For anyone who skipped the link, the basics facts: Guy and girlfriend get pregnant and have a kid at 19, guy rushes to the hospital, but when he arrives, girlfriend gives the daughter up for adoption and sneaks out a side door before he even gets there. He has no say in the matter. He hires a lawyer, but a month goes by before they find out the girl is across the country in Utah. Having failed to claim her within 30 days, he's apparently given up all parental rights, and she's adopted somewhere in there. 3 years later, he's still fighting for her.
Now, the part of this that really gets me is that everyone involved, the court, the adoptive family, and the girlfriend, all know that he's there and not only ready to father the kid, but demanding he be allowed to, but still he's basically brushed aside in this entire argument.
Now, I pop up from time to time to argue male rights in general, and paternal rights specifically (it's the one I care the most about, though I'm not even close to being a father), so if someone falls on the other side of this, please help me understand how this could possibly be fair for the dad and the daughter.
For a society that spends so much time railing against deadbeat dads, I just don't understand how a willing father isn't just muscled out of the decision making process, but even though he immediately contested the decision, can be totally cut off from his daughter after only a month on a technicality in a situation he had ZERO control over. It seems in this case that the system was almost designed to deny him any sort of decision making power, and yet, had she kept the baby, he certainly would have had to pay child support (and of course, he's more than willing, but the point is that he has no choice in the matter).
Now on abortion, that one's dicey, and while it's frustrating, I'm willing to relent in that a man shouldn't be able to force a woman to carry a baby to term. I consider that a compromise though, as in my personal opinion, when two people have sex, they're tacitly agreeing to suffer the consequences of a potential conception, so as far as I'm concerned, she gives up her veto when she has sex. But I know that's not a very popular argument for a lot of people.
But here, when she agrees to give birth, how is the father's role still that diminished? How doesn't he get dibs if she turns it down? Yeah, Utah gives the father 30 days, but hell, the baby was transported all the way across the country, and even as he was getting a ruling from the VA judge, he was already out of time thousands of miles away.
And yes, even three years later, I still think the girl should be with her father. It might be confusing to her at first, but 3 is a resilient age. If she were older, it'd be trickier, and that's why every day they keep her there, it makes the situation harder.
Obviously I'm a little worked up about this, so tell me, am I way off base?
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I remember when this came out; it still makes me angry.
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
I have plenty of indignation for this man's plight, but I can also understand how the adoptive family at this point would have a very hard time giving up the child.
The man makes a point of saying they are aware that he is trying to get his baby back, but the article doesn't explain what legal obstacles he is facing, or whether there's a reason the adopting family isn't budging.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
What I find peculiar is that you can apparently give up a baby for adoption within minutes of it being born (fine) and that's apparently. The father rushed to the hospital and the implication is he arrived soon after the birth but it doesn't in fact say how soon after the birth he arrived at the hospital or exactly what happened for the events to transpire in the way they did.
That is to say, the baby ended up in Utah within what... hours? days? a week? Was the baby in the hospital when the father arrived? Why was the "20 days of claiming" not sufficient with his arrival at the hospital presumably while the baby was still there and the question, "Where is my baby?" If the baby was, somehow, already gone from the hospital surely a quick visit to the social service involved would have been sufficient to register a request within 20 days track where the child was (surely not out of the city) and have the paperwork started on releasing her into the father's hands.
However, while there has been some miscarriage of common sense I can see how difficult it would be for the family to now give up their daughter after three years of raising her. Not only thinking of themselves, but thinking of the kid, who might be very happy.
I don't really understand how this occurred and it's making me very slightly suspicious: either the father missed some kind of crucial step that made this ludicrously or there has been some very deliberate breakdown in the chain from someone involved (possibly because he was a nineteen year old, who don't have the best track record as parents, especially single parents, although this is not an excuse unless there's some different law concerning very young single parents on the books, which I doubt).
quote:But I know that's not a very popular argument for a lot of people.
No kidding.
All said, I don't think that this is an issue where legality is against the father. It sounds like there are allowances for a father to reclaim their child should they be given up for adoption against their wishes. 20 days is ample time for this kind of father who really wants to raise their baby, as well as in this specific case.
So what went wrong must be some kind of breakdown in communication or understanding of the situation. If the request was registered, why did it not go through. Why did the father have to "track down" the child when he arrived at the hospital presumably while the child was either still there or still in the city? I can imagine, perhaps, him intiially being stonewalled by the hospital but surely the local social service department through whom the adoption was arranged was accepting calls.
I want to know what went wrong in order to fix it. This isn't about the rights being there for a father to claim his child: they exist. Why did the not work in this situation and is this endemic?
Also, that guy looks waaaay more than 22.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: I consider that a compromise though, as in my personal opinion, when two people have sex, they're tacitly agreeing to suffer the consequences of a potential conception, so as far as I'm concerned, she gives up her veto when she has sex.
Realistically, when a girl has sex, and is 'tacitly accepting' the consequences of a potential conception, she gets to medically frame what those consequences are, since it's her body. So what she is tacitly (or actively, clearly) accepting can be a 0% chance of having a baby.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Now, the part of this that really gets me is that everyone involved, the court, the adoptive family, and the girlfriend, all know that he's there and not only ready to father the kid, but demanding he be allowed to, but still he's basically brushed aside in this entire argument.
It sounds like the possibility of it playing out this way may be peculiar to Utah laws, which (if I am reading correctly) are designed to make adoption easier than elsewhere, especially if the biological parents ae not married.
quote:It seems in this case that the system was almost designed to deny him any sort of decision making power ...
Again, in Utah at least, if he hasn't married the pregnant woman, this seems to be the case. I think the claim against Utah may have merit, but I don't think this would happen that way in most states, and I'm not sure the criticism of society generalizes well.
quote:Originally posted by Teshi: That is to say, the baby ended up in Utah within what... hours? days? a week? Was the baby in the hospital when the father arrived? Why was the "20 days of claiming" not sufficient with his arrival at the hospital presumably while the baby was still there and the question, "Where is my baby?"
The timeline is made a little more clear in the Washington Post link above.
I don't know much about this case other than a few articles I just read. I can't make sense of it, but it does make me curious about how the relevant laws differ from state to state and how that is adjudicated with reference to state lines.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
Similar cases that resulted in the child being returned to the biological parents: Baby Jessica Baby Richard
In these cases, though, the biological parents reconciled and married. The mothers did try to discourage the fathers from getting the kids - one said the baby had died, the other put another man's name on the birth certificate. But in both cases, the children were taken from the adoptive parents at ages 2 1/2 and 3.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by CaySedai: But in both cases, the children were taken from the adoptive parents at ages 2 1/2 and 3.
From the Wikipedia articles linked above, that is the outcome consistent with state law in Michigan and Illinois, as well as Iowa.
But that isn't true for Utah, right?
---
Edited to add: Honest question. I don't know for sure, and that's just my initial read on it.
Posted by CaySedai (Member # 6459) on :
I think Illinois had a 30-day time period for the dad to contest the adoption, and he missed it (the Baby Richard case). But he (and the bio mom) got custody anyway.
I brought these up because the kids were about 2 1/2 and 3 when taken from the adoptive parents. There's a case now where a Guatemalan woman says her daughter was kidnapped and the girl was adopted by a couple in Missouri, who are of course contesting having to return the girl. She is 6 now. That one isn't resolved yet - a Guatemalan court has ordered that the girl be returned but the adoptive family is resisting.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Wow, what a horrible situation! Kidnapped, taken away from her family, and then placed with a new family, who want to keep her, while her real parents want her back...I can't even imagine the torment of both sets of parents.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
This is indeed an infuriating case. The baby was born on Feb. 10. The father filed request for custody with the court on Feb. 18, BEFORE the adoptive parents even filed the adoption papers!
I find the adoptive parents unconscionable in this. Once they knew that the adoption was contested, and that it was contested by the baby's father before they even filed the paperwork, they should have relinquished custody. It would have been hard, and would have torn their heart out in that moment, but it will be much harder to tear their hearts out when the child is three or four and is rightfully returned to her father. They should have put the welfare of the child first, and returned her then when they knew she was basically kidnapped away from her father. They at least knew about it when the baby was four months old, because the article says they sent the father pictures of her from four months to seven months. That means that some time before the child was four months old, they had to know their adoption was invalid. I could not live myself raising a baby that was stolen away from her parents. By all accounts, even that of the birth mom, this is a young man who wanted to do the right thing from the very beginning. He deserves to be with his daughter.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: I consider that a compromise though, as in my personal opinion, when two people have sex, they're tacitly agreeing to suffer the consequences of a potential conception, so as far as I'm concerned, she gives up her veto when she has sex.
Realistically, when a girl has sex, and is 'tacitly accepting' the consequences of a potential conception, she gets to medically frame what those consequences are, since it's her body. So what she is tacitly (or actively, clearly) accepting can be a 0% chance of having a baby.
There's an interesting way of reframing what I said. Doesn't make it any more palatable.
quote:From Teshi: No kidding.
Hey, at least I'm aware of that. I don't think it's a crazy argument really, but, I recognize that it would make women's lives a lot less carefree, and thus it's unpopular. Personally I just don't think that's a very good counterargument. But again, I'm willing to live with the status quo on abortion, so long as adoption rules aren't set with as many obstacles against men.
CT -
That's a good point, if Utah truly is the exception to the rule. Do you know of any sort of comprehensive online database detailing adoption rules where the father's rights are concerned?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Hey, at least I'm aware of that. I don't think it's a crazy argument really, but, I recognize that it would make women's lives a lot less carefree, and thus it's unpopular. Personally I just don't think that's a very good counterargument.
Sure, if that's the counterargument being offered (usually, it is not).
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
If the father got the child back, who would pay the couple for the 3 years they spent raising the child? And would they be refunded the cost of the adoption?
I don't understand the fathers indignant attitude towards the adoptive family. At the time of birth, the mother felt the best option for the child would be adoption. I would understand anger towards her because her decision basically said, "I don't think you're fit to raise this child" and/or "I can't raise her but I won't let you either."
And where was the father during the pregnancy? It's interesting that he "doubts the integrity of the adoptive family" when there are equally, if not more so, valid reasons to doubt his integrity.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Hey, at least I'm aware of that. I don't think it's a crazy argument really, but, I recognize that it would make women's lives a lot less carefree, and thus it's unpopular. Personally I just don't think that's a very good counterargument.
Sure, if that's the counterargument being offered (usually, it is not).
What's a more likely one?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Medical. Pregnancy is a medical issue and it entails risks to the physical bearer of the child. That makes it solely the right of the pregnant party to determine if she wants to bring the child to term. This is non-negotiable. Few people's core argument for abortion is "a right to be carefree," it is a right to medical control over one's body.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
If it's a dangerous pregnancy, fair enough.
Otherwise, I disagree.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Why can't he at least have visiting rights? Why is it that when they DO remove these children they don't bother to do it gradually? They just snatch the child away. It's like Solomon all over again. Why not find some way to put aside differences and do what's best for the child? Letting them get to know BOTH sets of parents, but respecting their feelings in this too. Stuff like that leaves me torn.
Also, Utah's laws about this suck. The father should have a say when it comes to these things since they help in the conception process. I like that he is trying to be a father, but on the other hand, it's agonizing for everyone.
Posted by Bella Bee (Member # 7027) on :
quote:If it's a dangerous pregnancy, fair enough.
Well, a pregnancy can turn dangerous at very short notice. You can be fine all the way through right until the last moment when everything suddenly goes pear-shaped.
So for me, it needs to a choice freely made, to take such a risk. No-one gets to tell other people what to do with their life and their body.
As for the story - it's horrific. But I do wonder what the effects as far as emotional and attachment issues etc would be for a child taken from their adoptive family at this age. I'm not sure three or four is such an adaptable age at all. Having known people who were taken or sent away from their families at that age, in my limited experience they often end up pretty scarred and traumatized.
As a side note - There's an ongoing news story in Spain at the moment about children who were stolen from their mothers by nurses and nuns during and after Franco and given out to people considered more suitable for political, social and religious reasons. This went on from the 1940s until the 1980s, and it is terrible for the parents and the children concerned - but some of them have even been reunited by the detective work of the adoptive parents who couldn't bear the guilt of raising a stolen child knowing that other people out there were suffering. So, it's usually not the adoptive parents to blame - they're as much victims as anyone.
[ August 20, 2011, 07:57 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Synesthesia: The father should have a say when it comes to these things since they help in the conception process.
Just recently here at hatrack there was a big discussion concerning abortion and other related issues. Apparently there isn't a lot of concern about father's rights. But I don't remember that thread ending well so I see no reason to re-hash it.
There seems to be some very strange elements in this case and a whole lot of unknowns. The hospital's actions seem particularly shady. They didn't put much (maybe not any) effort into ascertaining the fathers decision. Then they hustled the mother out the side door, knowing the father was just meters away. There are more than a few shoulder-shrug characters in this odd debacle.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
'Awareness that there are multiple very serious sometimes competing rights' is not at all the same thing as 'not a lot of concern for the rights of fathers'.
I could just as easily say that in this country, we're also not very much concerned with fathers' responsibilities as well.
--------
quote:If it's a dangerous pregnancy, fair enough.
Others have noted: how and when is this to be determined? What degree of reliability should the decision have to be binding? Those are just a couple of easy questions that are key, thought of in less than a second because they follow in such a straightforward way.
As for the story itself, it seems very bizarre and if even some of the elements within it are accurate, it's very troubling and unjust. This case seems to illustrate the weirdness and inefficiency of our adoption system, and the way we handle things. We just don't handle it very well.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: 'Awareness that there are multiple very serious sometimes competing rights' is not at all the same thing as 'not a lot of concern for the rights of fathers'.
Yes, in the last discussion we discussed competing rights as well as the way burden translates into right. As I remember it, the father didn't fare too well.
quote:As for the story itself, it seems very bizarre and if even some of the elements within it are accurate, it's very troubling and unjust. This case seems to illustrate the weirdness and inefficiency of our adoption system, and the way we handle things. We just don't handle it very well.
Unjust it is, but for whom is the discussion. It's unjust for everyone but more so for the child and her current family, I'd argue. Someone mentioned visiting rights for the father. This approach wouldn't be one the father favors but it would be a solution that doesn't entirely destroy the relationship between the girl and her adoptive family.
If this problem was common I'd be more concerned about adjusting the adoption process in order to avoid cases such as this. The system isn't perfect but this situation is very atypical. The first thing I would do is investigate the adoption agency.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Do you know of any sort of comprehensive online database detailing adoption rules where the father's rights are concerned?
That may be out there, but I do not know where. All I can find are second- and third-hand reports, and I don't yet know how to suss out which are most reliable.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: If it's a dangerous pregnancy, fair enough.
Otherwise, I disagree.
I can yet again just bring up In re A.C. — a subtle reminder that a pregnant woman's body is her own, and we cannot go back to the condition in which it is not and that we can override a mother's conscious individual decision in this matter under pretty much any circumstances. For all the good intentions of those who want to say that there should be a 'revokable veto' in the dilemma of mother's rights versus fetus rights (and without a doubt I am sure you have good intentions) they have past and present been completely consistent in what road they have paved, and to which destination.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I wonder if inalienable body rights could be argued to abolish the draft.
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder if inalienable body rights could be argued to abolish the draft.
The idea of inalienable body rights must also be disregarded for things like the consumption of tobacco and alcohol (to name a few) and assisted suicide. Of course, it's not uncommon for the courts to be inconsistent.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I wonder if inalienable body rights could be argued to abolish the draft.
The idea of inalienable body rights must also be disregarded for things like the consumption of tobacco and alcohol (to name a few) and assisted suicide.
No, there's absolutely no requirement for it to be disregarded for either of these things.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
The father should have immediate rights equal to that of the mother as soon as the child is born..
Something I don't understand, if the baby was born on the 10th, and he arrived on the 11th, how the heck did the lady manage to leave the hospital so soon AND put her kid up for adoption so fast ._.
Giving that my daughter was literally just born 12 days ago ._. my woman had to stay in the hospital for 3 days, being that she had to get a c-section... but after just 1 day and leaving after child birth O_o that don't even seem right they told my girlfriend if she went vag birth that she would be there 2-3 days and if she went c-section 3-5 days....... ..............
Besides all of that I had to fill out some weird paperwork called affidavit... just so I can be LEGALLY registered as the father... -------------------------- If the adoptive parents realized the father of "Emma" is looking for her, why the hell did they not give her up asap, the longer they were to hold on... the more they could use their incredibly crappy excuses like "WE ARE ALL SHE KNOWS" +frowny faces... --------------------------- On the side note, how the heck would you falsely fill out an affidavit, they will not accept the form if there even LOOKS like there's an error anywhere, let alone a made up name, social security number, and fake address, fake signature, and of course fake work information provided NOT TO MENTION, the legal implications of lying on a government contract which can be quite harsh if it is intentional ._.
Providing ya'll badly structured sentences since 1992......
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Rakeesh: I could just as easily say that in this country, we're also not very much concerned with fathers' responsibilities as well.
In what sense? If you mean that fathers aren't active enough in taking responsibility, then I'd say this becomes less true with each passing year. There was an Op-Ed fight a few months ago between a couple of men at two different newspapers where one was exhorting men to take a more active role in their kids' lives, and the other answered back with a list of studies and polls that show men in recent years take a surprisingly active role. More and more, men are primary caregivers, they spend time hanging out with their kids, one-on-one child/dad time, they help them with their home work, and this number has increased at a far faster rate than has the number of households where men are the primary breadwinners has decreased, which means even the large number of working dads where mom stays at home are more and more involved in their kids' lives.
The movement among men to exhort other men to take their responsibilities is still somewhat weak, in my opinion, but as a whole, fathers are stepping up more and more every year, and comparisons to the 40s-60s when men had relatively little contact with their kids, especially their daughters, are striking in their differences.
quote:From Bella Bee: Well, a pregnancy can turn dangerous at very short notice. You can be fine all the way through right until the last moment when everything suddenly goes pear-shaped.
So for me, it needs to a choice freely made, to take such a risk. No-one gets to tell other people what to do with their life and their body.
For the sake of playing devil's advocate:
Would you say an abortion or more or less dangerous than a stereotypical pregnancy? The argument during this thread seems to be largely that a pregnancy is inherently dangerous, alright, then would it seems like it would be far less invasive to let a man have a veto right in carrying a pregnancy forward, since an abortion is less dangerous and less invasive.
And as for the part in bold, your statement only works if you end it with the words "unless you're a man," otherwise, you suggest that men should have equal control over their own lives, which means a measure of shared control over a pregnant woman's body. Since that shared control is rejected, the woman has ultimate power over the man's life once conception has occurred.
It seems like the only fair compromise would be for men to absolve themselves of financial responsibility for the child. But then the child is the one who ultimately suffers, and I don't think that's particularly fair.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Would you say an abortion or more or less dangerous than a stereotypical pregnancy?
1. Do you think that there is any chance that legal abortions are equally or more of a health complication than a typical pregnancy? How about an equal or larger medical expense?
2. If it were, would that void the argument about someone having the privilege about deciding what medical choices they want to make with their own body? What precedent does this set?
quote:And as for the part in bold, your statement only works if you end it with the words "unless you're a man," otherwise, you suggest that men should have equal control over their own lives, which means a measure of shared control over a pregnant woman's body.
That doesn't make any sense. A woman's choice over her own pregnancy is not a violation of the potential father's choices over 'their life and their body.'
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
This topics going off the tracks, so off topic discussion needs to stop and just to make this post relative. --------------------------
Fault is on the mother and the hospital, and possibly the adoption agency, seriously the baby was literally just born and it's almost as if they were just waiting to collect O_o
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't know what you mean by "violation," since men don't really have any rights at all in that situation.
But there's no one even pretends they have the same level of control. Once the baby is conceived, the man gets to make almost zero decisions over his own life.
What if he never wanted the child at all, and doesn't want to pay child support?
What if he does want the baby, but the mother wants an abortion?
What if he wants the baby, but the mother decides to carry it to term but denies him access?
Whether the father wants the baby or not, it doesn't much matter. The mother chooses what kind of father he'll get to be or not be, and thus exerts MASSIVE amounts of control over his life.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
For what it's worth, the average elective abortion is safer than carrying the average pregnancy to term, up to a certain gestational age.
Added: I know Lyrhawn mentioned this above. I just want the information to be clear -- feel free to carry on. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:From Samprimary: 2. If it were, would that void the argument about someone having the privilege about deciding what medical choices they want to make with their own body? What precedent does this set?
I'm not sure how the precedent would extend beyond pregnancy. Most of the basis for my belief comes from the notion that when two people have sex, there's a tacit understanding that they could get pregnant, and at that point, there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control. The opposing argument is that there's only shared responsibility (and at that, only if the woman wants there to be).
One of the arguments in this thread would be that there's no such thing as a safe pregnancy, so okay, abortions are very, very safe. We're compelled to do things all the time that may be dangerous as a result of consequences of our actions.
If it all comes back to "None of that matters, a woman has the final say!" then we're simply at an impasse. In pretty much every other case, I'd agree. This is also why I don't have a problem with abortion in the case of rape.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Whether the father wants the baby or not, it doesn't much matter. The mother chooses what kind of father he'll get to be or not be, and thus exerts MASSIVE amounts of control over his life.
So far as this is true, it's a reflection of the different hands we're dealt by our biology. Why *should* a male have an equal right to that decision when he takes fewer risks and bears fewer burdens during the pregnancy? Shall there be an outcry of injustice that men may safely get drunk during their mate's pregnancy, while women cannot? How much time in a hospital does a man have to undergo even during a routine pregnancy? How much risk to health?
Why should the law protect equivalent rights when our unalterable biology (well, for now) makes each party so inequivalent?
As for your remarks about paternal responsibility, well, they appear to illustrate my point. You point out that we're *improving* on that issue, in terms with male focus on domestic duties, child involvement, financial obligation. All of this improvement implies a poor starting point.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:...there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control. The opposing argument is that there's only shared responsibility (and at that, only if the woman wants there to be).
But there isn't an (equally) shared responsibility, nor an equally shared burden. Only women can get pregnant. No man has had a caesarian section. No man has had major bleeding as a response to labor or miscarriage. No man has had to stop drinking (minus a glass or two-I forget the current medical standard) during a pregnancy. No man etc etc etc.
When the baby is out, things change, though slowly-men don't nurse, after all. We didn't come up with the name 'humanity ward' but rather 'maternity warr', and we did that for a reason. Does this result in imbalances in control? Yeah. But how much control should I have over issues over which someone else is carrying much of the burden?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Sure, but that starting point was like five decades ago. I don't have numbers on what parity with mothers would be, so I don't know what the stopping point is, do you?
I'd argue that there's also a far more fundamental problem (and I think you'd agree with this) with regards to paternal roles in families. We've yet to really establish as a society what the male role should be. We have more or less created a stereotypical role for a mother in a family. There's no such role for a father. It's sort of an ad hoc exhortation to "get involved!" But boys growing up have no idea what that means. Considering that obstacle, I think fathers are doing pretty well with the learning curve. They need to do better, but they're deserving of praise as a whole.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the basis for my belief comes from the notion that when two people have sex, there's a tacit understanding that they could get pregnant, and at that point, there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control.
Under your notion, is the 'obligatory shared responsibility and control' supposed to be exactly equal between the man and the woman?
Does the man have exactly equal rights as the woman regarding the decisions made about whether the pregnancy is to be brought to term?
If not, why not?
If so, what does your 'notion' do in the event of needing a tiebreaker?
Can the man veto the woman's desire to abort?
Are you perfectly okay with the morality of abortion as the outcome if the two parties completely share the decision to abort?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:...there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control. The opposing argument is that there's only shared responsibility (and at that, only if the woman wants there to be).
But there isn't an (equally) shared responsibility, nor an equally shared burden. Only women can get pregnant. No man has had a caesarian section. No man has had major bleeding as a response to labor or miscarriage. No man has had to stop drinking (minus a glass or two-I forget the current medical standard) during a pregnancy. No man etc etc etc.
When the baby is out, things change, though slowly-men don't nurse, after all. We didn't come up with the name 'humanity ward' but rather 'maternity warr', and we did that for a reason. Does this result in imbalances in control? Yeah. But how much control should I have over issues over which someone else is carrying much of the burden?
Okay, what about what happens for the next several decades after the first 9 months are over? In the case of the abortion, the burden is minimal.
A situation where a man would like his child born but the money chooses an abortion is only one scenario that I've proposed, there are others. As I said at the very top of this thread, I've pretty much made my peace with this biological imbalance. It's not fair, but the only way to settle that fairness is to have a nice long argument with Evolution, who isn't exactly around to argue with. So it's not fair, oh well, can't fix it.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Most of the basis for my belief comes from the notion that when two people have sex, there's a tacit understanding that they could get pregnant, and at that point, there's an obligatory shared responsibility, and shared control.
Under your notion, is the 'obligatory shared responsibility and control' supposed to be exactly equal between the man and the woman?
Does the man have exactly equal rights as the woman regarding the decisions made about whether the pregnancy is to be brought to term?
If not, why not?
If so, what does your 'notion' do in the event of needing a tiebreaker?
Can the man veto the woman's desire to abort?
Are you perfectly okay with the morality of abortion as the outcome if the two parties completely share the decision to abort?
Obviously the responsibility can't be exactly equal in every regard, but so far as over the life of the child, if you were to quantify the contributions, yes, that would be ideal. And as for control, yes.
Well, there are potentially three people involved, so I suppose the baby is the tiebreaker. This answers your next question as well.
No, I'm not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Well, there are potentially three people involved, so I suppose the baby is the tiebreaker.
So what happens under your notion when the mother and the father agree to abort (let's say, perhaps, they agreed before any potential pregnancy too). Do they get to override the vote of the 'third person' involved, by a vote of 2 to 1?
quote:Well, there are potentially three people involved, so I suppose the baby is the tiebreaker.
The fetus can't consciously vote in the process, so you are accepting per your notion that the fetus is counted as an automatic vote for "carry to term" in 100% of situations involving conception? Or just in cases of willing conception (i.e., is the baby's vote discounted in the case of rape) ..?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Why don't you just skip to the end and make your point.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Any 'point at the end' i might make hinges a lot on understanding the particuarities of your notion, which is why i am asking the questions in the first place.
Do you not want to answer them, or?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
This adoption case is ridiculous. The man hired a lawyer and contested within a few days. That is reasonable. He had plans of being a supportive dad from the beginning and seemed to be supportive from the start.
I do have trouble feeling much for the adopted parents. In this case, they knew he didn't consent but they didn't care. They decided that them having the baby was better and to heck with the father's viewpoint. They didn't respect the father or his role in his daughter's life. And that was wrong and kidnapping- legal kidnapping but still kidnapping. We don't let a kidnapper keep the kid just cause they treated the kid well. While yes, it might be easier to do duel custody, the father lives in virgina. Should he have to uproot his life to go live in the place his child's kidnapper lives? Or pay the expenses and time to fly across the country regularly? If the Utah family moves to Viginia, I'd be more behind the shared custody idea.
I find men's rights to usually be whiney and spoiled, but in this case, there is a clear injustice. If these cases were what men were complaining about, I would be much more supportive of the men's right movement.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Samp -
I couldn't tell if you were genuinely interested and if this was going anywhere or not.
I think I already answered both of your most recent questions. Are you just seeking clarification?
scholarette -
quote:I find men's rights to usually be whiney and spoiled, but in this case, there is a clear injustice. If these cases were what men were complaining about, I would be much more supportive of the men's right movement.
For example? Just curious.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think I already answered both of your most recent questions. Are you just seeking clarification?
I suppose i NEED clarification. what are the answers to those questions?
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
For example- I can't choose to abort the kid so I shouldn't have to pay child support. If a woman gets a special 15 minute break to pump, I should get a break and my own special room too.
I'm generally in favor of increased paternity leave, but it really pisses me off when men take paternity leave and use it to write papers/books/grants and forward their career. I would be annoyed at a woman doing the same, but I don't know any that have.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
As I said, if they both decide to abort, then they do, but I'm not comfortable with it.
And as I said, I'm more or less okay with abortion in cases of rape. The sex wasn't consensual, so it doesn't fall within my tacit agreement sphere.
It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking? If it is, I'll answer plainly. I'm not really a big fan of abortion. I think using it as a tool for birth control without some sort of specific overriding consideration, be it a health issue, or rape, or insert your extenuating circumstance, is wrong. However, I'm uncomfortable with exerting my personal morality on this issue on the population as a whole in a legislative fashion, which is why I tend to support pro-choice candidates, despite my personal reservations.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: For example- I can't choose to abort the kid so I shouldn't have to pay child support. If a woman gets a special 15 minute break to pump, I should get a break and my own special room too.
I'm generally in favor of increased paternity leave, but it really pisses me off when men take paternity leave and use it to write papers/books/grants and forward their career. I would be annoyed at a woman doing the same, but I don't know any that have.
FWIW, I agree with you on all those.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
Before a fetus has
1. a brain
2. brain waves
3. a heart
is it a human life?
I'm not saying this is an easy issue, but the question I just asked is valid, I think.
For that matter, spontaneous miscarriages happen all the time...should we make those illegal, since the mother may have unwittingly caused it by not eating a nutritious diet, or by some other means?
These issues are way more complex than the extremists paint them to be.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
steven- my friends joke that while pregnant, they would not go to utah because a miscarriage there could lead to murder charges. I think another state has some thing similar that was recently in the news. But it is late and I am exhausted so now that baby asleep, I will be too.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
How onerous is the burden of proof?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, there's absolutely no requirement for it to be disregarded for either of these things.
Why not?
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
True, it's the law telling them they can't do those things. Complete autonomy over one's body would mean freedom from all forms of government coercion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Whether the father wants the baby or not, it doesn't much matter. The mother chooses what kind of father he'll get to be or not be, and thus exerts MASSIVE amounts of control over his life.
No, the person who is putting their life at risk and definitely changing their body if they go through with it gets to decide if they want to go through with it. That it happens to be the mother and not the father, well, that's biology for ya!
The father can fight for his right for custody...this isn't just "determined by the mother".
I assume you mean child support when you say "MASSIVE amounts of control over his life", and to that I say it isn't mom making that choice, it is the system which we designed to take care of the child, and I'm good with it.
You call for the mother to stick it out with the pregnancy as she knew there was a risk when having sex but balk at the cost to the father...and let's be honest here, your health and life are way bigger of a risk then simply having less money.
No one says it's the most fair thing to the father that he doesn't get to decide to keep a baby or not (abortion wise), but if there is a child, he does have rights.
The case in the OP shows that sometimes they get stepped on, and -that- is wrong, and should be corrected immediately.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
How onerous is the burden of proof?
You tell me, it's your notion we're working with.
I assume that there has to be some manner of legal ruling that the sex was nonconsensual on her part if I am to be stripped of my "vote" in the matter. If not, she can re-acquire the right to decide on whether or not she is permitted an abortion back from me simply by claiming rape.
Other than that, it's exactly like I said. Under your system, if I impregnate a woman, it is entirely within my power to decide whether she is allowed to have an abortion. If I refuse her this right, she is forced to carry to term. The "third vote" gives me that weighted power. And I'm asking if, really, truly, this is an acceptable thing.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Stone Wolf -
The mother already made the decision when she had sex. She wants an opt-out clause after the fact.
Where two equal parties are concerned, the father almost always loses. It's no secret that preferential treatment is given to the mother. I think this speaks to a larger problem in society. We assume that the mother is the natural caregiver, which speaks to what I was talking about earlier regarding an ill-defined definition of fatherhood. We tell dads to get involved on one had, but on the other, we tell them they're inherently second fiddles to the mom. We're sending mixed messages.
I don't just mean child support. It's between a life where you are a parent or aren't a parent. And no, I don't balk at the cost to the father. I've said more than once that I think the child support issue is fine the way it is. After all, the man is bound under my idea of a tacit agreement as well, he has to pay up.
Once there is a child, his rights are not equal to the mother's. In the case in the OP, why was the child even taken by the adoption agency before the father signed off on it? If the father had been there, would he have been able to sign the kid away without the mother's consent? Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
True, it's the law telling them they can't do those things. Complete autonomy over one's body would mean freedom from all forms of government coercion.
Alcohol and tobacco are legal...or are you saying that the age restrictions on controlled substances are violating the sanctity of body principal?
You have a point with assisted (and non assisted) suicide though. Although it doesn't actually stop MDs from giving terminal patients in pain enough morphine to kill an elephant.
My step father died last week of stomach cancer...but it was the morphine that stopped his heart.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: It seems like your questions are geared towards finding out whether I have a problem with abortion or not in general, is that what you're really asking?
No. It's about finding what rights your notion is talking about. The differences in rights a fetus has if it was conceived via nonconsentual sex is an important question regarding figuring out where all this lies.
Right now given the "Fetus as third vote" concept, it appears under your system that if I impregnate a woman and she cannot prove that it was nonconsentual, then I am allowed to dictate whether or not she is allowed to have an abortion. Is this really okay?
How onerous is the burden of proof?
You tell me, it's your notion we're working with.
I assume that there has to be some manner of legal ruling that the sex was nonconsensual on her part if I am to be stripped of my "vote" in the matter. If not, she can re-acquire the right to decide on whether or not she is permitted an abortion back from me simply by claiming rape.
Other than that, it's exactly like I said. Under your system, if I impregnate a woman, it is entirely within my power to decide whether she is allowed to have an abortion. If I refuse her this right, she is forced to carry to term. The "third vote" gives me that weighted power. And I'm asking if, really, truly, this is an acceptable thing.
I'm asking a legal question that doesn't really bear on my own beliefs. How onerous is the burden of proof so the woman can prove sex was or wasn't consensual? Is it impossible? Is it relatively easy?
You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: No, there's absolutely no requirement for it to be disregarded for either of these things.
Why not?
Please tell me why "The idea of inalienable body rights must also be disregarded for things like the consumption of tobacco and alcohol"
Why must the idea of inalienable body rights be disregarded for this?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:I'm asking a legal question that doesn't really bear on my own beliefs. How onerous is the burden of proof so the woman can prove sex was or wasn't consensual? Is it impossible? Is it relatively easy?
What would your system do in either case?
quote:You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
We're still in the exact same position - the tie always going in favor of forcing the pregnancy. I am still given the power to force a woman to bring a child to term in her own body if I was the one who impregnated her. So, as a man, I am granted that power over women without any equivalent jeapordy to my own bodily autonomy. I can dictate to a woman whether or not she is permitted an abortion. So, is that right? What conditions make this morally permissable where me having the right to dictate to her whether or not she is permitted to bring the baby to term would be presumably morally abhorrent, despite being a similar exercise of exerting control over what is to be done with her body?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by capaxinfiniti:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: Yea, those things are not forced on people by law...they choose them.
True, it's the law telling them they can't do those things. Complete autonomy over one's body would mean freedom from all forms of government coercion.
Alcohol and tobacco are legal...or are you saying that the age restrictions on controlled substances are violating the sanctity of body principal?
You have a point with assisted (and non assisted) suicide though. Although it doesn't actually stop MDs from giving terminal patients in pain enough morphine to kill an elephant.
My step father died last week of stomach cancer...but it was the morphine that stopped his heart.
Despite some of what has been said in this thread, there is no constitutional protection for absolute and complete control over your life. We've had a sliding bar on what constitutes "inalienable rights" since the constitution was drafted, though, also remember that that line was originally in the non-legally binding Declaration of Independence. There exist several legally acceptable ways in which we surrender control over our lives. Otherwise you could argue that jail time for crimes was illegal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:I'm asking a legal question that doesn't really bear on my own beliefs. How onerous is the burden of proof so the woman can prove sex was or wasn't consensual? Is it impossible? Is it relatively easy?
What would your system do in either case?
I don't know, I'd have to see specifics.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
This is the heart of the matter. A father can impregnate the mother and walk away and never see either the mother or child ever again. The woman can not. She is stuck with a parasite growing in her, which vastly limits her physical ability AND if she doesn't treat it right, she might end up being thrown in jail! Some father stick around and are a big part of the process, but not all, and so if we tie the hands of the mother in giving up the child by requiring the father to sign off, and the dude skipped town the second he heard his old squeeze had a growing middle...then what? She has to keep it?
It really is a simple matter. Women take the hit from biology physically, they get to call the shots. Don't like it? Invent an artificial womb. Until then, be happy your body will always be your own.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Okay, then, it's my word versus hers. Nothing more. Can I be stripped of my right to veto her abortion based off of this alone, or must she offer more?
quote:You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
We're still in the exact same position - the tie always going in favor of forcing the pregnancy. I am still given the power to force a woman to bring a child to term in her own body if I was the one who impregnated her. So, as a man, I am granted that power over women without any equivalent jeapordy to my own bodily autonomy. I can dictate to a woman whether or not she is permitted an abortion. So, is that right? What conditions make this morally permissable where me having the right to dictate to her whether or not she is permitted to bring the baby to term would be presumably morally abhorrent, despite being a similar exercise of exerting control over what is to be done with her body?
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: And no, I don't balk at the cost to the father. I've said more than once that I think the child support issue is fine the way it is. After all, the man is bound under my idea of a tacit agreement as well, he has to pay up.
Glad to hear it! Thanks for making that clear for me.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
This is the heart of the matter. A father can impregnate the mother and walk away and never see either the mother or child ever again. The woman can not. She is stuck with a parasite growing in her, which vastly limits her physical ability AND if she doesn't treat it right, she might end up being thrown in jail! Some father stick around and are a big part of the process, but not all, and so if we tie the hands of the mother in giving up the child by requiring the father to sign off, and the dude skipped town the second he heard his old squeeze had a growing middle...then what? She has to keep it?
It really is a simple matter. Women take the hit from biology physically, they get to call the shots. Don't like it? Invent an artificial womb. Until then, be happy your body will always be your own.
You're missing the point.
I'm talking about the way our society as a whole views mothers and fathers. Our views on mothers are very, very well defined.
Our views on fathers are ill-defined, contradictory, and unhelpful. We don't treat them with the requisite kind of attention required to make them achieve what we claim is our goal.
And you're missing the point regarding having a man sign off versus sign in. This baby was out the hospital door within hours, and out of the state within days, and the father never even knew! I'm obviously not saying the mother should be stuck with it, but there should be some sort of good faith effort to locate the father and see what he thinks.
What about cases where mothers never even tell the father there's a baby, and it is given up for adoption? How is the father supposed to assert parental rights to a baby he doesn't even know exists?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Okay, then, it's my word versus hers. Nothing more. Can I be stripped of my right to veto her abortion based off of this alone, or must she offer more?
quote:You could just as easily remove the "third vote" concept and just say the tie always goes to the one who wants the kid. Not sure how that affects your argument, but the fetus having an actual vote was more of a flippant way to express the same thought.
We're still in the exact same position - the tie always going in favor of forcing the pregnancy. I am still given the power to force a woman to bring a child to term in her own body if I was the one who impregnated her. So, as a man, I am granted that power over women without any equivalent jeapordy to my own bodily autonomy. I can dictate to a woman whether or not she is permitted an abortion. So, is that right? What conditions make this morally permissable where me having the right to dictate to her whether or not she is permitted to bring the baby to term would be presumably morally abhorrent, despite being a similar exercise of exerting control over what is to be done with her body?
The rape question is a good one. How often does it simply come down to her word versus yours? Is it because she didn't tell the police and had a rape kit done? Did she fail to pursue the matter appropriately and it ended up coming down to her word against his?
Your problem is far bigger than the rape question though. You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread. So on the one hand, since biology dictates that the woman bears the brunt of the burden, she gets to choose, but having chosen to enter into a reproductive act in the first place doesn't matter at all?
This is why the medical argument bears less weight with me, I focus more on the initial decision, you focus more on the secondary decision. It's like you hand someone a six shooter with a single bullet and tell them to shoot you, then get indignant when you end up shot. What did you think was going to happen? Just fun and games? Guns are meant to kill. Sex is meant to impregnate.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:I'm talking about the way our society as a whole views mothers and fathers. Our views on mothers are very, very well defined.
Our views on fathers are ill-defined, contradictory, and unhelpful. We don't treat them with the requisite kind of attention required to make them achieve what we claim is our goal.
I really don't care about "our society's views". How can you even claim that "our society" has one particular view or another? Turn on the TV and flip through the channels, there are more cultures and view points then stars in the night sky.
And even if there really was a view as you describe, who exactly would have the power to change it? This line of argument comes off as simply complaining and I doubt will come to anything of value.
quote:...there should be some sort of good faith effort to locate the father and see what he thinks.
What about cases where mothers never even tell the father there's a baby, and it is given up for adoption? How is the father supposed to assert parental rights to a baby he doesn't even know exists?
And who is going to pay for this good faith? Let's throw some more red tape and expense into our adoption process...a friend of mine adopted and it was a hugely time consuming, costly and rigorous process.
If this poor man's experience was common, I might agree with you. That he was wronged and had his daughter kidnapped from him and given away is tragic, and wrong wrong wrong, but it is hardly an epidemic of poor fathers who get lied to or abused like that. In most cases if the father isn't hold the mother's hand and telling her to push it is because he abandoned her and his child, which is very common by the way.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote: You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread.
The ease by which an unwanted pregnancy can be medically terminated via abortion is just as much a part of the biological argument as contraception is. So too is the biological fact that pregnancies are risky medical events, and wear at the body in multiple ways that can be 'solved' via an abortion if the host is willing. All important, 'biologically' or otherwise.
Perhaps the disagreement I have here (or at least one that's being read beyond the initial standpoint i made abundantly clear: woman has right to her own body in this case, period, there's no up or down vote between the possessor of HER OWN BODY and another person who is voting on behalf of what is to be done with her body) is not that I don't think having sex is a 'reproduction agreement' (even though that concept itself is kind of tricky in implementation, because people still have sex without any sort of informed 'agreement' about the risk of pregnancy), but that you could just as easily say that the reproduction agreements that people make are quite reasonably cognizant and inclusive of the fact that the woman has the right to decide whether or not she is going to have an abortion. A system which hinges on those 'reproduction agreements' necessarily creating an (informed) obligation towards a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system .. requires a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system to be enforced in the first place.
Hypothetical scenario, to work towards illustrating. A woman says to a man, prior to sex, "I'm never having a child, so if this results in an unintended pregnancy, I'm terminating it. Capiche?" Man accepts this as a condition to having sexual relations that might hypothetically result in pregnancy. It's a one night stand, then he gets on a plane and travels back to where he came from. Lightning-strike conception occurs through multiple forms of birth control. Woman maintains her position and heads out to get an abortion.
Does this not count as a 'reproduction agreement' — or, under your terms, not? Does she have the obligation to hunt down the guy to tell him before she gets the abortion?
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Also, to go back to the other thing
quote:The rape question is a good one. How often does it simply come down to her word versus yours? Is it because she didn't tell the police and had a rape kit done? Did she fail to pursue the matter appropriately and it ended up coming down to her word against his?
Prevalence of this situation notwithstanding, the situation as it stands is that they are in court. She wants an abortion but has been prohibited from having it because the man has disallowed her the option of having an abortion. She is claiming that he raped him, and has brought the case forth today intending to reclaim the ability to have an abortion from him. He denies that the sex was nonconsentual. They provide different stories. They will not bargain (he won't allow her to get an abortion if she drops the rape charge). There's no physical evidence one way or another, no witnesses. She asserts that she didn't charge him earlier because she was traumatized and couldn't face a court because of a panic disorder related to the rape.
even beyond this individual scenario under your system, what's the standard? not for individual cases, what's the standard by which a woman can use rape to get out of an abortion veto? Conviction in court? How long can an average rape trial drag on?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Stone Wolf: I really don't care about "our society's views". .... Let's throw some more red tape and expense into our adoption process
Hm, so you think society's view on the paternal role in a family is irrelevant, and you think attempting to notify fathers about adoptions is too burdensome.
Doesn't seem to be too much more to discuss here.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote: You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread.
The ease by which an unwanted pregnancy can be medically terminated via abortion is just as much a part of the biological argument as contraception is. So too is the biological fact that pregnancies are risky medical events, and wear at the body in multiple ways that can be 'solved' via an abortion if the host is willing. All important, 'biologically' or otherwise.
Perhaps the disagreement I have here (or at least one that's being read beyond the initial standpoint i made abundantly clear: woman has right to her own body in this case, period, there's no up or down vote between the possessor of HER OWN BODY and another person who is voting on behalf of what is to be done with her body) is not that I don't think having sex is a 'reproduction agreement' (even though that concept itself is kind of tricky in implementation, because people still have sex without any sort of informed 'agreement' about the risk of pregnancy), but that you could just as easily say that the reproduction agreements that people make are quite reasonably cognizant and inclusive of the fact that the woman has the right to decide whether or not she is going to have an abortion. A system which hinges on those 'reproduction agreements' necessarily creating an (informed) obligation towards a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system .. requires a tie-goes-to-pregnancy system to be enforced in the first place.
Hypothetical scenario, to work towards illustrating. A woman says to a man, prior to sex, "I'm never having a child, so if this results in an unintended pregnancy, I'm terminating it. Capiche?" Man accepts this as a condition to having sexual relations that might hypothetically result in pregnancy. It's a one night stand, then he gets on a plane and travels back to where he came from. Lightning-strike conception occurs through multiple forms of birth control. Woman maintains her position and heads out to get an abortion.
Does this not count as a 'reproduction agreement' — or, under your terms, not? Does she have the obligation to hunt down the guy to tell him before she gets the abortion?
That would seem to be pretty clear. You're taking it from a tacit agreement to an oral contract, which is even more concrete. I'm betting a judge today would void that as an argument if she changed her mind and the guy came back later and said "but wait, she said she wanted an abortion!" I'd claim a broken contract, as well as fraud, but I bet both would get shot down, she'd have the baby, and he'd pay child support.
But under such a hypothetical, if they both agree beforehand, I don't see why it wouldn't supersede the tacit agreement.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
Guess not.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:But under such a hypothetical, if they both agree beforehand, I don't see why it wouldn't supersede the tacit agreement.
Yet now in this case if he is told about the pending abortion, he can still veto the abortion and strip the girl of being allowed to have the abortion.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I've never known Samp to be so dogged in his attempts to make a point...usually you get one or two terse sentences and if you didn't catch his meaning...too bad for you!
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary: Also, to go back to the other thing
quote:The rape question is a good one. How often does it simply come down to her word versus yours? Is it because she didn't tell the police and had a rape kit done? Did she fail to pursue the matter appropriately and it ended up coming down to her word against his?
Prevalence of this situation notwithstanding, the situation as it stands is that they are in court. She wants an abortion but has been prohibited from having it because the man has disallowed her the option of having an abortion. She is claiming that he raped him, and has brought the case forth today intending to reclaim the ability to have an abortion from him. He denies that the sex was nonconsentual. They provide different stories. They will not bargain (he won't allow her to get an abortion if she drops the rape charge). There's no physical evidence one way or another, no witnesses. She asserts that she didn't charge him earlier because she was traumatized and couldn't face a court because of a panic disorder related to the rape.
even beyond this individual scenario under your system, what's the standard? not for individual cases, what's the standard by which a woman can use rape to get out of an abortion veto? Conviction in court? How long can an average rape trial drag on?
There are more than a million abortions a year in the United States, and I can't even fathom how tiny the theoretically small number of cases would be where a woman is raped and the rapist demands she carry the child to term where she wouldn't be able to prove it was a rape.
I would have to see numbers on all of this before I could give you a definitive answer. You keep posing interesting questions that complicate the issue, and that's fine, but without the numbers that go along with them, there's no way to give you the answer you want. I'd have to actually see where all this goes before I could make a decision.
It just seems like such a convoluted and unlikely scenario that it seems odd, on the face of it and with no numbers, to toss out the entire system because of an unlikely hypothetical. But I remain open to changing my mind.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:But under such a hypothetical, if they both agree beforehand, I don't see why it wouldn't supersede the tacit agreement.
Yet now in this case if he is told about the pending abortion, he can still veto the abortion and strip the girl of being allowed to have the abortion.
How so? That's based on the initial tacit agreement that sex is a reproductive act. If they both agree before hand that it's not, then they are changing this tacit agreement and firmly creating a different agreement. The tacit agreement is simply the default position if nothing else is formally created.
As I said, I'm betting a real court today would throw that out in the case of the mother changing her mind, but certainly not for the father. You're arguing that my system would reverse this, but I don't think it would or should.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: I've never known Samp to be so dogged in his attempts to make a point...usually you get one or two terse sentences and if you didn't catch his meaning...too bad for you!
I catch his meaning, and he's more than made his point.
It seems more like he's trying to get me to change my mind.
I really don't mind though. To be perfectly honest, this is a subject that has really bothered me for a long time, and I've wrestled with philosophically to come up with an answer I'm really comfortable with. I'm still not there, and this conversation is further than I've ever taken it. But Samp's questions are all good ones that it's interesting to grapple with, and it's really complicating my position on the subject.
I should still point out, however, that in the OP, and I think once post since, I've said that I'm not in favor of legislating my views on this into law. It might be how I feel, but I'm not going to force it on anyone. I think it makes much more sense to focus on issues like adoption law and custody where paternal rights are concerned. This is just something I'm wrestling with internally.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I do understand that it is a tragedy, abortion. I doubt you will find any sane person who sees abortion day as a happy time. When it comes down to it, it is the lessor evil, and trying to put rules around it to make it even lessor just tip the scale toward the larger evil.
If I'm understanding Samp's point correctly, it is that -any- system which hampers a woman's right to body autonomy can be misused to make her a slave of biology.
There are lines in the sand that should not be breached, and as sad and tragic as the loss of potential lives are, this is one of those lines.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:It just seems like such a convoluted and unlikely scenario that it seems odd, on the face of it and with no numbers, to toss out the entire system because of an unlikely hypothetical.
The issue is that this is no longer an 'unlikely hypothetical' were we to suddenly exist in a world where a man can decide whether or not a woman he impregnated is allowed to have an abortion, and pretty much the only way out of that is to claim rape. It creates a perverse incentive alongside the need for secret abortions. It creates issues that make it important to know whether or not a woman is legally obligated to tell the potential father(s) before she's even allowed to have an abortion, or whether the procedure is allowed to remain medically confidential or if a man who claims to have had sexual relations with you can apply for a release of those records.
If this is all about Hammering A Point as stone wolf seems to think it is, it's a point consequentially exposed by/towards the actual legitimate interest i have in the particulars of the moral theory and me wondering whether or not (and how) the system addresses external moral, legal, and medical problems that you could predict it would create via its implementation, and what that says about the overall ethical theory itself. Whether or not I personally morally agree with it or think it's medically justifiable can stand on its own and could, in fact, be gotten out of the way right at the start. this is still interesting because you are far from the first or last person to suggest a male's veto right or similar situation and there are plenty who would implement it by force if they could.
It's like i said earlier: we get the intentions. Where does the road look like it's headed, once we start paving it out brick by brick. What are the complications (and it's amazing to think of how many) we come up with looking at with how the moral system addresses the man's newfound veto right. How would women respond to this assault on their bodily rights?
For instance, when I outline this to another woman who works in the field of women's medical care, she winces and says "I could guarantee you that the outcome of a system like this is that you would see most women, millions and millions, lining up to do things like get an IUD." In response to having other methods of contraception leave them at risk of having their access to abortions vetoable by men, the solution is to use a form of contraception that turns practically any accidental pregnancy into a high-risk, potential medical emergency in order to retain the ability to keep terminations justifiable on those grounds. That they would literally put themselves at much higher risk of complications, device rejection, and death, because of the perverse incentives of the veto threat. And that this would become the new status quo. It makes sense, it mirrors the myriad of ways women have compensated for the illegality of abortions in various countries.
Posted by Anthonie (Member # 884) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rawrain: -------------------------- If the adoptive parents realized the father of "Emma" is looking for her, why the hell did they not give her up asap, the longer they were to hold on... the more they could use their incredibly crappy excuses like "WE ARE ALL SHE KNOWS" +frowny faces... ---------------------------
Exactly.
Disagreement between state courts or not, the adoptive parents could have easily resolved everything by giving the child back to the father.
What rationalizing could they possible have used to justify keeping the child? Especially when they knew the father was looking for his daughter within a month (or less?) of the adoption!
Whatever the adoptive parents may claim, it boils down to one of two main sentiments: 1)"But we REALLY want a baby!...so much so that we don't mind if we take yours!", or 2)"Single fathers are so ill-equipped or incapable of raising their own child that it's better for us to keep the child against the father's will." Both are deplorable sentiments.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
Yeah, and even beyond that, I think there's more than enough information in this case (so far, appearances-wise) to show that likely it should not be their choice whether or not to keep the child.
the way this has happened is extremely suspect.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:The issue is that this is no longer an 'unlikely hypothetical' were we to suddenly exist in a world where a man can decide whether or not a woman he impregnated is allowed to have an abortion, and pretty much the only way out of that is to claim rape. It creates a perverse incentive alongside the need for secret abortions. It creates issues that make it important to know whether or not a woman is legally obligated to tell the potential father(s) before she's even allowed to have an abortion, or whether the procedure is allowed to remain medically confidential or if a man who claims to have had sexual relations with you can apply for a release of those records.
It IS still an unlikely hypothetical. Again, I don't have any specific numbers, but I can't imagine there would be more than a handful of cases where a rapist would demand a woman carry the child to term, and the number that couldn't be proven to be rapists has to winnow that down to a near negligible number. It's not like he can do it out of spite and then wash his hands of it.
As far as petitioning past records go, I guess I don't much care after the abortion already happens. On the one hand, I guess you could say that by letting the man check into the records to see if he was the dad and his baby was aborted, you give him some sort of vehicle to go after the mom later on? But that's a bizarre form of deterrence. If the whole point is to allow him to play a role in the decision making process, giving him access in the aftermath, without any proof that he was the father, doesn't seem right. Proving it would require all babies get DNA tested in cases where the mom aborts the fetus without the father signing off on it because he isn't around. That seems onerous.
And I would think its obvious that she has to tell the father before she can get an abortion. It's sort of the binding facet of this whole thing.
quote:How would women respond to this assault on their bodily rights?
For instance, when I outline this to another woman who works in the field of women's medical care, she winces and says "I could guarantee you that the outcome of a system like this is that you would see most women, millions and millions, lining up to do things like get an IUD." In response to having other methods of contraception leave them at risk of having their access to abortions vetoable by men, the solution is to use a form of contraception that turns practically any accidental pregnancy into a high-risk, potential medical emergency in order to retain the ability to keep terminations justifiable on those grounds. That they would literally put themselves at much higher risk of complications, device rejection, and death, because of the perverse incentives of the veto threat. And that this would become the new status quo. It makes sense, it mirrors the myriad of ways women have compensated for the illegality of abortions in various countries.
That's an interesting question I hadn't quite considered, but I'm not sure how much it would sway me. If the initial argument is that a woman more or less waives some of her rights when she agrees to have sex, then I can't consider that an assault on her "bodily rights," she's already agreed to give up part of that control.
You're going to have to explain the inherent dangers of an IUD to me a little bit. Are they particularly dangerous, or only dangerous when they're implanted and then conception occurs anyway? How effective are they?
Beyond that, there IS another out, and it's one you proposed. If they agree on an abortion before hand, then the potential father surrenders his right of control. For a guy looking for a fling, and apparently, for a bunch of these women willing to risk death for consequence-free sex, I'm betting 99% of people out there would merrily sign off on that, and for the 1% who don't, well, don't sleep with that guy! Maybe condom wrappers could be reworked to have a little release agreement on the back that a guy could sign.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sure, but that starting point was like five decades ago. I don't have numbers on what parity with mothers would be, so I don't know what the stopping point is, do you?
quote:I'd argue that there's also a far more fundamental problem (and I think you'd agree with this) with regards to paternal roles in families. We've yet to really establish as a society what the male role should be. We have more or less created a stereotypical role for a mother in a family. There's no such role for a father. It's sort of an ad hoc exhortation to "get involved!" But boys growing up have no idea what that means. Considering that obstacle, I think fathers are doing pretty well with the learning curve. They need to do better, but they're deserving of praise as a whole.
Well, no, not really. I don't consider less than half of American fathers paying the full child support they owe to be 'pretty well'. I consider it a sign of how very far there is to go. And as for creating the stereotypical role of mother-where we are now with regards to what we think of motherhood seems to me to be a pretty natural (no pun intended) result of the big disparities in biology. Does it lead to some disparities and injustices down the road? Well, of course. 6 billion of us and counting.
quote:Okay, what about what happens for the next several decades after the first 9 months are over? In the case of the abortion, the burden is minimal.
When the first nine months are over, then (all other things being equal), the burden/responsibilities/rights split should be equal between the mother and the father. There are lots of reasons why they're not. One reason they're not is because, as you say, society learns slowly and has yet to adapt to the changing role of fatherhood. But another reason is that all other things often aren't equal. You appear to be suggesting that the split we generally have is immoral, but I just don't follow how you come to that conclusion given the many, many signs there are that men generally just aren't there yet, in terms of actually shouldering equal responsibilities.
quote:A situation where a man would like his child born but the money chooses an abortion is only one scenario that I've proposed, there are others. As I said at the very top of this thread, I've pretty much made my peace with this biological imbalance. It's not fair, but the only way to settle that fairness is to have a nice long argument with Evolution, who isn't exactly around to argue with. So it's not fair, oh well, can't fix it.
So you just want to...ignore this imbalance? There's nothing men can do about this imbalance, it's built in, and since there's nothing they can do, well, women just have to live with it? I don't understand your thoughts here, I feel I'm not reading you right.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I have no numbers, but I think that the number of unprovable rapists is a whole lot higher than Lyrhawn does. There was a rape discussion thread here where it was pretty clear that lots of people have differing viewpoints of rape and consent. Also, the numbers do say that a woman is most likely to be raped by someone they know. So, the man may very well believe that he is not a rapist and he may know and care about the woman, making the likelihood he views the baby as his and wants to keep it much higher.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:Well, no, not really. I don't consider less than half of American fathers paying the full child support they owe to be 'pretty well'.
So we're just singling out child support paying fathers? If fathers paying child support is the ONLY metric you care about, then I agree, we have a long way to go. I fundamentally disagree, however, that that's all that matters. Your report even said that the number of custodial children in the country is only 26% of all children, so what, the fathers of the other 74% simply don't matter when we're talking about overall job performance? I'm not saying child support isn't important, it is, but it seems like you're really missing the bigger picture.
There are some other interesting numbers in your study that I wouldn't have guessed. I'm going to read this at length later, but the percentage of deadbeat moms out there appears almost exactly equal as the percentage of deadbeat dads. I would have guessed that mom number was a lot lower. And by the way, if the percentage of those not paying full child support is all that matters, then by your logic, moms suck just as much as dads do.
quote:When the first nine months are over, then (all other things being equal), the burden/responsibilities/rights split should be equal between the mother and the father. There are lots of reasons why they're not. One reason they're not is because, as you say, society learns slowly and has yet to adapt to the changing role of fatherhood. But another reason is that all other things often aren't equal. You appear to be suggesting that the split we generally have is immoral, but I just don't follow how you come to that conclusion given the many, many signs there are that men generally just aren't there yet, in terms of actually shouldering equal responsibilities.
Well, in my defense, most of this moral framework I'm developing here is a theoretical fantasy, so, I have a much higher burden of responsibility for men than they are currently bearing. I would also suggest that under this system, if a man is demanding that a woman carry a child to term that she doesn't want, then he's likely to be the sole custodian of the child. Short of him giving the baby of for adoption afterward, his role is automatically that of primary caregiver, not a support role, which sort of eliminates the level of slacking he's allowed to achieve.
quote:So you just want to...ignore this imbalance? There's nothing men can do about this imbalance, it's built in, and since there's nothing they can do, well, women just have to live with it? I don't understand your thoughts here, I feel I'm not reading you right.
The other way around. Like the rest of you have said, there's nothing men can do about the imbalance, men have to live with their share of the negatives just like women do. One of those negatives is a total loss of control.
[ August 21, 2011, 05:54 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:On the one hand, I guess you could say that by letting the man check into the records to see if he was the dad and his baby was aborted, you give him some sort of vehicle to go after the mom later on? But that's a bizarre form of deterrence.
It's not bizzare. Without a form of enforceable legal requirement that the man be informed (public record/mandatory informing of the man involved) with punitive results for those who fail to comply, all your system is really changing is forcing the women who want to get abortions to purposefully keep it secret from any men related. Since it allows them to reclaim their ability to decide for themselves whether they will have an abortion, that's what they will do. It would be how your system works in practice.
quote:And I would think its obvious that she has to tell the father before she can get an abortion. It's sort of the binding facet of this whole thing.
How does that work? Does a person claiming to be the inseminator have to sign off on the abortion procedure before it can take place? Or can she just state that the man involved agrees?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I have no numbers, but I think that the number of unprovable rapists is a whole lot higher than Lyrhawn does. There was a rape discussion thread here where it was pretty clear that lots of people have differing viewpoints of rape and consent. Also, the numbers do say that a woman is most likely to be raped by someone they know. So, the man may very well believe that he is not a rapist and he may know and care about the woman, making the likelihood he views the baby as his and wants to keep it much higher.
That's entirely possible. And like I said, I'd be quite willing to re-work my belief system if I read hard numbers that suggested a necessary change.
I'd need the numbers on unprovable rapes, and pregnancies resulting from those unprovable rapes, and maybe a general idea of how many of them possibly could have been proven.
I'm betting hard numbers on all those things would be near impossible to find, because reporting is such a problem.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:On the one hand, I guess you could say that by letting the man check into the records to see if he was the dad and his baby was aborted, you give him some sort of vehicle to go after the mom later on? But that's a bizarre form of deterrence.
It's not bizzare. Without a form of enforceable legal requirement that the man be informed (public record/mandatory informing of the man involved) with punitive results for those who fail to comply, all your system is really changing is forcing the women who want to get abortions to purposefully keep it secret from any men related. Since it allows them to reclaim their ability to decide for themselves whether they will have an abortion, that's what they will do. It would be how your system works in practice.
quote:And I would think its obvious that she has to tell the father before she can get an abortion. It's sort of the binding facet of this whole thing.
How does that work? Does a person claiming to be the inseminator have to sign off on the abortion procedure before it can take place? Or can she just state that the man involved agrees?
Alright then. I guess the answer to both your questions is to criminalize not informing the father.
I'm not really sure how enforcement works though. I can think of a number of ways, but almost all of them rely on the mother not lying to the father, and on the father not thinking to randomly check into a mother's medical files, or on mandating that the father sign off on it.
If you use the lowest burden of proof possible, that the mother can just be trusted to talk to the father and work it out, there's almost no point in doing it. Women will simply lie to their sexual partners, or not tell them anything at all, and it will only be the occasional woman actually bound by the rule, even as millions break it. The only way to figure it out would be for the man to check the records after the fact, dispute it, and press charges against the woman. But even then, what's the charge? I don't know. Breaking a contract? Murder? Fraud seems the most likely I suppose.
In the other scenario, where you force the woman to need the man's signature, you're going to come across many situations where she simply can't get it. Maybe it was a one night stand. The only way I see out of that is to create some sort of policing or court system just for abortion cases, where a woman could give them the name of the guy she can't find, and the court could seek him out. If the court can't find him within a reasonable amount of time, then she can have the abortion anyway. In some ways I don't think this would end up being highly problematic. After a certain amount of time goes by, she gets the abortion. That way, hell, she can STILL lie about it to the court, but that carries with it a lot less room for error. The simpler way would simply be to actually have a conversation with the father and work it out.
I'm not sure how comfortable I am with any of that though. Too much of this relies on the honesty of the mother, and given your description of the lengths women will go to to avoid this, I have to imagine non-compliance would be near universal. But do we scrap a law just because people keep breaking it? I don't have an answer to that yet either.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Our views on mothers are very, very well defined.
I call BS.
All mothers should:
devote their entire lives to their children, giving up careers, etc.
work full-time to support their families
work part-time (all the stress of both of the above options)
breastfeed
bottlefeed
leave the discipline to the kids' father
take care of all the discipline
share all disciplinary decisions equally with their co-parent
I can keep going, if you like.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
You can change the statement above to "our views on mothers are far more well defined than our views on fathers," if you like.
If you disagree with that, then I'm not sure I see as much where you're coming from. It's only in the last decade or two that we've really decided as a society that paternal involvement in a child's life, beyond merely writing a child support check, is something we really need to focus on, and yet, adn I've pointed out throughout this thread, society has no idea at all what it wants from fathers. We want them involved in some vague way, but many of our laws and expectations are based on limited or no involvement, or on them not caring at all.
Some of what you're talking about is just too microscopic. I'm not saying those aren't big debates among child rearing, but how are a couple of those mother-specific?
For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
It seems to me that a couple decades ago things were well-delineated: moms raised the kids and stayed at home, dads brought home the bacon. I don't think there's a great deal of argument that this was the American stereotype, and more often than not, the American reality (with exceptions, yes). But as things changed, I think our exploration of what was available for moms, and what was acceptable for moms, or even just the general conversation about what moms SHOULD be doing, was much, much more vocal than our conversation about what was acceptable for dads, or what dads should be doing. Men in general get a lot of "oh boo hoo" responses when a conversation forms about new ideas of what it means to be a man in the 21st century. Some of that is true, and some of it is nitpicky, like what scholarette mentioned earlier, but look at the decades of feminism studies and look at the paltry offering of masculinity studies. What it means to be a woman in the new era has been discussed and explored a lot more than what it means to be a man. And by extension, what it means to be a mother and a father.
I'd also say that, with regards to your list, what's demanded and what's accepted are different as well.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
Not really. One more time: IT'S HER BODY. (And I say that as someone who is very pro-breastfeeding.)
You seem to be conflating an awful lot of very disparate groups into the one collective umbrella of "society". In my slice of it, expectations for men are (in many ways) far more concrete than those for women (because the later have changed more than the former). This has both good aspects and bad.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I was under the impression that there is some dispute as to the health effects and value of breast versus formula feeding. So, in a case where a woman has no preference, a father should play no role in this decision? I don't know where I suggested she should be forced to breastfeed, but it shouldnt even be a conversation?
In what other aspects of child rearing should men just butt out?
And yeah, you're right, in a way, about old ideas regarding fathers. But from where I sit, its not that they are better defined, but ill-defined. Clearly we don't want men to just fulfill the role they filled in the fifties. So....what role do we want them to fill?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I was under the impression that there is some dispute as to the health effects and value of breast versus formula feeding.
Not really. Breast is best. However, that does not necessarily mean that breast is best in every situation, and it is a decision that every family must make (and re-make, as situations change, or with each child.)
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: So, in a case where a woman has no preference
HAH! I don't believe there is such a mother. I do believe there are women who have been encouraged to do one or the other by their spouse, and I'm not sure why you think I'm opposed to that. I don't think there's anything wrong with the father expressing his opinion on whether or not she has an abortion, either (or encouraging her to choose a specific option). But when push comes to shove -- they're her breasts. Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm not sure where the disagreement was then.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
You seem to believe that "society" (whoever that is) has clearly defined what it means to be a mother. I still disagree.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I think that it is also difficult to ask the question, what about the men's rights because for so long they got full choice. Breast or bottle- what does your husband want? So, a lot of woman are fine having a conversation with their husband about what works for their family but shy away from giving a generic man any right to an opinion on these issues. You also get a lot more trouble when you go with an issue that is so intimate to a woman. You could maybe go with something like parental discipline and the father's role to get away from being the woman's body.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
Biology. Again.
Posted by DDDaysh (Member # 9499) on :
This moved pretty far astray from the original article.
Didn't we just recently hash out this "men should be able to control women" thing a few months ago???
I feel badly for the father in the initial article, but I don't know all the facts of the case. However, given the fact that Utah law is pretty much known to try to hamper single fathers from trying to claim their children from adoptions, I'm not surprised. It's not a new problem. I've known a woman online for years whose son has been fighting with a Utah court for his child... :-( Most states aren't that bad though, and the Utah law is one of the main reasons people want a more federal approach to adoption.
Many states, however, make it pretty easy for a father to claim a child if he makes an honest attempt. As long as you're not going around breeding with random women, you there's usually a good legal system that prevents your child from being adopted out from under you as long as you care enough to be informed and follow the legal process.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I think, ideally, it should be a mutual decision-that is, the mother ought to listen objectively to the father's input and take it into consideration in the event of a disagreement.
But Lyrhawn, consider what it *actually means*, in practice. The father wants his child breastfed, and the mother doesn't. What should happen in that case? Is there some situation where the father should-morally-be able to veto what is done with his wife's breasts?
You're advocating that men should have some right to determine what will be done in a situation no man, anywhere, will have to face.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: The father wants his child breastfed, and the mother doesn't. What should happen in that case?
I suppose that hiring (or otherwise procuring, such as a friend) a wet-nurse is one option. Westerners tend to be horrified by the very notion, but I know women who have breastfed other women's babies (for a short time or a longer one).
I'd be rather wary about hiring a stranger, though. Too many things that don't show up on health screening tests, too hard to be sure what she's eating, drinking, etc.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
Um, nowhere have I said that men have a breast veto...?
I was under the impression that rivka meant men should shut up and butt out, and that seemed wrong, because while women might get the final say, that doesn't mean men shouldn't be involved in child rearing decisions like that. All I said was that parents should decide these things together. Seems like everyone agrees with that.
Also, I don't know if you saw my response to you on the previous page, but that was a really interesting study you linked to regarding child support payments, though I think it complicated, rather than concretely supported your position.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
Biology. Again.
You're missing the point.
And I think you're making an assumption about my position, but then, it's one that apparently EVERYONE here made, so, okay I guess.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Lyrhawn- when I was breastfeeding with WIC, they did offer to meet with my husband to explain all the ways he can support me in breastfeeding and the benefits of doing so. They sent home a packet designed for fathers. Things like that might be kinda what you are looking for
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Samprimary:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For example, why is bottle/breast feeding a mom-only decision? Isn't that more of a parenthood choice, rather than a motherhood choice?
Biology. Again.
You're missing the point.
It's just a straightforward answer to the question. That it should be ideally something decided upon by both parents in the best interest of the child, but that's 'ideally.' if it comes down to him vs. her, it's her breasts.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Okay. And?
As I've already explained, I don't disagree.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
So, by having a child, she hasn't engaged in a tacit agreement that her breasts ARE to be used for the sake of the child's determined best interests now that it exists, right?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Hadn't thought of it that way. Good point. Breasts are now jointly owned.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
WTH?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:So we're just singling out child support paying fathers? If fathers paying child support is the ONLY metric you care about, then I agree, we have a long way to go. I fundamentally disagree, however, that that's all that matters. Your report even said that the number of custodial children in the country is only 26% of all children, so what, the fathers of the other 74% simply don't matter when we're talking about overall job performance? I'm not saying child support isn't important, it is, but it seems like you're really missing the bigger picture.
You're right, we shouldn't only be concerned about child-support paying (or more often not paying, or paying-in-part) fathers. It was just an example of a clear-cut set of statistics that can be looked at. And you're also right, the study (the Census always has such interesting info, don't it?) raises a lot of unexpected points.
quote:There are some other interesting numbers in your study that I wouldn't have guessed. I'm going to read this at length later, but the percentage of deadbeat moms out there appears almost exactly equal as the percentage of deadbeat dads. I would have guessed that mom number was a lot lower. And by the way, if the percentage of those not paying full child support is all that matters, then by your logic, moms suck just as much as dads do.
Such as this one. I wouldn't have expected that either, but the thing is (bearing in mind that my point wasn't 'child-support is the only factor'), the fact that proportionally mothers are just as likely to be deadbeats as fathers is interesting, but doesn't serve as an example of mothers being just as bad as fathers. Because, let's face it, they don't have an opportunity to get into that proportion as often as fathers. That is to say, to be the ones that are going to be paying child support rather than receiving it. Only then do they have a chance to live up or down the expectations.
quote:Well, in my defense, most of this moral framework I'm developing here is a theoretical fantasy, so, I have a much higher burden of responsibility for men than they are currently bearing. I would also suggest that under this system, if a man is demanding that a woman carry a child to term that she doesn't want, then he's likely to be the sole custodian of the child. Short of him giving the baby of for adoption afterward, his role is automatically that of primary caregiver, not a support role, which sort of eliminates the level of slacking he's allowed to achieve.
This is precisely my point, which you appear to be agreeing to: ideally the split should be equal, but currently it isn't. Men aren't bearing an equal burden of the responsibility in this country, or at least certainly not (and I don't see how this can be argued-not that you are) during pregnacy. You can see it in the often default expectation that, in the event of a divorce, the mother will be granted custody. That expectation didn't just occur at random. It occured, I think, because generally that's what we expect of women, at least moreso than of men.
If we're doing all of this extra expecting of women regarding parenting duties in the day-to-day, well, it seems to me reasonable to suggest that women are also bearing a disproportionate amount of the responsibilities. In fact it seems to flow naturally. Obviously it's not the truth in all individual situations. But my point is...we've got a ways to go yet.
At times you seem to even agree with me, acknowledging the changing expectations of male involvement. I'm not entirely clear on what we're disagreeing about. It feels to me - and I'm describing my own perception of the undertones, not claiming you're stating this (also asking for clarification) - that you're expressing resentment that paternal rights are taken less seriously than maternal rights, generally. My response to that is to say that, generally, maternal responsibilities are generally greater and not uncommonly unmet in the event of a split, so this different in rights is not so surprising. Again, I want to be very clear that I'm asking for clarification on your underlying thoughts here-not claiming that's what you're actually saying.
quote:The other way around. Like the rest of you have said, there's nothing men can do about the imbalance, men have to live with their share of the negatives just like women do. One of those negatives is a total loss of control.
It's not a total loss of control. How can it be a 'total' loss of control when, if we move just a few paces to the side, we've got another party who faces an even greater loss of control-over what their bodies will be doing, over their nutrition, over their daily fatigue, potentially even of their lives...and then once that's over with (assuming post-partum depression and similar issues are luckily avoided), they also face that same decade or two committment as the fathers do?
(Also, sorry for missing this response of yours earlier-I didn't mean to skip it.)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Men in general get a lot of "oh boo hoo" responses when a conversation forms about new ideas of what it means to be a man in the 21st century. Some of that is true, and some of it is nitpicky, like what scholarette mentioned earlier, but look at the decades of feminism studies and look at the paltry offering of masculinity studies. What it means to be a woman in the new era has been discussed and explored a lot more than what it means to be a man. And by extension, what it means to be a mother and a father.
You're an actual professional student of history, so in that light I ask the question: is this really very surprising? This disparity of concern, I mean. Looked at one way, it is unfair, of course-women and men being a near-identical split in population worldwide. But when you look at it another way...well. Women all over the world (it seems to me) get varying amounts of the shaft as a result of their gender. In some places, it's gotten a lot less overt and intentional-places such as the USA-than it was even a generation or two ago, much less in the much longer cultural memory of many generations. In other places it's much worse, of course. So I feel that (overall), women's identity issues get more 'play' because, well, there's more work to be done. Y'know? Farther to go.
I'll never take issue with any dude expressing an interest in wanting to discuss what a man's role should be in the modern world, or lamenting that such concerns are often scorned (and they are). My only beef comes when those complaints are expressed in a way that includes some tone of, "But women's issues..." It strikes me as strange in a similar way as when I've heard of people complain, "Why don't we have a white history month?" I'm not sayin' your thoughts are racist or sexist, Lyrhawn, but that my response is similar: because the majority/privileged gender doesn't need its own month/as much focus on issues as the under-privileged minority/gender.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ... Westerners tend to be horrified by the very notion, but I know women who have breastfed other women's babies (for a short time or a longer one).
Can you elaborate on how this horror in the West came about actually? (This is from the perspective of knowing very little about the practice, except that I've heard of it surviving overseas and first came across the practice in Victorian history actually)
I mean, I can understand being worried about the quality of the feed, but horror?
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: WTH?
rivka, all your breast are belong to us.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ... Westerners tend to be horrified by the very notion, but I know women who have breastfed other women's babies (for a short time or a longer one).
Can you elaborate on how this horror in the West came about actually? (This is from the perspective of knowing very little about the practice, except that I've heard of it surviving overseas and first came across the practice in Victorian history actually)
I mean, I can understand being worried about the quality of the feed, but horror?
I blame the formula companies. And I'm not kidding.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: WTH?
rivka, all your breast are belong to us.
CT, I love you dearly . . . but not that way.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Doesn't matter. She's gotcha.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I've heard of Hands Across America, but this is ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
She's takin' a ten-finger discount.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: WTH?
Sarcasm.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:You're right, we shouldn't only be concerned about child-support paying (or more often not paying, or paying-in-part) fathers. It was just an example of a clear-cut set of statistics that can be looked at. And you're also right, the study (the Census always has such interesting info, don't it?) raises a lot of unexpected points.
According to the study, while only a third of fathers made all their payments, 64.7% of all child support due to mothers was received. This would suggest that a lot of those dads who weren't totally up to date on their payments were still doing pretty well, though not as well as we'd like. That's still too low a number, but it suggests that, unlike your characterization, more often than not, payments do get made.
Looking at the data regarding child support questions does raise larger issues about the quantifiability of child rearing in general. I've read polling data that suggests that fathers are more involved in their children's lives than at any point in history, but I haven't read any actual published studies on the subject.
quote:Because, let's face it, they don't have an opportunity to get into that proportion as often as fathers. That is to say, to be the ones that are going to be paying child support rather than receiving it. Only then do they have a chance to live up or down the expectations.
Can you elaborate on this? To what degree does that make them less likely to be "deadbeats?" Because they want sole custody more often than men? I'm betting that's true, though I'd also like to see data on how often men are denied sole custody. It's no secret that the courts favor mothers over fathers. I'm still betting moms want the kids more often than dads, but I'm wondering if that's your argument here. (I'm not saying I totally disagree with it, either).
quote:It's not a total loss of control. How can it be a 'total' loss of control when, if we move just a few paces to the side, we've got another party who faces an even greater loss of control-over what their bodies will be doing, over their nutrition, over their daily fatigue, potentially even of their lives...and then once that's over with (assuming post-partum depression and similar issues are luckily avoided), they also face that same decade or two committment as the fathers do?
Well, it's a binary state though, isn't it? Both sides can't have control, so if one does, then the other doesn't. You're arguing that for one party, the loss of control is greater, but that doesn't make the loss of control for men and less a loss of control. Regardless, as I've said, I accept that.
I'm not ignoring your third section there where you ask for clarification. Let me think about it for a day and get back to you.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Men in general get a lot of "oh boo hoo" responses when a conversation forms about new ideas of what it means to be a man in the 21st century. Some of that is true, and some of it is nitpicky, like what scholarette mentioned earlier, but look at the decades of feminism studies and look at the paltry offering of masculinity studies. What it means to be a woman in the new era has been discussed and explored a lot more than what it means to be a man. And by extension, what it means to be a mother and a father.
You're an actual professional student of history, so in that light I ask the question: is this really very surprising? This disparity of concern, I mean. Looked at one way, it is unfair, of course-women and men being a near-identical split in population worldwide. But when you look at it another way...well. Women all over the world (it seems to me) get varying amounts of the shaft as a result of their gender. In some places, it's gotten a lot less overt and intentional-places such as the USA-than it was even a generation or two ago, much less in the much longer cultural memory of many generations. In other places it's much worse, of course. So I feel that (overall), women's identity issues get more 'play' because, well, there's more work to be done. Y'know? Farther to go.
I'll never take issue with any dude expressing an interest in wanting to discuss what a man's role should be in the modern world, or lamenting that such concerns are often scorned (and they are). My only beef comes when those complaints are expressed in a way that includes some tone of, "But women's issues..." It strikes me as strange in a similar way as when I've heard of people complain, "Why don't we have a white history month?" I'm not sayin' your thoughts are racist or sexist, Lyrhawn, but that my response is similar: because the majority/privileged gender doesn't need its own month/as much focus on issues as the under-privileged minority/gender.
Lots to grapple with here. Am I surprised? No, I'm not. Look, I'm not saying that masculinity studies, in this case, even deserve total parity with women's studies. Women got the shaft in ways that boggle the mind, in every aspect of their lives, and I don't begrudge them a single second of the time we've spent as a society exploring their history, their condition, or advocating for the numerous changes necessary to bring them even close to equality with men. And on that journey, we still have a ways to go. I think we should by aware of just how truly the role of women in America has changed in the last century. Enormous progress has been made. But there remains many things left to accomplish. My issues are not meant to in any way detract from women; their problems still need to be solved.
I think we also need to take a look at the way in which redefining the modern male actually HELPS redefine the modern female. Women don't exist in a vacuum. The changes in their lives have effects on men, and for that matter, demand a lot of changes from men in order to accommodate them. Most of that is a good thing, I'm not complaining! But coming at it from an all-female point of view isn't the most efficient way of doing things. Men in this country still by and large grow up with certain expectations of what their role is supposed to be, and a lot of that is still rooted in the pre-women's liberation era. The way that men treat women is as much a part of this discussion as anything. The biggest problem I seem to encounter when I get into these discussions with people is that people arguing the other side from me tend to assume this is a zero sum game. There's only so much attention, so women should get it all, and men detract from it. I don't see why that is so. Why do we have to take our eye off the ball with women in order to take a gander at men? We can multitask.
I also think, as a student of history, that to suggest modern history is simply the history of men, and they don't require any special focus, is totally misleading. I suppose this is really more a focus of anthropology or sociology, but historically, a good gender historian would chronicle the changes in mens' lives as specifically as the changes in women's lives. The long study of history measures one fundamental thing: change over time! To ignore the fact that the male role in society is changing dramatically is to be a bad historian.
The chapters for the women are probably going to be longer, but at least that way the picture is complete.
Posted by Rawrain (Member # 12414) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Stone Wolf -
The mother already made the decision when she had sex. She wants an opt-out clause after the fact.
Where two equal parties are concerned, the father almost always loses. It's no secret that preferential treatment is given to the mother. I think this speaks to a larger problem in society. We assume that the mother is the natural caregiver, which speaks to what I was talking about earlier regarding an ill-defined definition of fatherhood. We tell dads to get involved on one had, but on the other, we tell them they're inherently second fiddles to the mom. We're sending mixed messages.
I don't just mean child support. It's between a life where you are a parent or aren't a parent. And no, I don't balk at the cost to the father. I've said more than once that I think the child support issue is fine the way it is. After all, the man is bound under my idea of a tacit agreement as well, he has to pay up.
Once there is a child, his rights are not equal to the mother's. In the case in the OP, why was the child even taken by the adoption agency before the father signed off on it? If the father had been there, would he have been able to sign the kid away without the mother's consent? Why is it an "opt in" situation, rather than an "opt out." Fathers have to assert parental rights, instead of renounce them, but it's the other way around for mothers. That too sends conflicting signals to potential fathers. It's this sort of conflict that suggests we simply value fathers less, even while we complain they don't do enough.
My dad has to work 2 jobs just to pay for my sister and in the end his girlfriend has to pay the rest, my sisters mom take him to court every week (she doesn't have to be there really) and tell him to pay $500 on the spot or he will be thrown in jail till he can pay it, this $500 is in addition to child support and there is also FEES just by having to go through a court room.
In the same situation my sisters mom is constantly out other places leaving my sister home alone, the very fact she is always complaining about having no money, even though she has next to no rent (living in a family owned home, so they skimp her on the payments) she's a nurse so she get's paid alright, SHE HAS ANOTHER KID whom she's also charging child support and may also be taking that father to court aswell (me and my dad dunno, if she's doing it for one might be doing it for the other) ANNNNNNNNNNNND Despite the possible $1,000 a week +child support+how much she gets paid at work SHE still rates to get food stamps.
What part of any of this is fair, my dad can't even get enough money to fight back in court, he works at least 8 hours a day, and about 2 months ago one of his discs ruptured in his back, and he still has to work.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:According to the study, while only a third of fathers made all their payments, 64.7% of all child support due to mothers was received. This would suggest that a lot of those dads who weren't totally up to date on their payments were still doing pretty well, though not as well as we'd like. That's still too low a number, but it suggests that, unlike your characterization, more often than not, payments do get made.
My characterization wasn't that most payments don't get made, ever (though I communicated badly, I see why you thought that) but rather that most payments don't get paid when they're needed. Layaway diapers ain't gonna be helpful in the way they're intended, y'know?
quote:Looking at the data regarding child support questions does raise larger issues about the quantifiability of child rearing in general. I've read polling data that suggests that fathers are more involved in their children's lives than at any point in history, but I haven't read any actual published studies on the subject.
I've heard similar things too, on my part remembered bits online or on the radio, but I'm not sure. What it says to me, though, is that if men are doing all this improving and signs indicate we're continuing to improve, the responsibility/burden split is still uneven.
quote:Can you elaborate on this? To what degree does that make them less likely to be "deadbeats?" Because they want sole custody more often than men? I'm betting that's true, though I'd also like to see data on how often men are denied sole custody. It's no secret that the courts favor mothers over fathers. I'm still betting moms want the kids more often than dads, but I'm wondering if that's your argument here. (I'm not saying I totally disagree with it, either).
Basically my point is that since women are far less likely to be the ones without custody, or without custody most of the time, they will thus have less chance (be less likely) to be deadbeats than men. I'm extremely unlikely to flee the enemy under fire in combat because I'm unlikely to ever face the enemy in combat, but if in the (unlikely) event I did, I'd probably be as or more likely to flee as anyone. I don't actually know though. That's a bit of a klunky comparison, but I think it illustrates my point the way I'm thinking of it.
quote:Well, it's a binary state though, isn't it? Both sides can't have control, so if one does, then the other doesn't. You're arguing that for one party, the loss of control is greater, but that doesn't make the loss of control for men and less a loss of control. Regardless, as I've said, I accept that.
What it is is a loss of the maximum amount of control that is 'possessed'. (Calling parenthood after birth a loss of control, for the sake of discussion.) So while it is a total loss of control, I suppose, for men...it's not as much of a loss of control as it is for women. Even though men don't have anymore control left to lose. Which comes back around to my original point-men have less control because they are biologically able to have less control, barring compulsion.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is a pain to post from my phone, but Lyrhawn wrote two things that I felt needed a response:
quote: You fundamentally disagree with the notion that having sex implies any sort of reproduction agreement. I find that interesting, since sex is a reproductive function, and you and others have argued biology to me throughout this entire thread. So on the one hand, since biology dictates that the woman bears the brunt of the burden, she gets to choose, but having chosen to enter into a reproductive act in the first place doesn't matter at all?
This is why the medical argument bears less weight with me, I focus more on the initial decision, you focus more on the secondary decision. It's like you hand someone a six shooter with a single bullet and tell them to shoot you, then get indignant when you end up shot. What did you think was going to happen? Just fun and games? Guns are meant to kill. Sex is meant to impregnate.
Sex between humans is meant for far more than that. It is a sometimes a reproductive act, but not always and not only.
quote:If the initial argument is that a woman more or less waives some of her rights when she agrees to have sex, then I can't consider that an assault on her "bodily rights," she's already agreed to give up part of that control.
Who is making that initial argument? That is a terrible argument. Sex does not mean that she has waived rights to her body.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ... Westerners tend to be horrified by the very notion, but I know women who have breastfed other women's babies (for a short time or a longer one).
Can you elaborate on how this horror in the West came about actually? (This is from the perspective of knowing very little about the practice, except that I've heard of it surviving overseas and first came across the practice in Victorian history actually)
I mean, I can understand being worried about the quality of the feed, but horror?
I blame the formula companies. And I'm not kidding.
Perhaps naive question.
But wouldn't such an explanation affect mothers and wet-nurses equally? But I've noticed (anecdotally) an increasingly assertive breastfeeding movement (by mothers) but no real resurgence in wet-nurses (or has there been?).
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
Men can breast feed, too!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But wouldn't such an explanation affect mothers and wet-nurses equally?
Sure. Ask women of a certain age (generally 70+) and many will confess that they see breastfeeding as unhygienic, distasteful, etc. (Not all, of course -- some of them did breastfeed, although it was not the norm, and others have changed their perceptions in the last 50 years.)
But over the last 40-50 years, there have been concerted efforts (by many national and international organizations, as well as individuals) to rehabilitate the image of the breastfeeding mother. These have been largely successful.
I am unaware of any groups trying to bring back the wet nurse, especially since there ARE legitimate health concerns with hiring a stranger to produce breastmilk. Breastmilk banks sterilize all donated breastmilk, even though this removes some of the beneficial qualities of breastmilk, for the same reason.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I was reading this thread in bed and my wife asked me what it was about. When I told her, her comment was the best solution to Lyr's thought that sex is a taciturn agreement to have children. She said, "He should only have sex with women who feel the same way."
I immediately thought, "But how would he know how they felt?" and only mere moments later figured out that they would have to talk about it before having sex!
Instead of inventing a new investigatory/enforcement branch of the government to decide if a father has been notified and consents to abortion which would be funded by tax dollars and stomps all over body autonomy rights...people could just have a conversation before being sexually intimate.
Occam and his razor might appreciate the simplicity of the solution.
My wife rocks!
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Tacit. Taciturn is something altogether different.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
While not the original phrase, it still works.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
rivka: That makes sense, thanks for the perspective.
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
quote:Despite the possible $1,000 a week +child support+how much she gets paid at work SHE still rates to get food stamps.
If she's on SNAP (food stamps), I doubt she has nearly as much income as you're suspecting. Here's the income eligibility requirements: http://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/applicant_recipients/eligibility.htm#income. So, assuming it's her and two children- she can not make more than $1,984 a month ($23,808)- which INCLUDES child support payments.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: rivka: That makes sense, thanks for the perspective.
Sure. My maternal grandmother (who if she was still alive, would be in her 90s) was a social worker who breastfed her own children (despite some mild discouragement from the pediatrician) and convinced many poor, rural women to do the same.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus:
quote:Originally posted by rivka: ... Westerners tend to be horrified by the very notion, but I know women who have breastfed other women's babies (for a short time or a longer one).
Can you elaborate on how this horror in the West came about actually? (This is from the perspective of knowing very little about the practice, except that I've heard of it surviving overseas and first came across the practice in Victorian history actually)
I mean, I can understand being worried about the quality of the feed, but horror?
I blame the formula companies. And I'm not kidding.
By now the formula companies, Nestle Alimentana in particular, are legitimately responsible for the deaths of millions worldwide. It's such a weird story.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yeah, my mother is nearing 70 and she has said that when she was breastfeeding she ran into pretty significant discouragement from the pediatricians. She still loathes formula companies.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There are plenty of people who still boycott Nestle. My mom did until the mid-80s.
Posted by Dan_Frank (Member # 8488) on :
Yep, my mom still does to this day.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by Mucus: But wouldn't such an explanation affect mothers and wet-nurses equally?
Sure. Ask women of a certain age (generally 70+) and many will confess that they see breastfeeding as unhygienic, distasteful, etc. (Not all, of course -- some of them did breastfeed, although it was not the norm, and others have changed their perceptions in the last 50 years.)
The age ranges are different for the rural South, I think. Breastfeeding was the norm there until much later, I don't think formula really gained a toehold in the rural South until the 1970s or thereabouts.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by DDDaysh: Didn't we just recently hash out this "men should be able to control women" thing a few months ago???
As usual there are some really good things written if you sift through it.
Posted by Samprimary (Member # 8561) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: As usual there are some really good things written if you sift through it.
'hey, there's corn in this thread!'
Posted by School4ever (Member # 5575) on :
I skipped most of the posts, but the father's story sounds fishy. I am an adoptive mother of three children. I am also an adoptive mother who made the heart wrenching choice to give a child back to her mother even though her mother had no legal recourse to get the baby back from us.
Here is what is fishy:
1 In Virginia it appears that the mother can sign right away if she is working with an agency. If the baby was born in Virginia, the baby CANNOT leave the state to go to Utah until after the ICPC goes through - the interstate compact. The girl was not immediately whisked to Utah. These things can take up to two weeks or more. IF it went through quickly (and remember the notice of adoption has to be filed in the state the child was born in BEFORE the ICPC is filed) IF it went through quickly (ours took 2 days and both states and both lawyers, and both agencies said that was the fastest they had ever seen an ICPC go through.) The baby was still in Virginia when he filed for temporary custody. At that point he should have been able to get the baby. The birth father's rights are determined by the state the baby was born in, not the state the adoptive parents live in. Since the child was not born in Utah, he would have to go through Virginia courts, who had already given him temporary custody. I think he was hoodwinked, it matters where the child was born not where the child lives. The parents must have a very good lawyer. He could have called the cops and had the cops remove the child from the adoptive parents. He was the one with legal custody through the Virginia court system (according to him). If the parents took the child out of state before the ICPC came through, they could have been arrested for kidnapping (This is theoretical, I bet parents have made this mistake before, and I would bet very few if any have been arrested, but that is supposed to be a consequence). Looking at laws in Virginia, he had to get a letter from the lawyer or if there was an agency involved, a letter from the agency's lawyer. He then had 15 days to respond to the letter (this law may have been different several years ago).
Some women choose to have their babies in Utah to make sure the baby is born under its strict birth father laws. This is because where the child was born is supposed to take precedence.
I am confused.
Posted by Frisco (Member # 3765) on :
quote:Before a fetus has
1. a brain
2. brain waves
3. a heart
is it a human life?
Is it human?
Is it alive?
Think we've just answered the question.
The difference is, some people think it deserves rights, (on religious, moral, legal, or philosophical bases) and some don't.
Which is why this discussion gets so heated. People who are anti-abortion don't want to control a woman's body--they believe the fetus has rights.
But even on intelligent boards such as Hatrack,it's a good bet that someone will stir the pot by claiming that men want the right to control a woman's body (Or someone in the Anti-Abortion crowd will say something insensitive and offensive.), and then intelligent discussion is all but over.
Granted, there's no good way to have an abortion discussion. One side believes ending a human life is wrong in most all circumstances, the other thinks there should be an exception for abortion--makes for a very boring debate, so all sorts of conjecture gets thrown around in order to make both arguments seem more sound.
I've mostly retired from the debate...luckily, Lyrhawn's here to make the philosophical arguments I would normally make. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Which is why this discussion gets so heated. People who are anti-abortion don't want to control a woman's body--they believe the fetus has rights.
So they want to...ccontrol a woman's body to protect the rights of a fetus, in (well, the same, really) other words?
quote:One side believes ending a human life is wrong in most all circumstances, the other thinks there should be an exception for abortion--makes for a very boring debate...
I could've sworn one side believed ending a human life was wrong, and the other side very often had serious doubts about when a human life is said to begin. But perhaps I've misunderstood the dozens of such explanations I've heard.
This isn't me picking nits, btw. Those bits I quoted...well they seem to me to be such clear misstatements that I wondered if you were actually being dishonest. I don't say that's what you did or even intended, it's just they were so bluntly mischaracterizations of a pro-choice position and also a pro-life position.
Pro-lifers do wish to control the bodies of women-to protect the most vulnerable humans there are. An admirable goal. Pro-choicers don't think ending human lives should be stopped, except in the case of abortion-certainly not as a group. These are...pretty fundamental and easy to understand differences. I don't know if you misspoke, or if you think what you posted. If the latter, I suggest you don't understand the controversy nearly as clearly as you think.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
quote:Before a fetus has
1. a brain
2. brain waves
3. a heart
is it a human life?
Is it human?
Is it alive?
Think we've just answered the question.
The difference is, some people think it deserves rights, (on religious, moral, legal, or philosophical bases) and some don't.
I've read that something like half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, if not more. When a fetus is less than a hundred cells (or for that matter, doesn't yet have a heart or brain), its odds of actually surviving are still fairly low.
Is it really fair to call abortion murder, in cases where the pregnancy is so new that the fetus has less than a 50% chance at survival?
At their extremes, in this debate, both sides look and sound ridiculous.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
What bearing do miscarriage rates have on a moral question such as, "Is it murder?" If it's murder, it's murder regardless of how likely the fetus was to have survived.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I agree, the chances of survival seem sort of unimportant. The important moral detail would be, I think, that the life represented is not one that represents a feeling, caring, thinking person- and since we don't get terribly choked up about the rate at which these types of human lives end naturally, (partly because we don't even know a lot of the time when they do end), it seems extreme to call it murder ending one such life intentionally.
At least, it seems extreme to assign the same moral regard for life to that type of life, than to a thinking, feeling, caring person. And of course we really don't- excess fertilized embryos are discarded by fertility clinics all the time- it's understood that you can create them, but that not all of them can ever expect to live.
ETA: This is why I'll stop calling pro-lifers hypocrites the minute they start protesting the thousands and thousands of embryos that are discarded in this manner every year. They are just as alive as unwanted embryos inside the bodies of women- but nobody is demanding that they have a right to be implanted, and a right to live. Personally, I don't think they have such rights, but to claim the right in one case, and ignore it in the other seems inconsistent to me. I understand that emotionally, the idea of pregnancy is more resonant than fertilization in a tube, but the actual presence of life is the same. The lack of consistency doesn't follow the stated logic of the pro-life movement- which leads me to conclude that it is not a logically based movement.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
Although it doesn't get much press, large chunks of the pro-life movement are against IVF because it creates embryos which are discarded. There are also organizations that encourage people to donate rather than discard unused embryos and encourage people to "adopt" and implant them. So not every pro-life person/organization is a hypocrite on that score.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
See also snowflake children. Make note of the footnotes, particularly this article.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I agree, the chances of survival seem sort of unimportant.
I guess I'm alone on that one.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: I could've sworn one side believed ending a human life was wrong, and the other side very often had serious doubts about when a human life is said to begin.
I think the terminology is a little more slippery than we may realize. There is slippage between "a life" and "alive."
There are many collections of cells in a human body, even discretely distinct from the rest of the body, which have both human DNA and are living (in the sense of growing and developing, needing nutrition, etc.), such as tumors. That doesn't mean a tumor is "a human life."
I am not saying human fetuses are tumors. I am saying the language is slippery for capturing concepts, and for a human fetus to be "a human life" must mean more than just that it has human DNA and is alive -- otherwise one would be saying the fetus is equivalent to any other human non-dead tissue.
What that "more" would consist of and whether the fetus has it any any given (or all) time is where the argument is made. That argument hasn't been conceded if one just concedes it is living human tissue, which isn't really a point of disagreement. Moreover, we cut out some living human tissue all the time without any controversy.
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I've read that something like half of all pregnancies end in miscarriage, if not more. When a fetus is less than a hundred cells (or for that matter, doesn't yet have a heart or brain), its odds of actually surviving are still fairly low.
Is it really fair to call abortion murder, in cases where the pregnancy is so new that the fetus has less than a 50% chance at survival?
I don't understand why you think that the percentage chance of survial would enter into the "is it murder" equation. If someone had a type of cancer that left them with a 50% chance of survival, would it be fair to call shooting them murder?
The lack of a brain or brainwaves (or even brain of sufficient complexity) in a blastula or embryo seems like a much more compelling reason, to me, not to consider abortion (or at least all abortions) murder.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Frisco:
Granted, there's no good way to have an abortion discussion. One side believes ending a human life is wrong in most all circumstances, the other thinks there should be an exception for abortion--makes for a very boring debate, so all sorts of conjecture gets thrown around in order to make both arguments seem more sound.
I mean, if you are going to be "pro-life", be pro life.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro: I agree, the chances of survival seem sort of unimportant.
I guess I'm alone on that one.
Most likely, yes.
By your logic, a person who has a 50% chance of dying, and a bubble that has a 50% chance of popping, are of equal importance.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT: I think the terminology is a little more slippery than we may realize. There is slippage between "a life" and "alive."
The second point of slippage is at "human." People sometimes slip between "human tissue" and "a human being" without realizing it.
For example, one may ask "Is it human?" Taking "human" as equal to "human tissue" means human DNA is enough. But "a human being" means something in addition to having human DNA, for reasons similar to those given above: a tumor is human tissue, but it is not a human being in itself.
So for a fetus not to be equilivated to a tumor requires something more than just it being human tissue -- and that is the point of consideration to address.
Added: Asking "is it human?" isn't enough to establish the point if just having human DNA will satisfy.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jake: If someone had a type of cancer that left them with a 50% chance of survival, would it be fair to call shooting them murder?
There's a big difference there. People sometimes spontaneously recover from cancer, even "terminal" cancer. No fetus has ever recovered, on its own, from a miscarriage.
I agree that lack or presence of a brain or brain waves works better as proof of human life. However, I doubt there will be many pro-lifers jumping on that bandwagon...
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:There's a big difference there. People sometimes spontaneously recover from cancer, even "terminal" cancer. No fetus has ever recovered, on its own, from a miscarriage.
Yeah, it's not exactly surprising that a fetus won't survive a miscarriage, steven.
If someone is a human being, whether they would have survived or not because of a given condition doesn't change the fact that if someone then kills that human being-not the given condition-then...it's an unprovoked killing of a human being. Y'know? Pretty straightforward. Most people file 'unprovoked killing of a human being' under 'murder'.
What happens in miscarriages has nothing to do with the induced death of a fetus. And I say all this as someone with a whole lot of uncertainty and gray area as to when human life begins. CT has touched on some of the, well, enormous subtleties. Your example was silly.
Posted by manji (Member # 11600) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Most people file 'unprovoked killing of a human being' under 'murder'.
That's not how murder is defined. But, then it would be like rehashing an Ornery thread, so I'll keep my mouth shut.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
There isn't just one way to define murder, manji. In most conversations I've ever had, people don't call it 'murder' when it's a justified-or provoked-killing of a human being. Self-defense, war, even insanity.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Even a fully born person does not have the right, for example, to use another person's blood or kidneys. Even if it would be the right thing to do, we balk at legally requiring them to donate an organ. Even if the person who needs the blood or kidney needs it because of something the other person did.
Added: For example, if a child got ill and needed a kidney should we legally force his father to give him one? It is would be the right thing for the father to do, but should we be able to force him to do it?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
That becomes a different discussion, kmbboots. Morally speaking, we might think about someone who had for example life-saving medicine in their possession and didn't give it to someone they knew would die otherwise as being...less-than-good, to say the least.
And, really, I think you overestimate how many people would actually balk at using legal force to compel someone for the use of their blood or the (temporary) use of their kidneys, if someone actually did something to the person in need that prompted the need. It's just...well, really awkward and difficult to get that kind of thing into the proper legal forms necessary.
For example, if I were to somehow create a need for blood or temporary organ use in another human being, would you actually object to my being legally compelled to do so once it had been proven? I mean morally speaking. If it could be done so that just that is what would happen, are you telling me you'd really object?
Because if the answer is 'yes', then the question has to be, "If a person's body can't be controlled to cure a harm caused, why is it acceptable that their entire body be imprisoned when it physically helps no one?"
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
It is acceptable to imprison someone who has committed a crime to prevent them from committing more crimes.
I do balk at the use of force to violate someone else's body. Like I reject the idea of experimenting on unwilling human beings even though we would probably gain much life-saving knowledge. It reeks of slavery, of ownership, and of making the person so compelled less than human. Women were for so long considered less than human property, they rightfully resist being sucked back into that condition.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
So it's acceptable to take physical control of someone's entire body for days, months, years, or a lifetime for things ranging from vandalism to murder...but it's not acceptable to take physical control of their bodies, and use that control to actually redress a harm they've caused?
I'm afraid you'll have to sell that just a bit, because it seems incredibly arbitrary: OK to take total control of a body on one hand, even when it won't 'cure' a crime; unacceptable bordering on slavery to take partial control of a body to actually cure a harm done. The women-only angle doesn't enter into this question, kmbboots. I'm not talking about abortion, and I'm not talking about the other things potentially involved with specific organ control over a human body.
If taking control of one's body to redress a crime and then giving control of one's body back to them after the crime is redressed reeks of slavery...why on Earth doesn't taking control of one's body to prevent other crimes from being committed to other people not 'reek of slavery'?
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Limiting movement of a body (incarceration) is a very different thing than invading or otherwise violating that body.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Why?
And of course it's not just limiting movement. It's limiting movement, activities, speech, food intake, access to loved ones-that's just a few. Also, I think if you asked someone actually in prison (or who has been), they might say they've been violated. For the above reasons, and more.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
That crazy guy who shot the Congresswoman- he is currently in prison but the judge ruled that they can't force him to take antipsychotic drugs. Our standard for forcing medication or other medical procedures is significantly higher than our standard for imprisonment.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
I know our standard *is* different, I'm asking why. For example in this case it's ok to incarcerate a crazy guy...but not make him well.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
If he is "really" crazy then he doesn't belong in jail...so he isn't.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: I agree that lack or presence of a brain or brain waves works better as proof of human life. However, I doubt there will be many pro-lifers jumping on that bandwagon...
Why not? that happens almost immediately after implantation (source here). I realize a lot of pro-life belief focuses on time before implantation (hence the dislike of IUDs), but is abortion within 3 weeks of conception a significant number?
According to this site, which purports to give CDC Data, 23% of abortions happen at less than 6 weeks gestational age (unfortunately, no one seems to know how much less, but 6 weeks gestation is still a week beyond brain development according to my first link, from the Mayo clinic). That would prove that at least 77% of abortions happen long after the period where the brain and nervous system develop... and I think any pro-lifer would be thrilled with a 77% reduction in the abortion rate. I know I would.
Why wouldn't the development of brain activity make a good compromise point?
edit: as an unrelated point, is anyone else disturbed that apparently 1/4 of abortions happen before the woman is 10 days late with her first period? That seems like an awful rush for such a life-changing decision.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: edit: as an unrelated point, is anyone else disturbed that apparently 1/4 of abortions happen before the woman is 10 days late with her first period? That seems like an awful rush for such a life-changing decision.
Yes, that's how periods work.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Why wouldn't the development of brain activity make a good compromise point?
"Development of brain activity" can mean anything on a whole range of things, from the first membrane destabilization of the first neuron in the area (firing an impulse, which on its own is less complex than what happens when a protozoan eats food), to the ability to first manage and regulate homeostasis without higher function (similar to a "brain-dead" state, where the regulation of breathing and heart rate occurs, but the person is said to be dead nonetheless), to the development of the reticular formation (claimed by some to be the primitive seat of consciousness).
One reason it isn't a good starting point is that it isn't well-defined, and for a given chosen definition of a starting point, it remains debatable whether that is the relevant one.
I still think it's the best we have, and my gut goes with the reticular formation as the first point I think seems suitable for this sort of definition. However, it isn't an easy sell by any means.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me:
quote:Originally posted by steven: I agree that lack or presence of a brain or brain waves works better as proof of human life. However, I doubt there will be many pro-lifers jumping on that bandwagon...
Why not? that happens almost immediately after implantation (source here).
Equating the closing of the neural tube with the presence of the brain is rather a stretch, IMO.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
For me, the difference between aborting a pregnancy at six weeks, and killing a baby shortly after it's born is pretty small.
I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person. The parasite argument doesn't really work because a parasite will never develop into a thinking, breathing, sentient human being at the end of the gestation period.
Babies can't survive outside the womb without extreme amounts of care and attention to keep them healthy, fed, protected, and what not. I often see the "if it can survive outside the womb..." argument, which seems to only limit the criteria to whether or not it can breathe and function assuming you provide this high level of care to it, otherwise it's still in the parasite phase.
So to me, whether there's a single neuron, or the the baby is puzzling out decimals of pi doesn't much matter.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ...because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
Really? Because I know a LOT of women who've miscarried later than 6 weeks. In some cases it's happened to the same woman several pregnancies in a row.
On a slightly different note, does forgetting to eat prenatal vitamins, or drinking alcohol, or taking drugs count as manslaughter or murder or negligent homicide? This is assuming that a miscarriage occurs as a result.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Miscarriages are a natural occurrence. Abortions aren't.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Miscarriages are a natural occurrence. Abortions aren't.
What about a miscarriage caused by a poor diet, or forgetting to take prenatal vitamins? Is that natural? How about one caused by drug use? Natural?
Dude, you're smart enough to know that there are gray areas here. Emotion is not the best basis for making laws. "Sober as a judge" refers to the fact that judges should not, and ideally do not, make judgments lightly, or purely based on emotion.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Yes, there are gray areas.
Having an abortion falls outside the gray area.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Yes, there are gray areas.
Having an abortion falls outside the gray area.
So I'll ask you AGAIN, since you were too busy reiterating dogma in your last post.
Is causing a miscarriage by forgetting to take prenatal vitamins or eating a poor diet a natural miscarriage?
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
Roughly estimating, I think somewhere north of 60% of abortions in North America occur after six weeks. Equating that with infanticide is an interesting position.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
You say, "If we do what we're supposed to do, it will..." My question for you is, how do we decide what it is we're supposed to do? Isn't that decision going to be pretty arbitrary? Are we supposed to let nature take its course, come what may? No medical care until the midwife, then. Are we supposed to use every available means to protect and eventually birth the fetus, period? Then no abortions for mothers who are pregnant with children who will likely be stillborn, or even kill or maim the mothers themselves during labor. Personally, I probably do tend a bit closer in ideals on this question to you than to many other participants in this question...but I don't know how we decide what we're 'supposed' to do as though it were some factual baseline.
A parasite can, depending on the definition, develop into a human with all the qualifiers you mentioned. You're using as a part of your argument, "A fetus isn't a parasite because it's got the potential to be human." That suggests that humanity is an on/off status. Something either is human, or it isn't. It seems you know, but I fail to see why anyone else should be equally convinced.
Why is having an abortion at certain points in a pregnancy something we're simply not supposed to do, as a default? Why is it outside the gray area, as a given?
---
Steven, you say enough silly and hostile things-in this conversation, no less-that you've got little standing to get holier than thou. I don't know who you're strutting for, but even people who agree with you on this topic ignore your thoughts as a matter of course. You're also, by your own admission, completely untrustworthy in an online setting. I really don't know who you think you're kidding.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Steven said "brain waves" and that he doubted a pro-lifer would agree to that. As I understood the question, I've actually argued in the past for (what I thought was) the same thing steven was saying.
My understanding was that there are detectable, identifiable brain signals at 5-6 weeks gestation, which is how they were aware of the neural development. If I was wrong about that, I am...well... wrong. *shrug*
CT, since it's your gut-choice line, when does reticular formation typically occur?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: which is how they were aware of the neural development.
Because of studying decades' worth of aborted fetuses (both naturally aborted (miscarried) and otherwise), we have many examples of fetuses at various stages of development. We know what happens at the various stages by dissection and direct evidence, not indirect evidence.
(To be clear, I think we're talking about a difference of a few weeks. From what I can recall, it would be about 6-7 weeks post gestation that there would be a truly functioning brain. That's about 8-9 weeks pregnant, as you know.)
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
If more than half of them do not survive even if one does what one is supposed to, would that make a difference to the argument?
[I ask because of the specific emphasis on "WILL," since that seems to indicate it is the fulcrum point for your argument.]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: CT, since it's your gut-choice line, when does reticular formation typically occur?
The "formation" part is a noun, not a verb. It's also known as the "reticular activating system", and it doesn't occur at one point. It starts developing in a very primitive way at one point (of note, as above at a point where the activity is less organized than a protozoan eating) and becomes more fully developed over time.
Here is slippery language again. Depending on how you define the relevant point, it is somewhere between 10 and 23 weeks gestation. Both ends of the range are harder to defend -- I think the best argument is for somewhere in the middle.
Posted by jebus202 (Member # 2524) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Jake: If someone had a type of cancer that left them with a 50% chance of survival, would it be fair to call shooting them murder?
There's a big difference there. People sometimes spontaneously recover from cancer, even "terminal" cancer. No fetus has ever recovered, on its own, from a miscarriage.
Wait, so your only justification for thinking that someone with a 50% chance of surviving cancer deserves to live is that sometimes people survive cancer when doctors didn't think they would?
So what if there was a disease where this wasn't the case?
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
If more than half of them do not survive even if one does what one is supposed to, would that make a difference to the argument?
[I ask because of the specific emphasis on "WILL," since that seems to indicate it is the fulcrum point for your argument.]
I suppose that depends on where the definition of pregnancy as a "natural" process lies.
Historically, women have had poor diets and no prenatal vitamins, but they still have kids. The difference, I suppose, between then and now is that we've dramatically cut down on infant mortality rates, but we've also cut down on pregnancy rates as well.
Nature has a selection process. Sometimes bad things happen, naturally, and they result in a miscarriage. Regardless of how many pregnancies end in natural miscarriages, there's still a difference between the natural and the artificial.
There's a difference between someone dying of cancer and someone being murdered. Is it a fair argument to say that, since nature comes up with ways to kill us all the time, it's perfectly fine for us to kill each other? I think someone arguing against my main point would come back to a fundamental disagreement about what murder means in this context, because they take issue with where life begins in any meaningful way. But like I said, I don't see the difference. A natural miscarriage, to me, is the same force of nature as cancer is. Someone trying to argue their way out of this by using the "but natural miscarriages happen all the time!" argument has to apply it all the way. Natural deaths happen constantly to people of all ages, genders and races, but we're still charged with murder when we attempt to do the same thing ourselves.
And as a side question, are miscarriage rates really that high? It doesn't change my argument, but I didn't realize they were.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Lyrhawn,
You say, "If we do what we're supposed to do, it will..." My question for you is, how do we decide what it is we're supposed to do? Isn't that decision going to be pretty arbitrary? Are we supposed to let nature take its course, come what may? No medical care until the midwife, then. Are we supposed to use every available means to protect and eventually birth the fetus, period? Then no abortions for mothers who are pregnant with children who will likely be stillborn, or even kill or maim the mothers themselves during labor. Personally, I probably do tend a bit closer in ideals on this question to you than to many other participants in this question...but I don't know how we decide what we're 'supposed' to do as though it were some factual baseline.
A parasite can, depending on the definition, develop into a human with all the qualifiers you mentioned. You're using as a part of your argument, "A fetus isn't a parasite because it's got the potential to be human." That suggests that humanity is an on/off status. Something either is human, or it isn't. It seems you know, but I fail to see why anyone else should be equally convinced.
Why is having an abortion at certain points in a pregnancy something we're simply not supposed to do, as a default? Why is it outside the gray area, as a given?
There are varying levels of "what we're supposed to do," I guess. We don't look at women in the third world without access to proper medical care and food sources and say what bad mothers they are. Yet they still manage to carry pregnancies to term.
As I've said before, if the life of the mother is in danger, then I don't see a moral problem with an artificial abortion. My personal code of morality doesn't compel pregnant women to sacrifice themselves for the chance of saving their problematic child. It is, once again, a natural consequence.
So what are we supposed to do? I'm not a doctor, especially not one specializing in pregnancies. But babies have been born for generations without the intensive effort we put into making pregnancies even safer. So what are we supposed to do? Take care of our bodies as best we can, as best we know how, and not abort our children. Seems like a pretty good baseline to me.
Wait, how do parasites have the potential to become human? Short of billions of years of evolution, parasites do not spontaneously develop sentience. And how isn't any species status a binary state? You either are a human, or you aren't. The same way you're a raccoon, or you aren't. Parasites are parasites, not humans. Tumors cannot become functional human beings.
It's outside the gray area because there might be some wriggle room to discuss appropriate or neglectful behavior during a pregnancy. But there's a pretty big difference between asking "is it child abuse to not take your prenatal vitamins" and "is it child abuse to kill the fetus before it has a chance to grow up?" A child can potentially survive poor behavior from the pregnant mother. It can't survive an abortion.
[ August 26, 2011, 04:29 AM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: ... My personal code of morality doesn't compel pregnant women to sacrifice themselves for the chance of saving their problematic child. It is, once again, a natural consequence.
Can you further explain this step? Which is a "natural" consequence, dying in childbirth/complications or aborting a potentially dangerous pregnancy?
[ August 26, 2011, 09:50 AM: Message edited by: Mucus ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Posted by ambyr (Member # 7616) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Seconded.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:And as a side question, are miscarriage rates really that high? It doesn't change my argument, but I didn't realize they were.
When large samples of women are monitored by blood hormone levels, a lot more pregnancies are detected. It's not uncommon to be irregular in general or to feel a little out of sorts and be "late" few or more weeks -- but to actually be in early pregnancy without realizing it.
When assayed by blood levels to diagnose pregnancies that might be otherwise missed, about 60-70% of diagnosable pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.
---
The argument that something should be permitted to happen because unless interfered with, it WILL happen is a far different one than the distinction between natural and artificial. It's okay to make both of them, but it might be confusing to emphasize one as a foundational claim for an argument if its truth value is, in fact, irrelevant.
I don't find the belief that natural things are good and artificial ones are bad at all compelling in medicine. I do so many unnatural things: cut into flesh, stitch it up, inject various and sundry medications, prescribe other drugs, stick a plastic and metal scope up someone's bum, etc. Even participate in the giving of medications (chemtherapy) that has its own strong chance of more bad effect than good, even to being lethal.
Of course, one could say that it is only in the case of continuing a pregnancy that the distinction is important, but that seems rather ad hoc. It also ignores the many artificial things that may be done to maintain a pregnancy (sewing shut the cervix, IV medication, various surgeries, etc) -- are they also bad because they are artificial?
Or is it only in the case that one is ending the pregnancy that "artificial" becomes wrong? If so, it's getting even more of an ad hoc flavor.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:There are varying levels of "what we're supposed to do," I guess. We don't look at women in the third world without access to proper medical care and food sources and say what bad mothers they are. Yet they still manage to carry pregnancies to term.
That wasn't quite my point. My point was that the standard 'what we're supposed to do' is in constant flux. Some women are supposed to work hard and exercise right up until they give birth. Some women are supposed to take things easy, don't get stressed and physicall exerted. Some women are supposed to get regular medical care right up to, through, and following birth-from specialists dealing with pregnancies, no less. Some women are supposed to go to the local wise woman. Some women are supposed to breast-feed after giving birth, some women are supposed to use formula.
'What we're supposed to do' appears to be one of your core arguments. Your reasoning is as follows, "If mothers do what they're supposed to do, this is what follows, and therefore that outcome is what's desireable, and other outcomes should be prevented." The problem is, what we're supposed to do changes. Constantly. It really depends on context. There's not some obvious, factual starting point even though there seems to be one for some of us right now, in the present. A hundred years ago, you were supposed to have a pretty solid chance of dying if you caught certain diseases, and you were supposed to go on a long vacation if you had a bastard child, and come back having left the kid somewhere.
This standard you're using isn't a given, because it involves, well, current standards of medical technology. Or if it is a given, you need to do a much better job of establishing that.
quote:As I've said before, if the life of the mother is in danger, then I don't see a moral problem with an artificial abortion. My personal code of morality doesn't compel pregnant women to sacrifice themselves for the chance of saving their problematic child. It is, once again, a natural consequence.
Why not? Speaking strictly in terms of what is 'supposed' to happen, we wouldn't even know the mother's life is in danger in many such pregnancies and if we did, we wouldn't have the means to address it except perhaps a cup of poison or something.
quote:So what are we supposed to do? I'm not a doctor, especially not one specializing in pregnancies. But babies have been born for generations without the intensive effort we put into making pregnancies even safer. So what are we supposed to do? Take care of our bodies as best we can, as best we know how, and not abort our children. Seems like a pretty good baseline to me.
You don't know that they're children. The operative words in this paragraph are 'to me'. And that sets aside the problem of the 'our' in this case being accurate, but one party being much more invested in the 'our' than the other. Specifically, one group is-biologically speaking-an observer. They don't have a horse in the race, not in terms of their own bodies. The other party does. I don't know if fetuses are children or when they become children (I believe it happens sometime before birth, myself), but I do know that one party's bioligically involved and the other is an observer.
That's not much against the death of children, if it's happening...but it is something against the death of we-don't-knows.
quote: Wait, how do parasites have the potential to become human? Short of billions of years of evolution, parasites do not spontaneously develop sentience. And how isn't any species status a binary state? You either are a human, or you aren't. The same way you're a raccoon, or you aren't. Parasites are parasites, not humans. Tumors cannot become functional human beings.
It depends on how you define your words. You're defining 'human' as 'anything that has the potential, someday, to become human'. That includes, strangely enough, "An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." You can guess where I pasted that quote from.
quote:It's outside the gray area because there might be some wriggle room to discuss appropriate or neglectful behavior during a pregnancy. But there's a pretty big difference between asking "is it child abuse to not take your prenatal vitamins" and "is it child abuse to kill the fetus before it has a chance to grow up?" A child can potentially survive poor behavior from the pregnant mother. It can't survive an abortion.
Again, you're using a host of uncertain terms as though they're clear-cut, and arguing from those terms as though they've been established. A child cannot survive an abortion. It also cannot survive the deadly environs of Necron-234, which may or may not exist. It might not be a child.
---------
What kmbboots described is a big part of the reason I'm wary of my own assumptions about abortion, which are as I've said probably closer to Lyrhawn's than many people here. I'm wary of them because they amount to my saying, "Hey! Hey you guys! You need to do this thing in this way...never mind that I don't, can't, and won't ever speak from experience and that I won't ever be subject to the physical consequences of my suggestions."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Or is it only in the case that one is ending the pregnancy that "artificial" becomes wrong? If so, it's getting even more of an ad hoc flavor.
Or someone could come along and rephrase what I was flailing at in paragraphs and paragraphs in a simple, clearly-stated question. Hmph!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Ha! Your compliment is a balm to my surly soul.
---
On another front, I want to make something clear: Lyrhawn, I have a great deal of respect for your passion and thoughtfulness about the topic. (As with Dagonee's.) I disagree, but I don't want that to come across as impatence or surliness with you or your ideas.
I am very, very glad to see such a hot button issue discussed in such a manner. Thank you for that. I am reading you carefully. It is a topic I have read and thought a lot about, but I still will always have much to learn.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh: Or someone could come along and rephrase what I was flailing at in paragraphs and paragraphs in a simple, clearly-stated question. Hmph!
I know. Don't you hate when she does that? Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
(rivka, sweetheart, you picked exactly the right moment for such kindness. It's moving day, and I feel about as efficient and effective as a squished slug. Thanks!)
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Moving sucks. Finishing moving is pretty awesome, though. Good luck!
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
I swear vengence on clutter. Never again will you darken my days in the time of moving. Fie! Fie on you!
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
My ex-girlfriend nearly died from HELLP syndrome during the birth of her daughter. Her OB/Gyn told her she had a 50% chance of dying from this if she had another child. She and I had many coversations about having a child together. She was willing, but I was against it, because I didn't like the thought of putting her in a 50%-chance-of-death situation.
What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
Lyrhawn, miscarriage rates are actually quite high. I've read that something like 50%+ of all pregnancies fail. Usually this happens so soon after fertilization that the woman may not even be aware that she was pregnant.
So I ask you again--would a miscarriage brought about by drug use or lack of good nutrition be murder?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
If it's a human being, a broken condum or failed birth control obviously makes no difference to the question of whether killing it is murder. I realize you think you're posing all these scathing questions, but this is again really basic level stuff, and if you're going to be discussing it on the talk-show level of sophistication, I don't know why you're still so smug-except perhaps to fit in with the talk show theme.
-------
Just wanted to echo what CT was saying about your willingness and tone, Lyrhawn. I think you might (and this is very possibly my own reading subtext into words that isn't there, hard to tell in text) be getting a bit heated, but even if you are, it's a tricky, tense subject and it's groovy to hear you willing to discuss things in detail.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
If it's a human being, a broken condum or failed birth control obviously makes no difference to the question of whether killing it is murder. I realize you think you're posing all these scathing questions, but this is again really basic level stuff, and if you're going to be discussing it on the talk-show level of sophistication, I don't know why you're still so smug-except perhaps to fit in with the talk show theme.
No, I don't think my questions are scathing, and I'm quite capable of thinking and talking about this subject at a higher level. I'm tailoring this to my audience, i.e., Lyrhawn. This is the level he's at, at this time. There's no point in using more subtle, higher-level approaches, or really fully engaging with the best arguments I can think of. You don't expect a beginning pianist to play a concerto with the New York Philharmonic. You work him up to that slowly.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:This is the level he's at, at this time. There's no point in using more subtle, higher-level approaches, or really fully engaging with the best arguments I can think of. You don't expect a beginning pianist to play a concerto with the New York Philharmonic. You work him up to that slowly.
*snort* Yeah, you're a real educator, steven. I'm not sure if you actually think this way or if this is more of your dishonesty schtick, but either way, amusing!
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
I know. And I don't want to stifle your input. I guess I just wanted some acknowledgment that you are deciding "should" and "supposed to do" and acceptable risks and behavior for other people. That requires, I think, more humility than when you are deciding things that impact yourself.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
Without speaking for kmbboots, I don't think that's the problem. I think the problem, the way your words fells on the ear, has to do with the fact that...you and I are dudes. These problems simply aren't ever going to affect us, except as through women. Y'know? It's difficult to make a comparison that doesn't seem contrived, but it would be if I decided one day, through only indirect knowledge, that I was going to help resolve problems between India and Pakistan-and that my thoughts on the matter weren't indirect and were as relevant as those of Indians and Pakistanis.
I mean, my thoughts could be relevant, but it would take a very great deal of research and education, I think, before I'd be anything more than an armchair quarterback, y'know? That's a pretty clunky comparison-perhaps someone might come along and clarify it, once clutter is defeated.
Anyway, I think the argument was that the 'what we're supposed to do' standard is always changing, and it's not even a settled thing right now throughout the world or even in the United States-except in the minds of its citizens, varying from person to person. The argument wasn't that women shouldn't have care during pregancy, the argument was (I think), "How do we decide what 'supposed to do' is, anyway?"
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For me, the difference between aborting a pregnancy at six weeks, and killing a baby shortly after it's born is pretty small.
I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
By your standards, potential to become a human = same as human, so:
Killing a baby = murder Aborting a fetus = killing a baby = murder Using birth control and stopping the potential human from forming = killing a baby = murder Masturbation (male) where sperm is discarded = preventing the possible human from forming = killing a baby = murder
This is just an example of how far this line of thought could be taken legitimately, or in other words, this line of thinking is flawed.
While potential should be taken into account, to say it is the same thing as achievement (or should be treated the same way) is nonsensical.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by CT:
quote:And as a side question, are miscarriage rates really that high? It doesn't change my argument, but I didn't realize they were.
When large samples of women are monitored by blood hormone levels, a lot more pregnancies are detected. It's not uncommon to be irregular in general or to feel a little out of sorts and be "late" few or more weeks -- but to actually be in early pregnancy without realizing it.
When assayed by blood levels to diagnose pregnancies that might be otherwise missed, about 60-70% of diagnosable pregnancies spontaneously miscarry.
---
The argument that something should be permitted to happen because unless interfered with, it WILL happen is a far different one than the distinction between natural and artificial. It's okay to make both of them, but it might be confusing to emphasize one as a foundational claim for an argument if its truth value is, in fact, irrelevant.
I don't find the belief that natural things are good and artificial ones are bad at all compelling in medicine. I do so many unnatural things: cut into flesh, stitch it up, inject various and sundry medications, prescribe other drugs, stick a plastic and metal scope up someone's bum, etc. Even participate in the giving of medications (chemtherapy) that has its own strong chance of more bad effect than good, even to being lethal.
Of course, one could say that it is only in the case of continuing a pregnancy that the distinction is important, but that seems rather ad hoc. It also ignores the many artificial things that may be done to maintain a pregnancy (sewing shut the cervix, IV medication, various surgeries, etc) -- are they also bad because they are artificial?
Or is it only in the case that one is ending the pregnancy that "artificial" becomes wrong? If so, it's getting even more of an ad hoc flavor.
I know it seems arbitrary, but I think you can still separate out all the things you mentioned from an abortion (as used for the purposes of birth control). All of the medical procedures you mention have one purpose: Improve the health of the patient at no one else's expense. I'm not sure why my arguments are somehow being interpreted as an attack on modern medicine. They aren't in any way, shape, or form.
Artificial, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. When you apply artificial techniques, as you've described them, to help save the life of a patient, then they're good. If you use them to end a life when the life being ended has no say in the matter, then they are bad. I think this clarifies your complaint somewhat (and as with many clarifications, also complicates it).
I suppose this circles us back around to questions of the mother's health, but I don't have an answer on that one. If a doctor advises a woman to get an abortion because there's an avoidable high risk pregnancy, or if complications arise that might cause problems, then I don't object, for reasons I stated previously.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: For me, the difference between aborting a pregnancy at six weeks, and killing a baby shortly after it's born is pretty small.
I pay a lot of attention to potential. The question of whether or not a fetus is truly alive in any sense when it's six weeks old doesn't really matter, because if you do what you're supposed to do, it WILL develop into a person.
By your standards, potential to become a human = same as human, so:
Killing a baby = murder Aborting a fetus = killing a baby = murder Using birth control and stopping the potential human from forming = killing a baby = murder Masturbation (male) where sperm is discarded = preventing the possible human from forming = killing a baby = murder
This is just an example of how far this line of thought could be taken legitimately, or in other words, this line of thinking is flawed.
While potential should be taken into account, to say it is the same thing as achievement is nonsensical.
Yeah, and that's an argument I've jokingly made myself. For me, it starts at conception. I don't have a problem with birth control. I know a lot of people who do for that very reason.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Lyrhawn, unless I am wrong and you are a woman, I would appreciate it if you stopped referring to "we" when talking about what women are "supposed" to do. Yes, "we" have been having babies without prenatal care or good nutrition since the dawn of time and, quite often, "we" ended up dead. Or old before "our" time from the wear and tear on "our" bodies.
Sorry about that. I hope you know it wasn't intentionally offensive. And I hope you know that I wasn't somehow arguing against taking care of a pregnant woman's health.
It seemed like there was some sort of vague argument floating about that women used to have a standard of care when pregnant, and that without it, women wouldn't have children. I wasn't arguing against modern medicine, or protecting women's health.
I know. And I don't want to stifle your input. I guess I just wanted some acknowledgment that you are deciding "should" and "supposed to do" and acceptable risks and behavior for other people. That requires, I think, more humility than when you are deciding things that impact yourself.
I see your point.
Plugging your argument into my belief system, however, you're making decisions for unborn children that impacts their lives in the most powerful way possible.
I understand the "it doesn't effect you" argument, and frankly I beg to differ, because, post-birth, a child should change a father's life as much as a mother's, but I don't want to get into that argument again. I absolutely acknowledge the vast disparity that exists between the burden men and women carry during a pregnancy.
And I should add, yet again, that it's that level of power over women that prevents me from supporting a change in the legal status quo. These are my beliefs, but I'm not comfortable with forcing them on you, or enforcing them. Doesn't that speak to a certain level of humility?
Rakeesh - This sort of answers your point too. And you also speak to some of my discomfort with enforcing my own personal morality. Just because we don't have "skin in the game," doesn't mean we don't have an opinion, and that's never more true that when someone believes that killing an innocent life is involved in the equation. Surely we're all allowed to have a voice in such a matter. But I recognize that, despite this universal moral question, we're still not directly involved with the pregnancy.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Of course it does. In fact, I agree. I am not pro-choice because I think that abortion is a good or even a neutral thing. I believe the potential for life - even if an embryo is not yet an unborn child - is precious. I am pro choice precisely because I don't think that we should be able to enforce that level of power over women.
I also believe that there is a moral obligation (not the same obligation but a moral one nonetheless) for those who are able to donate blood, be organ donors (once they are done with them) or to donate that kidney I mentioned earlier. But I shudder at the notion of legally forcing someone to do those things.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Lyrhawn,
quote:Plugging your argument into my belief system, however, you're making decisions for unborn children that impacts their lives in the most powerful way possible.
I understand the "it doesn't effect you" argument, and frankly I beg to differ, because, post-birth, a child should change a father's life as much as a mother's, but I don't want to get into that argument again. I absolutely acknowledge the vast disparity that exists between the burden men and women carry during a pregnancy.
The thing is, we've got two competing things here. On the one hand, the things kmbboots said that you're responding to-that women are affected in such and such ways-are factual, undeniable arguments. They're not on the table-women are affected, they've got the risks and need (or don't need) to change their behavior, and men don't.
On the other hand, we've got fetuses which may or may not be children. You don't know that, I don't know that-who knows when they are and when they aren't? If you're right, and a fetus is a human child at a given point, then I agree, it should trump-in many cases-the woman's right to complete, unchallenged sovereignty over her own body. (Please, everyone, note the careful use of qualifiers there-if, in many, and 'total sovereignty'.)
But we don't know if you're right or not-except you're posing your idea, that fetuses are unborn children, as though it's a given. As though it's a starting point for other discussion, and it simply isn't. You start out by believing a fetus is an unborn child, and that informs all of your other beliefs. Which makes sense, really, given that starting point.
quote:This sort of answers your point too. And you also speak to some of my discomfort with enforcing my own personal morality. Just because we don't have "skin in the game," doesn't mean we don't have an opinion, and that's never more true that when someone believes that killing an innocent life is involved in the equation. Surely we're all allowed to have a voice in such a matter. But I recognize that, despite this universal moral question, we're still not directly involved with the pregnancy.
I'm glad (and didn't doubt) that you appreciated the differences in moral investment here. It's just that...well, men and women both being human beings all have an equal need to be involved in the 'killing an innocent life' question. That's a given. But then women also have other involvements that make their concern necessarily greater, y'know?
Anyway, not to resume the argumen but just to understand your position: is it your opinion that men and women do (worldwide, in the USA, not sure where you're talking about) share an equal burden after pregnancy concerning raising and being responsible for children? Note that I'm not asking for what the level of responsibility should be.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh -
quote:This standard you're using isn't a given, because it involves, well, current standards of medical technology. Or if it is a given, you need to do a much better job of establishing that.
Why must there be a universal standard? I think there's an universal bottom line, though this bottom line isn't nearly as successful as using modern science would be. As you say, "what woman should do" changes from person to person and moment to moment. Why can't that standard be as fluid as reality demands?
quote:Why not? Speaking strictly in terms of what is 'supposed' to happen, we wouldn't even know the mother's life is in danger in many such pregnancies and if we did, we wouldn't have the means to address it except perhaps a cup of poison or something.
But we do know. Modern science asks us to adjust our standards of morality in ever increasing and more complicated ways. This is one of them. Since we have the option, we're faced with the moral quandary of choosing one over the other.
quote:You don't know that they're children. The operative words in this paragraph are 'to me'. And that sets aside the problem of the 'our' in this case being accurate, but one party being much more invested in the 'our' than the other. Specifically, one group is-biologically speaking-an observer. They don't have a horse in the race, not in terms of their own bodies. The other party does. I don't know if fetuses are children or when they become children (I believe it happens sometime before birth, myself), but I do know that one party's bioligically involved and the other is an observer.
That's not much against the death of children, if it's happening...but it is something against the death of we-don't-knows.
Well, here's where things get a little tricky don't they? Clearly we're in some sort of gray area between belief and science. Science can't prove when life begins. We all have different ideas of what life is, and until we could agree on a universally agreed upon definition of life, science can only try to answer each definition as best it can. For me, life pretty much begins at conception, or I guess more accurately, once the embryo attaches. To me, it's already alive, and if unhindered, will eventually be born. Saying "well, it might die anyway!" as a pretext for hastening the process is a suspect argument to me. If we're allowed to use that sort of reasoning, all sorts of moral issues in society crop up.
If I know that a bank is going to be robbed tomorrow, is it okay if I rob it first? If I know that someone is going to die tomorrow, can I kill them? Now I don't know if either of these things are going to happen. Can I rob and kill under the assumption that something might happen? No. So you ere on the side of life.
quote:It depends on how you define your words. You're defining 'human' as 'anything that has the potential, someday, to become human'. That includes, strangely enough, "An organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment." You can guess where I pasted that quote from.
Well, then by that definition, the only "parasite" that can ever grow to be a human being is a human embryo/fetus. It's sort of a moot argument isn't it?
ETA: I think I answered parts of this last post while answering your post from the last page. Sorry, this is becoming tricky to keep up with because of all the posts. I'll look at it again though to make sure.
[ August 26, 2011, 06:25 PM: Message edited by: Lyrhawn ]
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
"Unhindered" is an interesting word. It seems to imply that the woman just do nothing. And that is sort of true if we are only talking about what she does intentionally. Her body, however, is not doing nothing when it comes to bearing a child. Even in the best circumstances, it is working hard, actively working hard and at the expense of the woman herself. There is a cost to a woman's body to bear a child and not just a temporary nine-month cost. Pregnancy causes permanent changes to a woman's body. Most women think it is well worth the cost, but it is far more that simple not "hindering" the embryo. Recognizing this is part of that humility I am talking about and "unhindered" gives the impression that you don't quite get that yet.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't see why the word "unhindered" implies anything like that at all.
The hindering can refer to natural forces that cause a miscarriage, and artificial forces, like an abortion. If all goes well for the fetus, it gets born. If something bad happens along the way, it dies.
The part the woman isn't supposed to do is actively participate in killing the fetus. Other than that, I've made zero comments on the rigors women suffer through a pregnancy, and what they do and don't have to do for themselves. I don't think that implies that a pregnancy is a simple or easy affair, and in fact, I've commented on it being a hardship, and the disparity of the burden between the genders. I think you're reaching a little bit with that assumption. I can't say I blame you, because I think you're working from an image you've built up of me over the course of this thread (apparently a pretty negative one where women are concerned), but even so, I don't think that's a fair assumption.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:What if she had accidentally gotten pregnant, through a broken condom, or failed birth control pill? Would abortion be murder then? Hmm?
If it's a human being, a broken condum or failed birth control obviously makes no difference to the question of whether killing it is murder. I realize you think you're posing all these scathing questions, but this is again really basic level stuff, and if you're going to be discussing it on the talk-show level of sophistication, I don't know why you're still so smug-except perhaps to fit in with the talk show theme.
No, I don't think my questions are scathing, and I'm quite capable of thinking and talking about this subject at a higher level. I'm tailoring this to my audience, i.e., Lyrhawn. This is the level he's at, at this time. There's no point in using more subtle, higher-level approaches, or really fully engaging with the best arguments I can think of. You don't expect a beginning pianist to play a concerto with the New York Philharmonic. You work him up to that slowly.
I think it's fascinating that you think you can talk to people this way and then expect them to answer your questions. Obviously you really do think I'm as stupid as your post implies.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Rakeesh (from your most recent post) -
quote: On the other hand, we've got fetuses which may or may not be children. You don't know that, I don't know that-who knows when they are and when they aren't? If you're right, and a fetus is a human child at a given point, then I agree, it should trump-in many cases-the woman's right to complete, unchallenged sovereignty over her own body. (Please, everyone, note the careful use of qualifiers there-if, in many, and 'total sovereignty'.)
But we don't know if you're right or not-except you're posing your idea, that fetuses are unborn children, as though it's a given. As though it's a starting point for other discussion, and it simply isn't. You start out by believing a fetus is an unborn child, and that informs all of your other beliefs. Which makes sense, really, given that starting point.
I think this is the party of the debate that simply comes down to a difference of opinion. This is what I believe.
I note your qualifiers, and I SHARE your qualifiers, to a degree. I don't know for sure, I'm not sure if it's possible to know for sure. But in the meantime, I ere on the side of life. If I used a different starting point, I'd have to change my belief system. I'm not sure what neutral ground you'd like to meet on where neither of us come into it with preconceived ideas or beliefs. Is science the final word, and not our beliefs? Science can't give us a definitive answer, so all we have is our beliefs.
quote:I'm glad (and didn't doubt) that you appreciated the differences in moral investment here. It's just that...well, men and women both being human beings all have an equal need to be involved in the 'killing an innocent life' question. That's a given. But then women also have other involvements that make their concern necessarily greater, y'know?
Anyway, not to resume the argumen but just to understand your position: is it your opinion that men and women do (worldwide, in the USA, not sure where you're talking about) share an equal burden after pregnancy concerning raising and being responsible for children? Note that I'm not asking for what the level of responsibility should be.
I know, and I agree. You can conceive of scenario in which woman should not have total and complete control of their bodies in all circumstances. The difference between us, I guess, is that you aren't as far along the line as I am in what you believe life is, and when it begins. Regardless though, we both share a severe hesitance to take away that sovereignty without more definitive proof.
As for your question: As it stands? No. And I should note that this is something I argue against just as vociferously as I do this issue. I have a bone to pick with fathers as well.
..........
Rakeesh & CT (and others)-
Thanks to you as well for not letting this debate develop into a heated argument. I hope you both know how much I respect you, and your willingness to calmly go at this, even if you totally disagree with me. I also really appreciate a lot of the questions you're asking. I've never tackled this question at this level before, never considered all the side scenarios, and I'm dealing with some of it as it comes up, so it's not as polished as I'd like it to be, but I'm grateful for the opportunity to explore in a safe environment. And Rakeesh, you guessed earlier that I might be getting a little heated, and I'm not. Tone is hard to gauge on a forum, especially when it's a topic like this where you expect people to get heated. Any exasperation you might detect is probably directed at myself for not being able to clearly express what I'm thinking.
And if I missed a response to anyone's post, please point it out to me. I'm not ignoring anyone intentionally.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
I consider myself morally anti-abortion, legally pro-choice. After going through pregnancy, I realized there is no way I can make someone go through that, even to preserve a child's life. After I had my last pregnancy, when my first ultrasound had some concerning results, I realized there were circumstances that I would get an abortion. Thankfully, the next ultrasound looked good and I didn't have to make those tough calls but I could understand better the decisions people make.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Just wanted to pop in to say thanks to Rivka and CT for their specific responses and patience with my slow comprehension skills. My only excuse is that it's my first week at a new school. Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: I consider myself morally anti-abortion, legally pro-choice.
This is my stance as well. I also think there is a definite difference between the very earliest stages of pregnancy (before about 6-8 weeks gestational age, when the placenta is complete and the fetus grows big enough to see with an unaided eye) and later.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: Artificial, in and of itself, is neither good nor bad. When you apply artificial techniques, as you've described them, to help save the life of a patient, then they're good. If you use them to end a life when the life being ended has no say in the matter, then they are bad.
Pretty sure you don't mean this quite literally, as it would make antibiotics off limits.
(Oh, and ere and err and homophones, but they mean rather different things. You want err -- like a shortened form of error.)
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Just wanted to pop in to say thanks to Rivka and CT for their specific responses and patience with my slow comprehension skills.
I will accept the thanks for specificity, but really wish you would knock off the deprecation of someone who happens to be a friend of mine. There is a lot of misinformation out there, and sorting through the details of what are some very complex problems slowly doesn't imply anything about your comprehension skills. Which I happen to know are just fine. Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I don't see why the word "unhindered" implies anything like that at all.
The hindering can refer to natural forces that cause a miscarriage, and artificial forces, like an abortion. If all goes well for the fetus, it gets born. If something bad happens along the way, it dies.
The part the woman isn't supposed to do is actively participate in killing the fetus. Other than that, I've made zero comments on the rigors women suffer through a pregnancy, and what they do and don't have to do for themselves. I don't think that implies that a pregnancy is a simple or easy affair, and in fact, I've commented on it being a hardship, and the disparity of the burden between the genders. I think you're reaching a little bit with that assumption. I can't say I blame you, because I think you're working from an image you've built up of me over the course of this thread (apparently a pretty negative one where women are concerned), but even so, I don't think that's a fair assumption.
I haven't formed a negative opinion of you at all. I do think that abortion is often framed as an active harm where bearing the child is seen as a passive non-action in sort of a do no harm kind of way. But bearing a child is at least as much of an action as abortion albeit sometimes less intentional.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: I haven't formed a negative opinion of you at all. I do think that abortion is often framed as an active harm where bearing the child is seen as a passive non-action in sort of a do no harm kind of way. But bearing a child is at least as much of an action as abortion albeit sometimes less intentional.
I'm not sure if that follows reasonably. If we're going to consider pregancy as well as birthing a child to be an action, something that ought not be compelled by law, then abortion will usually be at least a bit less of an action on the mother's part than carrying the child to term. There is, after all, the weeks or even months of pregnancy that are avoided.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: I will accept the thanks for specificity, but really wish you would knock off the deprecation of someone who happens to be a friend of mine.
Seconded.
quote:There is a lot of misinformation out there, and sorting through the details of what are some very complex problems slowly doesn't imply anything about your comprehension skills. Which I happen to know are just fine.
I come at this from having been anti-abortion, as I was raised, but then having been forced to analyze it from many different angles -- both as a philosophy graduate student reading academic texts on it and writing papers, and as a university course instructor who read literally over a hundred student papers a year from many different perspectives. Not to mention the medical issues -- realizing how bizarre life is in its fullness really shook me.
That doesn't mean I think better. It doesn't mean I'm right, either. It just means that part of my job was to listen to and parse through it over and over again with many different people. So I am familiar with things that someone starting out may not be. Please don't make that into anything more than it is!
---
Added: By this I mean that I'm like the guy at the bar who has drank beers from most every country in the world. That is a lot of beer, but it doesn't necessarily translate into wisdom.
[ August 26, 2011, 09:29 PM: Message edited by: CT ]
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jim-Me: Just wanted to pop in to say thanks to Rivka and CT for their specific responses and patience with my slow comprehension skills. My only excuse is that it's my first week at a new school.
Oh, pshaw.
Same goes for you. Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: ... But bearing a child is at least as much of an action as abortion albeit sometimes less intentional.
I'm not sure if that follows reasonably. ... then abortion will usually be at least a bit less of an action on the mother's part than carrying the child to term.
I'm not sure there's a disagreement here, "at least as much" seems to cover that.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: I think it's fascinating that you think you can talk to people this way and then expect them to answer your questions. Obviously you really do think I'm as stupid as your post implies. [/QB]
No, I think you're quite intelligent, and very well-informed on politics and history, far more than I am. Your views on these issues, however, reflect simplistic thinking that I believe comes from your lack of experience in relationships with women (particularly around parenting/childbirth/pregnancy), as well as your age. I've got about 10 or 12 years on you, and I've been a parent for 13 years. I've also been married, and in long-term relationships with three different women, two of which were mothers, over the last 10 years. I've lived. You've theorized. That's not a terrible thing, that's just how it is.
Posted by Mucus (Member # 9735) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn:
quote:Originally posted by Stone_Wolf_: By your standards, potential to become a human = same as human, so:
Killing a baby = murder Aborting a fetus = killing a baby = murder Using birth control and stopping the potential human from forming = killing a baby = murder Masturbation (male) where sperm is discarded = preventing the possible human from forming = killing a baby = murder
This is just an example of how far this line of thought could be taken legitimately, or in other words, this line of thinking is flawed.
While potential should be taken into account, to say it is the same thing as achievement is nonsensical.
Yeah, and that's an argument I've jokingly made myself. For me, it starts at conception. I don't have a problem with birth control. I know a lot of people who do for that very reason.
To be honest, I have to say that I also have problems with this kind of classification scheme.
If you can't separate between something like an IUD or the morning-after pill which AFAIK sometimes acts by preventing implantation (after conception) and infanticide (say drowning a baby in a bucket or literally eating a baby) then it seems to trivialize the latter which is still a very serious problem in many parts of the world.
I realize that the intention was probably not to trivialize the latter, but to magnify the significance of the former. However, while I can respect taking one's principles to the bitter end, in practice, I think popularizing such a position would probably only lead to a "well you do it too" argument in support of infanticide.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, I think you're quite intelligent, and very well-informed on politics and history, far more than I am. Your views on these issues, however, reflect simplistic thinking that I believe comes from your lack of experience in relationships with women (particularly around parenting/childbirth/pregnancy), as well as your age. I've got about 10 or 12 years on you, and I've been a parent for 13 years. I've also been married, and in long-term relationships with three different women, two of which were mothers, over the last 10 years. I've lived. You've theorized. That's not a terrible thing, that's just how it is.
So, apparently your living hasn't...y'know...enabled you to obtain a long-term, monogamous relationship that lasts more than a few years? *Rock-solid* grounds for being so patronizing, dude. I mean if we're going to, y'know, take what (little) we know about people's lives and on that basis laud or reject their reasoning.
But given that, how many of those 10-12 years you've got on Lyrhawn were you a pregnant woman, steven? I'm no doctor and I lack your...extensive experience 'living', but I *think* the answer is 'none'. Just guessin'.
Wanna hear simplistic reasoning? Claiming 'it would've died anyway' makes killing it, for any kind of it, a non-action. Or 'all such and such people are being outed'. That's just two examples from the past two days of obviously stupid reasoning. Your extra years don't make your thoughts more credible, they make the silly conclusions you bring to the table more cringe-inducing.
Put another way, you talk as though you ought to have the kind of credibility CT mentioned, through much and varied academic, professional, and personal experience. But what do you bring to the table to support your appeal to authority (which is an appeal to yourself, heh)? "Oh, I've been in three long term relationships, a father for a decade or so, and I'm older than you."
Well, geeze Steven, I *guarantee* that if we ask around, we'll find someone with more kids, more years, and more relationships under their belt than you who can speak 'to your level'. I don't think I've ever met someone who asserts so much wisdom as you do, but grounds it in *that*.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:Originally posted by steven: No, I think you're quite intelligent, and very well-informed on politics and history, far more than I am. Your views on these issues, however, reflect simplistic thinking that I believe comes from your lack of experience in relationships with women (particularly around parenting/childbirth/pregnancy), as well as your age. I've got about 10 or 12 years on you, and I've been a parent for 13 years. I've also been married, and in long-term relationships with three different women, two of which were mothers, over the last 10 years. I've lived. You've theorized. That's not a terrible thing, that's just how it is.
So, apparently your living hasn't...y'know...enabled you to obtain a long-term, monogamous relationship that lasts more than a few years? *Rock-solid* grounds for being so patronizing, dude. I mean if we're going to, y'know, take what (little) we know about people's lives and on that basis laud or reject their reasoning.
But given that, how many of those 10-12 years you've got on Lyrhawn were you a pregnant woman, steven? I'm no doctor and I lack your...extensive experience 'living', but I *think* the answer is 'none'. Just guessin'.
Wanna hear simplistic reasoning? Claiming 'it would've died anyway' makes killing it, for any kind of it, a non-action. Or 'all such and such people are being outed'. That's just two examples from the past two days of obviously stupid reasoning. Your extra years don't make your thoughts more credible, they make the silly conclusions you bring to the table more cringe-inducing.
Put another way, you talk as though you ought to have the kind of credibility CT mentioned, through much and varied academic, professional, and personal experience. But what do you bring to the table to support your appeal to authority (which is an appeal to yourself, heh)? "Oh, I've been in three long term relationships, a father for a decade or so, and I'm older than you."
Well, geeze Steven, I *guarantee* that if we ask around, we'll find someone with more kids, more years, and more relationships under their belt than you who can speak 'to your level'. I don't think I've ever met someone who asserts so much wisdom as you do, but grounds it in *that*.
Oh, I get it. No kids, no wife...yeah. You're a little boy too.
*pats head*
And, for the record, going through a difficult (and yeah, it was a tough 10 years) time in life doesn't always mean that someone didn't learn something during that time...quite the opposite. ROFL
I mean seriously, just because I have personal flaws, and have had some really difficult stretches in my life, doesn't necessarily mean my judgement is somehow automatically invalidated.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
The fact that you have had poor judgment tends to invalidate you though. About as much as the way you act, which is really childish.
Posted by steven (Member # 8099) on :
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The fact that you have had poor judgment tends to invalidate you though.
So having difficult times in one's life automatically means poor judgment? Interesting.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
What a fascinating series of comments on each other's qualifications to have opinions.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I mean seriously, just because I have personal flaws, and have had some really difficult stretches in my life, doesn't necessarily mean my judgement is somehow automatically invalidated.
It *also* doesn't mean your judgment and thoughts *on abortion* are automatically validated either, which was the entire point, and why your claim was so deeply foolish.
*pats head*
It's funny how easy it was to get you to expose what you actually thought about Lyrhawn on this subject too, btw. Not that it wasn't obvious anyway, that you were being dishonest, but still. For someone who's made such a habit of online dishonesty, I would've thought you'd be better at it.
Anyway, a good sign you're not using your brain is when your thoughts go something like this: he doesn't think like I do, therefore he is stupid/childish/inexperienced/etc. The way your brain is *supposed* to work, if you actually wish to learn anyway, is to continually reevaluate your conclusions when they're challenged, and see if you still feel the same way.
Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
This is a side note, but I have to do it for my peace of mind. Feel free not to comment -- I'm just going to edge in to clarify, because I may have been unclear:
I have academic and professional qualifications. I was citing them not to make myself out to be an authority on any conclusions I might draw, but merely to explain why I have looked at it from different angles and know the lay of the land.
I felt so bad that Lyrhawn and JimMe were even at all apologetic or self-deprecating about not having expected certain objections or know certain bits of information. I had to come across them because my job. I wouldn't have, otherwise.
That does not make me an authority on the endpoint. It means I am familiar with many of the paths I am walking, not that I have more authority on figuring out where the final destination is. I have been going around in circles for a long, long time. If you want someone who recognizes the insects on the various hedges of this maze, I'm a relatively good source. If you want to know where it leads, I am not a better source than anyone else.
That's all. Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
CT, while you're probably the single person here who could most easily throw around your credentials and use them to claim authority on this subject, I would be very, very surprised if anybody here thought that that was what you were doing. You've been pretty scrupulously clear on the fact that you're not doing that.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Yup. What Jake said, emphatically. I there *was* someone who could cite credentials on the subject, given what you said you'd be one of them.
The point I was making was to point out that an appeal to authority on this subject is pretty odd and if anyone is going to, they'd need something like what you described, or other kinds of extensive experience. A *helluva* lot more than 'older, father, multiple past relationships'. It's just...it still baffles me that anyone would try and cite experience on this topic *without* the sort of background you described. That was the only reason I mentioned you, because you described a bit about yourself-in fact it was far from strutting, it was an explanation as to what helped lead you to your conclusions.
Posted by Jim-Me (Member # 6426) on :
Now I feel bad. I was apologizing because I was far from the top of my game and this is a topic I care deeply about. There was certainly nothing in any of the corrections directed at me that was anything less than the grace I have always gotten from y'all.
The only problem I have *ever* had with you, CT, is that you are far too nice. Posted by CT (Member # 8342) on :
Heh. Those are compliments I will take with gratitude. Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Bear in mind if you asked us again, I 'spect we'd all reply we were understating things;)
Posted by Raymond Arnold (Member # 11712) on :
quote:I don't know for sure, I'm not sure if it's possible to know for sure. But in the meantime, I ere on the side of life.
This seems to presume that there IS something to know. What exactly do you expect to change about your knowledge that might adjust your erring towards the "conception" end of the spectrum.
I don't consider "life" to have moral weight (at all). Nor do I value being human (in the abstract). What has moral weight is consciousness. I think there is a close to 0% chance that a human fetus is conscious in the first few weeks. (After that I think it becomes a complicated question, which science will gradually illuminate, but which will always involve complex, subjective analysis)
If your moral framework isn't based on consciousness (I'm not here to argue what moral framework is right, just examine whether particular frameworks are consistent), what is it based on, that makes conception a reasonable upper bound on where humans gain moral weight, but which might possibly be overturned later by new discoveries?
Posted by capaxinfiniti (Member # 12181) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold: I don't consider "life" to have moral weight (at all). Nor do I value being human (in the abstract). What has moral weight is consciousness. I think there is a close to 0% chance that a human fetus is conscious in the first few weeks.
Wouldn't potential for consciousness merit moral weight of some degree?
Posted by Jake (Member # 206) on :
Why would it? Honest question.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:Wouldn't potential for consciousness merit moral weight of some degree?
And if it should (as with Jake, I think it's a question that needs asking as far as the whole discussion goes), where do we draw the line? I mean, that's a tricky situation is the moral-weight starting point is 'potential for consciousness', because there are some potentials for consciousness that pretty much everyone is going to agree are simply absurd. If certain conditions persist, semen will have a potential for consciousness. Likewise an egg. Human sexual intercourse has a potential for consciousness between two capable people.
For me the reason that potential for consciousness is important is because I'm largely convinced that at some point, probably earlier than we realize (though I doubt it happens at conception), the fetus has consciousness, The potential for consciousness question is important to me because it causes us to examine things more carefully, in hopes of pinning down the real range of when a fetus will have human consciousness.
And then I have to add-for myself-a whole lot of uncertainty, because I'm a serious layman on the various relevant topics.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
quote:Originally posted by Raymond Arnold:
quote:I don't know for sure, I'm not sure if it's possible to know for sure. But in the meantime, I ere on the side of life.
This seems to presume that there IS something to know. What exactly do you expect to change about your knowledge that might adjust your erring towards the "conception" end of the spectrum.
I don't consider "life" to have moral weight (at all). Nor do I value being human (in the abstract). What has moral weight is consciousness. I think there is a close to 0% chance that a human fetus is conscious in the first few weeks. (After that I think it becomes a complicated question, which science will gradually illuminate, but which will always involve complex, subjective analysis)
If your moral framework isn't based on consciousness (I'm not here to argue what moral framework is right, just examine whether particular frameworks are consistent), what is it based on, that makes conception a reasonable upper bound on where humans gain moral weight, but which might possibly be overturned later by new discoveries?
The knowledge I speak of there is which fetuses will and won't develop into birthable human beings. Rakeesh was speaking of the impossibility of knowing which embryos will become fetuses and which fetuses will become babies, and the uncertainty of the birthing process in general. I don't know if that will ever be possible, but if it were, I think that would change my perception on which pregnancies could morally be terminated.
My moral framework does depend a great deal on potential. A lot of people, like Rakeesh, are bugged by the fact that we can't know when a fetus achieves consciousness, and consciousness is the line they won't cross when it comes to allowing an abortion. But even if we knew the exact moment, that tomorrow, Fetus A will achieve consciousness, and is then off-limits, I don't see how that can be justifiable. For me, preventing a fetus from achieving consciousness is as bad as taking it away once it has been achieved. I see the difference, I suppose, but it doesn't matter. You're still taking it away, but in one instance it's more of a tease by letting it live a little. The end result is the same.
As to where we draw the line on potential...personally I draw it at conception. To draw the line any earlier than that enters into some pretty bizarre territory.
Posted by Parkour (Member # 12078) on :
quote:Originally posted by steven:
quote:Originally posted by Parkour: The fact that you have had poor judgment tends to invalidate you though.
So having difficult times in one's life automatically means poor judgment? Interesting.
Lol no not at all. This ha all to do with how you act here. If your experience helped your judgment in life there's no evidence of it in the way you act here.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
People keep saying erring on the side of life, but from my viewpoint that doesn't really answer which side. Every pregnancy can go from mundane to life threatening in moments and aborting once life is threatened won't do any good. I have had a friend almost die from complications from her baby's birth-everything looked good, released from hospital and a week later, she nearly died. If we want to protect life, the woman, we know is a human life and we know there is a chance of death for her. So, if you say err for life, you could be meaning either side.
Of course, I am one of the crazy pro-choice people who doesn't care if the baby is a "life." I would never pass a law requiring a woman to make that kind of sacrifice to save someone who was already born of any age (even if she was the one who caused the person's need for the sacrifice). Morally, that is a whole different story, but legally it doesn't matter too much to me.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
Agreed. The first one is a significant "if", though, and paternity testing takes time. Especially if it has to be court-ordered, as that takes time too.
Posted by scholarette (Member # 11540) on :
True. If you read comments though, a lot of people think that the fact that the woman was 8 months pregnant and walking to work disqualifies him from getting custody. Obviously, he didn't care enough about the baby to protect the baby's mother so he shouldn't get to care now. Some people are even asking for his alibi and assuming that he must have been behind the hit and run because he didn't want the baby (which seems kinda ridiculous since if he didn't want the baby, why is he now asking for custody?) I think that the grandparents/aunt should retain custody until the test is done, but ideally, they would be taking some effort to include him in the baby's life until that test is complete. Or they could do their own paternity test privately which would be a lot faster and if positive include him and if negative, not.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If you read comments though
There's your mistake. Comments sections on news articles are often vile sewers of hatred, ignorance, and filth.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka:
quote:Originally posted by scholarette: If you read comments though
There's your mistake. Comments sections on news articles are often vile sewers of hatred, ignorance, and filth.
Yup. Every time I read the comments on a news story, I wish I hadn't.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I can't say "every time", however, statistically the difference from "every time" is negligible.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)