a few Pro-life women. Generally those who are assured that they won't need an abortion.

Some time back, there was a news thing posted here, about women protesting abortion clinics who find themselves needing an abortion, who go back to protesting afterwards because it doesn't count when it's them. I remember reading about some of them complaining about having to share the waiting room with other women getting abortions, because they were obviously all dirty sluts.

That's probably the worst Double Standard i ever read about. I mean yes, it's something that not everyone in life has to consider, getting pregnant in a difficult time doesnt happen to everyone. But...THIS? Im utterly disgusted. The going abck to protest after is the cherry on top that Bullshit-Pudding. Never happened to you and thus not caring? Maybe a little selfish, but hey. But you EXPERIENCING it first hand, relying on the right to get an abortion AND THEN GOING BACK TO PROTEST AGAINST IT.

I think im gonna be sick. A lot.

ERaptor:
That's probably the worst Double Standard i ever read about. I mean yes, it's something that not everyone in life has to consider, getting pregnant in a difficult time doesnt happen to everyone. But...THIS? Im utterly disgusted. The going abck to protest after is the cherry on top that Bullshit-Pudding. Never happened to you and thus not caring? Maybe a little selfish, but hey. But you EXPERIENCING it first hand, relying on the right to get an abortion AND THEN GOING BACK TO PROTEST AGAINST IT.

I think im gonna be sick. A lot.

That reaction came up last time.

It's got rather more vitriol behind it than most examples of "do what I say, not what I do", yeah.

ERaptor:
That's probably the worst Double Standard i ever read about.

Yes, but it's actually a very common thought process (in general form, if not necessarily with respect to abortions).

Someone in this situation has two deeply felt beliefs that conflict with each other. In some cases, they will pick one or the other. However, what they can do instead is create an excuse that justifies making an exception, and this exception "doesn't count".

At work in Thaluikhain's example seems to be "attribution bias", which is where we do not apply equal standards of circumstance and character when judging actions between ourselves others: i.e. When on the bus, I trod on your foot because the bus moving put me off balance (I'm a victim of circumstance). You trod on my foot because you are clumsy (you have a personal failing). It's a psychological mechanism frequently employed to justify one's own (mis-)behaviour without extending the same consideration to others. Thus "It's okay because I was really unlucky with contraception failing, it's a child I couldn't look after, it's ruinous for the family, adopted parents would do a bad job etc. so I'm doing the right thing. However, other women are only having abortions because they're selfish, irresponsible sluts, so abortion should still be banned."

Asita:

senordesol:

The issue I see with that is the 'living' dialysis machine didn't create the body that requires its life saving care; whereas the mother is (at least partly) responsible for the life growing within her now.

Then you miss the point of the analogy and my thrust: "My body, my choice" doesn't require inconsequential results to be valid, nor is it invalidated when the consequences of that choice are lethal for someone else. People simply do not have the right to use your body against your will. The same principle applies across the board.

Is consent to sex consent to support any offspring conceived by that sex?

If it is, then your statement is wrong, in that it isn't "against your will", but rather the direct result of a responsibility you consented to taking (this makes for a pro-life argument that I don't actually agree with, as the "violinist" analogy has an entirely different moral calculus if you've agreed ahead of time to be hooked up to the violinist).

If it isn't, then welcome to the "legal paternal abandonment" brigade.

Schadrach:

Is consent to sex consent to support any offspring conceived by that sex?

In as much as you consent to being rammed with a car anytime you cross the street. It's a risk that needs to be acknowledged but that is distinct from consent. This is especially true when the individuals involved are actually trying to take steps to prevent that result.

Schadrach:
If it isn't, then welcome to the "legal paternal abandonment" brigade.

Oh you mean putting a child up for adoption then? You know, exactly what the Pro-Life camp usually posits as an alternative to ending an unwanted pregnancy?

Schadrach:
Is consent to sex consent to support any offspring conceived by that sex?

Yes. Because by consenting to carry out an action you have responsibility for and implicitly accept the consequences of that action, even more so when you know full well what the (risks of) consequences are.

"Sure I had sex with her. I did so knowing it's how babies are made, and knowing that accidents happen with contraception. I knew that there's a societal expectation I would have to support any resultant baby based on millennia of tradition and that it's also a legal requirement I support the baby. But hey! You got nothing on me at all for the baby, guv!"

Even removing the expectations and legal requirements, the first two are quite enough to hold you to your actions. It is plainly ridiculous to pretend otherwise. It's like losing at poker in a casino and refusing to pay up because agreeing to play wasn't consenting to the possibility of losing: fucking absurd.

Asita:

Schadrach:
If it isn't, then welcome to the "legal paternal abandonment" brigade.

Oh you mean putting a child up for adoption then? You know, exactly what the Pro-Life camp usually posits as an alternative to ending an unwanted pregnancy?

I was referring to letting a father terminate all rights and responsibilities to a child, generally with the caveat of being either while the mother still has time to abort or within a fairly limited time frame of being made aware of the pregnancy/child. Note that I used the word "paternal" for a reason, as women already have multiple avenues by which to relieve themselves of the rights and responsibilities to a child, including abortion, adoption, and "safe-haven" abandonment (the first of which is obviously not an option for the father, the latter two being technically available to the father but there being additional difficulty in exercising those options, while the mother can generally exercise any of those options without the father's consent).

