BSBD Tiller the Baby Killer

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Men currently get no choice, even if they go to extraordinary lengths to ensure no pregnancy (i.e. verify she's on the pill and then use a condom as well.) Sorry, it doesn't matter. Pay up.

I don't think that verifying that she's on the pill and then using a condom qualifies as "extraordinary lengths" to ensure no pregnancy. Maybe if you included having a vasectomy with those other two actions then it would qualify.

I also don't agree that men get "no choice." They (as did the women) made a choice to have sex, which can lead to pregnancy, which is intrinsically an unfair situation. Trying to make it "fair" at that point just doesn't work. Although the two people involved can try to make it as fair as possible.

[Butters 0]

Quote

But the inherent differences brought by biology make this an impossible argument to have a really clear-cut answer.

If we are going to accept inequalities on this subject due to biology than we must accept inequalities on other subjects due to biology ...

PS: I would rather we minimize or remove the inequalities.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

She does not have a right to decline her responsibility to raise a child

Actually, in most states, there is a "baby safe haven" law where a custodial parent can drop the baby off somewhere safe like a hospital or fire station. If the other parent isn't interested in custody (or doesn't know they have a child), then the baby is adopted out, with there being no penalty on the parent who did the dropping.

Since a new baby is more likely to be with the mother, and since the father is overwhelmingly more likely to be a parent who is unaware they have a child, the mother is far more likely to do the dropping off.

Not that we know for sure.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

>No, because that ability would put the father's (or mother's, if the situation
>were reversed) convenience ahead of the child's needs.

Correct. That's what abortion (or adoption) is.

I'm not sure what your point is here. If the baby is given up for adoption, that decision is often (usually?) one that is made in the best interest of the child. Great if the biological parents' best interests coincide, but their concern is secondary. If you are referring to scenarios in which a step-parent legally adopts their spouse's biological child, relieving the corresponding biological parent of responsibility, then I suspect the child's needs are still the primary consideration before such an adoption is approved.

Quote

>If a child's parents come to an agreement that one of them need not be involved
>at all, financially or otherwise, that's perfectly okay, as long as the parent that
>chooses to take responsibility has the resources do do so.

Agreed. And if there were a legal framework to support and enforce such decisions, there would be many, many fewer problems.

There already is such framework. If the parent who wants to take responsibility cannot, the other parent is held responsible, as they should be.

Quote

>With some partners, precautions to make it unlikely that a pregnancy occurs
>is sufficient.

Which means there is a chance the woman could become pregnant - which is the issue we're discussing.

You apparently missed my point. If I only take precautions to make it unlikely that there is a resulting pregnancy, that implies that, should the precautions not work, I am fine with her having my child, even if I wasn't really wanting a child. If I'm not comfortable with her having my children, I make it virtually impossible for a pregnancy to occur, i.e. my sperm aren't released while I'm in her vaginal canal.

Quote

>The father has a different choice at a different time, but he does indeed have a
>choice.

Of course. And if you got a credit card, and after a month you were given a choice as to whether to pay 5000% interest on your purchases for that month or 8000% interest, you'd also have a choice. That does not mean that everything is OK with such an arrangement.

Right. Unfortunately, many (perhaps most) pregnancies are surprises. Some are perceived as pleasant surprises, some are less welcome. Oftentimes, such surprises are decidedly inconvenient, even if they are pleasant. Nonetheless, it's not much of a mystery where babies come from, nor should it come as a surprise to anyone that they will be held responsible if they become a biological parent.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

2 - Now, the "mom" has the right to decline her responsibility to raise a child - via abortion.

Incorrect. The mother has a right to abort the pregnancy. She does not have a right to decline her responsibility to raise a child. If she does not give birth to a child, then there is no child for which to be responsible. There's no responsibility to decline.

there's our disconnect - and I think you're being obtuse on purpose to just quote the party line so there's no further discussion here

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[wmw999 2,461]

Quote

I would rather we minimize or remove the inequalities

We cannot minimize or remove the inequalities of biology, particularly in our current social paradigm.

