BSBD Tiller the Baby Killer

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

She gets to make that choice so that she will not have to support the (potential) child.

Just as he had the opportunity to make a similar choice.

Quote

Why can't a man and a woman, together, decide that they should get an abortion, or raise the child together, or have one raise the child while the other has no part in it? Why does the law currently disallow such a legal agreement?

It's been previously explained very clearly. The choice to abort a pregnancy does not involve a child (assuming the pregnant female is >= 18 years old). That's not a partisan comment; it is a statement of legal fact in the USA.

OTOH, walking away from the responsibility of raising a child (who, by definition, has been already been born) does involve a child. And, the needs of that child are (properly) placed before the convenience of either parent. Neither parent has the right to sign away any right of the child, even if both of those parents might find it convenient to do so.

If those parents come to an amicable agreement that allows one parent to have full custody and take full responsibility for the kids, that's all well and good, as long as that parent can keep their end of the bargain and the child isn't worse off for the agreement. If either of those two conditions ceases to be true, then the parents should both be held responsible for care of the child.

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

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I don't think that's currently enforceable. You can make any sort of agreement you want, but once the woman changes her mind later, she can request (and get) child support (AFAIK.) And of course as you mentioned there's no way to enforce anything that has to do with abortion. So you have an agreement that, no matter what, only the man would be legally bound by.

Are you saying that, if the father were the custodial parent in the agreement, and he changes his mind later, that he could not request (and get) child support?

If that's not what you're saying (or isn't true), then it really isn't an issue of gender inequality/non-parity that you've highlighted, but rather an issue of parents not being able to sign away the rights of their children for the convenience of the parents.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

So you think the right of the father to refuse to be (as the woman can refuse to be a mother) trumps the welfare of the child?

no, I posit that a right of the father to refuse would be as close to equivalent of a right for the male as abortion is for the female.

both of which stink

...
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

[billvon 3,009]

>Just as he had the opportunity to make a similar choice.

No, he doesn't.

They both get to make the choice to have sex. From that point on, only the woman gets the freedom to make choices.

>The choice to abort a pregnancy does not involve a child . . .

Correct. I am not arguing that. I am asking why you think it should be illegal for a woman to sign an enforceable contract in which she promises to do certain things in return for certain other things.

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

no, I posit that a right of the father to refuse would be as close to equivalent of a right for the male as abortion is for the female.

both of which stink

I think the closest equivalent would be that he could choose for her to have an abortion and she would have to have one. He may have reasons beyond simply not wanting to pay to raise a child - like not wanting her to be the mother of his offspring, or not wanting to have any offspring at all. So the most "equal" situation you can get here is that either one can choose abortion.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

They both get to make the choice to have sex.

As I've previously stated, that is not the choice to which I refer.

Quote

From that point on, only the woman gets the freedom to make choices.

From what point? The point at which they agree to have sex? The point at which conception occurs?

Quote

I am asking why you think it should be illegal for a woman to sign an enforceable contract in which she promises to do certain things in return for certain other things.

I've explained that more than once. You appear to be ignoring the critical point. They cannot sign such an enforceable contract for precisely the same reason that they cannot sign away their child's right to sue by each signing a skydiving waiver to allow their 12 year old child to make a tandem jump at Perris.

Neither parent has the right or legal ability to walk away from their responsibilities as parents (putting the child up for adoption being a possible exception), no matter what agreements they might reach as two parties, since there are three interested persons, but only two parties to the contract.

If a female wants to get pregnant and subsequently have a child, without involving the biological father, there are legal avenues available to make that happen. IIRC, use of physician supervised artificial insemination is one such avenue. If the father wants to make a natural, personal delivery of his sperm, then he subjects himself to the legal responsibilities of fathering a child, should the natural encounter ultimately result in a child being born.

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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think the closest equivalent would be that he could choose for her to have an abortion and she would have to have one. He may have reasons beyond simply not wanting to pay to raise a child - like not wanting her to be the mother of his offspring, or not wanting to have any offspring at all. So the most "equal" situation you can get here is that either one can choose abortion.

Yeah, but that's a complete non-starter. So what's the next best that doesn't get Nerdgirl going on automony? or isn't trumped by biology?

...
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

[freeflybella 0]

I think the next best thing - for pure equality sake - is to make abortion not an option for either, and require that both parents raise the child.

Of course we all know that it would be impossible to force both parents to support and raise the child.