Schadrach:

Is consent to sex consent to support any offspring conceived by that sex?

If it was, the same would apply for women. But I'd take issue with that.

Schadrach:
I was referring to letting a father terminate all rights and responsibilities to a child, generally with the caveat of being either while the mother still has time to abort or within a fairly limited time frame of being made aware of the pregnancy/child.

Actually, yes. It's not an entirely foreign concept (we actually have such arrangements in place at least as options for sperm donors) and I really see no reason that the same principles can't apply on a broader scale. If he has no contact with the family then he's effectively little more than a sperm donor and I see little reason why we can't apply the same concepts and guidelines we use for the latter to the former. Important caveat: This would have to be a legal agreement much like in the case of an uninvolved sperm donor and as such is distinct from a parent simply up and leaving.

Agema:

"Sure I had sex with her. I did so knowing it's how babies are made, and knowing that accidents happen with contraception. I knew that there's a societal expectation I would have to support any resultant baby based on millennia of tradition and that it's also a legal requirement I support the baby. But hey! You got nothing on me at all for the baby, guv!"

But isn't this employing the fairly ropey, not to mention disempowering, logic that men "make" women pregnant (emphasis on woman-as-object, being acted on by the male)?

This is an unpopular view, but what if we changed the phrasing to "the woman allowed herself to fall pregnant". Her body, her choice, right? And surely she should be the one shouldering most of the responsibility because she also has most of the control and the lion's share of options, pre- and post-conception and pre- and post-birth.

Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Expecting the man to swallow the bitter pill of parenthood because the woman decides that's what she wants, is just old-fashioned gendered proscription dressed up in a fresh coat of "decency" or "doing the right thing".

F***ing double post.

Batou667:

Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Expecting the man to swallow the bitter pill of parenthood because the woman decides that's what she wants, is just old-fashioned gendered proscription dressed up in a fresh coat of "decency" or "doing the right thing".

It's not just about parenthood. No one can force the father to be a "father", but that child needs financial security nonetheless, and without a government program in place to account for that child's stability, the best option is to have the father provide monetary assistance.

People care because beady eyed little men and dried up biddies can not and will not allow a woman to have her own destiny and reproduction in her hand.

I think women should do whatever the hell they want with their unborn child. None of my business.

Batou667:

But isn't this employing the fairly ropey, not to mention disempowering, logic that men "make" women pregnant (emphasis on woman-as-object, being acted on by the male)?

No. You're just over-reaching to play at petty points scoring in lieu of a real argument.

This is an unpopular view, but what if we changed the phrasing to "the woman allowed herself to fall pregnant". Her body, her choice, right? And surely she should be the one shouldering most of the responsibility because she also has most of the control and the lion's share of options, pre- and post-conception and pre- and post-birth.

Firstly, I strongly suggest you read some of my earlier posts which explain why this whole sort of drivel is a gender bollocks sideshow to the real ethical issues.

Secondly, why should anyone whatsoever respect the incredibly male-disempowering assumption that men should abrogate themselves of any and all responsibility for reproduction? Do you not comprehend that moral rights of men over any aspect of childcare rest on them accepting responsibility for their part in procreation, not abandoning them? If you want to argue men are only sperm donors, then they can duly have no child rights of any sort at all. And no-one (sane) wants that.

Her body, her choice, her responsibility. Expecting the man to swallow the bitter pill of parenthood because the woman decides that's what she wants, is just old-fashioned gendered proscription dressed up in a fresh coat of "decency" or "doing the right thing".

I again suggest you read my earlier posts to understand why this gender posturing is trivial in the face of far more fundamental ethical issues.

Agema:
No. You're just over-reaching to play at petty points scoring in lieu of a real argument.

If that's what you think, fair enough, but I think we may differ on what we consider the "real" argument to be.

Agema:
Firstly, I strongly suggest you read some of my earlier posts which explain why this whole sort of drivel is a gender bollocks sideshow to the real ethical issues.

I dutifully went back and re-read your recent posts on the matter and it seems your position is that "whose fault is it?" is a secondary concern to whether an abortion is ethical. If I've misrepresented your posts please feel free to clarify. For you this may be a moot point, but for countless men who are being held in financially draining arrangements - on pain of societies scorn and government reprisal, for the sin of ejaculating - it's far from trivial. As far as I can see that's a trampling of personal freedom on par with denying a woman an abortion or carrying out a shotgun wedding.

Agema:
Secondly, why should anyone whatsoever respect the incredibly male-disempowering assumption that men should abrogate themselves of any and all responsibility for reproduction? Do you not comprehend that moral rights of men over any aspect of childcare rest on them accepting responsibility for their part in procreation, not abandoning them? If you want to argue men are only sperm donors, then they can duly have no child rights of any sort at all. And no-one (sane) wants that.

But men already have no rights to their children, save for those the woman decides to grant him. A woman can go through with an abortion without the man's consent. She can decline to let him know she fell pregnant, have his name not recorded on the birth certificate, and raise their child as a single mother. And heck, by the same logic we could claim that women have no moral right to their children as they're entitled to abortions and can legally abandon newborns. But men should be grateful for the opportunity to "man up" and change their lives to fulfill a socially-mandated role? I smell yet another double standard.

