[...] Crossposted to Lean Left, the politics blog I contribute to.   [...]

Perhaps the fact that 50 MILLION + American babies have been murdered since 1974 is finally starting to weigh on the conscience of decent people. We will win this battle for the right to life of the unborn, its not a matter of if but when. Europeans have contracepted and aborted their children to the point that on average each family has only 1.2 children, not enough for their society to survive. It is too late for them, they will eventually be overrun. Americans, thanks to Catholic Hispanics, are just barely producing enough children for American society to continue, for now anyway…

[...] another tack entirely is KTK at Lean Left, who doesn’t seem to think popular opinion has any place in a democracy: It doesn’t matter who call themselves what – bodily autonomy is a fundamental part of women’s [...]

I totally agree. When you deny women her right to abortion you are denying her the right to liberty, denying the woman her right to life and denying the woman her right to the pursuit of her happiness.

Anti-choice laws are NEVER justifiable, no matter if 99% of the people support such laws. Misogyny is always wrong, even if people like Bob think it is morally correct.

Congratulations, bob! You’ve finally actually found the right thread for you comments!

You’re still wrong.

So, I want to point out a little piece of political theatre with the consequence of a real person dying, but it might be considered a thread-jack. So I’m going to claim relevence through the tangent of personhood and informed consent:

There’s a kid (13 years old) with curable cancer (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_he_me/us_med_forced_chemo), but who will probably die from it because his parents “support his decision” to try curing it with snake oil.

The kid’s been put in temporary custody of a foster guardian who actually cares whether he dies, unlike his parents. His lawyer has a funny response (“funny” like you wanna go shoot yourself for belonging to the same species):

“I feel it’s a blow to families,” he said. “It marginalizes the decisions that parents face every day in regard to their children’s medical care. It really affirms the role that big government is better at making our decisions for us.”

I’m confused about your example of winger hypocrisy on abortion — that Catholics have a significant number of abortions. Since when did Catholic become synonymous with winger? As I recall, most Catholics voted for Obama, and for Clinton at least in 96. Conservative protestants are much more “winger-like” group than Catholics, and I would suspect are significant more anti-abortion.

Note that most students at Notre Dame (a more conservative Catholic school than BC or Georgetown) appear to support the Obama invite.

Hey. Be fair to the Catholics. Pollsters can’t differentiate between cafeteria Catholics who have no problem with abortions getting them and fetus-picture-waving Catholic protesters taking smoke breaks to get them. They vote about half Democratic and half Republican. I was raised Catholic, and even though my mom believes life begins at conception she has always in favor of the right to choose; she figures you’re better off dead than living a life where other people decide what happens to your body.

It’s somewhat gratifying to be included in the New York Times’s blog roundup (see trackback above), but it is less so to be characterized in such an obliviously extremist way. My response in comments to Tobin Harshaw’s ever-so-sincere worries about democracy was this:

I was glad to see your link to my blog post at Lean Left; thanks for coming by. But I have to take exception to your claim that I do not “believe that public opinion has any place in a democracy”. Of course I believe it does – but whatever that place may be, public opinion does not determine whether the members of a democracy who happen not to be favored by public opinion are entitled to basic human and civil rights at all. In fact, there is one prominent democracy founded on the claim that its members have “unalienable” rights – rights not dependent upon public opinion. If that claim were taken seriously, forcing women to undergo pregnancy and childbirth against their will would be unthinkable – but perhaps you do not take that claim seriously.

Possibly it would be clarifying to read the claims you cite with such incredulity – “bodily autonomy is a fundamental part of women’s freedom and moral independence, and must be protected regardless of public opinion. Laws trampling women’s freedom are unjustified no matter how many people support them. . . . [the difficulty] of safeguarding women’s status as citizens and full moral persons [is] a measure of the misogyny of a political system that puts some citizens’ freedom at the hazard of other citizens’ whims and prejudices” – by substituting “blacks” and “racism” for “women” and “misogyny”. Do you believe the idea that blacks’ status and freedom in our society should not be dependent upon public opinion is an outrage to democratic principles? Why do you believe that regarding women?

Anti-choice laws are NEVER justifiable, no matter if 99% of the people support such laws. Misogyny is always wrong, even if people like Bob think it is morally correct.

Suppose the unborn baby is female. I want this little girl to be born so she can grow up and have all the advantages that women now have. I don’t want her mother to murder her child. How is that misogyny? Of course its not, claiming pro-life people are misogynist is absurd and no different than playing the race card. Most of the outspoken pro-life supporters are women to begin with!

I was raised Catholic, and even though my mom believes life begins at conception she has always in favor of the right to choose; she figures you’re better off dead than living a life where other people decide what happens to your body.

How is that possible? She believes its okay to murder an unborn baby just so she can control her body? This is completely incompatible with Catholic Church teachings and is heresy.

I would have more sympathy with the pro-choice crowd if men were given the same ability to choose whether or not to support a child they did not want.

i.e. if a woman gets pregnant and decides to carry it to term even though the father wants nothing to do with it and would prefer an abortion, then the father should not be held financially responsible in any way shape or form. Denying men that choice is just as much an issue of misandry as denying choice to women is misogyny.

As far as women having control over their own bodies, I find myself struggling with the issue and here is why. I DO believe they should have 100% control while at the same time I understand that for the betterment of society, there are times when it is best for the state to over-ride our personal rights. (i.e., I have the right to speed, but the state has a right to ticket me. ergo, the state right over-rides my personal right). I know that isn’t the best comparison but it is what I am giving for now.

Flame away.

BU, I’m going to side-step your main point for the moment and point out that regardless of how well an analogy to traffic law applies, you don’t even have the situation right for speeding.

First and rather importantly, states very have rights (except in rare cases of conflicts within federalism). States have powers, not rights. Secondly, people don’t have a right to speed. There’s certainly no right to a particular rate of travel. There’s not even a right to choose your own mode or means of transit. There is a “right of way”. As a basic principle, persons have a right to get from where there are to where they want to be. The means by which they do so, and more particularly the policies that are enforced to mediate different persons’ access to that right, are not a laissez-faire entitlement.

Big U:

I’m not sure why bringing up oranges is helpful in a conversation about apples.

So let’s skip the apples and oranges and go right to the point. Why is it misogyny to have restrictions on abortion, but not mysandry to force men to pay support for a child they did not want???

Hmm. Interesting.
“No doubt the wingers will be beside themselves, given the moral significance they attach to slogans and labels”

followed by:

“trampling women’s freedom”
“misogyny of a political system”
“extreme anti-freedom position”
“pro-choice/ anti-choice”
“winger backlash … gun nuts”
“anti-government morons”
“anti-sex misogynists”
“continuing negligible status of women and their moral and civil liberties”
“pro-choice misogynists”

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Anyway, I have a question. I don’t understand the “it’s my body” line of reasoning. DNA is the gold standard in identification. It is enough to exonerate someone from a decades-old crime or to send someone to death row for a current one. It is one of, if not the best way to identify a person or part of a person. Now a fetus has a unique DNA that is distinct from it’s mother’s. If DNA is accepted as concrete proof of identification in a court of law, why is it not accepted in a hospital?

So Bob is propping up his anti-abortion views on a racist argument? Classy. Effective!

And Big U, if you want to argue about the issue of child-support laws, argue about the issue of child-support laws. In a discussion of abortion and bodily autonomy laws, it’s a red herring.

(Should I even mention how completely telling it is that you would equate financial responsibility with compulsory pregnancy? Yikes.)

If one believes that life starts at conception, discussing womens reproductive rights in defending abortion does not really address the issue. Its not about rights, its biology, its physiology, unicellular organisms which replicate are considered life forms. I have not heard an adequate defense of abortion regarding “when life begins.” I would like to hear one.

Big U -

Why is it misogyny … but not mysandry

I’m tempted to say because “Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time” but some of the literalists around here would accuse me of equating pregnancy with criminality, so I won’t.

The underlying point, however, is still valid: If you’re unwilling to take your share of responsibility for a child that might result, then you’d better make damn sure any sex you have will not raise that possibility.

So-crates -

If DNA is accepted in a court, why is it not accepted in a hospital

It is – once you are dealing with a child, not a fetus.

Greg -

unicellular organisms which replicate are considered life forms

We are not unicellular organisms. The reference is pointless.

I have not heard an adequate defense of abortion regarding “when life begins.”

The issue isn’t when life begins. Life on Earth began over 3.5 billion years ago. The issue is when an independent human life begins, a life that has an existence independent of the mother. I won’t try to declare a definitive answer but I can give you several good bases for denying it begins at conception.

Historically, some have argued that “life begins” at the quickening, which usually begins at around week 18-21. However, I don’t see how anyone, regardless of their position on the broader questions, can rationally argue that an independent life begins any earlier than the age of the youngest fetus that has survived outside the womb, which is just under 22 weeks. So start there: Independent life begins no earlier than the 22nd week of pregnancy.

Meanwhile, the neural connections in the brain that mediate sensory input do not develop before the 26th week. That is, the fetus does not have anything that could reasonably be called a functioning brain before then. “Brain death” is increasingly used as the standard for determining the end of life – so it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to regard “brain life” as a basis for measuring the start of it.

Finally, consider that those very young fetuses could survive only by the intensive application of our most advanced medical technology. Left up to nature, fetuses delivered before 35 weeks generally do not survive. So it could easily be argued that any fetus not brought to term is not an independent life.

I would like to hear one

You just heard three arguments – each of them, I’d say, more than adequate – for a point at which “life begins” that is well removed from conception: One at 22 weeks, one at 26 weeks, and one at 35 weeks. And note that while the first one can change with further technological developments, the other two are matters of “biology, physiology” and will not change except through evolution.

LarryE – “If you’re unwilling to take your share of responsibility for a child that might result, then you’d better make damn sure any sex you have will not raise that possibility.”

Interesting how your argument applies to the male but you don’t apply it to the female. Oh, that’s right. A female doesn’t need to “make damn sure” before the fact because she can avoid the consequences after the fact by having an abortion.

And back to the original post, are women who hold pro-life positions misogynists? Are they self-haters? Seems to me a lot of broad strokes are being used to label people. And I find it ironic that someone (KTK) cites as good the majority opinion when he agrees with it (i.e. same-sex marriage rights in some states) but then labels as intolerant or misogynistic, etc. the majority opinion when he disagrees with it.

Larry – thanks for your response, but you didn’t address the DNA difference between the mother and the child. Perhaps I didn’t explain my question well enough. It’s my understanding that the argument for on-demand elective abortion is predicated by the belief that a woman ought to have the freedom to choose what happens to her own body. Fair enough. However our best science shows that a developing fetus is NOT part of her body. It is unique and distinct, according to our best methods of finding out such things. How can abortion be framed as personal freedom issue when science shows otherwise? Can you or anyone else explain this for me?

I also do not understand using survivability outside the womb without technological assistance as a criteria of determining independent human life. It doesn’t apply in any other situation. Crash victims, the elderly and people recovering from surgery often can’t survive without technological assistance and nobody would dream of question their humanity. Why for an unborn child?

Using the age of the youngest fetus to survive outside of the womb, or reversing the criteria for determining death to determine life seems to me to be very reasonable and scientifically valid. Any sort of legislation based on rational principles would be a step forward. The abortion debate has raged for so long and so fiercely that it’s combatants would have us choose between equally preposterous propositions. One side would have us believe that a fertilized egg should be afforded full human rights while the other wants us to believe that a baby on it’s way through the birth canal should have none. The debate has been framed by ideological extremists and that’s why it rages on. Only when it is addressed by scientists and doctors following rational principles, rather than activists, politicians and other ideological warriors, will we be able to find some sort of resolution that will be palpable to both sides.

Big U -

Interesting how your argument applies to the male but you don’t apply it to the female

I answered the question you asked. What I find interesting is that you didn’t acknowledge having gotten an adequate reply. (No, quoting my comment without reference to what it did say as opposed to going off about what it didn’t say is not an acknowledgment.)

Please don’t start with the shifting goalposts business.

So-crates -

you didn’t address the DNA difference

I didn’t have to since the question was one of identification of an individual.

a developing fetus is NOT part of her body

That’s just not true. Prior to viability, the fetus cannot be said to have any independent existence, that is, to be an individual. It’s total nourishment comes via the circulatory system and that is integrated with that of the whole body, just like any other part of the body. That, if all goes well, a fetus will become an independent human being is true; that at any point in its development is already is an independent human being is not.

(And before anyone tries to bring up the “infant dependent on the mother” canard, recall that the mother does not breathe for the infant. The mother’s heart does not pump blood for the infant, not does she provide a blood supply for the infant. The mother does not digest food for the infant. And so on.)

do not understand using survivability outside the womb

The statement to which I was replying referred to “biology, physiology.” That was the standard I was applying. As for the crash victims, etc., remember the issue, essentially, was definitions. The examples you cite are ones of trying to maintain the life of what is by universal agreement an independent human being as opposed to trying to define one into existence. That is, they are not really relevant.

an unborn child

A fetus is not “an unborn child,” in fact the phrase doesn’t make sense. A child has been born. A fetus is no more “an unborn child” than a tadpole is “an unborn frog” or a caterpillar is “an unborn butterfly.”

“I didn’t have to since the question was one of identification of an individual.”
You are correct. The question is all about identifying individuals. The individuals are identified via their unique, distinct DNA, clearly identifying the mother and fetus to also be unique and distinct.

“Prior to viability, the fetus cannot be said to have any independent existence, that is, to be an individual.”
Based on what criteria? How to tell the difference?

“It’s total nourishment comes via the circulatory system and that is integrated with that of the whole body, just like any other part of the body.”
Using the source of nourishment to define human life seems, well, rather weak to me.

“That, if all goes well, a fetus will become an independent human being is true; that at any point in its development is already is an independent human being is not.”
The question is really about defining the determination of that point. A few posts back, you mentioned using the youngest known fetus to survive as a benchmark. That seems to fit in here.

“The statement to which I was replying referred to “biology, physiology.” That was the standard I was applying. As for the crash victims, etc., remember the issue, essentially, was definitions. The examples you cite are ones of trying to maintain the life of what is by universal agreement an independent human being as opposed to trying to define one into existence. That is, they are not really relevant.”
They are entirely relevant because if the definition isn’t universal, it is incomplete and isn’t a definition. And there is quite obviously not universal agreement on what defines an independent human being, otherwise there wouldn’t be an abortion controversy to begin with. It anyone wants to hold the position that an unborn child (semantic silliness aside) has no inherent right to life (one extreme ideological position that I mentioned before), fine. I just want to know how one would justify that in the face of overwhelming scientific evident to the contrary.

Sorry to be a pain, but I’m just not satisfied with creating arbitrary definition for the sake of what seems to be political expediency. I hold myself to a higher standard than that.

LarryE – you did not answer the question as you think you did. Using your analogy, if the guy took all reasonable precautions and a pregnancy still ensued, following your advice he would still be held responsible. Thus, he is being held accountable by society’s moral code for something he tried his best to prevent. Therefore, saying the female should have 100% control over her body and what results from her actions while disallowing the same rights to the male is both sexist and mysandric, is it not? And, ignoring the monetary aspects, what if the male only wanted to have a child with his spouse or partner and the pregnancy occurred outside of a marriage or committed relationship? Where are his rights in regards to reproduction?

Big U -

he would still be held responsible

I recall a case I heard about several years ago where a woman sued for child support from a man with who she had had a relationship for some time. The man said he shouldn’t have to pay because the pregnancy resulted from deception – specifically, he said that she had stopped using birth control but withheld that knowledge from him and lead him to think she was still using it.

I don’t recall the outcome of the case, but I do recall thinking that if he could show that, I was on his side.

The point being that no, I am not saying the man is responsible no matter what. I am saying that even if the odds are heavily in your favor, when you roll the dice you know there is a chance, even if a small one, that it will come up a loser. If it does, you take responsibility for the risk you took – or you don’t take the risk.

he tried his best to prevent

Apparently, he didn’t. Or are you among those who imagine that vaginal intercourse is the only way to have sex? Frankly, there are a rather large number of ways to provide pleasure to both (or all ) parties which can be guaranteed to not result in pregnancy. If you’re unwilling to take responsibility for a pregnancy that might result from screwing, don’t screw – have sex some other way. Why is that so hard to understand?

So-crates -

DNA … nourishment

It seems you have chosen to embrace the ways a fetus can be defined as an “individual” while dismissing out of hand (as “weak”) the ways it can’t be. But the fact remains that while DNA is relevant to the fetus’s future development, it is not relevant to its present status. The point about nourishment (which I deliberately chose rather than the incorrect possible alternative “food”), which I thought (and think) was clear, is that the mother’s body has one, integrated circulatory system, is one, integrated physical system, which includes the fetus. At least until viability (which again, is 30+ weeks in the absence of direct technological intervention), calling a fetus, which cells would die as quickly and as surely as one of the mother’s fingers were it to be cut off and thrown away, an “individual” is absurd.

I mean, surely you are not looking to hark back to the time when the mother was regarded as merely the “ground” in which the “seed,” something in the ground but not of the ground, grew.

Based on what criteria?

I gave you three possible bases for judgment. I do not intend to repeat them.

using the youngest known fetus to survive as a benchmark

That is one standard that some have used. I personally am not overly taken with it as a definition because, again, it depends on artificial intervention that in essence looks to take the place of the mother’s womb, thereby allowing the fetus to develop as if it were still in the womb until the point of natural viability.

(Note well that I am not objecting to the use of such technology for anyone who is in that situation and wants to pursue that outcome. That is not the question at hand.)

not universal agreement on what defines an independent human being

Bzzt. Sorry. Speaking of semantic silliness, changing the question is not allowed. The topic of discussion was when an independent human life begins. I don’t see how we could not have universal agreement that biological independence is a basic determinant – that is, anyone born is an independent human life. (Bear in mind that in talking about viability, that is exactly what we are talking about: the ability to survive as a biologically separate entity.)

So the people in your crashes, etc., already are independent lives. The issue of striving to maintain that status is wholly separate from the issue of when a given fetus has achieved that status and thus, again, the examples are irrelevant to the issue at hand.

unborn child (semantic silliness aside)

“Unborn child” is the semantic silliness here, one that prejudges and predetermines the outcome. “Unborn child” remains an oxymoron.

inherent right to life … overwhelming scientific evident to the contrary

First, the logical construction fails: A “right to life” is a social construct, not a matter of “scientific evidence.” Such evidence as you proclaim simply does not exist. I would ask instead how a potential human life (which is what a fetus is) gets to overrule the choices of an existing human life.

I hold myself to a higher standard than that.

Oh, please. If you really are sincere about wanting to have a serious discussion, stop claiming you’re referring to scientific evidence while continuing to use the politically-charged (Dare I say expedient?) “unborn child” rather than the technically-accurate “fetus,” stop dwelling on the DNA difference between mother and fetus while ignoring their physiological integration – and drop the moral condescension.

Larry

to respond:

“Independent life begins no earlier than the 22nd week of pregnancy”

That is an arbitrary definition and can never be measured completely accurately in practice. And as you say, may change in the future.

“Meanwhile, the neural connections in the brain that mediate sensory input do not develop before the 26th week. That is, the fetus does not have anything that could reasonably be called a functioning brain before then”

That is just plain false. I am a physician and studied embryology. I dont know what else to tell you. Unless you know of any studies that show a fetus’ brain suddenly springs to life at 26th week? I didnt think so.

“Left up to nature, fetuses delivered before 35 weeks generally do not survive. So it could easily be argued that any fetus not brought to term is not an independent life”

Again, completely false. And even if it was true, to measure these points accurately in vivo is again impossible.

As they say “You cant be a little bit pregnant”

Well, I seem to have touched a nerve. I came into this discussion looking for a sound *reason* as to why unique DNA isn’t accepted as proof of unique identification of a developing fetus. Larry, I have reviewed your posts and while you have repeated your claim multiple times in different ways, you have not backed it up in any way other than you saying that it is so. You have tried to shift the discussion onto other topics, such as nourishment and viability which are completely unrelated to DNA. You have dismissed the questions as ‘not relevant’ without providing any reason why other than your word. Not good enough for me.

