I don’t understand how it’s relevant whether they really would have. (How do I know they wouldn’t have, anyway?) It seems to me what’s relevant is that legally, they could have under the contract.
[/QUOTE]
Yeah, biology was a bitch when abortion was illegal, but the Supreme Court enacted a provision that gave women a remedy to an inconvenience of biology. So, I find it hypocritical when women dismiss a man’s grievance by shrugging their shoulders and saying, “Well, that’s biology”.
The Supreme Court “enacted” nothing. It didn’t create any laws, it struck down unconstitutional ones. It just said that states could not tell women what to do with their bodies. It wasn’t a “remedy” for anything, nor does it have anything to do with an “inconvenience of biology.” There’s nothing remotely hypocritical about it. The right to terminate a pregnancy does not give a woman control over someone else’s body, which is what the OP wants here.
If someone would find a way to end an unwanted pregnancy without killing the fetus, abortions would end.
And, as the old saying goes, “If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.”
Since it’s true, how is it hypocritical? The laws have to deal with the realities of biology and in this case, since the biology isn’t equal, the laws can’t be equal.
When abortion was illegal women still had them, ,men still sometimes encouraged them to, while other men abandoned the children they sired.
Your analogy is asinine. Either parent can hypothetically take a child to a safe haven. Either gender cannot get pregnant.
By the way, if one parent takes a baby to a safe haven, the other parent can still claim it back, so it’s false that the woman can put a child up for de facto adoption, even through safe haven laws, without the father’s permission. If he asserts parental rights, he gets the baby.
I don’t know much about the safe haven laws. Can’t a father still go after custody if he knows about the child and wants to raise his offspring? Can’t he then go after the mother for child support?
There have been cases of woman putting a false name on a birth certificate, giving the child up for adoption, only to have the biological father show up years later and get the child back. Jessica DeBoers was the most famous one.
Yes and yes.
To reiterate something I said above but which was overlooked, there are a great many laws that give people control over others’ bodies. There is no general legal right against others having a say over what you do with your body.
I’m not saying that there’s no basis here for a right to abortion. I am saying that the basis must be more complicated than simply “She gets to say what she does with her body.” There has to be more to it than that–because “I get to say what I do with my own body” is almost never sufficient to establish the permissibility or legality of my acts in other contexts.
-Kris
Name one that gives one adult citizen control over the body of another adult citizen (assuming one of them isn’t in a coma or something).
Technically, I should have said that Roe found abortion laws to be an intrusion on privacy, though.
There is absolutely no law in the country that gives an adult control over another adult’s body. Nor would I want one.
I could be sitting here with a box of Krispy Kremes and you could be sitting in front of me dying of starvation. No law could make me give you a donut.
When an adult male uses a woman’s reproductive system against her will, it’s called rape. When a fetus does it, it’s called “pro-life.”
I’m not sure how to answer this. Off the top of my head, I can’t think of a law that doesn’t give someone control over someone else’s body.
How about traffic laws. The police have legal control over my body to the following extent. If they flash their sirens, my body is supposed to make the requisite moves to pull my car over.
What do you guys think “control over someone’s body” means? How does it include abortion prohibitions, but exclude other prohibitions?
I just did some reading. Safe Haven laws vary from state to state. Some have specific laws regrading the father but all seemed to have a time period for a parent to reclaim the the child. In most cases the father does not have to be consulted for the mother to give up the child. It wasn’t clear to me whether the father’s identity was even given.
That would mean in some cases the window to reclaim the child might pass before the father even knew it had been surrendered. For the most part men who knew they had gotten someone pregnant and wanted custody could go after it.
That siren thing is pretty lame, and that example is not about control over your body, but over what you can do with your vehicle on a public road.
And to be clear, what I was asking for was another example of a law where another citizen (not the state), can tell you what to do with your body. This is not about the state banning all abortions, it’s about Joe Sezhefuckedher being given property rights over another person’s body.
No private citizen can make you pull over your vehicle, and I image most people would call 911 to get a cop to pulled over any private citizen who did.
Furthermore, the cop can’t do anything with your body, even making you take a drug or alcohol test. They can’t make you pierce your ears, cut your hair, and they certainly can’t make you support them for nine months.
I asked for clarification on this. What do you think “control over one’s body” means? A rule about what I can do with my vehicle is, it seems to me, a rule about what I can do with my body as well (since the only way I can do anything with my vehicle is by doing certain things with my body).
What is “control over one’s body” such that it is interfered with when one person prevents another from having an abortion, and it is not interfered with when one person prevents another from driving their car however they would like?
Fair enough. The laws that make cease and desist orders are laws giving some people control over others’ bodies. Laws that make restraining orders effective are laws giving some people control over others’ bodies.
A fair enough point, but as I pointed out in my response to Diogenes, there are plenty of examples where private citizens can force (generally not physically) other private citizens to do or not do certain things.
If X makes Y support X, then X has control over Y’s body?
The Court, in essence, created law by proclaiming from upon high, that a state law prohibiting a certain elective medical proceedure was unconstitutional by being in violation of the right to privacy, where no issue of privacy existed. The Court ruled, not in regard to the Constitution, but in regard to the politics of the day. That is what is referred to as “legislating from the bench”. Yes, “enacted” was the correct choice of words.
Incorrect. There still are state laws that prohibit women from doing whatever they please with their bodies.
And to further elaborate, when one enlists a second party, who is state-licensed and board-regulated, to preform a proceedure, the realm of privacy no longer exists.
If you want to get that broad any law, including the one that says I can’t kill someone, rape them, or steal from them, are trying to control my body. The “point” of those laws though are not about controlling the body but about the rights of individuals when their actions affect others. Restraining orders usually mean someone has threatened or harassed another individual so the law is about that act, not simply telling them where they can go.