downwardspiral 0 #351 June 4, 2009 I am refferring to after conception. PRior to conception I'd say all things are equal provided both know what they are doing. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #352 June 4, 2009 QuoteIn the world of hypotheticals, he could lie while she was under the impression he was freely giving viable sperm. One can imagine a Law & Order episode or some other legal show in which the male character intentionally deceives the monogamous (have the writers make 'em faithfully married) female character until she is menopausal. Funny you should mention that.... QuoteThe option the couple eventually decided on was to hire their neighbour Frank Maus, 34, to impregnate Traute. Maus, who was already married with two children agreed to do the job for the fee of €2,000. For three evenings a week for the next six months, a total of 72 different times, Maus tried to impregnate Traute.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #353 June 4, 2009 Quote only that he would try his hardest. Holy fucking shit that's funny! www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #354 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuote I don't see the equality between a sterilization and a non-sterilization procedure. A better "parity" would be a discussion of tubal ligation vs. vasectomy in that regard - a moot point given the general thread topic of abortion. It's parity w/r/t denying autonomy over one's body. It's in the context of a notional scenario that asserted "equality" was the goal. /Marg It is NOT parity, nor equality. Abortion has no effect on the fertility of the woman (barring complications). Vasectomy DOES have an effect on the fertility of the man.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #355 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuote I don't see the equality between a sterilization and a non-sterilization procedure. A better "parity" would be a discussion of tubal ligation vs. vasectomy in that regard - a moot point given the general thread topic of abortion. It's parity w/r/t denying autonomy over one's body. It's in the context of a notional scenario that asserted "equality" was the goal. It is NOT parity, nor equality. Abortion has no effect on the fertility of the woman (barring complications). Vasectomy DOES have an effect on the fertility of the man. And since men can't gestate (yet), one can't deny autonomy over their bodies w/r/t chosing or not to carry a fetus to term. And since the notional scenario (not of my creation) sought "equality" as a goal, denying autonomy to one gender is fundamentally non-equal. Therefore the components (proximal assumptions and implications) of the scenario could not be reached as it was originally posed. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
funjumper101 15 #356 June 4, 2009 Quote 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. As I pointed out in an earlier post, birth control measures are not always 100% effective. T-Shirt hell used to sell infant t-shirts with the lettering "broken condom". I saw a nice family in Pismo Beach where the baby had that shirt on. A nice pair of twentysomethings, all tatted and pierced up. They appreciated the fact that I knew where they got the shirt and busted up laughing when I saw it. Good kids, and very happy together. Cheerful baby, too. I have a niece from one sister and a nephew from another, both of whom were unplanned. One was from an IUD failure. The other was from birth control pills being ineffective. In both cases all reasonable precautions were taken, yet pregnancy occurred anyway. Just like in skydiving, you can do everything right, everything perfectly, and still end up with un-anticipated results. Like being taken out by a swooper while on final. Or getting nailed by a dust devil. Or her getting pregnant, even though she was on the pill and you used a condom. This is a very important point of fact that many folks conveniently overlook when spewing their anti-choice bile. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #357 June 5, 2009 I understood your argument, Marg - I just disagree with your conclusion. Notwithstanding anything else, for the loss of autonomy to be "apples to apples", both parties would have to have procedures with the same affect and duration on fertility.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #358 June 5, 2009 Quote I understood your argument, Marg - I just disagree with your conclusion. Notwithstanding anything else, for the loss of autonomy to be "apples to apples", both parties would have to have procedures with the same affect and duration on fertility. Actually, your comments here are in line with my conclusion -- that selectively denying autonomy to one party does not make something "equal." /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #359 June 5, 2009 Quote Quote I understood your argument, Marg - I just disagree with your conclusion. Notwithstanding anything else, for the loss of autonomy to be "apples to apples", both parties would have to have procedures with the same affect and duration on fertility. Actually, your comments here are in line with my conclusion -- that selectively denying autonomy to one party does not make something "equal." /Marg Ok, so which party was getting denied again, I've lost track.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #360 June 5, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I understood your argument, Marg - I just disagree with your conclusion. Notwithstanding anything else, for the loss of autonomy to be "apples to apples", both parties would have to have procedures with the same affect and duration on fertility. Actually, your comments here are in line with my conclusion -- that selectively denying autonomy to one party does not make something "equal." Ok, so which party was getting denied again, I've lost track. Does it matter? If the goal of a notional scenario is supposed to be "equality" then denying either party autonomy is problematic, yes? If one's goal is something other than enabling/ensuring/supporting autonomy then the parity argument doesn't matter. (In that case one may argue for denying autonomy ... not something that I support, but some may.