So I think the law has it right. It's not equal - but it never can be.

The mother can terminate the pregnancy prior to there being a child involved. But the harsh reality is, when they get pregnant, THEY get pregnant. Only the mother has the ability to change it (prior to birth).

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

I think the closest equivalent would be that he could choose for her to have an abortion and she would have to have one. He may have reasons beyond simply not wanting to pay to raise a child - like not wanting her to be the mother of his offspring, or not wanting to have any offspring at all. So the most "equal" situation you can get here is that either one can choose abortion.

Yeah, but that's a complete non-starter. . . .

Hey, just because some people find it unpalatable does not mean that it isn't the best analogy.

But of course it's still not equal. And letting the father "opt out" of his responsibilities after birth (against the mother's wishes) is not equal. And banning abortion altogether is not equal either.

There is just no way to make the pregnancy situation equal between men and women. Which is probably something that people should keep in mind before engaging in activities that might cause pregnancy.

Oh, and I'm not sure if this is what you were getting at... but I did see this same argument on some right-wing website where the author seemed to be trying to make an argument against "Roe" while disguising it as an outrage over men not having equal rights in the abortion decision. It was written in a pretty clever way, but it was lacking in logic.

[nerdgirl 0]

In complete earnestness, which I realize is hard to convey via ASCII test/html mark-up, if you’re interested in discussing a hypothetical scenario rather than just ‘being right,’ how about proposing a scenario that reconciles the flaws that have been pointed out by me and others? Maybe you’ll propose something we haven’t thought of, eh?

A scenario that recognizes that the decision pathway starts before gestation begins, that acknowledges men can’t gestate (yet … or in the near future), that doesn’t explicitly or implicitly deny anyone’s autonomy (if the notional goal is “equality” or parity, figure out what is comparable – I’ve suggested one notional & less than perfect possibility), and one that doesn’t punish a born child (rather than notionally punishing the custodial parent; the goal of child support isn’t a “reward” – it’s neither large enough nor for the custodial parent.) So far a scenario that accomplishes that hasn’t been proposed.

Until men can conceive and/or gestate, it might not be notionally (nevermind practically or legally) possible.

/Marg

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

how about proposing a scenario that reconciles the flaws that have been pointed out by me and others?

Other than the fact that said flaws were OUTSIDE the scope of the scenario, you mean?

Unless, of course, there's some OTHER scenario where birth control would be needed when the woman is ALREADY pregnant (else why are we talking about abortion?), or where (paraphrased) "it's her body, tough luck for him" is somehow translated to "she *has* to have an abortion".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

how about proposing a scenario that reconciles the flaws that have been pointed out by me and others?

Other than the fact that said flaws were OUTSIDE the scope of the scenario, you mean?

They aren't outside the scenario. Some of the flaws were based on starting components explicitly stated as part of the scenario. Others are ignored, one possible explanation (there are likely to be other explanations) being because they *did* show the flaws. That's the fundamental problem.

If one bounds a scenario in ways that aren't meaningful, how useful is a notional scenario? If it fits the outcome one wants, I guess you can call it useful ... kind of like calling DC a State if one wants to show something regarding guns, perhaps eh?

/Marg

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

how about proposing a scenario that reconciles the flaws that have been pointed out by me and others?

Other than the fact that said flaws were OUTSIDE the scope of the scenario, you mean?

They aren't outside the scenario. Some of the flaws were based on starting components explicitly stated as part of the scenario. Others are ignored, one possible explanation (there are likely to be other explanations) being because they *did* show the flaws. That's the fundamental problem.

Then explain to me just HOW any contraceptive decision is germane to the discussion AFTER the woman is already pregnant? You keep saying "oh, it's applicable", but then you don't show HOW it's applicable when the woman is already pregnant.

Quote

If one bounds a scenario in ways that aren't meaningful, how useful is a notional scenario? If it fits the outcome one wants, I guess you can call it useful

Sort of like going back again and again to the fact that men can't gestate, or who made what choice about contraception before the pregnancy occurred? How about that "autonomy" one? Still haven't seen you prove just HOW the woman is being forced to take any action she doesn't want to do.

Quote

... kind of like calling DC a State if one wants to show something regarding guns, perhaps eh?

