Roe v. Wade for men?

[Objulen]

Thing about that one is other people might see it differently too. It IS your child still, (however that one ebcomes religeous and ocne again theoretical) But that's a good thing, the point of this topic is about beleif, a more focused beleif, but still beleif.
Though I'm not even going to get into the adoption area, that one is just too wacky.

Actually, whether or not the child is "yours" in so far as that it is your genetic progeny isn't a matter of belief at all; it is your child in that respect. Whether or not your its parent, guardian, or what not is a different topic. For my purposes, I'll use guardian, in response to mshcherbatskaya, simply so I can have different terms for genetic heritage and whoever is responsible for the child.

Discussions involving law do rely on belief to some extent, but not to the same degree as religion or simple opinions. A legal system operates on certain principles, after all. My comments will typically involve a variety of factors, but I try to limit the normative comments, though of course a certain degree of subjectivity is unavoidable.

And yes, I do know my views are simplistic, however it's in these times of over complexity, that a man gets away with simply dumping a child on a woman and vice versa. If simplicity is what it takes, it is my beleif that simplicity should be what dictates law. Overly complex laws, create loopholes to be exploited. What's the law, 63 or whatever about fetishes, well there is one about lawyers too you know. If there is a loophole, there is a lawyer who will exploit it. But that's just my beleif on the matter, of coruse yours vary, and that's good. Remeber that saying, "Great minds think alike," Who thinks that one is BS? I sure do, because if great minds thought alike we'd like in gigantic cube in some sort of utopia

"Times of very complexity"? That's a pretty silly notion. Simplicity where it is not warranted is going to be just as bad as excessive complexity; there's typically a trade off between accuracy and/or quality and speed. Even in law, the efficient method would be an imperfect system that gives enough complexity to render accurate judgments within certain tolerances of error without being bogged down. While that may seem callous, it's simply a reality of the situation.

The problem I see is that you value simplicity not just in law, but in your outlook on life overall. While I'm not trying to be judgmental, such a simplistic view on the matter won't create justice, since it can't accurately represent the complexities of the situation. Much like high school physics, white-hat/black-hat moralizations are good for teaching basic concepts, but tend to fall short when applied to ever more and more complex real life situations. Whether or not murder is wrong may be easy to decide, but then you run into things like state of mind and self-defense, and situations can become quite complex.

And as for great minds thinking alike, I'll simply say that while I welcome differing opinions for a fully fleshed out discussion (talking with people who already agree with you is basically intellectual masturbation) holding the opinion that two diametrically opposed opinions are both valid in the same situation is fallacious.

[quote = Ciarog]It's easy to see little or no difference between humanity and the rest of the natural world when you have very little real contact with it. Such is the predicament of Technological Society, where humanity is philosophically reduced to a writhing mass of cells. Such a line of thinking can excuse even the most repugnant of atrocities, thus one of many reasons the last few centuries have been so bloody.[/quote]

That's simply because human beings have better developed brains that allow us to advance ourselves in ways outside of simple evolution in the natural order. Go look as some indigenous, hunter/gatherer tribes and its really easy to see the differences. Or compare some notes with three meter tall termite mounds and the like; industry isn't limited to humanity.

People have done terrible things to each other since our race began. Technology simply evolved our ability to hurt each other in terrible ways. Trying blame technology or society for underlying human failing is simply running from the issue, typically because people need something to blame for all the terrible things human beings do; it's not much different than saying "it's the devil's fault!" Smash all the machines, kill off 5 billion people, and let the cities dissolve to ruins and you'll still have people killing each other for the same reasons as they do today, and for the span of human history.

Now, the way I've explained myself, I wouldn't see it causing 'bloody atrocities', mostly just people stuck with children they don't want really. Crap like 'insitnct' is mostly an excuse men use to avoid paying for children they didn't want and/or get out of taking care of their children.

That brings up an interesting trade off. The main issue you express (and that the state expresses) is the lack of desire to pay for other people's children. It's sort of society's collective statement that they don't see why they should shell out cash for other people's mistakes, which isn't necessarily a bad position. But from a purely objective point of view, one has to weigh the costs of setting up adoption and state-sponsored child care with the benefits of having children raised in a home where they receive the attention they need and proper care, instead of having at least one guardian that doesn't want them. This trade-off is typically complicated by cultural values, such as the social stigma on dead-beat dads (which isn't unwarranted in many cases) and can interfere with effective decision making.

am sympathetic to all of your arguments (except the gene pool thing), and indeed, I might agree with you if it were not for my deep reservations about the current state of our justice system and the prison-industrial complex, which do not bear discussion here. Suffice it to say that I see such measures as the top of a slippery slope, and having said the words "slippery slope", I have put us on the slippery slope to the realization of Godwin's Law, so I'm just going to stop right here.

It may interest you to know that in Washington state, sex offenders are moved right from prison to a secure mental health facility on the ground of danger to self and others.

