My primary argument against abortion goes against my own belief in taking responsibility for one's actions. Of course I am opposed to abortion but my favorite argument against it also goes against my own beliefs in other areas. In abortion I see the unequal application of the law drawn across gender lines. In fact, the whole legal arena concerning reproduction is unequal. In the eyes of society and the courts, a man has one simple choice...keep it in your pants. Anything after that is his responsibility. If the mother chooses to keep the child the man is vehemently decried for his actions and legally bound to live up to the consequences of the choice he made nine months prior. Women are exempted from this and given repeated escapes from personal responsibility. If she so chooses, the mother can have the child and give it up for adoption with no consequences whatsoever. It is accepted when a mother delcares, "I'm not ready to be a mom" and gives up all rights and responsibilities for the baby, without question and often with praise. If the law is to be applied equally, the father should have the same option. "I'm not ready to be a father" and resign all rights and responsibilites while receiving praise from society. The mother can choose to keep the child and the father is still decried and bound to provide support and live up to that fateful choice. Once more, the mother could give up the child to the father and still be free from responsibility, financial or otherwise. Worst of all, her fourth and most final choice is to terminate the child. In this case the father has no input. If the father has no voice in this decision, he should have no obligation for the latter. A man has one choice...keep it in your pants. Women have four: keep your pants on, give it up for adoption, give it to the father, kill it. She receives praise for her struggles and the tough decisions she has to make along the way. Society will pat her on the back for any choice she makes. Well, I suppose society ignores her first choice. It is rarely suggested to a woman that she should have kept her pants on. A victim of her pregnant circumstance. As if that choice were solely made by the father. Society treats women as if they were rape victims; even I would not argue with any of her options if it were a consequence of rape. Is this a remnant of cave man nature. Does the societal lizard brain instinctively believe that men are still snatching women, dragging them off by the hair and having their way with them to enhance the gene pool? These arguments aren't addressed or perhaps never even considered. Equal protection under the law. Both father and mother should have the same rights and responsibilities. I'm afraid if this argument were tried in court, the outcome would only be that men could wash their hands of the situation as easilly as the women. If pinned in a legal corner our corrupted society would choose worse over better
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
You're neglecting some really important things.
1. The woman has to carry the fetus in her body, bearing considerable health risk, metabolic load, and pain, difficulties, etc. that the man doesn't have. That's why she has more rights in the early stages.
2. History and society. The typical historical societal response, which is still in effect for the most part, is the woman has sole responsibility for the child while the father gets off with writing a check once a month at most. To say that $450 a month is anything at all equal to the losing sleep, feeding, clothing, housing, teaching, doctoring, educating, and raising a child is ludicrous. The mother still bears the brunt of the responsibility, even if society has advanced to the point of demanding at least that $450 a month (or whatever it happens to be) from the dad.
3. Children need and deserve both parents to be active in their lives. Forget the mom, forget the dad, there's a new person here now who has justifiable demands from the people whose actions brought him or her into the world. Give up selfish thoughts of bachelorhood and attend to the needs of the child. That way lies wisdom and happiness.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
::looks at 10 foot pole...walks away::
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ::looks at 10 foot pole...walks away::
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Tatiana: You're neglecting some really important things.
1. The woman has to carry the fetus in her body...
No, she doesn't.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ::looks at 10 foot pole...walks away::
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Well, I suppose society ignores her first choice. It is rarely suggested to a woman that she should have kept her pants on.
On the contrary-- my experience is that women, more than men, are more frequently advised to abstain from sex. In my experience, it is seen as the woman's responsibility to care about contraceptives as well.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Scott, I agree with you and it is wise for a woman to be more concerned with pregnancy, before she has sex. I used the past tense "should have". Once pregnant, it's only sympathy for many the difficult choices she has ahead of her. The man already made his decision and has to live with it. Both parties should be responsible parents. If I had the option, I might prefer pregancy and adoption over 18 years of child support, but only the woman can carry the child.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Society is still hugely judgemental against single mothers, mostly because they are the ones visibly and permanently changed by the event and left holding the baby.
And yes, there is a huge difference in the expected sexual behaviours of women and men. I frequently hear mothers and fathers who are delighted that their son is 'getting some', as if it's a sign of his popularity and all around well adjustedness, while they worry themselves sick that their daughter might be sleeping with her boyfriend, let alone multiple partners.
quote: the mother could give up the child to the father and still be free from responsibility, financial or otherwise.
It's amazing how often the father does not offer to bring up his child alone with no input from the mother. Not that it's never been done. Just very, very unusual.
quote: and it is wise for a woman to be more concerned with pregnancy, before she has sex.
Er, you're advocating equal shared responsibility for their progeny and then saying it's more important for women to be concerned with contraception than men? Does that make sense?
I don't think I'll touch the anti-abortion issue, even with lead-lined gloves.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
malanthrop, choosing fatherhood might be the best choice, if at all possible. It would catapult the dad into the crazy but incredibly rewarding round of midnight feedings, floor walking with a sick child, teaching, disciplining, loving, and being loved by this vulnerable, innocent, brilliant being which is a child.
Paying 18 years of child support is a far distant second, and doesn't even come close to accepting full responsibility for the new life created.
Those are the choices given to dads. Rather than bemoaning those choices, it's best to accept them, even celebrate them, and then choose.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:malanthrop, choosing fatherhood might be the best choice, if at all possible.
Part of Malanthrop's argument is that the father of the fetus doesn't necessarily have this choice left up to him. After the fetus is created, the mother is the determiner of whether the child is born or aborted; she also has the right to put the child up for adoption, or to keep it. If she puts the child up for adoption, the father may take custody of the child, but no financial repercussions are given to the mother (as far as I know); if she keeps the child, he is legally responsible for child support.
There is only one choice that is available to him legally, as far as I know, and that choice hinges on what is chosen by the mother. I'm not satisfied with this arrangement, but I don't know a way that is more fair...maybe artificial wombs?
We've discussed this subject before; my google-fu is weak this morning, and I can't find where.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I am a father and a greatful that my wife's mother chose to give her up for adoption rather than abort her. I didn't suggest it was more important for women to be concerned, rather "wise". There are worse things one could catch than pregnancy out there. I don't care if she said she were on the pill, I would still look after myself. Certainly both parents should be concerned with protection. Pregnancy only occurs when both fail in this.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:malanthrop, choosing fatherhood might be the best choice, if at all possible.
Part of Malanthrop's argument is that the father of the fetus doesn't necessarily have this choice left up to him. After the fetus is created, the mother is the determiner of whether the child is born or aborted; she also has the right to put the child up for adoption, or to keep it. If she puts the child up for adoption, the father may take custody of the child, but no financial repercussions are given to the mother (as far as I know); if she keeps the child, he is legally responsible for child support.
There is only one choice that is available to him legally, as far as I know, and that choice hinges on what is chosen by the mother. I'm not satisfied with this arrangement, but I don't know a way that is more fair...maybe artificial wombs?
We've discussed this subject before; my google-fu is weak this morning, and I can't find where.
If the father has custody, the mother does have to pay child support.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
He only gets custody in this manner after the child is born. If she's generous enough to carry it for nine months on his behalf, I'm sure arrangements can be made. If he doesn't agree she aborts.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
It would be kind of tricky to give the father custody before birth.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:If she's generous enough to carry it for nine months on his behalf, I'm sure arrangements can be made.
So you're saying that women should be required to carry a child they don't want to term if the father agrees to waive all child-support claims?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I would suggest that a woman be required to carry the child to full term unless she were raped or an abortion were medically advised due to abnormal risks. My premise is based on personal responsibility and the fact that men only have one choice. At the very least, men should have the same ability to waive responsibility for child as the mother. If she can just claim to not be ready, so should he. Free and clear, let the state deal with it. If the mother has that option, so should the father. If the father has no say in wether the child lives or dies then he should not be obligated to provide support. Both parties should have the same options.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When one of those options is that he agrees (and is able) to carry the fetus for 9 months, you'll have an argument.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I see the conception of a child in contractual terms. As soon as the moment is complete the man is legally obligated to terms he was aware of beforehand. The parties involved in this arrangement are both aware of the consequences. She can become pregnant and he is legally bound to provide support. No one would enter into a contract where the other party can modify or nullify the terms after the initial signing. There must be one moment where the law holds the man and woman equally culpable and equally liable. - neither is held liable against their will - both agree to keep w/custody tbd - both agree to abort
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
To be fair, Since the woman carries the child the father should be required to support her during the pregnancy and to pay for half the hospital bills.....if she chooses to keep it.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I suggest the slower, but healthier choice: leave the law regarding fathers' rights (or non-rights) alone, and instead apply cultural pressure to getting fathers to see themselves as integral in a child's development.
The abortion argument cannot be validated on any terms except on those directly, intimately involved in the argument-- the mother and child.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I would guess the child would prefer to live.
Posted by Javert (Member # 3076) on :
quote:My premise is based on personal responsibility
So you want a child to be born to a woman who doesn't want it in order to punish that woman?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:My primary argument against abortion goes against my own belief in taking responsibility for one's actions. Of course I am opposed to abortion but my favorite argument against it also goes against my own beliefs in other areas. In abortion I see the unequal application of the law drawn across gender lines. In fact, the whole legal arena concerning reproduction is unequal. In the eyes of society and the courts, a man has one simple choice...keep it in your pants. Anything after that is his responsibility. If the mother chooses to keep the child the man is vehemently decried for his actions and legally bound to live up to the consequences of the choice he made nine months prior. Women are exempted from this and given repeated escapes from personal responsibility. If she so chooses, the mother can have the child and give it up for adoption with no consequences whatsoever. It is accepted when a mother delcares, "I'm not ready to be a mom" and gives up all rights and responsibilities for the baby, without question and often with praise. If the law is to be applied equally, the father should have the same option. "I'm not ready to be a father" and resign all rights and responsibilites while receiving praise from society. The mother can choose to keep the child and the father is still decried and bound to provide support and live up to that fateful choice. Once more, the mother could give up the child to the father and still be free from responsibility, financial or otherwise. Worst of all, her fourth and most final choice is to terminate the child. In this case the father has no input. If the father has no voice in this decision, he should have no obligation for the latter. A man has one choice...keep it in your pants. Women have four: keep your pants on, give it up for adoption, give it to the father, kill it. She receives praise for her struggles and the tough decisions she has to make along the way. Society will pat her on the back for any choice she makes. Well, I suppose society ignores her first choice. It is rarely suggested to a woman that she should have kept her pants on. A victim of her pregnant circumstance. As if that choice were solely made by the father. Society treats women as if they were rape victims; even I would not argue with any of her options if it were a consequence of rape. Is this a remnant of cave man nature. Does the societal lizard brain instinctively believe that men are still snatching women, dragging them off by the hair and having their way with them to enhance the gene pool? These arguments aren't addressed or perhaps never even considered. Equal protection under the law. Both father and mother should have the same rights and responsibilities. I'm afraid if this argument were tried in court, the outcome would only be that men could wash their hands of the situation as easilly as the women. If pinned in a legal corner our corrupted society would choose worse over better
Holy solid block of text, Batman!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Javert,
She can give it up. There are good families waiting in line to adopt but stretch marks might be too much of a sacrifice.
Posted by Tresopax (Member # 1063) on :
Frankly, if both the man and woman are not prepared to accept the risk of having a child, they shouldn't be having sex.
Both the man and the woman have the opportunity to abstain. But once they choose to have sex, they are entering into a commitment that negates some of their rights, and not in a necessarily equal fashion.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by Javert:
quote:My premise is based on personal responsibility
So you want a child to be born to a woman who doesn't want it in order to punish that woman?
Where did you get the idea that malanthrop wants her to have the baby in order to punish her?
I'm not seeing that implied in any of what he's written, nor am I seeing that implied as a fundamental belief of those who do not support abortion rights.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I am a father married to my babies' mother. We are fortunate like that. We had a scare before we had any kids. My wife was pregnant and at about 11 weeks she miscarried. The miscarriage was a bloody terribly painful mess, and we wouldn't wish it on our worst enemy. After the miscarriage, my wife went through varying degrees of psychological trauma that scared her into thinking we might not ever be able to have children and there was something wrong with her. Of course, we now see that isn't the case since we have two wonderful little bundles of joy.
My point with this story is we would most certainly want to adopt had there been something wrong with her that restricted her from having children.
I am pro life, and think unless a woman is raped or is faced with a life or death situation with the birth, is abortion a viable yet terrible option. My wife would tell you, even if she is raped or faced with a life or death situation with a pregnancy, she'd still have the child. Whether or not she still felt so after the fact, I hope and pray to never find out.
The fact abortion is so mainstream is sickening to us. I know of someone who made the choice to have an abortion, and she has never forgiven herself for that decision- for nearly 15 years she's wished she hadn't done so. She didn't know at the time, but she knows now she would've loved that child as she loves her only child, her daughter.
As a male, I would most definitely feel robbed in the worst sense if a girl I made a "mistake" with while growing up had decided to abort our child. I would have had NO choice in the matter, except to try and sway her opinion. Certainly, there are men who are irresponsible, and who would happily suggest or press thoughts of an abortion on a confused, maybe younger woman, but my hope is someday the contract of having sex is taken more seriously.
Having sex could always result in a child, protection or not, so to completely abstain from having sex until the man and woman, boy and girl are willing and able to go through having a baby together is the only solution/option as I see it.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
:cough: vasectomy :cough:
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Javert,
She can give it up. There are good families waiting in line to adopt but stretch marks might be too much of a sacrifice.
It's a hell of a lot more than just some stretch marks. Even aside from the physical trauma during and after pregnancy, there's often psychological trauma comparable to having a baby die, and there's virtually no support available for the women going through it. Here, have some interesting reading. Posted by Nighthawk (Member # 4176) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ::looks at 10 foot pole...walks away::
::Snaps pole in to six pieces::
You know... Just in case... Thank me later.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Here, have some interesting reading.
Heavy on the anecdote, light on the data. Because this conversation needs MORE emotion.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
When it comes to reproduction, men and women aren't equal. That isn't a philosophical or legal question, its a biological fact. Any law that didn't recognize that indisputable biological inequality would be unjust.
I think there are many of inadequacies in current law regarding father's rights (and father's responsibilities) so I think there is plenty of room for debate about what rights men should have -- but to start off by saying that the law should treat men and women equally is patently ridiculous. Men and women are not equal when it comes to child birth -- they are indisputably and biologically different. Any just law has to recognize that fact.
Posted by Stray (Member # 4056) on :
quote:Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:Here, have some interesting reading.
Heavy on the anecdote, light on the data. Because this conversation needs MORE emotion.
Yeah, I know, but I wanted to share it because that's a side of the story I hadn't really thought about at all before, and I bet lots of other people haven't really thought about it either. (Also, I don't think anything I do is going to have much influence on the direction this thread takes. If I were smarter, I'd've stayed out of it entirely.)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Scott: but you are aware that even with healthy, normal births to mothers keeping the baby there are with moderately high frequency a lot more problems than just stretch marks, such as post-partum depression?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When it comes to reproduction, men and women aren't equal. That isn't a philosophical or legal question, its a biological fact. Any law that didn't recognize that indisputable biological inequality would be unjust.
I was waiting for someone to come to this point.
As for the rest, I'm not going to take it a piece at a time. I'm just going to say this: There are a great many single mothers in our society struggling to raise children in a world that is hostile to them and their struggles, and without the support of the father, who is given very little grief for walking away from his responsibilities. There are very, very few single fathers out there. This doesn't have any particular implications, IMO, for an abortion argument, but it does have societal implications. If we want to talk about what's fair and what's just, then let's also talk about what's real. There isn't a rash of women walking away from their responsibilities. There is a rash of men doing so.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ...There are very, very few single fathers out there.
In case anyone else was curious:
quote:The details on marital status were part of a package of census data released about Canada's families, living arrangements and households. Statistics Canada calls this information its "family portrait" of Canadians. ... Of the 1.4 million single-parent families, about 20 per cent are headed by men. The number of men at the head of single-parent families is growing more than twice as fast as the number of women.
quote:After the fetus is created, the mother is the determiner of whether the child is born or aborted;
This much is true. But its also true that the woman is the only parent whose physical well being is directly impacted by the unborn child. Any law that doesn't recognize this indisputable difference would be unjust.
quote:she also has the right to put the child up for adoption, or to keep it. If she puts the child up for adoption, the father may take custody of the child, but no financial repercussions are given to the mother (as far as I know); if she keeps the child, he is legally responsible for child support.
This is no longer true in most states. A mother can not put the child up for adoption without the fathers permission. As for child support, all laws with which I am familiar deal with the "non-custodial parent" and the "custodial parent" and do not specify mother or father. So a non-custodial mother is subject to precisely the same legal responsibility as a non-custodial father. I can't vouch that this is true in every state, but it true in the overwhelming majority of states.
It can create a very difficult conudrum. A couple years back, a close friend of mine who was at the time 20 became pregnant with her second child, her husband was physically abusive and she was trying to separate from him when she got pregnant. Given her age and skill level, she did not think it was in the best interest of either child to raise them alone. She tried to give the second child up for adoption but could not because the father would not give his permission. She could however have had an abortion without his permission. It left her with a very bad slate of choices, abortion, allow the child to be raised by an abusive father, have the child and raise him alone knowing that both he and her then 1 1/2 year old would suffer because of it.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If she can just claim to not be ready, so should he. Free and clear, let the state deal with it.
Great idea! More government, that's just what we need! That will fix unplanned pregnancies!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
The foundation of his argument - that men should be able to if women should be, too - reminds me of Life of Brian.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
I'm a woman, and I still think it's unfair that the man has absolutely no say in whether or not a woman keeps a pregnancy or chooses to abort the fetus.
While I do wish that men had more say in whether or not a woman would keep the child, there's always the argument that it's the woman's body that goes through the pregnancy.
Then there's the other side of the coin--I don't think I could ever support a man telling a woman to abort a child. This seems odd and out of place, but wouldn't it have to be offered to be considered truly equal? I'm opposed to this, but consider what happens when a mother tells the father, legally, that she's killing their child.
Look at it this way. Whether or not a man carries a child, he still is halfway responsible for creating one. That is another living, breathing creature with half of his DNA, created by him. Who can say that a man wouldn't feel as heartwrenched, as completely and utterly destroyed by the prospect of losing a child as a mother would be?
I know, considering less the mental implications and more the health ones, what a great ordeal for both body and mind it can be for a woman to go through pregnancy. However, it's not a travesty. It's nothing that is horrible and unbearable and ungodly. Women have been going through childbirth for thouands or years, or hundreds of thousands if you believe in evolution, far before the modern advent of prenatal care and drugs for labor.
Unless there are complications that actually put the woman's life in danger, it's nothing so unbelievably abominable that she couldn't deal with for nine months, until she can either give to the father or put up for adoption the baby that she helped to make. The people are both equal in conception-even if she was drunk, even if she was using protection, unless she was raped, which is a different story entirely, she made the decision to have the sex that spawned the baby, just as much so as the father did.
I'm not going to say whether or not abortion is right or acceptable, but saying it's one of the few options people can take for the "horrible" condition of pregnancy is ridiculous. Yes, pregnancy is horrible. Abortion is worse.
Unless you aren't of human origin, or came from a test tube, all our mothers went through it.
Now, on to other matters.
I'm no expert at social and legal situations, and I can't recommend an easy compromise. I only know that one must be made. And, when a mother chooses not to take care of the baby, she forfeits legal rights.
This is important, because I don't believe it's been mentioned, but all a father has to do not to have to pay for the child is to give up legal rights to them as well. This may seem bad, but this is in no way different than a mother doing the same thing. If a man wants nothing to do with a child and wishes not to take care of it, why doesn't he just forfeit the rights? If he doesn't want to do this, he certainly has to take care of the child by some means.
You can't have your take (or rather, namesake) and eat it too.
And, legally, should the child come to term, a father has as many legal rights to full custody of the child as the mother. However, in actual legal practice, there is often a bias towards granting the woman custody over the man, as so few men in relation to women actively seek and receive full custody and/or primary responsibility of the child.
All sides must be considered.
(Edited post for clarity and to add glossed over opinions.)
[ March 24, 2009, 06:52 PM: Message edited by: Vyrus ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Well, c-sections are meant to take at least 2 weeks recovery time (okay, most people have to cope with much less time off their feet because they have a baby to care for), it's a serious operation with it‘s own risks, plus there's the chance of infection etc that all surgery carries. You can potentially be up and at 'em hours after natural birth. There's going to be pain either way.
However, there are plenty of perfectly sensible medical and psychological reasons why a c-section would be preferable for a particular mother than a natural birth. That’s absolutely up to her and her doctor - as is whether she breast-feeds or uses terry-cloth diapers, or any of the other things that random bystanders get oddly judgemental about when it comes to other people‘s babies. I don't honestly see what your friend's wife's birth plan has to do with anything, especially since (as the US hasn't got socialised medical care) you probably aren't even paying your tax dollars towards it.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Bullshit.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Bullshit.
To what part exactly, were you referring Kwea? Were you referring to the metaphor in the second part, about C-sections and abortions becoming far too overused for something not intended for their cause, or the first part?
The second part I agree with. The first part I don't. Natural birth is just that-natural. My sister was born by C-section, as were me and my twin brother, and I know that it can be very hard on the mother.
My sister's adoptive mother was recuperating for weeks, and had to get a special caretaker to help take care of her for several weeks after the delivery.
Natural childbirth is biologically developed to be the best, and most natural (teehee) means of delivering a child. The entire female anatomy is developed in the way it is solely for this reason.
Therefore, C-sections are highly unnatural, in that they go against natural evolutionary means. They are of course necessary, in some emergency situations, when natural childbirth is not an option, and can even be lifesaving--this doesn't in any way make them preferable or better when natural childbirth is an option. (Natural childbirth for the sake of this argument referring solely to vaginal delivery, drugs and other factors not taken into consideration here.)
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Digging through all the crazy rhetoric, I agree that the fact that women tend to have a veto over the life of their child seems a little unbalanced. However, I think the hypothetical situation ignores the reality of when this kind of thing actually arises.
