A Continuation of Comments
Mar 23
There’s an ongoing debate over at SayUncle concerning “male reproductive rights,” and what relative rights men and women ought to have in disputed pregnancies. Or at least, it was ongoing, until Uncle’s oppressive no-comments-after-7-days rule kicked in.
So I’m continuing the comments here. Go read at Uncle’s to catch up, and then pick up here.
#1 by SayUncle at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
Blame the spammers.
#2 by tgirsch at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
[tgirsch] Right now, you complain, a woman can choose to abort a child without the father’s approval
[SM] This is intellectively dishonest, tgirsch. At no point have I said that male reproductive rights infringe on a woman’s domain over her body.
Sloppiness on my part. You complained that a woman can abort without notifying the father. I assumed, incorrectly, apperantly, that you would take this option away from her. This would, at least in some cases, rule out abortion as a viable option.
I don’t think you are using “post-hoc” correctly.
Yes, I am. “Post hoc” is latin meaning simply “after the fact.” (Actually, literally, “After this.”) The definition you’re finding is actually a shorthand abbreviation for “post hoc, ergo propter hoc,” which is the fallacy to which you’re referring: After this, therfore because of this.
you are leaving out a third choice.
Enlighten me. What third choice am I missing? (Remember, I’m talking about the case where the man decides he doesn’t want the responsibility.)
I’ll “salvage” [my libertarian street cred] somewhat by saying this should be the default when one of the adults is acting like a child.
Sorry, that won’t do it. Libertarianism doesn’t enforce personal responsibility. That’s the job of the “nanny state.” Libertarianism relies on people to be personally responsiblity, but apart from a lawsuit, offers no government-involved remedy for failure to do so. The “invisible hand of the market” will weed out the irresponsible ones.
As an online discussion about human rights grows longer, the probability of a “Ayn Rand” being brought up approaches 1.
Actually, it’s been remarkably infrequent in my experience. Probably because even most Libertarians have figured out that Rand’s philosophies plum don’t work in practice.
You could, um, state what “cards” a man holds, once a woman is pregnant.
For one thing, he can get a lawyer. And he can almost certainly afford a better one than his unwed pregnant female counterpart. But I wasn’t disputing the fact that the woman holds most of the “cards”; I was disputing the idea that you could rectify this without severely infringing upon the woman’s basic rights.
We’ll probably be able to discuss this more intelligently once you reveal the secret “third choice” mentioned above.
But getting back around to the topic at hand — the unintended pregnancy — before we can determine what’s fair, and who should bear what responsibility, we need to determine who’s responsible for the unintended pregnancy. Current law holds the man as 50% responsible. I don’t see what’s wrong with that. I suppose you could imagine some extreme case where a woman tricks a man into believe she’s on birth control when she’s not, and intentionally gets pregnant, but I don’t think such cases are common enough to warrant changing the entire system.
#3 by tgirsch at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
[SM] A woman has reproductive rights after conception. a man ought to also, as long as those rights don’t interfere with a woman’s right over her own body .
I would add and as long as those “rights” don’t absolve him of responsibility.
#4 by Standard Mischief at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
Sorry for not jumping right on top of this, I’ve been involved with this thread:
http://www./blog/archives/2006/03/21/half-assed-post-on-that-roe-for-men-ridiculousness/
She starts out saying that it’s already been covered in detail by three other bloggers, then it goes to over 200 comments after 24 hours or so before comments were cut off.
It was particularly fun when I pointed out the unequal protection under the law in those “anti-dead dumpster baby” laws we were talking about.
You can read the fun, but apparently zuzu thinks “equal protection under the law” applies only when it helps women.
Maybe I didn’t get the memo, but apparently a large amount of people who call themselves Feminists aren’t seeking equity, they seem to want any advantage at all that they can grab, and are ready to switch camps at a moments notice (and you may tell that I got a bit pissed over this in the end). Example:
libertarian Feminists: “Keep your laws off my body”, “My body, My choice” etc.
Commie Feminists: Free state funded abortion on demand.
Fascist (in the government control over private property sense) Feminists: Force Wal-mart to carry plan B.
Inner-bitch Feminists: “Off-topic and mean, but I know someone who went to school with that woman, and she is batshit crazy. And wears a fur hat to class. The MRAs can keep her. Just saying.”
And to top it all off, NOW also apparently made a comment on the “Roe v. Wade for Men” case. Believe it or not, they sided with the rights of the child (and not the “unborn child” or “fetus” either). What’s up with that?
I don’t know if this ends up as blog post or what. But I’m trying to get the actual legal filed papers for this for any entry. Please excuse if I don’t get back here right away.
#5 by tgirsch at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
I’m not sure if you were aiming for “paranoid misogynist,” but you hit a bulls-eye!
#6 by Standard Mischief at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
Remind me again, why am I here? Because you are such a polite and charming guy, even with people you disagree with?
#7 by tgirsch at March 23rd, 2006
| Quote
Hey, I’m not the one who introduced terms like “Inner-bitch feminists” to the debate. Also, it doesn’t help that you started out here with an only-marginally-on-topic rant that calls into question the very integrity of “a large amount of the people who call themselves feminists.”
So it’s not as if you came in here as Mr. Level-Headed Picture of Rationality. Thou reapest what thou sowest.
#8 by Redneck in CA at May 15th, 2006
| Quote
Let me start by saying that I consider myself a conservative, but I do not follow anyone blindly. I disagree with many things our current administration does. I was mad at the Dixie Chicks when they slammed our President and I boycotted their music which is my choice. I was however willing to give them a second chance and put that past us. Now they have slammed their entire base with there latest comments about Rednecks! Maybe it is a diffence in how people interpret the term Redneck but to many who listen to Country music it represents our Country heritage and they just slammed 90% of their listeners. So I have one thing to say “Fairwell Dixie Chicks” that was the final blow!!
#9 by Ted at May 21st, 2006
| Quote
IT IS SAD THAT ALL THE CHICKS HAVE LEFT IS THE BUSH THING. THE PUBLICITY THIS WILL GET THEM IS NOT THE KINDS THAT SELL RECORDS. IN THIS DAY AND TIME WHEN ALL MUSIC CAN BE DOWNLOADED THEY DO NOT NEED TO PUSH ANY MORE BUTTONS. WAITING THREE YEARS TO SAY I TOLD YOU SO IS COWARDLY. THESE WOMEN NEED TO GO BACK TO WOKING AT THE MALL WHERE ALL OF THE OTHER TEENAGERS HANG OUT. I USED TO LIKE THE MUSIC, I WOULD HAVE FORGOTTEN WHAT THEY SAID BUT TO GRAB ON TO IGNORANCE FOR PUBLICITY IS STUPID. GOOD LUCK THEY WILL NOT GET MY MONEY.
#10 by anatasia at July 20th, 2006
| Quote
Pregnancy is like a boon for a married women. Pregnancy means a lot of joy for the women who is pregnant as she is about to deliver her offsprings. The excitement is quite different. The women began to take more care of them as their baby’s health who is inside the womd depends upon them. one can find helpful tips regarding pregnancy here.