Women can opt out of motherhood at any stage of pregnancy or even after, and this is granted to them as a fairly basic concession to their own agency, freedom and financial independence. But if men complain that they have no such prerogative, suddenly it's a secondary issue and we should be thinking about the children? That's an inequity I just can't get on board with.

As I've made clear previously, due to my libertarianism, I believe that the individual right is very important and that a woman has the right to her body.

That being asid, I still feel that no matter how you cook this, it is an absolutely unfair imbalance that cannot be fixed because it's either a on/off situation.

Anything that denies the woman a right is 'going back to the middle ages' control, and anything that gives her those hefty rights really is fucking unfair and imbalanced. But it's a situation where, because women rights trump men right, it's considered and probably is more important for women to get this one. So whatevs man.

Aside: I really hate the terms 'pro-life' and 'pro-choice'.

I'm both. I'm pro-life. I like things living. It's a thing. I don't think abortions should be used lightly and I don't like the thought of people trying to avoid responsibility in some manner since I believe true freedom requires the freedom of consequence. But I still don't think we can tell women they can't have a legally performed and above all safe abortion.

I suppose one way to put it is that I see it as physical rights > economic rights > political rights.

Batou667:
But men already have no rights to their children, save for those the woman decides to grant him.

No, that's not how it works at all.

A man who is the legal father of a child has broadly equal legal rights over his child. If you are married and your wife gets pregnant (even if you suspect the child is not yours) you automatically gain the same legal rights of parenthood as she does, because your name automatically goes on the birth certificate under the presumption of paternity.

The difficulty is establishing legal paternity, because it is very difficult to guarantee the biological paternity of a child and thus in cases where there is no formally recognized relationship between the parents (i.e. they're not married) then we start out with absolutely no evidence who the father is.

Batou667:
A woman can go through with an abortion without the man's consent. She can decline to let him know she fell pregnant.

Yes, just like a man can have be prescribed insulin without his partner's consent. He doesn't even have to tell her he has diabetes. You know why, because medics are obligated to respect a person's right to privacy regarding their own medical treatment.

Batou667:
have his name not recorded on the birth certificate and raise their child as a single mother.

Of course.

There's a realistic possibility she doesn't actually know who the father is. Noone is obligated to put a name on a birth certificate, neither would it be particularly fair to force everyone to do so. The fact remains that if you want someone to shoulder any legal responsibility for parenthood they need to be informed and you need to go through a court to determine what action is appropriate.

Batou667:
Women can opt out of motherhood at any stage of pregnancy or even after, and this is granted to them as a fairly basic concession to their own agency, freedom and financial independence.

Total bullshit.

Women can have an abortion. That is not legally "opting out of motherhood", it is a medical procedure to have a fetus removed from your womb. You don't file a request at town hall and wait for the abortion fairy to come and wave her magic wand and make your child disappear. It has real consequences, like any medical procedure.

Women or men (in the US) can surrender children of whom they have custody to designated organizations. They will then become charges of state for a while before they go up for adoption, during which time they are eligible to be claimed by anyone with a legal claim to custody. If this results in one parent ending up with sole custody because the other has surrendered their legal claim to the children, they may still face legal responsibilities such as child suport.

Women or men can also give children over whom they have custody up for adoption, at which point any absent parents must be informed and will have a preferential claim to adopt those children themselves. If they succeed in doing so, they will be the sole custodian and the parent who put the child up for adoption may still face legal responsibilities such as child support.

Batou667:

If that's what you think, fair enough, but I think we may differ on what we consider the "real" argument to be.

That facile "empowerment" crap had no substance and all the stench of petty satirical points-scoring.

I dutifully went back and re-read your recent posts on the matter and it seems your position is that "whose fault is it?" is a secondary concern to whether an abortion is ethical. If I've misrepresented your posts please feel free to clarify. For you this may be a moot point, but for countless men who are being held in financially draining arrangements - on pain of societies scorn and government reprisal, for the sin of ejaculating - it's far from trivial. As far as I can see that's a trampling of personal freedom on par with denying a woman an abortion or carrying out a shotgun wedding.

What you have managed too miss despite it being abundantly clear, is that responsibility starts at sex, and it applies to both parties. A woman may undergoes pregnancy because she and a man had sex, and she chooses to have an abortion or give birth because she and a man had sex. All end results originate from this start point; that the woman gets a choice on abortion in no way means the man magically ceases to have any responsibility at all. Anyone who thinks it does has a hopelessly fucked up idea of what responsibility means and entails.

That "personal freedom" stuff is just so much waffle. You can very fairly be held to the consequences of your actions: such as being 50% of the partnership that caused a pregnancy.

But men already have no rights to their children, save for those the woman decides to grant him.

Men have no rights to their children? You mean, like, they can't challenge for custody or visitation rights of their children? Pray tell me, which jurisdiction you live in where that's the case?

A woman can go through with an abortion without the man's consent. She can decline to let him know she fell pregnant, have his name not recorded on the birth certificate, and raise their child as a single mother. And heck, by the same logic we could claim that women have no moral right to their children as they're entitled to abortions and can legally abandon newborns. But men should be grateful for the opportunity to "man up" and change their lives to fulfill a socially-mandated role? I smell yet another double standard.