Imagine the extreme. A woman and a man meet at a party and hijinks ensue. Two weeks or so later, the woman realises that she is pregnant and decides not to keep the baby. The man hears through the grapevine she is pregnant, and using this new Rights for Men law, files an injunction to force this woman to bear the child, promising to raise the child and pay all the expenses.
Suddenly, the situation for the woman changes. Depending on her job, she may have to rearrange her life. She may suffer all kinds of health complications. She must attend scheduled meetings with this man she doesn't really know.
And what other rights does the father have? As the "pre-parent" of the child, does the father have the right to dictate how the woman lives her life? Can he dictate if she has a c-section if he deems it necessary? Can she have a c-section if he doesn't want her to? What if the woman dies in complications-- is the man responsible for manslaughter? Can men impregnate women and then force them to carry children to term on purpose?
Suddenly, this woman is forced to go through a highly taxing physical endeavor for this man she's barely met. The hypothetical woman's situation verges on a form of paid slavery (assuming she is compensated richly for her discomfort/pain/injury).
(I smell a futuristic, creepy story in which the woman undergoes this and realises that since she's now forced to bear this child she doesn't want it raised by this jackass etc.)
I think that, unless a fetus can be transferred to an artificial womb, this will always trample far more on women's rights than it does on men's the other way around. It will inevitably be a very bad situation.
Of course, this assumes abortion is legal. Having abortion being illegal is basically the same situation, except it is the state forcing the woman to carry the child to term, rather than the man.
If you believe abortion should be illegal, then having the man control the woman isn't that much of a step away from this, so I would expect it to be more acceptable. Since this is the premise of the thread, then it's not surprising that this is proposed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: Suddenly, this woman is forced to go through a highly taxing physical endeavor for this man she's barely met.
She knew him well enough to ensue hijinks with him. Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Arguably, in my extreme situation, that could be almost not at all, considering how much luckier people normally know each other before marrying and deciding to have children.
This could be much more acceptable if the woman and the man were married, have now divorced and the woman is now going to abort her 3-month old fetus because she can't bear the thought of him (as it were).
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
If the only physical effects of my pregnancy on my body were stretch marks, I'd be laughing.
But anyway.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
"Luckier"? Or with better judgment.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
For the moment, I'm assuming that the majority of people at one point in their lives make a stupid mistake. Sometimes, the mistake has major consequences.
But my example is extreme. The majority of the situations would be in a more long-term relationship.
That said, do we really want to force people with poor judgment to have children at all?
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
Teshi-As I said, I had no viable compromise for offering men rights concerning abortion or childbirth, I just recognized that it was a horrible state that men had so little say when it came to parental rights, including those related to abortion. I was largely exploring ideas out loud. (I often do this...I must try to be more concise...)
As you said in your second post, that would be a much more reasonable application. That was somewhat more of what I mean by my statements of men having more rights to whether or not the mother of the child has abortion. Of course, please keep in mind that, as you said, there are the possibilities of extremes in any situation, those hypothetical and even things that happen now in real life with the current legal status.
It comes down to whether you would rather men have at least partial rights in certain situations, or have no rights at all whatsoever, despite the circumstances?
I'm not going to say whether or not abortion is acceptable. I can't possibly know enough about every single person's life, about the future, about every detail of every situation to say whether or not it should be universally illegal for every application-I only know what I would do in certain situations, and what I would hope others would do.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by Vyrus:
quote:Originally posted by Kwea:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Bullshit.
To what part exactly, were you referring Kwea? Were you referring to the metaphor in the second part, about C-sections and abortions becoming far too overused for something not intended for their cause, or the first part?
Actually, I agree with Kwea on this point, though I would tend to use the term "hyperbole", as it's more accurate and less likely to receive sanction.
In 2002, there were approximately 1,269,000 abortions in the United States. During the same period, according to U.N. information , over 25 million women used conventional, "modern" methods of birth control- and that number reflects only women that were "married or in union [regularly cohabiting in a marriage-like relationship]".
Similarly, while in 2006, c-section rates in the U.S. were higher than has been recommended by the WHO ( 31.1% as of 2006 according to Wikipedia), epidural rates tend to be over 90%. More notably, with regards to this particularly ridiculous argument, only 1 woman out of nearly 1600 in a Listening to Mothers survey "reported that she had had a planned first c-section with no medical reason at her own request".
Admittedly, there have, anecdotally, been more cases of c-sections that occurred because it was a matter of comfort than a matter of necessity, but that's not the argument being made.
The argument that was made seems to stem more from delusions of persecution than any recognizable shared reality.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I believe a father should have no so say in wether the mother has an abortion or keeps the child and all fathers should be obligated to provide for their children. I'm viewing it as a logical argument for the sake of equality of responsibility.
Going further, wether discussing abortion or C-cections, at what point will huminity draw the line between what we can do medically and what we should do. If some day stem cells can correct Down's Syndrome in a fetus, will it become a womans right to pick the traits of the child? Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Posted by Nick (Member # 4311) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Not really, as that decision(if it were possible) doesn't have any risk of endangering the mother's body. If it doesn't increase the risk of danger during pregnancy, that argument doesn't even come close to holding water.
It might even be arguable that if the child were at risk, and this were possible in the future, the father probably would have some legal rights to oppose it for the welfare of the child. After all, the father can report a drug using pregnant woman can he not?
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Nick:
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Not really, as that decision(if it were possible) doesn't have any risk of endangering the mother's body. If it doesn't increase the risk of danger during pregnancy, that argument doesn't even come close to holding water.
It might even be arguable that if the child were at risk, and this were possible in the future, the father probably would have some legal rights to oppose it for the welfare of the child. After all, the father can report a drug using pregnant woman can he not?
That decision will be possible. The inherent risks you speak of are natural ones. A normal pregnancy with normal risks can't be a water carrying argument either. I take risks driving my car to work to support my wife and kids. How can I be forced to take this daily risk to pay support for a child. Afterall, you're more likely to die on the road than in the labor room.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I believe a father should have no so say in wether the mother has an abortion or keeps the child and all fathers should be obligated to provide for their children. I'm viewing it as a logical argument for the sake of equality of responsibility.
Going further, wether discussing abortion or C-cections, at what point will huminity draw the line between what we can do medically and what we should do. If some day stem cells can correct Down's Syndrome in a fetus, will it become a womans right to pick the traits of the child? Can the mother choose to have a daughter that looks exactly like her at the objections of the father? After all, it is her body, therefore her child.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
So a father should have absolutely no right to whether or not he keeps the child that he helped make? The woman is waving her rights to the child by giving it up for adoption anyway-the man can't even keep a child she doesn't want?
You're stating that it's moreso her child that it is his.
She can just kill it, or give it away, and should he decide he doesn't want to be a part of the child's life, he still has to pay even if he wants to sign away his legal rights, but wouldn't be allowed this, even though she would?
If you believe this, please give the reasons behind your "logical argument for the sake of equality of responsibility.", which, quite honestly, just sounds like sexism.
Woman bear the children. That does NOT make them more important to the raising of it than the father. Lord knows my mother wasn't. My father is the most caring, supportive, and dedicated father I do believe I ever met, and loves us heart and soul, and fought to raise us to the best of his abilities.
Now, I understand, this isn't always the case.
But, if my mom decided to give us away, just because she didn't want us, he would have no say so? You would deny a father his children, solely because of biological conditions that are far beyond his control?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: That said, do we really want to force people with poor judgment to have children at all?
Not that we really need another abortion thread. And not that I am in favor of outlawing abortion anyway -- I'm definitely not.
But if you view the pregnancy as a natural consequence of their actions, no one is forcing them to have children. Their own actions are.
Anyway, if they are not fit parents, hopefully they will either give the kid up for adoption, or it will be taken from them by DCS.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The man's decision to waive his rights is dependent upon her doing so. She decides for him, if she keeps it he is obligated. True, courts can decide between the two parties. If she AGREES to have him out of the picture she can allow him to give up his rights and financial obligations. She decides for him at all levels.
If she decides to give it up, he can have it. If not, he'll have to fight to get it. Unlikely if she is moderately responsible. She can drop it off at fire station without consequences and he could assert his rights at this point.
My point is, the mother of a newborn will never be forced to pay if she doesn't want the child.
Abortion being legal makes this convoluded. If it were illegal we would not have this discussion. Man and woman would be on equal ground.
Both mother and father should take responsibility for the their actions. No free passes for either one.
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
Yes, that's true about abortion. Perhaps I need to do my research. I had no idea men's giving up parental rights was dependent upon the woman.
That's utterly ridiculous. If she can give it up without any consequences, he should be able to do the same.
To your other points. Unless mothers legally waive all rights, they can be made to give child support. It has been known to happen.
As for your other statement about him having to fight to get it-custody is not immediately awarded to the woman, with the man having to "fight" to get it. In a custody battle, both parents have to argue on their behalf for custody of the child, presumably on equal footing. (Although in practice it might be quite different, due to bias, average, etc.)
Perhaps it was only my interpretation, but the way you stated it it seemed as if you were saying the woman had automatic custody, and any plea on the man for custody had to go to appeal. This is not true.
I don't wish to get into a big, long discussion about the necessity or the evils of abortion. But, as was stated, it's just the state instead of the man forcing the woman to have the child.
I personally think this sentiment is bullcrap, however.
The double standards against men in these fields are amazing. A woman getting an abortion is forcing the man to not have a child.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I don't truly believe a man should be able to wash his hands of responsibility, it's just an argument. I'm sure a man can give up his rights at any time but not financial responsibility.
I could be wrong but balanced custody battles usually are the result of an ongoing relationship and over a child that is not a newborn. If the mother is an unfit drug addict and the courts intervene early, the father could get the child shortly after birth. Both parents being moderately fit, a serious ongoing legal battle would follow. I'm pretty sure the man would be arrested for kidnapping if he came and took the child from the mother despite having "equal custody". I may be incorrect in this assumption, but I wouldn't test it out.
Perhaps I shouldn't have started this post. I disagree with my own argument on moral grounds.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It isn't about fathers' rights and mothers' rights.
The child, once it is born, has the right to support from both parents.
Before it is born, the rights of the fetus are balanced against the right of a person to her own body.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Before it is born, the rights of the fetus are balanced against the right of a person to her own body.
'Balanced'? I realize this may be snarky, and I don't intend it that way, but unless I'm mistaken in your opinion the rights of the fetus are trumped by the right of a person to her own body in almost any conceivable case.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
How about "should be balanced"?
And I believe you are mistaken about my opinion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, unless I misremember your opinion about abortion is that it's a regrettable decision or necessity, but that the right a woman has to sovereignty over her own body outweighs any rights, potential or actual, the fetus might have to continue existing.
Edit: That's a very brief description of my recollection, of course. I also believe your opinion on the matter, from incomplete recollections of past discussions, is just as nuanced as anyone else of good will who has considered it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that there is a difference between moral rights and legal rights. I think that the rights of a woman to her body should be balanced with the rights of the fetus, but not that the balancing should be done by the law.
Does that make sense?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think the difference between moral rights and legal rights is effectively what we as a society decide it is. Legal rights are, after all, completely arbitrary. So while I understand the idea you're expressing, the idea you're expressing doesn't really make sense to me, personally. But that's natural, since after all it's your opinion, not mine.
Anyway, as to my initial question, I was referring like the thread itself to legal questions. Legally speaking, the rights or potential rights of the fetus aren't balanced at all with the rights of the woman's body sovereignty from your perspective. In fact they're completely secondary on a legal ground.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah, I wasn't speaking legally.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Well, yes, clearly.
The thing is, though, if you're speaking from a moral perspective, and you say that morally the rights or potential rights of the fetus should be balanced against the rights of the woman to body sovereignty, well that implies that there are at least some situations in which terminating the pregnancy would be immoral.
In which case the fetus, whether it's human or not, has a right not to be terminated from a moral standpoint...but should not be protected.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Once moral rights are redefined as legal rights the government can take them away. Moral rights or inalienable rights cannot be taken away unless or until redefined as rights granted by man.
[ March 25, 2009, 01:52 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Well, yes, clearly.
The thing is, though, if you're speaking from a moral perspective, and you say that morally the rights or potential rights of the fetus should be balanced against the rights of the woman to body sovereignty, well that implies that there are at least some situations in which terminating the pregnancy would be immoral.
In which case the fetus, whether it's human or not, has a right not to be terminated from a moral standpoint...but should not be protected.
Because the law or government, is not, in my opinion, the best judge of when that is.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
quote: posted by Malenthrop -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Once moral rights are redefined as legal rights the government can take them away. Moral rights or inalienable rights cannot be taken away unless or until redefined as rights granted by man. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anyone else worried about their moral rights? Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: I don't truly believe a man should be able to wash his hands of responsibility, it's just an argument. I'm sure a man can give up his rights at any time but not financial responsibility.
I could be wrong but balanced custody battles usually are the result of an ongoing relationship and over a child that is not a newborn. If the mother is an unfit drug addict and the courts intervene early, the father could get the child shortly after birth. Both parents being moderately fit, a serious ongoing legal battle would follow. I'm pretty sure the man would be arrested for kidnapping if he came and took the child from the mother despite having "equal custody". I may be incorrect in this assumption, but I wouldn't test it out.
Perhaps I shouldn't have started this post. I disagree with my own argument on moral grounds.
I'm glad that you're coming to that conclusion.
Look, it's not that on some level I don't know what you were getting at, it's just that you can't talk about reproduction as if equality is even an option. Ever since the days of equal rights for men and women, we've fought over what, if any, actual differences exist between men and women. Even the most hardcore feminists can't get around the fact that women get pregnant and men don't.
But there's more than that. Biologically, women have a much harder time walking away from their offspring than men do. Our bodies secrete hormones to make us want to be moms to our babies. About 3-5 days after birth, our bodies start producing milk whether or not we decide to use it for anything. And as a breastfeeding mom myself, the idea of ripping a newborn away from a nursing mom makes my skin crawl. I know not all moms make that choice (and the aforementioned ones on drugs should not make that choice), but having nursed one baby for a year and a half and another for 10 months and still going, I got to tell you that at this point I still feel that my baby and I are bonded....physically...and that any attempt to separate us would be a terrible violation.
Equality is an interesting ideal. When it comes to men and women, becoming a mother has shown me that practicality is often more important.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: Scott: but you are aware that even with healthy, normal births to mothers keeping the baby there are with moderately high frequency a lot more problems than just stretch marks, such as post-partum depression?
I'm not sure what your point is, or why you directed this at me, fugu. *I* didn't mention anything about stretch-marks-- that was malanthrop, here:
quote:Javert,
She can give it up. There are good families waiting in line to adopt but stretch marks might be too much of a sacrifice.
...expressing an attitude I do not find conducive to honest conversation.
At any rate, here are is an interesting statistic from the Census Bureau about child support. From this link (PDF)
quote:About 63.0 percent of custodial mothers and 38.6 percent of fathers had child support agreed or awarded to them.
Of those that were awarded child support, 45% of custodial mothers received some sort of payment; 39% of custodial fathers received some sort of payment. (The chart's in the pdf)
A very interesting read. While I accept as true the idea that non-custodial mothers are ordered to pay child support, the practical numbers don't exactly seem to line up with it.
At least, not equitably. Numbers, unfortunately don't give us reasons for why the discrepancy exists, or is so large. (Speaking here of the discrepancy in child support award, not of child support payments made.)
quote:Imagine the extreme.
We don't make policy around the extreme.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because the law or government, is not, in my opinion, the best judge of when that is.
Neither, your statements indicate, in all cases is the woman, either. So again we're left with a fetus that has a moral right (in at least some cases) not to be terminated, but lacks any right to protection.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Would it have made more sense if I had said the fetus's rights were weighed against the woman's rights? I was using the term "balance" as is "put in the balance against" not to indicate that they are equal.
And for many women the rights of the fetus do take precedence.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Would it have made more sense if I had said the fetus's rights were weighed against the woman's rights? I was using the term "balance" as is "put in the balance against" not to indicate that they are equal.
Well, if we were talking from a legal standpoint, it wouldn't make sense really, because in that contest there's no contest at all.
quote:And for many women the rights of the fetus do take precedence.
Well, I suppose that's one way of putting it. Another way would be that in many cases, it's a happy coincidence for the fetus that its own rights coincide with the completely sovereign choice of the woman.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I was talking about women who don't want to be pregnant but still carry babies to term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was talking about women who don't want to be pregnant but still carry babies to term.
I understand. From their own personal perspective, that is the way it is, I dig. It's just that, from a social perspective...well, it really is just a happy coincidence, isn't it?
Posted by Vyrus (Member # 10525) on :
These "legal rights" for fetuses (feti?) business is largely unnecessary.
For one thing, in the United States fetuses have no rights-whether or not they live or die depends solely on the choice of the woman, and whether or not her situation permits her to either get enough money for an abortion and the transportation, or whether it can be provided for her.
Barring some restrictions on term lengths, that's about all there is concerning "legal rights".
Moral rights, however, is a completely different matter.
Whether or not a baby has "moral rights" would depend on what the mother and others immediately within that situation felt about "moral rights".
I, as well as most of the people here, I"m assuming, believe every life, even the unborn, has inherent value.
If the mother did not believe this whatsoever, or merely did not care, "moral rights" would have absolutely no meaningful application, so long as "legal rights" are the way that they are.
In simpler terms, it doesn't matter what we feel about the right or wrongness of abortion-with the current legal climate, the only thing that really matters is how the mother feels about it, because the baby can't really do anything about it anyway, no matter how much it deserves to live.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I was talking about women who don't want to be pregnant but still carry babies to term.
I understand. From their own personal perspective, that is the way it is, I dig. It's just that, from a social perspective...well, it really is just a happy coincidence, isn't it?
I don't understand "happy coincidence". What about it is happy as far as society is concerned? I can see how it would be happy for the baby, but it is not happy for the woman. And what is coincidental about a woman weighing her right to her body with the fetus's right to survive and deciding that the fetus's rights were more important than hers?
I'm sorry. I'm confused.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:I don't understand "happy coincidence". What about it is happy as far as society is concerned?
Hmm. I'm not sure if I've ever discussed abortion in exactly this way, so I apologize for any lack of clarity. When I said 'happy coincidence' I meant that in the situation we were discussing - a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term even though she personally didn't want to be pregnant - from society's perspective, looking at the issue of any kind of fetal rights, it is only a bit of good luck that the right of the fetus was protected. The fetus was just lucky that the mother decided to carry it to term, no more, no less.
Does that make any sense?
quote:And what is coincidental about a woman weighing her right to her body with the fetus's right to survive and deciding that the fetus's rights were more important than hers?
What I mean there is that it cannot really be described, from a social moral standpoint, as the rights of the fetus being protected. It's just coincidence in that case that it was.
------
Vyrus,
quote:These "legal rights" for fetuses (feti?) business is largely unnecessary.
Yes, we've moved past that aspect of the discussion. Though I should note that what you said is not exactly true. There are penalties for harming a fetus in some cases, it's just that abortion is not one of those cases.
quote:Whether or not a baby has "moral rights" would depend on what the mother and others immediately within that situation felt about "moral rights".
Well, that's not true at all. Just because someone says someone(or thing) else does or doesn't have a moral right to something doesn't make it true. I could say that I've got a moral right to that $20 bill in your pocket, and I could maybe even get the people living with you to agree. So in that case, fork it over!
quote: In simpler terms, it doesn't matter what we feel about the right or wrongness of abortion-with the current legal climate, the only thing that really matters is how the mother feels about it, because the baby can't really do anything about it anyway, no matter how much it deserves to live.
Or if at all. Just trying to keep things civil. Obviously I think it does have a right to live. Aside from that, though, my question is: what's your point? That last paragraph was pretty...well, obvious.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I think you may have a misunderstanding of "Moral rights" The term "morality" is relative to the individual and your $20 bill argument has validity. This moral perspective justifies the drug dealer or thief who is, "just trying to survive." It is my right because MY morality says it ok. I know nowadays you can't say "God given rights" so I'll use the semantic tool common to relativists. Instead of moral rights we should focus on inalienable rights or human rights. Does a child have a right to live? Then we need to define child. That's the rub. When is the fetus a human? Is it when we, with our science can keep it alive? We are letting science determine for us what is and what is not. Knowing that we can keep a child born three months early proves to us it is human. I suppose we will justifiably outlaw abortions past 6 months. What happens when we have the technology to salvage a 3 week fertalized egg and grow it to birth? Is our definition of life dependent upon our medical technology?
Saying the baby is not viable as a justification for termination will increasingly become invalidated. The earliest medical science.... someone to cut and tie the cord. If that person decided not to tie the cord is the "fetus" not viable and the concience clear for its death. Is a baby without breast milk or shelter not viable. Without the mother's interference it will die anyway. Only natural. Where do we draw the line.
[ March 26, 2009, 02:00 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Please, please tell me how I'm wrong about such a subjective idea as 'moral rights'. Such presumption.
quote:We are letting science determine for us what is and what is not.
Yeah, science always gets in the way.
quote:Knowing that we can keep a child born three months early proves to us it is human.
No it doesn't. And that's coming from someone with a position, I'm reluctant to acknowledge, probably shares many things with your own.
quote:Is our defenition of life dependent upon our medical technology?
Our definition of life doesn't have much relevance in the real world when it is beyond our means to save it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
My point is morality is relative and one could argue that allowing the alive baby to feed from the breast is interference. Without the mother's interference in this manner, the baby will die. Quite naturally of starvation.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
"Our definition of life doesn't have much relevance in the real world when it is beyond our means to save it"
does this mean we shouldn't kill it if it at that point it is within our means to save it.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I have an example that might contribute to this conversation. About a year ago I saw in the news a young couple fed their newborn nothing but soy milk from infancy. This baby was deprived of the proper nutrients and then died after maybe a month or two of life. Does anyone remember this story?
The arguments from the couple was they were vegan and didn't believe in feeding their baby dairy-based formulas, and for whatever reason didn't believe in breast feeding, or perhaps because the mother was malnourished herself, her milk wasn't coming in very well (speculation- since I can't remember why they weren't breast feeding). They were tried and prosecuted for murder of their own child. Their moral compass suggested to enforce their lifestyle on a being very much alive and who had no ability to object, even when their lifestyle was the means of the infant's death.
