Page 11 of 11

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:32 pm UTC
by Azrael
jules.lt wrote:Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy,but also for financial reasons. Which is why it's unfair to deprive men of any legal exit.

See what happens when I remove the factually incorrect part?

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:37 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy,but also for financial reasons. Which is why it's unfair to deprive men of any legal exit.

See what happens when I remove the factually incorrect part?

That kind of post is... unexpected from someone who's supposed to be the moderator of "Serious Business"...
The straw man thing could have been considered a misunderstanding of other people's POV, but this is... let's say "completely unconstructive".

Feel free to delete this post at the same time as yours.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:44 pm UTC
by Azrael
Pointing out basic factual inconsistencies in your argument is not trolling.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:49 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Purposefully misunderstanding the other person in order to make it seem illogical, on the other hand, is a fallacy for which I'm sure you know the name.

Obviously, I wasn't talking about legally entitled, since we aren't even talking about a precise legal system.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:01 pm UTC
by Azrael
jules.lt wrote:I wish people stopped taking people who refuse abortion on moral grounds more seriously than those who refuse blood transfusions on moral grounds.
jules.lt wrote:Obviously, I wasn't talking about legally entitled, since we aren't even talking about a precise legal system.

To avoid further confusion: Since you've said it's not legal entitlement, it evidently is not moral entitlement (see above), and it factually is not biological entitlement, what is the basis you claim for a woman's entitlement to abortion for financial reasons, as you stated here:
jules.lt wrote:Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy, but also for financial reasons.


Because, by your own position, it can't be ethical entitlement.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:05 pm UTC
by Izawwlgood
jules.lt wrote:I'll rephrase that as: *What do you care about the ORIGINAL legal basis.*
The reason why the right to abortion was essential wasn't because of the 9 months of pregnancy, but really because forcing women to keep all of their babies chained them to their family and made sex a disproportionate risk as compared to what happened to men.

Wait, what? You're saying the only reason you think the right to abortion exists is because of sexism? I... disagree, and am a bit disappointed to see that the words 'woman's, right's, bodily, autonomy' have no yet sunk into your world view.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:09 pm UTC
by jules.LT
It IS ethical. There are sound ethical reasons to have a right to abortion (see my post above).

I'll point out the obvious since you want to play dumb: I think that someone who refuses abortion for religious reasons (as opposed to medical) should be worked with but laws shouldn't be molded around that position more than how you account for the religious people who don't want blood transfusions or whatever. This is debatable, but it doesn't mean that I think morals have no place here.

Is that spelled out enough?

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:14 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Izawwlgood wrote:
jules.lt wrote:I'll rephrase that as: *What do you care about the ORIGINAL legal basis.*
The reason why the right to abortion was essential wasn't because of the 9 months of pregnancy, but really because forcing women to keep all of their babies chained them to their family and made sex a disproportionate risk as compared to what happened to men.

Wait, what? You're saying the only reason you think the right to abortion exists is because of sexism? I... disagree, and am a bit disappointed to see that the words 'woman's, right's, bodily, autonomy' have no yet sunk into your world view.

No, these aren't the only reasons. I worded it poorly, sorry about that.
The only thing I'm really saying here is that abortion was required because of:
- A woman's life before pregnancy (more specifically her sex life)
- A woman's life during pregnancy
- A woman's life after pregnancy
And I'm pretty sure that overall A and C are more important than B.

And now I'll take time off from these boards to cool down, because as I post faster I seem to be understood less.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:16 pm UTC
by Azrael
jules.lt wrote:Is that spelled out enough?
Yes, because now we can focus on this:

jules.lt wrote:The reason why the right to abortion was essential ... because forcing women to keep all of their babies chained them to their family and made sex a disproportionate risk as compared to what happened to men.

If you use that as your ethical argument as to why women should have abortions, it is entirely circular to subsequently argue that abortion then ethically justifies a male opt-out.

"I have an ethical justification to Action A, because it relieves the disproportionate burden I carry in comparison to you" does not follow into "You have an ethical justification to Action A, because it relieves the disproportionate burden of Action A that you carry in comparison to me."

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:25 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Women are worse off, so we try and make things better for them.
Men are now worse off, and we try and make things better for them.
It isn't about balance, but about making everyone's life better in the end. It's just that you usually begin with the one that's worse off. It isn't circular at all.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:32 pm UTC
by Buddha
jules.lt wrote:Women are worse off, so we try and make things better for them.
Men are now worse off, and we try and make things better for them.
It isn't about balance, but about making everyone's life better in the end. It's just that you usually begin with the one that's worse off. It isn't circular at all.


But men aren't worse off. Not even close.

Here is what I understand of your argument "Women have a de facto right to refuse parenthood, which men don't, so men deserve a de jure right to refuse parenthood."

The biggest problem I have with this argument is that (at least in the US), woman have a de jure right to an abortion, and a de facto lack of that right. Having a legal right to an abortion doesn't do you any good, if there isn't a provider in your state. See WV. Yes, they can go out of state, but that's still a much bigger problem which needs to be solved, before we can legitimately consider the implications that the right to an abortion has on the rights of a man.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:33 pm UTC
by LaserGuy
Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:Is that spelled out enough?
Yes, because now we can focus on this:

jules.lt wrote:The reason why the right to abortion was essential ... because forcing women to keep all of their babies chained them to their family and made sex a disproportionate risk as compared to what happened to men.

If you use that as your ethical argument as to why women should have abortions, it is entirely circular to subsequently argue that abortion then ethically justifies a male opt-out.

"I have an ethical justification to Action A, because it relieves the disproportionate burden I carry in comparison to you" does not follow into "You have an ethical justification to Action A, because it relieves the disproportionate burden of Action A that you carry in comparison to me."


To take this in a slightly different direction, what if opt-out was pre-pregnancy? That is a situation where either 1) both parties enter into an agreement that, in the event of a future pregnancy resulting from consentual intercourse, the male party is absolved of any parental responsibility for the child or 2) prior to pregnancy, the male party is able to create a document unilaterally that absolves him of any responsibility for children produced from future consentual intercourse (I guess strictly speaking there's no reason why the woman wouldn't also be able to produce such documents absolving herself if she is willing to carry a child for her partner but unwilling to raise it). The second document, in particular, would be dated and would not apply if it could be reasonably determined that the woman was pregnant prior to it being received by her. Maybe add that the documents must be renewed every, say, 3-5 years in order to remain in effect.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:42 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Buddha wrote:But men aren't worse off. Not even close.

Here is what I understand of your argument "Women have a de facto right to refuse parenthood, which men don't, so men deserve a de jure right to refuse parenthood."

The biggest problem I have with this argument is that (at least in the US), woman have a de jure right to an abortion, and a de facto lack of that right. Having a legal right to an abortion doesn't do you any good, if there isn't a provider in your state. See WV. Yes, they can go out of state, but that's still a much bigger problem which needs to be solved, before we can legitimately consider the implications that the right to an abortion has on the rights of a man.

In my country they have a de facto right to abortion (and hardly any stigma for it) and also a de facto right to leaving the kid to the state at birth extremely easily (there is a stigma for that: adoption should be arranged in advance instead), so I guess that's why the burden people here want to put on the father revolts me.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 6:14 pm UTC
by Azrael
LaserGuy wrote:To take this in a slightly different direction, what if opt-out was pre-pregnancy? That is a situation where either 1) both parties enter into an agreement that, in the event of a future pregnancy resulting from consentual intercourse, the male party is absolved of any parental responsibility for the child or 2) prior to pregnancy, the male party is able to create a document unilaterally that absolves him of any responsibility for children produced from future consentual intercourse (I guess strictly speaking there's no reason why the woman wouldn't also be able to produce such documents absolving herself if she is willing to carry a child for her partner but unwilling to raise it). The second document, in particular, would be dated and would not apply if it could be reasonably determined that the woman was pregnant prior to it being received by her. Maybe add that the documents must be renewed every, say, 3-5 years in order to remain in effect.

I see no reason why bilateral wouldn't work, provided that there is a stipulation that expenses related to an abortion are bound by legal contract to be split [however the individuals specify in the document]. Obviously would require signature by the other party and a witness (witness to attest for state of mind) for each. It doesn't set up an incentive to ditch, either, which is critical.

I'd say that unilateral is a giant cluster, though. On the guy's side the complications regarding proving pre-notification are pretty severe, and so easily abused that the requirement should mimic the signing requirements of the bilateral. Obviously, the clause regarding consensual needs to be pretty iron-tight too, and considering the low rates for report of sexual assault and miserable conviction rates, there's a huge source of trouble there. Even with a dual-signature unilateral agreement, I worry about power balance and abuse influencing signatures. Protections for moral and religious beliefs are incorporated in refusing to sign an agreement with abortion in it, I suppose, but with the same concerns. Perhaps the unilateral would have to require the father to pay for any/all medical expenses, flat out? Anyhow, I see unilateral being so rife with potential holes, and abuses that it's just not worth it.

(I agree that from the woman's side, there isn't much of a point of a unilateral agreement, since that's the supposed inequality.)

jules.lt wrote:...a de facto right to leaving the kid to the state at birth extremely easily (there is a stigma for that: adoption should be arranged in advance instead)...

Not that I'm surprised given your earlier stance devaluing bodily autonomy, but pregnancy and birth are not cheap or easy. Any system that treats it as such cannot be reasonably described as increasing fairness.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Mon Mar 21, 2011 10:59 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:...a de facto right to leaving the kid to the state at birth extremely easily (there is a stigma for that: adoption should be arranged in advance instead)...

Not that I'm surprised given your earlier stance devaluing bodily autonomy, but pregnancy and birth are not cheap or easy. Any system that treats it as such cannot be reasonably described as increasing fairness.

Not that I'm surprised that you're distorting what I say again, but it's the leaving of the kid that I said was easy, not pregnancy or birth (was what I said in any way ambiguous?). Those we can't do anything about once we're past the legal abortion deadline.

Also, I do value bodily autonomy thank you very much. I just think that there's only so much financial autonomy you can give up before you'd rather give up some bodily autonomy. The costs associated with raising a kid can make you reach that point fast, and that's before accounting for the time spent. Which is why I find your insistance that only bodily autonomy issues be taken into account when it comes to becoming a parent or not preposterous.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:13 am UTC
by PAstrychef
If the male is unwilling to financially support a child, and the woman wants the child anyways, then she is knowingly taking the burdens upon herself--the burdens are not "forced" upon her, and both parties are exercising due freedom in their decisions.

And we're back to the whole "But I said I didn't want a kid!"position. Either you knowingly undertake the risks, or you skip the activity. If I drive a car, I undertake the risk that there will be an accident. I do my best to prevent and avoid them, but they still happen. (I tend to get rear-ended for some reason. Usually stopped at red lights. Can I then say that I don't want to pay for fixing my car? Especially if the other driver either drives off or doesn't carry insurance? I could hit a slippery patch and end up killing some pedestrian. Would saying "I didn't want to do that!" reduce my culpability?)
As for waivers and forms and public (pubic?) notaries, etc., etc. Is there a way to discover if the signature was coerced? Who will be enforcing these regulations?
I get that part of the discussion is to find a way to make equitable something currently see as unequal. I get that men don't want to be forced to pay for kids they didn't intend to father.
There is one more part of the situation we haven't really gotten to-what's best for the child.
PS I do not believe men are scum. Plenty of them pay the mandated child support and work as best they can at being parents. But very few of the men I met working in Family Law who were not divorced from the woman they were paying support to, i.e. they were not men who had had a relationship end after they had kids, but were men to whom the idea of kids might have been powerful and the reality a burden, were ever current in their support, felt that the amount set was fair or were willing to admit that their desire for unprotected sex had led to this predicament. (dang, that's a one-sentence paragraph!) They would boast about their lack of condom use, and claim that any woman who then became pregnant had done it to trick them. So a subset of men, as seen in Family Law courts, behave badly around child-related issues.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:39 am UTC
by Azrael
jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:...a de facto right to leaving the kid to the state at birth extremely easily (there is a stigma for that: adoption should be arranged in advance instead)...
Not that I'm surprised given your earlier stance devaluing bodily autonomy, but pregnancy and birth are not cheap or easy. Any system that treats it as such cannot be reasonably described as increasing fairness.
Not that I'm surprised that you're distorting what I say again, but it's the leaving of the kid that I said was easy, not pregnancy or birth (was what I said in any way ambiguous?).

No you weren't ambiguous, and I'm rather aware of where you put the adjective. I did not distort anything. I made the point that promoting how easy safe haven drops are entirely glosses over that pregnancy is not instant, cheap, easy or emotionally bereft. The value of that process can't be discounted when discussing how ethically fair any proposal can be.

Moving on, between:
Also, I do value bodily autonomy thank you very much. I just think that there's only so much financial autonomy you can give up before you'd rather give up some bodily autonomy
And:
jules.lt wrote:And "bodily autonomy" is indeed very important, but as for myself I'd rather ...
It's pretty clear that you don't actually value bodily autonomy. Rather, it's becoming increasing clear with each of your statements that you might not get it at all. You don't get to decide. Your opinion on the matter of what someone else should do with their body is irrelevant. Providing said opinion in the same paragraph where you claim to respect bodily autonomy is, in and of itself, disingenuous.

Which is why I find your insistance that only bodily autonomy issues be taken into account when it comes to becoming a parent or not preposterous.

Bodily autonomy is of the primary and utmost importance, because that is the protected right, as established over the last few pages. That is the Right. It's pretty damn important.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 8:01 am UTC
by jules.LT
Azrael wrote:No you weren't ambiguous, and I'm rather aware of where you put the adjective. I did not distort anything. I made the point that promoting how easy safe haven drops are entirely glosses over that pregnancy is not instant, cheap, easy or emotionally bereft. The value of that process can't be discounted when discussing how ethically fair any proposal can be.

While you're entirely discarding the life of a person outside of these 9 months.
Well, that does serve your point since life outside of these months applies to fathers too.

Azrael wrote:
Which is why I find your insistance that only bodily autonomy issues be taken into account when it comes to becoming a parent or not preposterous.

Bodily autonomy is of the primary and utmost importance, because that is the protected right, as established over the last few pages. That is the Right. It's pretty damn important.

Nothing of the kind has been "established". There is obviously a right to bodily autonomy, but there is also a right to not have your life turned upside down disproportionately with what you've done, however you word it. And the hierarchy of those rights is not clear at all. If you wish to go to the corresponding thread and say that "bodily autonomy trumps all", do so, and have extreme cases given to you where it is obviously not the case.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:50 am UTC
by Azrael
jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:
Which is why I find your insistance that only bodily autonomy issues be taken into account when it comes to becoming a parent or not preposterous.
Bodily autonomy is of the primary and utmost importance, because that is the protected right, as established over the last few pages. That is the Right. It's pretty damn important.
Nothing of the kind has been "established". There is obviously a right to bodily autonomy, but there is also a right to not have your life turned upside down disproportionately with what you've done, however you word it. And the hierarchy of those rights is not clear at all. If you wish to go to the corresponding thread and say that "bodily autonomy trumps all", do so, and have extreme cases given to you where it is obviously not the case.

Actually, the hierarchy of rights in this case is entirely clear. Demonstrated by the fact that there are been no successful court challenges, judicial rulings or legislation supporting your position. Your complaint is that you don't find that hierarchy to be fair. But it's well established.

Furthermore, your argument to "... disproportionately with what you've done" is entirely backwards. You're trying to suggest that it's disproportionate in comparison to actions the mother may choose to take. Otherwise, your complaint is to the act of insemination.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 11:54 am UTC
by Buddha
jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:
Which is why I find your insistance that only bodily autonomy issues be taken into account when it comes to becoming a parent or not preposterous.

Bodily autonomy is of the primary and utmost importance, because that is the protected right, as established over the last few pages. That is the Right. It's pretty damn important.

Nothing of the kind has been "established". There is obviously a right to bodily autonomy, but there is also a right to not have your life turned upside down disproportionately with what you've done, however you word it. And the hierarchy of those rights is not clear at all. If you wish to go to the corresponding thread and say that "bodily autonomy trumps all", do so, and have extreme cases given to you where it is obviously not the case.


You have a right not to punished disproportionately to the consequences of your actions. Not your intentions. If I build a tower with a five percent chance of catastrophic failure, and I'm aware of that chance, and I do nothing about it, when it falls and crushes a whole lot of people to death, I go to prison for negligent homicide. I may not have intended for that to happen, but it did, and I knew it could.

If my building partner also knew about it, and did nothing, then (s)he's responsible too, to the same degree that I am, but that doesn't absolve me of responsibility.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:14 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Buddha wrote:If my building partner also knew about it, and did nothing, then (s)he's responsible too, to the same degree that I am, but that doesn't absolve me of responsibility.

Except for the fact that the two "builders" have nowhere near the same options when it comes to preventing collapse.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 12:38 pm UTC
by Iulus Cofield
PAstrychef wrote:
If the male is unwilling to financially support a child, and the woman wants the child anyways, then she is knowingly taking the burdens upon herself--the burdens are not "forced" upon her, and both parties are exercising due freedom in their decisions.

And we're back to the whole "But I said I didn't want a kid!"position. Either you knowingly undertake the risks, or you skip the activity. If I drive a car, I undertake the risk that there will be an accident. I do my best to prevent and avoid them, but they still happen. (I tend to get rear-ended for some reason. Usually stopped at red lights. Can I then say that I don't want to pay for fixing my car? Especially if the other driver either drives off or doesn't carry insurance? I could hit a slippery patch and end up killing some pedestrian. Would saying "I didn't want to do that!" reduce my culpability?)


So, for the record, you are entirely against an abortion for any non-medical reason? That would explain your positions ITT. And I am relieved to hear that you don't think men are scum.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 1:21 pm UTC
by Greyarcher
Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy,but also for financial reasons. Which is why it's unfair to deprive men of any legal exit.

See what happens when I remove the factually incorrect part?
Waaait, just for clarity, are you saying that this is your moral position? Or that it's the legal basis in your area? I think it's the latter, but sometimes it's hard to tell in this thread.

I find the first issue--when we morally permit abortion--interesting since it affects when we'd legally condone it. And of course bodily autonomy is inextricable, but I think abstractly separating it gives us a sense of how important we hold other things--e.g. the financial burdens of having a child, and the ability to avoid them in the case of unwanted pregnancy.

And on that note:
Iulus Cofield wrote:
PAstrychef wrote:
If the male is unwilling to financially support a child, and the woman wants the child anyways, then she is knowingly taking the burdens upon herself--the burdens are not "forced" upon her, and both parties are exercising due freedom in their decisions.

And we're back to the whole "But I said I didn't want a kid!"position. Either you knowingly undertake the risks, or you skip the activity. If I drive a car, I undertake the risk that there will be an accident. I do my best to prevent and avoid them, but they still happen. (I tend to get rear-ended for some reason. Usually stopped at red lights. Can I then say that I don't want to pay for fixing my car? Especially if the other driver either drives off or doesn't carry insurance? I could hit a slippery patch and end up killing some pedestrian. Would saying "I didn't want to do that!" reduce my culpability?)


So, for the record, you are entirely against an abortion for any non-medical reason? That would explain your positions ITT. And I am relieved to hear that you don't think men are scum.
Well, Pastrychef might only permit abortion solely due to the importance of bodily autonomy. Not sure how that would affect the issue of responsibility and adoption. But I've been putting off the topic of adoption--that's an interesting issue too.

So, moving on to that: when should the parents be able to give their child up for adoption, and how much decision-making power should each parent have within this decision? What responsibilities and what costs should either party bear?

I can't say I have an opinion on the issue yet. Will browse up on adoption policies a bit and reflect.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:21 pm UTC
by jules.LT
Azrael wrote:Actually, the hierarchy of rights in this case is entirely clear. Demonstrated by the fact that there are been no successful court challenges, judicial rulings or legislation supporting your position. Your complaint is that you don't find that hierarchy to be fair. But it's well established.

It might be well established in the US jurisprudence, but our subject is broader than that.
Azrael wrote:Furthermore, your argument to "... disproportionately with what you've done" is entirely backwards. You're trying to suggest that it's disproportionate in comparison to actions the mother may choose to take. Otherwise, your complaint is to the act of insemination.

What the couple has done (i.e sex) is not proportionate with the punishment of having to carry and care for a kid you don't want. The woman has several ways of getting out of it, and rightly so, and this is NOT only about bodily autonomy. The reasons women give when asked why they abort are pretty clear.

So what about the man? Just because he doesn't have to do the carrying doesn't mean that there's nothing to do about the other part. The feeling of entrapment many fathers are sure to have is probably a leading cause of runaway dads.

I feel like I'm repeating myself, but then again you always come up with original interpretations of what I really meant, so I guess I still need to clarify.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:40 pm UTC
by setzer777
Just to step away from the legal and back to the moral for a second (feel like most of what's going to be said about legality has been):

If a woman gets pregnant and the man immediately says: "I'm not ready to be a father, I will help you pay the medical expenses no matter what choice you make, but if you choose to raise the child I will only send in payments, I will not be a part of its life." Is this action morally wrong?

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 2:54 pm UTC
by jules.LT
setzer777 wrote:Just to step away from the legal and back to the moral for a second (feel like most of what's going to be said about legality has been):

If a woman gets pregnant and the man immediately says: "I'm not ready to be a father, I will help you pay the medical expenses no matter what choice you make, but if you choose to raise the child I will only send in payments, I will not be a part of its life." Is this action morally wrong?

It's probably wrong.
But what about the woman who chooses to carry a child to term while knowing that he won't have an actual father?
("choosing" implying that the possibility is really there, obviously)

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:12 pm UTC
by Greyarcher
setzer777 wrote:Just to step away from the legal and back to the moral for a second (feel like most of what's going to be said about legality has been):

If a woman gets pregnant and the man immediately says: "I'm not ready to be a father, I will help you pay the medical expenses no matter what choice you make, but if you choose to raise the child I will only send in payments, I will not be a part of its life." Is this action morally wrong?
I can't say I'd morally condemn it. If they were careless about precautions before conception, there's a general irresponsibility issue, true. But I wouldn't demand either of them bear the burdens of parenthood if they didn't desire it. But then, I see raising a child as a very serious long-term responsibility and consider it a serious long-term burden as well. It's not something I'd morally require someone bear due to a careless sex act; that seems unusually harsh considering how sex is often recreational and early nowadays. Though being responsible about taking precautions is indeed important, and should be a value ingrained so as to prevent such incidents.

Now, if the person were consistently or intentionally negligent about taking precautions against pregnancy, then, yeah, immoral because especially irresponsible.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:19 pm UTC
by GenericAnimeBoy
jules.lt wrote:But what about the woman who chooses to carry a child to term while knowing that he won't have an actual father?
("choosing" implying that the possibility is really there, obviously)
The underlying question there is "would you rather (a) have a particularly difficult life or (b) never be born at all?" I don't think that question can be answered without an appeal to the metaphysical.

I think she's right to make that decision. I have sometimes felt as if it would be better for me to have never lived, but in retrospect those feelings are always temporary. Life can be very uncomfortable, but it is precious and wonderful, and not having a male parent wouldn't ruin it forever.

EDIT: Bah, silly nested quote boxes.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 3:40 pm UTC
by Greyarcher
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
jules.lt wrote:But what about the woman who chooses to carry a child to term while knowing that he won't have an actual father?
("choosing" implying that the possibility is really there, obviously)
The underlying question there is "would you rather (a) have a particularly difficult life or (b) never be born at all?" I don't think that question can be answered without an appeal to the metaphysical.

I think she's right to make that decision. I have sometimes felt as if it would be better for me to have never lived, but in retrospect those feelings are always temporary. Life can be very uncomfortable, but it is precious and wonderful, and not having a male parent wouldn't ruin it forever.
Yeah, it's a very difficult issue. People all cope with difficulties in their own ways; people who cope very well and/or don't have too many difficulties may be likely to look on life positively. But, well, people's ability to cope with crap isn't necessarily a reason to have a kid while knowing the kid will have crappy circumstances. That's why I wouldn't have children if I knew a serious genetic defect would screw them up.

We obviously can't get a kid's consent for being conceived; that's bothered me, along with how having children makes one indirectly responsible for everything that happens to them and everything they do. It's a heavy burden, knowing you're bringing something into this world, and all you can do is try your best and hope it turns out well. It's gambling with someone's life in a way, since you create that life but can't really guarantee things will turn out well.

Eh, but then I have high standards in general and take some things pretty seriously.


Edit: I will also add that [many] people's lives are in many ways total crap that falls very, very short of the ideal. It's an amazing tribute to our coping mechanisms and adaptive ability that people can still maintain a positive outlook. The world and life are not things I'd call wonderful without qualification, though there are some pretty awesome things about them both.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 4:45 pm UTC
by jules.LT
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
jules.lt wrote:But what about the woman who chooses to carry a child to term while knowing that he won't have an actual father?
("choosing" implying that the possibility is really there, obviously)
The underlying question there is "would you rather (a) have a particularly difficult life or (b) never be born at all?" I don't think that question can be answered without an appeal to the metaphysical.

I think she's right to make that decision. I have sometimes felt as if it would be better for me to have never lived, but in retrospect those feelings are always temporary. Life can be very uncomfortable, but it is precious and wonderful, and not having a male parent wouldn't ruin it forever.

I think it's wrong to look at the question from the point of view of someone who doesn't exist yet. Especially since people usually have a family size in mind that they're going to have: you're often having this kid instead of another. What about the wishes of that other kid?

More importantly, shouldn't you try to have your kids in the best configuration possible? That's what family planning is about.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:37 pm UTC
by drkslvr
PAstrychef wrote:And we're back to the whole "But I said I didn't want a kid!"position. Either you knowingly undertake the risks, or you skip the activity.
Again, if this argument applies to men, why not to women? And if it shouldn't apply to women, then why are we applying it to men? It's not right.

LaserGuy wrote:To take this in a slightly different direction, what if opt-out was pre-pregnancy? That is a situation where either 1) both parties enter into an agreement that, in the event of a future pregnancy resulting from consentual intercourse, the male party is absolved of any parental responsibility for the child or 2) prior to pregnancy, the male party is able to create a document unilaterally that absolves him of any responsibility for children produced from future consentual intercourse...
It does seem like (1) would be a nice minimum standard for improvement in the status quo. It probably wouldn't get used very often, because most men wouldn't want that extra formality between them and sex. But it would be there for those who wanted it.

Azrael wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:You're still...uh, I'm struggling for an effective way to communicate this. You're treating men and women differently. This differing treatment makes it okay for women to do something, something you're a big believer in, but then saying men can't have something similar because they're men ...

This is the same point you started making 4 pages ago, so I'll whip out the same response: No, this is the exact opposite. Saying that a women gets to do whatever she wishes with her body is position that brings the rights back into equality.
Can the father do whatever he wants with his body? Maybe what he'd like to do with his body is to earn just enough money for himself and spend the rest of his time clubbing and meeting more women. Ones he hasn't gotten pregnant yet. Is it selfish? Sure. But his right to bodily autonomy is absolute, and you can't violate that under any circumstances.
</tongue-in-cheek>

Does the right to bodily autonomy apply in that situation? Of course not. I agree that the right to bodily autonomy is way up there on the hierarchy of rights. But even if it were absolute, you couldn't invoke it to prove that the sky was green. Well, you could. But you wouldn't be right.

Buddha wrote:Here is what I understand of your argument "Women have a de facto right to refuse parenthood, which men don't, so men deserve a de jure right to refuse parenthood."
Thank you for putting the arguments in this light. When I to try an use this language to describe what I see, here is what I come up with:

Naturally, women have a de facto obligation to parenthood, while men have a de facto ability to refuse it.
Artificially, society has given women the legal and physical ability to opt-out of parenthood, while giving men a de jure obligation to be parents.

Ah, what a funny world we live in.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 6:58 pm UTC
by GenericAnimeBoy
jules.lt wrote:I think it's wrong to look at the question from the point of view of someone who doesn't exist yet. Especially since people usually have a family size in mind that they're going to have: you're often having this kid instead of another. What about the wishes of that other kid?

More importantly, shouldn't you try to have your kids in the best configuration possible? That's what family planning is about.
I think you're quite right in saying that people should try to choose when the situation is or is not right to bring another person into their lives--the complicating metaphysical question is this: does a child in the womb exist in the sense that you and I exist? If not, when do you claim that human children transition from the state of non-existence into the state of existence? The "other child" to whom you refer has (if I'm understanding you correctly) not been conceived or developed in any meaningful sense; a child that has partially developed within its mother's womb does, in point of fact, exist in some sense. Once a fetus passes the point in its development where it transitions from a part of its parents' bodies into an independent human, the decision has been made--the risk has been taken--jacta alea est (the die is cast), so to speak.

FWIW, I personally think that transition occurs at some time between conception and birth, but it is quite challenging to pin down exactly when, and as far as I can tell the process of determining when that transition occurs necessarily involves the assumption of some set of metaphysical claims.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:06 pm UTC
by jules.LT
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:does a child in the womb exist in the sense that you and I exist?

It's an interesting question, but it really belongs in another thread.[/inhuman restraint]

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:09 pm UTC
by GenericAnimeBoy
jules.lt wrote:
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:does a child in the womb exist in the sense that you and I exist?

It's an interesting question, but it really belongs in another thread.[/inhuman restraint]

Does it? It's completely relevant to the question of whether a mother should (in the sense of morality) choose at a given stage of pregnancy to carry to term or not.

EDIT: And that question is relevant to this thread because it's the question I was answering in my previous post.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Posted: Tue Mar 22, 2011 7:16 pm UTC
by Azrael
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:
jules.lt wrote:
GenericAnimeBoy wrote:does a child in the womb exist in the sense that you and I exist?
It's an interesting question, but it really belongs in another thread.[/inhuman restraint]
Does it?

Yes. It does.