Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:44 pm UTC

If only there was some sort of legal way to decide how parenting responsibilities worked...
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby lesliesage » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:46 pm UTC

Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:What is it about getting to make the decision about whether or not to carry the child to term that also gives her the decision whether or not someone else is obligated to be its parent?
It's not about gender to me, it's just that every action has different consequences. Impregnating someone has consequences that are different from getting pregnant.

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:47 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:
Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:What is it about getting to make the decision about whether or not to carry the child to term that also gives her the decision whether or not someone else is obligated to be its parent?
It's not about gender to me, it's just that every action has different consequences. Impregnating someone has consequences that are different from getting pregnant.


Like being legally financially bound rather than able to give up for adoption?

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:47 pm UTC

Such a system exists. It's just amazingly sexist against men as the rules currently exist.
In my opinion, most pro-abortion advocates have no issue with this, because for them it's mainly about giving more power to women. Any rule or principle that results in more power to women is good, period.
But, the fact of the matter is, the family law system needs a major overhaul to be as fair as it can be as long as the right to an abortion is protected.
-OcV

lesliesage wrote:
Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:What is it about getting to make the decision about whether or not to carry the child to term that also gives her the decision whether or not someone else is obligated to be its parent?
It's not about gender to me, it's just that every action has different consequences. Impregnating someone has consequences that are different from getting pregnant.

Once the pregnancy is over, the situations are identical. The rights and obligations should also be identical, or at least correspond (more rights, more obligations; no rights, no obligations).
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:50 pm UTC

I feel like a lot of your argument OvC, comes from the idea that abortion is an easy thing. It costs $500 dollars. Should the man have to pay half? Let's not forget the transportation fees you would need to even get some people to an abortionist. Should the man also have to endure half the social stigma?
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby lesliesage » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:50 pm UTC

Heavenlytoaster wrote:Like being legally financially bound rather than able to give up for adoption?
That's the one. I mean, same deal if a woman impregnates a woman... which will totally happen with Science during our lifetimes. Impregnanting =/= getting pregnant, so I don't know why anyone would think that they come with the same rights and responsibilities.

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:53 pm UTC

Intercept wrote:I feel like a lot of your argument OvC, comes from the idea that abortion is an easy thing. It costs $500 dollars. Should the man have to pay half? Let's not forget the transportation fees you would need to even get some people to an abortionist. Should the man also have to endure half the social stigma?

Are you now proposing that the man gets to have an equal say in whether or not it happens? Because, if so, it's only fair that he pay half the price, and I would hope he would get as much of the blame.
Of course, as of now, the man has no rights, and no opportunity to choose once the pregnancy occurs. As I understand it then, I don't see any reason to give him much if any obligation, either.
-OcV

lesliesage wrote: Impregnanting =/= getting pregnant, so I don't know why anyone would think that they come with the same rights and responsibilities.

Having a child == having a child. So why doesn't the inequality end once the situations equate?
I understand that being pregnant isn't the same as not being pregnant, so I understand a different set of rights and responsibilities during pregnancy. I don't see why you carry that inequality into parenting, however.
-OcV
Last edited by Oculus Vespertilionis on Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:55 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:55 pm UTC

I still think bringing up adoption in the first place is confusing the issue.

What I want is a situation where, in case of a pregnancy, the man can say "I'm sorry, but I do not want this responsibility" and the woman can say "I'm sorry, but I do not want this responsibility". If neither says it, all is fine. If both say it, all is fine. If one says it, but the other does not, then that person will have to raise the child solo. And accept that consequence.

Abortion allows the decision to be made earlier, and gives extra options (abortion instead of adoption in the 'neither' scenario and abortion in the 'man wants, woman does not' scenario). It also raises some extra moral problems that need to be addressed. (what if the man says "yeah I want it during pregnancy but once it's too late for abortion changes his mind). But it's not the core issue.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:56 pm UTC

Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:
Intercept wrote:I feel like a lot of your argument OvC, comes from the idea that abortion is an easy thing. It costs $500 dollars. Should the man have to pay half? Let's not forget the transportation fees you would need to even get some people to an abortionist. Should the man also have to endure half the social stigma?

Are you now proposing that the man gets to have an equal say in whether or not it happens? Because, if so, it's only fair that he pay half the price, and I would hope he would get as much of the blame.
Of course, as of now, the man has no rights, and no opportunity to choose once the pregnancy occurs. As I understand it then, I don't see any reason to give him much if any obligation, either.
-OcV


That's incredibly hypocritical of you. Of course he doesn't get equal say, but if he can opt out after a birth he should have to opt in for an abortion.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 7:57 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:What I want is a situation where, in case of a pregnancy, the man can say "I'm sorry, but I do not want this responsibility" and the woman can say "I'm sorry, but I do not want this responsibility". If neither says it, all is fine. If both say it, all is fine. If one says it, but the other does not, then that person will have to raise the child solo. And accept that consequence.