The issue I see here is one of risks. An individual who hasn't committed sex offenses doesn't have a trend of doing so -- one who has develops one over time, typically. The reason for these extreme measures stems from two primary sources in my opinion: the loathing that is associated with these crimes culturally and the data on repeat offenses. If someone who develops these patterns is incredibly likely to offend again (say, 90% and above), then does society's right to defend itself (which the entire prison system is essentially built on) from law-breakers override the individual's rights? Remember that the American Constitution has that line about "due process" after the one about "life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness", which complicates things a bit. It's also a question of how the medical community and society views the matter. That falls into the nice little "the needs of the many and the need of the individual" conflict. All I'll say is that given the repugnance sex crimes are viewed with, I doubt much sympathy will arise. The Washington law is likely a constitutional dodge to an extent, of similar purpose to the Georgia law. Which one is the lesser of two evil, is a discussion for a different time.

We render unequal treatment all the time. We've made freedom of religion a fundamental right, even thought that means atheists don't have as many excuses for getting out of jury duty or combat or prosecutions for possession and use of peyote. In the same way, abortion is a fundamental right that gives women an excuse for getting out of having to support a child that men don't have.

The kind of equality you're talking about means we should all be allowed to choose one drug from Schedule I to use the way Native Americans can use peyote or the UDV [http://www.udvusa.com/faq.php] gets to use hoasca. Maybe that's what you want to argue, but, you should be sure of the full implications of those words--"wouldn't you expect society to render equal treatment for all parties involved"--in the context of fundamental rights.

Actually, I don't think the government has any right to tell informed adults what they do with their bodies. If someone wants to use a Schedule I drug, that's their choice, and they have to deal with the consequences. Then again, the entire situation with illegal drugs has more to with propaganda and cultural norms than empirical data or rational decision making.

Further, all it means is that if a legitimate religion has a ritual using a drug that is otherwise illegal, they should be allowed to; there's no imbalance of power concerning life altering decisions that's granted to Native Americans by allowing them to use peyote. The ability for a woman to decide whether or not she has a child directly impacts the legal responsibilities and duties of the man who impregnated her in a consistent financial way at the very least, and generates a far more significant impact that one really can't compare to not being able to get high while Native Americans can.

 

[Cameoflage]

OK, looking back on my first post in this thread, I'd like to correct myself on a couple of flawed assumptions:

1) I was under the mistaken impression that child support was only technically gender-neutral, and that in actual fact it wasn't enforced nearly as consistently or vigorously for women; I'm not quite sure where that one came from. Even if it's true, I don't recall seeing any credible evidence for it.

2) I lumped all men who unintentionally impregnate women and wish to avoid fatherhood into the same category, even though I was mostly thinking of those who were deceived into causing the pregnancy (or had it happen totally against their will, like in the obviously-not-common case of sperm siphoning mentioned above). It's a messier issue than I was treating it as, and it would be even messier to try and write a law that allowed such men an escape hatch without excusing men who simply had irresponsible sex and/or didn't use adequate contraception* and want to get out of the consequences.

----

*Defined as multiple methods of conventional contraception, such as, for example, a condom and spermicide; I'm not going to suggest that the only acceptable method would be to avoid having sex in the first place or get a vasectomy, because the former is outside the scope of my point and the latter is not an option for anyone who isn't completely sure that they never, ever want children, since it's not consistently reversible.

 

[Jack Sheehan]

ugh. If you want a serious discussion dont link to a crtl-alt-del comic.

 

[SilentHunter7]

You said that it should be a woman's right to have an abortion, because it is her right to do with her body as she wishes, but by this logic;

But if a man has sex, and gets a woman pregnant, he should be heald accoutnable for that action and thus have to father,(either physically or monetarily) that child. Sex leads to having kids, it's in alot of books movies and T.V. shows. If a woman says she can't get pregnant, she's either a man, or will probably get pregnant anyway.

I can say that if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, she should be held accountable for that action, and have to mother that child.

That is, unless you are applying double standards. Stop me if I'm mistaken, but you frequently refer to conception as "the man getting his woman pregnant", and your posts feel like you think that it's entirely the man's fault when a girl gets knocked up. Are women incapable of making the judgment call, as well as men? If so, then they're equally at fault, because they were equally aware of the risks, and as you said, it's her body, and if she has sex and has an unwanted pregnancy, it's her fault for doing it just as much as it is the guy's for doing it.

But now I'm just ranting.

IMO, If a guy doesn't want a child, but the mother wants to have it, that's all well and good, but the law shouldnt force him to give you a free check every month because you wanted his kid, and he didnt. I'm kind of undecided what happens when a women doesn't want it, but a guy does, because it IS her body, though a guy should have as much right to father his child as the woman who wants to mother her child when the guy doesn't.

 

[Geoffrey42]

ugh. If you want a serious discussion dont link to a crtl-alt-del comic.

I think 3 pages of serious discussion on the topic indicates that your premise is somewhat flawed.

Maybe you value complexity not just in law, but in your outlook on life overall.

Maybe you got a different reading out of what Objulen was saying, but my impression was just that TheNecroswanson was valuing "simplicity" for simplicity's sake, and that praying at the altar of simplicity or complexity led to either wholly ineffective systems, or wholly inefficient systems. Thus, the answer would typically be found lying somewhere in the middle. At least, barring some other response from Objulen, that was what I was interpreting from his comments. *Note-I'm not just defending what I saw as a misinterpretation of someone else's post, I'm also indicating that I agreed with what I thought Objulen was saying. Simplicity/Complexity for simplicity/complexity's sake is never a positive end goal.*

I can say that if a woman has sex, and gets pregnant, she should be held accountable for that action, and have to mother that child.

Two things here. 1. The woman automatically achieves some level of accountability, if she carries the child to term. No way to avoid it, really. 2. Throughout the thread, I think there's been an underlying assumption on some individuals' parts (mine included) that in the current system, women already are held accountable. TheNecroswanson could've said "he should ALSO be heald accoutnable," but I guess that's what we get when we don't operate under the same assumptions. Either way, my gist is, nobody thus far has really tried to say that men should be held accountable whereas women should not, and moreover, the discussion has been centered around the question of: what is the most equitable/moral/just scheme to distribute the accountability, especially in the two outcomes where the biological parents disagree about how to dispense with the offspring.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

IMO, If a guy doesn't want a child, but the mother wants to have it, that's all well and good, but the law shouldnt force him to give you a free check every month because you wanted his kid, and he didnt.

But the law *doesn't* force him to give the mother a check every month, does it? Doesn't the law force the father to make contributions in the form of *child support*? What you're talking about is 'alimony' or 'baby mamma support'. That's a different issue from child support.

Therein lies the argument methinks. It strikes me as slightly off that (regardless of who's fault the pregnancy is in the first place) if a guy doesn't want the child, but the woman does, he still has to take on the responsiblity he's isn't ready for or doesn't want, whereas a woman won't have the responsibility forced on her, because it's her decision whether the baby happens or not (usually. I mean there are the issues in morality here but I'm just looking at it from a heartless aetheist standpoint. Which is a bad standpoint for anything involving human life, really, now I think about it.)

I mean, arguably if the guy wants to have sex he should accept the fact that if the woman decides she wants the child that comes of it, he has a responsiblity for the child, but it could also be argued that if the woman wants to have sex with a partner who might not want the baby, she should have to accept she might have sole responsibility for it.

Again, I'm not saying this is the 'right' viewpoint, if fact its almost certaintly totally awful since it kinda throws the morality of caring for the child out the window, but I like thinking out loud. With my fingers and a keyboard.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Therein lies the argument methinks. It strikes me as slightly off that (regardless of who's fault the pregnancy is in the first place) if a guy doesn't want the child, but the woman does, he still has to take on the responsiblity he's isn't ready for or doesn't want, whereas a woman won't have the responsibility forced on her, because it's her decision whether the baby happens or not (usually. I mean there are the issues in morality here but I'm just looking at it from a heartless aetheist standpoint. Which is a bad standpoint for anything involving human life, really, now I think about it.)

I remain perpetually perplexed that you seem to equate choosing to have an abortion with choosing not to be responsible for offspring. The relevant parallel I see here is that "if a guy doesn't want the child, but the woman does, he still has to take on the responsibility" = "if a woman doesn't want the child, but the man does, she still has to take on the responsibility" of support, assuming we're past Phase 2. In this parallel, the current setup treats them equally. I would ask that you prove to me that they're comparable decisions, but that would be an unfair tactic. Let me try and explain why I don't think they're comparable. The decision of whether to carry a pregnancy to term or to have an abortion has a component that goes beyond the realm of choosing whether or not you want a child. Depending on your ethical background, if you're considering abortion, you're going to need to decide for yourself where an abortion falls on the scale from murder to routine medical procedure. No matter where you are on that scale, it is something above and beyond what the individual is choosing to do when they decide they do not want/are not ready to have a child. On the other hand, from the angle where the man wants a child, but the woman doesn't, she is having to decide whether to undergo a significant, risky bodily process, during which people can die. If I think of any other ways in which you could differentiate the two decisions, I'll come back, but anyone else is free to fill in any holes I left.

I mean, arguably if the guy wants to have sex he should accept the fact that if the woman decides she wants the child that comes of it, he has a responsiblity for the child, but it could also be argued that if the woman wants to have sex with a partner who might not want the baby, she should have to accept she might have sole responsibility for it.

The decision belongs to both equally, the responsibility lies with both equally. They should both be aware of the other person's positions (and the relevant laws) prior to engaging in the horizontal polka. If there's an incompatibility in viewpoints, I suggest they find someone else with whom to get their freak on.

 

[Objulen]

All that may be true, but, you weren't talking about an "imbalance of power." You were talking about the expectation we have for "society to render equal treatment for all parties involved." That is the point my reply was addressed to.

I spoke of an imbalance of power in my above paragraphs. While it wasn't in the block you quoted, it was expressed earlier

Morality isn't a valid argument. While the responsible action would be to take care of the child, the law isn't a platform for dictating "proper action" in a society that purports to respect individual freedom. As such, we need to look at the 'balance of power' in the interaction

It's not a reasonable in my opinion, to expect everyone to read every post, but it was stated before.

As for your NEW point about an "imbalance of power" well, it really doesn't hold any water. There are all kinds of imbalances of power. You still have to show why it's an *UNJUST* imbalance of power. And like I've shown you, you can't just argue that we have an expectation for "society to render equal treatment for all parties involved" because society doesn't always do so--we have no expectation of the kind of equal treatment you're talking about.

It's an unjust balance of power because both the father and the mother have equal responsibility in the creation of the child; thus, they should have equal power in determining the fate of that child. The mother has an unequal, unjust degree of power over the fate of the child because of her just right of control over her own body. Ideally, this should be balanced out in such a way that the woman's control over her own body is preserved while the father has something closer to equal say in the matter. Indeed, as a counter point, I'd ask why there shouldn't be a balance of power between the father and the mother, since they both had an equal hand in the creation of the child, at least at first.

As for expectations of equal treatment, that's absolutely true, and shows very little. None of the opinions expressed here are fully realistic, except for ones concerning the father's duty to pay for his children, simply because of prevailing cultural conditions. If you want to shift the discussion from individual opinions on what they thing would be best and what is actually likely to occur, I wouldn't mind, but stating the fact that it's not likely is tangential. Ideally, we would work towards legal situations that include a properly just and preserves equity, but then again, ideally we wouldn't have Kansas trying to ban evolution from the class room, or continue a pointless war on drugs that wastes money and lives instead of exploring more effective solutions.

 

[Objulen]

Maybe you value complexity not just in law, but in your outlook on life overall. Which, according to what you laid out in your first paragraph, is equally capable of being inefficient. TheNecroswanson could just as easily argue back to you using your own formula expressed in the first paragraph that a 'complex view on the matter won't create justice, since it can't deal with the complexities of the situation without being bogged down'.

Excessive complexity can be bogged down. However, it is necessary for greater justice; the sort of white-hat/black-hat behavior is much more dangerous, because it leads to prejudices and decisions based more upon beliefs than actual reality or the available evidence. The tolerances for error in justice are very, very low, so society has seen fit to state that they demand a high degree of complexity in the law, at least for cases that go to trial. While I don't have data on state prosecutions, federal cases have a very high conviction rate -- 95% or above -- so they tend to take the time to get the job done. There's also plea bargains, or dropping a case, for times when it is fairly easy to determine the just course of action.

My issue with Necroswanson's posts are that they hold to an incredibly simplistic view of right and wrong that strip down the incredibly complicated human condition to such a simplistic level that it can have no useful function in real life. If we consider the value of any sort of scientific model, that wouldn't be used for much more than introducing basic concepts. It may be absolutely true, however, that I could delve into the deeper end on the other side, and rely on excessive complexity; sometimes you just need a hammer. However, this issue is not one with an easy solution that can approach justice, and so a more complicated 'model' is necessary.

Do you see how--much like you did in your response to me--you're trying to make like there's some necessary connection between your principles and your conclusion without actually giving the facts and applying the principles to those facts to come to a conclusion? If you espouse a view of an 'efficient' view of justice that has the requirement it not be "bogged down" you can't just dismiss a simplistic view "since it can't accurately represent the complexities of the situation" and runs afoul of that view of yours without seeing if your *own* view runs afoul of your requirement that it not get "bogged down." In much the same way it's not enough to just tell me there is an imbalance of power unless you've got an argument that there is an *unjust* imbalance of power.

For facts, I have basic economics. There's always an equilibrium point between too much and too little, depending on factors like technology, preference, supply, and demand. Current society has a high demand for quality justice; indeed, the American legal system is founded on its own infallibility, to at least some extent. As such, more complicated models are typically better, considering preferences for quality. Otherwise, we wouldn't have a bogged down legal system, since quick, easy justice could be dispensed in a much shorter time.

I have pointed out why I think Necroswan's views are excessively simplistic in previous posts. However, you have not read the entire conversation, so I don't think you're exactly qualified to make such statements. I will admit to having been a bit vague and general. My objections are based on the simple fact that Necrswan's attempt to group people's actions into "a = good" and " b = bad" categories without any consideration for the basic nature of complexities of the human condition.

I think your problem is you don't see how you're trying to stuff the conclusion of your arguments in your premises.

To an extent, I might agree. However, given the rather ad hoc nature of the conversation so far, it's not much of an issue. I can reply to any points you'd like to make, though I'd recommend reviewing the entire conversation before jumping into the middle of it.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

I'm arguing with lots of people cleverer than me here, but I'll struggle on regardless until someone can get their viewpoint through my thick head, or vice versa. I just can't really see it from the other points of view here. Although I'm pretty certain I'm wrong, and am very glad I don't have to set the laws involved, I'd like to argue this to it's conclusion anyway.

I remain perpetually perplexed that you seem to equate choosing to have an abortion with choosing not to be responsible for offspring.

Well, often they do equate. I mean, there are plenty of situations where women have an abortion despite wanting the child, but in many cases it happens because the woman isn't ready for the responsiblity of a child. Arguably if you don't want the responsiblity you give birth and give away, but I think there's the moral issue that if you bring the life into the world, you feel obliged to care for it. If the way you deal with this is by killing the life before it gets into the world, that doesn't seem quite right either, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. I don't know the law in America, but in England a pregnant women who's child would bring her emotional harm can be aborted up two 24 weeks if consented to by two doctors. Far from an expert I am, but I think a woman who felt utterly incapable of handling the thing alone might fit into this category.

If there's an incompatibility in viewpoints, I suggest they find someone else with whom to get their freak on.

But they don't, and the guy gets saddled with a responsibility he never wanted, just because she did. It's all well and good to say "they shouldn't do this, this or this" and I agree with you on those points, but it's a lot more muddy about how the law should deal with it when people do the things anyway.

 

[Geoffrey42]

Well, often they do equate. I mean, there are plenty of situations where women have an abortion despite wanting the child, but in many cases it happens because the woman isn't ready for the responsiblity of a child. Arguably if you don't want the responsiblity you give birth and give away, but I think there's the moral issue that if you bring the life into the world, you feel obliged to care for it. If the way you deal with this is by killing the life before it gets into the world, that doesn't seem quite right either, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.

I'm not familiar with the situations where women have an abortion despite wanting the child (except in case of dire medical risk). Is that what you're referring to? And if so, I don't grasp its relevance. If that's not what you're referring to, I could see the relevance, but I can't think of examples.

If there's an incompatibility in viewpoints, I suggest they find someone else with whom to get their freak on.

But they don't, and the guy gets saddled with a responsibility he never wanted, just because she did. It's all well and good to say "they shouldn't do this, this or this" and I agree with you on those points, but it's a lot more muddy about how the law should deal with it when people do the things anyway.

They knew the law full well before getting into it, and I think they get to deal with the consequences. They have inherently different viewpoints on what happens if pregnancy ensues, and they still have sex. I have no sympathy for these individuals. In their case, I'm perfectly content to let the law mete itself exactly the way the law is, before they engaged in the act. I see no fuzzy moral ground for what happens to idiots who copulate. Also, in most of the situations falling into this category, do you really think "she did"? She wanted this, but he didn't? In all likelihood, neither wanted it, but she's not emotionally/morally compatible with the idea of abortion.

Here's a question, to you and the group: Many have stated that it is unfair that the man has no say with regards to whether the woman carries the pregnancy to term. Why aren't we factoring in the "unfairness" of the pregnancy happening inside the woman's body? I'm willing to let those balance. What weights would you assign?

Sidenote @Objulen: I can guarantee that Cheeze_Pavilion has read this entire thread. Your multiple comments to the contrary are nothing but inflammatory. Maybe there is a more productive way to get at what you're saying?

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

I don't think the choice will be taken away "on largely theoretical medical grounds"; it'll be taken away because some people (1) believe that a fetus is a human life, and (2) that the rights of the fetus outweigh the rights of the mother. I don't think it's necessarily Handmaid's Tale or 1984. It's just...the absolute most intractable legal question possible.

I wouldn't look on viability as something scary--I'd say instead that it's about the only thing that prevents the Constitutional protection of abortion from being overthrown in the first place.

Exactly my point: if the medical profession's judgement of "viability" is the only thing that prevents my ability to choose from being taken away from me, then it is possible to be "scienced" out of my reproductive rights. Now, I realize that the chances of neonatologists saying they can keep a ten-week old fetus alive outside the womb are pretty slim from the viewpoint of current technology are pretty slim, but still it's very unstable standard to go by.

The Handmaid's Tale comparison might be excessive, I grant you. And yes, determining what exactly determines personhood is the most problematic judicial decision that can be placed before any court, IMO.

It might be helpful to note a couple of things here.

The U.S. is somewhat unusual in the conflict generated over the issue of abortion. In many other countries, it's just another medical procedure, and I'm not just talking about China or the former Soviet republics. In Japan, abortions are fairly common and are basically viewed as after-the-fact birth control. I'm not saying we should be more like the Japanese, but is interesting that not everyone gets into such knots over the issue.

People keep saying "If you aren't prepared to have a baby, don't have sex." A significant percentage [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#tab11] of abortions are performed on married women, so the no-sex option doesn't really apply.

 

[Geoffrey42]

People keep saying "If you aren't prepared to have a baby, don't have sex." A significant percentage [http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/ss5212a1.htm#tab11] of abortions are performed on married women, so the no-sex option doesn't really apply.

I don't see the connection between being married, and no longer having the option to abstain from the freaky-freaky. If they're married, I would *hope* that they've come to some sort of agreement about what happens IF pregnancy ensues, thus dodging a lot of the moral/legal issues we've been discussing here. If they have not had this discussion, they're still idiots, they're just married idiots. If they had this discussion, and didn't agree about it, then they still have the option to avoid having sex until they've decided they're both ready for children.

Although, just to be clear, if you were grouping me amongst the "People" in your statement. My position is more along the lines of "If you don't agree with each other about what should happen were pregnancy to result, don't have sex." If you aren't prepared to have a baby, and both of you are okay with the idea of an abortion on the 0.5% chance that there is a pregnancy, then bang away.

EDIT: Just thinking that your response may be along the lines of "It is very difficult to abstain from sex when you're married." I think the perfect mood-killer would be having an argument about what happens if there's a pregnancy.

