downwardspiral 0 #326 June 4, 2009 I see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. Kind of an odd pro-life angle but I get it.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #327 June 4, 2009 >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. Well, surely that is better than being in an orphanage where no one is raising the child at all. But assuming that the child can be placed, then it serves both convenience and the child's interest. > Like with skydiving, when things don't go as planned, things can get serious in > a hurry. Lives can be changed forever. Right. But imagine a discipline (call it 3-way) in which, if someone else gets hurt, you will be legally liable to pay them $500 a month for the next 20 years. Even if you agree with them beforehand that that will not happen, and even if you all sign waivers agreeing not to do that, and even if the guy injured has good medical insurance and can get back in the air and jump again. Would you be OK with that, just because "you agreed to take a risk?" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Shotgun 1 #328 June 4, 2009 QuoteI see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. It's still not really equal though, because her body is affected while his is not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #329 June 4, 2009 >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. If the only reason to legally go after a father is to procure money, then there are much better ways to do that. Money from the mother is just as good as money from the father, and taking money from all the woman's sex partners (or the rest of the woman's family etc) is exactly equivalent. If it's all for the good of the child, and it's easier to get money from the mother's sister than from the mother's sex partner, then that is the way to go. Let's try this angle. Let's say that, before you had sex with anyone (birth control or no) you had the option of signing a slip of paper. You could choose: -Responsible. You agree to support the child 50/50, no matter what. Any decision on abortion is made by both partners and must be unanimous. -Not responsible. The man gives up all rights to any potential child, the woman agrees she will raise the child on her own if it comes to that, abortion is solely at the discretion of the woman. The woman can then never go after the man for support, and the man can never make a claim for custody of the child. If both don't sign it reverts back to what we have now. Would you be OK with that? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #330 June 4, 2009 Quote Quote I see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. It's still not really equal though, because her body is affected while his is not. I didn't say it was a perfect solution. It's good manners when criticising someone's solution, you have one of your own as well. www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #331 June 4, 2009 QuoteI see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. Kind of an odd pro-life angle but I get it. Disagree. If "equality" (parity) is the goal, giving a woman the ability to demand or prohibit a man from having a vasectomy (as one example) is the purely logical end w/r/t parity of eliminating a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't advocate for that either. /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
wmw999 2,461 #332 June 4, 2009 The problem is that there is no equivalent male condition to pregnancy. Men and women have equal ability to be sterilized; they have equal ability (but unequal likelihood) to be financially impacted by the birth of a child. But they do not have the equal ability to actually undergo the pregnancy, and the physical, emotional, and social changes that go along with it. That makes all of the arguments useful for distilling the issues. But this distillation will always have to be balanced against biology before being codified into law. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jcd11235 0 #333 June 4, 2009 QuoteRight. But imagine a discipline (call it 3-way) in which, if someone else gets hurt, you will be legally liable to pay them $500 a month for the next 20 years. Even if you agree with them beforehand that that will not happen, and even if you all sign waivers agreeing not to do that, and even if the guy injured has good medical insurance and can get back in the air and jump again. Would you be OK with that, just because "you agreed to take a risk?" No, but even as analogies go, you're comparing apples with oranges. Do you have a problem with parents not being able to sign away their children's rights on a skydiving waiver? If someone shows up at Perris with an adult sized twelve year old kid who wants to make a tandem jump, and is willing to, along with both parents, sign the standard Perris Valley Skydiving waiver, would he get to make a tandem? If not, why not? Parents can't sign away their children's legal rights so they can make a tandem jump. Nor should they be able to sign away their children's rights just because they don't feel like stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions.Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #334 June 4, 2009 QuoteWould you be OK with that? No, because you're still selectively denying autonomy to one half of the parties. It's implicit in your notional scenario. One would need to include something in the scenario that denied autonomy to the man in order for the scenario to have a sense of parity (if that's what you're arguing for ... if that's not what you're arguing for, then it doesn't matter.) Again, in an ideal world all of these notional decisions would be made together. 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
Shotgun 1 #335 June 4, 2009 Quote Quote Quote I see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. It's still not really equal though, because her body is affected while his is not. I didn't say it was a perfect solution. It's good manners when criticising someone's solution, you have one of your own as well. There is no solution. It is naturally an unequal situation, and I don't think there is any way to change that. I guess I'm not really understanding what rehmwa's point is. It is equal _before_ she gets pregnant (assuming we're talking about consenting adult partners). They both choose whether to have sex and how much protection to use. And they both go into it knowing what the consequences may be. She knows that she could get pregnant and have to either carry a child or have an abortion, and then be responsible for the child after it is born. And he goes into it knowing that he may get her pregnant and have to deal with her either deciding to have an abortion or to carry a child which he will be responsible for (and that she may or may not include him in that decision - though hopefully most women would). If either party is not OK with those consequences, then they should either abstain from sex or take every possible precaution to make sure that no pregnancy occurs. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #336 June 4, 2009 QuoteThe problem is that there is no equivalent male condition to pregnancy. Men and women have equal ability to be sterilized; they have equal ability (but unequal likelihood) to be financially impacted by the birth of a child. But they do not have the equal ability to actually undergo the pregnancy, and the physical, emotional, and social changes that go along with it. That makes all of the arguments useful for distilling the issues. But this distillation will always have to be balanced against biology before being codified into law. Largely concur. Which is one of the reasons I go to the basic concept of automony rather than biology or technology. W/r/t enabling autonomy, one can get closer to a point of equality. Technology has, and in the future, is likely to make it even more problematic. /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
DJL 235 #337 June 4, 2009 As this thread keeps coming up on my My Posts list alongside of the DB Cooper thread I'm wagering which will first lead to conclusions."I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #338 June 4, 2009 QuoteAs this thread keeps coming up on my My Posts list alongside of the DB Cooper thread I'm wagering which will first lead to conclusions. I'd bet on DB Cooper. /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
TomAiello 26 #339 June 4, 2009 QuoteBut they do not have the equal ability to actually undergo the pregnancy, and the physical, emotional, and social changes that go along with it. While they are not always of the same order of magnitude, fatherhood does involve great physical, emotional and social changes. Choosing to be active as a father (in the pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing) does put the father through changes.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,461 #340 June 4, 2009 Quote Choosing to be active as a father (in the pregnancy, birth, and child-rearing) does put the father through changes. I would agree, based on my experience as the mother of a child who also has a father But it's not mandatory for the man, is it? The very occasional woman can have a baby with absolutely no effect on her lifestyle, but there's a risk to health no matter what. Most women do have some lifestyle change during pregnancy, mandated by physical changes. I'm not poor-us-ing, just stating a biological impact of gender. 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) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #341 June 4, 2009 >Do you have a problem with parents not being able to sign away their >children's rights on a skydiving waiver? Nope. >Parents can't sign away their children's legal rights so they can make a tandem >jump. Nor should they be able to sign away their children's rights just because >they don't feel like stepping up and taking responsibility for their actions. Agreed. I disagree that a right of a child is to get lots of money from their genetic father. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #342 June 4, 2009 QuoteBut it's not mandatory for the man, is it? I thought we were talking about what the man could choose to do. Quote...they do not have the equal ability to actually undergo the pregnancy, and the physical, emotional, and social changes that go along with it. I was saying that they do have an ability, although not equal, to undergo those changes.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #343 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteI see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. Kind of an odd pro-life angle but I get it. Disagree. If "equality" (parity) is the goal, giving a woman the ability to demand or prohibit a man from having a vasectomy (as one example) is the purely logical end w/r/t parity of eliminating a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't advocate for that either. /Marg How did abortion become equated with sterilization?Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,009 #344 June 4, 2009 >No, because you're still selectively denying autonomy to one half of the parties. Are you arguing that once you sign an agreement concerning your future actions, you have "given away autonomy" and that is unacceptable? If so, that would seem to indicate that any agreement with future consequences that limit your autonomy (i.e. a mortgage, an employment contract, military enlistment) is unenforceable. >Again, in an ideal world all of these notional decisions would be made together. Even in the "ideal world" where all such decisions are made together, it is possible, through a whim (not necessity) on the part of the woman to unilaterally void all such decisions. That is the problem I am trying to address. >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. Well, I'd say it aggregates the interest of a child with the autonomous decision of one individual and the money supply of another. And again, if you believe your earlier statement that it has nothing to do with the father or mother, only the welfare of the child, then surely the best thing for the child is to legally pursue the wealthiest of the mother's relatives/relations if she cannot provide for the child. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
downwardspiral 0 #345 June 4, 2009 Quote Quote I see your point. The only logical solution to the inequality is to remove the mother's option to abort. Kind of an odd pro-life angle but I get it. Disagree. If "equality" (parity) is the goal, giving a woman the ability to demand or prohibit a man from having a vasectomy (as one example) is the purely logical end w/r/t parity of eliminating a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't advocate for that either. /Marg I didn't say I agreed with him. Just that I get it and I found it to be odd. But the inequality as I see it is the man has no option if he did in fact want the child to born and him be the father. The woman can deny him that right. the man cannot deny the woman the right to be a mother. Personally I think this discussion is odd so I'm strangely drawn to it even though I really don't have an opinion. Now the fact that a man can be held financially liable many, many years later for a child he was not made aware of (thus his right to be a father was taken away by the mother) is a huge issue for me. But that's for another thread I think.www.FourWheelerHB.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #346 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteIf "equality" (parity) is the goal, giving a woman the ability to demand or prohibit a man from having a vasectomy (as one example) is the purely logical end w/r/t parity of eliminating a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't advocate for that either. How did abortion become equated with sterilization? Because a notional scenario was proposed based on seeking equality. That was the stated intent. If one is arguing based on a pursuit of "equality" (altho since men don't yet gestate, parity is more accurate) and if one wants to argue for parity in denying autonomy then both parties have to be able to deny autonomy to the other. Not just denying a woman's autonomy. If one wants to argue for "equality" in denying autonomy, if you're denying a woman autonomy w/r/t chosing to have an abortion or not, his ceding autonomy w/r/t demanding or prohibiting a vasectomy approaches parity. (In pursuit of "equality," her autonomy on sterilization would also come under scrutiny.) Now if one isn't interested in parity or trying to get closer to equality, then it doesn't matter. /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
Shotgun 1 #347 June 4, 2009 Quote But the inequality as I see it is the man has no option if he did in fact want the child to born and him be the father. The woman can deny him that right. the man cannot deny the woman the right to be a mother. He can deny the woman the right to be a mother (of his child) by not having sex with her, or by having a vasectomy and using a condom (and/or whatever else) to ensure that he does not get her pregnant. But yeah, if there is an unexpected pregnancy then there is often an inequality in the decision of the fate of the pregnancy, and there is also an inequality in whose body is affected by it (whether she chooses an abortion or not). I don't think anything can really be changed about that. Obviously God did not intend for life to always be fair. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #348 June 4, 2009 QuoteQuoteQuoteIf "equality" (parity) is the goal, giving a woman the ability to demand or prohibit a man from having a vasectomy (as one example) is the purely logical end w/r/t parity of eliminating a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't advocate for that either. How did abortion become equated with sterilization? Because a notional scenario was proposed based on seeking equality. That was the stated intent. If one is arguing based on a pursuit of "equality" (altho since men don't yet gestate, parity is more accurate) and if one wants to argue for parity in denying autonomy then both parties have to be able to deny autonomy to the other. Not just denying a woman's autonomy. If one wants to argue for "equality" in denying autonomy, if you're denying a woman autonomy w/r/t chosing to have an abortion or not, his ceding autonomy w/r/t demanding or prohibiting a vasectomy approaches parity. (In pursuit of "equality," her autonomy on sterilization would also come under scrutiny.) Now if one isn't interested in parity or trying to get closer to equality, then it doesn't matter. /Marg 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.Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #349 June 4, 2009 Quotethe man cannot deny the woman the right to be a mother. Can't he? He can have a vasectomy ... and she can't do anything about it. (Again, I think should remain his choice.) In 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. QuoteNow the fact that a man can be held financially liable many, many years later for a child he was not made aware of (thus his right to be a father was taken away by the mother) is a huge issue for me. But that's for another thread I think. Maybe ...or maybe not ... I agree that that does pose huge issues and is fundamentally unfair. Particularly if his rights were intentionally denied and the benefits to the child of his involvement were denied. There are potentially two victims. I'd be very curious to the details of the actual case. Denying future child support would punish the child (not the mother.) It would be interesting to me to see the argument for or against denying retroactive child support. It would also be an impetus to revisit or consider changing custody, imo. /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 #350 June 4, 2009 Quote 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 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