This is also what I belive to be most fair to all parties, and also just the right answer.
-OcV

EDIT: I really don't think I'm the one being hypocritical, Intercept. Choices have consequences. If the choice to have an abortion is entirely the woman's, then so is the expense, in my view. This says nothing about who isn't and is obligated to pay for the child once it's born.
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:00 pm UTC

Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:
Intercept wrote:I feel like a lot of your argument OvC, comes from the idea that abortion is an easy thing. It costs $500 dollars. Should the man have to pay half? Let's not forget the transportation fees you would need to even get some people to an abortionist. Should the man also have to endure half the social stigma?

Are you now proposing that the man gets to have an equal say in whether or not it happens? Because, if so, it's only fair that he pay half the price, and I would hope he would get as much of the blame.
Of course, as of now, the man has no rights, and no opportunity to choose once the pregnancy occurs. As I understand it then, I don't see any reason to give him much if any obligation, either.

Disagree. Both are (not assuming special circumstances such as one partner deceiving another) equally responsible for the accidental pregnancy. If both agree that abortion is the best solution, then both should pay for that. That seems only fair. At least morally, legally I see some pitfalls that make actual implementation of such a system hard. But the moral situation at least is clear.

*edit* A harder problem is what to do if the woman wants an abortion and the man does not. Should he still pay for half of the cost? I'd still say yes. The man still has a responsibility for what happened. He may not agree with the solution the woman proposes, but it's her perogative to chose that solution. And since the alternative is much more taxing on the woman...
Last edited by Diadem on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:07 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:03 pm UTC

Again, I think you're really understating both being pregnant and the difficulty of getting an abortion. My system is perfectly fair.

Men have 1, 2, 3! chances to avoid the responsibilities. If they don't, they probably didn't want to at the time, so they should be held responsible to their actions. Do you not realize with your system married men who already have children could not claim their own children? This system sure as fuck doesn't empower women, it leaves them open to getting screwed over by malicious bastards.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:04 pm UTC

Intercept wrote:Again, I think you're really understating both being pregnant and the difficulty of getting an abortion. My system is perfectly fair.

Men have 1, 2, 3! chances to avoid the responsibilities. If they don't, they probably didn't want to at the time, so they should be held responsible to their actions. Do you not realize with your system married men who already have children could not claim their own children? This system sure as fuck doesn't empower women, it leaves them open to getting screwed over by malicious bastards.


Because only men would do this, and women dont, and only men are malicious bastards!

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:07 pm UTC

Intercept wrote:Do you not realize with your system married men who already have children could not claim their own children? This system sure as fuck doesn't empower women, it leaves them open to getting screwed over by malicious bastards.

Under our current system, can either men or women just up and abandon their children while married? I'm pretty sure the answer is no.
I, at least, was assuming unmarried parents for these rules, as both parents automatically have a firm obligation if they're married (and I see no reason to change this).
-OcV

EDIT: Again, the system where each partner can opt out from parenthood encourages accidental parents to choose adoption, which is exactly what we (I?) want -- and also stops would-be fathers from having their kids given to adoption against their will as well.
Last edited by Oculus Vespertilionis on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:09 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:09 pm UTC

First off, I am a man, and I'm not a man hater.

I just see plenty of ways this could be abused, by a man, that would really fuck a woman over.

Fine marriages are out, but what about long term relationships? More and more people aren't getting married.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:10 pm UTC

Intercept wrote:Men have 1, 2, 3! chances to avoid the responsibilities. If they don't, they probably didn't want to at the time, so they should be held responsible to their actions. Do you not realize with your system married men who already have children could not claim their own children? This system sure as fuck doesn't empower women, it leaves them open to getting screwed over by malicious bastards.

1,2,3? Where? They can get their partner to sign a written form waiving you from responsibility. That's one. Where are the other two? Giving that one is an option that is pretty unrealistic, I'd say that in your system they effectively have about 0.3 options to avoid responsibility.

And what do you mean married men can't claim their children? Where did you get that from?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Intercept wrote:First off, I am a man, and I'm not a man hater.

I just see plenty of ways this could be abused, by a man, that would really fuck a woman over.

