Not if the woman gets an abortion. The law does not treat them differently. It allows each partner bodily autonomy and privacy. The fact that bodily autonomy for women includes pregnancy is a function of biology, not law.
Well I was responding to this…
My point being, if you want to talk about the law on abortion, Roe isn’t really the place to go anymore. The law has changed since then, and as has its theoretical underpinnings, which are way more to do now with bodily integrity than they are to do with the effect of the child after it leaves the womb. This is just another reason why reading cases in isolation doesn’t necessarily leave you with a true picture of the law.
If women didn’t become pregnant, they wouldn’t be eligible for abortion.
Consider this an opinion, if you’d like. I don’t care.
Why?
There’s not even a need to use a mechanical incubator situation. Keep everything equal between the sexes but instead make men be pregnant instead of women. If you think that the reproductive freedoms of women are legally and unfairly regarded as more sacrosanct that those of men for reasons that have little or nothing to do with biology, then you should be arguing that women would be allowed to have abortions even if men were the pregnant ones.
But I’m not seeing you or Stoid put forth that postion, because even yall recognize that the decisive factor is who carries a pregnancy in their body and who does not. You just don’t want to say so.
And yes, if by some strange process, pregnancy didn’t involve either a women or men’s bodies, Roe vs Wade would not apply.
This is a nonsense strawman. Nobody is saying that men should be able to compell women to abort. Period.
What people are saying is, that men, like women, should have the right to look at the situation with the developing fetus and say “I don’t want no part of that” and do something about it.
What a load of crap. There are two separate issues here - whether a person may compell an abortion to happen, and whether a person may divest themselves of the responsibilities associated with any given pregnancy. The two rights are not intrinsically linked - if they were nobody would ever be allowed to put a non-aborted infant up for adoption, even if both parents wanted to.
Nobody, and I repeat nobody, is saying that the man should be able to choose to abort the baby. What they are saying is that the woman is allowed to make decisions based on factors that have zippo to do with who owns the womb, and that the man, currently, is not allowed to make decisions based on those factors in a similar timeframe to that allowed to the woman.
So you are saying that in the given hypothetic the state has some reason to grab fetuses and grow them in the artificial womb and then shove them back on the unwilling parents?
When your position leads directly to absurdity, that should tell you something.
Have these cases explicitly rejected the other factors, or simply changed the emphasis? I’m going to guess it’s the latter, exactly because of the way people look at it, as evidenced in this thread. But I’ll check it out when I get a chance.
But for the upteenth time, it’s physically impossible for men to be like women and say “I don’t want no part of that”. Unlike women, the fetus is not in their body.
Yall keep bumping your head against this reality and wondering why you have a headache.
Men don’t have any legal responsibilities for any given pregnancy. So that takes care of one issue.
You are the one conflating pregnancy with already-born children.
How so?
Where would the fetuses be grabbed from? Someone’s body? If the answer to that is “yes”, then no the state wouldn’t be able to do this. If the hypothetical involved babies growing out of non-sentient cabbages and delivered by storks, Roe v Wade would not apply. Possibly some other law would be concocted to deal with this issue, but men and women would have equal rights in this area. As would be expected.
OK, I’m glad I’m not losing my marbles here, or at least not the only one. I’m already mondo iffy about whether or not the state has the basic right to do this, but I’m completely lost as to what the purpose or societal good would be.
On an unrelated note, this hypo has led me to some rudimentary research (read : go to Wikipedia) and I’m floored. Not only are artificial wombs not in the realm of science fiction, there’s apparently some promising research into them going on. What a brave new world we live in.
Why would a later case go to the bother of explicitly rejecting dicta?
Once again, you said:
(emphasis added).
All I am pointing out to you is that the Court DID says those things, in cases later than Roe. You seem to think Roe is the controlling law on abortion in the U.S. and it just isn’t.
Look back to what you quoted from me. I didn’t say that the Court “explicitly rejected.” I said that the theoretical underpinnings were now more the other factors. Which goes against your statement that the court did not say X & Y. I’m just trying to help you out here. Relying on Roe is going to give you a false impression both of the extent of constitutionally protected abortion in the U.S., and of the current legal rationale for its constitutionally protected status.
If the man shows proof that the child is being neglected, then yes, the could will care.
Well, if they believe what they say, they’re likely to sign that paper, so it won’t be a she said/he said thing.
Why would women never go along with it? Why that generalization? Do you think deep in their minds, all women want to have babies with every men they bed?
And yet you’re arguing for a such a contract or legal provision to happen AFTER the fact. Do you not notice that this is unfair to the woman? And again, I think you’re insulting women who truly do not want kids and would most likely go with something that says “in case of accident, I will abort”. Of which there are plenty in these boards (as shown in other threads and this one).
My experience is that even with child support, which again, in most cases is just a fraction of the costs of raising a kid, females have greater financial risks than men.
Look, there are currently instances when one has to sign a legal waiver beforehand… When I register for aerobic classes or attend training seminars, I have to sign agreements that in case of an accident, I won’t sue the facilities or programs. So in those cases, before the fun even starts and I can enjoy my time, I have to agree to that. If they do not show me that waiver to sign, and I get into an accident, then they cannot ask me to sign it then.
Whether the fetus is in the person’s body has literally and obviously nothing to do with whether a person wants no part in the pregnancy or resulting child.
And funnily enough, I’m not the one with the headache.
If you think that the only reason that women terminate pregnancies is so avoid the pregnancy, or if you think that the only reason are allowed to terminate pregnancies is because they want to avoid the pregnancy, then you’re delusional. Quite obviously the resulting child and its impact on the person’s life is a major part of the decision for both men and women - except that men are denied the right to make that choice.
If your argument is based on the presumption that pregnancies and children have no relationship to one another, then perhaps you should lie down - that headache is clouding your thinking.
To woman is allowed to decide to abort based on not wanting to raise the kid. Whether you want to raise the kid has nothing to do with who owns the womb.
Let’s be clear - for your argument to make sense, the only allowable justifications for abortion would have to intrinsically linked to the physical pregnancy. Worried about dying of complications with the birth? Want to avoid morning sickness? Worried about getting saggy breasts? Those sort of reasons. Worried that you can’t afford or take care of the child or that you would be a bad parent? BZZZT! That reason has nothing to do with the womb.
In your reality, what reasons inspire women to get abortions?
Roe vs. Wade allows women to abort for reasons that have dick-all to do with who owns the womb. If it did not apply, and by extension the women didn’t have the right to break off thier link with a future child for non-womb reasons, then babies that were grown in incubators would be forced on both unwilling parties. And what possible reason would there be for the state to want that?!
Let’s get serious here. The woman owning the womb means that the man can’t decide to abort the baby, because that would be a violation of the woman’s body. But if there was no womb but instead an incubator, who would have the right to look through the glass dome at the little cell clump and say “We don’t want that.” Either party? Both together? Neither?
Currently it’s just the woman - in part forgood reason (not violating her body on the man’s say-so), but there is no biological reason not to extend men an equivalent decision-making power at least with regard to their own connection with the fetus/resulting baby-if-any.
Not that it’d matter in any case, as Shodan and… **pravnik **I think ? explained.
The contract would be unenforceable in all cases : you couldn’t force an abortion over it (and as well you shouldn’t be able to), nor use it to reject a child support claim down the line. Could you get damages over a breach of contract, while still being tied to child support ? I don’t know, but I seriously doubt it, as that would be sort of schyzophrenic 
To all those arguing that the man should be allowed to have the woman sign a paper and thereby opt out, would you also accept if the default was that the man had no responsibilites, and he was allowed to “opt in”? (Perhaps by some state-recognized ceremony? Maybe called, oh, I don’t know, “warriage” or something like that?)
'Cause if an opt-out solution is acceptable, then an opt-in one logically should be too, being functinally equivalent if all parties are vigilant. (And the opt-out route would avoid all the hassles associated with he-said she-said and paperwork busting the mood.)
Women have abortions for all manner reasons. Of course unwanted children is an important in not the most important motivation. No one has denied that. That doesn’t mean women’s desire for unwanted children is the definitive reason why women *are able *to make these kind of reproductive decisions.
They are “denied” the right because they can’t have an abortion.
By that logic, sex and pregnancy should be used interchangably in this discussion, and we should consider men as practicing abortion everytime they prevent a conception from happening. Of course, not every pregnancy results in a child and not every sex act results in a pregnancy. But the relationships are inescapable, right?
Women are allowed to decide because they have wombs and thus are able to terminate pregnancies. Men aren’t allowed to decide because they don’t have wombs and thus aren’t able to terminate pregnancies. It doesn’t matter why a woman decides to end a pregnancy. She just can. Regardless of her reason, the consequence is the same. A woman can get an abortion to retain her slender figure. Or she could as a way of avoiding parental responsibilities. It matters not one whit in the eyes of the law, nor to me.
What do you mean “allowable” justification? With the exception of late trimester pregnancy, no justifications are necessary to obtain an abortion.
Which is why men can force women to have abortions, right?
Oh wait, they can’t. Gee, I wonder why. Seems like ownership of the womb might have something to do with this, but hey, what do I know.
Okay, looks like you’re on to something here…
As I said in my last response to you, while Roe vs Wade would not apply to this situation (for obvious reasons), some other law may be enacted to address this kind of bizarre situation. But whatever was decided, it’s clear to me that both men and women would be treatedly equally since pregnancy would not be taking place in a human body.
Uh huh.
Actually, I want to expand on this. There are actually several scenarios, and I want to list and consider them all.
The ways to be are, as far as I can see, “wants to be a parent”, “doesn’t want to be a parent,” and “doesn’t want to be a parent but isn’t willing to abort the fetus.” I will abbreviate these as “wants”, “would abort”, and “gives away” respectively
- Woman wants baby, man wants baby
- Woman wants baby, man would abort baby
- Woman wants baby, man gives away baby
- Woman would abort baby, man wants baby
- Woman would abort baby, man would abort baby
- Woman would abort baby, man gives away baby
- Woman gives away baby, man wants baby
- Woman gives away baby, man would abort baby
- Woman gives away baby, man gives away baby
Everyone will agree that the man should not be allowed to force the woman to abort the baby, so cases where the man would abort should be treated like he would give it away if he could. And in the cases where the woman wants an abortion, it doesn’t matter what the man wants. These are the concessions to biology.
- Woman wants baby, man wants baby
- Woman wants baby, man gives away baby
- Woman would abort baby
- Woman gives away baby, man wants baby
- Woman gives away baby, man gives away baby
Now, the question should be what should happen each of these cases? I would say that in cases 1, 5, and 9, the outcome is not in dispute (despite the possible custody battle in case 1, which is a different discussion). So the cases that remain to be considered are
- Woman wants baby, man gives away baby
- Woman gives away baby, man wants baby
Some would argue that in these cases, the uninterested party should be required to cough up some amount of money to the party who elects to care for the baby. (The third option is to force a shotgun wedding - but that’s not in vogue anymore.)
The rest of us are noticing that the existence of a case 5 makes the situation inequitable. The woman has an option that, if she chooses to act on it, can be used to avoid all responsibilities. The man, on the other hand, does not. That’s not exactly fair and equal, is it?
One way to rectify this would be to outlaw abortion. Another way would be to adjust the outcome of cases 3 and 7 to give the man a reasonable way to get out with comparably little cost and effort, like the woman has. (Maybe fine him the cost of an abortion? Half the cost of an abortion? Maybe with an added payment for not having to undergo surgery)?
The third way is to point and laugh at his plight, or to claim he has some greater responsibility or keep his pants on than the woman does, or other such things. But this approach has yet to be compelling, agumentively.
No because I take the default position that men and women are equally responsible for their own behavior. Any society that treats men like unthinking, irresponsible deadbeats by default is not the kind of place I’d want to live in.
Right now, the default is that both men and women have to support the children they help create. If you want to deviate from that default, it makes more sense to employ “opting out”.
Not really. That’d be condoning irresponsibility in men, which we don’t exactly need.
The opt-out contract means the guy has put at least some thought into what could be the consequence of sex, and considered the woman as more than a convenient disposable cock storage. Women don’t need to be made to think about pregnancy risks - they get a monthly reminder, courtesy of biology.
Nonsense - if women may get abortions, then conceiving a fetus does automatically not make them responsible for a child. There is currently no equal lack of automatic presumption of responsibility for males - they are held to an unequally higher level of responsibility than females.
Again, abortions: If the woman can say “hie me to the sbortion clinic”, then “both men and women have to support the children they help create” is only true if you try to shiftily and falsely claim that killing the fetus isn’t equivalent to avoiding having to support a child.
Basically your position depends on sweeping the fact of abortion under under the rug labeled “[that] they help create”, to allow you to pretend that they don’t have a get-out-of-jail free card that men don’t have. But the truth is we all see what you’re doing there and aren’t fooled.
I could equally say that making it opt-out is condoning irresponsibility in women - which that “monthly reminder” would hopefully help them remember. (Assuming it has any effect at all, which I kind of doubt.)
Yeah, well, I’m a misandrist, deal with it 