Roe v Wade is on deck

[Toni]

What about disinterested angry white men? Don't they get a say? If not, that is reverse discrimination!

I'm totally cool with that.

You don't have to be a disinterested angry white man to be a father.

The way things are now(RvW) the male parent has no say.

The female parent could decide:
"I just wanted the sex. Not the baby. It's a clump of cells. Kill it."
And the male parent has no say.

Or:
"My baby is a gift from God. I want to be a mother. Everyone from the taxpayers to the father owes me 18 years of income."
And the male parent has no say.

It's pretty blatant gender discrimination.

Tom

So is the very real medical risk, which includes death. Of course there remain the very real compromise of educational and economic opportunities and attainment, not to mention a very great deal of very harsh judgement of mothers by society, the scrutiny of her body however well it does or does not spring back to its pre-pregnancy shape. It also has a dramatic effect on her future ability to form and maintain future romantic and/or sexual relationships. Indeed, she might very well be in a position of being subjected to physical or sexual abuse as a result of her pregnancy.

Men are thought heroes for wanting a child, even if the extent of their involvement entails throwing the occasional package of disposable diapers on the mother’s doorstep.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

What about disinterested angry white men? Don't they get a say? If not, that is reverse discrimination!

I'm totally cool with that.

You don't have to be a disinterested angry white man to be a father.

The way things are now(RvW) the male parent has no say.

Having gone through that process as a husband/father regarding an average pregnancy with probably above average post issues, while I believe my feelings regarding logistics have a right to be heard, the ultimate choice / final word is always the wife's or woman's.

The female parent could decide:
"I just wanted the sex. Not the baby. It's a clump of cells. Kill it."
And the male parent has no say.

The male parent doesn't endure the abortion or pregnancy. Both of these are about as personal / intimate bodily events as they come.

Or:
"My baby is a gift from God. I want to be a mother. Everyone from the taxpayers to the father owes me 18 years of income."
And the male parent has no say.

It's pretty blatant gender discrimination.

It is biology and whether we feel a woman has a right to make the choices that have temporary and permanent impacts on her own life, both physical and psychological. It isn't perfect, but sometimes Democracy isn't an option when a two person decision committee impacts one of them a lot more than the other.

Also, "gender discrimination" is hardly what is going on. The guy isn't being denied a choice because he is a guy, it is because he isn't getting the abortion or enduring a pregnancy!

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I am pro-choice. Primarily due to the theory that control of a woman's body should be determined by the woman. A woman's rights shouldn't be subservient to the fetus.

I'm also Pro-Choice.
As long as we understand that Choice includes refraining from potentially fertile sex.

I keep forgetting that this has been perfected.

 

[Elixir]

It's pretty blatant gender discrimination.

Tom

So is the very real medical risk, which includes death. Of course there remain the very real compromise of educational and economic opportunities and attainment, not to mention a very great deal of very harsh judgement of mothers by society, the scrutiny of her body however well it does or does not spring back to its pre-pregnancy shape. It also has a dramatic effect on her future ability to form and maintain future romantic and/or sexual relationships. Indeed, she might very well be in a position of being subjected to physical or sexual abuse as a result of her pregnancy.

Men are thought heroes for wanting a child, even if the extent of their involvement entails throwing the occasional package of disposable diapers on the mother’s doorstep.

QFT.
For someone to complain about "having no say", I would want them to first show a level of commitment that would justify having a "say".
The pregnant woman's skin is literally already in the game. The male's gamete is all he has definitely put forth (nothing he is ever going to miss).

 

[Toni]

I am pro-choice. Primarily due to the theory that control of a woman's body should be determined by the woman. A woman's rights shouldn't be subservient to the fetus.

I'm also Pro-Choice.
As long as we understand that Choice includes refraining from potentially fertile sex.
Once two people have Chosen differently, they aren't the only ones involved any more.

There is a 100% safe, effective, and free form of birth control. Pregnancy is always the result of Choice.
Tom

Come on Tom! You're a great poster and critical thinker. You know that the above is not always true.

Which part?

That abstaining from potentially fertile sex prevents pregnancy?
Yes, actually it does.
Tom

Well thank god that no pregnancy ever results from rape!

Or after a veasectomy or tubal ligation.

 

[TomC]

Yay!

It's been awhile since there was thread issue I could really sink my fangs into.

