Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

For the serious discussion of weighty matters and worldly issues. No off-topic posts allowed.

Moderators: Azrael, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:16 am UTC

Aaeriele wrote:
Iulus Cofield wrote:See, I would like to agree with you. I would like to think non-physical consequences were not the primary motivating factor behind abortions, but they are. That study found that 13% of women chose to have abortions at least in part due to health concerns. 74% reported dramatic lifestyle changes as a contributing factor and 73% said not being able to afford a baby was a contributing factor. Let's not pretend abortion is something other than women declining parenthood in the large majority of cases. So, yeah. I don't think it is unfair to say there is a legal double standard between the rights of mothers and fathers. I mean, I believe abortion needs to be legal if only because people will get them regardless and then you have serious safety issues, so I'm okay with whatever justification the Supreme Court came up with to do that. But most abortions happen for the same reason that dead beat dads happen.


It doesn't matter what percentage of them happen due to physical reasons or not. The fact that physical reasons are a possibility makes the availability a necessity.

Even if it did, what's to say that "dramatic lifestyle changes" aren't including the very dramatic lifestyle change for a period of at least 9 months or more that a pregnancy involves? That "affording a baby" doesn't factor in potential need for maternity leave?


If you read the poll, you will find that if any participant responded yes to the "dramatic lifestyle changes" question, they were asked a followup for specific reasons. Feel free to read their results if you're looking for holes to poke in them.

Furthermore, what? Medical procedures are not normally made elective and on demand because the patient may have a physical motivation. I can get my foot chopped off, if I need it. I can't get it chopped off (by a doctor) because I want to become a beggar and the beggar's guild won't take me otherwise. I'm not going to pretend I understand the complicated world of medical ethics and what makes some procedures okay as elective and on demand like plastic surgery or sex changes and what makes others only okay if there is a medical necessity like amputation, but I am pretty sure the distinction isn't physical reasons are a possibility.

Edit in response to ninja edit:
"Nearly four in 10 indicated that they had completed their childbearing, [...]. Women also cited possible problems affecting the health of the fetus or concerns about their own health (13% and 12%, respectively)."

These all have bearing on physical consequences/bodily autonomy.


I already mentioned the 13% citing physical concerns. In the body of the poll, they say "women indicating that they had completed their desired childbearing". I am fairly sure they are referring to desired family size, not physical results of pregnancy.
Last edited by Iulus Cofield on Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:22 am UTC, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby omgryebread » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:19 am UTC

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 and it sounds an awful like you're working on the presumption that men are scum and women aren't. Do you think men are scum? I'd like to believe you don't.
Men don't get a similar option because they have no womb in which the fetus needs to be in.

Let's say a woman gets pregnant. There's a few situations.

A: Woman aborts. She deals with any cost and risk of abortion, as well as the social stigma to it. Man deals with nothing.
B: Woman doesn't abort. Both parents have equal responsibility.
C: Woman doesn't abort. Man responsible for part of financial responsibility, woman responsible for other part and massive amount of work involved in raising a child.
D: Woman doesn't abort, Man raises child alone. Reverse of C, man responsible for financial and work, woman for financial only. (Note that the stigma on mothers leaving their kids is crazy worse than the stigma of a man leaving his kids, though single fathers arguably have a rougher time in some ways than single mothers.)
E: Adoption. Neither responsible.
F: Man skips.
G: Woman skips. Much harder to do than F, since maternity is always obvious.


In F and G, the kid is being cared for worse than the other situations. You basically want to legalize F, as long as it's done before the kid is born? G could never be legal. So don't try to make your system sound equal, because it's simply not.

Your problem is that women get to choose between A and the rest. This is because the woman is carrying, and mandating medical procedures is Not Okay. Neither is leaving a child without full financial support.

To summarize the position: If a child is born, both parents are obligated to provide support, at least financially. The choice of whether a child is born is, after sex has occurred, entirely the mother's. This is slightly unfair, but more fair than any other situation.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 3:25 am UTC

I agree that the biological reality of pregnancy changes things, and I don't think fair comparisons can be made between abortion and not helping to support your child. The gender-neutral question that occurs to me is this:

In situations where the identity of both parents is known, they can jointly agree to both give up financial (and all other) responsibility for the child by turning it over to the state, but either parent by retaining their responsibility, also forces the retention of the other parent's. Why is it that the state can take on the responsibility of both parents if they agree to give up the child, but cannot take on the financial (which is all that is legally mandated) responsibility of one of those parents? Is it just a practical numbers issue? That it would happen way more often (and therefore be much more of a burden on the state) if it only took one parent divesting themselves of responsibility, instead of both agreeing to do so? This actually seems totally valid to me - just curious as to whether that is actually the justification.

Moving a bit away from the legal issues, I realized that one issue there is with the current reality is that non-custodial parents are automatically treated with suspicion. People assume that they are either deadbeats who are terrible people (for seeing a child as "unwanted", for not wanting to dedicate a huge portion of their lives to their child), or abusers of some kind who hurt their own children. Though men are more commonly non-custodial parents, I would expect that non-custodial mothers are treated even worse (because of the expectations we put on mothers vs fathers).