You are using circular reasoning. I asked “Why can’t DNA be used to identify an individual in this case?” You reply with “DNA evidence doesn’t apply because in this case that’s not an individual” – an assertion on which you have only offered your own opinion and have given no criteria. Now for one last time: assuming that the DNA is present and structurally sound, why is it not accepted as proof of distinctness when it is found in a fetus, while it is accepted in every other place that it is found?

“The topic of discussion was when an independent human life begins. I don’t see how we could not have universal agreement that biological independence is a basic determinant – that is, anyone born is an independent human life. (Bear in mind that in talking about viability, that is exactly what we are talking about: the ability to survive as a biologically separate entity.)”

I picked out this bit because, as I understand you, it provides a pretty good summation of your position. First of all, my question was regarding DNA and identification (see above). Secondly, just because you cannot see an alternative to biological independence as a basic determinant doesn’t mean that others don’t exist. Biological independence doesn’t address the edge cases, such as when a newborn needs urgent care or surgery immediately after birth. The child would fail your ‘biological independence’ test as they would require outside intervention to stay alive, yet they are clearly independent human beings. It also precludes the fetuses on the other end of the spectrum, the strong ones that could survive on their own, yet have not been born yet. As I said before, if the definition isn’t universal, it isn’t a definition and is therefore useless.

“First, the logical construction fails: A “right to life” is a social construct, not a matter of “scientific evidence.”

I said nothing to that effect. Right to life is a social construct, an important one to say the least, and seeing that we are talking about ethics (among other things), social constructs are quite relevant. Personally when it comes to life or death issues, I know which side I want to err on.

Also – it you are sincere about wanting to have a serious discussion learn the difference between fact and opinion and how they interrelate. And don’t get your feathers ruffled when you’re held to account on the difference.

“The issue of striving to maintain that status is wholly separate from the issue of when a given fetus has achieved that status…”

According to one of your former posts, you believe a good determinant of when life begins is the opposite of life ends (brain’s death vs. brain’s life). You must also then accept that a possible determinant of the end of life is the opposite of the beginning of life (being able to survive with no outside help vs. dying without any outside help). In that case, a car crash victim loses his/her “life”, only to be given his/her life back once recovered and having re-established the ability to live on his/her own. It is, then, not our moral obligation to keep car crash victims, or the elderly, alive.

Larry E – “If you’re unwilling to take responsibility for a pregnancy that might result from screwing, don’t screw – have sex some other way. Why is that so hard to understand?”

I understand that completely. Do you hold women to the same standard? Seems they can avoid the responsibility of raising or paying for a child by the process of an abortion. Therefore, a different set of rules based on sexism. If the man was given the right, early in the pregnancy, to legally revoke his rights to the child and therefore his responsibility to be a parent, then that would be much more equal.

Big U:

Your problem here, I think, is that you want to hold men and women to something close to the same standard, when it simply doesn’t make any sense to do so. If men had an equal risk of becoming pregnant (rather than just getting someone else pregnant), and had to deal with all the physiological obligations that this entails, rather than just financial ones, then maybe it would make sense to apply the same standard. But it doesn’t.

And even in the worst-case scenario, where a guy who supposedly has an understanding with his partner takes all the right precautions and she still gets pregnant, and despite her prior assurances that she wouldn’t, she changes her mind and decides to have the baby, the man’s only actual obligations are financial. Apart from a stipend to support the child, the guy can totally disappear and have nothing to do with the mother’s life or the child’s life other than sending a monthly check, and he’s totally within his legal rights. (Now, one could argue — and I certainly would — that his moral obligations go well beyond that, but legally, he’s got no such obligations.)

What strikes me as odd here, however, is why you’re taking that track. Do you really, honestly believe that a man should have the right to just walk away from a woman he’s impregnated, no strings attached? Do you really think that such a situation would be less morally problematic than the one we have today?

My guess is that you’re using this as a way to sneak in your actual objection, which is not to the idea that the man can be held responsible against his will, but rather to the flip side: to the idea that the woman can choose to abort against the man’s will. If she can make him support a child he doesn’t want, the piss-poor logic goes, then he ought to be able to make her carry to term, give birth to, and care for a child she doesn’t want. Except that this isn’t apples and oranges, it’s apples and Buicks.

In an ideal world, responsibility for bringing a child into the world, caring for the child, and raising the child, all would be split exactly equally between both parents. In this place we call “real life,” however, that’s physiologically impossible. The overwhelming majority of the responsibility falls to the woman by necessity, and there’s nothing anyone can do to change that. So when decisions regarding that must be made, it’s only fair to give deference to the woman on such matters. And it’s only fair that the male involved gets a potentially (but not necessarily) disproportionate share of the financial burden — it’s the only real responsibility he can be given.

If you don’t like that state of affairs, complain to your God, who purportedly made it thus.

While I do not like the idea, I do believe that if equality is to exist, if the woman has 100% of the decision making ability regarding taking the child to term, then the man should be given the option early in the pregnancy to walk away and forego all rights and obligations. IF this was the case, then both the man and the woman would be entering into an experience (sex) knowing that they would be free of any obligation of parenting a child if they so chose. As it stands now, 100% of the choice is in the hands of the woman and 0% of the choice is in the hands of the man. This is not equality. And it lifts the rights of one sex above the rights of the other sex. Anyone who fights for equal rights should, morally, fight for equal rights in all senses of the word. Otherwise they are not honestly interested in equal rights.

Do I agree with abortion on demand? No. And I have made that clear in the past. However, as long as the woman is provided 100% choice of how to deal with the results of her sexual activity, equality dictates that the man should also be given the choice as to whether or not he is willing to be involved in supporting a child he may not have wanted.

Do I agree with that position morally? No. I think any guy who fathers a child should be involved in that child’s life both emotionally and financially. I also feel that support should be tied to access (i.e., a guy should never be used as a bank. IF he pays support, he gets access. If he loses access, support can be stopped. If he voluntarily gives up access, he is still obligated) but that is a different argument.

KTK’s original post said this: “bodily autonomy is a fundamental part of women’s freedom and moral independence, and must be protected regardless of public opinion. ”

Why does that not apply to the man as well. Does that mean that bodily autonomy is NOT a fundamental part of a man’s freedom and moral independence?

While I do not like the idea, I do believe that if equality is to exist, if the woman has 100% of the decision making ability regarding taking the child to term, then the man should be given the option early in the pregnancy to walk away and forego all rights and obligations.

I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make any sense at all. It takes a scenario in which most of the risk falls upon the woman, and changes the dynamic so that all of the risk falls upon the woman. How is that more equitable? Seriously, on what planet is that better than what we have today?

IF this was the case, then both the man and the woman would be entering into an experience (sex) knowing that they would be free of any obligation of parenting a child if they so chose.

Not true. In your scenario, if a woman becomes pregnant, then she still by necessity is responsibility for either aborting the child or carrying the child to term and giving birth (and then either keeping and raising the child or putting it up for adoption) — and all the physical, emotional and fiscal costs associated with any of those various options — while the man isn’t responsible for a single goddamn thing. So I ask again, how is that more fair than what we have today? I argue that it’s not; in fact, it’s not even close. At least in the current scenario, the man is held to be responsible for something, notably the financial side. Again, this is the only responsibility he really can take.

As it stands now, 100% of the choice is in the hands of the woman and 0% of the choice is in the hands of the man. This is not equality.

Of course not, but as I’ve been trying to point out, it’s an inherently unequal situation. 100% of the choice is in the hands of the woman, because 100% of the physiological responsibility is on the woman, and because nobody can do anything to change that. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

I’m not trying to sound condescending, but you’re really disappointing me here — your logic is usually a lot better than this. I just can’t see how you’d really, honestly believe that anything about an unintended pregnancy puts an undue burden on the man, when the deck is biologically so heavily stacked against the woman.

Does that mean that bodily autonomy is NOT a fundamental part of a man’s freedom and moral independence?

Of course not, but what does any of this have to do with a man’s bodily autonomy? An unintended pregancy doesn’t require a man to do (or not do) anything at all to his body. It’s wholly irrelevant to his bodily autonomy, and that’s been my entire point all along! Seriously, what bodily changes must a man make or go through if he gets a woman pregnant?

Now if we lived in a fantasy world where a woman gets pregnant and doesn’t want to have a child, and the man who impregnated her could say “go ahead and transplant the embryo into me rather than abort, and I’ll take all the burden onto myself,” then you’d have a leg to stand on. But that’s simply physically impossible, so I’m still not sure just where your beef is, or why you think giving the man the right of first refusal (“either abort or release me from all responsibility to you and the child”) is somehow less unfair than the scenario as it currently exists. That still amounts to a man getting to tell a woman what she can do with her body (or, at a minimum, attaching strings if she dares to go against his will).

[...] The View From the Sinister Side of Life « Shift in “Pro-Life”/Pro-Choice Breakdown? Hmmm . . . [...]

So then you are in favor of a man being held financially responsible for the child until it is 18 or longer even if he did not want the child and was fully under the impression that a child would not result from the sex? How is that in any way fair or equitable?

You see, I have no problem acknowledging the woman’s rights over her body, but I do have a problem with a man being held hostage financially for something he neither wanted nor expected.

If equality is what is tantamount (as feminists are adamant it is), then it needs to cut both ways. Are you telling me that because the woman has to deal with the physiological issues for 9 to 10 months, that it is fair that the biological father is forced to deal with the financial issues for 18 or more years?

It would even seem to be fair if, once a pregancy was discovered, that the father be responsible for any and all costs prior to the birth or abortion of the child. That way he is held responsible for the financial aspects for the same length of time the mother is held responsible for the physiological aspects.

If you say “what about after the child is born?”, then I will ask, “what right does the father have to the child at that point?”. If a father is willing to take the child and raise it, does he have that right? No. The mother is the only person, in an unmarried situation, who has the right to decide what happens to the child after birth, unless the state chooses to interfere. And yet, having no rights to be around the child, the father is still expected to continue to pay support. From the day the child is born, the support should be based on an agreement reached between the two parents.

With this and the following comments, I think I’m going to wind up because, as I frankly expected when I started, this is going to go nowhere.

Greg -

arbitrary definition

Hardly arbitrary. The basis was, again, the youngest fetus that has ever survived outside the womb even with the intervention of our most advanced medical technology. (And indeed, those dates are controversial, with some insisting that by the usual method of calculation, they would be two weeks older.) How any fetus younger than that could be called an independent life by any means other than “arbitrary definition” is utterly mystifying.

plain false

Utter bull. For those neural connections to develop at 26 weeks or after is a normal part of pre-natal development. Period. Something else that is utterly mystifying short of “arbitrary definition” is how a fetus can be said to have a functioning brain when it is incapable of processing sensory input.

completely false

More bull. This was about “biology, physiology,” about letting nature take its course, if you will. The reference was very clearly to preemies (generally defined as those born before 37 weeks) who do not receive direct medical intervention. For a child born prior to the 35th week (yes, child – it’s been born), when it is very likely to have underdeveloped lungs, the chances of surviving in the absence of such intervention are extremely small. It’d be a miracle baby, as it were.

And even if it was true

Um, sorry? “Plain false” and “completely false” but “so what if it’s true?”

Whatever. The fact remains that you asked for “an adequate defense of abortion regarding ‘when life begins.’” I gave you three. I’m really not surprised you didn’t accept any of them since I don’t imagine any such defense would satisfy you.

So then you are in favor of a man being held financially responsible for the child until it is 18 or longer even if he did not want the child and was fully under the impression that a child would not result from the sex? How is that in any way fair or equitable?

I don’t know that I’d go quite that far, but it doesn’t matter how far I’d go. The point, which you still seem to be missing, is that an unintended pregnancy under any circumstances is an inherently unfair scenario. And even in your extreme scenario, his share of the responsibility is still negligible as compared to the responsibility that the woman retains. It’s silly and frankly sexist to pretend that the woman’s responsibilities (physiological or otherwise) somehow end after 9 or 10 months.

And although I can relate somewhat to the “he didn’t want it” aspect, but have little sympathy for the “he didn’t expect it” angle. You have to have the IQ of a rock to not know that any time you engage in vaginal intercourse, there’s some small chance that you’re going to wind up with an unintended pregnancy. If you’re not prepared for that possibility, you’re a dolt. Now if you want to go from there to arguing that the woman has no right to change her mind without the man’s explicit permission (unless, of course, she agrees to release him from any and all responsibility and go it completely alone), then I’m afraid we’re not going to find much to agree on, and that my opinion of you will be diminished greatly.

I will ask, “what right does the father have to the child at that point?”. If a father is willing to take the child and raise it, does he have that right? No.The mother is the only person, in an unmarried situation, who has the right to decide what happens to the child after birth, unless the state chooses to interfere.

I’m pretty sure that this is utter bullshit. Biological fathers are not by default denied any and all rights to their children, and it’s disingenuous to argue otherwise.

But again, this line of argumentation from you is very surprising to me. I thought you conservative types were all about taking responsibility for your own actions. Yet in the case of knocking up some woman, you’re willing to just completely write off that responsibility on the man’s part, just because he doesn’t get a say in what she does with her own body. Sorry, but sticking your dick in someone isn’t like planting a flag and claiming territory. You don’t get ownership rights, or anything like that. On the decision of whether to abort or carry to term, in most relationships you get a vote, but her vote necessarily outweighs yours. I don’t see how you could argue it’s fair to have it any other way. But at the same time, that there’s a pregnancy in the first place is partially the man’s responsibility, and should be treated as such. (And before you go there, I’ve stated repeatedly in the past that for the woman, having an abortion is one way of taking responsibility: if she doesn’t want a child, she shouldn’t have one, and aborting is the responsible thing to do.)

Now you might view this as an unfair double-standard, and you might even be right about that, but I absolutely defy you to suggest a feasible scenario that isn’t inherently unfair to one party or the other.

The bottom line here is that you’re arguing from a very patriarchal, all-or-nothing point of view: either the man gets to say what happens, or he’s released from all responsibility. I can’t imagine any sane, rational person believing that’s even close to fair, or in any way less unfair than the status quo.

So-crates -

I came into this discussion looking for a sound *reason* as to why unique DNA isn’t accepted as proof of unique identification of a developing fetus.

No, you didn’t. You came into this discussion waving a DNA banner because you imagined it to be a debilitating slammer against anyone who does not maintain that life – that is, an independent human life – begins at conception. My reply was that DNA is not an appropriate standard in the issue at hand because the fetus is not an individual, not an independent human life. While DNA is certainly useful in determining differences between individuals, it is beyond its reach to define what constitutes an individual. Identical twins have the same DNA. Are they not individuals? If DNA is your definition, then by your own argument they are not. If we agree that they are individuals, then again by your own argument – “if the definition isn’t universal, it isn’t a definition and is therefore useless” – DNA does not define what makes an individual.

You are arguing like those who try to deny evolution by declaring it can’t explain how life began – when it doesn’t even try and isn’t about how life began but how it changes over time. (The study of how life began, abiogenesis, is a different field.) DNA alone cannot, and does not try to, define what constitutes an individual. Bottom line: Yes, the fetus has a DNA different from the mother. But that simply is not sufficient to define that fetus, which – a point you keep ignoring – is completely physiologically integrated with the mother, as a separate individual, a separate human life.

(Which, by the by, means that my bringing up “nourishment and viability” is not “shift[ing] the discussion,” as they are central to the actual issue at hand: defining what constitutes an independent human life.)

have given no criteria

I have offered three criteria that could be used as a basis for determining when a fetus could be considered an individual: minimum viability with medical intervention (22 weeks), brain development (26+ weeks), and minimum viability without medical intervention (app. 35 weeks). The first and third relate to the ability of the fetus to survive as a biologically separate entity, i.e., to survive without being integrated into the mother’s physiology; the second flips the concept of “brain death” as defining the end of life to one of “brain birth” to define its start. I find your studied ignorance of that revealing.

a newborn [who] needs urgent care or surgery immediately after birth … would fail your ‘biological independence’ test

Oh, now, that’s just downright silly. Needing treatment or surgery has nothing whatsoever to do with biological independence or being, as I also said, a biologically separate entity. By your logic, anyone who ever needed surgery or even medicine at any point in their life ceases to be biologically separate. My wife has an implantable defribrillator. Is she not still biologically independent, separate, from other human beings? I mean – I’m amazed I even have to argue this.

I said nothing to that effect.

Of course you did. This is the unedited quote:

It anyone wants to hold the position that an unborn child (semantic silliness aside) has no inherent right to life (one extreme ideological position that I mentioned before), fine. I just want to know how one would justify that in the face of overwhelming scientific evident to the contrary.

There is no reasonable way to read that other than as a declaration that there is “overwhelming scientific evidence” that an “unborn child” has an “inherent right to life.” That declaration is logically unsound at best.

my question was regarding DNA and identification

Not exactly and the difference is important. You asked about identification of a “person” and later an “individual.” This wasn’t about using DNA to identify something as being “part of a person” it was about using DNA to define the term “person.” And that simply won’t fly. So -

one last time … why is [DNA] not accepted as proof of distinctness … in a fetus, while it is accepted in every other place

Already asked, already answered. But, one last time, it’s because a fetus is not an individual. And the issue of being an independent human life is the one at hand. And don’t say I’ve offered no criteria for that or it’s “just an opinion” when you know full well – or at least would know if you weren’t ignoring it – that I have and it isn’t.

don’t get your feathers ruffled

My feathers get ruffled by nonsense and by people asking questions while deliberately refusing not only to accept the answers but even to acknowledge having gotten them – as well as by people who will throw around loaded and factually inaccurate terms like “unborn child” while chiding others about “the difference between fact and opinion.”

Some years ago I was working at a colonial history museum and a woman asked me why the settlers had slaves. It turned out she had confused contracted servants with slaves. So I told her there were no slaves there, explained to her the difference (servants have rights, slaves don’t; servants are employees, slaves are property; servants are for the period of the contract, slaves are for life) and said that the settlers had opposed slavery, which they did.

She said “You haven’t answered my question. Why did they have slaves?”

Confused, I repeated my answer: no slaves, servants were not slaves, town against slavery.

She said “You still haven’t answered my question.”

To this day I have no idea what question it was which that woman thought hadn’t been answered. I can only assume that it was that she didn’t get the answer she wanted. You remind me of her.

Jordan -

you believe a good determinant of when life begins is the opposite of life ends

Not exactly. I responded to what I foolishly assumed might be an honest request for “an adequate defense of abortion regarding ‘when life begins.’” I offered three proposals, of which that was one.

You must also then accept

I most certainly do not. First off, the assertion “because you advance argument A you must accept unrelated argument B” fails at first glance. More importantly, the comparison you try – and fail – to make is nothing short of a cartoon. A poorly-drawn one, at that. Repeating what I said to So-crates:

“Needing treatment or surgery has nothing whatsoever to do with biological independence or being, as I also said, a biologically separate entity. … My wife has an implantable defribrillator. Is she not still biologically independent, separate, from other human beings? I mean – I’m amazed I even have to argue this.”

I could just as easily take your argument about the crash victims or the elderly and apply it to anyone no matter their state of health or age because, hey, at some point we’re all going to die no matter now much outside help we get and so “it is, then, not our moral obligation” to help anyone stay alive at any time.

If you want to argue with what I said, argue with what I said – not with some straw figure you made out of whole cloth (for a nice mixed metaphor).

Big U -

Seems they can avoid the responsibility of raising or paying for a child by the process of an abortion.

Uh-huh. Which means that the man can get himself on the hook of being responsible for support of a child – but she, if she chooses, can get him off that same hook. And yet somehow you find this discriminatory toward (or even an example of hatred of) men. The thought process eludes me.

If you don’t like that state of affairs, complain to your God, who purportedly made it thus.

Gee, can you fel the love in the room tonight? I know I can!!

Maybe you lefties should try practcing some of that “tolerance and understanding” instead of just preaching it.

LarryE – “but she, if she chooses, can get him off that same hook”

You are right. She can keep him on the hook or get him off of the hook. She has 100% control over his future in regards to the child. If the role was reversed in ANY situation, (the man having 100% control) you would scream about it being misogyny or a patriarchal attitude or some other such word.

Tgirsch – my personal perspective on the issue is this: Choice should end at conception barring medically necessary reasons. There were a number of choices made to get to the point of the woman becoming pregnant. It is not as if she is being denied any choices in her life. Stating that abortion is not a choice that is allowed is not removing choice. It is removing ONE choice. The guy should be 100% responsible for parenting the child, including financial support until the child is 18. That is my personal perspective. However, I realize that is not what is democratically chosen in Canada and the US, thus abortion is a choice readily available to women and they have every right to exercise it. I simply feel that the man should then have legislation put in place to allow him the option of deciding whether or not he is willing to take on the personal and fiscal responsibility of raising a child. Is it the best option? No. Is it reasonable? I honestly do not know.

You say my argument is patriarchal but you are not listening to what I am saying. (Assuming a single woman) The scenario I laid out does not give the man any say in what the woman does. He would be 100% fiscally responsible for the expenses up to and including abortion or birth. Then his responsibility would end. You may want to think that means he is controlling the woman’s decision because she then has to choose between an abortion, single motherhood with no support from the father, or adoption (assuming there is no continuing relationship). There may be other choices but I can’t think of any right now. Note the woman is not being told what to do with her body. The way the scenario is now, the mother can choose abortion, adoption, single motherhood with no support or single motherhood with support. The main difference? The woman is allowed to force the man to do something whether he wants to or not.

Big U -

She can keep him on the hook or get him off of the hook. She has 100% control

As I said, I’m not going to argue this any more, but I do have to confirm: You’re really going with this? You’re really sticking to this argument?

He gets himself into a situation which he could have with 100% assurance avoided and because she has, by your account, “100% control” over whether to get him out of the situation he got himself into, this is discrimination against him?

So if someone commits a crime, gets caught, and now the state has “100% control” over whether or not to prosecute, this is discrimination against criminals?

You really want to stick with the argument that “the man should be given the option early in the pregnancy to walk away and forego all rights and obligations,” that is, that men should be legally empowered to “fuck ‘em and forget ‘em?” And that having it be otherwise shows hatred of men?

Wow. Just wow.

Actually, I’m just as surprised at you LarryE.

You say the man could have avoided the situation by not having sex. But you do not hold the woman to the same standard as she also could have avoided getting pregnant by simply not having sex. Why is that?

Your crime/criminal comparison is not viable as it concerns a violation of laws of the land. Last I checked, having sex was not against the law. Nor was accidental pregnancy.

As far as the man walking away early in the pregnancy…is the woman given that right via abortion? Yes. Equality would say that the man should be given the same type of right in some sense. As I’ve said clearly, the argument I am laying out is not the one I personally believe in but removing emotion and using strictly logic, it is the one that provides the most fairness to the overall situation. Each person being given the right to avoid the pregnancy in the first place and each person being given the right to avoid parental responsibility after pregnancy occurs. It makes no sense logically to hold the man accountable for the results of his sexual activity if society is not going to hold the woman accountable for the results of her sexual activity.

ShockinglyAwesome:

I haven’t shown intolerance toward anyone. Heck, I haven’t even gotten particularly snippy. Big U and I have a history with religious debates, and that comment was made with that history in mind. I doubt he was particularly offended by it.

Big U:
She has 100% control over his future in regards to the child. If the role was reversed in ANY situation, (the man having 100% control) you would scream about it being misogyny or a patriarchal attitude or some other such word.

Apart from being grossly inaccurate, this still completely misses the point. The aspect you refuse to acknowledge — and it is the critical, defining aspect — is that the woman by necessity bears all (100%!) of the responsibility for carrying, bringing to term, and bearing the child. Given that simple fact, how can you argue that the right to make decisions regarding that pregnancy ought to lie with anyone other than her?

In any case, she does not have “100% control” over his future with respect to the child. She has more than he does, but that’s by necessity, as I keep explaining and you keep ignoring. He can’t prevent her from getting an abortion if she wants one, and he can’t avoid his financial responsibilities if she holds him to them, but that’s not even close to the same thing as having no rights. As previously mentioned, he has rights to visit the child, and he has some say in how the child is raise, should he choose to remain involved. He can even fight for custody of the child outright, if he chooses to do so, and it’s not unheard of for a father to win in that circumstance. My brother got custody of his daughter away from his ex-wife, and she had to pay him child support. So don’t give me any BS about the man having no rights and/or “100%” of the financial responsibility here.

It seems that all throughout this, you’re arguing against strawmen, while at the same time not having a clear concept of what rights the two parties do and don’t have. Complicating this, you have a downright bizarre idea of what rights they ought to have. As far as I can discern, your argument comes down to folding your arms, holding your breath until you turn blue, and saying, “Fine! If she has a right to get an abortion without his consent, then he shouldn’t have any responsibilities at all, period, no PSes, and none of that stuff!”

I simply feel that the man should then have legislation put in place to allow him the option of deciding whether or not he is willing to take on the personal and fiscal responsibility of raising a child.

That’s rather like allowing someone to buy car insurance after they’ve already crashed the car, isn’t it?

The scenario I laid out does not give the man any say in what the woman does.

Not directly, but it also absolves him of virtually all responsibility. “Up until birth” expenses are just a drop in the bucket compared to the cost (in both time and money) of actually raising a child to adulthood. And depending upon the financial situation of the mother-to-be, you may be giving the man de facto control over the situation. In fact, you’re actively encouraging the woman to abort, since the man will have to pay for that, but would have no responsibility to help pay to raise the child. As you point out, the woman is not being told what to do with her body per se, but she’s being left with an array of shitty options. Your attitude on this is very much “every person for themself,” and it surprises me.

The woman is allowed to force the man to do something whether he wants to or not.

Heaven forbid a man be forced to take responsibility for something he has done, irrespective of whether or not he intended to do it.

I can see it now: Big U is at the rental car counter arguing with the agent. “Well, I didn’t intend to wreck your rental car, so therefore I shouldn’t be held responsible for wrecking it. Walking away without paying to repair the car should be my choice as a rentee, not your choice as the owner of the car…”

[To LarryE] But you do not hold the woman to the same standard as she also could have avoided getting pregnant by simply not having sex.

Asked and answered. The consequences for her are MUCH more severe than the consequences for him, and apparently you’re perfectly okay with that state of affairs. But that’s not “paternalistic,” of course. That’s just the way God (a He) made things!

removing emotion and using strictly logic

Ha! Hardly…

Each person being given the right to avoid the pregnancy in the first place and each person being given the right to avoid parental responsibility after pregnancy occurs

Sorry, but the only way to avoid parental responsibility is if there’s no child to parent. You’re comparing apples and Buicks again. It’s not as if a woman can carry a child to term and then force the man to take custody of the child. The only thing she can force him to do is to assist financially in the raising of the child.

If they had sex that led to a pregnancy, they are both responsible to some extent, no? So why you argue that the man — and the man alone — should be absolved of virtually any responsibility he doesn’t want is mystifying to me.

It makes no sense logically to hold the man accountable for the results of his sexual activity if society is not going to hold the woman accountable for the results of her sexual activity.

And here, it seems, is the grand disconnect. Who on earth is arguing that the woman shouldn’t be held accountable for the results of her sexual activity? Certainly nobody here. If you think abortion is some sort of “easy way out,” a quick and dirty “get out of parenting free” card with no associated financial, physical, or emotional costs, then you’ve never had a close friend whose had an abortion. It’s a decision that any woman who makes it must live with for the rest of her life; it’s not a magic wand.

The aspect you refuse to acknowledge — and it is the critical, defining aspect — is that the woman by necessity bears all (100%!) of the responsibility for carrying, bringing to term, and bearing the child. Given that simple fact, how can you argue that the right to make decisions regarding that pregnancy ought to lie with anyone other than her?

Thats simple: the baby growing inside of her should have a voice over whether its gets murdered or not. Of course the unborn is totally helpless and depends on society for protection. That’s what makes abortion so evil, it takes away the most fundamental of all rights, the right to life, from the most helpless and innocent of all humankind. But liberals don’t want to face this fact, so they try to confuse the issue with lies like misogyny! freedom to choose! its a fetus not a human! Meanwhile, the greatest holocaust in history continues…

bob:
Thats simple: the baby growing inside of her should have a voice over whether its gets murdered or not.

He or she does. If the fetus objects to being aborted, it should speak now or forever hold its peace. Hello? Bueller? Bueller?

More seriously, if life begins at conception, then the greatest holocaust in history is directly on God’s bloody hands, because nearly 80% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine lining, thus resulting in a dead “baby” through completely natural circumstances. The number of “babies” who die this way absolutely dwarfs the number of abortions (the ratio is better than 8-to-1), all through God’s divine design. So maybe you should direct your anger at Him, as he’s at least 8 times the “murderer” that the “abortionists” are.

tgirsch > re: your comment to shockingly/awesome about me not being offended, you are correct. I actually couldn’t find what I should be offended at.

Oh, and talking about comparing apples and buicks, you do realize that in order to rent a car you sign an agreement stating you will be held liable for any damages that result while you are in possession of the care, don’t you? So your comparison is not valid. Unless you were to say that an agreement prior to sex where the man and woman agree he will not be held liable for any resulting pregnancy would be acceptable. And you aren’t. Even if the couple agrees that they do not want a child and then they have sex and she gets pregnant, if she makes the determination to go back on their agreement and carry the child to term, he is held responsible. Far different than your car rental analogy.

So really, I guess the fact of the matter is, for a guy to be 100% safe, abstinence is the only solution. I wonder if they teach that in schools?

Big U –

for a guy to be 100% safe, abstinence is the only solution

Um, I thought that you “understand completely” that “If you’re unwilling to take responsibility for a pregnancy that might result from screwing, don’t screw – have sex some other way.” (Emphasis added.) But now you say that abstinence is the only way? What happened in the last two days?

Oh, and the “crime/criminal comparison” is entirely valid because, contrary to your attempt to throw sand, the issue was the logic: One person (a man, a criminal) by their actions gets themselves into a situation they could have entirely avoided (impregnating a woman, committing a crime and getting caught), as a result of which another person (the woman, a prosecutor) is in a position to decide whether they will bear the responsibility of their actions or be freed from it. According to you, this situation is discriminatory against the original actor. For the pregnancy and the crime, the logic is identical.

Finally – and lacking another question mark in your reply it will be finally – your failing, your persistent, consistent failing in this whole discussion has been your fantasy that the situations of the man and the pregnant woman are essentially identical. They are not.

If she “walks away from” the pregnancy via abortion, his responsibilities end. If he walks away, her responsibilities remain. You simply cannot logically equate their two situations. Once you realize that, you will realize your argument fails.

Now we’re getting somewhere Larry …

You claim to know much about me, such as my motives for posting. You either posses some preternatural clairvoyant abilities

or

you took your beliefs, prejudices and biases you hold against your ideological opponents and PROJECTED THEM ONTO ME. This debate hasn’t been between you and me, it’s been between you and the biases that you projected onto my posts and what you THOUGHT I said. Larry – you’ve been arguing against yourself.

“By your logic, anyone who ever needed surgery or even medicine at any point in their life ceases to be biologically separate. My wife has an implantable defribrillator. Is she not still biologically independent, separate, from other human beings?”
Well, at the time I was referring to your line of reasoning and provided an example that illustrates where it breaks down. You just gave another couple. Thanks?

Now regarding DNA. I *never* said that DNA alone was equivalent to an individual (that was you projecting). If DNA proves that a puddle of blood or a severed toe belongs to a certain individual, does that confer person hood on that puddle or toe? Of course not – that would be ridiculous. Honestly – I didn’t think that I would have to be this pedantic about this.

“Bottom line: Yes, the fetus has a DNA different from the mother.”
Thank you – that’s what I was waiting for. Your point about identical twins is well taken, but in this context this chances of a mother giving birth to her own identical twin are relativity small.

Larry – I agreed with you *TWICE* regarding plausible, rational definitions regarding the dividing line between “fetus” and “biologically separate entity” (to use your terms). You had no reason to get combative and hostile, and to be honest, I find it tedious. Now whatever response you are currently cooking up, please post it. Go ahead – do your worst. My bottom line is that I’m not interested in trading barbs with you and I’m not interested in sorting through your preconceptions. If there was a way to dialog with you and have my words taken at face value, I’d love to, but you have shown that is not going to be possible. Pity – I think that would have been interesting.

PS – I’m still trying to figure out how evolution is related to all of this.

Big U:

Fine. Instead of renting a car, you borrowed a friend’s car. Does that help?

And in any case, signed agreement or no, every man knows (or ought to know) that he’s on the financial hook if she gets pregnant. If he’s that worried about it, get a signed agreement letting him off the hook before engaging in sex (though I’m betting that would pretty much spoil the mood).

Unless you were to say that an agreement prior to sex where the man and woman agree he will not be held liable for any resulting pregnancy would be acceptable.

Actually, that would be acceptable, provided it’s more than just an informal, verbal agreement.

I guess the fact of the matter is, for a guy to be 100% safe, abstinence is the only solution.

Or anal sex, or oral sex, or manual stimulation, or homosexual sex. Or a vasectomy (which I have on the to-do list, by the way). You get the idea.

I wonder if they teach that in schools?

I certainly hope so. I just hope it’s not all they teach. The Christian conservatives in this country would have it so, over the objection of experts, health professionals, and other sane folks alike.

LarryE:

“If she “walks away from” the pregnancy via abortion, his responsibilities end. If he walks away, her responsibilities remain. You simply cannot logically equate their two situations. Once you realize that, you will realize your argument fails.”

Exceptionally well said. I was beating around that bush, but wasn’t able to put it quite so succinctly.

So-crates -

Since you asked for a response, I’ll give one.

If in fact your real purpose was simply to ask why DNA is not used to recognize the “uniqueness” of the fetus, my original answer – a child is an individual, a fetus is not – would have been sufficient. Instead, you denied I had even addressed the question.

You then declared that the fetus is “unique and distinct” – in fact, you said:

The question is all about identifying individuals. The individuals are identified via their unique, distinct DNA, clearly identifying the mother and fetus to also be unique and distinct.

How anyone was to understand that as other than saying a fetus is an individual escapes me – and, I strongly suspect, you, too. Which is sufficient justification for concluding that, contrary to your claim, your intent was not just to ask a question, it was to use DNA as what you imagined was a sledgehammer for your own position. It also falsifies your claim that you “*never* said that DNA alone was equivalent to an individual.” (Surely you are not going to hide behind the weasely defense of insisting that “equivalent to” and “identified via” do not express the same idea here.)

When I replied by pointing out reasons why DNA is not suited to the purpose for which you would use it – that is, showing the fetus to be an individual – you again denied having gotten an answer and charged that I was trying to “shift the discussion onto other topics.”

If you’d really wanted to have a discussion, an honest exchange, you could have responded to my initial comment by saying something like “Well, okay, but if you’re not going to use DNA, how do you go about defining when a fetus becomes an individual?” But you didn’t. Instead you kept going back to the same (already answered) question and regarded any attempts to explain why DNA is not useful in that situation as evasions.

The bottom line here is that I have no patience for that kind of nonsense. You asked a question, you got an answer: DNA is not used to “identify” the “unique and distinct” fetus as an “individual” because a fetus is not an individual and cannot be rationally regarded as one prior to at absolute minimum the 22nd week of pregnancy and DNA is not related to making that determination.

What you claim is my being “combative and hostile” is actually my frustration with what evidence shows to be your fundamental dishonesty about your intentions here.

And with that, barring a direct question, I’m done with this.

Oh, except for this PS: What evolution had to do with it was the similarity of argument, in each case the wrong side of the argument trying to build its case by demanding something do that which it wasn’t intended to do – in the case of evolution, explain the beginning of life; in the case of DNA, define what makes an individual.

LarryE – the crime/criminal analogy was not valid as a crime doesn’t involve two consenting adults unless you take the position of some feminists who think that sex is essentially rape.

Also, you and tgirsch are right, there are other types of sex rather than just vaginal and tgirsch was also correct in stating that vasectomies are possible. Interesting how those options are available for women as well but you both only site it as being an option for the man. My guess is that to present that as an option for the woman would be classified as some sort of misogyny and trying to control what she does with her body.

What I find most interesting is that in all of life, different people are at greater risk for activities but in this situation (pregnancy) both of you are saying it is unfair to the woman. I say the woman, being equal to the man, should bear the extra responsibility simply because that is how nature made it. She demands the right to determine the course of the pregnancy, then she should be willing to live with the responsibility. Yes, it is an unfair situation but I find it ironic that both LarryE and Tgirsch feel it is okay if the man is forced into something but not okay if the woman is. That is sexism and misandry.

Now, I have clearly stated my own personal beliefs which are not in line with the argument I have presented but I still do not feel you have proven anything, beyond ideological positioning.

As far as this comment: “If she “walks away from” the pregnancy via abortion, his responsibilities end. If he walks away, her responsibilities remain. You simply cannot logically equate their two situations. Once you realize that, you will realize your argument fails.” You failed to recognize the other side of that. If she walks away from the pregnancy, his right to fatherhood ends. If he walks away, her right to motherhood remains. He does not have ANY control over whether or not she becomes a parent. She has 100% control over whether he does. And that also is unfair. So then it becomes a matter of rights vs responsibility and from what I have seen, those on the left are almost ALWAYS concerned with the rights of the individual. Why not in this case?

In reality, your perspective is as long as the unfairness lands in the lap of the man, it is okay. But if the unfairness lands in the lap of the woman, it is not. I understand that perspective because society has turned that way in almost all matters regarding men and women so it is natural to take that position as well.

More seriously, if life begins at conception, then the greatest holocaust in history is directly on God’s bloody hands, because nearly 80% of all fertilized eggs fail to implant in the uterine lining, thus resulting in a dead “baby” through completely natural circumstances. The number of “babies” who die this way absolutely dwarfs the number of abortions (the ratio is better than 8-to-1), all through God’s divine design. So maybe you should direct your anger at Him, as he’s at least 8 times the “murderer” that the “abortionists” are.

People die of natural causes every minute of the day, are you going to claim God murders them too? There is a BIG difference between a miscarriage and the intentionally aborting of a pregnancy. The latter is murder. If it is true that 80% of fertilized eggs end in miscarriage, then all the more reason of how delicate and precious a successful pregnancy is, and as a decent humans we should not intentionally harm unborn children. But no, you guys are more worried about treating dangerous terrorists with kid gloves.

DNA is not used to “identify” the “unique and distinct” fetus as an “individual” because a fetus is not an individual and cannot be rationally regarded as one prior to at absolute minimum the 22nd week of pregnancy and DNA is not related to making that determination.

Why is “viability outside the womb” anymore a determining factor of what constitutes an individual than DNA is?

BIg U:
Interesting how those options are available for women as well but you both only site it as being an option for the man.

*Sigh.* I don’t know why you’re being so thick-headed in this. At issue here was what a man can/should do if he wants to be absolutely sure he’ll never be responsible for a child he doesn’t want. He can’t exactly go around forcing the women he partners with to have tubal ligations (or abortions), now can he? Surely, the woman can have her tubes tied (as well as opt for the other non-vaginal intercourse options discussed), and if she never wants children, I’d encourage her to do so. Both the male and the female case are extreme, however, because there’s a pretty big difference between not wanting to have a kid right now or with this particular person, and not wanting one ever. Vasectomy and tubal ligation only make sense in the latter case.

Of course, in the case of an unintended pregnancy, the woman does have an option that the man does not: abortion. But I still don’t see how the fact that she has that option is in any way relevant to the rights/responsibilities the man has. If abortion weren’t an option, would you still absolve the man of those responsibilities? I just don’t understand why the presence or absence of one particular option dramatically changes the game with respect to who’s responsible for what in the event of a major mistake.

What’s deeply troubling to me about all of this is how you want to shovel as much of the responsibility as possible onto the woman in the event of an unintended pregnancy, and put as little as possible on the man. If that’s not paternalistic, it’s damn close.

In truth, this is a whole lot simpler than you’re making it out to be: she has options that he has no right to influence because she has responsibilities that he has no ability to bear.

My guess is that to present that as an option for the woman would be classified as some sort of misogyny and trying to control what she does with her body.

Not at all. The only thing that approaches “some sort of misogyny” is the fact that you insist on letting the man off essentially scot free just because she has an option available to her that he might not approve of. Whether you realize it or not, you’re effectively arguing that the all-too-frequent scenario of a man knocking up a woman and then disappearing is the way things ought to be. For all our disagreements on this blog, this one really shocks me, because you’ve always seemed like a decent enough guy to me, and this particular position of yours seems indefensible.

If she walks away from the pregnancy, his right to fatherhood ends.

Unless they were planning on having a child, he never had any right to fartherhood (with that woman) to begin with! If simply being the biological father in an unintended pregnancy qualifies one for fatherhood rights, then a man who rapes a woman and gets her pregnant has fatherhood rights. I’m betting that’s not a position you’re particularly eager to stick to.

He does not have ANY control over whether or not she becomes a parent. She has 100% control over whether he does. And that also is unfair.

Again, you’re using post hoc analysis where it doesn’t make sense to do so. The woman has “100% control” over his responsibilities to the child in the same way that the buddy whose car you crashed has “100% control” over your responsibility to pay for the damage you caused. It would be different if you had a firm agreement beforehand, or if you somehow didn’t know the risks going in. In either case, claiming to not have known the risks going in defies credulity.

So then it becomes a matter of rights vs responsibility and from what I have seen, those on the left are almost ALWAYS concerned with the rights of the individual. Why not in this case?

Because in this case, as we’ve been trying to spell out for dozens of comments, it’s not as simple as a case of individual rights. What we have instead is where the rights of two individuals are potentially in direct conflict with one another. In other words, by granting a right to Person A, you are necessarily diminishing the rights of Person B, and vice versa. In such a scenario, you have to have a consistent way of determining whose right “wins.” We’ve been arguing all along that because the responsibility necessarily and unchangeably belongs to the woman, the deference of rights goes to her first, too. You’re arguing the opposite. (Well, to be fair, you’re trying to make an inherently unfair situation less unfair, but I submit that in the process what you’re actually doing is making it even more unfair.)

Absent the direct conflict of rights, there’d be no need to make such a judgment.

In reality, your perspective is as long as the unfairness lands in the lap of the man, it is okay. But if the unfairness lands in the lap of the woman, it is not.

Actually, believe it or not, that’s a pretty good summation, with a couple of tweaks. Because most of the unfairness necessarily lands in the woman’s lap, and because there’s no way for the man to assume that unfairness, most of the unfairness that can be assigned to one party or the other should be assigned to the man.

Even having made that assignment, the “unfairness” scale still tips the woman’s way, i.e., the situation is still much more unfair to the woman than it is to the man; but it’s less so than if we throw all of the unfairness onto her, which is what you’re effectively arguing we should do.

P.S. You seem awfully bitter about this and invested in it, as though you’re arguing from experience or something. If you’ve had a bad experience along these lines, I’m certainly sorry about that, but that doesn’t mean we should take that out on others.

Big U -

I said I was done “lacking another question mark in your reply.” So one last, last time.

Why not in this case?

Oh, fer -

This has gotten tiresome. All you are doing – and all you’ve been doing for a while – is asking the same question (just in slightly different form) and no matter how many times you get the answer, you don’t address it except to dismiss it and then you just ask the same thing over again.

The situations of the man and the woman are not equivalent. Full stop. No matter how far you reach to try to establish an equivalency, it does not exist

If she walks away from the pregnancy, his right to fatherhood ends.

True but pointless – because so does her right to motherhood.

If he walks away, her right to motherhood remains.

Also true and equally pointless – because he could have retained that right to fatherhood if it had mattered to him. It apparently didn’t.

He does not have ANY control over whether or not she becomes a parent.

Which strongly hints that T. had it right all along: Your concern is not that she can end a pregnancy she doesn’t want but that he can’t force her to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want. It’s not that she has “100% control” but that he doesn’t have “100% control.”

And there is no escape from that by saying “I never said that.” Once there is a pregnancy, both parties have responsibilities. Abortion is one of the options available. If they disagree on that – which is the only time this whole discussion would even arise – one or the other of them is going to have to be able to make the final decision. Whichever party that is, would by your account have “100% control” over whether or not to have an abortion. So if it’s not the woman, it must be the man.

You strain like someone with terminal constipation, but the bottom line fact remains: Their situations are not equivalent.

Two other points: First,

the crime/criminal analogy was not valid as a crime doesn’t involve two consenting adults

You really need to get a better grip on the concept of an analogy. The relationship was not about legality, it was about logic – specifically, the flow of yours. You claimed – insisted – that it was discrimination against the man for the woman to be in the position to decide if he would have to live up to his responsibilities, to accept the consequences of his actions, or be freed from them. By precisely that same logic, it is discrimination against a criminal (and yes, we are stipulating that the criminal is guilty of the crime, just as we are stipulating that the man is the father) for a prosecutor to be in that same position. If that is not discrimination against the criminal, then the woman’s right to choose is not discrimination against the man.

Second,

Interesting how those options are available for women as well but you both only site it as being an option for the man

Of course they’re equally available to the woman. But the question was about the responsibility of the man. Go back and read it and drop the nonsense that there’s something revealing about not including in an answer something that wasn’t part of the question.

Yes, if a woman wants to be 100% certain of not getting pregnant, she could have some other form of sex. But we’re talking about a situation where both parties failed to do so. There is a pregnancy.

You want the man to be able to “walk away” from that situation, to be able to say “I didn’t want her to get pregnant, so nuthin’ to do with me. Bye.” But she can’t. She has an emotional, physiological, and financial burden and she can’t just say “I didn’t want to get pregnant, so :poof: it’s all gone.”

No, getting an abortion does not negate that. Unless you are one of those misogynist dingbats who think the decision whether or not to have an abortion is undertaken like the decision whether to have pie or cake for dessert, you have to accept that making that decision is part of her emotional (and financial) burden.

Yet even though she unavoidably bears those burdens, some of which (the physiological) he cannot share, you would have him free to choose to turn his back, ignore his responsibilities, and drop the burdens he can share through emotional and financial support – and you claim it to be discrimination against men – even, stunningly, hatred of men – that he shouldn’t be able to. That is utter and complete twaddle.

That’s it for me – even if you do ask a question, which very likely would be the same one is a slightly-different wording.

I have already stated several times what my personal position is but it seems you guys are attributing the argument I am presenting as my personal position.

The current situation is inherantly unequal and it is true the control is 100% in the hands of the woman. While I deem it to be unfair to place a financial burden on the man for 18 years for what may have been a one-night stand, I understand that it is the least disagreeable of any options currently available. My comments were focused on the possibility of making something that is incredibly unequal somewhat less unequal. However I will concede the point and acknowledge that at this time there are no options available that are acceptable to all parties.

Tgirsch – I respect the way you have approached this and apologize if it appeared that I was being antagonistic or mule-headed. There is a part of me that has a difficult time accepting an argument based on gender (her ability to bear children vs his inability) when in every situation where gender can have a major impact on a situation in favor of a man it is seen as being sexist or misogynistic and thus not a valid argument.

LarryE – “Your concern is not that she can end a pregnancy she doesn’t want but that he can’t force her to continue a pregnancy she doesn’t want. It’s not that she has “100% control” but that he doesn’t have “100% control.”

I never said that but I can see how it would make me appear to be a radical anti-women misogynist so kudoes on the slant. What my comment about his having no control was referring to was the idea that he has any type of control in the situation. He does not. Regardless of what he does, he does not have any control but the suggestion was made that he would be exercising de facto control if he was able to walk away. I do not believe that to be the case.

The initial question was about the fairness of a man being held financial responsible man in the situation where there were no plans/expectations/etc. for a pregnancy, especially when all options (other than avoiding vaginal sex) were used to prevent such. Not that in general men should be able to avoid any and all responsibility in every pregnancy. It would really be nice if you LarryE would actually take what someone writes for what it is rather than adding your slant to what you think they might mean based on your biases.

Your “personal position” is that the argument you’re presenting is fair and/or makes sense, which we’ve repeatedly demonstrated is not the case, and have repeatedly explained WHY it’s not the case.

it is true the control is 100% in the hands of the woman.

Only if you start looking at just the right point, and stipulate a long series of givens. And even then, you exaggerate how much control the woman has. Consider, for example, your one-night stand example. Foolish, certainly, but the risk to her is much greater than the risk to him. If she turns up pregnant, she might not even be able to find the guy to hold him responsible. And in any case, it’s not like she decided to get pregnant. If the woman were 100% in control, she could get pregnant (or not do so) at will, now couldn’t she?

There is a part of me that has a difficult time accepting an argument based on gender

The problem is that this is one of the few areas where gender simply cannot be ignored. It’s not an “oh, by the way” kind of detail, but a critical one. We strive to disregard gender and set aside gender bias where it’s possible, prudent, and sensible to do so, but this is one of a very few cases where it’s simply impossible to do so.

I also think you exaggerate the frequency with which gender-based arguments are unfairly labeled “misogyny,” especially here.

…if he was able to walk away.

He can walk away, and disavow any and all responsibility but the financial responsibility. And even there, she has to involve the courts if she wants to hold him to those responsibilities.

And frankly, I do agree somewhat with LarryE’s framing. It seems to me that your whole “counterargument” is based on sour grapes from the fact that she can abort without his permission (or even his knowledge). Your objection to being held responsible in an accident, when reasonable precautions were taken, seems hollow, considering we hold people responsible for the consequences of their mistakes/accidents all the time. What’s mystifying to me is why you want to carve out an exception for pregnancy, and then just for men.

Nope. No sour grapes. Again, assumptions being made based on your perceptions rather than fact

Tgirsch – As far as the 100% control, that relates to what happens after she becomes pregnant and we all know that was exactly what was being referred to. For you to throw in the fact that she does not have 100% control over whether or not her egg is successfully fertilized is somewhat beneath your usual level of honest discourse.