Women can opt out of motherhood at any stage of pregnancy or even after, and this is granted to them as a fairly basic concession to their own agency, freedom and financial independence. But if men complain that they have no such prerogative, suddenly it's a secondary issue and we should be thinking about the children? That's an inequity I just can't get on board with.

You can make arguments that there are inequities in child access rights, but you can and should argue those to be dealt with by themselves instead of using the injustice to apply injustice somewhere else in the process, as if two injustices magically create justice. And even if it did, it's negated when you also want to moan about and erase the custody injustices to men. So think hard on your own double standards, because that's just one of them.

I have no intention of getting bogged down dealing with numerous individual, anecdotal examples of post-birth custody et cetera injustices, because it's exhausting and ultimately pointless with respect to the general principles involved here. Not least because these are frequently also relatively rare instances, and also that the globalised internet is such that people hear anecdotes from anywhere, start assuming what goes in Ruritania is the same as everywhere else and so don't realise the problem doesn't exist in their jurisdiction anyway.

No women cannot freely abandon children. They can legally abandon children in certain prescribed ways that ensure a minimum standard of wellbeing of the child. Because that's what matters most to society and the law. If the father wishes to assume custody and is fit to do so, he should be permitted. And yes, the wellbeing of dependent minors really does trump pretty much anything else, because appropriate child-raising is very obviously one of the most fundamental principles of society. If you're so obsessed with sticking one over the other gender that you think it's okay to make dependent minors the battleground and victims, that's on your conscience.

Perhaps you haven't stopped to think, but when a single parent opts out of motherhood, he/she necessarily frees the other parents of his/her obligations too (unless he/she wishes to take them on). So you're seemingly complaining about people losing personal freedom and simultaneously complaining when people get more personal freedom. Great. At any rate, childcare is hard work. It involves a lot of time, energy, money, stress, sleepless nights and general loss of "freedom". There's equality between carer and non-carer here, in the sense that they either both pay to raise a child, or both don't if it is given up. It's not a system whereby the carer gets to choose a 18-year-long celebratory champagne party that the non-carer foots the bill for. Which brings me back to:

but for countless men who are being held in financially draining arrangements - on pain of societies scorn and government reprisal, for the sin of ejaculating -

Which is one of the most myopic, self-absorbed comments I've had to suffer through in a long time. As if abortion is a stigma-free procedure for women (somehow despite all the controversy!). As if abortion is not a difficult, painful, and even deeply distressing experience for women. As if it is not draining in many more senses than money to be pregnant raise a child. As if raising children is unburdened by legal repercussions and no societal approbation faces single mothers, or perceived bad mothers. As if there's no stigma upon mothers who give up their children. There's plenty of negatives for women too: try and take a look outside your own narrow circle.

Agema:
That facile "empowerment" crap had no substance and all the stench of petty satirical points-scoring.

I chose the phrase because the anachronistic and patronising status we elevate pregnant women to only makes sense when viewed through a pre-mid-20th century paradigm where sex = pregnancy, pregnancy = motherhood and single motherhood = social and financial suicide.

Agema:
That "personal freedom" stuff is just so much waffle. You can very fairly be held to the consequences of your actions: such as being 50% of the partnership that caused a pregnancy.

This might be more convincing to me if men had anywhere near 50% of the control over contraception (aside from the trivial option of abstinence, which is never seriously brought up in discussions with women for fear of slut-shaming) or 50% of the decision-making process post-conception.

Agema:
If you're so obsessed with sticking one over the other gender that you think it's okay to make dependent minors the battleground and victims, that's on your conscience.

I'm arguing about the rights of the adults involved, and I don't accept that "Think of the child! It's here, it's born, never mind the decision making that went into its birth or your stake in it, it's your mess, what are you going to do about it!" is a particularly useful angle to approach it from.

Agema:
Perhaps you haven't stopped to think, but when a single parent opts out of motherhood, he/she necessarily frees the other parents of his/her obligations too (unless he/she wishes to take them on).

Sure, but the scenario everybody is objecting to is one where the father has no wish to be a father but finds his wishes - and consequently his freedoms - overruled by the wishes of the mother.

Agema:
Which is one of the most myopic, self-absorbed comments I've had to suffer through in a long time.

Neat! Do I get a forum badge? "Insufferable Sod: Make a truly self-absorbed comment"

Agema:
As if abortion is a stigma-free procedure for women (somehow despite all the controversy!). As if abortion is not a difficult, painful, and even deeply distressing experience for women. As if it is not draining in many more senses than money to be pregnant raise a child. As if raising children is unburdened by legal repercussions and no societal approbation faces single mothers, or perceived bad mothers. As if there's no stigma upon mothers who give up their children. There's plenty of negatives for women too: try and take a look outside your own narrow circle.

The fact that the options open to women are hard, or painful (not as painful as childbirth), or cost money (not as much as raising a child to age 18) is emotive but irrelevant. The point is that women do have options, unlike the man, who from the point of conception has none. Like you said, let's not turn this into an oppression olympics.