Edit for aside: holy shit all the stuff about the difficulties of pregnancy and child rearing (here and many other places) makes me wish I could just get sterilized with no second thoughts, with no crazy difficulty finding a Dr. willing to do it, and with no major risk of being called a fool/freak/selfish asshole by almost everyone I ever tell.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Greyarcher » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:02 am UTC

bigglesworth wrote:And I don't think that it's ridiculous that while it's impossible for the biological burden to be given up without the financial one also, that not to be a necessary part.

Anything else either is either unfair on the part of the male, or reduces women to baby-bearing cattle.
:| I'm not entirely sure how you arrive at the second statement, because you've vague in the first statement on what isn't a "necessary part" (of what?). The first statement, well, it's necessarily a package veto and--as Iulus has pointed out--financial considerations are obviously a concern and something in mind with women when making the veto. It's true that abortions could be regulated such that they are only permitted in the case of, say, unusually serious health risks or something. If so, then I don't object to denying male's any veto for financial reasons, because the woman also isn't allowed any similar veto; hence, equality is maintained. That's not my preferred policy when it comes to abortions, but it's true that resolves any equality problems.


PAstrychef wrote:I'm a big believer in abortion on demand, actually. But if a guy is going to take the risk of pregnancy that sex entails, then he can't just say "I don't want to deal with this" and walk away. Or would it be better that women be forced to have abortions if the man says he won't pay child-support? No two-parent agreement, no kid.
Women are being portrayed as having this vast and inimical power over men's lives by virtue of requiring them to pay for the children they father. Even kids they didn't intend to father.
They're stated as having unequal ability to veto bearing their burden in the case where abortions aren't restricted to when there are serious health risks. If we grant that each should have veto over their respective burdens as a matter of equality--instead of only granting her the veto--then she is not being "forced" to have an abortion: she is simply exercising her veto due to financial considerations, which is a freedom/power she always had. Except now we've granted both parties that veto/freedom/power.

If she can't veto for that reason, then my earlier remarks to bigglesworth probably apply.

PAstrychef wrote:Everyone wants to be able to have sex when they want to, without worrying about pregnancy. Say that the couple were using contraception and it failed. She is opposed to abortion, which is why they were using contraception in the first place. He knew this at the time. Can he still say "but I don't want a kid?"
It sounds to me like the men posting here want a get out of jail free card.
Of course he can say he doesn't want the kid. The issue is about a policy that grants equality in veto power: the complications that could arise in relationships due to specific women or men's views on abortions don't impact the equality of the policy. If either party is seriously opposed to abortion, that's simply an issue they have to work out for themselves.

If arguments about equality make you think, "Oh, they 'sound' like they just want to get out of responsibility and are arguing selfishly", then maybe you ought to reflect on your own biases (i.e. imagined motivations). If neither party could veto for financial reasons, I'd want both to be able to; and if only one had that veto, I'd still want both to have it regardless of whoever presently had the veto.
I will further add that, even if this were any of their motivations, it would be irrelevant to the correctness of any remarks or arguments.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Aaeriele » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:54 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Furthermore, what? Medical procedures are not normally made elective and on demand because the patient may have a physical motivation.

They are also generally not made illegal because of a potential for misuse.

Iulus Cofield wrote:Edit in response to ninja edit:
I already mentioned the 13% citing physical concerns. In the body of the poll, they say "women indicating that they had completed their desired childbearing". I am fairly sure they are referring to desired family size, not physical results of pregnancy.

Then I think you're at least partially wrong.
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:04 am UTC

If I am partially wrong it is because I was trying to briefly summarize a few points from a complex poll and hoped in good faith that others would read the actual poll. The way they conducted the poll you can't really draw broad one sentence conclusions, because they tried to understand a complex question with an appropriately complex framework.

User avatar
Aaeriele
Posts: 2127
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 3:30 am UTC
Location: San Francisco, CA

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Aaeriele » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:05 am UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:If I am partially wrong it is because I was trying to briefly summarize a few points from a complex poll and hoped in good faith that others would read the actual poll. The way they conducted the poll you can't really draw broad one sentence conclusions, because they tried to understand a complex question with an appropriately complex framework.


Sure (and I did read through the document). Among other things, there are difficulties because each reported percentage has overlap with others.
Vaniver wrote:Harvard is a hedge fund that runs the most prestigious dating agency in the world, and incidentally employs famous scientists to do research.

afuzzyduck wrote:ITS MEANT TO BE FLUTTERSHY BUT I JUST SEE AAERIELE! CURSE YOU FORA!

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby omgryebread » Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:56 am UTC

Greyarcher wrote:They're stated as having unequal ability to veto bearing their burden in the case where abortions aren't restricted to when there are serious health risks. If we grant that each should have veto over their respective burdens as a matter of equality--instead of only granting her the veto--then she is not being "forced" to have an abortion: she is simply exercising her veto due to financial considerations, which is a freedom/power she always had. Except now we've granted both parties that veto/freedom/power.
Except that's a false parity, as I've already laid out below.