Fine marriages are out, but what about long term relationships? More and more people aren't getting married.

As the California Supreme Court said in firmly stomping out any vestige of common law marriage in that state -- marriage is there for a reason (I'm paraphrasing rather badly, I think).
And, wait... You don't feel any sympathy for someone who won't fill out one of your imaginary contracts, but yet you feel sympathy for those who don't choose to use the contracts we already have in place?
-OcV
Last edited by Oculus Vespertilionis on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:11 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

Heavenlytoaster
Posts: 67
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 12:21 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Heavenlytoaster » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:11 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:
Intercept wrote:Men have 1, 2, 3! chances to avoid the responsibilities. If they don't, they probably didn't want to at the time, so they should be held responsible to their actions. Do you not realize with your system married men who already have children could not claim their own children? This system sure as fuck doesn't empower women, it leaves them open to getting screwed over by malicious bastards.

1,2,3? Where? They can get their partner to sign a written form waiving you from responsibility. That's one. Where are the other two? Giving that one is an option that is pretty unrealistic, I'd say that in your system they effectively have about 0.3 options to avoid responsibility.

And what do you mean married men can't claim their children? Where did you get that from?


Don't forget having sex counting as choosing to have responsibility, for men.

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:12 pm UTC

And only for men, correct?
-OcV

Intercept wrote:First off, I am a man, and I'm not a man hater.

I'm not claiming you're a man-hater, but I will note that many men are. So, the two statements in that quote are not, in my opinion, actually linked at all.
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:13 pm UTC

1) Contract
2) Getting the woman to declare he's not responsible at any time after the pregnancy occurs
3) Not having sex period (Not an option I'm a fan of)
4) At least having the sense/decency to not have sex with someone who won't get an abortion if you don't want to support the child.

EDIT: Unfortunately I cannot continue this debate at the moment.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:16 pm UTC

My opinion:
1) Not at all realistic, and it doesn't deal with your (still very unfair and sexist) defaults for when there's no contract.
2) That's somebody else's choice; it's not the man's choice.
3) Doesn't work for abortion, shouldn't work for this. ("If she didn't want to go through pregnancy, she shouldn't have had sex!")
And #4 brings up a good point -- why isn't it the woman's responsibility to only have sex with men who have agreed (via one of your contracts) to support the child? Wouldn't that be a much fairer baseline?
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
mochafairy
Posts: 1098
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2008 11:27 pm UTC
Location: Ohio

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby mochafairy » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

This might seem radical, but, regarding parental rights for after the child is born, I don't think the enforcement of the law is currently equal and unbiased. As far as child support goes, I've heard stories from both sides of the fence--people getting away with not paying to people having to pay ridiculous amounts. This is a problem with the enforcement, not necessarily the law. As far as two parents fighting for custody, my understanding is that the legal system is supposed to take into account the financial, criminal, mental, etc. states of both parties. I agree that often times the biological father often gets screwed over in cases like this. This, however, is a completely separate issue from letting someone else have control over your body. Start a different topic to whine about post-delivery laws and enforcement (I believe this would include the discussion of legislation for letting the biological father opt-out pre-delivery. A separate discussion from child support and custody, but also a separate issue from having a say over whether or not a woman who is carrying your child has a right to what happens to her own body)

For every anecdote about some poor guy getting screwed over by a girl, there's another story about some poor girl getting screwed over by a guy. Over all, the human race tends to be pretty stable, it just so happens that a group of insanely loud whiners make us believe otherwise. The human race is, however, also full of a bunch of jerks who get away with being total pricks. It is impractical as well as impossible to enforce contracts for sexual encounters. It is impossible to make everyone happy in situations such as the ones brought up. It's nice in theory to say "everyone just get along and play by the rules". More often than not, people do play nice, especially when someone is watching over them. There are, however, the jerks who ruin it for everyone and start these discussions.

People arguing for the father to have a say in abortion: I ask you why you personally want a say over what happens to someone else. Is it fear? A sense of responsibility? Disgust? Morals? Personal interest?

I think if you explain why (in non-inflammatory, logical, backed with evidence way), people might be more civil to you. I also think, if you stop repeating yourselves and unplug your ears, people not only will be more civil to you, but you might also learn something. If you have to repeat what you just said because you can't further your argument, then it's not a very good argument. If a person just repeated their argument to you, one of you is an idiot. Maybe you're just not listening. Before you go off on a crusade, make sure you know for certain what the other side is saying. Before claiming that the other side is full of "meanie poopy heads", make sure that you have legitimate reason for saying so. (This paragraph goes for BOTH sides. I am sick and tired of reading 8* pages of the exact same thing. There has been little progress on either side, and you can gather the arguments made by simply reading about 3 posts per page because no one is offering EVIDENCE to the contrary.)

tl;dr: quit being pricks, people. Get your crap together

Back on topic.