Batou667:

The fact that the options open to women are hard, or painful (not as painful as childbirth), or cost money (not as much as raising a child to age 18) is emotive but irrelevant. The point is that women do have options, unlike the man, who from the point of conception has none. Like you said, let's not turn this into an oppression olympics.

If nothing else, we should at least pay due respect to the fact that women who go through with abortions and adpotions are more likely than average to develop depressions, PTSD and attempt suicide. There are quite a few studies that highlights just how hard the decision to have an abortion or adopting away your child is and how deep the psychological consequences of that choice are. You might say it is emotive but irrelevant, but it is pretty relevant when a majority of those that want men to have an "opt out" from parenthood also like to paint the options for women out as simple, painless and without repercussions.

It might be worth noting that it is you who are trying to turn this into an "oppression olympics" by constantly downplaying the hardship facing women in order to but more spotlight on the perceived oppression facing men. Agema seems more content with showing how logically inconsistent your position is.

Look, the logic is really simple:
Society decided that when a child is born, the legal parents are to be held responsible for the child. If one of the legal parents is missing, the biological parent will be held responsible instead. The reason for this second part is that the biological parents are the ones who had the most control over conceiving a child.

Society (well, most of it) also decided that pregnancy is a medical condition and that a fetus is not the same as a born child, and thus there are avenues to end pregnancy. Once the fetus is legally considered a child (which may be prior to birth), this rule no longer applies and the above rule kicks in.

These two principles do not conflict with each other, nor are they build upon one another. All you could argue is that any one of these principles is wrong. But you are not doing that, you are arguing that the two principles conflict. Which they do not.

Also:

Batou667:
This might be more convincing to me if men had anywhere near 50% of the control over contraception (aside from the trivial option of abstinence, which is never seriously brought up in discussions with women for fear of slut-shaming)

I just checked, and found that theoretically, condoms are 99,4% effective at preventing pregnancy, though in practice that value drops to between 88 and 98 percent (all statistical values, obviously).

Gethsemani:

If nothing else, we should at least pay due respect to the fact that women who go through with abortions and adpotions are more likely than average to develop depressions, PTSD and attempt suicide. There are quite a few studies that highlights just how hard the decision to have an abortion or adopting away your child is and how deep the psychological consequences of that choice are. You might say it is emotive but irrelevant, but it is pretty relevant when a majority of those that want men to have an "opt out" from parenthood also like to paint the options for women out as simple, painless and without repercussions.

Can you give some of this studies? Because till now all the studies on this matter i have heard of (mostly cited by "pro-choice" people as an argument in favor of abortion) claimed that there aren't such negative long time effects.

Batou667:
I chose the phrase because the anachronistic and patronising status we elevate pregnant women to only makes sense when viewed through a pre-mid-20th century paradigm where sex = pregnancy, pregnancy = motherhood and single motherhood = social and financial suicide.

Just because you can learnt the language of your opponents doesn't mean you understand what their arguments are.

This might be more convincing to me if men had anywhere near 50% of the control over contraception

Men have condoms and vasectomies, both of which are very high reliability contraceptive techniques. Plus several less reliable options. This is all the contraceptive control they need to virtually guarantee no pregnancy irrespective of what the woman does. Incidentally, male contraceptive pills are in clinical trials.

or 50% of the decision-making process post-conception.

Men are a substantial part of the decision-making process. They are not legally obliged to be heeded in full or part, but let's not pretend that the opinion of men doesn't form a very significant part of why abortions are undertaken or not.

Not that it even matters.

I'm arguing about the rights of the adults involved, and I don't accept that "Think of the child! It's here, it's born, never mind the decision making that went into its birth or your stake in it, it's your mess, what are you going to do about it!" is a particularly useful angle to approach it from.

Okay then. Explain to us all why the care of children is not a useful angle to consider when we want to work out how we ensure the care of children.

If you've noticed there is a huge logical problem in the above statement, welcome to your own argument. Unless your argument here is "The care of children is not particularly useful."

Sure, but the scenario everybody is objecting to is one where the father has no wish to be a father but finds his wishes - and consequently his freedoms - overruled by the wishes of the mother.

Tough. If you fire a missile at a town and kill a load of people, the argument "well, X should have shot the missile down" actually doesn't excuse you, does it?

You get held to your (in)actions because of things someone else does or doesn't do lots of the time, in small ways if not great. Welcome to the world of taking responsibility for your own actions. Deal with it.

The fact that the options open to women are hard, or painful (not as painful as childbirth), or cost money (not as much as raising a child to age 18) is emotive but irrelevant. The point is that women do have options, unlike the man, who from the point of conception has none. Like you said, let's not turn this into an oppression olympics.

Okay, let's get back to your double standards again. Throwing around emotive men's suffering and oppression arguments and then yip-yapping internet debate wank-buzzwords like "emotive" and "oppression olympics" when someone points out problems exist for women too is what's called 'hypocrisy'. You don't get to start the game and cry foul when someone plays back.

Agema:
Just because you can learnt the language of your opponents doesn't mean you understand what their arguments are.

Allow me to demonstrate another word I learned: ad-hominem.

Agema:
Men have condoms and vasectomies, both of which are very high reliability contraceptive techniques. Plus several less reliable options. This is all the contraceptive control they need to virtually guarantee no pregnancy irrespective of what the woman does. Incidentally, male contraceptive pills are in clinical trials.