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #361 June 5, 2009 QuoteI disagree that a right of a child is to get lots of money from their genetic father. Since that's not an issue being discussed, I don't see that it's relevant. (Unless, you consider child support payments "lots of money," in which case I would disagree. If child support == "lots of money", then yes, the father should have a legal obligation to provide "lots of money" for the costs associated with raising his kid.)Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #362 June 5, 2009 QuoteAs I pointed out in an earlier post, birth control measures are not always 100% effective. And, as I pointed out, some methods are.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #363 June 5, 2009 Ok, so we have the 'disparate surgical procedures' tackled... how is the suggestion above about allowing either party to "opt-out", bad? Edit to add: speaking strictly from an 'equality of options' viewpoint, that is.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #364 June 5, 2009 QuoteOk, so we have the 'disparate surgical procedures' tackled... how is the suggestion above about allowing either party to "opt-out", bad? Edit to add: speaking strictly from an 'equality of options' viewpoint, that is. I can't speak for Marg, but I don't like it because it removes the female's right to choose.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #365 June 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteOk, so we have the 'disparate surgical procedures' tackled... how is the suggestion above about allowing either party to "opt-out", bad? Edit to add: speaking strictly from an 'equality of options' viewpoint, that is. I can't speak for Marg, but I don't like it because it removes the female's right to choose. How so - I don't recall anything in the suggestions that lets the man decide whether or not an abortion is done - I'll have dig the post back up and re-read it. Edit: found it - care to point out where any of the options prevent an abortion? Quote1 both abort - no problem 2 she aborts, he doesn't - too bad for him, it's her body 3 he aborts, she doesn't - it's her body, but she's on her own after 4 - she doesn't, he doesn't - well, they both will raise the child that results, good luck to them, hope they find a way to do it Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #366 June 5, 2009 QuoteOk, so we have the 'disparate surgical procedures' tackled... how is the suggestion above about allowing either party to "opt-out", bad? Edit to add: speaking strictly from an 'equality of options' viewpoint, that is. It doesn't obviate that some have put forth scenarios denying one autonomy as acceptable in some scenarios. That's the issue - autonomy. If you want to deny a women autonomy over her body and call it "equality" then in order for one to fulfill a goal of "equality" the closest approach to parity to enabling a woman to deny a man autonomy, in this case the closest approach (parity) is illustrated by prohibiting or demanding a vasectomy. It's the autonomy. /Marg [Edit to add: if you want to argue disparate surgical procedures, consider the higher invasiveness, cost, and complications associated with tubal ligation or hysterectomy versus vasectomy. But that's not the argument really -- it's about autonomy.) Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #367 June 5, 2009 QuoteQuote1 both abort - no problem 2 she aborts, he doesn't - too bad for him, it's her body 3 he aborts, she doesn't - it's her body, but she's on her own after 4 - she doesn't, he doesn't - well, they both will raise the child that results, good luck to them, hope they find a way to do it Still the same problems with that. It ignores the choices that the man has. The part that's labeled "he aborts" for the scenario to have parity would involve *him* doing something, since men can't gestate. I.e., it's a false proposition. The above scenario was put forth to enable the notional goal of “equality” when as I’ve pointed out you’re giving one party selective autonomy. And the notional scenario still aggregates the interest of a child (not an egg, not 50 million sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) with the autonomous decisions of one individual and the abridged autonomy of the other. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #368 June 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteOk, so we have the 'disparate surgical procedures' tackled... how is the suggestion above about allowing either party to "opt-out", bad? Edit to add: speaking strictly from an 'equality of options' viewpoint, that is. It doesn't obviate that some have put forth scenarios denying one autonomy as acceptable in some scenarios. That's the issue - autonomy. If you want to deny a women autonomy over her body and call it "equality" then in order for one to fulfill a goal of "equality" the closest approach to parity to enabling a woman to deny a man autonomy, in this case the closest approach (parity) is illustrated by prohibiting or demanding a vasectomy. It's the autonomy. /Marg See my quote of rehmwa's suggestion, above. The 'autonomy of her body' argument becomes moot if the woman is not forced into an action against her will, whether to complete the pregnancy or have an abortion. So, given that fact, how is providing the man the same opportunity to 'opt out' as the woman somehow 'unequal'?