There is no reason why anyone should have a say over my right to privacy and right to my body, other than myself. The second my choices regarding my privacy and my body affect (or have the potential to affect) another person (a self-conscious being), then other people have a right to interfere. (I assume that the definition of person is what is causing most of the uproar.) Examples where my right to privacy and my body should be over ruled are things such as drunk driving, or infecting myself with the T-virus. Since I do not define a lump of cells that have no means of self-consciousness to be a person, I fail to see how having an abortion is anyone's concern. As I said earlier, I personally would discuss the situation heavily with my so before I made a decision, but that is me.

*edit: When I started typing this, we were on page 7, people. it somehow grew another page while I was typing...
Last edited by mochafairy on Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:32 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
"YES. DO IT WITH CONFIDENCE" ~fortune cookie

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby lesliesage » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:23 pm UTC

Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:
lesliesage wrote: Impregnanting =/= getting pregnant, so I don't know why anyone would think that they come with the same rights and responsibilities.
Having a child == having a child. So why doesn't the inequality end once the situations equate?
Actually, I agree: having a child == having a child, and the situations equate, and the responsibilities do as well.
Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:EDIT: Again, the system where each partner can opt out from parenthood encourages accidental parents to choose adoption, which is exactly what we (I?) want -- and also stops would-be fathers from having their kids given to adoption against their will as well.
I am also against would-be fathers having their kids given up for adoption, what with the equated situations. And we agree on the right to choice, what with the unequal situations pre-baby. I would say that if mom wants it and dad doesn't, dad is still financially responsible. And if dad wants it and mom doesn't, he should get it, and mom should be financially responsible.

One consequence of that is that the only way a woman can be sure of not being financially responsible is to have an abortion, just as the only way a man can be sure is to not impregnate someone. I don't really have any problem with that, but it's worth noting. What do you think?

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:33 pm UTC

lesliesage wrote:I would say that if mom wants it and dad doesn't, dad is still financially responsible. And if dad wants it and mom doesn't, he should get it, and mom should be financially responsible.
One consequence of that is that the only way a woman can be sure of not being financially responsible is to have an abortion, just as the only way a man can be sure is to not impregnate someone. I don't really have any problem with that, but it's worth noting. What do you think?

I think this is likely to lead to more begrudging parents, and fewer adoptions and two-parent homes, so I'm not as happy with it. But I definitely think your way is at least more fair.
I'm also very anti-abortion, so I'm not happy with incentivizing abortion. I'd much rather incentivize adoption.
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby lesliesage » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:44 pm UTC

puzzle
Last edited by lesliesage on Sun Oct 10, 2010 7:59 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 8:47 pm UTC

I actually understood there to be far fewer babies than willing adoptive parents. Do you have any statistics for your assertion that there are too many?
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

Falling
Posts: 175
Joined: Mon Nov 24, 2008 4:30 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Falling » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:05 pm UTC

Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:I actually understood there to be far fewer babies than willing adoptive parents. Do you have any statistics for your assertion that there are too many?
-OcV


There are too few white infants to go around, but a quite google search seems to point at the fact that others, especially blacks are more difficult to place.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:09 pm UTC

One of the main reasons there are as many parents who want to adopt as there are, is that it can take a very long time for adoptions to go through. Occasionally this leads to people giving up on adoption. Additionally, once children are older they rarely get adopted, so if more children were given up for adoption there would still be a surplus and more older children in and out of foster homes.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

Again, I'm not arguing with what you say, but I'd be interested in reading a source if you have one.
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
e946
Posts: 621
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 6:32 am UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby e946 » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:10 pm UTC

Aetius wrote:
TheGrammarBolshevik wrote:
Aetius wrote:This bill will go nowhere, but it is really such a radical concept that a father should have rights as it pertains to his unborn child another person's body?


Yes. Yes it is.


I love when an issue as morally and legally complex as snuffing out a potential human life is boiled down to a caricature. It adds so much to the discussion.

I am not for outlawing abortion, but if you think the issue is as simple as a pure medical issue you have missed the plot. I'm not supporting this bill, as it leaves a great number of issues and complications unaddressed, but I do think that the creation and raising of a child is both a joint responsibility and a joint right.