Men have condoms. True. I still believe though that if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant - because for all the talk of "it takes two to tango" only one of them runs that risk - she should be the one to take responsibility for contraception, especially if it's a new partner or one-night stand (i.e., the men who are most likely to want out of enforced fatherhood and therefore central to this discussion. Long-term partners and spouses should stand by their wives and girlfriends if they become pregnant). Within this frame the male contraceptive pill isn't much comfort - a woman meets a guy at a bar, they get a motel room, she asks whether he has a condom and he replies "don't worry, I'm on the pill" - should she trust him? Hell no! Bring your own contraception, make sure it's being used correctly, and if in doubt, decline penetrative sex.

As for vasectomies - I didn't put forward the suggestion "maybe women should get their tubes snipped if they don't want kids!", and I won't, because expecting people undergo surgery is an unreasonable infringement on bodily integrity. Likewise I'm not saying abortions should ever be mandatory, nor unavailable.

Agema:
Men are a substantial part of the decision-making process. They are not legally obliged to be heeded in full or part, but let's not pretend that the opinion of men doesn't form a very significant part of why abortions are undertaken or not.

"Why give women the vote? Women are already a substantial part of the voting process as every gentleman has a nagging wife who will sway his decision. They are not legally obliged to be heeded, but let's not pretend the opinion of women doesn't already affect the voting process."

Agema:
Okay then. Explain to us all why the care of children is not a useful angle to consider when we want to work out how we ensure the care of children.

Because I'm not talking about the care of children? In my re-entry into this thread - post 62 - I made it clear I was going to talk about the sub-issue of post-conception rights of men. Even the OP only explicitly mentions abortions, not childcare. Other posters may have been talking about that. I haven't.

No wonder you think my arguments are so weak when you're judging them by criteria that I'm not even attempting to fulfill.

Agema:
Tough. If you fire a missile at a town and kill a load of people, the argument "well, X should have shot the missile down" actually doesn't excuse you, does it?

Poor analogy, since if you have recreational sex you're generally "aiming to miss" - like, you're test-firing a missile in a stretch of desert that you were assured was uninhabited, and you end up accidentally hitting some yahoo who has scaled the fences and ignored all the warning signs. And, that still hinges on the fallacious idea of man-as-active, woman-as-passive, which apparently causes so much ire every time I bring it up. For every cry of "if you didn't want to be a father, you should have kept your junk in your pants, deal with it!" there's an equivalent (but much less socially popular) retort of "if you didn't want to be a mother, you should've kept your legs shut, deal with it!". "Deal with it!" isn't a trump card, it's a stalemate at best.

After an accidental conception both the man and woman currently suffer in some regard. The woman's hardship - pregnancy - is biological. The man's hardship - being led by the nose by the wishes of the mother - are socially constructed and no longer fair nor necessary.

Agema:
Okay, let's get back to your double standards again. Throwing around emotive men's suffering and oppression arguments and then yip-yapping internet debate wank-buzzwords like "emotive" and "oppression olympics" when someone points out problems exist for women too is what's called 'hypocrisy'. You don't get to start the game and cry foul when someone plays back.

Next you'll be scolding me for my brazen use of verbs and punctuation. I'm using the established language of social justice to frame my argument so no bugger can accuse me of comparing apples and oranges or dismiss me out of hand for "not getting it". I "get it" but I don't like it.

Anyway, please point out where I used an appeal to emotion to make my case for men's rights? My argument has been based on measurable inequities between the sexes, not a comparison of whose hurt feelings matter more.

broca:

Can you give some of this studies? Because till now all the studies on this matter i have heard of (mostly cited by "pro-choice" people as an argument in favor of abortion) claimed that there aren't such negative long time effects.

Since I am not really in the mood or health to go deep searching, I'll just leave you with a news report on a literature review that has some relevant numbers.

Batou667:

Men have condoms. True. I still believe though that if the woman doesn't want to get pregnant - because for all the talk of "it takes two to tango" only one of them runs that risk - she should be the one to take responsibility for contraception, especially if it's a new partner or one-night stand (i.e., the men who are most likely to want out of enforced fatherhood and therefore central to this discussion. Long-term partners and spouses should stand by their wives and girlfriends if they become pregnant). Within this frame the male contraceptive pill isn't much comfort - a woman meets a guy at a bar, they get a motel room, she asks whether he has a condom and he replies "don't worry, I'm on the pill" - should she trust him? Hell no! Bring your own contraception, make sure it's being used correctly, and if in doubt, decline penetrative sex.

You are contradicting yourself: You have constantly argued how men run a big risk when having sex - that of having to support a potential child, while women, while also running a risk, have far more control over said risk.

Applying the logic that "whoever runs the risk is the one responsible", men are just as, if not more(you know, because according to you the possibility of abortion reduces the risk women run when having sex), responsible for contraception. This is ignoring the question of how you possibly arrived at a position that basically states "women should carry all the risks and responsibilities of sex, while men should only enjoy the benefits."