So, they exercised their moral rights over their child, which led to its death and were prosecuted as the murderers they are. What's the difference between the choices they made for their baby after birth, and someone's decision to exercise their moral compass to have the pregnancy terminated because they didn't think it was right to raise a child in such a dangerous place and got pregnant on accident, or of someone who was simply careless with birth control and decided they didn't want to be parents yet, or found out the guy would leave her if she had the baby, or any number of reasons people give for having an abortion?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your story beleaguered. There commonly available soy based infant formulas. I have a nephew who was allergic to everything else and so was fed only soy formula as a baby and thrived.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
In that case I'll have to research the story for you. I not only listened to the story on two different news radio shows, but saw this particular story on TV on a short blurb with the news. I know it exists, as to the particulars . . . It's been about a year, so I remember what I remember. I'll try to find the story for you. I should know when I find it, since I remember seeing them sitting in court.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: kmbboots,
quote:I don't understand "happy coincidence". What about it is happy as far as society is concerned?
Hmm. I'm not sure if I've ever discussed abortion in exactly this way, so I apologize for any lack of clarity. When I said 'happy coincidence' I meant that in the situation we were discussing - a woman deciding to carry a pregnancy to term even though she personally didn't want to be pregnant - from society's perspective, looking at the issue of any kind of fetal rights, it is only a bit of good luck that the right of the fetus was protected. The fetus was just lucky that the mother decided to carry it to term, no more, no less.
Does that make any sense?
quote:And what is coincidental about a woman weighing her right to her body with the fetus's right to survive and deciding that the fetus's rights were more important than hers?
What I mean there is that it cannot really be described, from a social moral standpoint, as the rights of the fetus being protected. It's just coincidence in that case that it was.
I think that I see what you are saying. I wouldn't consider it luck but instead a woman making a sacrifice and deciding to give up her rights.
Also (not just to Rakeesh) it is not just a question of the humanity of the fetus. Even if you decide that the fetus is a person and deserving of life, there is still the question of whether that person has a right to "use" another person's body to stay alive. We don't grant that right to anyone else. If my hypothetical child needed my kidney - or even a bone marrow transplant, the law does not require me to provide it.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
quote: Posted by Rabbit: I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your story beleaguered. There commonly available soy based infant formulas. I have a nephew who was allergic to everything else and so was fed only soy formula as a baby and thrived.
Here you go, I found the story I was looking for, and it was apparently closer to two years ago, but Here it is. Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Rabbit,
This article was actually very easy to find. The story says they fed their baby nothing but fruit juices and soy products, but if I remember correctly (so far my memory has done alright), they mostly fed their baby soy milk, not soy formula. There are several credible sources for this story, in case you would like more than the one.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: In that case I'll have to research the story for you. I not only listened to the story on two different news radio shows, but saw this particular story on TV on a short blurb with the news. I know it exists, as to the particulars . . . It's been about a year, so I remember what I remember. I'll try to find the story for you. I should know when I find it, since I remember seeing them sitting in court.
Google is our friend. From the very first link that came up:
quote: Fulton prosecutor Chuck Boring said the verdict isn't a condemnation of veganism, a strict form of vegetarianism that doesn't allow the consumption or use of animal products. Instead, jurors believed prosecutors' assertions that the couple intentionally neglected and underfed the child and then tried to use the lifestyle as a shield.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:My point is morality is relative and one could argue that allowing the alive baby to feed from the breast is interference. Without the mother's interference in this manner, the baby will die. Quite naturally of starvation.
One could make that argument, it's true. But it's a stupid argument, easily handled. I very much doubt even you don't already know that.
Oh, and if morality is subjective, how can I be wrong about an idea of moral rights, exactly? *rolleyes*
quote:does this mean we shouldn't kill it if it at that point it is within our means to save it.
That's my personal opinion, yes.
-------------
quote:Even if you decide that the fetus is a person and deserving of life, there is still the question of whether that person has a right to "use" another person's body to stay alive. We don't grant that right to anyone else. If my hypothetical child needed my kidney - or even a bone marrow transplant, the law does not require me to provide it.
Well, if it's a person and deserving of life, then certainly circumstances should be taken into account, yes? In this case circumstances being the person didn't invade the woman's body but rather was created by her and one other party in it.
If you were to somehow engineer a situation in which your hypothetical child had to have a bone marrow transplant from you in order to survive, but then you didn't give it...well, that's really not the same thing at all as not being required to give it out of nowhere.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: If you were to somehow engineer a situation in which your hypothetical child had to have a bone marrow transplant from you in order to survive, but then you didn't give it...well, that's really not the same thing at all as not being required to give it out of nowhere.
Okay. Say the child needed a transplant because we were in a car accident. I was driving and the accident was due to my carelessness. The law still would not force me to donate.
In my opinion, I certainly have a moral obligation to do so but the law does not require it.
Posted by theresa51282 (Member # 8037) on :
I remember the story from the news too. For some reason wheat grass water comes to mind as to what they were feeding the baby.
I found a couple of links. Looks like there were two cases, one in which the couple followed a raw foods diet and another in which the couple fed soy milk and apple juice. http://naturalhygienesociety.org/diet-veganbaby.html Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
kmbboots,
You're right, the links popped up immediately, thanks to my friend Google.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: I sincerely doubt the accuracy of your story beleaguered. There commonly available soy based infant formulas. I have a nephew who was allergic to everything else and so was fed only soy formula as a baby and thrived.
I have a son who was allegic to all else but rice milk.
He's doing fine.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I have a son who was allegic to all else but rice milk.
He's doing fine.
Impossible!
---
quote:Okay. Say the child needed a transplant because we were in a car accident. I was driving and the accident was due to my carelessness. The law still would not force me to donate.
Even then the situation isn't quite analogous because after all, the need created goes back further in the case of pregnancy. Unlike driving carelessly, in the case of pregnancy there is no chance whatsoever that the need for your 'kidney' won't exist.
Despite that, though, I do see your point. My point in response is that the law in such a case is wrong, and should be changed. In many ways, most of them proactive.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And I would find such a law abhorrent. Where would it end? How about if it were a kidney instead of bone marrow? Or instead of one's child, it was a sibling or stranger?
In my analogy driving carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making a mistake is analogous to having sex carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making one mistake.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Soy-based formula IS NOT THE SAME as soy milk
In fact, every brand of soy milk I know clearly specifies that it is not to be used as infant formula.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
rivka is absolutely right.
Additionally, I'll add in clarification:
From the nutritionist's testimony at the trial, the child's condition could in no way be explained by what the parents said they had fed him. He certainly would not have thrived on apple juice and (plain) soy milk, but he wouldn't have wasted away down to 3 and a 1/2 pounds after 6 weeks of life. It would have harmed him, but not nearly to the very extreme level of harm shown at the autopsy.
A key element of that prosecution's case was that if they had fed the child as they had said they did, the child wouldn't have starved down literally to skin and bones--nothing but a 3 pound skeleton covered by skin. The parents were prosecuted for abuse that they later attempted to shield under the cloak of veganism.
And that was a big part of why a murder charge was sought (and substantiated), not just neglect.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:And I would find such a law abhorrent. Where would it end? How about if it were a kidney instead of bone marrow? Or instead of one's child, it was a sibling or stranger?
If it was a sibling or a stranger, and if you the driver hadn't compelled them in some way to be in the car with you, then obviously the comparison falls apart completely, right?
quote:In my analogy driving carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making a mistake is analogous to having sex carelessly - not illegally or even recklessly, just making one mistake.
Except that when you drive a car, when you're using public roads, your carelessness stopped being entirely your problem. Very much like careless sex in that respect.
Voluntary actions which then involve mistakes have consequences. Just because those consequences are especially onerous is not, in itself, enough to require that the law shield us from those consequences IMO.
Also, can we dispense with the notion that a pregnancy is as troublesome as a kidney transplant of all things? Certainly it can be. A given pregnancy can be that much of a health risk. But not very often, at the least.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Voluntary actions do have consequences. The law, though, limits its enforcement of consequences enacted on people's bodies to those who have broken the law.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Pregnancy is over a year of suffering. What is the recovery time for a kidney transplant?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Pregnancy isn't a consequence inflicted by law - it is a natural consequence set in course by nature, and once it has started, the consequences of ending it are felt most sharply not by the woman but by the life that gets ended. The woman at least had a choice about whether or not to engage in activity that is designed to lead to pregnancy. The life that is ended because she doesn't like natural consequences never does.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
"Over a year of suffering?" Really? I think that's pretty rare.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Rather a lot easier to avoid enduring as well, I should think.
quote:Voluntary actions do have consequences. The law, though, limits its enforcement of consequences enacted on people's bodies to those who have broken the law.
It seems to me your argument is that it shouldn't be illegal because the law doesn't work that way. Seems kind of circular to me.
------
quote:Pregnancy is over a year of suffering.
Well, this can be set against the rather brief suffering the fetus would endure, I suppose.`
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Romanylass,
I did a double take on the year of suffering thing, but in my wife's case it's true. Almost from day one, she's sick and struggles to hold anything down. Throughout the entire 9 month pregnancy, she struggled with one thing or another, and then with the pregnancy she had 4th degree tears or lacerations which had to be stiched up, and caused her further agony. The recovery time for a textbook pregnancy (before she is supposed to have sex again) is 6 weeks, so even with a textbook pregnancy, we're looking at about 11 months of endurance. With my wife, we are talking right up to about or beyond the year that was mentioned.
Also, the body in general takes abuse from the pregnancy, and takes at least 6 months or so to get the pregnancy weight off. When you consider the torture the body endures with weight gain and any other physical issues, we're talking about an easy 12 months or more of torture. Of course, as my wife put it- the end result is well worth the trouble.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Every one seems to miss the single biggest problem with pre-natal father's rights.
Joe and Judy "hook-up" after a night of drinking.
A month and a half later Judy confirms that she is pregnant.
In our future Utopia, Joe steps in and says, "As the father, I demand that you have this child. I will care for him or her afterwards."
Judy's reply, "It may not be yours. See, I also hooked up with Sam, Fred, and some guy who's name I don't remember."
DNA testing of the fetus is a bit difficult while its still in the womb.
I had a teacher who explained why so many early societies were matriarchal, and why with the advent of patriarchal societies we see the advent of chastity requirements. "You always know who your mother is. With your father, not so much."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: DNA testing of the fetus is a bit difficult while its still in the womb.
Not if you do CVS (11-13 weeks) or amnio (at least 16 weeks) it's not.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: DNA testing of the fetus is a bit difficult while its still in the womb.
Not if you do CVS (11-13 weeks) or amnio (at least 16 weeks) it's not.
Perhaps instead of "difficult" Dan_raven should have said "risky."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Both tests are frequently done for other reasons. The risks are relatively small.
Also, the risks are definitely less than those of an abortion.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Rather a lot easier to avoid enduring as well, I should think.
How could it be hard to avoid being a bone marrow donor? If you don't sign up for it it's something you'll never even be asked to endure.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
quote:I had a teacher who explained why so many early societies were matriarchal
I'd like to see the stats on how many early societies were matriarchal, and what measurement she's using to make that estimation.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Both tests are frequently done for other reasons. The risks are relatively small.
Also, the risks are definitely less than those of an abortion.
This is true. If someone is otherwise going to have an abortion, starting with this procedure is probably not going to increase the overall risk to the mother.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by dkw:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But somewhat more troublesome that a bone marrow donation.
Rather a lot easier to avoid enduring as well, I should think.
How could it be hard to avoid being a bone marrow donor? If you don't sign up for it it's something you'll never even be asked to endure.
Calling it "easy" to avoid unwanted pregnancy rather ignores a lot of evidence. If it was easy to do the prudent and wise thing all the time, people would make a lot fewer mistakes.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
What if the mother was raped? Should the father have a say in whether she can have an abortion?
What if the sex was consensual, but the father has since that time severely abused the mother. Should an abusive father have a say in whether the mother can abort the child?
What if there is a condition that endangers the mother's life? Should the father still be able to force the mother to carry the child to term?
What if there is a condition that doesn't endanger the mother's life, but will cause permanent damage to her health? Say for example that carrying the child to term will leave the woman unable to have future children. What choice should the father have in a case like that?
And if you think the father shouldn't be allowed a say in one or more of these situations, where do you draw the line?
It's not an easy question to answer because the questions about risk to the mother's life and health really are a continuum. Very few people would suggest a woman doesn't have the right to choose an abortion (even against the will of the father) if she will certainly die without an abortion. But what if she has a 99% probability of dying with out an abortion? What if her chances are 50/50? What if there is only a 1% chance she will die or a 1/1000 chance she will die? There are no, zero risk pregnancies so where do you draw the line. How much risk should a woman be required to take (by either the father or soceity) for the sake of the fetus?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: DNA testing of the fetus is a bit difficult while its still in the womb.
Not if you do CVS (11-13 weeks) or amnio (at least 16 weeks) it's not.
But isn't the goal to have the abortion occur as early as possible? Lots of people believe the fetus should get more rights as it gets older. By 12 weeks, the baby has all the parts, just needs to be bigger- like lungs are present if not functional. So, someone might feel comfortable aborting at 6 weeks, but not at 12 weeks and so by making them wait for test results, it basically locks them into the pregnancy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I'm not arguing for a "dad's veto". I just pointed out that there was a flaw to Dan's objection. And remember: those pushing for the dad veto are trying to prevent abortions. Your point about timing may not be all that convincing. Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
The father shouldn't be able to force the mother to have the child but the mother shouldn't be allowed to kill the father's child.
If the mother alone determines life or death the man should't be held accountable for the child. If the mother is not bound to account, fathers should be able to opt out as well.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:The father shouldn't be able to force the mother to have the child but the mother shouldn't be allowed to kill the father's child.
I'm more in favor of respecting the rights of the life that exists in the fetus rather than tying that protection to 'father's child' or 'mother's child' ideas. That's not really why we, as a society, should protect children (or suspected children)
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree with you completely and I don't believe a father should be able walk away free and clear. I just like pointing out the inconsistencies since abortion is legal.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
I also agree with Rakeesh and Malanthrop, and based on that logic have more questions. So the fetus has it's own rights, at what point is the fetus subject to those rights? Shouldn't there be a definition of when a fetus is recognized as a right-holding member of society? I think that cut off should be in the womb, but when?
It's been discussed aborting at 6 weeks as being more acceptible than 12, but is that just because at 6 wks a fetus isn't considered as much human because it doesn't have all it's organs and it doesn't look like a little baby yet? Does abortion at 6 wks allow us to sleep better at night, since what was killed didn't LOOK like a baby yet?
When would a fetus be subject to these rights? What would these rights include? A right to live no matter who the father is perhaps? Should a fetus' right's usurp those of his parents, as long as we're talking about a healthy pregnancy situation?
Posted by 0Megabyte (Member # 8624) on :
"Should a fetus' right's usurp those of his parents, as long as we're talking about a healthy pregnancy situation? "
Regardless of all the other questions, many of them valid and crucial, I feel like this, right here, is the key.
Whose rights are more important? The fetus, or that of the woman carrying it?
Now, the answer to this feels, to me, to be one of those value-laden things that sounds simple on paper, but in reality turns out to be the center of a maelstrom of beliefs, assumptions (in the sense that for any system of logic, you must assume something to be true, don't you? In any sense, I don't mean it in a bad way) and feelings.
I personally say the woman's rights have priority over the fetus, while she's carrying it. Now, when it's viable, such as late in the pregnancy, I feel that things such as not allowing abortion seems reasonable.
However, that doesn't mean I think abortion should be the first choice, or in fact should be something common or something one should be blase about. It's a serious decision, and in most cases, I would be ultimately against it, from the personal perspective. But it should be an option. My personal feelings on the matter is that we need to stress, both to teenagers and adults, how big a decision this is, and how important it is to take steps to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: I also agree with Rakeesh and Malanthrop, and based on that logic have more questions. So the fetus has it's own rights, at what point is the fetus subject to those rights? Shouldn't there be a definition of when a fetus is recognized as a right-holding member of society? I think that cut off should be in the womb, but when?
It's been discussed aborting at 6 weeks as being more acceptible than 12, but is that just because at 6 wks a fetus isn't considered as much human because it doesn't have all it's organs and it doesn't look like a little baby yet? Does abortion at 6 wks allow us to sleep better at night, since what was killed didn't LOOK like a baby yet?
When would a fetus be subject to these rights? What would these rights include? A right to live no matter who the father is perhaps? Should a fetus' right's usurp those of his parents, as long as we're talking about a healthy pregnancy situation?
On your point, I brought up earlier that we have allowed our ability in medical science to define this for us. When the extent of medical science was a doctor to assist in delivery, this question was not in doubt. The ability to abort has been available longer than the ability to keep a seriously premature baby alive. Now that we can keep baby's alive who are born signifigantly premature, this moves the threshold further into the preganancy. It is repugnant to know a viable baby is killed, even for most pro-choice advocates.
With medical science, is it a right to conduct any procedure, with our bodies within our capabilities?
If we have scientific ability to save a life, is there an obligation to do so?
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Now we're getting into religion and morals. Who's playing God? It is my belief God is the creater of life, so for medical science to decide God's new creation isn't good enough (of course, the woman decided first) reeks of presumption.
I understand our medical advances have been the means of curing disease and prolonging life(which is great), but at what point does our advances become presumption? I've suggested it has with abortion.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I agree with you on this. But unfortunately ones religious beliefs will have no sway over changing the law. Separation of church and state proponents have redefined many fundamental rights as government granted vice God given. Under this view, if it's legal, it's ok. Even the athiest humanist might be compelled against abortion, knowing the child was viable at the point of termination. Will our advances in saving the child, earlier and earlier in pregnancy change the attitude towards when life begins? At least this is my hope.
[ March 28, 2009, 04:24 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: If we have scientific ability to save a life, is there an obligation to do so?
It's circumstantial. There are many circumstances where doctors could save a life but they opt not to due to various reasons. There are many circumstances where spouses or relatives have to choose between medically prolonging life or terminating life. "Obligation" is absent in many of these regards.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When it comes to reproduction, men and women aren't equal. That isn't a philosophical or legal question, its a biological fact. Any law that didn't recognize that indisputable biological inequality would be unjust.
I think there are many of inadequacies in current law regarding father's rights (and father's responsibilities) so I think there is plenty of room for debate about what rights men should have -- but to start off by saying that the law should treat men and women equally is patently ridiculous. Men and women are not equal when it comes to child birth -- they are indisputably and biologically different. Any just law has to recognize that fact.
I thought this should be repeated. Fathers have the right to not have their bodies be host to somebody else against their will. With the law as it currently stands, women have that right, too.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered:
It's been discussed aborting at 6 weeks as being more acceptible than 12, but is that just because at 6 wks a fetus isn't considered as much human because it doesn't have all it's organs and it doesn't look like a little baby yet? Does abortion at 6 wks allow us to sleep better at night, since what was killed didn't LOOK like a baby yet?
It isn't just about looks. While both have potential, what they actually are at the moment still matters. A bunch of cells lacking a heartbeat is a lot harder to argue for rights then something with a heartbeat. Something that feels pain gets more rights then something that doesn't (though feeling pain is more a third trimester thing).
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
This statement holds truth when talking about rape, but otherwise I disagree with the part about being a host against their will. Rape is the only time women are used when it might cause them to host another being against their will. Otherwise, all women should know that every time they consent to sex they invite the possibility of pregnancy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
And men invite the possibility of getting someone pregnant as well. Yet, they still have the right to not have their body invaded.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
quote: By Scholarette: It isn't just about looks. While both have potential, what they actually are at the moment still matters. A bunch of cells lacking a heartbeat is a lot harder to argue for rights then something with a heartbeat. Something that feels pain gets more rights then something that doesn't (though feeling pain is more a third trimester thing).
I know what you're saying, but it's AT 6 weeks the embryo has a heartbeat. Check it out Here. I understand at a certain point a fetus graduates from being a group of DNA strands and cells into an embryo with a heart, then into a fetus. There are stages, and before the cells become an embryo, gains that beating heart, one might accept abortion as an acceptible solution to whatever problems. My question now becomes, what about the potential? The group of cells, growing insanely quickly through the cycles is still life, so again, when does it become presumption?
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
It takes two to tango, kmbboots, and unfortunately when it comes to baby-making, the women must ultimately be the ones to show the most restraint if she doesn't want to get pregnant. The woman should still know the possible repercussions to having sex, and with whom she's decided to have sex. Of course, I believe the men must show restraint and then responsibility if they screw up. I can't argue with you though, it's the woman that has the responsibilities of pregnancy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered: It takes two to tango, kmbboots, and unfortunately when it comes to baby-making, the women must ultimately be the ones to show the most restraint if she doesn't want to get pregnant. The woman should still know the possible repercussions to having sex, and with whom she's decided to have sex. Of course, I believe the men must show restraint and then responsibility if they screw up. I can't argue with you though, it's the woman that has the responsibilities of pregnancy.
So arguing that men should have equal rights is pointless. Men don't have equal responsibility.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
I don't find any magical moment at the first heartbeat. It occurs when the primitive heart is just a tube, not even folded and separated into chambers, and the beats are more uncoordinated shudders.
In both the fetus and the adult, just about any cardiac cell can initiate a beat. Little chunks of heart tissue left over after surgery will beat on their own if suspended in the proper nutrient broth. I wouldn't ascribe special rights to such chunks of tissue leftover after surgery, though, merely because it quivers in a nutrient broth, and I wouldn't ascribe special rights to anything else merely for that reason, either.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I thought this should be repeated. Fathers have the right to not have their bodies be host to somebody else against their will. With the law as it currently stands, women have that right, too.
Bollocks. With the exceptions of rape faulty birth control (not improperly used birth control), women even without the law as it currently stands have the right not to let their bodies be 'invaded' against their will.