When the FBI stops including DC with the other States in their data, or
when I see other cities get their own 'state code', or when I see other cities issue their own driver's licenses instead of the state's, or when I see other cities with income taxes...when all that happens, I'll concede that DC shouldn't be treated as a state - until then, I'll tell you the same thing I tell John: "Take it up with the FBI".

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

how about proposing a scenario that reconciles the flaws that have been pointed out by me and others?

Other than the fact that said flaws were OUTSIDE the scope of the scenario, you mean?

They aren't outside the scenario. Some of the flaws were based on starting components explicitly stated as part of the scenario. Others are ignored, one possible explanation (there are likely to be other explanations) being because they *did* show the flaws. That's the fundamental problem.

Then explain to me just HOW any contraceptive decision is germane to the discussion AFTER the woman is already pregnant?

Because contraceptive decisions ... or lack thereof ... are autonomous choices that affect the likelihood of getting pregnant. Not doing something is a choice. Those choices are direct causes. Because men can't gestate they are implicitly relevant. (And I and others have tried to explain it multiple times ... perhaps we're just not being clear ... or something else?)

Otoh, if someone suggested eating blueberries was a pertinent factor, I would agree that's not causal (even if there's a spurious correlation).

Quote

Sort of like going back again and again to the fact that men can't gestate, or who made what choice about contraception before the pregnancy occurred?

Yes, those are factors that need to be included for the scenario to be robust.

Quote

... kind of like calling DC a State if one wants to show something regarding guns, perhaps eh?

When the FBI stops including DC with the other States in their data,
or when I see other cities get their own 'state code', or when I see other cities issue their own driver's licenses instead of the state's, or when I see other cities with income taxes...when all that happens, I'll concede that DC shouldn't be treated as a state - until then, I'll tell you the same thing I tell John: "Take it up with the FBI".

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

website where the author seemed to be trying to make an argument against "Roe" while disguising it as an outrage over men not having equal rights in the abortion decision. .

you don't normally stoop to that tactic

never heard of that website/discussion, though I could see pro-lifer twisting my scenario for their own purposes in that way, this drift should really scare a true pro-lifer since it would allow men the same option to avoid raising a child.

I don't consider this drift is an argument against Roe - since a main premise is that abortion choice for the woman is a given and we have to agree to that before a reasonable discussion (it's why I can't continue with Marg even though I normally love her discussions). It clearly is NOT an argument for men to have direct control over an abortion decision which is what you say that website was arguing.

It's merely a parallel argument - equally distasteful - where the subject's genders are reversed. It really illuminates who can stay fair and who can't - and who can't even comprehend the premise in the first place, etc. It's simply the abortion debate, but the sides switched to see who could comprehend and who couldn't get past their current gender bias (either woman dominant or man dominant).

it was neat - I like the players - I like how people would latch to it for outside agendas too or oppose it without trying to comprehend for their agendas, etc. Wendy and BV seemed to work it in stride (no surprise there), I saw a lot of discomfort from others.

...
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

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

- for pure equality sake - is to make abortion not an option for either, and require that both parents raise the child.

force both parents to support and raise the child.

I was convinced the responses would be two fold

the Pro-choice crowd would agree that the man could opt out of raising the child, but the government would have to cover his lack - acknowledging the equivalent, but getting in more digs pro-socialism

the Pro-life crowd would say it's equal to allow the father to kill the baby after birth (once it's out of the mother so he gets his turn) in order to push that viewpoint - that agenda would be obvious


nobody went either route though although both would have caused a stir too of knee jerk responses.....

...
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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

Quote

website where the author seemed to be trying to make an argument against "Roe" while disguising it as an outrage over men not having equal rights in the abortion decision. .

you don't normally stoop to that tactic

What tactic??? I promise I wasn't trying to be obnoxious or anything, but I guess sometimes I am anyway.

Quote

I don't consider this drift is an argument against Roe - since a main premise is that abortion choice for the woman is a given and we have to agree to that before a reasonable discussion (it's why I can't continue with Marg even though I normally love her discussions). It clearly is NOT an argument for men to have direct control over an abortion decision which is what you say that website was arguing.

No, the website was arguing pretty much what you are arguing - that the best analogy to women choosing abortion is to let the man "opt out" of his parenting duties if the woman doesn't choose abortion. Here's a link:
http://foxforum.blogs.foxnews.com/2009/01/22/deseno_roe_wade/

Quote

It's merely a parallel argument - equally distasteful - where the subject's genders are reversed. It really illuminates who can stay fair and who can't - and who can't even comprehend the premise in the first place, etc. It's simply the abortion debate, but the sides switched to see who could comprehend and who couldn't get past their current gender bias (either woman dominant or man dominant).