The key problem is that the man doesn't have to go through any of the negative effects of pregnancy. He can still smoke, drink, ride rollercoasters, etc. and at the end, he's not the one that actually has to give birth. I know there's a lot more bullshit that goes into being pregnant, but that's just off the top of my head. If you don't have to deal with any of the negative side effects (hell, as someone else pointed out you would still have the ability to abandon her after saying it couldn't happen, and i'm sure a small number of guys would if this law passed), why should you get a say in it?

Furthermore, this bill would give the man *more* say than the woman, as it's ultimately up to him to stop if rom happening regardless of what she wants. That, if nothing else, is absolutely unacceptable.

User avatar
lesliesage
Posts: 1729
Joined: Thu May 31, 2007 8:07 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC
Contact:

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby lesliesage » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:11 pm UTC

Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:I actually understood there to be far fewer babies than willing adoptive parents. Do you have any statistics for your assertion that there are too many?
There are about 100,000 of them in foster care in the US and millions of orphans around the world- many of whom are infants. But yes, there are waiting lists for healthy white babies.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:12 pm UTC

Also that. I think we're all on board with this bill being horrible by now. Except for maybe Ryom, but he's gone.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:14 pm UTC

e946 wrote:Furthermore, this bill would give the man *more* say than the woman, as it's ultimately up to him to stop if rom happening regardless of what she wants. That, if nothing else, is absolutely unacceptable.

How is that more say in it than the woman? Under the bill (which, again, would not survive Roe and Doe 1973), if either parent didn't want an abortion, there would be no abortion. That's equal say, isn't it?
-OcV

lesliesage wrote:
Oculus Vespertilionis wrote:I actually understood there to be far fewer babies than willing adoptive parents. Do you have any statistics for your assertion that there are too many?
There are about 100,000 of them in foster care in the US and millions of orphans around the world- many of whom are infants. But yes, there are waiting lists for healthy white babies.

That's important for me to understand if it's accurate. Do you have a citation or a link?
-OcV

EDIT: To clarify, I'm anti-abortion, and I don't object to what the bill would do. I object to a legislator advocating an unconstitutional bill, contrary to their oath/affirmation. The actual consequences of the bill would, in my mind, be good.
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:17 pm UTC

You think this bill would be ok if it weren't unconstitutional?
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:20 pm UTC

mochafairy wrote:People arguing for the father to have a say in abortion: I ask you why you personally want a say over what happens to someone else. Is it fear? A sense of responsibility? Disgust? Morals? Personal interest?

Who's actually saying that? The discussion in this thread moved away from that subject about 5-6 pages ago. And I don't think I've seen anyone actually make that claim.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:21 pm UTC

Yes. I support the right to life of an unborn human being from about the time it hits the primitive streak.
I also believe that the legality of abortion is a state criminal law issue and that Roe and Doe were wrongly decided, along with the whole of federal abortion jurisprudence. I don't believe there's a constitutional right to either privacy or bodily autonomy.
So, although the view I hold has some nuances, it's generally anti-abortion rather than pro-abortion.
In my experience, though, about 1 out of 4 people will shut down and not discuss an issue when they know what your position is -- and that is true regardless of what your position is, although it will be different people depending. I don't really think my personal and legal views have much to do with the issue at hand.
-OcV
Last edited by Oculus Vespertilionis on Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Diadem » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:22 pm UTC

Yeah but being anti-abortion is not the same as saying "the father can decide if the woman should have an abortion or not", is it?

You're not actually claiming the latter, are you?
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:23 pm UTC

Under Roe and Doe, nobody but the woman herself can make the abortion decision.
-OcV
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.

User avatar
Intercept
Posts: 717
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 4:15 am UTC
Location: An blue governed Missouri.

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Intercept » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:26 pm UTC

But you think it's wrong. You don't believe in autonomy.
"I've always supported pudding, even when it was politically unpopular to do so."-Bill Nye Video

User avatar
Oculus Vespertilionis
Posts: 434
Joined: Thu Jun 04, 2009 7:42 pm UTC

Re: Bill Would Require Man's OK For Abortion

Postby Oculus Vespertilionis » Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:27 pm UTC

I don't agree in a Constitutional right to bodily autonomy that is any more central than a right to property.
But, under a line of cases stretching from Grizwald through Roe to Lewis, a right to privacy has been found to be Constitutional and not able to be violated by the states. It is true, however, that I disagree.
-OcV
Last edited by Oculus Vespertilionis on Fri Jul 24, 2009 9:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
You do what you can to make relationships and to respect yourself and others. Everything else is bookkeeping.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests