Thank you for at last directing yourself to that which I am saying, and not to me or my supposed motives.
What “political definition” am I using? I do not believe I have used anything of the sort.
My argument rests on more bedrock moral standards, ones I thought most reasonable people shared (such as: an adult making a conscious choice should be responsible for that choice; X cannot be held responsible for Y’s conscious choices; etc.). It rests on nothing political. It rests on nothing biological except a few widely agreed-upon ethical rules that have to do with biology.
Agreed. I am arguing from a moral basis, not a legal one. I have mentioned legality only once in passing to note that a widely-agreed-upon moral standard was reflected by the law. I was not using the law as a basis for my argument.
I take it you’re Utilitarian.
Of course, forcing a man to pay for a child also causes uncessary suffering. You have given no reason why the child’s suffering is somehow worse than the man’s or should be given preferential treatment.
Using your own argument form - Forcing men to pay for children they didn’t want causes unnecessary suffering in a being - the man - capable of feeling it. Causing unnecessary suffering is immoral. At this point, the Utilitarian viewpoint seems stalemated.
I don’t understand what this has to do with the topic at hand. How does this invalidate my argument?
“Child” is a moral / ethical / philosophical definition, at least as I am using it. Other may use the term in a strictly political sense. I am not doing so.
Perhaps I am misreading you, but is it the case that you are arguing that the labelling of certain entities as children or not children is purely political? That there is no basis in ethics or anything else for this distinction? It seems to me (especially after reading numerous abortion threads here) that many claim this definition to have a pretty solid backing on non-political grounds.
Well if by jury, you mean the scientific community… I think you’re wrong. Even scientifically savvy pro choice dopers like Gaudere or pldennison (or several others) don’t claim that a zygote or fetus is not alive or human. If I understand their position correctly, they would suggest that the z/e/f hasn’t developed enough yet to (sentience, viability or some other criteria) to merit protection when weighed against the “reproductive rights” of the mother.
From a medical perspective the jury is not out on the question of whether a z/e/f is alive or is human.
The fact that some people have poor comprehension of genetics and biology does not render the jury out…any more than the jury is “out” on whether the Time Cube™ is for real.
(Of course the way to disprove my assertions would be to find mainstream geneticists or biologists who assert that a z/e/f is not alive or human)
Because the man can choose whether to have sex or not, but the child cannot choose whether to be born or not.
Right. A man making a concious choice to deposit sperm in a woman’s vagina should be held responsible for the consequences of that choice. So we are in complete agreement.
How is the woman’s choice, alone, over her own body, in any way the man’s action or choice?
His parent’s actions also played a part in producing his baby, as did their parents and the band. Not to mention the farmers who fed the parents. Without them, there would be NO child. You are arbitrarily choosing that a participant in a causal chain should be responsible. The fact that a man is a participant in a causal chain leading to a child is not sufficient grounds for his being morally responsible for that child. The woman is also in the causal chain, but has a feature which makes her responsible for the child (i.e., her choice of whether there should be a child at all).
The relevant point is whether abortion is morally available for the woman. That is, if it is moral for her to have an abortion, or perhaps I should say if it is not immoral for her to have an abortion. My argument is about morality, not law.
Let’s say that it is the case that abortion is a moral choice, but is illegal. In that case, it would be regrettable that the morality is not reflected in the laws. But however regrettable this situation, two wrongs don’t make a right. That is, if abortion is a moral choice (obviously this is controversial) then the woman should bear sole responsibility for the child since she was in a position to make the decision that led to the child.
I am not “arbitrarily choosing a participant in a causal chain”. The man is a 50% participant in the creation of a baby. The minute sperm from a random stranger crawls up my leg and impregnates me is the minute a man isn’t 50% responsible.
How can you deny that the father is no more responsible for the creation of the child the farmer who didn’t even know the women? He isn’t an arbitrary participant. He choose to have sex with a women in a way that could logically cause a child.
**
Two wrongs don’t make a right?? Funny to hear you say that. But, you still didn’t answer the question. If you take abortion out of the picture do you still hold a women 100% responsible for the child? Is there any way that a man has responsibility for the making of a child?
He can’t force her to get an abortion. She has a choice between having an abortion and paying to raise a child. Maybe it’s a tough decision, but so are a lot of things.
If I think it’s immoral to pay income tax, I’m going to have to decide between betraying my morals and going to jail. Tough decision? Sure. But that doesn’t mean I should be exempt from paying taxes.
What utter hogwash. This is an amazing thing to find posted by a person who asks, in apparent perfect seriousness, why the needs of a helpless child should outweigh the desires of a fully-functioning adult parent. Most people would considter that a Grade-A stupid question, but no, you want posters to devote themselves to seriously explaining to you why it is not. That, in your mind, is critical thinking?
If you’re concerned about a lack of critical thinking, you might give some thought to whether (and, if so, how and why) the goals of the species as a whole are in any way advanced by allowing fully half its members to totally abdicate responsibility for the continued survival the species and its optimal social health.
This all seems to be coming down to one emotional arguing point- that the man is trying to get out of being responsible for his actions.
One the one side, we have the argument, “Once a woman is impregnated, she’s the one who has all of the choices, while the man is forced to abide by her decisions.”
On the other side, we have, “The man made his choice when the woman was impregnated, from this point on he’s got to deal with the results of his actions.”
Does it sound like I’ve got it? Do these two description accurately portray the debate?
Okay, then, how’s this? Let’s look at it another way:
A man and a woman have sex, and the woman is impregnated. If the woman does not wish to have the child, the father can completely forbid her from having an abortion if he so wishes- except, of course, in cases where the mother’s health is endangered. Once the child is born, the man has full custody of the child- but the mother must pay child support. After all, the woman made her choice when she had sex with the man- she’s got to live with the results of her actions.
Now, in what way is this not fair? Sure, it’s her body- but she chose to have sex when she knew that pregnancy could result- and, like the man, must live with the consequences.
Saying that it’s equivalent to forcing the woman to bear the child against her wishes, when it’s her body, is NOT a valid argument (she made her choice when she had sex, remember- if she didn’t want it, she should’ve kept her legs shut!). After all, if the tables were reversed, the man would have to be financially responsible for the child.
Why are you so obsessed with making sex seem like some cheap thing people just do for fun? I would hope it would be something people do to take their relationship to a deeper level. Putting aside your impassioned language, your point is that morally men should have to face the possibility of supporting a child for 18 years because they made the choice to have sex.
I have seen this argument before. It is the same argument used to deny women birth control and abortion rights. “Having sex-for-fun-without-consequences is not some god-given right” is the reason why it was illegal to even send information about birth control in the mail. It was a terrible argument then, and it is a terrible argument now. There is NO MORAL REASON why a man should face the possibility of supporting a child just because he decides to have sex. There is NO MORAL REASON why a woman should face the possibility of giving birth just because she decides to have sex. It is entirely understandable and moral to want to have sex without the possibility of having a child. Sex is not some evil thing that should morally have dire consequences.
Of course, there is a BIOLOGICAL reason why people face the possibility of having a child just because they chose to have sex. Not a moral reason, a biological reason.
Jodi:
If intellectual means “rational rather than emotional” then I would have to say the argument is intellectual. It is possible for rational people to be wrong, and in this case the argument is in fact wrong. But it is NOT wrong because it is “an attempt to have the fun without the responsibility.” First of all, there is nothing immoral about wanting to have sex without incurring responsibility for a child. The idea that there is is actually very harmful, and is the cause of much suffering throughout history. Secondly, there are many, many people who have sex for reasons more complicated than just “fun.” There are also many men who refuse to have sex, and thus are unable to have the relationships they would otherwise have, because they are unwilling to risk becoming a father. Again, there is nothing immoral about this. I am sure you are already aware of all the hurdles that had to be jumped just to make contraception, birth control pills, and even information about such things legal. You should also be aware that arguments such as yours are the reason it was so difficult.
Huh? Although I wish there would be no abortions, I am definitely pro-choice.
OK, I’ve argued against you long enough. Now I can say that I agree with most of your argument, other than the parts about how it is immoral to want to have sex without dire consequences and how it is evil to even bring it up.
I would not want to be a father, but if I ever became one I would love my child with all my heart and would certainly not try to be rid of him or her. One of the main reasons I have for not wanting children is that I would not want to bring a child into this world of pain and woe, so what sense would it make to add more pain and woe? Also, there is the economic reason why it would not be right to let fathers give up all responsibility. Somebody has to support the child.
But I think there is another way I can explain why the argument fails.
A zygote or a fetus have no rights and it is moral to abort them. It is not until later, at birth or not long before, that the child gets rights.
Women get to make the choice to let the fetus develop into a child with rights or not because they could have an abortion.
Birth control is legal for everyone, male and female.
Now, using this argument, how can you distinguish an abortion from any other type of birth control? If there is no moral difference between an unfertilized egg, a sperm, a zygote, and a fetus, and this argument makes that claim, then how is there a difference between using birth control to prevent an egg from being fertilized and aborting a fertilized egg or fetus? They are just different forms of birth control. And birth control is legal for everyone. Therefore the argument leads to this conclusion:
Abortion is a form of birth control. Birth control is legal for both men and women. Women are able to use birth control after men are no longer able to do so. This is not legal unfairness, it is simply biology.
So, the real answer to this problem is that, just as in the past we finally made birth control readily available to women, we must now make effective birth control readily available to men. I don’t mean a vasectomy. Would you force a woman to have her tubes tied? I am not sure what forms of birth control are currently available to men, but they should be more publicized and easy to get, and we should be coming up with new, better ones.
Nothing in life is certain. To take an action that permanently prevents the ability to help create children runs the huge risk that at one point you may change your mind.
Many people like to have the illusion that we are better or more advanced than other species but we are not. Our lives may involve computers, but they still center around the same fundamental activities and vices that other species partake in. I propose that the government regulate as little of our lives as possible. It is not necessary for the government to tell us how to live our lives and spend our money.
Vasectomies can be reversible, but it doesn’t always work. Doctors mess up at times. Abortions rarely involve removal of the uterus.
Before Roe vs. Wade, the law required women to carry their pregnancies to term in most cases. This means that conception was more or less the point that government stepped in and said that you had to raise the child (or at least give birth to it). Roe vs. Wade changed the point of governmental interference from conception to birth. This means that the point where a person is required to raise a child is birth. Since women have total control from conception until birth, women have total responsibility. A woman cannot make a zygote without a man, but she can have a child without one. The fact that a zygote is a necessary first step to having a child is no more important than the fact that the father must have had parents himself in order to exist. His parents are not responsible for his actions, and he is not responsible for the woman’s actions from conception until birth. The law says he is, but the point of this argument is to say that the law is wrong.
I am not advocating here that men should play no part in birth control. I personally question why anyone that does not want children would ever have sex without at least 2 or 3 forms of birth control. I am arguing that if something goes wrong and the woman gets pregnant and decides to keep the child, the man should not be fined half a million dollars (payable over 18 to 21 years depending on the state) for her decision. It is one thing if the man encouraged her to have the child and said he would support it. It is quite another when he clearly points out that he has no intention of raising or funding the child. The mother in that case knows what she is getting into and she is getting into it by herself. A man that donates sperm to a fertility clinic is not responsible for any children that are made with it and likewise, a man that uses the “direct deposit” method is not responsible for whatever the woman decides to do with his contribution.
The “unfairness” that women must put up with is a result of nature. The “unfairness” that men are forced to put up with is the result of laws. Nature is sometimes unfair. Laws should never be.
I also do not believe that taxpayers should be forced to pay for someone else’s children. Sometimes people get dealt a bad hand and grow up poor. As long as the government is not responsible for this “unfairness” I have no complaint. There are plenty of people who give to the needy out of their own free will. And there is nothing preventing the father from doing the same. I am saying it is not the government’s job to force morality onto people.
As for the last sentence of your quote, a man does not consent to raising a child when he consents to have sex any more than a woman consents to give birth to a child when she consents to have sex. She may choose to have an abortion and the man should be able to choose to not care for the child. This would be an equal system, free of unnecessary governmental intervention.
Actually, equal rights is exactly what this is about. The equal right to walk away from parental responsibility (a right that only women have at the moment).
The consequence of that choice is conception, not birth. Birth is only the woman’s choice. Men should be required to pay for half of the abortion fee, but not for half of the child rearing cost, unless, of course, he said he would.
The woman has the right to ignore the man’s wishes and have an abortion anyway. This is where the inequality comes in.
If the woman has the child purely at the father’s request and she wants no rights or responsibilities over the child once it is born, then she most certainly should not be forced to pay child support. That too is an unfair law that should be changed.
This thread isn’t talking about “male abortion” There’s no such thing. There will never be any such thing. This is about legalized child abandonment. About walking away from one’s responibility to one’s own child.
I’m baffled by the argument that the mother’s decision to heve an abortion means that no child ever existed. Trust me, it existed, from the moment of conception. It’s legal status between conception and birth is a technicality - the zygote/embryo/fetus and eventual baby is the same entity. It exists from moment one, and continues to exist unless aborted. What is born is exactly the same entity as what was concieved. There was never any break in the continuity of its existence, and the possibility that the said existence could have been terminated (not prevented, terminated, as in ended) by the mother is completely irrelevant to the question of whether it existed in the first place.
Only a break in that continuity between the father’s role in conception and the birth of a live child would divorce the father from his fundamental role in the child’s creation - and therefore from his responsibility toward that child. There is no such break. The child has been concieved - it will develop and grow and when it is ready, it will be born. The direct progression from zygote to viable fetus to living, breathing child is the natural way of things - the fact that the mother might artificially interrupt this process via abortion doesn’t invalidate the process itself. It sure as hell doesn’t mean that whether she makes that decision or not is the only factor involved in its existence.
Is it fair? As I keep saying to my kids over various issues fair has nothing to do with it. If a child has been born, and you’re responsible - you’re responsible.
Why are you so obsessed with ignoring that men are responsible for pregnancy, as much so as women are?
Pardon me, but I have difficulty that a man who is capable of abandoning his offspring and allowing the woman (and possibly all us taxpayers) of paying for the child is much interested in “taking the relationship to a deeper level”. He is behaving in a wholly selfish and self-serving way.
Why? Women do. Women always face the risk.
When we go out of our houses and drive in our cars, we may not WANT to get into an accident, but we face that possiblity. If we don’t want to risk an accident, the only way to avoid it is to never leave the house.
Some activities involve risk. Even activities that you think are about “taking the relationship to a deeper level”. Even if someone only wants to take “the relationship to a deeper level”, it doesn’t mean that they are exempt from facing the other possible consequences. And waving your magic wand and saying “He shouldn’t be responsible” isn’t cutting it. He contributed to the situation in a direct and profound way, there’s no reason why he should not be responsible for his part of it.
Having sex without consequences is NOT a God-given right, and women will NEVER be able to enjoy it, at least not for the time being. Sure, birth control will ease the risk a little, but consequence-FREE sex is not possible in this day and age.
Just because you declare it (in all caps) does not make it so.
But there will always (as far as we know) be the CONSEQUENCES to having sex for a woman. ALWAYS. Whether it be childbirth, or abortion, she has to face these consequences. ALWAYS.
Sex is not evil, but it DOES HAVE CONSEQUENCES! Read above. A child may result from sex—this is how it has ALWAYS been. A pregnancy may be started. A woman always faces that consquence—morality has nothing to do with that, it is a FACT.
Huh? Moral, biological, who cares? She gets pregnant. He’s there to fertilize the egg, he does this willingly, knowing of the risk and the possibility of pregnancy. It HAPPENS. And just because he doesn’t want to be responsible for his own actions doesn’t mean that he shouldn’t be expected to.
The man shares responsibility for the pregnancy, but the woman is 100% responsible for deciding to have a child that needs to be supported financially.
Well, there are times when one parent refusing to provide support for the “fruit of his loins” doesn’t cause any suffering. That’s the example I started this thread with. The situation I was talking about was that of mom having plenty of money, enough to easily give adequate support to the child.
People seem emotionally abhorred by the idea that a man might simply walk off and abandon what they feel is his moral responsibility to provide for his genetic offspring. If mom and dad were each millionaires, would this still bother us? Perhaps we’d rather like it if the kids had a loving father, but the law isn’t going to legislate that anytime (well, excepting a takeover by the remnants of the Moral Majority organization.) So the law is only concerned with monetary support. When such support is truly unnecessary, and I’m only talking about a small fraction of child support cases, is it really so morally abhorrent for the genetic father to just walk away? His failure to contribute monetarily in those cases will cause no suffering at all. (A safeguard about changing circumstances could be worked in to ensure that if things took an unexpected turn for the worse in mom’s financial situation, the responsibilities could be adjusted if necessary.)
I want to point out what I see as a flaw in some arguments. I do find it unfortunate that so many people like to propose that positive moral obligations exist, and on no more grounds than “common sense” many times. Negative obligations I have no problem with, positive ones are troublesome. I’m yet to be convinced positive moral obligations exist at all, let alone which particular ones do.
This goes both for the arguments against “male abortion” for being quick to simply assign a general obligation to offspring, and to the arguments in support for claiming that the woman’s option to have an abortion means that she creates the child and is responsible entirely. Abortion is an affirmative act, and abstaining from an affirmative act isn’t itself an act. Moral responsibility and/or fault must stem from acts, not from omissions. Failure to use an affirmative action to prevent a consequence does not make one responsible for the consequence. If it did, then as the old argument goes, I’m personally responsible for the deaths of countless impoverished people that starved to death that might have lived had I sent them money for food. Failure to have an abortion to prevent the consequence of a child being born is an omission rather than an act, so it cannot create responsibility if I’m right about the nature of obligations.
And 4) Women who do not particularly want a child, but are morally, personally, or emotionally opposed to having an abortion, and thus have little choice but to carry the choice to term. Adoption would then, of course, be possible (and many women take up that option), but it is very far from an easy option.
You are male, and since early childhood you have known that you will never be pregnant. You don’t have the organs to incubate a baby. What this means is that you can never understand how it feels to be pregnant (in turn, there are many aspects of male life related to male biology that I will never be able to truly understand either), and how difficult the decision to abort is, for pretty much all women. You may think you have taken the trauma of such an operation into account, but if you didn’t allow for option four, then clearly you haven’t.
This argument is all about men not having as much choice as women - but if women only have a choice between the frying pan and the fire, where’s their advantage? Damn shame, you (or others in this thread) might say, life’s not fair but it’s biology puts women in that situation. This is untrue - it’s because of biology that the woman becomes pregnant, but it’s medicine and law that make abortion possible.
Blackknight, when referring to my statements about people assuming abortion to be easy, you snipped out all my other examples and only included the specific one so that you could say ‘I am not Mr 2001.’ His statement was one example among many, and my comment was not aimed solely at yourself (I said ‘many people’, remember?) Your constant harping on the woman’s choice is what tells me you think abortion is (relatively) easy.
Btw Blackknight, could you do us all a favour and identify who you’re quoting whenever you quote mulitple posts? Thank you.
BeagleDave
[hijack]
Based upon numerous threads in GD…it would appear that many pro choice folks have plenty of doubts about that. It appears that QueenAl (and perhaps others) doesn’t even think a fertilized zygote is alive.
[/hijack]
My personal pov was stated quite clearly - the zygote is potentially alive. At the zygote stage, it doesn’t fulfill the scientific requirements for life, but given time, without intervention, it will. For me an embryo becomes life at about the time we stop calling it an embryo and start calling it a foetus, at 23 weeks (give or take a couple of weeks). It’s not a sudden event, but a continuum (as Nonny Mouse said); however after 23 weeks or so the living status of the being changes, at least for the purposes of discussing abortion and foetal /children’s rights. Just MHO. Pldennison, in the section you quoted, stated that the zygote is human, which is unarguable. You don’t have to be alive to be human, or else we’d have to categorize corpses as a new species.
But you’re right, that is somewhat of a hijack, so it’s perhaps left at that for now.
Lightning:
Financial responsibility and pregnancy are not analogous. One can annoying, upsetting, and yes, does cause some disadvantage to the man, while the other is dangerous (a small number of maternal deaths, a medium number of serious complications such as diabetes, septicaemia, a high number of minor complications such as tendonitis, severe back pain, rupture of the pelvic floor, high blood pressure, etc etc), and annoying, upsetting and disadvantageous.
Procacious, is your wish never to have children really preventing you from having relationships? It may cause you to abstain from penetrative sex, but that’s hardly the only form of sex there is. However, if you do wish to have the option of penetrative sex with no possibility of pregnancy, but wish to keep your options open, you could have some sperm stored before a vasectomy.
Cite? Really, find me one mainstream bilogical/genetic cite anywhere that stipulates that a zygote is not alive. (If you say that something is potentially alive…you’re saying it’s not currently alive.) I think I got your pov exactly right. You’re saying that a zygote is not alive. That is demonstrably false. I gave cites of plenty of biologists/geneticists who stipulate to that.
**
Well no, thats NOT what Nonny said. The biological development is a continuum (that actually continues up to adulthood of course), but becoming life is not a continuum.
I welcome you showing me the “scientific requirement for life”, that you alluded to earlier, that exludes the zygote.
The SDMB is about fighting ignorance (among other things, of course) . Saying that a zygote is not alive is, for lack of a better term, a demonstrably ignorant statement.
A man can want to take the relationship to a deeper level and still not want to have kids. The two are unrelated. Having children is not a deeper level of the relationship, it is a different relationship entirely (one where the child is the primary focus of attention rather than each other).
True enough. But if you are struck by a car while walking down the street, you are not considered responsible for the accident.
It doesn’t have to be consequence free, but it would be nice to have a consequence other than a several hundred thousand dollar fine (and women do have the option to avoid this).
Laws never make anything possible. Laws can only make things unlawful. Abortion was always possible until the law tried to prevent it. And complex medicine was never necessary to have a abortion. Anything from a small amount of poison to a sharp blow to the uterus can cause an abortion (not to mention the use of a foreign object to kill the baby or just leaving the baby at the spot you gave birth to it - which is not technically abortion, but achieves the same result).
Indeed there are other forms, though coitus is usually expected at some point. Other than the rare exception of women that have a disorder that makes coitus painful or even impossible (such as vaginismus) it becomes an issue. And the storing of sperm before a vasectomy is indeed a good option. The risks become smaller (since improper storing is not too common), but in truth, I imagine the reason I would be most likely to ever have children is if I give in to someone’s request (as opposed to the desire to have them myself). In order for the frozen sperm idea to work, the woman would have to consider that acceptable (and I have found an amazing number of people who think the “natural” way is the only acceptable way).
There seems to be a lot of morality coming up in this argument. Morality should have nothing to do with laws. What is moral or amoral is an opinion and like any highly variable opinion (such as what the best color is), morality should never be the grounds for a law. Murder is not illegal because it is amoral. It is illegal because it violates the rights of others. Morality has nothing to do with it. Since a fetus is not considered a human being, it does not have rights to violate. Therefore there is no grounds for having a law to support it. Children have rights, but zygotes do not. Men make zygotes, but do not make children. There may be a moral obligation for a man to take care of his child (depending on your exact morals), but since the man does not have any choice in making a child (only in making a zygote), he should not have any lawful responsibility.
That’s very impressive, QueenAl- you managed to COMPLETELY ignore my point. Why don’t you reread what I actually said, and answer my question? Saying that the two are not analoguous is merely being evasive.
For that matter, I suspect that they ARE roughly analogous. What would you say the odds are of a particular abortion having the side effects you’ve mentioned, above? I can tell you the chances of the man having to be financially obligated for the next 18 years- roughly 100%. Assuming a low amount of child support- $400 bucks a month, which in another thread in the Pit is accused of being entirely too little for one child, we’re looking at a total expenditure of $86400 over the next 18 years… and that’s merely child support, money paid to the custodial parent. Don’t forget the other intangibles, and money spent on the child which are not part of child support- all of which are demanded because the woman made her unilateral choice.
Now, please, go back and read my suggestion, above- and this time, think about it- rather than immediately going for the knee-jerk reaction.