My attitude towards Ukraine invasion could be summed up by "No more War".
My attitude towards trans could be summed up by "Be polite."
My attitude towards Teaparty Republicans could be summed up by "Support U.S. institutions as they are."
My attitude towards historical Jesus can be summed up by "Nobody knows."

Feticide rights are different. We haven't really argued about that in awhile. Refreshing change of pace.
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yay!

It's been awhile since there was thread issue I could really sink my fangs into.

My attitude towards Ukraine invasion could be summed up by "No more War".
My attitude towards trans could be summed up by "Be polite."
My attitude towards Teaparty Republicans could be summed up by "Support U.S. institutions as they are."
My attitude towards historical Jesus can be summed up by "Nobody knows."

Feticide rights are different. We haven't really argued about that in awhile. Refreshing change of pace.
Tom

Tossing in the good ole "-cide" is always a great way to keep the conversation level headed.

 

[Toni]

It's pretty blatant gender discrimination.

Tom

Considering where the womb tends to turn up, how else could this be arranged?

Give the male parent the legal right to refuse the burden of parenthood, the way female parents already can.


Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with legally enforced child support. I wish that there was a feasible way to enforce that better than we(U.S. society) do. I've got no problem with gender equality on this subject.
Tom

Men are pretty good at avoiding any legal, much less moral, burden of parenthood. I’ve known men who, upon deciding they no longer wished to be married, absconding with the bulk of family savings, moving to another state and taking a job where the vast majority of their income was room and board. Or who, when teased to the court mandated child support which they could have well afforded, simply threatening to sue for full custody of the child they tried to force their wife to abort and with whom they refused to spend any time or of their own money. Unfortunately neither of these are theoretical but actually involve people I know very well and in fact, in the later case is my firmer brother in law who resented the idea that his child would take any of my sister’s time, attention or income away from his collection of new luxury automobiles.

Only someone who has never raised a child would imagine that anyone lives well on child support and/or state aid. It’s an extremely difficult life and one that permanently impacts the earning potential of the custodial parent.

 

[Toni]

Yay!

It's been awhile since there was thread issue I could really sink my fangs into.

My attitude towards Ukraine invasion could be summed up by "No more War".
My attitude towards trans could be summed up by "Be polite."
My attitude towards Teaparty Republicans could be summed up by "Support U.S. institutions as they are."
My attitude towards historical Jesus can be summed up by "Nobody knows."

Feticide rights are different. We haven't really argued about that in awhile. Refreshing change of pace.
Tom

One does admire the input of those who have zero skin in the game.[/s]

 

[Keith&Co.]

Yay!

It's been awhile since there was thread issue I could really sink my fangs into.

My attitude towards Ukraine invasion could be summed up by "No more War".
My attitude towards trans could be summed up by "Be polite."
My attitude towards Teaparty Republicans could be summed up by "Support U.S. institutions as they are."
My attitude towards historical Jesus can be summed up by "Nobody knows."

Feticide rights are different. We haven't really argued about that in awhile. Refreshing change of pace.
Tom

One does live the input of those who have zero skin in the game.

Or that guy that insists raped women don't get pregnant? Because the body has ways to shut that stuff down?

Or Idaho, where the law is that a rapist cannot stop his victim from getting an abortion, but HIS relatives can?

I can listen to these people vote about body parts i don't own all day long. As long as i have a bucket.

 

[Jarhyn]

Yay!

It's been awhile since there was thread issue I could really sink my fangs into.

My attitude towards Ukraine invasion could be summed up by "No more War".
My attitude towards trans could be summed up by "Be polite."
My attitude towards Teaparty Republicans could be summed up by "Support U.S. institutions as they are."
My attitude towards historical Jesus can be summed up by "Nobody knows."

Feticide rights are different. We haven't really argued about that in awhile. Refreshing change of pace.
Tom

Tom, I'll level with you: human DNA, and the processes of our bodies, are not sacred.

Sometimes errors happen and society needs to be tolerant of that.

Sometimes that error is being lured to step on and thus trigger a biological trap that is wired thus because it is a mechanism of propagation for the whole whack.

It needs an off switch, and it would be nice if that was just built in.

Another big issue is that some people do not even understand that the shape of their behavior is directed fairly unthinkingly towards wanton reproduction, and are biologically wired to not understand until after the fact what even happened.

Alcohol can play a big role there, too, for all that it shouldn't.

People can and should be able to choose to be parents when they wish, while also not having their minds go fairly deranged from denying a biological urge out of mere fear of that.

But in the mean time, we need an option that equates to a woman's right to choose, and to me that means OTC abortifacient, and easily accessible clinics.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Yay!

It's been awhile since there was thread issue I could really sink my fangs into.

My attitude towards Ukraine invasion could be summed up by "No more War".
My attitude towards trans could be summed up by "Be polite."
My attitude towards Teaparty Republicans could be summed up by "Support U.S. institutions as they are."
My attitude towards historical Jesus can be summed up by "Nobody knows."

Feticide rights are different. We haven't really argued about that in awhile. Refreshing change of pace.
Tom

One does admire the input of those who have zero skin in the game.[/s]

It is an interesting argument. Interesting in the sense of quite odd in the sense of misplaced priorities.

Person A: A woman has the Right to make sole decisions regarding her body.
Person B: I'm all for a woman having the right to intimate privacy but that could cost a guy money for a while.

Person A's argument shouldn't be held at ransom because of Person B's argument. The most specific oddity of the argument is that we are talking about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. And the counter is that "but men are on the hook if she gets pregnant and wants to have the baby".

 

[Toni]

I agree that OTC abortifacients and birth control should be readily available. That said, neither are sufficient, particularly for young girls and anyone who may be sexually exploited. Pregnancy does not always announce itself by a precisely scheduled period being missed. Even when menses are regular, there are often other reasons than pregnancy for a delayed or missed period. Denial is very, very real, especially for the very young.

Surely we are all aware that abortifacients can be administered without the knowledge or or consent of the woman and are not without risk (see Alex Jones), particularly if taken without medical supervision. Likewise birth control can fail, even if properly prescribed and dosed and taken faithfully. Those who are most likely to be harmed are those who are most likely to be exploited sexually and economically, often because of their youth, inexperience and lack of agency.

Yes, OTC birth control and abortifacients would help but both can be used in the abuse of young and vulnerable and can be misused, with bad consequences, by those who are not knowledgeable and who lack medical guidance.

 

[Keith&Co.]

It would be really cool if fertility was a voluntary muscle. A sperm valve in the testicles, AND an egg gun in the ovary. All participants would have to want baby-ing to make baby.
Oh, but then we'd still have the problem with alcohol. And guys or gals that might not know their control isn't entirely dependable under pressure, which they wouldn't learn until tested or, far more likely, upon the pregnancy.

And if fertility was like a mood ring, a freckle on the lower belly that turned bright red when fertile, fading to bluff when not, there'd be an entire industry of make-up to enhance it, hide it, fake it, detect it, test it, field test it... Clothes to reveal it.... Women changing plans after the shower, men teasing each other in the locker room (Are you...PINK? You are! You're showing PINK! What kinda man has a PINK seedspot? Jeez, might as well get you an APRON!).

 

[TomC]

The most specific oddity of the argument is that we are talking about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. And the counter is that "but men are on the hook if she gets pregnant and wants to have the baby".

Could you be more clear?

I'm pretty sure I am who you're talking about. But I don't believe that.

I think all parents who choose to make a baby have Chosen a level of responsibility. Biology dictates some of the responsibilities, but they're there nevertheless.

Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The most specific oddity of the argument is that we are talking about a woman's right to choose to have an abortion. And the counter is that "but men are on the hook if she gets pregnant and wants to have the baby".

Could you be more clear?

I'm pretty sure I am who you're talking about. But I don't believe that.

I think all parents who choose to make a baby have Chosen a level of responsibility. Biology dictates some of the responsibilities, but they're there nevertheless.

Tom

The thread is about Roe v Wade, i.e. a woman's right to abortion. And you are talking about child care costs to the male parent.

Though, the way things are going, there won't be a viable abortion option regardless... so guys better start being more careful. Helping a pregnant woman get an abortion could cost the guy $20k in Texas.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am pro-choice. Primarily due to the theory that control of a woman's body should be determined by the woman. A woman's rights shouldn't be subservient to the fetus.

I'm also Pro-Choice.
As long as we understand that Choice includes refraining from potentially fertile sex.
Once two people have Chosen differently, they aren't the only ones involved any more.

There is a 100% safe, effective, and free form of birth control. Pregnancy is always the result of Choice.
Tom

1) It's not a viable path in life. Just look at the church to see what happens--priests are to remain celibate. It's no surprise you see far more sexual perversion amongst them than the population at large. Something with a substantial chance of fucking your mind up isn't 100% safe.

2) Rape.

3) What happens when something goes wrong? We have had one legislator try to specifically outlaw ending ectopic pregnancies. There are three possible outcomes from an ectopic pregnancy:
A) Abortion pill. She's unharmed.

B) Surgical removal. This generally costs her one fallopian tube--half her fertility. If it happens again she ends up with an unwanted sterilization.

C) Rupture. This is a life-threatening medical emergency, at best the outcome is the same as case B. Some don't make it to the OR in time.

Note, also, that in their hatred of anything abortion the Catholic hospitals choose B over A, a decision I consider medical malpractice.

Note that there is no path to a successful birth.

So far I haven't heard of any nutcases trying this about molar pregnancies, probably because they're generally called teranomas in medical literature. I wouldn't put it past them, though. Note that there are two possible outcomes:

A) Surgical removal. Maybe the ovary can be saved.

B) Death.

Not only is there no path to a successful birth but there's nothing resembling a person involved--it's just a mess of parts.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Give the male parent the legal right to refuse the burden of parenthood, the way female parents already can.


Don't get me wrong. I'm fine with legally enforced child support. I wish that there was a feasible way to enforce that better than we(U.S. society) do. I've got no problem with gender equality on this subject.
Tom

I've long supported a fair version of this:

Observation: Normally in accidental damage situations the injured party is expected to take reasonable efforts to mitigate the damage (although the cost of such efforts becomes part of the claim.) You put a ball through my window, I ignore it and get a bunch of water damage from a storm, you're not liable for the water damage. (However, if I'm not home to know about it you might be liable for the water damage.)

Let's apply this to an oops pregnancy. The minimum cost approach is a prompt abortion. Not taking this path is a cost that is purely on her shoulders, he shouldn't be liable. However, there is the urgency involved, she might not be able to pay that half. Thus I suggest a reasonable compromise: He pays (in certified funds) the whole cost of an abortion one week hence, she picks up the extra costs like time off work. This ensures she has enough to pay for it. (And if there's a question of it being taken from her before she can pay she can request he make the payment(s) directly to the provider(s).) This ends all his rights/responsibilities in regard to the pregnancy.

She is expected to inform him promptly upon discovery of the pregnancy, if she delays that doesn't change the cost. (If he delays, though--it's the cost one week after he sends the money.) Yes, there are cases where she's truly unaware of it--in such cases the burden of proof is on her to show why she didn't notice. Being in denial isn't not noticing.

Special cases:

She is allowed to inform him in writing before sex happens that she won't have an abortion. Doing so negates this option, but also means he can say she can't have an abortion unless something goes wrong. This avoids mismatched expectations in both directions.

In case of contraceptive fraud (which is generally going to be a high burden to prove) the person engaging in the fraud bears 100% of the costs.

 

[Toni]

Loren, you are woefully uninformed about modern sexual practices, use of birth control, abortifacients, pregnancy signs and symptoms, much less incorrect results. Nor gave you considered whether or not a girl or woman is able to get time off from schoo/work to procure an abortion if she’s able to locate a provider in the time frame that allows her to obtain an abortion and also not the costs of transportation and lodging—for starters.

Many years ago, a friend was unable to schedule a pregnancy test because she had experienced bleeding/a ‘period’ two weeks prior—they just laughed at her. By the time a doctor confirmed the pregnancy, the pregnancy was sufficiently advanced that had she wanted an abortion, she would almost certainly not have been able to get one. Fortunately for everyone, the child was very much wanted if unplanned.

Women have very many reasons that there is a delay in recognizing and confirming a pregnancy. Not only that but there can be multiple candidates for paternity, many complications medical conditions, etc. not to mention the ramifications for education, career, relationships of all sorts.

Men also often have some difficulty recognizing various medical conditions, often delaying diagnosis and treatment. It is wrong to hold women to different standards because of men’s feelings or convenience.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

How to handle child support is post whether a woman has the right to her own body or whether the state can compel women to endure pregnancy and give birth or have state mandated abortions.

Childhood support has no real responsibility in the conversation.