To not provide support to the child, woman has to abort or give the baby up for adoption. The man can simply say "nah I'm cool."

So, after sex, under your proposal, the woman is left entirely with the burden. You can read my last post for a detailed explanation, but you're taking an unequal situation (which slightly favors women) and replacing it with a more unequal situation (which favors men) that also screws children. Seems pretty bad to me.

setzer777 wrote:In situations where the identity of both parents is known, they can jointly agree to both give up financial (and all other) responsibility for the child by turning it over to the state, but either parent by retaining their responsibility, also forces the retention of the other parent's. Why is it that the state can take on the responsibility of both parents if they agree to give up the child, but cannot take on the financial (which is all that is legally mandated) responsibility of one of those parents? Is it just a practical numbers issue? That it would happen way more often (and therefore be much more of a burden on the state) if it only took one parent divesting themselves of responsibility, instead of both agreeing to do so? This actually seems totally valid to me - just curious as to whether that is actually the justification.
To tell the truth, I'm not so comfortable with putting up a child for adoption for the sake of not wanting a child. I doubt it happens much, though. I'd be tempted to say that parents putting their child up for adoption should be held responsible for some money to raise the kid, according to their means. But that may lead to unwanted kids being treated even worse than if they had gone into the foster system. So bleh.


I think we're trying to find a perfect solution where none exists, sadly.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:46 am UTC

Greyarcher wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:And I don't think that it's ridiculous that while it's impossible for the biological burden to be given up without the financial one also, that not to be a necessary part.

Anything else either is either unfair on the part of the male, or reduces women to baby-bearing cattle.
:| I'm not entirely sure how you arrive at the second statement, because you've vague in the first statement on what isn't a "necessary part" (of what?). The first statement, well, it's necessarily a package veto and--as Iulus has pointed out--financial considerations are obviously a concern and something in mind with women when making the veto. It's true that abortions could be regulated such that they are only permitted in the case of, say, unusually serious health risks or something. If so, then I don't object to denying male's any veto for financial reasons, because the woman also isn't allowed any similar veto; hence, equality is maintained. That's not my preferred policy when it comes to abortions, but it's true that resolves any equality problems..
Sorry, I meant to express that while a woman can use the biological 'veto' for financial reasons, that is necessary to protect her rights to her body, and that without that, she's essentially being forced to go through pregnancy.

I'm a lot more comfortable violating financial autonomy than bodily autonomy for a number of reasons, but if anyone seriously puts financial autonomy at the same level as bodily autonomy I could try to put these down in a post perhaps.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Greyarcher » Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:53 am UTC

omgryebread wrote:
Greyarcher wrote:They're stated as having unequal ability to veto bearing their burden in the case where abortions aren't restricted to when there are serious health risks. If we grant that each should have veto over their respective burdens as a matter of equality--instead of only granting her the veto--then she is not being "forced" to have an abortion: she is simply exercising her veto due to financial considerations, which is a freedom/power she always had. Except now we've granted both parties that veto/freedom/power.
Except that's a false parity, as I've already laid out below.

To not provide support to the child, woman has to abort or give the baby up for adoption. The man can simply say "nah I'm cool."

So, after sex, under your proposal, the woman is left entirely with the burden. You can read my last post for a detailed explanation, but you're taking an unequal situation (which slightly favors women) and replacing it with a more unequal situation (which favors men) that also screws children. Seems pretty bad to me.
Except she isn't "left entirely with the burden". They are both left with choices about their burdens. As I mentioned earlier, if she decides to have an abortion, any cost should probably be split as that too is a matter of equality. If she decides to have an abortion for whatever reason, the choice is of course out of the male's hands. If the male is unwilling to financially support a child, and the woman is unwilling to have the child--whether as a result of the male's decision or not--then the aforementioned abortion policy come into play. 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.

I did look at your previous post, but I have so many problems with the A-G listing you have set up--in both method and content--that it would be ridiculous to try and lay it out and explain it all. I'll mention briefly though that any asinine social stigma related to abortion is a problem with the culture, and a separate problem in its own right. It isn't particularly relevant to the issues of equality in veto power/choice that I'm discussing, which are more focused on structure and principle--but I'm not entirely unsympathetic to having that factor weigh in practically, depending on the circumstances (e.g. how jackassed the local culture is about abortion).

If you want focus on one of the other points mentioned in your previous post though, feel free to raise it in argument and I will do my best to discuss it properly.


Heck, I made a little chart for the heck of it--it parallels the first paragraph to a degree, and presumes that they have the veto powers I've been mentioning:
Spoiler:
M = male
F = female
U = unwilling to bear the burdens of parenthood
W = willing to bear the burdens of parenthood

M, U; F, U: Male and female are unwilling to support the child. Child is aborted, any associated abortion cost is split; no problem.
M, W; F, U: Female is unwilling to support the child and has an abortion. Males cannot reject the female's veto, and this is acceptable because the alternative doesn't pay more respect to equality or freedom.
M, U; F, W: Male is unwilling to support the child. Female has the child anyways.
M, W; F, W: They have the child; no problem.

Now for the slightly more complex notation where they alter their decision based on the other party.

(U > W) indicates that unwillingness wins out after taking the other party into account. (W > U) indicates the opposite.

[M, (U > W); F, U: The male is willing to support the child, but the female is unwilling to have it. This variation is practically irrelevant, because of reasoning explained in the "M, W; F, U" variation described above. It's here for completeness.]
M, U; F, (U > W): Female would bear the child if the male was supportive, but decides not to based on the lack of support from the male. Female has an abortion.
M (W > U); F, W: Male would not bear the burdens of parenthood if the female would have an abortion, but she refuses and so he supports the child. No abortion.
M, W; F (W > U): Male is willing to support the child. Female would rather not bear the child, but decides to bear it anyways.

I don't have a problem with any of these setups; no gross inequality exists merely in the formal structure. And I think the structure is impartial in how it merely lays out willing/unwilling and the resultant actions, so it shouldn't insert any bias that is in need of argument. Now, whether there are important extra points that should be raised and taken into consideration is a different story and we can also discuss it. (e.g. the social stigma issue, which I covered briefly earlier)

Also: I skipped the adoption variants for simplicity.
Holy heck, how much time did I just spend on that little setup? That's all for now.


EDIT: Actually, I think I can cover this quickly.
bigglesworth wrote:Sorry, I meant to express that while a woman can use the biological 'veto' for financial reasons, that is necessary to protect her rights to her body, and that without that, she's essentially being forced to go through pregnancy.

I'm a lot more comfortable violating financial autonomy than bodily autonomy for a number of reasons, but if anyone seriously puts financial autonomy at the same level as bodily autonomy I could try to put these down in a post perhaps.
I'm not sure what you mean. There's a veto for biological reasons, and a veto for financial reasons. When a woman exercises either of these, the resultant abortion is the same. But they're different vetos. I'm simply acknowledging that they are, in fact, separate vetos; and that if we acknowledge that a woman should be able to veto her burden for financial reasons, then the man should be able to veto his burden for financial reasons.

The relevant principle is about providing a rough equality of control/choice/freedom through the form of equal vetos after the point of conception over their respective financial burdens.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:32 pm UTC

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.

Greyarcher wrote:There's a veto for biological reasons, and a veto for financial reasons. When a woman exercises either of these, the resultant abortion is the same. But they're different vetos. I'm simply acknowledging that they are, in fact, separate vetos; and that if we acknowledge that a woman should be able to veto her burden for financial reasons, then the man should be able to veto his burden for financial reasons.

They aren't different vetos. They may very well be different rationales used to make a decision on what to do with her body. But it's still her body -- and, as you mention, the same abortion. Just like a guy can have a whole bevy of reasons behind making decisions about his body.

Do you have a suggestion for how to address your complaint? Or an opinion on the two that have been suggested? Because otherwise, we're back in the same loop we've been in for 4 pages where someone's asserting that because abortion or pregnancy are both so just gosh darned easy that guys should get a legislated, after-the-fact, equivalent.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Outchanter » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:44 pm UTC

The obvious solution is a technological one: suppose there existed artificial wombs. Abortions could be made illegal and replaced with transplants to said artificial wombs, allowing women to free themselves of having to carry the child, while making it impossible for them to escape financial responsibility after conception (outside of adoption, for which they'd need the father's permission).

Then everyone would be perfectly equal, right? :shock:

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:49 pm UTC

You're going to be told that has been proposed countless times by other people and you should feel bad for not knowing that.

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.


Disputed. Although I admit reasserting our positions without any justification will indeed bring us in a loop.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Outchanter » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:56 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:You're going to be told that has been proposed countless times by other people and you should feel bad for not knowing that.

Nice as it would be to know that everyone thinks in as twisted a way as I do, I couldn't find my hypothetical anywhere else in this thread.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:59 pm UTC

Iulus, I'm pretty sure that was in the Abortion thread.


And here, again, we need to avoid Thread Thunderdome.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:00 pm UTC

Ah, yeah, it was.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Outchanter » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:25 pm UTC

I mention the hypothetical for its ramifications on financial responsibility, not its effect on abortion.

It boils down to: would women be happy to assume financial responsibility from the moment of (possibly accidental) conception, provided that didn't require them to physically carry the baby?

(There may be no correct answer to this question. I just think its different enough from the rest of the thread to be interesting.)

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:33 pm UTC

Do we have any strong reason to believe men and women make different decisions than each other when there isn't a strong cultural gender role to encourage/prohibit them from doing so? I mean on average.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:39 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:It boils down to: would women be happy to assume financial responsibility from the moment of (possibly accidental) conception, provided that didn't require them to physically carry the baby?

That's not only a tremendously absurd hypothetical for practical reasons, but entirely leading: "If everyone really was magically the same would you still favor a system that I'm arguing is unequal? Well, would you?"

It skirts some interesting questions -- If women were in the same position as men, would they think differently than they do now? Would that change in opinion now mean everyone agrees? -- but ignores the informed positions previously argued here (with pages and pages of reasoning) by people of both genders and on all sides of the issue. Specifically, all of the arguments that aren't "I'm right because I'm a woman". And comes dangerously close to just asking "Why wouldn't all of Gender A think like I am assuming Gender B thinks like?"

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Izawwlgood » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:44 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:To tell the truth, I'm not so comfortable with putting up a child for adoption for the sake of not wanting a child. I doubt it happens much, though. I'd be tempted to say that parents putting their child up for adoption should be held responsible for some money to raise the kid, according to their means. But that may lead to unwanted kids being treated even worse than if they had gone into the foster system. So bleh.

Not to mention unwanted kids simply being unraisable by parents who financially simply can't make it.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Outchanter » Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:54 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:Do we have any strong reason to believe men and women make different decisions than each other when there isn't a strong cultural gender role to encourage/prohibit them from doing so? I mean on average.

Give me a spare world without culture and I'll run that experiment for you.

Otherwise we can always rely on cold, hard speculation (mine): "probably not".

Azrael wrote:And comes dangerously close to just asking "Why wouldn't all of Gender A think like I am assuming Gender B thinks like?"

Ah, but I didn't assume anything. I'm asking.

And the fact that you consider the question dangerous just makes me more curious about your answer.

Here's another hypothetical to chew on: the "rape exception". If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:01 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:
Azrael wrote:And comes dangerously close to just asking "Why wouldn't all of Gender A think like I am assuming Gender B thinks like?"

Ah, but I didn't assume anything. I'm asking.

And the fact that you consider the question dangerous just makes me more curious about your answer.

Let me be more directly: 'dangerously stupid'

It's dangerously stupid to ask that question.

Genders are not monoliths.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby omgryebread » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:09 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:Except she isn't "left entirely with the burden". They are both left with choices about their burdens. As I mentioned earlier, if she decides to have an abortion, any cost should probably be split as that too is a matter of equality. If she decides to have an abortion for whatever reason, the choice is of course out of the male's hands. If the male is unwilling to financially support a child, and the woman is unwilling to have the child--whether as a result of the male's decision or not--then the aforementioned abortion policy come into play. 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.

I did look at your previous post, but I have so many problems with the A-G listing you have set up--in both method and content--that it would be ridiculous to try and lay it out and explain it all. I'll mention briefly though that any asinine social stigma related to abortion is a problem with the culture, and a separate problem in its own right. It isn't particularly relevant to the issues of equality in veto power/choice that I'm discussing, which are more focused on structure and principle--but I'm not entirely unsympathetic to having that factor weigh in practically, depending on the circumstances (e.g. how jackassed the local culture is about abortion).
Yes, in a perfect world, no one would be burdened by a child they don't want in any way. Here in the real world, there is no equal situation. And you want to make it more unequal in pursuit of a maybe-obtainable equality in the distant future.

Outchanter wrote:The obvious solution is a technological one: suppose there existed artificial wombs. Abortions could be made illegal and replaced with transplants to said artificial wombs, allowing women to free themselves of having to carry the child, while making it impossible for them to escape financial responsibility after conception (outside of adoption, for which they'd need the father's permission).

Then everyone would be perfectly equal, right? :shock:
Maybe I'm unique in this regard, but I'm not totally convinced that cutting open my womb and taking out a fetus, leaving me with a nice big scar is an acceptable alternative to abortion.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

Randomizer
Posts: 284
Joined: Fri Feb 25, 2011 8:23 am UTC
Location: My walls are full of hungry wolves.
Contact:

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Randomizer » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:12 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

Yes, because then the woman would be a rapist, and I'd think convicted rapists aren't allowed to raise children. Thus the man would probably end up with the baby and have to raise it/spend money on it. He might be able to get child support from the woman, though. Or he could place it up for adoption.
Belial wrote:I'm all outraged out. Call me when the violent rebellion starts.

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Outchanter » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:14 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Outchanter wrote:
Azrael wrote:And comes dangerously close to just asking "Why wouldn't all of Gender A think like I am assuming Gender B thinks like?"

Ah, but I didn't assume anything. I'm asking.

And the fact that you consider the question dangerous just makes me more curious about your answer.

Let me be more directly: 'dangerously stupid'

It's dangerously stupid to ask that question.

Genders are not monoliths.


That's verging on ad-hominem, but let me rephrase the question to remove the part you seem to be taking issue with:

Would you be happy for women to assume financial responsibility from the moment of (possibly accidental) conception, provided that didn't require them to physically carry the baby?

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:16 pm UTC

Randomizer wrote:
Outchanter wrote:If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

Yes, because then the woman would be a rapist, and I'd think convicted rapists aren't allowed to raise children. Thus the man would probably end up with the baby and have to raise it/spend money on it. He might be able to get child support from the woman, though. Or he could place it up for adoption.


Er, maybe I'm just foolishly holding onto a last thread of hope, but I seriously doubt that even our legal system would force somebody to raise a product of their own rape.

Edit: Would women be happy to take financial responsibility in that hypothetical? Would men be? Some would, some wouldn't. It's almost functionally identical to the current post-birth situation where both parents can give a kid up for adoption, but either can take sole custody and obligate the other one to financial support.
Last edited by setzer777 on Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

Outchanter
Posts: 669
Joined: Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:40 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Outchanter » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:20 pm UTC

setzer777 wrote:
Randomizer wrote:
Outchanter wrote:If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

Yes, because then the woman would be a rapist, and I'd think convicted rapists aren't allowed to raise children. Thus the man would probably end up with the baby and have to raise it/spend money on it. He might be able to get child support from the woman, though. Or he could place it up for adoption.


Er, maybe I'm just foolishly holding onto a last thread of hope, but I seriously doubt that even our legal system would force somebody to raise a product of their own rape.


Hey, the child has a right to support, and it's not the kid's fault that daddy was raped.

Greyarcher
Posts: 708
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 3:03 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Greyarcher » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:21 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
Greyarcher wrote:There's a veto for biological reasons, and a veto for financial reasons. When a woman exercises either of these, the resultant abortion is the same. But they're different vetos. I'm simply acknowledging that they are, in fact, separate vetos; and that if we acknowledge that a woman should be able to veto her burden for financial reasons, then the man should be able to veto his burden for financial reasons.

They aren't different vetos. They may very well be different rationales used to make a decision on what to do with her body. But it's still her body -- and, as you mention, the same abortion. Just like a guy can have a whole bevy of reasons behind making decisions about his body.

Do you have a suggestion for how to address your complaint? Or an opinion on the two that have been suggested? Because otherwise, we're back in the same loop we've been in for 4 pages where someone's asserting that because abortion or pregnancy are both so just gosh darned easy that guys should get a legislated, after-the-fact, equivalent.
Regarding vetos: that's a minor quibble with no great importance, and is merely a matter of the way it's framed. For instance: rejecting the health burden, or rejecting the financial burden, with the method of preventing the burden being the same in either case. And I've already stated the importance of bodily autonomy within my earlier posts (multiple times, I believe); its importance and existence doesn't interfere with our ability to discuss and compare the relative freedoms and powers to reject burdens that the parties involved possess.

Naturally, regarding redressing this complaint, it would depend on the circumstances? As I mentioned to one of the other posters, I am not unsympathetic to the balance of burdens and rejection powers being dependent on a wide variety of factors; I am partial to some variant of Yurell's proposal--as I've mentioned several times before--but what I've been focusing on is principled equality rather than hashing out a practical setup. Partly because practical situations differ widely between societies and even within societies, and therefore the balance of burdens and freedoms needs to be adjusted accordingly for practical equality, and partly because it's not clear to me that anyone has agreed there is even an equality problem in principle that could be addressed in an ideally organized society (and which doesn't involve some magical new technology or body transformations).

Of course, some people might be focusing on the practical situation in their locale or society, and therefore we might be talking at cross-purposes because they have a rightful aversion to granting a freedom to males when females are already disadvantaged in the general area of reproduction and burdens. If that's the case for any of the posters I've been discussing with then, sorry folks, we've been talking at cross purposes? They are both separate, interesting, and important issues though; I have no problem with discussing either, as long as we're clear which is being discussed.

Edit: Whooaa, ninja swarm. Sorry folks, if my post here doesn't take into account yours; there were something like 6-7 posts that appeared while I was typing this up.
In serious discussion, I usually strive to post with clarity, thoroughness, and precision so that others will not misunderstand; I strive for dispassion and an open mind, the better to avoid error.

User avatar
bigglesworth
I feel like Biggles should have a title
Posts: 7461
Joined: Sat Apr 07, 2007 9:29 pm UTC
Location: Airstrip One

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby bigglesworth » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:28 pm UTC

Greyarcher wrote:I'm not sure what you mean. There's a veto for biological reasons, and a veto for financial reasons. When a woman exercises either of these, the resultant abortion is the same. But they're different vetos. I'm simply acknowledging that they are, in fact, separate vetos; and that if we acknowledge that a woman should be able to veto her burden for financial reasons, then the man should be able to veto his burden for financial reasons.

The relevant principle is about providing a rough equality of control/choice/freedom through the form of equal vetos after the point of conception over their respective financial burdens.
And I am simply arguing that the reason something is done doesn't affect that right. Why should it? You're not aknowledging the fact that they're seperate vetos, you're just stating it without any justification.
Generation Y. I don't remember the First Gulf War, but do remember floppy disks.

User avatar
Iulus Cofield
WINNING
Posts: 2917
Joined: Wed Apr 07, 2010 9:31 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Iulus Cofield » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:30 pm UTC

Outchanter wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
Randomizer wrote:
Outchanter wrote:If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

Yes, because then the woman would be a rapist, and I'd think convicted rapists aren't allowed to raise children. Thus the man would probably end up with the baby and have to raise it/spend money on it. He might be able to get child support from the woman, though. Or he could place it up for adoption.


Er, maybe I'm just foolishly holding onto a last thread of hope, but I seriously doubt that even our legal system would force somebody to raise a product of their own rape.


Hey, the child has a right to support, and it's not the kid's fault that daddy was raped.


Incarcerated felons lose various rights, including the right to not be a slave. There is no legal reason why a convicted rapist can not lose the right to bodily autonomy and be compelled to have an abortion. The real problem is the rapist being arrested, tried, and convicted before the child is born.

User avatar
setzer777
Good questions sometimes get stupid answers
Posts: 2762
Joined: Sun Nov 23, 2008 9:24 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby setzer777 » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:36 pm UTC

Iulus Cofield wrote:
Outchanter wrote:
setzer777 wrote:
Randomizer wrote:
Outchanter wrote:If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

Yes, because then the woman would be a rapist, and I'd think convicted rapists aren't allowed to raise children. Thus the man would probably end up with the baby and have to raise it/spend money on it. He might be able to get child support from the woman, though. Or he could place it up for adoption.


Er, maybe I'm just foolishly holding onto a last thread of hope, but I seriously doubt that even our legal system would force somebody to raise a product of their own rape.


Hey, the child has a right to support, and it's not the kid's fault that daddy was raped.


Incarcerated felons lose various rights, including the right to not be a slave. There is no legal reason why a convicted rapist can not lose the right to bodily autonomy and be compelled to have an abortion. The real problem is the rapist being arrested, tried, and convicted before the child is born.


Yeah...pretty sure in the US anyway we are not going to be forcing prisoner's to have abortions any time remotely soon (just not going to happen given political reality). But really, in this case I feel very okay saying that that the taxpayer can pick up the tab, rather than force the victim to raise (or in any way interact) with a child that might be a constant reminder of their trauma.

Edit: Wait, what does this have to do with the subject of the thread again? I seriously hope nobody is drawing comparisons between rape victims and unwitting parents who had consensual sex.
Meaux_Pas wrote:We're here to go above and beyond.

Too infinity
of being an arsehole

greengiant
Posts: 272
Joined: Thu Jul 09, 2009 9:26 am UTC

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby greengiant » Mon Mar 21, 2011 2:51 pm UTC

Randomizer wrote:
Outchanter wrote:If a woman rapes a man and falls pregnant, is the man still financially responsible for the child?

Yes, because then the woman would be a rapist, and I'd think convicted rapists aren't allowed to raise children. Thus the man would probably end up with the baby and have to raise it/spend money on it. He might be able to get child support from the woman, though. Or he could place it up for adoption.


I don't think things are quite as simple as you make out. Rape is a notoriously hard thing to prove and there is often an extra level of difficulty gaining a conviction for female-on-male rape. I think that in reality, a victim of female-on-male rape would have very little recourse (not that I'm suggesting victims of male-on-female rape are treated well by the justice system).

Here's an interesting case I read about recently, where a father is being ordered to pay child support for a baby that was conceived when he was 15 and the mother was 19. It's worth pointing out that the woman has not yet been convicted of statutory rape, but it's hard to see how she could deny it while taking child support from the father.

It's not a brilliant example because consensual sex between a 15 year old and a 19 year old is much more of a moral grey area than non-statutory rape. But I think it does show certain differences in how we treat mothers/fathers. If it had been a 19 year old man and a 15 year old girl, I suspect the courts (and society as a whole) would have viewed this thing differently.

(Just to be clear, I'm not in favour of a fatherhood-veto, but I do believe there is some inequity in custody/child support decisions)


Wow: I should not have gone for lunch in the middle of writing this, there are 6 new replies.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby jules.LT » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:00 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:Do you have a suggestion for how to address your complaint? Or an opinion on the two that have been suggested? Because otherwise, we're back in the same loop we've been in for 4 pages where someone's asserting that because abortion or pregnancy are both so just gosh darned easy that guys should get a legislated, after-the-fact, equivalent.

emphasis mine

You keep saying this, but nobody seriously considered it for after-the-fact. I can only remember one instance of it in the thread, which was swiftly and rightfully shot down. Not exactly a straw man, but pretty close.

And "bodily autonomy" is indeed very important, but as for myself I'd rather have a surgical procedure from which it would take me several month to recover rather than having my disposable income cut in half for 18 years. And abortion is usually not as bad as that.
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.
But I guess that America still has a few strides to make towards making abortion readily available and relatively stigma-free before they can think of such advances (even though the availability of adoption should make it worth considering)

setzer777 wrote:Edit: Wait, what does this have to do with the subject of the thread again? I seriously hope nobody is drawing comparisons between rape victims and unwitting parents who had consensual sex.

I think that the point is to see how far the "biological fathers should pay no matter what" people would go.
Last edited by jules.LT on Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:18 pm UTC, edited 2 times in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:10 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:...after-the-fact, equivalent...
You keep saying this, but nobody seriously considered it for after-the-fact. I can only remember one instance of it in the thread, which was swiftly and rightfully shot down. Not exactly a straw man, but pretty close.
And yet there have been pages of adoption-related discussions. Multiple people have been talking about exactly that.

And "bodily autonomy" is indeed very important, but as for myself I'd rather ...
No. Stop. What you would rather does not matter. Not your body. I'm pretty sure it's not your gender, meaning that your opinion about what you'd think regarding that not-actually-yours-body is even less informed. Not your religion. Not your morals. Not your situation. Just. Stop.

That entire thought, including the air quotes, undoubtedly proves that you don't understand why bodily autonomy is important.

Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy, but also for financial reasons.
Nope. That isn't true either. I challenged you to find legal precedent where financial reasons are cited. Abortion was legalized in the modern era entirely because of the right to privacy in medical decisions.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby jules.LT » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:14 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:...after-the-fact, equivalent...

You keep saying this, but nobody seriously considered it for after-the-fact. I can only remember one instance of it in the thread, which was swiftly and rightfully shot down. Not exactly a straw man, but pretty close.
And yet there have been pages of adoption-related discussions.

I know, cause I was one of the main participants. And the point was to show that women had yet another moment where they had a veto. In order to further show that men should have an exit too. But the proposed solution was *still* supposed to happen while the woman could still abort, so she'd get more options open.

Azrael wrote:No. Stop. What you would rather does not matter. Not your body. I'm pretty sure it's not your gender, meaning that your opinion about what you'd think regarding that not-actually-yours-body is even less informed. Not your religion. Not your morals. Not your situation. Just. Stop.

I wish people stopped taking people who refuse abortion on moral grounds more seriously than those who refuse blood transfusions on moral grounds.

Azrael wrote:
Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy, but also for financial reasons.
Nope. That isn't true either. I challenged you to find legal precedent where financial reasons are cited. Abortion was legalized in the modern era entirely because of the right to privacy in medical decisions.

What do we care about the legal basis? A poll has been given showing (as expected) that the leading cause of abortion is financial. There are probably many others around, but I don't have that much time to spend just because I think that SOMEONE IS WRONG ON THE INTERNET.
Last edited by jules.LT on Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:22 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:20 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:
Women are entitled to abortion not only because of bodily autonomy, but also for financial reasons.
Nope. That isn't true either. I challenged you to find legal precedent where financial reasons are cited. Abortion was legalized in the modern era entirely because of the right to privacy in medical decisions.

What do we care about the legal basis? A poll has been given showing (as expected) that the leading cause of abortion is financial.

... what do you care about the legal basis? Did you really say that? Besides the obvious reasons, in this specific case we care about legal basis because you said "women are entitled". Much as I said much earlier in the thread: If you don't want to talk about rights legality don't frame something as a rights legal problem.

Women have abortions for financial reasons. They are entitled to have abortions because the law recognizes their legal right to privacy in medical decisions (which is what is meant by bodily autonomy).

jules.lt wrote:
Azrael wrote:No. Stop. What you would rather does not matter. Not your body. I'm pretty sure it's not your gender, meaning that your opinion about what you'd think regarding that not-actually-yours-body is even less informed. Not your religion. Not your morals. Not your situation. Just. Stop.

I wish people stopped taking people who refuse abortion on moral grounds more seriously than those who refuse blood transfusions on moral grounds.

That's nice. But all it does is further demonstrate that you do not understand or value bodily autonomy (or even freedom of religion) whatsoever.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby jules.LT » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

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.
Last edited by jules.LT on Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:29 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:26 pm UTC

Is this not a thread about legal policy?
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

User avatar
Azrael
CATS. CATS ARE NICE.
Posts: 6491
Joined: Thu Apr 26, 2007 1:16 am UTC
Location: Boston

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby Azrael » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:28 pm UTC

jules.lt wrote:I'll rephrase that as: *What do you care about the ORIGINAL legal basis.*

Because it removes the logical underpinning of your latest argument in favor of your position.

User avatar
jules.LT
Posts: 1539
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2009 8:20 pm UTC
Location: Paris, France, Europe

Re: Relationships and Unplanned Parenthood

Postby jules.LT » Mon Mar 21, 2011 4:30 pm UTC

Azrael wrote:
jules.lt wrote:I'll rephrase that as: *What do you care about the ORIGINAL legal basis.*

Because it removes the logical underpinning of your latest argument in favor of your position.

Not the spirit of it, no. Are you going to lawyer your way out of it?
Bertrand Russell wrote:Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.
Richard Feynman & many others wrote:Keep an open mind – but not so open that your brain falls out


Return to “Serious Business”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 12 guests