A pregnant mother gets to:
- need new clothes
- probably have back pain
- lose sleep
- be tired much of the time
- have her joints become looser and get clumsy (at least I did)
- change her activity level if she's active
- maybe quit work towards the end
- everyone asks her when the baby (that she wasn't ready for) is due,
- maybe people look at her with disfavor because you're single
- be the one the hospital is guaranteed to deal with for expenses
- suffer the physical risk of pregnancy and childbirth

The man can choose to pay the hospital bill. None of the others, no matter how badly he wants to. And without that, making things "strictly even" in terms of long-term custody will leave a rather huge inequality which cannot be minimized.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I think you're being obtuse on purpose to just quote the party line so there's no further discussion here

??? Really?

I don't know what the "party line" is. I'm simply applying logic. If you feel you can't take part in a discussion that contains logical arguments, so be it. Have a nice day.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rehmwa 2]

you have a good day too

logic?

"If she does not give birth to a child, then there is no child for which to be responsible"

the woman does not wish to be responsible for a child => THEREFORE, she can choose to abort a pregnancy

hope that helps

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

I would rather we minimize or remove the inequalities

We cannot minimize or remove the inequalities of biology, particularly in our current social paradigm.

A pregnant mother gets to:
- need new clothes
- probably have back pain
- lose sleep
- be tired much of the time
- have her joints become looser and get clumsy (at least I did)
- change her activity level if she's active
- maybe quit work towards the end
- everyone asks her when the baby (that she wasn't ready for) is due,
- maybe people look at her with disfavor because you're single
- be the one the hospital is guaranteed to deal with for expenses
- suffer the physical risk of pregnancy and childbirth

The man can choose to pay the hospital bill. None of the others, no matter how badly he wants to. And without that, making things "strictly even" in terms of long-term custody will leave a rather huge inequality which cannot be minimized.

Wendy P.

But I'm discussing legal inequalities, in regards to the law we are suppose to be equal. If we allow legal inequalities based on biology on this subject than we have to allow them on other subjects ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,461]

By keeping it strictly to legal equalities, you take out the woman's right to control what happens to her body. That's also a legal issue. Either she is potentially forced to undergo a pregnancy, or an abortion.

It's messy. We can abstract pieces of it to simple logic questions, and that's a useful exercise. But in the real world, it's as realistic a whole answer as overly clearcut sentencing and guilt guidelines for crimes. Circumstances outside the carefully-bounded argument do, in fact, matter in real life.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[billvon 3,009]

>I don't think that verifying that she's on the pill and then using a condom
>qualifies as "extraordinary lengths" to ensure no pregnancy.

Well, "extraordinary" in the sense of using both a primary and a backup means, which is something most people do not do (in my experience.)

>Although the two people involved can try to make it as fair as possible.

Agreed. And having a legal mechanism to a) encourage them to talk about it beforehand and b) help enforce the decisions they make would help matters, IMO.

[billvon 3,009]

> If the baby is given up for adoption, that decision is often (usually?) one that
>is made in the best interest of the child.

And is also one of convenience to a mother who does not want to raise it. Abortion is, of course, more about convenience, since the fetus is killed in the process.

>There already is such framework. If the parent who wants to take responsibility
>cannot, the other parent is held responsible, as they should be.

Nope, not quite. If a mother is capable of taking care of a child 100%, but simply chooses not to, the father can be "held responsible" even if they agreed beforehand that the mother was both able and willing to raise the child.

And unfortunately, for many women, that 'loophole' is used simply to get more money.

>If I'm not comfortable with her having my children, I make it virtually impossible
>for a pregnancy to occur, i.e. my sperm aren't released while I'm in her vaginal
>canal.

But again, there's that "virtually" part. Yes, it's nearly impossible. But if not, you may end up in a situation where a woman who a) can care for the child herself, b) agreed with you that if she had a child she would raise it herself and c) wants absolutely nothing to do with you can financially damage or ruin you.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

in short, you want to remove any choice from the man - and relegate him to only responding in the 'approved' manner to whatever the woman chooses

Not at all. I’ve just not denied a women’s autonomy over her body for 9 months.

Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support.

Quote

Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support.

No, I’m not denying his autonomy. I’m not denying her autonomy either.

The man has a choice to have a vasectomy (among many choices). Should a women being able to force a man to have one or not have one? (I would argue no, but that *is* a parity scenario to what [rehmwa] is suggesting.) … Seems like it might be a good poll, eh?

The factor/piece/point screws up [rehwma]’s straw man. The man (& the woman) have choices. Afaik, no one is arguing that a woman should be able to demand a man have a vasectomy or not … because of her preferences. (although there are some nations that do forbid women from using contraception; most that do also forbid abortion.)