 

[mshcherbatskaya]

EDIT: Just thinking that your response may be along the lines of "It is very difficult to abstain from sex when you're married." I think the perfect mood-killer would be having an argument about what happens if there's a pregnancy.

That was my point, yes, that a happy marriage relationship generally includes some sex, and if you can't agree with your spouse what to do with unplanned pregnancy, maybe you shouldn't be married in the first place. Still, a lot of people talk about abortion, there seems to be the unspoken assumption that only single women get or need them, so I just wanted to point that out.

 

[Objulen]

EDIT: I apologize for the length ahead of time. As you can see, there's a reason why I try to limit the length of my posts, since once I start giving examples I tend towards the verbose.

Sorry--I meant 'new' in the sense that you were using it as a reason why there is an injustice in giving a woman unilateral control, as opposed to a statement of facts. I was unclear.

That was the contextual, though not stated, point. Neither of us was exactly clear on the topic.

Ahh, okay--I see where you're coming from and let me point out a flaw I see in this train of thought (along the lines of what Geoffery42 was talking about when he asked: "Why aren't we factoring in the "unfairness" of the pregnancy happening inside the woman's body? I'm willing to let those balance. What weights would you assign?" right above me, which I didn't look at before making this post). I'd agree we need to balance things out in "such a way that the woman's control over her own body is preserved" although I think the current situation is balanced in a just manner. You do not think it is a just manner. The reason you give is "because both the father and the mother have equal responsibility in the creation of the child."

See, though, they *don't* have equal responsibility in the creation of the child. For the nine months during which the child is being created (or however many months you see before creation of the child is finished), a man can shoot up heroin from needles he stole from an AIDS hospice, funnel 30 packs of beer, do a freezer's worth of jello shots, go sumo wrestling, and even commit seppuku where he plunges a short sword into his gut and cuts across his body. None of those actions will have an effect on the creation of the child, will they? However, if the mother was to do any of those things, it *would* have an effect on the creation of the child.

So really, there *is* equality--they each have "power in determining the fate of that child" during any period that they have "responsibility in the creation of the child."

What could be more equal than matching 'periods of power' to 'periods of responsibility'? When either of them are doing the 'work' of creating the child with their bodies, they have full power over the work their bodies do in creating the child. When neither of them have any more "responsibility in the creation of the child" at birth, then neither of them have any "power in determining the fate of that child" either.

Isn't that, if not perfect equality, at least a situation that is "balanced out in such a way that the woman's control over her own body is preserved" AND "the father has...equal say in the matter" in the sense of 'equal say' for 'equal work'?

An interesting point; the woman already has the responsibility to maintain the health of the child, so she should have more power over the decision. However, that is only one point of view; one could easily say that the woman simply has more power over the fate of the child.

Consider this: the woman drinks, etc. during the pregnancy, while the man desires a healthy baby and wishes to reduce the risks to the child. Should he have the power to get a court order forcing the woman into certain behavioral modes? This is really the crux of the matter. The only functional difference between power and responsibility, at least from what I can see in this case, is the freedom to make a specific choice of action. If the woman were legally forced by society to behave in a certain way during pregnancy, then you would have a very valid point. On the other hand, if the mother can do whatever she wishes, so she has the power to determine the fate of the child during her pregnancy through her actions. Of course, there are social stigmas involved with not following the responsible path in respect to the unborn child, but the legal repercussions are far more concrete. I am no legal expert, and do not know how easily an injunction of this sort can be passed.

This also returns to the issue of a woman's control over her own body, but is even more complicated, since risky behavior during pregnancy greatly increases the chances of producing a crippled child who is a drain on society instead of a benefit, and that's before we even consider the fact that the child is saddled with the infirmity for the duration of its existence. Given that an aborted fetus obviously isn't being diminished for the duration of its life, one could argue that a woman should have the choice on whether or not to get an abortion, but not whether or not to live a healthy life during the pregnancy.

Oh, I don't think it's founded on infallibility at all. Some key terms to look up--res judicata, collateral estoppel, collateral attack, enterprise liability, market share liability, strict liability, workman's compensation, circuit split, abuse of discretion, Federal court certification of state law questions, en banc rehearings, basically ALL the law regarding evidence...

I mean, just the idea that a criminal case must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, while a civil case must be proven by a preponderance of the evidence I think speaks to how 'fallible' the American legal system admits it is.

Yes and no. It's the big differences between how scholars of the matter see things, and how everyone else sees it. Consider the theologian's view compared to the average member of a faith for example: many, many people see the cops carting someone off and they wonder what they did, not whether or not they did anything in the first place. Further, the law has remedies for its errors, but it's also rather certain in it's less than certain logic; valid legal arguments have been made which would make no sense what so ever if viewed outside of the framework of legal thought. While I have no specific examples to cite off the top of my head, Antonin Scalia has written several legal opinions that are valid within the framework of legal thought that would conflict with, if not outright be opposed by, many Americans today.

But see, this is my point--you set up these 'balancing acts' and then conclude without any support which way they should 'balance' in this case. I mean, isn't a bit of a circular argument to say someone shouldn't reach for simple answers when dealing with an issue, and then when pressed as to why they shouldn't, respond with "this issue is not one with an easy solution that can approach justice, and so a more complicated 'model' is necessary"?

If you want to convince someone that a simplistic model will result in injustice, then you need to:

(1) point out some cases

and

(2) show how the resolution of those cases would be an injustice under so simple a system while a complex system would do a better job.

Like you were doing with me, talking about equality and how we expect equality, or about American justice striving for infallibility. That's what you need to do to get to a point we can argue about.

Simple: Americans, and the American legal system, demands this degree of complexity. There is more than just a crime of killing someone; there is manslaughter, murder of various degrees, and justifiable homicide, and probably a few more I left off the list. There's rape, sexual assault, statutory rape, and other various sex crimes that can be committed, from misdemeanors (like indecent exposure) to some of the worst felonies. These same gradations can be applied to many other crimes, from theft, assault, kidnapping, etc.

There are also many less complex alternatives which would require less time. It's not practically difficult, in terms of simple administrative measures, to get rid of a jury, and run a system more like the one in Phoenix Wright. Four day trials, at max, then a verdict. These alternatives are known, and could be implemented. However, the American demand for justice of a specific type (a jury of your peers, not excessive, etc) demonstrates quite readily the necessity of a more complicated system simply because the American people demand it over less complex alternatives. We could use a system where if you kill anyone, you get your head lopped off, or if you have sex with a minor it's the same punishment and treatment as forced rape (in the sense that the other person is unwilling, not simply legally unable to consent), or treat all assaults the same, etc. The fact that this isn't the case shows that the American people demand a legal system which tailors the punishment to the act and can differentiate between different acts.

The only real question is why would we need to complicate the matter of child support and paternity further. That depends entirely on whether or not we can establish that an unjust imbalance of power between the mother, who can choose to abort, and the father, who can not. You made an argument above that, in my opinion, would provide compelling reason why the imbalance of power would be just, assuming that there's no legal recourse to force the mother to be responsible during her pregnancy, as well as how easily that recourse can be called upon.

I read the conversation before replying, and just went back over it, and I still don't see where you're trying to prove to him that we need "consideration for the basic nature of complexities of the human condition" in this case to avoid injustice. I saw where you made the point to him about degrees of murder, but he could just as easily make the point back to you about strict liability for keeping wild animals on your property, where both the responsible tiger trainer who keeps his tiger in a cage on a large parcel of property with a fence, and some jerk who keeps a tiger in his apartment and could care less about the danger are both liable if that tiger escapes and bites someone--strict liability for wild animals.

Except that Necroswanson's statements weren't limited to simply this case. He/she made broad, sweeping statements about human nature that ignores the realities of the human condition that one needs to account for when making this decision. He/she also lacks any sort of objective perspective on the matter, since he/she always implies that the man has the majority of the responsibility in the act. While building bonfires around you to protect you from the plague, who is more credible: someone who tells you that the heat will purify the air, or someone who tells you that it will keep the rats, and thus the fleas, away? Simply because someone might stumble upon a correct answer doesn't mean that their method of reaching that answer is valid or appropriate.

The case is more complicated than strict liability because it applies to obviously dangerous situations that are outside of normal social intercourse. Dynamite is another example. Does anyone 'need' a tiger or dynamite in everyday life? And do the risks to society outweigh the potential benefits? However, despite the doctrine of strict liability, it is not absolute, and negligence, such as someone foolish enough to enter the tiger's cage would lose such a case, not win it. Necroswanson's logic would lead one to simply look at whether or not a tiger was involved, and ignore any of the surrounding circumstances.

Your objection needs to go *beyond* whether "the simple fact that Necrswan's attempt to group people's actions into "a = good" and " b = bad" categories without any consideration for the basic nature of complexities of the human condition" is *true*; you also need to show how that grouping results in some sort of *injustice*

Not really. My issue with Necroswan's arguments is that they have no rational basis. It essentially boils down to a) people need to have perfect self control all the time, and b) the man is automatically at fault. I refuted both those points with a) people can not be reasonably expected to have perfect self control all the time, and that it can be a mitigating factor in some cases, which the murder example was meant to show and b) the man and the woman both share equal responsibility since it is an act they both agreed to participate in.

You, on the other hand, brought up some very interesting points, such as the imbalance of power being justified based on the responsibilities of the woman, to which I pointed out that there aren't necessarily any responsibilities if nothing is there penalize her for not picking the socially correct choice (which I will further amend by saying that the strength of this penalty is a major factor as well, and this can very from case to case since individual preferences may make certain penalties unbearable to some while meaningless to others). You also challenged my position on the grounds of needless complexity, to which I submitted the realities of the American legal system as sufficient evidence of a 'consumer' demand for this complexity, and then turned it back to argument one to determine if such complexity was actually warranted in this case.

I mean, you say at one point that "Much like high school physics, white-hat/black-hat moralizations are good for teaching basic concepts, but tend to fall short when applied to ever more and more complex real life situations." Well, you need to show why, in the case of abortion and a man's obligations, this is--to use your analogy--more like graduate work in string theory than it is like high school physics.

Not at all. By invalidating the logical basis from the opposing argument, I've rendered it null and inapplicable. It doesn't make my argument right, but it does make it a more preferable choice by comparison. As for why it might need to be string theory, that argument has been given above.

I will also point out that Necroswanson's statements, repeated without grounds for support despite more than one individual giving the same challenge to it's logic, as well as how he/she bowed out of the topic, at least as far as my conversation with her/him went, speaks to me of belief more than reason, and in such cases one can't have a reasonable discussion with any meaning, since they state immutable beliefs that they are convinced are correct based on emotional factors, which do not appeal to the rational factors supporting my opinion.

 

[Singing Gremlin]

Ok, I'm being thrashed here so I'll give up, but I have one thing to say first: Geoffrey42.. I hate your writing style. As I read it it feels like my eyes are going crossed or something because I can't actually understand any of the ideas you're throwing at me but merely get the sinking feeling of knowing whatever it is, its very clever and I'm wrong...

 

[Easykill]

Newcomers! Pay attention!

This is a true thread, brought back from the days when I was one of the lowest quality posters. Mature, intelligent discussion even in the face of a controversial topic. We've lost a lot of that over time with the incredible growth of the site since Zero Punctuation first came here, try to keep our standards high. Of course, that's not to say you shouldn't have a little fun, we had our share of wacky topics too, we simply didn't mix them often.

 

[the monopoly guy]

This only strengthens my theory that The Escapist is in a decline. I mean, it's like a before and after picture.

 

[werepossum]

Now--why is abortion *legal* is the next question. Think about this: the current legality of abortion in America (since I don't know much about other countries) ends when the fetus becomes viable outside the womb, I think. What happens when medical science pushes viability back to where almost every detected pregnancy is viable outside the womb? Under current American law women *won't* have an additional opt-out point.

May I just pause and say this specific issue around viability scares the crap out of me? Because even if a fetus is viable outside the womb at 5-6 months, nobody is actually offering me a place to put that fetus for months 6-9 that isn't inside my body. The fact that my choice might be taken away from me on largely theoretical medical grounds isn't 1984, it's freakin' Handmaid's Tale. *shivers*

Which is why the woman should have the choice of induced labor to deliver a preemie. If the baby's viable then it has a right to a chance for survival, but the state should not have the power to compel a woman to carry a child she no longer wants at any point, any more than the state should have the power to compel her to give up a kidney to save an adult. I think viability is currently at around five months, so if a woman declares after that point that she no longer wants the child she should have the choice of getting rid of it via induced labor and adoption OR negotiating womb rental with the state or (better yet) anti-abortion groups. Another month or three makes a huge difference in a preemie's chances and likely medical problems, and getting a second (or first) job would keep some of those abortion clinic protesters off the street. (Hint: Just because a clinic does abortions does not mean that every woman going in is getting an abortion.) If you're adamantly anti-abortion, pony up some cash to make it worth her while. If a birth surrogate gets $10,000 to $40,000 and most of the mother's problems with pregnancy are in the last trimester, then $2,000 to $5,000 per month ought to be in the neighborhood.

I think this thread is railing against reality. Since only women may become pregnant, men and women will never be exactly equal in this. Even if/when uterine replicators become a reality, only women will accidentally suffer the hormonal changes of pregnancy. And I'm all for a man's right to opt out if he can prove he was fooled, but he would have to prove the sex was non-consensual since EVERY form of birth control has a failure rate, even vasectomies and tubal ligations.

Easykill, your dad's a prince; give him a hug. I too know more men than women who raised children alone due to abandonment, but statistically it's far more common for women. And I know far more women than men who were stiffed on child support.

 

[SilentHunter7]

This only strengthens my theory that The Escapist is in a decline. I mean, it's like a before and after picture.

I dont think so. At least not as bad as you describe. You just have to ignore the morons; I really don't want to start hearing about the cancer that is killing /b/ The Escapist.

That said, now that this thread has been exhumed from its grave, I feel I must revise this post

IMO, If a guy doesn't want a child, but the mother wants to have it, that's all well and good, but the law shouldnt force him to give you a free check every month because you wanted his kid, and he didnt. I'm kind of undecided what happens when a women doesn't want it, but a guy does, because it IS her body, though a guy should have as much right to father his child as the woman who wants to mother her child when the guy doesn't.

Having considerable time to ponder, and gain wisdom (6 whole months ), I've changed my stance on what should happen when one party doesn't want a child, and another does. I'm pro-life (not necessarily anti-choice, but I still think aborting a fetus is wrong), so IMO, after the 1st Trimester, unless there is extenuating circumstances (such as the mother being in mortal jeopardy by having the kid), then she should have to have the kid if the father wants it. And the party who didn't want the kid should be free of any obligation after it's birth. Now this is if it's an unplanned pregnancy. If it's a planned pregnancy, or if both parties agreed to raise it, and one backed out, the gloves should come off, and they should have to pay.

Of course that's just my opinion. And an issue with that is that there is too much legal gray area; who the burden of proof should fall on to decide whether the pregnancy was planned or unplanned, what constitutes a planned pregnancy, and how do you prove it are just a few question raised. Personally, I think this whole issue is too complex to be dealt with effectively by our law. There's so many variables, and every door leads to someone's rights being stepped on.