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #369 June 5, 2009 QuoteStill the same problems with that. It ignores the choices that the man has. The part that's labeled "he aborts" for the scenario to have parity would involve *him* doing something, since men can't gestate. I.e., it's a false proposition. Fine - change "abort" to "wants a child" - now we've gotten rid of the emotional attachment to "abort" and make it about the the theoretical options that the two individuals have. QuoteThe above scenario was put forth to enable the notional goal of “equality” when as I’ve pointed out you’re giving one party selective autonomy. The woman STILL has selective autonomy - show me where any of those options force her to have / not have an abortion? QuoteAnd the notional scenario still aggregates the interest of a child (not an egg, not 50 million sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) with the autonomous decisions of one individual and the abridged autonomy of the other. This is a hypothetical exercise about equality of options during the pregnancy - we all realize that in real life, men are 'opted-in' by default at the decision of the mother to proceed with the pregnancy.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #370 June 5, 2009 QuoteSee my quote of rehmwa's suggestion, above. The 'autonomy of her body' argument becomes moot if the woman is not forced into an action against her will, whether to complete the pregnancy or have an abortion. So, given that fact, how is providing the man the same opportunity to 'opt out' as the woman somehow 'unequal'? His "opting out" means he simply does nothing - practically no consequences for his (their) mistake. Her "opting out" would mean either carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption (if she is against abortion, which many women are) or having an abortion, which is quite a bit different than doing nothing. An abortion is not a pleasant, painless, risk-free procedure. Definitely not an "equal" situation, by nature. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #371 June 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteSee my quote of rehmwa's suggestion, above. The 'autonomy of her body' argument becomes moot if the woman is not forced into an action against her will, whether to complete the pregnancy or have an abortion. So, given that fact, how is providing the man the same opportunity to 'opt out' as the woman somehow 'unequal'? His "opting out" means he simply does nothing - practically no consequences for his (their) mistake. Her "opting out" would mean either carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption (if she is against abortion, which many women are) or having an abortion, which is quite a bit different than doing nothing. An abortion is not a pleasant, painless, risk-free procedure. Definitely not an "equal" situation, by nature. From a practical point of view -- what she said. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #372 June 5, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd the notional scenario still aggregates the interest of a child (not an egg, not 50 million sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) with the autonomous decisions of one individual and the abridged autonomy of the other. This is a hypothetical exercise about equality of options during the pregnancy - Then why not stop combining the different portions because a good portion of the scenario is about choices and responsibilities w/r/t a living, birthed child (& not about choices/responsibilities before)? Why selectively ignore the man’s autonomous opportunities to “opt out” w/r/t sex, e.g., vasectomy, barrier contraception, or other options? There are options for both sexes; until men can gestate, they will not be identical. And then why not put forward as much effort w/r/t options a man might pursue? We all know, as well, that underlying this is the opinion of some that would prefer women be denied the option to chose to abort. That's limiting the autonomy of one half. Quotewe all realize that in real life, men are 'opted-in' by default at the decision of the mother to proceed with the pregnancy. And at least one person in this thread has written about experience of being what you might call 'opted-out' ... it's not an ideal world ... and we can also put forward hypothetical scenarios in which a woman is opted out (man choses to have a vasectomy & lies) so there are multiple possible scenarios. We also know of scenarios where women were denied the option to "opt out" by their partner. And we know of instances in which women died because their access to medical abortions was limited, e.g., killed by back-alleys butchers. So there are more scenarios to consider than just one. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #373 June 5, 2009 QuoteHis "opting out" means he simply does nothing - practically no consequences for his (their) mistake. Her "opting out" would mean either carrying the pregnancy to term and putting the baby up for adoption (if she is against abortion, which many women are) or having an abortion, which is quite a bit different than doing nothing. An abortion is not a pleasant, painless, risk-free procedure. Definitely not an "equal" situation, by nature. I'm sorry - I thought the discussion was about theoretical options and autonomy, not physical discomfiture. A vasectomy is not a pleasant, painless, risk-free procedure, either - it also has a permanent affect on the man's fertility, unlike an abortion (barring complications). I'm still seeing nothing in the options for the man that is forcing the woman to carry / abort against her wishes.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
porpoishead 8 #374 June 5, 2009 this thread has spiraled into fantasy land..... on the original thread title.. dr. tiller did not deserve to get executed in the audience of his wife and his church people... I hope mr.Roeder gets executed. matter of fact I really wish they would not spend my tax money on detaining him for a due process. I would prefer they shoot him right in the top of the head today before midnight...if you want a friend feed any animal Perry Farrell Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tkhayes 348 #375 June 5, 2009 well I am for due process and a trial - then shoot his ass. And a civil action against all his cohorts to keep the clinic financed into the future. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