Batou667:

Poor analogy, since if you have recreational sex you're generally "aiming to miss" - like, you're test-firing a missile in a stretch of desert that you were assured was uninhabited, and you end up accidentally hitting some yahoo who has scaled the fences and ignored all the warning signs. And, that still hinges on the fallacious idea of man-as-active, woman-as-passive, which apparently causes so much ire every time I bring it up. For every cry of "if you didn't want to be a father, you should have kept your junk in your pants, deal with it!" there's an equivalent (but much less socially popular) retort of "if you didn't want to be a mother, you should've kept your legs shut, deal with it!". "Deal with it!" isn't a trump card, it's a stalemate at best.

After an accidental conception both the man and woman currently suffer in some regard. The woman's hardship - pregnancy - is biological. The man's hardship - being led by the nose by the wishes of the mother - are socially constructed and no longer fair nor necessary.

Even if I fully accept your framing of the thought experiment as accurate, the person who fired the missle is still required to prevent the damage if possible. The responsibility at that point is shared between the Person firing the missile (the man) and the "yahoo" (the accident/rare occurence of pregnancy). It still doesn't shift over to a third person that also has the means to stop the missile (the woman).

But thats not how you meant it, I guess. I suppose in your example, the "yahoo" that is ignoring the warning signs is actually the woman. So you want to specifically talk about the case where a woman has sex with a man in order to get pregnant, while falsely telling him that she is on contraceptives. In which case you are actually right to an extent: In that case the party that was lying shouldn't have any claim for support. But it's important to note that child support is just that - support for the child, which in any event is the most innocent one in the entire affair. And who is going to pay for that? We tend to answer that question with "the two people who had the most to say in the process", which happens to be the parents.

Is that always fair? No. But a.) It's just as unfair when it happens the other way round, and b.) we don't have any great alternatives. Is the state supposed to pay for all child support? Now everyone has to pay for child support via taxes. Is that really the fairer option?

Captcha: and that's the way it is.

Stephen Sossna:
You are contradicting yourself: You have constantly argued how men run a big risk when having sex - that of having to support a potential child, while women, while also running a risk, have far more control over said risk.

Yes, but I'm saying that one risk (pregnancy) is an inescapable biological outcome, while the other risk (being made legally responsible for an outcome you had a minority of the control over) is an artificial, man-made penalty which is being enforced.

Stephen Sossna:
Applying the logic that "whoever runs the risk is the one responsible", men are just as, if not more(you know, because according to you the possibility of abortion reduces the risk women run when having sex), responsible for contraception. This is ignoring the question of how you possibly arrived at a position that basically states "women should carry all the risks and responsibilities of sex, while men should only enjoy the benefits."

Not sure I follow all of that. I'm saying that if the buck stops with the woman - if she gets the final word on whether the child is going to be aborted or born and whether the father is going to receive visitation rights or even made aware of the fact he's now a father - all that extra decision-making power should come with extra responsibility. In this case, responsibility over her own contraception. I'm not sure what these benefits of sex are that men get but women don't?

Stephen Sossna:
Even if I fully accept your framing of the thought experiment as accurate, the person who fired the missle is still required to prevent the damage if possible. The responsibility at that point is shared between the Person firing the missile (the man) and the "yahoo" (the accident/rare occurence of pregnancy). It still doesn't shift over to a third person that also has the means to stop the missile (the woman).

Although I played along with that analogy I don't much like it as it doesn't account for the woman's informed consent and agency (which she has, right? This is the 21st century and women get to choose when, and who, they screw). These missiles wouldn't be getting fired in the first place if not for the woman's willing participation in the whole shebang.

Stephen Sossna:
In which case you are actually right to an extent: In that case the party that was lying shouldn't have any claim for support. But it's important to note that child support is just that - support for the child, which in any event is the most innocent one in the entire affair.

The child can be considered (legally) an extension of the woman as its rights only exist if they align with the wishes of the woman. The unborn child only has a right to life if that's what the woman wants. The newborn child only has a right to a biological father if that's what the woman wants. The best interests of the child are already a secondary issue to the rights of the woman.

Stephen Sossna:
Is that always fair? No. But a.) It's just as unfair when it happens the other way round, and b.) we don't have any great alternatives. Is the state supposed to pay for all child support? Now everyone has to pay for child support via taxes. Is that really the fairer option?

Fairest for who? Is it fairer for the man - yes. Fairer for the woman - as long as she has financial support why should she worry? The child - ditto. Fairer for society? Welfare already exists. I suppose it'd be "preferable" for society if children weren't being born out of wedlock, but that'd infringe people's reproductive rights (whether you ought to have children that you can't financially support is a whole other debate).

Batou667:

Yes, but I'm saying that one risk (pregnancy) is an inescapable biological outcome, while the other risk (being made legally responsible for an outcome you had a minority of the control over) is an artificial, man-made penalty which is being enforced.

And this distinction matters because?

Stephen Sossna:

Not sure I follow all of that. I'm saying that if the buck stops with the woman - if she gets the final word on whether the child is going to be aborted or born and whether the father is going to receive visitation rights or even made aware of the fact he's now a father - all that extra decision-making power should come with extra responsibility. In this case, responsibility over her own contraception.

What you were saying is that responsibility should follow risk. Now you are saying something different: That responsibility should follow rights. Or, to put it simply, your responsibilities should mirror your rights.