I understand that, but I still think that the most relevant analogy is letting the man decide that he wants the woman to have an abortion and she has to have one. Your proposal is more analogous to her giving birth to the child but then putting it up for adoption. A child actually exists out of the situation, but she has given up her rights and responsibilities regarding that child.

Quote

it was neat - I like the players - I like how people would latch to it for outside agendas too or oppose it without trying to comprehend for their agendas, etc. Wendy and BV seemed to work it in stride (no surprise there), I saw a lot of discomfort from others.

Yes, it was an interesting topic, and I'm glad you brought it up because I honestly hadn't thought of it before. Or maybe I'm not glad you brought it up, because I can't come up with a perfect answer for it. (But I suppose that's how I've always felt about the abortion issue in general. I think abortion is bad, but I think making it illegal is bad too. )

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Because contraceptive decisions ... or lack thereof ... are autonomous choices that affect the likelihood of getting pregnant. Not doing something is a choice. Those choices are direct causes. Because men can't gestate they are implicitly relevant. (And I and others have tried to explain it multiple times ... perhaps we're just not being clear ... or something else?)

It's already been stated umpteen times that the woman is ALREADY pregnant - playing 'woulda coulda shoulda if' games in regards to who used (or didn't use) what contraception is NOT germane to the discussion at hand.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

It's already been stated umpteen times that the woman is ALREADY pregnant …

As it has already been pointed out multiple times that the man has already made his choice by that point. Second guessing one's choice after the fact is not the same as not having a choice.

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

[Butters 0]

Quote

Quote

It's already been stated umpteen times that the woman is ALREADY pregnant …

As it has already been pointed out multiple times that the man has already made his choice by that point. Second guessing one's choice after the fact is not the same as not having a choice.

As it has already been pointed out multiple times that the woman has already made her choice by that point. However, we allow the woman to make another choice which raises the question ... why not allow the man to make another choice?

"That looks dangerous." Leopold Stotch

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As it has already been pointed out multiple times that the woman has already made her choice by that point.

No, it hasn't. It has been attempted, but the logical flaw in the argument has been repeatedly pointed out.

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

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

However, we allow the woman to make another choice which raises the question ... why not allow the man to make another choice?

If it was me personally in the situation, I think I would allow the man to make a choice. If I wanted to keep the child and he didn't, then I likely wouldn't expect anything else from him (other than to stay out of our lives).

And I suspect that there are lots of people who have made such an agreement (or something similar) with no problem.

But I'm not sure how it would work to give him some sort of legal protection to do this.

[freeflybella 0]

Quote

Quote

It's already been stated umpteen times that the woman is ALREADY pregnant …

As it has already been pointed out multiple times that the man has already made his choice by that point. Second guessing one's choice after the fact is not the same as not having a choice.

You've pretty much got it right.

BOTH the man and woman decide to have sex and risk getting pregnant. Once a pregnancy occurs, ONLY the woman can terminate the potential for a child at that point - because, she will have to act as life support for the gestation period.

If a man or a woman does not want to get pregnant, they can choose to not have sex. By having sex, they are both taking the risk.

If a man is feeling that it's unfair, he can choose not to have sex with anyone with whom he does not want to have a child.

It's not fair that we have to have cramps and periods and bloating and mood swings every month for 40 years and then suffer menopause for another 5-10 either. Or that we have to pay $20/month for birth control pills. Or that we have to have nausea, swollen ankles, gas, leaky boobs, get fat, have contractions and maybe surgery then post partum depression, stretch marks and saggy boobs either.

Who said it was supposed to be fair?

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi

[billvon 3,009]

>Who said it was supposed to be fair?

We did, and have _made_ it fair in the past.

It isn't fair that women were expected to stay home, not vote, not work, and basically be property of their husbands. Fortunately, instead of saying "hey, women are more fragile, life's not fair, deal with it" some people did something about that - and I think we are all better off for their efforts.

[freeflybella 0]

That's oppression not biology.

I'm not advocating that there couldn't be an agreement between a man and woman that the man could "opt out".

If the woman doesn't put the man's name on the birth certificate, he's out.

Action expresses priority. - Mahatma Ghandi