welcome to the fest
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Who decides?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
bitflipper



Joined: 09 Jul 2011
Posts: 728
Location: Here and Now

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:28 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

With that, I must leave the discussion for tonight; I have to go audition folks for our next play.

I'll say this: I can't claim to have an answer, really. I hope, though, that I've inspired some serious thought on the matter, as it is one that has haunted me for a very long time.
_________________
I am only a somewhat arbitrary sequence of raised and lowered voltages to which your mind insists upon assigning meaning
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xanthë



Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: Wurundjeri country

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 12:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
It is this with which I disagree; there is a point between the extremes of "it's solely her choice" and "it's solely his choice" that needs to be sought and considered.


Considered and rejected: it’s her choice solely, however much the father-to-be may wish her to agree with his advice or his desires. Again, this is because the division of labour in pregnancy, compared to the sexual transaction, is completely unequal between the sexes; to change the equation with respect to choice, you need to change the labour equation involved, because the man’s labour finishes once he’s ejaculated. Any planning involved that he wishes to undertake (look, it’s that word again), has to take place before that point.

bitflipper wrote:
Xanthë wrote:
Postscript:

bitflipper wrote:
It is also his child.


No. Not until it’s viable outside her body, it isn’t. That point of viability is usually sometime in the third trimester. It’s a foetus, not a child.

If you want the father-to-be to have rights over a foetus, then gestate it in a box. Otherwise he doesn’t get a say over the woman’s body.
But a foetus is, at the very least, a future child.


That’s committing a fallacy of consequentialism by asking women to be the means to an end, and therefore that the end justifies the means. We don’t even have to consider the fact of nature that for many reasons pregnancies turn out to be non-viable (the natural miscarriage rate is well over 50% if you count up all cases of embryos failing to implant – those too are ‘potential pregnancies’ or a ‘future child’ if things had gone another way). Sorry, but that argument really won’t wash. The end doesn’t justify the means.

(I won’t pile up an answer to everything in that comment, bitflipper, I’m aware that you’re no longer around to continue discussing this, and I’m glad that this is being conducted with respect. Hope your auditioning goes well.)
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10595
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

bitflipper wrote:
Dogen wrote:
You either give the father rights over a woman's body, and force upon her the risks associated with pregnancy, or he loses the right to input.
It is this with which I disagree; there is a point between the extremes of "it's solely her choice" and "it's solely his choice" that needs to be sought and considered.

Yes, indeed, the woman is who is facing the risks of pregnancy. But hers is the body that is at all equipped to do so, also.

I'm not sure where this argument is going to go, but this is tautological. She bears the risk because she's the only one that can bear the risk. It's irrelevant. She either has autonomy or she doesn't. You either respect her right to control her own body, or you take from her that right.

Quote:
But, just because a situation is iniquitous does not make it unilateral. A 10% stockholder in a company bears iniquitous risk compared to a 40% stockholder, which is why the 10% holder has less voice in the running of that company. But, he still has some voice. He also has less potential for return, too, compared to the 40% holder (which may be where the analogy fails; I maintain that there is no percentage of return on raising a child to be split between the parents.)

What part of this hasn't already been covered? The woman bears 100% of the biological risk, so the man is a 0% stakeholder in that. And with regard to any social stakes, we've already covered that as well (Xanthe and I both), when we spoke of the right of the man to be heard. It's not like I'm saying you can't voice an opinion. I'm saying that you have no right to demand the use of her body.

Quote:
If the decision was shared to impregnate her, why shouldn't the decision also be shared when it comes to handling the consequences of that first choice?

Because she bears all of the biological risk, but mainly because no one has any right to tell you what to do with your body. It's, again, an inherently unfair decision, but you have to choose which is more important - your right to choose for her, or her right to choose what happens to her own body.

Quote:
In practicality, I can see that it never actually will be. No man will ever be able to stop a woman from choosing entirely of her own to seek an abortion without considering what loss it may be causing him. He will only be able to say, after the fact, "But, it was my child, too." And that is no more fair than the fact that it is the woman who can bear the child nor that it is the woman who faces the risks attendant upon pregnancy. But we all know the one thing that life notoriously isn't, don't we?

Yes. The choice is unfair, but there is no responsible, nor reasonable alternative. To have it any other way is to make women's bodies the shared property of their partners.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Black Kitty



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 704
Location: Under your bed.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dogen, are you married? If so, congrats to your partner. If not, what're you doing this Saturday?
_________________
Live to laugh.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Arkhron



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 266

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

First of all, this is not a try to derail the thread, is a serious question and, If you have the time and the will, answer.

This is a hypothetical question, but not pointed to dismiss the actual consensus of 100% / 0% responsability while the pregnancy.

The question is:

Seeing how the science is advancing, is a matter of time the development of a medical procedure to make able a male-bodied* person to bear and nurture a child. Don't laugh at the bottom, I know persons that would cut off an arm for and can't because they born with the "wrong" genitalia. K', done the long setup of the hypothetical question (a shame, it's gonna be answered with a short "of course yes, you fool" or a " is a different thing, you fool" or a flat "you are a fool")

In this case, would the male-bodied person has the 100% responsability and choice too?

*Thanks Xanthë
_________________
Be mellow

Be compassionate


Last edited by Arkhron on Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:48 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3271

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BUT THE MENFOLKKKKKK!!!! WHAT ABOUT THE MENFOLLLLLLLLK!!!!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9458

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 1:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
But a foetus is, at the very least, a future child. As such, it represents a great potential for both the mother-to-be and the father-to-be.


A woman's body — and the medical sovereignty that it possesses — is not something that can be directed to keep pregnancy against that person's will for the sake of a "representation of great potential." Or, at least, there exist no credible utility rights argument that I've heard.

You might as well, in quite a similar vein (and used to demonstrate the surface weaknesses of the "great future potential" argument) tell the father of a Representation of Great Potential that because he has a Bundle of Great Potential on its way that the state can automatically furlough his wages and force him to eat healthy because to allow him to do otherwise comes at undue risk to the said Potential.



Quote:
She bears, iniquitously, more risk, but there is more to be considered, here, than simply risk. There is also the outcome. Is anyone willing to claim that there are no men who would look forward to the prospect of raising their children?


to reiterate:

medically she bears all the risk; 100%. It is 100% her decision what she wants to do with her body in regards to bearing that risk, expense, and associated medical complications, loss of productivity, labor and stress, etc.

I am sure there are plenty of men who would look forward to the prospect of raising their children.

This desire does not create, rights-wise, any sense of obligation towards the female as an incubator that would justify removal of her medical sovereignty in order to facilitate what a man looks forward to.

You have heard, perhaps, the Crane poem —

A man said to the universe:
“Sir, I exist!"
“However,” replied the universe,
“The fact has not created in me
“A sense of obligation.”

— in this case, it is —

"I, as the paternal provider of this foetus, desire to have it be kept and be made a baby, for I seek to raise it!"

"However," replies the woman, "The fact has not created in me any requirement to provide for that desire."

Quote:
But, just because a situation is iniquitous does not make it unilateral. A 10% stockholder in a company bears iniquitous risk compared to a 40% stockholder, which is why the 10% holder has less voice in the running of that company. But, he still has some voice. He also has less potential for return, too, compared to the 40% holder (which may be where the analogy fails; I maintain that there is no percentage of return on raising a child to be split between the parents.)


I am going to repeat the figure 100%. I have already stressed that we are not talking an iniquitous divide, we are talking a lack of a divide, wherein the entirety of the sum of the risk and personal medical risks, complications, and labor of pregnancy is held by one party; the mother.

Quote:
As such, there is already a requirement that a father-to-be be involved somewhere. If the decision was shared to impregnate her, why shouldn't the decision also be shared when it comes to handling the consequences of that first choice?


The answer is blessed in its simplicity:

"Because it's her body."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vector010



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xanthë wrote:
I’d also like to add, as it is often left out of these discussions, that bearing children is a huge responsibility for people to take on in their lives, and in terms of consequences it is much more in the child’s interests that they have a parent or parents who will care for them and bring them up properly; that children are wanted. There are numerous reasons why the first word in Planned Parenthood is there — planned being better than unplanned! — which mainly derives from evidence-based study that society as a whole and people in general benefit most from women being in control of their fertility and not being slaves to their biology.

The fact there are adoptions, but seemingly there are always more children in want of adoption rather than there being a superfluity of parents willing to adopt them strongly suggests there is an actual societal problem with the unwanted consequences of pregnancy, and too often there is an insistence that pregnancies must be carried to term, with little emphasis on how the child is to be cared for until they reach adulthood. I have admiration for people who are parents, whether they are nurturing children who are biologically their own, or had a surrogate parent, or are adoptive parents, but that does not mean that everyone is willingly or suitable to be a parent, and I certainly don’t believe someone should be conscripted or coerced to be a parent against their will.

The main cases where a parent is unwillingly coerced in that way are where women have limited ability to seek out and obtain an abortion, and where men have contributed paternity but don’t wish to take responsibility (the MRA fantasies of sperm-jacking, or women deliberately causing contraceptive failure, are almost entirely mythical events). Both situations are far from ideal, and removing women’s rights to choose help neither.

PS Oh, and Adyon, don’t worry about having missed the same point I made — it was a long comment and there was quite a bit in it. Smile

(Emphasis mine)

I have to disagree with you on that point since it actually happened to me a couple times. Or maybe I'm not exactly understanding what you mean. In the cases it happened to me it was a partner ceasing to take their oral contraceptives deliberately while deceiving me by saying they were taking them and continuing to fill the prescription for them and flushing a pill each day. All this while knowing that at that point in time I was very adamant about not being ready to have a child. Does that count as what you were talking about there? (Oh, and luckily for me conception never occurred in those cases before I found out what was going on.)

The only thing I really have anything to say about the main topic of whether a man has any say is that men should have a say in abortion, but not the way people are thinking about here. He doesn't get to say keep when she wants to abort because it is her body. Unless he gets his hands on some technology that allows him to continue the child's development outside the woman's body. Then, sure.. He can elect to keep the child because it is no longer impeding on the woman's autonomy. He doesn't get to say abort if the woman says keep. However, I think he should get the option to do a "legal abortion" of the child. What I mean by that is to legally separate himself from the child and any obligations that may come. It would legally not be his child, so he gets no rights to the child either. To keep this from being a deadbeat dad go-to he should only have the right for that during the same period of time it is legal for the woman to abort the child. That seems fair to me.
_________________
My deviantArt - Blog-ity blog

I'm gonna sing the doom song now. Doom dee doom doom doom...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10252
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:13 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
The biological workload, risk, and toll of pregnancy is 100% borne by the female body — it is not shared equitably between the mother and the father.

Ultimately, that is the open-and-shut reason why it is a pregnant woman's decision, and her decision alone. Her body is the host for the pregnancy, and with it come the entirety of the associated health risks and biological hardship. Not fifty percent of it, not seventy percent, not anything short of one. hundred. percent. It is her body. It is her decision.

OK, I don't disagree with you, but Imma play devil's advocate here for a second (I'm like seriously asking cuz' I value your opinion on this sorta thing):

This is going under the assumption she is capable of making a sound decision, right? I mean no insanity, no mental impairment.

For example, an extremely unstable woman is on suicide watch and is pregnant, still in first trimester, and is told that if she carries to term, there is a high likelihood she will be jeopardizing her life and very likely the life of the unborn child as well. Is it still 100% her decision?

What if instead she is severely mentally retarded and gets raped and impregnated, is it still entirely her decision?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Xanthë



Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: Wurundjeri country

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry to hear it, vector010. If you didn’t end up fathering a child, however, then perhaps the answer is your partner knew what she was doing in spite of skipping the pill? Are you saying you’re totally sure that your partner was deliberately attempting to become pregnant by deception? Because while that sucks if that’s the case, then you’ve got larger problems than just a possible pregnancy to work on in your relationship, and it still doesn’t entitle you to a say over someone else’s bodily autonomy.

The other thing worth considering is the oral contraceptive pill isn’t 100% guaranteed to work; illness and other medicines can neutralise its effect at certain points of the cycle. If you’re having PIV sex then there are other possible recourses to consider – condoms, spermicidal gel and/or a diaphragm, and so on.

Attempting to get out of paternity would not be pleasant where coercion had been used, I agree, but calling that abrogation of parental responsibility a ‘legal abortion’ is a misnomer; where that is unfair to some men, unfortunately there are plenty of deadbeat fathers who do try to get out of supporting their children when relationships when things have gone sour later, and it is difficult to arrive at a zero sum accounting of all these problems when the parties concerned have not broken up amicably. Child support is complicated, but the thread started from a point of considering a case where sexual consent had been obtained. If you are unwilling to consent to sex because of the non-zero chance of pregnancy, that is definitely something you need to agree on with your partner.