Unfortunately, that really doesn't get us very far, because the interesting question is still what responsibilities go with which rights? And here we are on the wide field of ethical questions.
- Should the responsibility to pay child support go with an equal right for child custory? absolutely.
- Should the right to have an abortion go with the responsibility for that operation? Sure.
- Should the right to have an abortion go with the responsibility for raising a child if you don't do it? That doesn't seem so clear. Note how all of a sudden, we need to invert one of the principles. Suddenly it goes from right leads to responsibility to not exercising a right leads to a responsibility. That seems inconsistent with what having a "right" actually means. By doing this, we have declared abortion a responsibility of the mother, and failure to adhere to that responsibility leads to the consequence of having to raise the child as a single mother, unless the father wants to help.

Such a responsibility would be a massive violation of human dignity as we currently understand it. Plus, the supposed responsibility to have an abortion doesn't come with any rights. Consequently, that latter point is not in accordance with what we as a society deem our most basic tenets. In conclusion, none of the two principles you mentioned lead to the outcome that you propose, which is full responsibility only for the mother by virtue of the right to have an abortion.

Stephen Sossna:
I'm not sure what these benefits of sex are that men get but women don't?

I didn't say "all the benefits" I said "the benefits", which doesn't imply that they aren't recieved by both parties.

Batou667:

Although I played along with that analogy I don't much like it as it doesn't account for the woman's informed consent and agency (which she has, right? This is the 21st century and women get to choose when, and who, they screw). These missiles wouldn't be getting fired in the first place if not for the woman's willing participation in the whole shebang.

Yeah I agree with that.

Batou667:

The child can be considered (legally) an extension of the woman as its rights only exist if they align with the wishes of the woman. The unborn child only has a right to life if that's what the woman wants. The newborn child only has a right to a biological father if that's what the woman wants. The best interests of the child are already a secondary issue to the rights of the woman.

Err, yeah it totally doesn't violate the idea of basic human rights and dignity to legally consider one person an extension of another. The point is that the unborn child has no rights at all, because it's not a person yet. Else you have no abortion either.

By the way, what is the "right to a biological father" supposed to entail? I am struggling to find any way to formulate that right.

Batou667:

Fairest for who? Is it fairer for the man - yes. Fairer for the woman - as long as she has financial support why should she worry? The child - ditto. Fairer for society? Welfare already exists. I suppose it'd be "preferable" for society if children weren't being born out of wedlock, but that'd infringe people's reproductive rights (whether you ought to have children that you can't financially support is a whole other debate).

So you are arguing that society should pay for all child support? I suppose I could get behind that under certain circumstances. It will require quite the financial effort though.

It bothers me that people put their own interests infront of those of others' and that, apparently, they're willing to kill to pursue them. Ontop of that, they're willing to kill, despite in 99% of the cases it being their own fault and thus responsibility. It's another one of those endless cases where people try to avoid the blame, shove the blame elsewhere, etc.

What bothers me most is when they have the nerve to get self righteous about it and try to act like they did it for the child.

I'd rather be born in a ditch and left in an orphanage than never having had the chance to live at all.

Because a) Religion and Gender Politics

And b) both sides have valid points, and people tend towards cognitive dissonance and fierce denial rather then admit that both sides may be right in some way.

b is the reason I tend to stay out of the abortion debate, as it's a purely morale argument that doesn't practically effect me as a male. I'm pretty fine with most systems as long as we don't hit the extremes (i.e. no abortion even if it will save the life of the mother, and post-birth abortion)

'Can anyone give me some thoughts about why abortion is so hot-button?'

Nothing can ever be simplified to just one general idea, so I guess I'll propose three groups/reasons why.

1. Because human's are hypocrites that would sooner care about a creature that possibly can't feel pain which isn't even born yet than actual living, breathing animals based around some vague notion of 'humanity'. And my contempt for society doesn't just end there, I'll probably have more colorful things to say later on.

2. Because the people are consistently empathetic and, after all, it isn't completely known if the creature (I refuse to call a fetus a human on the basis that we don't refer to our jizz as humans)can feel pain or not. Studies go both ways. (Though, in my case, I lean more to abortion because the people who argue that they can feel pain are represented by people who have done a lot to destroy any credibility with me)

3. And lastly, because some people don't actually care about the fetus. It's because their bibles again' it and they'll say and do anything to push their religious belief (And considering that the pope claimed that condoms' caused aids, I don't believe this is too far of a stretch).

I'm for abortion. It's a crime that we can justify the hunting and sterilizing of animals 'because they're overpopulated' when clearly our rampant growth is a far greater problem to the world. Animals don't need to be controlled, humans do. Humans are far more capable of greater harm, evil, and destruction than any animal. And surprise, surprise. My contempt doesn't just stop there. Self - centered out of touch celebrities, backstabbing and deceitful politicians, skinheads. Imagine the brighter world we'd be living in if we could be more selective of the people that can have kids?

Alcoholic mom with commitment issues that never even wanted a kid? Palin's mother? Fundamentalists that'll brainwash their children to believe in every single thing they do? If someone doesn't want to have a kid, then simply not wanting one should be enough of an argument if we take even just a moment to consider how many animals are slaughtered for such absolutely selfish desires like unhealthy foods versus the far more noble cause of balancing the human population.

And that's without even bringing up the matter of woman's rights.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked