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
Usagi Miyamoto



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2225
Location: wish you were here

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:07 am    Post subject: Re: a moment on the hips, a lifetime of debits Reply with quote

Sojobo wrote:
I think that in the long run, as political opinion drifts a bit more socially just, enforcement of child support will be reduced to affect parents who knowingly and willingly participated in having a child, with the slack being picked up by federal family care programs.

Interesting, but how would you tell? The incentives would be perverse for many.

I can't see the US going that way, at least for some decades. Our collective Calvinist streak means we really loves us some punitive burdens for those found sinfully indulgent in carnal knowledge, especially among the less well-off. While it makes little sense from a pragmatic viewpoint of the best welfare of the children, it's the only view that makes sense to the personal responsibility idealists who hold sway on the right.
_________________
The reward for a good life is a good life.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Sojobo



Joined: 12 Jul 2006
Posts: 2443

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:09 am    Post subject: Re: a moment on the hips, a lifetime of debits Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
Interesting, but how would you tell? The incentives would be perverse for many.

Well, there would be a goodly number of reasonably fair cases, like having a history of requesting visitation rights, or any kind of joint custody. Being the father, and in a relationship with the mother during and for some arbitrary length of time after the birth of the child. Spending enough time with a partner to count as de facto while the partner has a child. Anything that looks pretty firmly like acceptance of parentage. I haven't thought about the issue hard enough to have good answers.

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
I can't see the US going that way, at least for some decades.

Perhaps. Even if it is slow, though, I feel it is inevitable. Each step toward social justice makes the barriers to the next step more transparent.
_________________
"To love deeply in one direction makes us more loving in all others."
- Anne-Sophie Swetchine
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
vector010



Joined: 19 Feb 2013
Posts: 104

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: a moment on the hips, a lifetime of debits Reply with quote

Usagi Miyamoto wrote:
...This is for the very good social reason that children need support, and that holding fathers responsible does not offend anyone's sense of justice very much. The courts have upheld this responsibility (Darqcyde and vector010 take note) even in cases where the father was deliberately tricked into fathering a child, for the same social reasons - and even when the presumptive father was not the biological father, though we're moving farther away now from the shared sense of justice. (I'm not aware of any cases where the father was raped by the mother; that might lead to a different result.) This responsibility for support in and of itself, however, confers no rights to control the pregnancy or its outcome, or even rights to custody or visitation. Those beans - they are tough ones.

...


It possibly varies on locality, but technically speaking male victims of rape (statutory or forced) are still liable for child support. It does not matter at all that there was no consent legally. The court acts as and advocate for the child and is perfectly happy throw the additional responsibility of paying the rapist for their child in instances where a male is raped by a female and a child results.

Statutory rape is obviously no excuse out of child support apparently.

Neither is forcible rape apparently.

That all makes so much sense considering you don't even need to be the father to be required to pay.
_________________
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: 10421
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

XanthŽ: thanks for the response, but you're still making some poor assumptions:

XanthŽ wrote:
Okay. But it is off-topic. . .

Where thatís irrelevant to this thread . . .

As for the rest of the discussion: . . . I donít wish to consent to such a discussion . . . If other people take you up on it, thatís their lookout. I hope thatís clear?


This is effectively pissing in the wind. You don't get to decide what's talked about and not talked about. You don't get to decide the limits and scope of a forum thread -- in fact no singular person on this forum does.

If you don't want to talk about something, don't reply, don't make post back to it.

So to reiterate the unaddressed (with some clarifications edited in):

Darqcyde wrote:
Sam wrote:
The biological workload, risk, and toll of pregnancy is 100% borne by the female body ó 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 a woman is severely mentally retarded (or of limited mental facility for some reason) and gets raped and impregnated, is it still entirely her decision?


These aren't irrelevant nor off topic. Mentally unstable or outright psychotic women do get pregnant. Retarded girls do get raped and impregnated.

As I see it, what we're talking about is forming arguments as the basis of forming legislation or with establishing legal precedent in mind.

Personally, I'd rather work out the exceptions and extreme circumstances during that process (insane, limited mental facilities, etc.) and not have to rely on some judge establishing a precedent via case law. Looking at and discussing these extreme circumstances is not the same as using them as a basis for standard legal practice. There are already laws written with the basic format of "The legal standard is ________ except where situations of _____ or ______ exist". What I'm looking at is what, IF ANYTHING, should be put in those last two blanks. Just a singular exception? None at all?

To use a clear analogy, if you are going to shape something you need to look at the boundaries; shapes are defined by their boundaries, not the space in the middle. Are there all hard edges like in Usagi's example or should some of those extremities be left fuzzy and undelineated?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Monkey Mcdermott



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 3315

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Societally enforced eugenics programs are a horrible dystopian thing Darq.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Darqcyde



Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 10421
Location: A false vacuum abiding in ignorance.

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 4:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Monkey Mcdermott wrote:
Societally enforced eugenics programs are a horrible dystopian thing Darq.

Who's talking about eugenics? Eugenics would involve the state of the fetus, which I haven't brought up. Way to try and vilify me though.

Minors, in most legal matters, do not have final say. I think abortions are, or should be, an exception to this.

In other medical cases, those not of sound mind or of limited capacity do not necessarily have final say. Should abortion be an exception in these cases as well?
_________________
...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.
http://about.me/omardrake
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 5:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Darqcyde wrote:

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?


Circumstances involving a loss or lack of personal agency (coma, psychosis, catatonia, extreme mental retardation, and others) do necessarily involve a lack of medical sovereignty, wherein medical decisions ó including decisions to medically terminate ó cannot originate from the individual, subject to medical evidentiary hearings determining that an individual does not have sound mind to make medical decisions for themselves.

Forced termination exists on the very far end of the scale, however, in terms of the burden of review and ruling necessary for the act to be considered medically permissible. Given proper and vetted medical evidentiary hearings, I am not categorically against the practice and would find it morally acceptable to be on the table, albeit necessarily very rare.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1184
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

In a situation in which the victim was mentally incapacitated permanently, as in mental illness, wouldn't it be likely they would have a spouse/brother/sister/parent/caretaker/friend etc that had power of attorney for them?

Would power of attorney allow someone else to make their medical decisions, given that they are unable to safely or sanely make their own choice?

Edit: Actually, can someone who is provably unable to make decisions even give power of attorney to someone? I think that would probably fall under some dubious legalities.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10730
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 8:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You can be given POA by a person who is able to consent (i.e., before they become incapacitated) or be granted it by judicial review that deems them incapacitated. Typically it's a spouse, then a relative, but I've seen it be given to a patient's physician (which I think is odd). Once you have POA you can make decisions as though you were the patient - that is, you can make any decision whatever within the scope of the POA. A medical POA couldn't move someone else's money around, for instance.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll 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
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1184
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Another question: a woman is going to give birth, and has been informed by a medical professional that there are complications; a breech birth for example. Is she legally required to accept medical assistance? Is it legal to not provide medical assistance? If it counted as a medical emergency, are healthcare providers legally mandated to provide assistance, and the mother to accept said assistance?
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10730
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If she requests assistance, then yes, they're obligated to provide it. I honestly don't know if she's required to ask for it. I would assume probably not. Though the providers would do everything they could to convince her to accept it, and possibly use her refusal to seek a psychiatric hold, which would allow them to perform life-saving treatments without her consent. That would only work in the instance when her actions made her a threat to herself or others, which if we're talking about 30-36 weeks along would probably include the fetus. I'm not sure about that, though.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll 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
Sam



Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9520

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
In a situation in which the victim was mentally incapacitated permanently, as in mental illness, wouldn't it be likely they would have a spouse/brother/sister/parent/caretaker/friend etc that had power of attorney for them?


There's a lot of medical/psychological things that come down to the approval of medical boards / medical caretaking authority that you can't have just because you're related to the person in question. Like if you have a relative who has a psychotic break and ends up medically confined to a ward, you aren't deciding what medication they get put on, or that they can't be put on medication.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10730
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 10:58 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Technically, unless they have a POA, no one has the right to make medical decisions for you. A physician may listen to the concerns of a spouse or other family (deciding to keep you an extra day, changing a diet, allowing supervised walks, etc), but would never accept end-of-life instructions or other medical treatment ideas from anyone without a POA/living will.

EDIT: Well, I say never, but that's not really true. I've seen patients who were going to die anyway, and had doctors talk families into agreeing to make them "do not resuscitate" and place them on comfort care (where the plan is to make them comfortable as they pass). In those instances it was a group decision by family with no legal power, but the only choice was when to let them die. It would be different if the patient weren't going to die anyway.
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll 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
fritterdonut



Joined: 24 Jul 2012
Posts: 1184
Location: Hedonism

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sam wrote:
here's a lot of medical/psychological things that come down to the approval of medical boards / medical caretaking authority that you can't have just because you're related to the person in question. Like if you have a relative who has a psychotic break and ends up medically confined to a ward, you aren't deciding what medication they get put on, or that they can't be put on medication.


Well you don't get power of attorney just by being related... you have to fill out paperwork saying that in the event you are incapacitated or unable to make your own decisions for some reason, such as old-age dementia or some form of mental illness, that someone of your choosing has the power to make decisions for you, under the assumption that you would give the power to someone who would look out for you if you were unable to look out for yourself.

I would think, considering that PoA can give the holder the responsibility of choosing whether or not to remove someone from life support (a personal experience), that they essentially have as much control over the situation as the patient themselves would.

Wikipedia wrote:
In some jurisdictions, a durable power of attorney can also be a "health care power of attorney." This particular affidavit gives the attorney-in-fact the authority to make health-care decisions for the grantor, up to and including terminating care and life support. The grantor can typically modify or restrict the powers of the agent to make end-of-life decisions.[7] In many jurisdictions a health care power of attorney is also referred to as a "health care proxy" and, as such, the two terms are sometimes used interchangeably.[8]


Edit: PoA is a terrible thing to have, in my opinion. I hope I never have to receive it from my parents.
_________________
To get things done, you must love the doing, not the secondary consequences. The work, not the people. Your own action, not any possible object of your charity.
-Howard Roark, The Fountainhead
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dogen



Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 10730
Location: Bellingham, WA

PostPosted: Wed Feb 27, 2013 11:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fritterdonut wrote:
Well you don't get power of attorney just by being related... you have to fill out paperwork saying that in the event you are incapacitated or unable to make your own decisions for some reason, such as old-age dementia or some form of mental illness, that someone of your choosing has the power to make decisions for you, under the assumption that you would give the power to someone who would look out for you if you were unable to look out for yourself.

I would think, considering that PoA can give the holder the responsibility of choosing whether or not to remove someone from life support (a personal experience), that they essentially have as much control over the situation as the patient themselves would.

... that's exactly what I just said.

Am I invisible?
_________________
"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. Iíll 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
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 4 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