While Rabbit and you are right that the biological situation isn't split down the middle, that it is unequal, the distinction you go on to make is a false one. Women have just as much ability to stop their bodies from being host to fetuses as men do. What they don't have is the ability to have as much sex as they want without any fear of ever being pregnant like men do. But that's not the same thing.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese: I don't find any magical moment at the first heartbeat. It occurs when the primitive heart is just a tube, not even folded and separated into chambers, and the beats are more uncoordinated shudders.
In both the fetus and the adult, just about any cardiac cell can initiate a beat. Little chunks of heart tissue left over after surgery will beat on their own if suspended in the proper nutrient broth. I wouldn't ascribe special rights to such chunks of tissue leftover after surgery, though, merely because it quivers in a nutrient broth, and I wouldn't ascribe special rights to anything else merely for that reason, either.
Thanks, CT--that was very well worded, and along the lines of what I was thinking about saying.
[Edit - but much better informed than my post would have been]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not in the same way that men do which was my point.
When the responsibility and the consequences are not the same for men, it doesn't make sense to argue that the rights should be the same.
ETA: And Rakeesh, I understand that you have very fervent feelings about this, but is that language helpful?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It doesn't make sense that the rights should be the same, but it doesn't make sense that the baby has no rights at all either. It also doesn't make sense to pretend that, except for the obvious exceptions, getting pregnant is something that happens to a woman the same way getting a cold does. There is definitely, definitely actions on the part of the woman that are essential to getting pregnant.
Pretending that those actions have no natural consequences don't eliminate the natural consequences, but instead push the consequences of the woman's choice onto the most innocent and least responsible person in the group.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
Sorry about the language, I wasn't intending to be harsh. I guess to me 'bollocks' isn't much past, "Wait, I think that's really wrong." Now that I think about it I'm not sure why I think that; it's my personal connotation, not the definition, my bad. Anyway, sorry.
quote:When the responsibility and the consequences are not the same for men, it doesn't make sense to argue that the rights should be the same.
You're sidestepping the problem of whether or not there is a third party involved. If there is, biological inequality between the man and the woman might not be as weighty to the situation.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
But this thread isn't about whether there's a third party involved. It's about "equal rights for men."
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The existence of the third party matters. That's why it isn't solely of concern to the woman - that's the man's child, and he should be able to protest if the child is going to be destroyed.
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
Saying that a father has the right to protest because it is his child is completely different from saying that a fetus is a person with his or her own right to life.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I guess it all depends on what you mean by a right to protest. The right to free speech pretty much guarantees the father the right to express his objection in all kinds of ways. But since you are arguing that a man should have a right to protest, I suspect you think he should have more voice than is simply guaranteed him as free speech. But its a rather pointless argument unless you specify how much more.
Should the mother be legally required to
a) inform the father? b) consult with the father? c) receive permission from the father?
d) Should a father be able to demand some sort of compensation if his child is aborted without his consent?
Should those requirements be enforced if
a) the father raped the mother? b) the father has abused the mother? c) the mother's life is at risk? d) the mother's health is at risk?
I think it is very difficult for a person who opposes abortion to separate the issue of the father's rights from the overall opposition to abortion. I think the hope that requiring the father's permission might stop some abortions overrides the underlying issues.
Which is why I keep asking these question. In my mind it boils down to this. Are there any circumstances in which you would find abortion an acceptable choice if it were made by both mother and father together but would not find it an acceptable choice if it was made by the mother alone?
Posted by Dobbie (Member # 3881) on :
I'm against abortion and I have no difficulty all in separating "father's rights" from the overall opposition to abortion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But this thread isn't about whether there's a third party involved. It's about "equal rights for men."
I forgot that all threads adhere strictly to the opening post, and expanded discussions don't occur.
quote:I'm against abortion and I have no difficulty all in separating "father's rights" from the overall opposition to abortion.
Likewise, Dobbie. I've known people who are upset at rights they feel a father should have being ignored or violated, but I can't say I ever recall knowing someone whose opposition to abortion was founded on an opposition to violating a father's rights.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
My point was that it's not fair to accuse kmboots of "sidestepping" an issue that was not in the question she was responding to.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
I never claimed anyones opposition to abortion was founded on an opposition to violating the father's rights.
My point was that many peoples concerns about a father's rights during pregnancy were founded on an opposition to abortion.
If you think abortion should be illegal under all circumstances, then how do father's rights come in to it. You think the abortion should be illegal whether the father consents or not. Its a non-issue.
But if you think there are any cases where a woman might be justified in choosing to have an abortion, then you need to ask yourself whether the father's consent makes a difference in any of those cases. If it doesn't, then once againt father's rights are a moot issue. If it does, then lets talk specifics about what rights a father should have in particular situations.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, I am not side stepping anything. We already discussed where I stood on weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the woman.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:While Rabbit and you are right that the biological situation isn't split down the middle, that it is unequal, the distinction you go on to make is a false one. Women have just as much ability to stop their bodies from being host to fetuses as men do. What they don't have is the ability to have as much sex as they want without any fear of ever being pregnant like men do. But that's not the same thing.
That is a very unusual way of looking at it. I was talking strictly about the biological differences and you seem to be expanded it to legal, technological and social differences. Let me be very specific.
When a man and woman engage in sex, they both have exactly equal probability that their gametes will fuse to form a zygote and exactly equal probability that this zygote will develop into a child. But from this point on, the biological equality diverges dramatically.
The zygote will implant itself in the mother's uterine wall. It will begin taking nutrients from her body. It will send signals to her body that cause changes in her immune system, hormone production and fundamentally alter her body chemistry. For the zygote to develop into a child, it must remain intimately attached to the mother for at least 7 months but more commonly 9 and the mother's body will undergo enormous physical and chemical changes to accommodate the growing child. At times, this process can cause serious and permanant damage to the woman's body. It can even kill her. There is zero probability that any of this will happen to the man.
The man has made his full biological contribution when he ejaculates. After sex, there are no added biological demands on the man. He could drop dead the second after ejaculation or live a thousand more healthy years and it would make no difference.
Those are the biological facts. Until a technology is developed that changes those facts, any discussion of parental rights that does not account for that fundamental biological difference isn't just.
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
quote: By Rabbit: Should the mother be legally required to
a) inform the father? b) consult with the father? c) receive permission from the father?
d) Should a father be able to demand some sort of compensation if his child is aborted without his consent?
Should those requirements be enforced if
a) the father raped the mother? b) the father has abused the mother? c) the mother's life is at risk? d) the mother's health is at risk?
I don't need the more detailed description of your point to give my own opinion on this topic.
As I understand this discussion, about a man's role and rights when it comes to child birth, I can say YES, he should be informed of the pregnancy, consulted on any decisions, and must give his consent before any decisions such as adoption or abortion. I don't think there is any way to properly compensate a man who wants to be a father in the case of an abortion, or adoption. I also think your exceptions listed just below are also good. Certainly the man's role is forfeited if he is a rapist, or abuser. If the woman's life is in danger or health is at risk, I would hope the father would be close by, but understand these to be valid exceptions as well.
I'm choosing these as options I hope even the president might consider could be attached to the current abortion policy. I am against abortion, but understand it's practiced. Since it IS practiced, the father's role should play a bigger part with the decision-making. My biggest wish is for abortion to go away, leaving only the exceptions listed as acceptible or even legal reasons for abortion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
dkw,
quote:[Roll Eyes] My point was that it's not fair to accuse kmboots of "sidestepping" an issue that was not in the question she was responding to.
*rolleyes* Except that she and I were having a different discussion about our difference of opinion on abortion, one in which father's rights didn't much come into it at all.
------
Rabbit,
quote:I never claimed anyones opposition to abortion was founded on an opposition to violating the father's rights.
I guess that's true. It was sort of implied, but never outright stated. My mistake. Well, in response to your statements I'll say this instead: in my experience, few people I know, whose positions I know, rate father's rights very high on their list of reasons why they oppose abortion.
quote:Those are the biological facts. Until a technology is developed that changes those facts, any discussion of parental rights that does not account for that fundamental biological difference isn't just.
Interesting. Do you take this stance on discussions of parental rights after birth as well?
Anyway, I don't think anyone serious is arguing that there isn't biological inequality once the pregnancy is started. At least, I'm not. My point, rather, is that talk of a woman's body being 'invaded' is an exaggeration, because she has complete control over whether that 'invasion' happens or not. Except in cases of rape or faulty birth control.
-----
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, I am not side stepping anything. We already discussed where I stood on weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the woman.
It didn't come up at all when you said this, which is what I was responding to:
quote:When the responsibility and the consequences are not the same for men, it doesn't make sense to argue that the rights should be the same.
The relevance of the biological inequality fades when there is the presence of another human life in the equation. Or if there is, of course.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: As I understand this discussion, about a man's role and rights when it comes to child birth, I can say YES, he should be informed of the pregnancy, consulted on any decisions, and must give his consent before any decisions such as adoption or abortion.
Strangely, the notion that a man must give his consent before an abortion can be done makes me uneasy, now that I consider it and respond to it.
Since I'm opposed anyway for other reasons, my uneasiness isn't really very relevant, but still. Common ground on some things I suppose, heh: I really don't think the man's consent should be necessary when the inequalities are so vast.
I believe it's often quite a bit easier for the man to say do it or don't do it. He's got a less tangible investment in the situation, even if his intangible investment (emotional considerations) may be just as big.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:Certainly the man's role is forfeited if he is a rapist, or abuser.
Presumably he would have to be legally convicted of some offence. However the conviction rate for rape is tiny (especially if it takes place within a pre-existing relationship), and many spousal abusers still get some rights over their kids from the relationship - after all, they don't always abuse them - so this might be difficult to regulate.
Another thing I've been wondering about - what if the mother can't remember the father's name? Or the day after conception he goes to the Amazon rainforest for nine months with no mobile phone? What then if they can't track him down soon enough? Would the mother have to get a court order to grant her rights over the foetus, or would she have to keep the baby on the basis that dad, all unknowing that he's a father, might come back and claim it later?
[ March 29, 2009, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Interesting how people use fundamental biological differences to advance an argument when they see fit. Perhaps the fundamental biological difference between men and womon should preclude women from being a police officer, fire fighter or military member. Afterall, men are stronger.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
However, there are plenty of roles within those careers where physical strength is not the quility which counts - things like bravery, common sense, mental acuity etc, which both male and female can possess.
At the moment it is not gender, but ability which dictates who can hold those roles, which makes sense. Even so, military women are often kept as much as possible from close contact combat, where physical limitations would count most. Those differences are not overlooked.
Fathers can be as good at parenting as mothers. Like in the careers you suggest, both sexes can bring many of the same wonderful qualities. However, men cannot give birth. They can't go to the mother and say - 'hand the foetus over right now and I'll care for it'. That difference is also not overlooked.
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Interesting how people use fundamental biological differences to advance an argument when they see fit. Perhaps the fundamental biological difference between men and womon should preclude women from being a police officer, fire fighter or military member. Afterall, men are stronger.
No! Although it may be true that most men are stronger than most women, some women are in fact stronger than some men. And some women are strong enough do the work required of a police officer, fire fighter or military member.
If you want to argue that those professions shouldn't have different standards for men and women, I will agree. Standards should be based on what is required to perform the job. But if a woman can meet those standards, she should not be prevented simply because most other women can't do it.
The situation with parenthood is fundamentally different. It isn't a case of most of the time women are the ones who get pregnant. This is a true binary phenomenon. A law dealing with the issue wouldn't even need to say anything about gender. If the law said, "the parent who is pregnant" -- it would be fully sufficient to recognize the biological differences. If some future technology made it possible for men to get pregnant, the law would still be completely adequate to deal with the biological difference.
[ March 29, 2009, 11:56 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Rabbit, I think you may be missing a "not" in that first sentence.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Interesting how people use fundamental biological differences to advance an argument when they see fit. Perhaps the fundamental biological difference between men and womon should preclude women from being a police officer, fire fighter or military member. Afterall, men are stronger.
What's interesting is that you say this, and then go on to make an argument that's not only wrong but also totally irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: dkw,
quote:[Roll Eyes] My point was that it's not fair to accuse kmboots of "sidestepping" an issue that was not in the question she was responding to.
*rolleyes* Except that she and I were having a different discussion about our difference of opinion on abortion, one in which father's rights didn't much come into it at all.
And I was responding to the people who were talking specifically about the father's rights. In that part of the thread, I was not specifically addressing you.
(snip)
quote:
Anyway, I don't think anyone serious is arguing that there isn't biological inequality once the pregnancy is started. At least, I'm not. My point, rather, is that talk of a woman's body being 'invaded' is an exaggeration, because she has complete control over whether that 'invasion' happens or not. Except in cases of rape or faulty birth control.
Other people were, those were the people I was addressing at the time.
quote:
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, I am not side stepping anything. We already discussed where I stood on weighing the rights of the fetus against the rights of the woman.
It didn't come up at all when you said this, which is what I was responding to:
quote:When the responsibility and the consequences are not the same for men, it doesn't make sense to argue that the rights should be the same.
The relevance of the biological inequality fades when there is the presence of another human life in the equation. Or if there is, of course.
I think that, in most cases, the father should be consulted and his wishes taken into consideration. Even more than this, I think that the rights of the fetus should be weighed against the right of the woman.
But, no. I don't think that the law should enforce those rights against the rights of a woman to sovereignty over her own body.
And, no, I don't think that a woman relinquishes that sovereignty when she has sex.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Alright. Difficult to know who is talking to whom about what exactly, sometimes.
quote: But, no. I don't think that the law should enforce those rights against the rights of a woman to sovereignty over her own body.
And, no, I don't think that a woman relinquishes that sovereignty when she has sex.
The thing is, we don't need the law in order for a woman to have sovereignty over her own body-excepting rape, of course. The sovereignty already exists. You're speaking in support of something additional, total rights in all cases despite any consequences or other considerations.
I think 'sovereignty' is an incomplete word for that sort of control. 'Unfettered sovereignty' seems more appropriate to me, because even though the definition fits your use, even sovereigns have checks on their power, rules that must be followed, people that must be consulted in certain instances.
quote:And, no, I don't think that a woman relinquishes that sovereignty when she has sex.
I'm having a really hard time understanding how you can believe this, and yet also claim that the fetus has some sort of rights too. Because it seems to me that if the fetus only has rights if the woman thinks it has rights...well, can something really be a right if it's completely and in all cases subservient to the rights of another?
Edit: I know you've explained your belief in the difference between moral and legal rights. But don't the two intersect anywhere, at any point? And if they don't...exactly what value does a moral right have?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Rabbit, I think you may be missing a "not" in that first sentence.)
Thanks! Problem fixed (I think).
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think that society is made up of the places your rights and mine bump against each other. My right to do what I want to on my own property bump up against my neighbor's right to do what he wants to on his property. As a society, we decide where the compromise is. The law enforces those compromises
In the case of pregnancy, though, there is no compromise. Either the woman stays pregnant or she doesn't. Either the law fails to protect whatever rights the fetus may have or it denies the woman the right to her own body. The law has to pick one absolute.
The value of moral rights is that they inform our decisions - both individual and as a society. Not all those decisions are encoded in law.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: (Rabbit, I think you may be missing a "not" in that first sentence.)
Thanks! Problem fixed (I think).
Works for me.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:In the case of pregnancy, though, there is no compromise. Either the woman stays pregnant or she doesn't. Either the law fails to protect whatever rights the fetus may have or it denies the woman the right to her own body. The law has to pick one absolute.
Except that it doesn't, really. The law only has to pick an 'absolute' as you describe it if we as a society decide the time of decision is after the pregnancy has happened. It doesn't have to be an either/or situation, unless we as a society make one.
Aside from ensuring that women have the right to abort pregnancies, is there any reason for choosing the time of the decision has to be after the pregnancy?
Put another way, why exactly should a woman have right over her own body to terminate a condition in her own body that she voluntarily created in the first place, when that condition may or may not (and the later it gets, the smaller the 'may not' becomes) have rights as a human being in, well, its own right?
quote:The value of moral rights is that they inform our decisions - both individual and as a society. Not all those decisions are encoded in law.
This is true. In matters of life and death, however, I won't say it's untrue...but it rarely is. I can't think of many moral direct questions of life and death that aren't encoded in law, can you?
Posted by The Rabbit (Member # 671) on :
quote:I can't think of many moral direct questions of life and death that aren't encoded in law, can you?
I can't think of any other matters of life and death where the life of one individual depends directly on another person in the same way that the life of the fetus depends on the life and body of the mother. There are no common comparable situations.
If a blood transfusion were needed to save a persons life, we would not require a compatible individual to donate blood, even if they were the only compatible donor available. Even if that person initially agreed to make the donation but then changed their mind, we wouldn't consider it just to force them to make the donation. Even though I think the person should make the blood donation under those circumstances and even though I believe the person has a moral obligation to make the donation under those circumstances, I would consider it unjust to force that person to make the donation.
If person A were drowning in a lake and there was only one person (person B) on shore who had the ability to jump in and rescue that person. I think person B has a moral obligation to save person A, even though it might put person B at risk. But I would also find it unjust to enact a law that required person B to risk their selves to save person A unjust.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Rabbit,
quote: If a blood transfusion were needed to save a persons life, we would not require a compatible individual to donate blood, even if they were the only compatible donor available. Even if that person initially agreed to make the donation but then changed their mind, we wouldn't consider it just to force them to make the donation.
This sort of comparison gets made frequently. The reason it's not very persuasive to me at all is simply this: if the person's need of blood was created by the person who may or may not donate blood, I'm not so sure our government wouldn't in fact compel the second person to donate that blood. Unless the second person was anemic or something or might die from it somehow.
Would you consider it unjust to force the second person to donate if the second person had, in fact, created the shortage in the first person? And in a case of pregnancy and abortion, the blood donation comparison is actually understated.
quote:If person A were drowning in a lake and there was only one person (person B) on shore who had the ability to jump in and rescue that person. I think person B has a moral obligation to save person A, even though it might put person B at risk. But I would also find it unjust to enact a law that required person B to risk their selves to save person A unjust.
Again, what if person B pushed person A into the lake?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I think you're wrong. If person A stabbed person B, and B was in the hospital and A was the only compatible blood donor around, B would be arrested and tried for their crime, but would not be forced to donate blood. Same with the lake example. They would be prosecuted for what they did, but would not be pushed in the lake after their victim and not let out unless they rescued B.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
ElJay,
Sorry, I should've been clear. I didn't mean that would happen now, the way things in society are today. I meant that if we posed the question to our society, I think we would as a society approve it.
Unless of course those scenarios were tied to abortion.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Sorry, I should've been clear. I didn't mean that would happen now, the way things in society are today. I meant that if we posed the question to our society, I think we would as a society approve it.
I strongly disagree.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I should also add that in both those cases, the only person who can help is the second person involved.
That is, with someone needing blood there's usually more than one source available, to say the least. And in the second case, there are lifeguards and cops and paramedics and such. So that's another way the comparison doesn't hold up.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I should also add that in both those cases, the only person who can help is the second person involved.
Understood.
In both cases I would say they have a moral obligation (stronger than the moral obligation everyone has to help when they can). But the law has no place making that a legal obligation.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why not? If person B created the need person A has, person B is the only one who can fulfill that need, person B won't be killed or harmed in a lasting way by filling that need, and person A will die if the need isn't met...why shouldn't the law make it a legal obligation?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Because the fact that they caused the situation places a moral obligation upon them. It does not necessarily place a legal obligation. You seem to think that the two ought to be conflated. I don't.
Both of those situations have existing legal redresses. None of which involve forcing someone to give blood or go jump in a lake.
Also, there is a risk of death in both cases. It's low in the blood donor case, but quite high in the lake case. In neither case is it zero.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Why not? If person B created the need person A has, person B is the only one who can fulfill that need, person B won't be killed or harmed in a lasting way by filling that need, and person A will die if the need isn't met...why shouldn't the law make it a legal obligation?
You might find this paper of interest.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Because the fact that they caused the situation places a moral obligation upon them. It does not necessarily place a legal obligation. You seem to think that the two ought to be conflated. I don't.
Well, obviously. The thing is, though, legal obligations are effectively what we say they are. We could make it a legal obligation if we wanted to. My question is, why don't we want to?
quote:Both of those situations have existing legal redresses. None of which involve forcing someone to give blood or go jump in a lake. [Wink]
My response to this is the same as above, and to point out that the comparison isn't quite valid, because person A will certainly die if person B fulfills only the current legal obligation.
quote:Also, there is a risk of death in both cases. It's low in the blood donor case, but quite high in the lake case. In neither case is it zero.
The risk of death in the lake is quite high? I'm not talking about someone who can't swim.
------
natural_mystic,
quote:You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist. He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged into yours...
It's a lengthy paper, so if there's a specific part of it you'd like to discuss, I'd be happy to. I just quoted this part to point out a pretty clear way in which the paper doesn't address the realities of abortion.
Very few women of all those who become pregnant simply awake one morning and discover they're pregnant. An incredibly tiny minority, in fact.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes, he deals with that. The point of that example is to reach a starting point where just the presence of the right to life does not clearly trump control of one's own body. That is, for the right to life argument to be successful, there must be an additional component.
I don't agree with everything in the paper, but I suggest you read it all.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The thing is, though, legal obligations are effectively what we say they are. We could make it a legal obligation if we wanted to. My question is, why don't we want to?
My response to this is the same as above, and to point out that the comparison isn't quite valid, because person A will certainly die if person B fulfills only the current legal obligation.
You are the one who wants to change how the law works. So the burden is upon you. And the fact is, for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with the complexity involved, our legal system does not generally apply penalties that involve the direct risk of the criminal. We stick 'em in jail, or fine them, or both.
Make a case for these exceptions. So far, I'm not seeing one that gives sufficient cause to change how our legal system works.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Also, there is a risk of death in both cases. It's low in the blood donor case, but quite high in the lake case. In neither case is it zero.
The risk of death in the lake is quite high?
Sure. The easiest way to drown accidentally is to try to rescue a thrashing drowning person. More often than not, unless the rescuer is well-trained (and often even then), both end up dead.
That's the first thing they teach prospective lifeguards, IIRC.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
Rakeesh: Just to be clear: is abortion permissible in the event of rape?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Fugu,
quote:Yes, he deals with that. The point of that example is to reach a starting point where just the presence of the right to life does not clearly trump control of one's own body. That is, for the right to life argument to be successful, there must be an additional component.
If I'm not mistaken, it's a she who wrote it?
Anyway, she does deal with it, but the very first comparison she makes is not, in my opinion, valid as a solid comparison. I'm still reading it now, and will re-read it again later at a stretch when I'm not working, but the comparison she makes doesn't bode well for being very serviceable. To my opinion that is, of course.
quote:
But it might be argued that there are other ways one can have acquired a right to the use of another person's body than by having been invited to use it by that person. Suppose a woman voluntarily indulges in intercourse, knowing of the chance it will issue in pregnancy, and then she does become pregnant; is she not in part responsible for the presence, in fact the very existence, of the unborn person inside? No doubt she did not invite it in. But doesn't her partial responsibility for its being there itself give it a right to the use of her body? If so, then her aborting it would be more like the boys taking away the chocolates, and less like your unplugging yourself from the violinist--doing so would be depriving it of what it does have a right to, and thus would be doing it an injustice.
For example, here. I don't grant the premise in bold anymore than I grant that a man can have sex with a woman who then gets pregnant and beg off his parental responsibilities just because he didn't 'invite' a pregnancy-because he did.
He didn't invite that specific pregnancy, but - and I regret the associations* this comparison makes, and don't intend them - if you run a hotel and put a 'vacancy' sign up outside, you're inviting people to come and stay if there are any looking.
------
Natural mystic,
I'm not opposed morally nor do I think it should be made a crime to have an abortion in the case of rape.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That paper does address the "she had sex so she has given up her right to her own body" argument at about point 4. Not very well, but it is addresses. ElJay addressed it better above.
I don't agree that society (at least Western society) would approve of the blood donation scenario. In fact, I think one of the few scenarios where a large part of society approves of such a thing is in the case of pregnancy.
ETA:
We, I think, are rightly appalled with the idea that of criminals being used for medical experiments - even though they have committed an actual crime.
We do not force even those on death row to become organ donors when they are put to death.
In fact, we try allow dead people to have control (if they have made their wishes known or by proxy) over what is done with their remains.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
rivka,
quote: You are the one who wants to change how the law works. So the burden is upon you. And the fact is, for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with the complexity involved, our legal system does not generally apply penalties that involve the direct risk of the criminal. We stick 'em in jail, or fine them, or both.
What, so the entire burden is on me? I can't ask, "Why do you think this should be the way it is now," but must instead propose a detailed plan of action and say, "Why shouldn't we do this?"
I don't really have any good idea how the law could deal with it. But I don't think, "It would be really hard," is a very good reason at all for not trying, and certainly not for not answering the question, "Why is the way it is the way it should be?"
------
quote:That paper does address the "she had sex so she has given up her right to her own body" argument at about point 4. Not very well, but it is addresses. ElJay addressed it better above.
Not very well is putting it mildly, again from my perspective of course. It only addresses the argument at all if you first accept the premise that a woman (and therefore a man) has any moral or should have any legal right to voluntary sex with freedom from the possible consequence of pregnancy.
Here's a question that diverts a bit back to the original topic of this thread: if a woman should have the freedom from pregnancy and subsequent child-rearing if she wants it, what is the reason a man shouldn't also have that freedom if he wants it?
ETA:
quote:We, I think, are rightly appalled with the idea that of criminals being used for medical experiments - even though they have committed an actual crime.
We do not force even those on death row to become organ donors when they are put to death.
In fact, we try allow dead people to have control (if they have made their wishes known or by proxy) over what is done with their remains.
If we're talking about just a general criminal, of course I would be appalled too. If, however, we're talking about a mad scientist criminal who inflicted a disease on a person to study it...well, I'm not sure I would be much appalled at least. I'd have to think about it.
As for death row, well, talk about an absurd distinction. I'm opposed to the death penalty, but if we're going to do it - if we're going to say, "This person is so foul we need to kill them," I can't understand what principal we're serving to start affording them respect post mortem.
Finally, again, you're talking about general dead people.
Posted by natural_mystic (Member # 11760) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
Natural mystic,
I'm not opposed morally nor do I think it should be made a crime to have an abortion in the case of rape.
I agree that Judith Thomson is not terribly convincing in arguing against your position.
What is your argument for why it is ok to abort after rape, but not in the case of a consensual pregnancy? Presumably, the intrinsic value of the fetus does not change.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What is your argument for why it is ok to abort after rape, but not in the case of a consensual pregnancy? Presumably, the intrinsic value of the fetus does not change.
In my opinion, you're right, the value of the fetus doesn't change. It's just that once the 'voluntary' component is removed, my opinion on what a woman's body-sovereignty should be much more closely resembles, I think, that of kmbboots and others.
If for example person A needed a blood transfusion to live, and person b just happened to walk past the hospital having absolutely nothing to do with person A's need of blood, I would be completely against making it a legal obligation for person B to give blood, even if it's a relatively minor imposition, even if the health risk is small, even though a life is still at risk.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: rivka,
quote: You are the one who wants to change how the law works. So the burden is upon you. And the fact is, for a variety of reasons, primarily having to do with the complexity involved, our legal system does not generally apply penalties that involve the direct risk of the criminal. We stick 'em in jail, or fine them, or both.
What, so the entire burden is on me? I can't ask, "Why do you think this should be the way it is now," but must instead propose a detailed plan of action and say, "Why shouldn't we do this?"
The burden of proof is on you because no action is a win in the opposite direction. This is the way it is. You want the change. You must overcome inertia.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Or to rephrase what Christine said, you can ask. But without a better argument, you are likely to be ignored.
And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it because it's hard. I'm saying it is upending some of the basic ways our system works. And you better have a really good argument and some ideas about how to make them reality for that not to just be dismissed.
And since you're bringing them up as a starting point in a theoretical debate, and not on their own merits, I'm not surprised you don't want to put in the time and energy to back them up.
Posted by Threads (Member # 10863) on :
quote:Originally posted by beleaguered:
quote: By Scholarette: It isn't just about looks. While both have potential, what they actually are at the moment still matters. A bunch of cells lacking a heartbeat is a lot harder to argue for rights then something with a heartbeat. Something that feels pain gets more rights then something that doesn't (though feeling pain is more a third trimester thing).
I know what you're saying, but it's AT 6 weeks the embryo has a heartbeat. Check it out Here. I understand at a certain point a fetus graduates from being a group of DNA strands and cells into an embryo with a heart, then into a fetus. There are stages, and before the cells become an embryo, gains that beating heart, one might accept abortion as an acceptible solution to whatever problems. My question now becomes, what about the potential? The group of cells, growing insanely quickly through the cycles is still life, so again, when does it become presumption?
Why should we consider "potential" as a factor when deciding where to draw the line for acceptable/unacceptable abortions?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What is your argument for why it is ok to abort after rape, but not in the case of a consensual pregnancy? Presumably, the intrinsic value of the fetus does not change.
In my opinion, you're right, the value of the fetus doesn't change. It's just that once the 'voluntary' component is removed, my opinion on what a woman's body-sovereignty should be much more closely resembles, I think, that of kmbboots and others.
If for example person A needed a blood transfusion to live, and person b just happened to walk past the hospital having absolutely nothing to do with person A's need of blood, I would be completely against making it a legal obligation for person B to give blood, even if it's a relatively minor imposition, even if the health risk is small, even though a life is still at risk.
What if person B was voluntarily driving and got into a car accident with person A? Neither of them did anything wrong, but of course there are consequences to driving.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: And I'm not saying we shouldn't do it because it's hard. I'm saying it is upending some of the basic ways our system works. And you better have a really good argument and some ideas about how to make them reality for that not to just be dismissed.
It seems to me that's precisely why you're saying we shouldn't do it: it would upend some of the basic ways our system works, which is a big and difficult thing.
quote:And since you're bringing them up as a starting point in a theoretical debate, and not on their own merits, I'm not surprised you don't want to put in the time and energy to back them up.
Should I be unsurprised as well that you haven't actually answered my question of why things should be the way they are, aside from saying, "That's the way things are."
And of course it's an assumption that massive portions of our legal system would be upended. And I even agree with you, if we were to apply the inaccurate comparisons that keep getting made. The two people and the lake for example.
In the real world, it's never even an issue for the person who caused the other to be in the lake being compelled to dive in and save them. We've got lifeguards, police officers, paramedics, the Coast Guard, various trained contingencies in place for that situation. People who are likely better equipped to save the poor dope who got pushed into the lake anyway, for that matter.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Here's a question that diverts a bit back to the original topic of this thread: if a woman should have the freedom from pregnancy and subsequent child-rearing if she wants it, what is the reason a man shouldn't also have that freedom if he wants it?
Well, men are free from pregnancy. From the child-rearing, does anyone here actually know the laws regarding termination of parental rights? It is going to vary from state to state, but I know fathers are supposed to sign away rights for an adoption to take place. And I know mothers often are asked to pay child support if they are the non custodial parent. So, while the judge may apply the rules unevenly, I am not convinced that this inequality actually exists officially.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Well, men are free from pregnancy. From the child-rearing, does anyone here actually know the laws regarding termination of parental rights? It is going to vary from state to state, but I know fathers are supposed to sign away rights for an adoption to take place. And I know mothers often are asked to pay child support if they are the non custodial parent. So, while the judge may apply the rules unevenly, I am not convinced that this inequality actually exists officially.
I don't see how you can say the inequality doesn't exist.
As things stand currently, women in the United States have a legal right, throughout most of the pregnancy, at any point on their own to decide, "I don't want to be a parent anymore. I will end this pregnancy and I won't be a parent."
Men have no such right. I'm not suggesting they should, I'm just pointing out that there is in fact inequality working against both genders here. And for those who don't believe pregnancy should be a consequence of sex for women, why should it be for men then?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I was referring to after the pregnancy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I was referring to after the pregnancy.
Ahh...OK, I was asking the question regarding the situation during the pregnancy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: What if person B was voluntarily driving and got into a car accident with person A? Neither of them did anything wrong, but of course there are consequences to driving.
The problem with that analogy -- and I agree with Rakeesh on this point -- is that it views getting pregnant as something other than the expected consequence of sex. As an accident.
That's not true biologically. Especially without birth control, but even with it.
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Should I be unsurprised as well that you haven't actually answered my question of why things should be the way they are, aside from saying, "That's the way things are."
I did. You keep saying it boils down to something I don't think it does boil down to. I sense an impasse.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, try thinking of it (just to see the other side) as not deciding not to be a parent, but as deciding not to have your body be used by another being.
I know the two are (with the current state of medical science) inextricably linked. But if you can think of them as separate, there are two burdens on the woman, one of parenthood and one of host. If the two could someday be separate, then, yes, I think that both parents should have equal rights and obligations to the child.
ETA: Rivka, I would think that car accidents are an almost inevitable consequence of driving. I know very few drivers who have avoided any kind of accident and a lot of people who have had sex without accidentally getting pregnant.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Biologically, the point of sex is procreation. To whatever degree we separate the two, we are ignoring the natural order.
I don't think too many people would argue that the point of driving is to get into accidents.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Biologically the point of human sex is a lot more than procreation. Many of our nearest relative animals (and some not-so-near ones) use sex to work out dominance relationships and soothe tensions. And some of them are engaged in even when there's absolutely no chance of pregnancy.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I read that book too.
Just because there are other uses does not mean that the original point does not remain.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I don't know why that would make a difference. Unintended but foreseeable consequences are still unintended but foreseeable consequences.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, try thinking of it (just to see the other side) as not deciding not to be a parent, but as deciding not to have your body be used by another being.
The trouble is there's one totally effective way of deciding not to have your body be used by another being, and multiple all-but-certain methods* of doing so that completely avoid the messy entanglements of quite possibly terminating a human life simply out of avoidable bad planning.
quote:I know the two are (with the current state of medical science) inextricably linked. But if you can think of them as separate, there are two burdens on the woman, one of parenthood and one of host. If the two could someday be separate, then, yes, I think that both parents should have equal rights and obligations to the child.
So here's what I don't understand. When addressing inequality against the male, you're saying it's acceptable (if unfortunate) because of the biological realities involved.
But when it comes to the notion that abortion should perhaps not be legal because of other biological realities - that is, pregnancy being a potential consequence of unprotected or improperly protected sex - you're not willing to point to biological realities?
The biological realities you're willing to cite seem pretty fluid to me.
quote:I don't know why that would make a difference. Unintended but foreseeable consequences are still unintended but foreseeable consequences.
Say rather 'unintended but foreseeable and easily avoidable consequences'. If abstinence isn't on the table, properly used birth control by both parties surely is, yes?
Joe has no control over whether or not Jane in the passing lane is plastered out of her gourd late at night when they're driving. Joe does have control over whether or not he's using a condom correctly. Joe also has control over whether or not he's sleeping with a woman is using birth control herself.
*When properly used, birth control even with only one party using it is very, very effective. When both parties are doing so, the chance of failure dwindles even further.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
One of my good friends just had a child. Those pesky sperm (from her cyclist husband which they claim decreases sperm quality) made it through three forms of birth control. If you are using three forms and still get pregnant, then is it acceptable to have an abortion?
Posted by beleaguered (Member # 11983) on :
Are you trying to discover people's limits here? I don't think there is any difference with this case, except to say these consenting adults still managed to get pregnant and have to now deal with it. I don't think abortion should EVER be used as a bandaid for those oopsy daisy moments in the bedroom, or those results from irresponsible drunken parties. I'd hope adults have more control of themselves than to need to take such a drastic measure as killing a growing human to fix their mistakes. I've known people who were a product of a mistake, and they're grateful for the life they have. My youngest brother was a "mistake" (completely unplanned for), and we're all grateful to have him in our lives.
Edit: The only valid reasons for abortion, in my opinion, are cases of rape and in which the woman is likely to lose her own life. I think those should be handled on a case by case and the choice of abortion presented to the woman as acceptible. I don't see any good enough reasons for other cicrumstances.
Posted by Humean316 (Member # 8175) on :
quote:Edit: The only valid reasons for abortion, in my opinion, are cases of rape and in which the woman is likely to lose her own life. I think those should be handled on a case by case and the choice of abortion presented to the woman as acceptible. I don't see any good enough reasons for other cicrumstances.
Inherently though, the abortion that takes place in that case is still murder right? And if that's true, then why is it fine to murder an unborn child when the woman is raped as opposed to just when she makes a mistake?
Edit: I ask because I think sometimes abortion is thought of in terms of what we value most and what we empathize with most. For instance, I've heard this argument before, and when it comes right down to it, the argument turns on how much pain and anguish the mother will experience and the reason behind that pain and anguish. If the mother is at fault for the pregnancy, then a person is less likely to be empathetic to the mother, and thus, find the abortion both a ducking of responsibility and morally wrong. However, if the mother is not at fault because she was raped, then a person is more likely to feel empathetic to the mother, and thus, fund the abortion morally correct on the grounds that it was not the mother's responsibility. But isn't that interesting? The real deciding factor to many, of course not all, who make these moral judgments is not the child or the act of murder, but whether or not the mother is being responsible. Of course, the argument here makes no claim about the moral correctness of abortion nor does it apply to those who want all abortions legalized or banned, but to those in the middle, those who seek to draw a line somewhere between those two extremes, one of the more important factors, dare I say the deciding factor, concerns the personal responsibility of the mother.
Notice too that I said nothing, in that entire paragraph, about men.
[ March 30, 2009, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: Humean316 ]
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
Out of curiosity, for those here who believe abortion is murder, what should the legal penalty for women who seek abortions be?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
DEATH!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Out of curiosity, for those here who believe abortion is murder, what should the legal penalty for women who seek abortions be?
Your question makes no sense. Abortion is legal. It's like asking what should the legal penalty be for an executioner who puts to death a criminal convicted of the death penalty. The law is in dispute and the petty and selfish justifications are on display.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, try thinking of it (just to see the other side) as not deciding not to be a parent, but as deciding not to have your body be used by another being.
The trouble is there's one totally effective way of deciding not to have your body be used by another being, and multiple all-but-certain methods* of doing so that completely avoid the messy entanglements of quite possibly terminating a human life simply out of avoidable bad planning.
And there's a totally effective way of insuring that you will never be party to a car accident.
I think that you are placing some unwarranted faith in most forms of birth control.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:One of my good friends just had a child. Those pesky sperm (from her cyclist husband which they claim decreases sperm quality) made it through three forms of birth control. If you are using three forms and still get pregnant, then is it acceptable to have an abortion?
What three forms of birth control were they using? Because I'll be blunt here: I very much doubt that they could have been using three simultaneously and still gotten pregnant. It's nothing personal, it's just incredibly unlikely.
But, let's say they were the incredibly unlikely couple that this happened to. I think it should be legal for them to have an abortion, because they didn't bring the fetus into existence with intent. So long as they decide to get an early abortion, I think it should be legal. Throw in some mandatory sex-education classes for all couples (or singles) who desire an abortion and claim they were using birth control. Subsidize the production of reliable birth control methods to make it cheaper, increase government regulation of it to make it even more reliable.
There's some actual ideas, rivka.
quote:I think that you are placing some unwarranted faith in most forms of birth control.
That was just a quick look, but it appears to me that condoms are very effective and birth control is very, very effective in preventing pregnancy. When they're both used simultaneously? I'm not saying it will never happen, but rather that it would happen a lot less.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:One of my good friends just had a child. Those pesky sperm (from her cyclist husband which they claim decreases sperm quality) made it through three forms of birth control. If you are using three forms and still get pregnant, then is it acceptable to have an abortion?
What three forms of birth control were they using? Because I'll be blunt here: I very much doubt that they could have been using three simultaneously and still gotten pregnant. It's nothing personal, it's just incredibly unlikely.
But, let's say they were the incredibly unlikely couple that this happened to. I think it should be legal for them to have an abortion, because they didn't bring the fetus into existence with intent.
"I didn't intend to get pregnant. My boyfriend told me he was sterile." (from my sister-in-law)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I think that you are placing some unwarranted faith in most forms of birth control.
That was just a quick look, but it appears to me that condoms are very effective and birth control is very, very effective in preventing pregnancy. When they're both used simultaneously? I'm not saying it will never happen, but rather that it would happen a lot less.
I have to agree with rivka here. Let's look at it this way. There are about 300,000,000 people in the United States. Let's say, for the sake of easy math, that 100,000,000 of them are sexually active females of reproductive age.
Let's say they are all using the same type of birth control I am, which is 99.4% effective. It's the non-hormonal IUD, which is good for 10 years, and it is just about the best form of birth control you can use without abstaining or taking permanent measures.
If all of those 100,000,000 people were using the same form of birth control that I am using, then 600,000 of us would get pregnant. (Wow...that's a scary number when I look at it like that.)
But of course, not everyone is going to use that type of birth control. For one thing, I'm pretty sure you have to have had a baby to get an IUD (don't quote me on that). For another thing, not everyone is going to like how this form of birth control works. It tries to block sperm, but it also prevents fertilized eggs from implanting. A lot of people are uncomfortable with that.
The pill is 97% effective in practice. That's 3,000,000 women each year who would get pregnant on the pill if all 100,000,000 people were using it. And a lot of people aren't comfortable with this method. I hate hormonal methods of birth control, personally.
Tubal ligation (tying the tubes) is about 98% effective over the course of 10 years since the tubes have been known to fuse back together. So even if we all get ourselves "permanently" fixed, I assure you the human race will go on.
Any time you have sex you risk getting pregnant, with or without birth control. Heck, most Christians believed abstinence failed once.
I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this.
[ March 30, 2009, 10:01 AM: Message edited by: Christine ]
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
Might want to edit that anagram of 'this' in your second sentence there Christine. Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Doh! Fixed. That was embarrassing. Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Huh. I think it's been 10 years now since I got my tubes tied. Mine were cauterized rather than tied, and I believe that reduces the chances of them fusing back together, but it's still pretty scary to think that I've got a 2% chance of getting pregnant. Especially now that I'm old enough that it would automatically be a high-risk pregnancy.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Of course, if you're using three methods of birth control, the number gets a lot smaller. Not zero, but if you use the rate of failure for typical use of 14% for condoms and 20% for diaphragms, the number of pregnancies falls to 16,800. Well, assuming that the probability of failure is independent for condoms and diaphragms, which may not be the case. And that IUD failure is also independent.(Anyone know the answer to that one?)
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Yes. Also, I'm wondering what about low probabilities makes intent no longer play into things. After all, there are lots of very bad low probability events out there that we consider intent to be very important in regards to (such as auto accidents).
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this.
For me, the place intent matters is that if a person takes highly reliable, properly used preventative measures, their level of responsibility to the life that may be created is sharply decreased, and if both parties do so, effectively eliminated entirely.
quote:Any time you have sex you risk getting pregnant, with or without birth control. Heck, most Christians believed abstinence failed once.
Where I believe I diverge from at least some pro-lifers out there is that I don't think, in cases where both parties properly use reliable birth control, that we as a society should treat such a pregnancy as something that must be lived with. Because both parties took such effective measures, it truly was an accident.
---
fugu,
quote:After all, there are lots of very bad low probability events out there that we consider intent to be very important in regards to (such as auto accidents).
And in the case of automobile accidents, someone who is wearing their seatbelt, has had their car properly serviced and inspected, wearing any necessary glasses and that sort of thing, wasn't intoxicated or talking on their cell phones, and was obeying traffic laws and driving defensively gets treated differently from someone in the same accident who wasn't doing one or more of those things, from a legal standpoint.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by Shigosei: Of course, if you're using three methods of birth control, the number gets a lot smaller. Not zero, but if you use the rate of failure for typical use of 14% for condoms and 20% for diaphragms, the number of pregnancies falls to 16,800. Well, assuming that the probability of failure is independent for condoms and diaphragms, which may not be the case. And that IUD failure is also independent.(Anyone know the answer to that one?)
I believe using a condom and diaphragm simultaneously is actually likely to substantially increase failure, as having two layers of latex rub against each other increases friction and thus the odds of a tear.
You could probably pair a condom with a cervical cap, though.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: And in the case of automobile accidents, someone who is wearing their seatbelt, has had their car properly serviced and inspected, wearing any necessary glasses and that sort of thing, wasn't intoxicated or talking on their cell phones, and was obeying traffic laws and driving defensively gets treated differently from someone in the same accident who wasn't doing one or more of those things, from a legal standpoint.
But not from a medical standpoint. We still, by law, do everything medically possible to mitigate the physical consequences of such an accident no matter who was at fault or how much at fault they were. How dreadful would it be if we didn't?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: exactly. I was responding to Christine's "I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Oh, sorry fugu. I misunderstood you then.
---
quote:But not from a medical standpoint. We still, by law, do everything medically possible to mitigate the physical consequences of such an accident no matter who was at fault or how much at fault they were. How dreadful would it be if we didn't?
That's not the way car accidents are relative to this discussion, really. Someone - maybe it was you, I don't remember - pointed out that car accidents are a natural consequence of driving cars. That's perfectly true. And that the government doesn't simply sit back, shrug its shoulders and say, "You knew what you were getting into when you got behind the wheel," which is also perfectly true.
Where it breaks down, though, is that the government and the private sector (insurance companies, which make their rules with government consent) treat people very differently depending on how exactly the accident happened.
Everyone still gets a trip to the ER and gets their casts, but some people get their bills all but entirely paid and get a rental car to drive while theirs is in the shop....and some other people lose their car, end up in debt for years, and even go to jail.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. My point is regarding the physical consequences.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
My friend did have the baby, but she got her tubes tied afterwards. Hopefully they stayed tied (she has some medical problems so another baby would be very dangerous.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Right. My point is regarding the physical consequences.
And even with those, the government helps (or requires insurance companies to help, which amounts to the same thing) to the extent that the parties involved were behaving responsibly.
You'll get your cast, you'll get your trip in the ambulance to the ER, but the extent to which you're free of long-term consequences varies.
You insist the government should free women (and men) of the long-term consequences in all cases.
And of course there's the part of the car accident story that doesn't take into account, through some method of comparison, the presence of the fetus in the pregnancy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Right. My point is regarding the physical consequences.
And even with those, the government helps (or requires insurance companies to help, which amounts to the same thing) to the extent that the parties involved were behaving responsibly.
You'll get your cast, you'll get your trip in the ambulance to the ER, but the extent to which you're free of long-term consequences varies.
You insist the government should free women (and men) of the long-term consequences in all cases.
And of course there's the part of the car accident story that doesn't take into account, through some method of comparison, the presence of the fetus in the pregnancy.
Nope. I insist that the government refrain from preventing people from becoming free of physical consequences if that freedon is medically available.
Right. We already discussed what I think about weighing the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman. I am now dealing with the "it's her own fault for getting knocked up" part of the complicated equation.
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
Christine, for the tubal ligation, is that a 2% chance over 10 years, or a 2% chance per year after 10 years?
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
Here's a link to the article where I found those numbers, it's not very clear:
quote:Nope. I insist that the government refrain from preventing people from becoming free of physical consequences if that freedon is medically available.
Except that's not what the government does in car accidents. What it does is examine the situation, determine responsibility or negligence, and determine if the person should have to handle the physical consequences on their own or should be helped in doing so.
The only intervention the government does in every case is to provide treatment where it would have to be provided anyway. Then it decides if the person is going to be free of responsibility for handling those physical consequences or not.
Insofar as this comparison fits abortion - and it doesn't exactly do a good job of that - you're insisting that the government help everyone be free of physical consequences no matter what if they wish to be. That's not what the government does in car accidents.
quote:Right. We already discussed what I think about weighing the rights of the fetus and the rights of the woman. I am now dealing with the "it's her own fault for getting knocked up" part of the complicated equation.
Now I think it's my turn to ask you if that sort of language is helpful, kmbboots. I don't think about this in that sort of derogatory tone, nor do I think about it from an 'it's all her fault' angle either.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:I guess I'm saying that I just don't see where intent plays into this.
For me, the place intent matters is that if a person takes highly reliable, properly used preventative measures, their level of responsibility to the life that may be created is sharply decreased, and if both parties do so, effectively eliminated entirely.
That's an odd point of view and I'm not sure what to do with it. It almost seems as if you want to artificially increase the level of punishment for those who have unprotected sex and artificial decrease the level of risk for those who use protection.
I'm also not sure how to measure the level of protection. What's good enough? Condom? Condom + birth control pill? Just the pill? I've actually found natural family planning to be highly effective, when used properly.
Let's couple this with the flood of misinformation out there. It's almost laughable, but there are honestly women who believe that they can't get pregnant the first time, or on their menstrual cycle (though in their defense, this is highly unlikely), or if the woman is on top, or if the man pulls out before finishing, or...How does intent play in if someone honestly *thinks* they've taken proper protection. Do we punish people for ignorance as well as overt risk-taking behaviors?
If the baby is not a human entity with rights of its own, why should we differentiate the ability to terminate it based on intent? And if it is a human entity with rights of its own, how does it become less human because I tried to keep it from happening?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I think it is a little helpful in highlighting what seems to be the focus of your argument - that it is the fault of the person who got pregnant. That it was a foreseeable consequence and that makes her liable. "Knocked up" was probably not useful, but "fault" is what we are talking about.
And I am not insisting that the government free people from physical consequences. I am saying that the goverment does not stand between medical mitigation and someone who needs that mitigation regardless of fault.
The government does not say, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident so the doctors can't set his broken leg. He has to live with those consequences."
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that the baby is punishment for sex.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't the punishment for sex. Natural consequences are not the same thing a punishments.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I feel very uncomfortable with the idea that the baby is punishment for sex.
I think most people would be more comfortable with "consequence". Where does preventing medical mitigation for a physical consequence because that person could have avoided that consequence become punishment?
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
The "consequence" is another person's life. Why would it be okay to snuff out another person's life because someone wants to avoid consequences?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "consequence" is another person's life. Why would it be okay to snuff out another person's life because someone wants to avoid consequences?
According to some parts of this discussion, yes. If the consequences that occured were not that woman's fault. In cases of rape or a really good faith effort at birth control, for example. Some people who oppose obortion tend to be more okay with a rape exception because it isn't her fault.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by katharina: The "consequence" is another person's life. Why would it be okay to snuff out another person's life because someone wants to avoid consequences?
I think some people take the view that if a fetus is a person, its rights have to be balanced against the mother's rights. They might never think it's "okay" to abort the fetus, but they might think it's "okay" to let the mother make the decision, even if she chooses to do something wrong.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
If the existence of the child is at the mother's whim, then it has no rights at all. There's no "balance."
A "balance" of rights would allow the mother to choose whether or not to engage in behavior that would likely create the life. If she was raped, she didn't get a choice. If she wasn't, then she did. Considering it is a LIFE that is being balanced again, there is only one choice, not two.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Christine,
quote: That's an odd point of view and I'm not sure what to do with it. It almost seems as if you want to artificially increase the level of punishment for those who have unprotected sex and artificial decrease the level of risk for those who use protection.
A few problems with this. First problem is your use of the word 'artificial'. The status quo, too, is artificial. We've artifically decreased the level of 'punishment'.
Second, I don't view pregnancy as punishment.
Third, I do want to artificially decrease the level of risk for those who use protection, but it's pretty insignificant decrease for what I was talking about-properly used effective birth control on the part of both parties, that is. The risk there is already very, very small. So that part of your statement was accurate, I'm just clarifying.
quote:I'm also not sure how to measure the level of protection. What's good enough? Condom? Condom + birth control pill? Just the pill? I've actually found natural family planning to be highly effective, when used properly.
The condom plus birth control pill (both properly used) would be 'good enough' for what I'm talking about.
quote: Let's couple this with the flood of misinformation out there. It's almost laughable, but there are honestly women who believe that they can't get pregnant the first time, or on their menstrual cycle (though in their defense, this is highly unlikely), or if the woman is on top, or if the man pulls out before finishing, or...How does intent play in if someone honestly *thinks* they've taken proper protection. Do we punish people for ignorance as well as overt risk-taking behaviors?
Well, in the sort of set-up I'm semi-talking about here, that sort of ignorance would be much more effectively combated from a very young age, to say the least. Unfortunately on that end of the discussion, it's more often pro-lifers who are the problem.
It's just anecdotal opinion here, but from what I can tell people opposed to comprehensive sex-education from a young age are more likely to be pro-life. And that's a big problem.
quote: If the baby is not a human entity with rights of its own, why should we differentiate the ability to terminate it based on intent? And if it is a human entity with rights of its own, how does it become less human because I tried to keep it from happening?
It doesn't. It does, however, impact one way or another the level of obligation the mother and father have to it.
Two extremes: a woman is raped by a man and becomes pregnant. She has zero obligation, in my opinion, towards the life she's now carrying, even though that life if it is a human being has done nothing wrong to anyone.
A woman and a man are married with the intent to have children. They plan accordingly, and have sex with the primary goal of reproducing. Together they have a very, very large obligation towards that life, both individually and as a family.
The scenarios we're discussing fall somewhere in between those two extremes. I feel they fall quite a lot closer to the second extreme than, say, kmbboots does.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmboots,
quote:I think it is a little helpful in highlighting what seems to be the focus of your argument - that it is the fault of the person who got pregnant. That it was a foreseeable consequence and that makes her liable. "Knocked up" was probably not useful, but "fault" is what we are talking about.
Certainly it's helpful, I was just objecting to the tone of the characterization you used, that is, "It's her fault she got knocked up." That's not a fair characterization IMO even if it is technically accurate.
quote:And I am not insisting that the government free people from physical consequences. I am saying that the goverment does not stand between medical mitigation and someone who needs that mitigation regardless of fault.
'Need'? Are we to characterize healing a broken leg as being on the same level of need as 'mitigating' an unwanted (but easily avoidable) pregnancy?
quote:The government does not say, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident so the doctors can't set his broken leg. He has to live with those consequences."
No, what the government says is, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident, so he must live with the consequences, one of them being, 'large debt to a hospital'." That's not really the same thing.
ETA:
quote:According to some parts of this discussion, yes. If the consequences that occured were not that woman's fault. In cases of rape or a really good faith effort at birth control, for example. Some people who oppose obortion tend to be more okay with a rape exception because it isn't her fault.
I wouldn't say it's 'okay' in the case of a really good faith effort at birth control...I would still think it was wrong, just not in that case that the government should say, "No," to it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
It's just anecdotal opinion here, but from what I can tell people opposed to comprehensive sex-education from a young age are more likely to be pro-life. And that's a big problem.
Indeed. In fact, I think that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies and fewer abortions if we were more open about sex in a healthy way. I don't think that the way we are open about sex now is either healthy or all that open. I think that there would be fewer unplanned pregnancies aborted if the shame of it weren't such an issue.
This is partly why I harp on the fault aspect.
quote: No, what the government says is, "It was that person's fault for getting into a car accident, so he must live with the consequences, one of them being, 'large debt to a hospital'." That's not really the same thing.
But that is not a bodily, physical, consequence. That is the distinction I am trying to make.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But that is not a bodily, physical, consequence. That is the distinction I am trying to make.
But then we come back to the question of 'need'. If you've got a pierced lung, you need to get it fixed. You'll die if it ain't. If you've got a broken leg, you need to get it fixed. You can't walk, you can't drive, you'll lose your job, etc.
And, again, it's just you in that situation. You persist in trying to zero in on the part of the (already faulty) comparison where the fetus equivalent is completely absent.
If you're pregnant, though? Well, just as in the car accident, if you're incapable of sustaining yourself, the government will help you there, too. Maybe not enough, maybe not properly...but the government doesn't just say, "Tough s@#t!" either.
Which is one way the comparison actually is apt, come to think of it.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
But the issue currently under discussion (as I understand it) isn't whether the government will help you end the pregnancy; it's whether the government will forbid you from ending the pregnancy through your own resources. You seem to be conflating the two.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
I am not sure what you are saying there. I am not asking for government help, just government non-hindrence.
Of course, if we have government insurance at some point that is a different discussion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:But the issue currently under discussion (as I understand it) isn't whether the government will help you end the pregnancy; it's whether the government will forbid you from ending the pregnancy through your own resources. You seem to be conflating the two.
Actually, the discussion we were having there (and I admit it's getting far afield) was in comparing whether or not the government requires people to live with the burdensome consequences of legal activity when the chance of incurring those consequences is remote.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I'm not sure if that was addressed to me or ambyr, kmbboots.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:But the issue currently under discussion (as I understand it) isn't whether the government will help you end the pregnancy; it's whether the government will forbid you from ending the pregnancy through your own resources. You seem to be conflating the two.
Actually, the discussion we were having there (and I admit it's getting far afield) was in comparing whether or not the government requires people to live with the burdensome consequences of legal activity when the chance of incurring those consequences is remote.
Sort of. I was talking about whether the government requires one to live with the physical consequences of any action.
We take people's money pretty regularly when someone has done a bad thing. We take away their freedom when they have done worse bad things. Very seldom do we take away their right to sovereignty over their own body. Penal labour is even out of fashion.
We allow medical remedy for other physical consequences of even really stupid actions. Currently we allow a medical remedy for careless sex.
And no, I am not forgetting that there is a third party here. But why would the possible rights of the fetus increase or decrease depending on whether or not the woman carrying it has screwed up?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sort of. I was talking about whether the government requires one to live with the physical consequences of any action.
The government does require that, though. I guess for me I count 'working to pay off debt' as a sort of 'physical consequence'.
quote:Very seldom do we take away their right to sovereignty over their own body. Penal labour is even out of fashion.
There is a set of circumstances, however, when we do take their body-sovereignty away: when they have given it away, that is, late-term abortions.
quote:And no, I am not forgetting that there is a third party here. But why would the possible rights of the fetus increase or decrease depending on whether or not the woman carrying it has screwed up?
They don't, and I believe I've answered that question (though not directly to you) at least once already. What increases or decreases is the responsibility the woman has to protect those rights.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Sort of. I was talking about whether the government requires one to live with the physical consequences of any action.
The government does require that, though. I guess for me I count 'working to pay off debt' as a sort of 'physical consequence'.
Ah. See, no it doesn't. The government can take away property but they do not make you work off a debt. If you choose to not work and live on charity or whatever, the government does not force you to work.
quote:
quote:Very seldom do we take away their right to sovereignty over their own body. Penal labour is even out of fashion.
There is a set of circumstances, however, when we do take their body-sovereignty away: when they have given it away, that is, late-term abortions.
I'm not sure what you mean here? Are you talking of the body sovereignty of the fetus?
quote:
quote:And no, I am not forgetting that there is a third party here. But why would the possible rights of the fetus increase or decrease depending on whether or not the woman carrying it has screwed up?
They don't, and I believe I've answered that question (though not directly to you) at least once already. What increases or decreases is the responsibility the woman has to protect those rights.
I agree there is a moral responsibility. I won't agree that there should be a legal one.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Ah. See, no it doesn't. The government can take away property but they do not make you work off a debt. If you choose to not work and live on charity or whatever, the government does not force you to work.
Of course they do. In, for example, cases of car accidents where you cannot afford the treatment you're given. You then have a debt. They don't put you in debtor's prison if you don't pay, but there's a clear-cut use of force nonetheless.
Citizens are also compelled to pay off debts in small claims court.
quote:I'm not sure what you mean here? Are you talking of the body sovereignty of the fetus?
I was talking about a circumstance in which we do take away a person's right to body-sovereignty. You said it was rare. I should've been more clear, I wasn't disagreeing with you, simply pointing out that we do take that away...and in fact do so in situations involving abortion, namely late-term abortion.
quote:I agree there is a moral responsibility. I won't agree that there should be a legal one.
Well, of course. I left off the 'in my opinion' because it gets clunky after awhile.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
We need a sex tax to cover the cost to government of abortions. They do it with cigarettes and alcohol for other medical ramifications. Maybe they should put the abortion tax on alcohol, since I'm sure it's to blame for many unwanted pregnancies.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I am posting under that high quality post.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I was trying to think like a liberal. Sorry, they tend not to tax their own causes. In fact, they give them tax free status and government subsidies.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I posted above that high-quality post.
This is one high-quality sammich. Like, Boar's Head even!
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hey, there's another one! It's a double-decker!
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Another thing about liberals, no sense of humor. That's why left wing radio fails.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, and that's why the Daily Show failed and the Half Hour News Hour was such a smashing success.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I mean, LIEberals, am i rite?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
I want to eat babies and install microchips in people that force them to be atheist muslims. Sorry, I was just trying to think like a liberal, lol.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
radio,, that's the thing in your prius in the middle of the dashboard.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
In case you didn't get the point (indeed, you didn't) it references your claim that liberals have no sense of humor and the idea one need only look at radio to prove it.
I mean, "X have no sense of humor" is so flat a point on its own, I don't even need to go into it.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Disprove my radio comment by pointing to the daily show. Pictures help when your words are empty. Oooh Oooh, Jay Leno's news paper clipping typo's and Bloopers and out-takes, Ha Ha Ha. News bloopers, they are funny. Maybe McCain will fall down some stairs, wont that be great on the Daily Show?
[ March 31, 2009, 02:37 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Disprove my radio comment by pointing to the daily show.
I did you one better. I dismissed your 'no sense of humor' comment by pointing to the daily show.
And anytime I get to use that show as a proof, the day shines just a little brighter.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I like the Daily Show, it's funny but it has nothing to do with what translates over radio.
The best you can come up with is Comedy Central? John Stewart would probably make a better president than Obama.
[ March 31, 2009, 03:39 AM: Message edited by: malanthrop ]
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You know, I agree with malanthrop on this one.
Have you ever heard Rush? Savage? Scarborough? O'Reilly?
Clearly these guys aren't meant to be taken seriously, which means they must be there for comedic and entertainment purposes, which is personally how I enjoy them.
Given that, it's clear that the Right is dramatically overrepresented when it comes to having a sense of humor in the media.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Yeah, it's really a shame that right-wing "principles" translate better to slandering people for entertainment purposes.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The best you can come up with is Comedy Central? John Stewart would probably make a better president than Obama.
"Is that the best you could do?" followed by "What you could do is better than the President of the United States" is not exactly what I would call a coherent strategy for trying to slap down my posts.
Maybe you should do some mild review before hitting 'add reply.' double-check your notes, or sommat.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Does he think that Jay Leno is a liberal?
Anyway.
Rakeesh, I am still failing to make clear the distinction I am trying to make.
Sovereignty over possessions is different than sovereignty over your own body.
The government will use force to take your money. They would I guess come with sheriffs and evict you from your home and take your stuff.
They will not force you to compel you by force to take a job or to keep one. They will not stand over you with a gun while you dig ditches or keep you locked up until you finish a computer program*. They do not make you donate blood.
The only case where the law forces or considers forcing non-criminal adults to relinquish ownership over their own body is, as you mentioned, pregnancy.
*It is possible that prisons still require labour nowadays, but you have to do something illegal to get there.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sovereignty over possessions is different than sovereignty over your own body.
Different...but not inviolate, as you were suggesting earlier. That was my point. Body sovereignty is not some sacred cow the government never, ever touches. We as citizens in this society do not have the right to do what we want, how we want, when we want in all cases to our bodies.
And come to think of it, I wonder if the government does force us into a medical choice after a car crash? I'm not a doctor, so I'm asking: what would happen if I had a broken leg and didn't want to go to a hospital for it after a car crash? Unless I had my lawyer standing right there, I wonder if I wouldn't somehow end up with a cast on my leg? That's an honest question-I really don't know one way or another.
Anyway, my point was that in a car crash, the government does force people to take on long-term consequences if those consequences could have been mitigated by the person involved. And yes, you're right, they're not exactly 'physical consequences'...but the car crash comparison is so faulty in so many ways, don't I get at least one area of leeway? After all, you're continually asking we set aside the fetus part of the comparison, right?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Not exactly. I am (for the purposes of this argument) conceeding that the fetus has rights.
It does not have the right to use someone else's body against their will. Nobody does. Or should.
(I get that that is probably the only right that is important to it.)
The only people who are forced to let someone else use their body are criminals, slaves, and pregnant woman. It used to be women in general which I think is part of the reason that women's rights advocates are so adamant about it.
It is a sacred cow.
As for the medical choice thing, I think that competent adults are allowed to deny treatment - leave hospitals against medical advice and so forth. Of course, denying treatment could be grounds for deciding that someone is not competent.
[ March 31, 2009, 10:12 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I suspect you meant to type sacred . . .
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Oops. Um...fixed. Poor cow.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I dunno, I mean would you mess with a scared cow? I wouldn't.
quote:It does not have the right to use someone else's body against their will. Nobody does. Or should.
Except when it does. We've discussed it already, but there's already a time when the fetus has the protected right to use a woman's body against her will: late-term abortions.
Should that right be abolished? And I'm not talking about cases where the woman's health is in danger, either. Should late-term abortions be legal in this country, because nobody does or should have the right to use someone else's body against their will?
quote:The only people who are forced to let someone else use their body are criminals slaves, and pregnant woman. It used to be women in general which I think is part of the reason that women's rights advocates are so adamant about it.
Except that the overwhelming majority of pregnant women aren't 'forced' to let someone else use their body against their will. Just like 'criminal slaves' for that matter.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Whoops. Should have been a comma between criminals and slaves.
The majority of pregnant women are joyfully (one hopes) allowing the fetus to use their body. It is the ones who are being forced to let the fetus use their bodies that I am concerned with here.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote: It is the ones who are being forced to let the fetus use their bodies that I am concerned with here.
I understand that. They still haven't been 'forced', or at least not 'forced' without a qualifier.
"Sign on the dotted line or your brains instead of your signature will adorn this contract." That's force.
"I stayed up really late and woke up really early after turning the AC down really cold and not drying off after I took a shower and now I'm forced to have a cold." That's...not really the same kind of force.