And I would really be interested in seeing how often individuals are held accountable for mistakes or accidents when reasonable precautions were taken. Not very often, from what I have seen. In fact, it seems that society is consistently moving further away from personal accountability and responsibility.

Let me rephrase: the control was referring to everything outside of the fertilization of the egg including any activity prior to getting pregnant. Not just after pregnancy.

To all the people who argue that life doesn’t begin at conception, I would like to NOT argue with you.

But.

What if you’re wrong? What a thing to be wrong on, you know?

You know, for all the people who argue that forced pregnancy has no consequences and unwanted children have just as good lives and wanted ones… What if you’re wrong? What a thing to be wrong on, ya know?

Oh, wait, those we can actually see. You are wrong.

Nice redirect Dan M. but she didn’t even mention that. So why would you bring it up? Oh that’s right. When unable to give a direct answer to a question, redirect with a different question.

In reality, both questions are relevant and important. There is no easy answer so in reality one must live with the consequences of one’s choices.

This debate suffers from one of the most common misunderstandings when debating policy, and that is not fully understanding what you are debating. As full disclosure, I was once, say 8-10 years ago, very sympathetic to the Big U argument here. How can she just kill a kid that is half mine without my consent? (Well, that kid can kill her w/o her consent either, but he can’t do shit to harm me) But, anyway, the issue is that that is not the point.

This is a conflation of arguing personal morality vs. civil rights, or arguing what it means to do the right thing vs. what individuals should have the right to do.

Do I detest abortion being used as an ex post facto method of birth control. Absolutely. Do I think it is nothing short of abominable for a woman to abort a baby (for reasons other than that of her own health) without giving serious consideration to the wishes of the father? Hell yes. Do I even think that it is selfish and morally questionable to unilaterally bar the option of abortion if the father clearly expresses no desire to be a responsible parent? Yes, again. But none of those questions are any more the issue than whether I’d ever want to sleep with a man is in the debate regarding gay marriage.

This isn’t about how one feels about different iterations of the potential behavior in question. It’s about whether the state should preserve what it has legally deemed a woman’s right to exercise autonomy over her own body.

This is very much where conservatives and liberals tend to differ. In general, Liberals are more willing to take their persona feelings about the action out of the equation and deliberate on the issue through the prism of whether the state should be invited to get involved, and to what extent. Conservatives, generally speaking, more often take the approach of politicizing personal decisions – though, ironically, they claim to want to minimize the role of gov’t. In this case, it is actually liberals who are minimizing the role of gov’t, as they say gov’t’s place is to protect an individual’s right to do what she chooses. Conservatives are asking that the government enforce policy rooted in the promotion of a unified ideology.

Anna -

What if you’re wrong?

Seems like a potent question, but it isn’t, really. It’s like asking a rabbi “But what if Jesus really was the messiah?” Or asking a priest “But what if there is no God?” Or, perhaps even better, asking a physicist “But what if quantum physics is wrong?” It amounts to “Deny your own understanding, deny the facts, and adopt my personal beliefs. What do you say then?”

But the Moon isn’t made of green cheese, quantum physics is not wrong, and independent human life does not begin at conception. So the question is invalid.

“What if” questions can lead to interesting philosophical speculations but they rarely are good guides to social policy.

Big U -

When unable to give a direct answer to a question, redirect with a different question.

Yes, well, that’s a method with which you are surely familiar. But Dan M. does make a valid point, if indirectly: I was once offered what I regard as the valuable philosophical guideline that “when faced with the choice between a real evil and a hypothetical one, go for the hypothetical one.” The bad effects of forced pregnancies and unwanted children are known and observable; the supposed “bad effect” of life beginning at conception is purely hypothetical, as the root assertion is based on assumption and bad logic that run counter to observable facts.

in reality one must live with the consequences of one’s choices

Which is exactly what, throughout the rest of this discussion, you have tried to find a way for the man in our postulated relationship to avoid.

Larry E > “in reality one must live with the consequences of one’s choices

Which is exactly what, throughout the rest of this discussion, you have tried to find a way for the man in our postulated relationship to avoid.”

If you actually paid attention to what I have been writing, you would realize just how asinine that statement is. But I must admit I was expecting this response from you so thank you for not disappointing.

Big U -

“When unable to give a direct answer to a question, redirect with a different question” – or, as here, when unable to refute a charge, redirect to insult.

This entire discussion has revolved around your resentment that the woman has, in your words, “100% control” over whether the man has to live up to his responsibilities if she gets unexpectedly pregnant and your trying to find ways to argue that this is unfair toward, even discrimination against, even hatred of, men.

This is not, and has not been, about if you think he should walk away but whether or not he should be able to walk away. And you cannot rationally deny that you have repeatedly and in varying ways argued that he should be able to do so. Such a denial would be, to quote you one more time, asinine.

LarryE, you are right. In the context of the discussion the position I have stated, while at the same time clearly stating that it is not one I personally believe in, is that the man should have the option to take on or refuse to take on financial responsibility. It has nothing to do with resentment (something you seem unable to comprehend or are just too eager to keep trying to define my feelings even though you know nothing about me).

Equal is equal. You have clearly stated that you are fine with things being unequal. Fine. From a completely unemotional detached position (one which I have been taking), it is pragmatically unfair for one gender to be given 100% control over a situation that so significantly affects two individuals. However, as I have acknowledged within this thread, at this point in time, that is the way society has done it and realistically there is no other real option available at this time. I also agree that to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to completion is unfair to a woman. But you seem to ignore that. You wrap yourself in criticisms of how I feel (resentful?) (okay with the guy having 100% control?). Why you are making incorrect assumptions attacking my character is beyond me but in my mind it belittles your argument as it now seems to become a personal attack against me.

Sorry that my flippant tone obscured this, but LarryE said is exactly the point I was trying to make.

If you’re worried about the consequences of being wrong, what matters in the consequences and whether it’s possible to be either right or wrong.

We know there are costs to unwanted pregnancies. We can see them; they’re tangible. They effect real people (mostly women and their children, but also men) that we can see an hear and go ask questions of. We actually can see that there are consequences, which are real.

On the other hand, whether a newly fertilized zygote is “really” a different person is a metaphysical question. If you think there’s actually some tangible way of deciding if a thing is a person, you could look at reality to decide. If you think a thing is a person because it has its own DNA, then you can actually tell if a zygote is one (though there are issues with twins). If you think a thing needs a separate nervous system that can feel pain, then you can actually tell if a fetus in the second trimester is one (though there are minor issues with exact timing).

In either case, you can’t be categorically wrong because you’d have to be wrong about what you, the speaker, think makes it worth calling a thing a person. If whether a thing is a person is a matter of choosing what the label ‘person’ covers, then you can’t be wrong.

If however, you think there’s such a thing as what “really” is a person, and that there’s some objective definition of what gets that label, then you, the speaker, don’t know what that definition is. You may think you do, but you don’t. Either personhood is a label for a set of tangible properties, in which case we can disagree about the label none of us can be mistaken about it, or it’s not a tangible set of properties, in which case you can’t fucking know what it is.

You can’t be mistaken about whether something’s a person unless it doesn’t matter what it is to be a person.

I care whether humans with real tangible lives suffer harm. I care about consequences. I don’t care whether my use of the lebel ‘person’ matches that of anybody else or any of their gods.

Dan,

That’s heavy shit! No, really, I agree with you 100%. I know I stay on this bandwagon, but it is amazing what percentage of debates are really about semantics, while the participants think they are about things way more substantive.

Big U,

From a completely unemotional detached position (one which I have been taking), it is pragmatically unfair for one gender to be given 100% control over a situation that so significantly affects two individuals.

Again, I once felt your position held water. Although, at that time I also prided myself on, and basked in the irony of, the ability to polish off the better portion of a fifth of rum before my 100-level Linguistics class.

Big U -

Perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised, but I still am that the one who has so persistently whined about having their position not quoted accurately seriously misstates mine immediately after acknowledging that I did state his correctly – despite having just previously called that description “asinine.”

You have clearly stated that you are fine with things being unequal.

That is utter and complete nonsense so thorough that I have to restrain myself from thinking it deliberate.

As I said, more than once, and explicitly and in so many words, in the case of an unwanted pregnancy the situations of the man and the woman are not equivalent. Full stop. No matter how far you reach to try to establish an equivalency, it does not exist.

In such an event, the woman has emotional and physiological burdens which the man does not, as well as financial burdens. Yes, if he is supportive he can shoulder some of the emotional burden, but the physiological one is all hers. The situation is inherently unequal.

But you explicitly declare “the man should have the option to take on or refuse to take on financial responsibility,” that is, he should be free to walk away from the situation and refuse to share any part of the one burden which he truly can bear or at least mostly bear: financial responsibility. He should be free to turn his back and leave her not only with all the emotional and physiological burdens, but all the financial ones as well. You want to take a situation that is by its nature unequal and make it grossly more unequal, leaving her with her burdens while exempting him from the one that can be his – while, incredibly, claiming that is what can make it equal!

(And please don’t bother grousing that you didn’t say that: Proposing that he should have the “option” of providing or not providing support makes any such support purely voluntary – which does exempt him from having any responsibility for it.)

What you propose, as again I have said before and you now explicitly assert, is that the man should be free to “fuck ‘em and forget ‘em.” There is no other rational interpretation of your position, no matter how much you may try to sneer at it. You want to challenge that? Come up with an alternate description – remembering always that the issue is not what you think he should do but what he should be able to do.

Finally and after this I don’t think I’m even going to read the thread anymore much less reply to anything (Dan and Digg, this is not a criticism of you, I’ve just had it with this.) we have the “100% control” business. One last time in the hope it will penetrate: If the couple disagrees about abortion, one or the other has to be able to make the final decision. Whichever one that is thereby has “100% control” over whether the pregnancy continues or not. Society has determined, and logic dictates, that the person be the woman since she is the one that must bear the burdens and risks of the pregnancy (and, if it proceeds, of childbirth).

That’s it. I’ve had it.