He has choices if he doesn’t want to have a child and deal with the consequences.

Once there is a child born (not an egg, not 50 million of so sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) as a separate semi-autonomous being then the focus isn’t on her or him, it’s on the kid. That’s where one disaggregates the question of her autonomy w/r/t abortion, his w/r/t having a vasectomy or not, and a third living, breathing, semi-autonomous being.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[Butters 0]

Quote

By keeping it strictly to legal equalities, you take out the woman's right to control what happens to her body. That's also a legal issue. Either she is potentially forced to undergo a pregnancy, or an abortion.

Instead of decreasing the woman's rights we could increase the man's rights. Like mentioned multiple times in this thread, give the man the choice whether to support the child if the woman decides not to have an abortion. This way the man and the woman can make choices regarding sex and contraception and the man and woman can make choices regarding child support. This still leaves the situation where the man wants the child and the female does not ... but it's as close as we're going to get equal.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[Butters 0]

The problem doesn't occur when both parties want the same thing, the problem occurs when both parties want different things.

1] If a man wants a child and a woman does not, the woman has the choice.

2] If a man does not want a child and the woman does, the woman has the choice.

Allowing the man to make a choice on whether to support the child in the case when a man does not want a child and the woman does minimizes the inequalities.

1] If a man wants a child and a woman does not, the woman has the choice.

2] If a man does not want a child and the woman does, the woman has the choice and the man has a choice.

Edit: This doesn't remove autonomy from the man or the woman.

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[nerdgirl 0]

Actually I've acknowledged all of the components of your scenario. If you don't like the responses, there's little I can do about it.

If you want to argue equity or parity (the latter is really the more correct term), in order for your hypothetical scenario of "if the woman has that right, so then should the man" ... than the notional woman should also has the right to deny a man's autonomy over his body.

Do you want to allow someone else to demand or prohibit you (or any man) from having a vasectomy if he wants it? If you're going to give a man the ability to deny autonomy over a woman's own body, in order to achieve the "equality" that you keep noting, than his autonomy over his body must be subject to her desires and wants as well. That would be equality in *your* scenario. There's the sexism.

Until you can argue for that, your scenario is the sexist one. I wouldn't argue for denying that autonomy to a man. Are you going to?

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

The problem doesn't occur when both parties want the same thing, the problem occurs when both parties want different things.

1] If a man wants a child and a woman does not, the woman has the choice.

2] If a man does not want a child and the woman does, the woman has the choice.

Allowing the man to make a choice on whether to support the child in the case when a man does not want a child and the woman does minimizes the inequalities.

1] If a man wants a child and a woman does not, the woman has the choice.

2] If a man does not want a child and the woman does, the woman has the choice and the man has a choice.

We're back to the same place that this started.

Men do have choices w/r/t having children. No one is arguing a woman should be able to force a man to have a vasectomy (i.e., deny his autonomy).


Once there is a child born (not an egg, not 50 million of so sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) as a separate semi-autonomous being then the focus isn’t on her or him, it’s on the kid. That’s where one disaggregates the question of her autonomy w/r/t abortion, his w/r/t having a vasectomy or not, and resposibility for the third living, breathing, semi-autonomous being.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[wmw999 2,461]

The man cannot get a unilateral choice to participate any more than the woman can. The fact that the pregnancy is happening to the woman's body is what trumps some of this. That, and the fact that there's a real baby, with needs. Who should help to satisfy those needs?

There is unequal risk and consequences in sex. That's biology and external social forces, not just legal. Making the legal ones as completely equal as possible does not make things equal.

The best way to reduce the risk of unwanted fatherhood is no sex, of course. Many men find that to be unacceptable . Another would be to encourage and subsidize more of the Florence Crittenton-type homes for pregnant women, with guaranteed adoption being the result of using the services.

But until the woman has just as small an impact of pregnancy as the man does on her health, and work and social life, there is no real equality.

If I were you, I'd pray for male pregnancy.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

>I don't think that verifying that she's on the pill and then using a condom
>qualifies as "extraordinary lengths" to ensure no pregnancy.

Well, "extraordinary" in the sense of using both a primary and a backup means, which is something most people do not do (in my experience.)

I think a lot of people use both the pill and condoms. Though I guess they're not necessarily used for the purpose of having two means of pregnancy prevention. In this case, the condom is probably used mostly for STD prevention.