Both are extreme examples, both are 'force'. But one has a context and the other doesn't, really.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
"you got a cold, but if you try to do anything about it I'm going to throw you in jail", however, is back to the first kind of force.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Assuming that neither of us is equating pregnancy with having a cold and acknowledging that that is not really how you get a cold, the second example should be more like:
"I stayed up really late and woke up really early after turning the AC down really cold and not drying off after I took a shower and now I'm forced to have a cold. And there is a cure for the cold that the government won't let me have. - ETA: Or what fugu said.
And we are back to, "but it is her fault." And I am saying that, while there is, I think, a moral obligation, her fault is not so heinous as to justify her having to give up control over her body to someone else against her will.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:"you got a cold, but if you try to do anything about it I'm going to throw you in jail", however, is back to the first kind of force.
Completely true. However, that's not the part that was relevant. The guy wasn't 'forced' to have a cold.
quote:Assuming that neither of us is equating pregnancy with having a cold and acknowledging that that is not really how you get a cold, the second example should be more like:
Of course. All comparisons fall at least somewhat short, that one pretty badly I admit.
quote:And we are back to, "but it is her fault." And I am saying that, while there is, I think, a moral obligation, her fault is not so heinous as to justify her having to give up control over her body to someone else against her will.
For me we're back to, "But it's their fault."
The problem with the last part of your statement is the disconnect. You say that she didn't do anything so 'heinous' to justify her giving up control over her body. The disconnect lies in the fact that what she did gave up control over her body. There exists a medical remedy for that situation, but the fact remains that it wasn't as though one night a man and a woman had unprotected sex, and in the morning the stork knocked on the door and thrust a claim slip into her hand saying, "This is yours in nine months! Deal with it!"
Also, I notice that you didn't answer my question about late-term abortions.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The problem with the last part of your statement is the disconnect. You say that she didn't do anything so 'heinous' to justify her giving up control over her body. The disconnect lies in the fact that what she did gave up control over her body. There exists a medical remedy for that situation, but the fact remains that it wasn't as though one night a man and a woman had unprotected sex, and in the morning the stork knocked on the door and thrust a claim slip into her hand saying, "This is yours in nine months! Deal with it!"
Also, I notice that you didn't answer my question about late-term abortions.
Are you saying that by having sex a woman gives up her right to control her body? I disagree.
I missed the question about late term abortions. How late are you talking about? Do you mean fetuses that would be viable?
We really need artificial wombs, don't we?
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Rakeesh: By that logic, we give up control over our bodies by getting in a car, since there's a substantial increase in the chance of bodily harm.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I dunno, I mean would you mess with a scared cow? I wouldn't.
quote:It does not have the right to use someone else's body against their will. Nobody does. Or should.
Except when it does. We've discussed it already, but there's already a time when the fetus has the protected right to use a woman's body against her will: late-term abortions.
Should that right be abolished? And I'm not talking about cases where the woman's health is in danger, either. Should late-term abortions be legal in this country, because nobody does or should have the right to use someone else's body against their will?
The trouble with late-term abortions is the increasing grayness of the rights of the fetus, because babies born in the last trimester can live. After about 32-34 weeks, they don't even need extreme medical intervention to do it (some intervention, but not extreme). At 37 weeks, they are considered full term. A late-term abortion does one more than removing the unwanted pregnancy, because it requires actively killing the baby before it comes out or, in the case of partial-birth abortions, on the way out.
I'm not sure where this fits into the whole control over the body control part of the debate, since that particular line of thinking isn't at the heart of my abortion opinion, but let me take a stab at it this way: After 6 months of pregnancy, a woman has had ample opportunity to terminate. If she hasn't terminated by now, then she has exercised control of her body by making the choice to carry to term.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Are you saying that by having sex a woman gives up her right to control her body? I disagree.
That's one way to put it. Another way to put it would be that by having sex, a woman takes a chance at helping to create a life which she is then responsible for. Likewise for men, though in a different way of course. By having sex a man takes a chance at creating a life and having a responsibility towards it.
Your restatement of my statement only works if you're looking at the situation entirely from a body-control standpoint.
quote:I missed the question about late term abortions. How late are you talking about? Do you mean fetuses that would be viable?
Well, let's just pick a time Christine mentioned: 32 weeks. Do you think, because no one and nothing has a right to force someone else's body to support them, that a woman should be allowed to terminate the pregnancy on those grounds alone? You don't need to explain why you believe that, if you do-it's the discussion we've been having all along.
But if not, why not?
quote:Rakeesh: By that logic, we give up control over our bodies by getting in a car, since there's a substantial increase in the chance of bodily harm.
Well, when we get into a car, we do give up the right to expect to never, ever, ever be in a car accident, among other things. Heck, alcohol for example.
-----
Christine,
quote:After 6 months of pregnancy, a woman has had ample opportunity to terminate. If she hasn't terminated by now, then she has exercised control of her body by making the choice to carry to term.
The difficulty here is this: can't precisely the same reasoning be applied to the decision to have unsafe sex? "After four years* of being warned that unprotected sex can result in pregnancy, a woman (and the man she was with) had ample opportunity to avoid the pregnancy."
*Granted, I'm dissatisfied with sex-education in our country (I think everyone is), but generally I think there aren't very many people over 18 who at the very least haven't been told more than once that to have unprotected sex can result in a pregnancy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh, the late term abortion is emotionally very tough. I think that women should carry through to natural labour but I balk at forcing them.
I would agree to laws (and to strict enforcement of laws) similar to what we have in Illinois that provide a doctor to determine the viability of a fetus and if there is any reasonably likelihood of viability mandate the best way of removing a baby from the woman to preserve the life and health of that baby as long as the woman is not in serious physical danger.
I would consider adding C-section to that list of ways of removing a baby if it made medical sense though that is problematic.
I would also consider even 24 or 26 weeks rather than 32.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:Rakeesh, the late term abortion is emotionally very tough. I think that women should carry through to natural labour but I balk at forcing them.
I agree with the first and the second, but I personally wouldn't balk at forcing them unless the mother's health was at risk. I know that's a subjective term.
quote: I would agree to laws (and to strict enforcement of laws) similar to what we have in Illinois that provide a doctor to determine the viability of a fetus and if there is any reasonably likelihood of viability mandate the best way of removing a baby from the woman to preserve the life and health of that baby as long as the woman is not in serious physical danger.
Well, wouldn't that be a contradiction of what you've said before? What you're describing sounds to me like a pretty clear case of the state usurping body-sovereignty from the woman.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request. I think there is a little room for negotiation for the fetus's rights when it comes down to what kind of procedure is used.
Again, this would need to make some medical sense to both the fetus and the mother. C-sections are a major medical procedure and I don't know how they stack up risk-wise against an ordinary abortion.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request.
Hahahaha.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Totally did not mean that!
My opinion on the specific topic is not firm.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request. I think there is a little room for negotiation for the fetus's rights when it comes down to what kind of procedure is used.
I can appreciate that...it's just the thing is, you're saying not only that body-sovereignty shouldn't be inviolate morally, but it shouldn't be inviolate legally either?
ETA: You know...maybe this was just a matter of phrasing, or how I'm reading it, but when we're talking about late-term abortion and you say, "There's a little room for negotiation..." (emphasis mine)
I've read it, and I've re-read it and thought about it for a few minutes now, and it makes me wonder just how substantial your belief even in the moral rights of a fetus are, if there's only a little room for negotiation for it even late-term.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: You know, I agree with malanthrop on this one.
Have you ever heard Rush? Savage? Scarborough? O'Reilly?
Clearly these guys aren't meant to be taken seriously, which means they must be there for comedic and entertainment purposes, which is personally how I enjoy them.
Given that, it's clear that the Right is dramatically overrepresented when it comes to having a sense of humor in the media.
You've proven me wrong....A liberal with a sense of humor. nice Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
He's not he only one, malanthrop. To add to Obama's intelligence, wisdom, charisma, bravery and decisiveness, he also has a great sense of humour.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
I might disagree with decisiveness and bravery.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: kmbboots,
quote:It is a bit mushy, but the fetus is being removed from her at her request. I think there is a little room for negotiation for the fetus's rights when it comes down to what kind of procedure is used.
I can appreciate that...it's just the thing is, you're saying not only that body-sovereignty shouldn't be inviolate morally, but it shouldn't be inviolate legally either?
ETA: You know...maybe this was just a matter of phrasing, or how I'm reading it, but when we're talking about late-term abortion and you say, "There's a little room for negotiation..." (emphasis mine)
I've read it, and I've re-read it and thought about it for a few minutes now, and it makes me wonder just how substantial your belief even in the moral rights of a fetus are, if there's only a little room for negotiation for it even late-term.
Eh...you're reading more into "little" than I meant. Stick an "at least" in front of it or change it to "some".
My belief in the rights of the fetus are indeed variable, but if a fetus can live without using the woman's body (viable) it should, baring serious risks to the woman, be given a chance to.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
That makes sense. The 'little' the way it read to me was very jarring. My mistake.
quote:My belief in the rights of the fetus are indeed variable, but if a fetus can live without using the woman's body (viable) it should, baring serious risks to the woman, be given a chance to.
Can someone or something be said to actually have rights if they're 'variable'? But speaking of variables, it seems to me that your belief in the right to body-sovereignty is a bit variable too.
How strong is your belief in the right to body-sovereignty when the fetus only might live without using the woman's body? And if you believe that a fetus has some (variable) rights, and you also believe that body-sovereignty rights aren't sacred, why is the bar set at 'when the fetus can live outside the body without serious risks to the woman'?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
The woman has chosen to have a procedure to take the fetus out. Either way, the fetus is not going to be using her body anymore.
Posted by malanthrop (Member # 11992) on :
Rakeesh I like you in this room. KM maybe too but I can't decide, it's a bit mushy. I won't interject beyond this. Enjoying your exchange.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:The woman has chosen to have a procedure to take the fetus out. Either way, the fetus is not going to be using her body anymore.
But she does not decide the means. She is no longer in control of her own body. She doesn't get to say what is done when and how or even by whom.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Okay. Do you want me to say that there is no room for negotiation?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Kmbboots,
I realize I'm badgering you on this subject...it's just that, earlier in our discussion, one of the keystones (it seemed to me) of your argument was that body-sovereignty both is inviolate from a legal standpoint, and should be inviolate from a moral standpoint.
Now that that does not appear to be the case, I'm trying to understand why and reconcile it.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Ah...and I was trying to make some compromise.
You are right. Even the small concession of giving late-term viable fetuses a legal right to be removed in a way that is best for them without causing serious risk to the woman would, indeed, erode that concept of body sovereignty.
No compromise.
My thinking was mushy.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
*sigh* Well, it was interesting talking about this with you for this long. Thank you for sharing.
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop:
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: Out of curiosity, for those here who believe abortion is murder, what should the legal penalty for women who seek abortions be?
Your question makes no sense. Abortion is legal. It's like asking what should the legal penalty be for an executioner who puts to death a criminal convicted of the death penalty. The law is in dispute and the petty and selfish justifications are on display.
My point is, abortion is currently legal. Anti-abortion activists think it should be illegal. If it were to become illegal, what should be the penalty for getting one?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Rakeesh,
I am not annoyed with you. You really did convince me that any compromise would be the thin edge of a wedge. I did get mushy because of my desire to do something for late-term, viable fetuses and because I do think that they should have some rights. And I shouldn't have.
I do think that you have highlighted the reason why there is no compromise between pro-choice and pro-life groups.
My irritation is with that not with you.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: kmbboots,
quote:The woman has chosen to have a procedure to take the fetus out. Either way, the fetus is not going to be using her body anymore.
But she does not decide the means. She is no longer in control of her own body. She doesn't get to say what is done when and how or even by whom.
I'm not being mushy and I still don't see why the baby has to come out in a way that guarantees its death. There are two basic ways to prematurely remove a baby from a mother -- induction and c-section. Even if she chooses one of those two manners, if the fetus is viable, it should come out in one piece. I am not aware of a late-term abortion procedure that does not actively kill the baby by ripping it apart or injecting a lethal dose of drug into it. At that point, she is not deciding what happens to her body she is deciding what happens to the fetus' body. All she gets to decide is whether it comes out and how.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Christine, because if that choice is taken away from the woman it opens the door to taking other choices away.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: kmbboots,
quote:The woman has chosen to have a procedure to take the fetus out. Either way, the fetus is not going to be using her body anymore.
But she does not decide the means. She is no longer in control of her own body. She doesn't get to say what is done when and how or even by whom.
I'm not being mushy and I still don't see why the baby has to come out in a way that guarantees its death. There are two basic ways to prematurely remove a baby from a mother -- induction and c-section. Even if she chooses one of those two manners, if the fetus is viable, it should come out in one piece. I am not aware of a late-term abortion procedure that does not actively kill the baby by ripping it apart or injecting a lethal dose of drug into it. At that point, she is not deciding what happens to her body she is deciding what happens to the fetus' body. All she gets to decide is whether it comes out and how.
I think there's a marginal increase in the risk of complications or injury to the mother if vaginal delivery of an intact fetus is attempted, compared to one that isn't intact. So I think there's an argument that the mother *might* be affected/hurt by being required to deliver the fetus alive instead of dead. C-section of course involves cutting into the body so has the same problem.
However, I am against late term abortion even though it does compromise the body sovereignty of the mother. (I think the rights of a mostly-developed fetus outweigh that particular problem.)
I think post-partum viability of the infant is probably the proper place to draw that line. We will push that further and further back through improved technology, until it amounts to transplanting a fetus from the original womb to another one, natural or artificial. (The risk of harm to the original mother should continue to decrease with earlier removal and improved technology as well.)
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Christine, because if that choice is taken away from the woman it opens the door to taking other choices away.
I've never been compelled by this argument. It's either the right thing to do or it isn't. Open doors, the next step...that's all based on an assumption that the people who follow us are unable to differentiate right from wrong the same way we do.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
scifibum -- I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's more harmful to a woman to tear up a baby before removing it vaginally. Of course, c-sections are hard on a woman and ill-advised except where necessity dictates otherwise.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Christine, because if that choice is taken away from the woman it opens the door to taking other choices away.
I've never been compelled by this argument. It's either the right thing to do or it isn't. Open doors, the next step...that's all based on an assumption that the people who follow us are unable to differentiate right from wrong the same way we do.
See, I wasn't either but look at what just happened.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: scifibum -- I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's more harmful to a woman to tear up a baby before removing it vaginally. Of course, c-sections are hard on a woman and ill-advised except where necessity dictates otherwise.
Well, if it's all the same to the mother to push it out alive, then yeah, that should be the rule for viable infants.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Christine, because if that choice is taken away from the woman it opens the door to taking other choices away.
I've never been compelled by this argument. It's either the right thing to do or it isn't. Open doors, the next step...that's all based on an assumption that the people who follow us are unable to differentiate right from wrong the same way we do.
See, I wasn't either but look at what just happened.
I can see the sense in not requiring a woman to continue to host a fetus against her will, even though there might be an entity with competing rights.
I have a harder time seeing the sense in holding 100% inviolate her right to determine the way in which the fetus is removed, if by a *slight* infringement on that right a more vital right is preserved.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Right. I thought that, too. Mushily. But once that right is not %100 inviolate, there is the thin edge of the wedge.
[ April 01, 2009, 03:36 PM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
Wow, I have to admit this discussion took an unexpected turn.
I'm a nerd who likes arguing and discussing current events and politics, so it's not the first time I've discussed abortion with someone (I mean, obviously, heh). However, I can't recall ever doing (or even seeing) anything more than making my own position better understood, and gaining a better understanding of the positions of others. I don't recall that I've ever convinced anyone of anything, or seen anyone convince anyone of anything aside from that.
So this discussion is an odd twist. I convinced you of something, and it was directly opposite of the opinion I was expressing. I'm not sure I should be pleased or embarrassed.
quote:Christine, because if that choice is taken away from the woman it opens the door to taking other choices away.
Why not, as Christine says, take each question on its own merits rather than on the impact it might have seventeen steps down the road?
Well, I mean, I know why not-slippery slope. A valid fear for both sides. But why is the slippery slope such a compelling defense? Should we as a society allow for partial-birth abortions, or +8 month abortions in all cases at the woman's discretion, solely to protect the might-be-threatened rights of women in the future a few weeks earlier in the pregnancy?
We come back to the weighing of fetal rights vs. body-sovereignty rights, then. Is the right of the fetus so infinitesimal that it does not weigh favorably against the future rights of other women potentially being threatened? Is the right of body-sovereignty so absolute that even future potential threats against it outweigh the actual, factual termination of the fetus in the present?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
That is the problem with using the law as enforcer. It uses precedent to decide what next steps are available or possible.
And not everyone is as reasonable as I think we have been here. People will shove open a door that is open even a crack when it comes to legal precedent.
Having said that, many states do hav laws in place to give some protection to viable fetuses. But remember the fireworks last year about then-Sen. Obama voting against the Born Alive law in Illinois?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
quote:That is the problem with using the law as enforcer. It uses precedent to decide what next steps are available or possible.
Definitely. However, there are ways to circumvent it. Though I share doubt that they would ever be reached by the different sides in this discussion. Too many assholes on the far side of either side, and they're just too damn loud and committed to circumvent.
Actually, I think I may change my pie-in-the-sky idea: let's get everyone on both sides of the issue to, instead of funneling money and time towards politicians who share their views to instead send those resources into research that will hopefully speed up the attainment of artificial wombs, at which time we can just get over this whole messy business.
quote:And not everyone is as reasonable as I think we have been here. People will shove open a door that is open even a crack when it comes to legal precedent.
Back to not-so-pie-in-the-sky. This is true...but I think you're underestimating pro-choicers if you think one relatively small victory will spell doom for the cause.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Or overestimating pro-lifers?
ETA: And pouring those resources into sex-education and social safety nets and reducing the stigma of unplanned pregnancy so that women have better and more appealing choices than abortion.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doesn't that amount to the same thing? Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: scifibum -- I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's more harmful to a woman to tear up a baby before removing it vaginally.
Nope.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: scifibum -- I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's more harmful to a woman to tear up a baby before removing it vaginally.
Nope.
Do you have some resources on this? Because all the information I found suggested that past about 20 weeks, fetuses are delivered whole and killed on the way out.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:Are you saying that by having sex a woman gives up her right to control her body? I disagree.
By freely choosing to have sex, a woman potentially gives up certain rights in regard to her body - but definitely not ALL rights regarding control of her body. Similarly, a man potentially gives up certain rights too, but more in regard to his future responsibilities than his physical body.
Perhaps it would be clearer if people just had to sign a contract beforehand. Unfortunately, that's impractical. But the lack of a physical signed contract doesn't mean the sacrifice of certain rights and the acceptance of certain responsibilities isn't implied by the choice.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Xaposert:
quote:Are you saying that by having sex a woman gives up her right to control her body? I disagree.
By freely choosing to have sex, a woman potentially gives up certain rights in regard to her body - but definitely not ALL rights regarding control of her body. Similarly, a man potentially gives up certain rights too, but more in regard to his future responsibilities than his physical body.
Perhaps it would be clearer if people just had to sign a contract beforehand. Unfortunately, that's impractical. But the lack of a physical signed contract doesn't mean the sacrifice of certain rights and the acceptance of certain responsibilities isn't implied by the choice.
It would seem pretty clear from the preceeding discussion that not everyone agrees with the statement that women relinquish body sovereignty when they have sex. I think I have already addressed why I disagree.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:It would seem pretty clear from the preceeding discussion that not everyone agrees with the statement that women relinquish body sovereignty when they have sex. I think I have already addressed why I disagree.
To put a different spin on it, do you think this is a 'natural right', a right that has always existed, or did it only begin to exist once abortion became a real medical option?
That is, 200 years ago, would a woman (and a man) having had sex mean they potentially give up their right to control their bodies and their lives?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rakeesh, abortion is at least as old as civilization.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Two hundred years ago a woman was pretty much property (and still is today in some cultures). That is why the concept of body sovereignty is such a big deal. For most of history, we didn't have it.
For men to give up body sovereignty, they had to be criminals, slaves or, in some cases, really poor almost slaves - indentured servants, serfs and so forth.
We recognized this as badness and have rid ourselves of that evil for the most part.
Posted by Xaposert (Member # 1612) on :
quote:It would seem pretty clear from the preceeding discussion that not everyone agrees with the statement that women relinquish body sovereignty when they have sex. I think I have already addressed why I disagree.
Okay, how about this scenario... A boyfriend and girlfriend want to have sex, but the boyfriend feels very strongly about not having abortions, so he draws up a formal written agreement beforehand. The agreement states that if they have sex and if the girlfriend ends up getting pregnant, then the girlfriend will have the baby and will not get an abortion. If the girlfriend fully understands and signs that agreement, would you consider her to have given up her body sovereignty in regards to pregnancy? Would you consider the agreement to be ethically binding?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yes, scifibum, I know. I'm talking about modern, reliable abortion.
kmbboots, I know all of that too...but none of it is really an answer to my question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Xasopert,
Ethically binding? Yes. Of course, I think that she has some moral obligation without such a paper.
I think that it would be unethical of society to legal force her to abide by such a contract.
Rakeesh, 200 years ago, a woman would not have been "giving up" body sovereignty 200 years ago because she didn't have it to begin with. A man would not have been giving up anyting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:It would seem pretty clear from the preceeding discussion that not everyone agrees with the statement that women relinquish body sovereignty when they have sex. I think I have already addressed why I disagree.
To put a different spin on it, do you think this is a 'natural right', a right that has always existed, or did it only begin to exist once abortion became a real medical option?
That is, 200 years ago, would a woman (and a man) having had sex mean they potentially give up their right to control their bodies and their lives?
Back to the original quote, then.
You seem to think that medical (reliable, safe) abortion has something to do with the concept of body sovereignty. I can't see how this could be true at all. In fact, submitting to a medical procedure, especially one that involves anesthesia, is a voluntary (temporary) relinquishment of the basic right to move and act as one pleases. It implies submission to authority (medical authority). Since it is voluntary it is not an abridgment of sovereignty (to torture the metaphor it's a kind of treaty) - but it's hardly more free than simply doing do one's own body what one wishes.
200 years ago, women certainly could try to stop being pregnant. Some did so. In fact, some of what I've read indicates that in some cultures it was accepted as the woman's right. (Sadly I can't source that at the moment.)
Legal abortion brings to light what was in the past a private thing. In addition to being private it was dangerous depending on how it was accomplished.
It might be true that modern medical abortion is a more attractive option than older methods, but I don't think that affects the right of a woman to control her own body. Just the methods by which she can exercise that right.
To draw an analogy, freedom of speech can be exercised with printing presses, broadcast media, and the Internet. But it can still exist without any of those things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Rakeesh, 200 years ago, a woman would not have been "giving up" body sovereignty 200 years ago because she didn't have it to begin with. A man would not have been giving up anyting.
I'm not sure if you're evading my question or I'm just not expressing myself clearly.
Is the right to terminate a pregnancy something women have always had (whether or not that right is withheld by society) as a facet of body-sovereignty? Did that right exist before the medical means existed to make it possible?
Also, I understand it's natural you see this from the female perspective, just as I see it from the male. But it's really tiresome to hear things like, "A man would not have been giving up anything." Because it's just not true, unless you're actually asserting the main reason most women get an abortion is just because they don't want their bodies to be used 'against their will' for nine months, and not the decades of parenting that comes later.
--------
quote: You seem to think that medical (reliable, safe) abortion has something to do with the concept of body sovereignty.
As a matter of fact, I don't. But I wasn't asking you about it.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: scifibum -- I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's more harmful to a woman to tear up a baby before removing it vaginally.
Nope.
Do you have some resources on this? Because all the information I found suggested that past about 20 weeks, fetuses are delivered whole and killed on the way out.
The answer to your question may depend on what you mean. What is called a "partial-birth abortion" in the US is (AFAIK) medically termed an "intact dilation and extraction." One of the reasons it is done is if there is a dead fetus of a certain size to be removed, and in that case, typically (again, AFAIK) the cervix is dilated (if it is still closed), the body of the fetus is maneuvered so that it is in breech position (and can be held in place by the lower limbs, which are brought down through the birth canal), and the head is manipulated using tools to reduce its size before being brought down through the cervix and birth canal.
The head is the largest part of most babies. Because the head is the largest part, it causes the most trauma in being removed, both directly and by making any associated instrumentation difficult to place.
The point of an intact dilation and extraction isn't just the death of the fetus, because--as noted above--even when the fetus is already dead, this is the procedure used, since it is generally more safe for the woman. [Note: there are additional reasons for keeping rest of the body (other than the head) intact in many cases, including for autopsy purposes (but also other reasons). That is why in some cases there is an effort made to preserve the other parts of the body even when the head is not.]
There are other circumstances in which the size of the head poses an even greater problem (some conditions of the woman or of the fetus), making this procedure even more safe than typical delivery in comparison.
But whether you consider that process described to be "delivered whole and killed on the way out" may be complicated by the fact that the limbs are partially out while the head has not been delivered and is still in the uterus proper--that being the point of the procedure, namely, not to deliver the head intact. Again, same for delivery of a dead fetus at that gestational age.
---
As for further links on medical issues surrounding the topic, I imagine a search on "intact dilation and extraction" would be most useful. If I have the time, I will try to look for something specific, but I would first need to know exactly what you want to find out.
Are you looking for the medical reasons why using surgical tools to make the head of a fetus smaller before it is delivered from the uterus is safer for the woman [in certain contexts? all contexts?] than having her deliver a fetus with an intact head of whatever size? Or something else? Or is the above sufficient?
Also, if you could tell me what it is you have already read that didn't cover this, that would help me narrow down a search. If you still wanted it and I found the time, of course, as otherwise moot.
[ April 02, 2009, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"As a matter of fact, I don't. But I wasn't asking you about it."
Okaaay....
Just seems like a pointless line of inquiry, really. Your premise for the question is false.
But evidently you have some rhetorical purpose for it that has to do with kmbboots and not me, so I'll let you go for it.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Just seems like a pointless line of inquiry, really. Your premise for the question is false.
I don't believe the premise is true, but I'm not sure if it's a matter of opinion or not. Can someone be said to have a right when that right is physically impossible to exercise, when that right hasn't been invented yet? I think so, but I'm not sure.
ETA: Also, thanks for letting me go for it. I really appreciate that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Rakeesh, 200 years ago, a woman would not have been "giving up" body sovereignty 200 years ago because she didn't have it to begin with. A man would not have been giving up anything.
I'm not sure if you're evading my question or I'm just not expressing myself clearly.
Is the right to terminate a pregnancy something women have always had (whether or not that right is withheld by society) as a facet of body-sovereignty? Did that right exist before the medical means existed to make it possible?
I am not evading on purpose. The right to terminate a pregnancy is not a right women have always had. It is a right they had on and off in this country depending on the laws at the time. That legal right when it existed was tempered by the decisions of husbands and fathers. Sometime the decision to terminate a pregnancy was the decision of the man.
Women also did not, for example, have the right to withhold sex from their husbands. That right is still somewhat limited in most of the US.
quote:
Also, I understand it's natural you see this from the female perspective, just as I see it from the male. But it's really tiresome to hear things like, "A man would not have been giving up anything." Because it's just not true, unless you're actually asserting the main reason most women get an abortion is just because they don't want their bodies to be used 'against their will' for nine months, and not the decades of parenting that comes later.
Ah, I thought you were talking about in terms of body sovereignty. I don't know what legal obligations were in place 200 years ago for men to their children. Children were kind of property, too, though. (I may have been watching too much Dickens on TV recently.)
My pro-choice position is based on those nine months, not on parental responsibilities afterwards.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
kmbboots,
Sorry, I should have been more clear. I didn't actually think you were evading on purpose. What I meant was something more like this, "It seems like you're evading, but that doesn't fit, so I'll try and re-explain." My bad.
Anyway, on we go.
quote:The right to terminate a pregnancy is not a right women have always had. It is a right they had on and off in this country depending on the laws at the time.
I'm not just talking about the rights they had in practice. I'm talking about rights as human beings, whether or not those rights were being violated. Sort of like someone over in the PRC today has the right to free speech, but is subjugated by their government into not exercising that right. Does that make sense?
quote: Ah, I thought you were talking about in terms of body sovereignty. I don't know what legal obligations were in place 200 years ago for men to their children. Children were kind of property, too, though. (I may have been watching too much Dickens on TV recently.)
Well, I did say, "...their bodies and their lives." But perhaps that wasn't clear. Anyway, though, I very much doubt the reason behind most abortions is an ideological dispute over body-sovereignty rights between the mother and the fetus she helped create. I rather think most abortions have a lot more to do with 18+ years of parenting and all the many, many sacrifices that entails.
Which calls the idea that 'men aren't losing anything' into question.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
AH! You weren't talking about legal rights. You were talking about moral rights. Yes?
Yes, I think that women had that moral right, but it is only recently that it has occurred to human beings - even to women - that we are full human beings with any rights at all. So having it was pretty meaningless. Just as it is everyone's right to freedom, but we are just figuring that out in the grand scheme of things.
Human civilization is a work in progress.
As for people who have abortions because of the years of parenting rather than the nine-months of pregnancy, I think that there are various societal remedies for that. Making adoption easier, making it easier for people to afford more children and so forth. There are things that we can do as a society to insure the well-being of children.
My opposition to making abortion illegal is about the pregnancy not the parenting. Men do lose something, but it is not the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
"when that right is physically impossible to exercise,"
This is the part that is false, and I think you're still failing to get that.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by scifibum: "when that right is physically impossible to exercise,"
This is the part that is false, and I think you're still failing to get that.
That right was physically possible but fairly dangerous both physically and otherwise. And few women would have even recognized the concept of "rights" where this was concerned. It was a question of what was practical and necessary from their point of view, not a question of what they had the right to do.
Posted by Christine (Member # 8594) on :
quote:Originally posted by ClaudiaTherese:
quote:Originally posted by Christine:
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Christine: scifibum -- I'm not a medical doctor, but I'm pretty sure it's more harmful to a woman to tear up a baby before removing it vaginally.
Nope.
Do you have some resources on this? Because all the information I found suggested that past about 20 weeks, fetuses are delivered whole and killed on the way out.
The answer to your question may depend on what you mean. What is called a "partial-birth abortion" in the US is (AFAIK) medically termed an "intact dilation and extraction." One of the reasons it is done is if there is a dead fetus of a certain size to be removed, and in that case, typically (again, AFAIK) the cervix is dilated (if it is still closed), the body of the fetus is maneuvered so that it is in breech position (and can be held in place by the lower limbs, which are brought down through the birth canal), and the head is manipulated using tools to reduce its size before being brought down through the cervix and birth canal.
The head is the largest part of most babies. Because the head is the largest part, it causes the most trauma in being removed, both directly and by making any associated instrumentation difficult to place.
The point of an intact dilation and extraction isn't just the death of the fetus, because--as noted above--even when the fetus is already dead, this is the procedure used, since it is generally more safe for the woman. [Note: there are additional reasons for keeping rest of the body (other than the head) intact in many cases, including for autopsy purposes (but also other reasons). That is why in some cases there is an effort made to preserve the other parts of the body even when the head is not.]
There are other circumstances in which the size of the head poses an even greater problem (some conditions of the woman or of the fetus), making this procedure even more safe than typical delivery in comparison.
But whether you consider that process described to be "delivered whole and killed on the way out" may be complicated by the fact that the limbs are partially out while the head has not been delivered and is still in the uterus proper--that being the point of the procedure, namely, not to deliver the head intact. Again, same for delivery of a dead fetus at that gestational age.
---
As for further links on medical issues surrounding the topic, I imagine a search on "intact dilation and extraction" would be most useful. If I have the time, I will try to look for something specific, but I would first need to know exactly what you want to find out.
Are you looking for the medical reasons why using surgical tools to make the head of a fetus smaller before it is delivered from the uterus is safer for the woman [in certain contexts? all contexts?] than having her deliver a fetus with an intact head of whatever size? Or something else? Or is the above sufficient?
Also, if you could tell me what it is you have already read that didn't cover this, that would help me narrow down a search. If you still wanted it and I found the time, of course, as otherwise moot.
Thanks for the info!
Hmmm...this does suggest that there is potentially a marginal benefit to harming the fetus on the way out. What I'm really wondering, though, is whether "intact dilation and extraction" is ever truly necessary to save the life or even greatly improve the health outcomes for a woman.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
scifibum,
quote:This is the part that is false, and I think you're still failing to get that.
The right to safe, reliable abortion was possible 200 years ago?
Please, enlighten me.
-------
kmbboots,
quote: Yes, I think that women had that moral right, but it is only recently that it has occurred to human beings - even to women - that we are full human beings with any rights at all. So having it was pretty meaningless. Just as it is everyone's right to freedom, but we are just figuring that out in the grand scheme of things.
So, setting aside historic deep-rooted misogyny legally and socially, you would say that the moral right existed in the abstract, but it couldn't have been anything more until the medical practice existed, right?
So my question is, why don't fetal rights expand as well when medicine advances? I know (or think I know) what you'll say, that body-sovereignty still trumps that, it's just to me - depending on your response, of course - it seems another case of any fetal rights being in effect irrelevant.
quote:
As for people who have abortions because of the years of parenting rather than the nine-months of pregnancy, I think that there are various societal remedies for that. Making adoption easier, making it easier for people to afford more children and so forth. There are things that we can do as a society to insure the well-being of children.
I'm curious. Do you think that most women have abortions (whether it's on their own or at the behest of the man or it's a mutual decision or whatever) because of the big physical stress the pregnancy itself entails, or that they have abortions because of those other factors? Parenthood, social stigma, etc.?
I understand your position on abortion is rooted in body sovereignty, but do you think that's why it's practiced, in most cases? I don't know if there are any reliable statistics on the question, either. It just seems to me much more likely that the ensuing parenthood and all the other obligations would be much more daunting - even for the woman - than the nine months of pregnancy, even though those nine months are surely daunting in their own right.
quote:My opposition to making abortion illegal is about the pregnancy not the parenting. Men do lose something, but it is not the right to make decisions about their own bodies.
This is true, in cases of abortion men don't lose that right. Though of course the inviolate right in our society to make decisions about our own bodies, male and female alike, has long ago been given up to the government.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: scifibum,
quote:This is the part that is false, and I think you're still failing to get that.
The right to safe, reliable abortion was possible 200 years ago?
Please, enlighten me.
You may THINK you've restricted the question to modern, safe abortion, but you really haven't.
I'm not claiming that there was always an abortion clinic available. But you keep implying that abortion was historically not an option at all, because it's a premise to your questions. Like this:
quote:Is the right to terminate a pregnancy something women have always had (whether or not that right is withheld by society) as a facet of body-sovereignty? Did that right exist before the medical means existed to make it possible?
There simply was no "before the medical means existed to make it possible." That's just like me asking "did the right to publish my bad poetry exist before the Internet existed to make it possible?" The question contains a false premise.
It's obvious that access to medical modern abortion is only an issue when the facility exists. It's equally obvious to me that it's irrelevant to the question of body sovereignty. (The false premise can/must be ignored entirely, which makes the line of questioning pointless.)
Did George Washington have the right to inject himself with a flu vaccine? A simple "yes" is technically nonsensical. But the real question isn't about flu vaccines. The question really is "Did George Washington have the right to prevent or treat disease in his own body."
The body sovereignty argument is not confined to whether women have a right to use the facility of modern, safe abortion. Removing that facility from the picture does not change the moral viewpoint of whether women have the right to control the future use of their own bodies, regardless of past choices. I can't figure out why you think it might (from any point of view, especially kmbboots's).
As a practical matter, sure, 200 years ago women might not try to abort because they didn't know how, or if they used a method they knew they might die of infection. What does that have to do with their right to make the choice?
You want to argue that women cede their right to make choices based on past choices, fine, but that should stand regardless of the medical technology that exists. Someone ceding that it formerly wasn't often practical to exercise body sovereignty in certain ways, how does that advance the discussion?
(Keep in mind you did ask me a question this time. )
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: Hmmm...this does suggest that there is potentially a marginal benefit to harming the fetus on the way out. What I'm really wondering, though, is whether "intact dilation and extraction" is ever truly necessary to save the life or even greatly improve the health outcomes for a woman.
It's more than marginal, at least in some cases, for (among other things) there is a significant decrease in the rate of uterine rupture for women of certain histories.
I can't speak to all cases--and notably, this is not my field --but it isn't a nominal difference even in the simplest cases. Again, this is a procedure judged safer than purely medical termination (i.e., chemical induction of labor and cervical ripening) [at that stage of gestation] even when the fetus is already dead. It's more expensive to book a surgical intervention and all those associated costs, not to mention the need for anesthesia and so forth, and yet it is covered by insurance companies to whom these expenses must be justified.
There is testimony to Congress (IIRC) from women with health conditions for whom this was a much safer means, coupled with testimony online. I'll look for that and other technical information based on your last sentence.
I'll either find it quick or not, though. We'll see if my bookmarks are as well-organized as I think.
[ April 02, 2009, 04:28 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
scifibum,
Boy, I sure needed you to tell me what I was really asking.
quote:To put a different spin on it, do you think this is a 'natural right', a right that has always existed, or did it only begin to exist once abortion became a real medical option?
Now I will grant that I didn't ask that question as well as I should have. I should've been clearer. But allow me to restate the question, which will hopefully stop you from telling me what I really meant, because it's very irritating.
"...or did it only exist once abortion became safe and reliable as in modern times?"
quote:There simply was no "before the medical means existed to make it possible." That's just like me asking "did the right to publish my bad poetry exist before the Internet existed to make it possible?" The question contains a false premise.
Only if you persist in reading my poorly worded initial question despite repeated clarifications.
quote: It's obvious that access to medical modern abortion is only an issue when the facility exists. It's equally obvious to me that it's irrelevant to the question of body sovereignty. (The false premise can/must be ignored entirely, which makes the line of questioning pointless.)
Whether or not the issue is at hand in practical terms isn't what I was asking. And, you know, I think she and I are on the same wavelength, at least as far as understanding what I was asking and what she was answering, so I'm gonna step off the merry-go-round with you now.
If you've got a question that's based on what I actually intended to say and have clarified repeatedly, I'd be interested in discussing it.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Very sorry to have irritated you, Rakeesh, but I'm equally irritated because you fail to recognize that your question contains a false premise.
Edit: Despite your clarifications, which I *get*, I simply can't see any relevance to the existence of modern safe abortion to the issue of the right to body sovereignty.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Scifibum,
At least you're finally off the notion that I was saying abortion was impossible back in the day.
If all you had been doing was telling me that my question contained a false premise, I wouldn't have been irritated. I would have discussed it with you.
So no, we're not really equally irritated. Or have I spent the recent parts of this discussion telling you what you mean, for example?
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Rakeesh:
quote:So no, we're not really equally irritated. Or have I spent the recent parts of this discussion telling you what you mean, for example?
Hmm. Well, you sort of told me I meant modern abortion was available 200 years ago. But I'll concede that I used a more arrogant tone and that my recent posts might easily be construed as telling you what you meant as if I knew better than you, and that was obviously a mistake on my part. I'm sorry.
FWIW, I didn't intend to tell you what you meant. I intended to demonstrate what I thought was a contradiction in the apparent meaning of your posts.
From your most recent posts to kmbboots, it doesn't seem terribly important (it doesn't look like you're going anywhere in particular with that point). I'm still, however, actually curious what the point of the question was.
Here's what it looks like: Perhaps you are saying that the social and legal implications of natural rights hinge on the ability to exercise those rights. This may be an important point: I think our ability to preserve the life of the fetus (and avoid harming the mother) should inform the method of terminating a pregnancy, but not the timing. However, based on your posts so far, I'm not convinced that's the conclusion you were headed towards. I'd like to know.
Posted by ClaudiaTherese (Member # 923) on :
quote:Originally posted by Christine: What I'm really wondering, though, is whether "intact dilation and extraction" is ever truly necessary to save the life or even greatly improve the health outcomes for a woman.
Christine, I am still looking for the women's testimony, but the following excerpt may be helpful. It is from the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists' press release on its amicus brief for Gonzales v. Carhart and Gonzales v. PPFA:
quote:Over 95% of induced abortions in the second trimester are performed using the D&E method. The alternatives to D&E in the second trimester are abdominal surgery or induction abortion. Doctors rarely perform an abortion by abdominal surgery because doing so entails far greater risks to the woman. The induction method imposes serious risks to women with certain medical conditions and is entirely contraindicated for others.
The intact variant of D&E offers significant safety advantages over the non-intact method, including a reduced risk of catastrophic hemorrhage and life-threatening infection. These safety advantages are widely recognized by experts in the field of women's health, authoritative medical texts, peer-reviewed studies, and the nation's leading medical schools. ACOG has thus concluded that an intact D&E "may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of the woman, and only the doctor in consultation with the patient, based on the woman's particular circumstances can make that decision." [ACOG Statement of Policy on Abortion (reaffirmed 2004)]
[italics added for emphasis, although the entire section is relevant]
Are you looking for more detail, or is this what you were asking about? I'm not sure the names of various medical conditions that may fit under that umbrella would be additionally useful, but I can try.
Cochrane reviews are meta-analyses across the available pool of studies on a particular topic. This particular review was addressing the question of whether there is a significant advantage to either medical abortion (i.e., giving medications to end a pregnancy through contractions and delivery of a dead fetus) versus a surgical abortion (using mechanical tools and manipulation to achieve the same result) in the 2nd trimester.
I don't know if I can point you to a good reference comparing these options in the third trimester, because I'm not sure if medical abortion is even offered at that point. The choices (IIRC) are between a standard "dilation and evacuation" (in which the entire body of the fetus is affected) versus the subset of "dilation and evacuation" which preserves the body intact (i.e., "intact dilation and extraction," which seems to be what is meant by "partial birth abortion").
If I interpret your posts correctly, it is the decision between medical abortion and surgical abortion which you have questions about, not whether or not a surgical abortion leaves the body intact but not the head [as opposed to destroying all the tissue, including the head]. Please let me know if I am interpreting you incorrectly.
quote:RESULTS: Two studies met criteria for this review. One compared dilation and evacuation (D&E) to intra-amniotic instillation of prostaglandin F(2) (alpha). The second study compared D&E to induction with mifepristone and misoprostol. Compared with prostaglandin instillation, the combined incidence of minor complications was lower with D&E (OR 0.17, 95% CI 0.04-0.65) as was the total number of minor and major complications (OR 0.12, 95% CI 0.03-0.46). The number of women experiencing adverse events was also lower with D&E than with mifepristone and misoprostol (OR 0.06, 95% CI 0.01-0.76). Although women treated with mifepristone and misoprostol reported significantly more pain than those undergoing D&E, efficacy and acceptability were the same in both groups. In both trials, fewer subjects randomised to D&E required overnight hospitalisation.
[italics added for emphasis, although the entire section is relevant]
The complete articles for those studies might give additional information about the characteristics of the major complications and details about the relevant medical histories, but it would take some digging. I'm not likely to do that myself, as my access to those articles is a 45 minute drive away.
[ April 02, 2009, 05:45 PM: Message edited by: ClaudiaTherese ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote: kmbboots,
So my question is, why don't fetal rights expand as well when medicine advances? I know (or think I know) what you'll say, that body-sovereignty still trumps that, it's just to me - depending on your response, of course - it seems another case of any fetal rights being in effect irrelevant.
Ah...now I see where you are going. Yes. I do think that there are some moral rights that fetus's have - especially viable fetus's. I don't know quite what those would be for very early embryos.
You are correct that those rights would not trump the body sovereignty rights of other human beings, just as the rights to someone who needs a blood transfusion do not trump the rights of people not to give blood.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Thanks, CT. Intact dilation & extraction is exactly what I was alluding to earlier.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Angst]](graemlins/angst.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
My point was that it's not fair to accuse kmboots of "sidestepping" an issue that was not in the question she was responding to.
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)