Hope this helps.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10252
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Xanthë wrote:
The main cases where a parent is unwillingly coerced in that way are where women have limited ability to seek out and obtain an abortion, and where men have contributed paternity but don’t wish to take responsibility (the MRA fantasies of sperm-jacking, or women deliberately causing contraceptive failure, are almost entirely mythical events). Both situations are far from ideal, and removing women’s rights to choose help neither.


Well I'm not going to argue about women rights, because I don't think you're wrong, HOWEVER the above isn't solid ground for basing an argument off of. My own sister has admitted that she purposefully duped her beau (yeah Jay, I'm on the pill . . .) in order to get him to marry her. She's also claimed that she knows at least three other girls who have done this.

In general though, I'm highly skeptical of human nature, and anymore, tend to assume the worst of people, so I realize this clouds my judgement often.

That said, I'm of the opinion that if there is an opportunity for people to behave deceptively and dishonestly, given a large enough sample, there will ALWAYS 100% be someone who is engaging in such unscrupulous activity.

I'm sure some analyst could find some correlation between social status, age, income, or some other external factors that account for such behavior. That said, I also recognize that outliers such as these should not be utilized to determine policy. At the same time though, I don't know what kind of reliable numbers could be obtained in regards to this kinds of data. Look at it this way: a person engaging in deception with some one they have a relationship with isn't exactly someone you can rely on to get credible data from.

On a related note: should there be established a legal precedent of non-enforceable paternity if it can be proven that conception happened under deceptive practices?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy


Last edited by Darqcyde on Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:37 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Xanthë



Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: Wurundjeri country

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde,

playing devil’s advocate is a time-honoured strategy which makes an intellectual game of a serious subject. It’s nice that you’ve stated that up front, rather than doing what the average internet troll would do, which is to argue exactly the same sort of shit for as long as they can possibly get away with before waving the white flag of surrender and making an excuse that “I was only playing devil’s advocate!!1!” Thank you for not doing that.

But seriously, what part of my first comment in this thread don’t you get? Did you totally miss the point that we treat adults as informed people capable of giving consent? You don’t get to hand wave that away whenever you think it’s convenient to find a loophole.

This thread is not about you finding some excuse, however poor, however hypothetical, however exceptional, however weird and wonderful the contortions you can make, in order to find an excuse that denies women their bodily autonomy.

Fuck that noise. The answer is no, and reread the first comment where I’ve already answered this question in the general case.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Xanthë



Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: Wurundjeri country

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:37 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:
Well I'm not going to argue about women rights, because I don't think you're wrong, HOWEVER the above isn't solid ground for basing an argument off of. My own sister has admitted that she purposefully duped her beau (yeah Jay, I'm on the pill . . .) in order to get him to marry her. She's also claimed that she knows at least three other girls who have done this.


And again… people act unethically, well whoop-de-shit, that’s a total surprise. Once again, this is outside of where the thread started, but guess what, that still doesn’t give anyone else the rights to take away someone’s bodily autonomy. So… No.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10252
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Why no? Your first answer didn't answer my question in the slightest.

I was under the assumption that people not of sound mind weren't guaranteed the right to make decision about their healthcare in other circumstances. How is abortion different?

And "playing devil's advocate" is not a game, it's how you make your own argument better.

BTW, I know you aren't reading my post as thoroughly as you claim nor are you really thinking about them. Why? because I already said this:

Darqcyde wrote:
That said, I also recognize that outliers such as these should not be utilized to determine policy.


Just to reiterate why I'm asking what I'm asking:

wiki on Devil's advocate wrote:
In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.

_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://12ozlb.blogspot.com Now in book form: http://amzn.to/14E6OFy


Last edited by Darqcyde on Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:53 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Xanthë



Joined: 31 Jan 2013
Posts: 45
Location: Wurundjeri country

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 3:50 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darkcyde, I’m quite aware of why Devil’s Advocate arguments exist. Your mistake is in assuming that I am interested in holding some sort of intellectual demonstration or sparring match to debate the proposition that I am (or other women are) entitled to my (their) bodily rights as some sort of vague entertainment for other people’s sport. I said at the outset that I was reluctant to get into a discussion of this nature, here you are proving me right. You’re not entitled to my time, I’ve already given you my views on the subject of this thread, and I’m not willing to engage with derailing rhetorical masturbation where you come up with neat loopholes and exceptions where you can treat women as less than fully human.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Sinfest Forum Index -> General Discussion All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 2 of 5

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group