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

If a mother is capable of taking care of a child 100%, but simply chooses not to, the father can be "held responsible" even if they agreed beforehand that the mother was both able and willing to raise the child.

And what is the reasoning behind that legal ruling?

It has nothing to do with the mother and it has nothing to do with the father. It's for the benefit of the child.

On the flip-side, a father's rights to his children are protected even if the mother wants to abrogate those rights. A friend of mine is currently dealing with a related case of adoption law. The mother gave up custody. The child has been with the wanna-be adopted parents for over 6 months. According to the mother, the father didn't want the kid. He had no interaction during the early part of her preganancy and disappeared during the latter. The father was no where to be found initially.

The lawyers, which my friend is one on the adoption team, were required to do due diligence and try to find the father. They did. He now wants custody. He's going to get the kid back (if he hasn't already). Part of the reason it took a while to find him was he was in jail, and perhaps understandly/perhaps not, he didn't tell anyone. It's his kid. The mother doesn't want the father to have the kid. That doesn't matter.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

And is also one of convenience to a mother who does not want to raise it.

I can't think of many instances when it's in the child's best interest to be in the custody of someone who didn't want to raise the child.

Quote

Abortion is, of course, more about convenience, since the fetus is killed in the process.

That's a matter of perspective, I suppose. I'm not sure which one would cause more sleepless nights over the course of a lifetime.

Quote

>There already is such framework. If the parent who wants to take responsibility
>cannot, the other parent is held responsible, as they should be.

Nope, not quite. If a mother is capable of taking care of a child 100%, but simply chooses not to, the father can be "held responsible" even if they agreed beforehand that the mother was both able and willing to raise the child.

That sounds reasonable, provided that in the event the custodial parent is not able to provide for the child, the non-custodial parent is legally responsible.

Quote

And unfortunately, for many women, that 'loophole' is used simply to get more money.

I'm not surprised, and I'm not defending that practice. Still, we need to remember that the primary consideration is the kid, not either parent. Sometimes things that might be unfair to one of the parents occur because that's what is best for the kid.

Quote

>If I'm not comfortable with her having my children, I make it virtually impossible
>for a pregnancy to occur, i.e. my sperm aren't released while I'm in her vaginal
>canal.

But again, there's that "virtually" part. Yes, it's nearly impossible.

To clarify, that's in addition to any other measures taken (e.g. pill and/or condom, etc.). I'm fairly comfortable with the remaining risk.

Quote

But if not, you may end up in a situation where a woman who a) can care for the child herself, b) agreed with you that if she had a child she would raise it herself and c) wants absolutely nothing to do with you can financially damage or ruin you.

There's always that remote chance. Of course, there's a remote chance that any number of bad things could occur, each with its own very low probability.

Sex is a lot like skydiving. It can be all fun and games as long as everything goes as planned (i.e. no unplanned pregnancies). Like with skydiving, when things don't go as planned, things can get serious in a hurry. Lives can be changed forever. We may pay our money and take our chances, but we decide for ourselves what chances are justified. Whatever our personal level of acceptable risk, we should all be aware that we could pay a very big price if things don't go as planned.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[Butters 0]

Quote

Once there is a child born ...

But I'm talking about allowing the man to make a decision during the period of time that a woman can make a decision whether to have an abortion (which is before a child is born) ...

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[wmw999 2,461]

The decision doesn't happen in a vacuum. There are decisions that the woman can't make as well ("I'd like to have this baby and not have anyone know that I'm pregnant, not have any impact on my work or activities, and have it cost me no more to have the baby than it cost the father")

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Once there is a child born ...

But I'm talking about allowing the man to make a decision during the period of time that a woman can make a decision whether to have an abortion (which is before a child is born) ...

Yes, I understand that. In an ideal world, the two are making decisions together. It's an artificial time frame tho', particularly if one wants to base the argument on a pursuit of parity of rights and autonomy w/r/t sex.

During the time frame you're suggesting, that scenario could deny a woman autonomy over her body.

/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

But I'm talking about allowing the man to make a decision during the period of time that a woman can make a decision whether to have an abortion (which is before a child is born) ...

He gets to make that decision before she does. If he regrets the decision he made, he can try to influence her decision, but can't make it for her. He ultimately has to live with the decision he already made.

It would be absurd to allow men to simply walk away from the responsibilities of parenthood simply because they would choose abortion if it were their choice to make. They had their choice to make and they made it. If they want a different outcome, they need to make a different choice.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!