It is true that in general, if A --> ~B, ~A -|-> B. However, in this specific instance, and given that the decision A or ~A is contingent on the presence of a non-viable tissue mass (NVTM), in all instances in which A is chosen, ~B will result, and in all instances in which ~A is chosen, B will result (barring accidents). What is more, the person making the decision certainly acts on the assumption that A --> ~B and ~A --> B; no-one elects to have an abortion expecting that by some quirk of fate a baby will result, and few will turn down an abortion expecting the NVTM mysteriously to fail to become a baby. So the appeal to logic-chopping fails.
Further to your insistence that the man has the same rights as the woman to deny support to the NVTM during the first trimester (it’s just that his exercising that right has no effect whatever, given that his body is not providing support in the first place), do you suppose that any industrial tribunal in the land would accept the following argument from an employer: “Of course we did not discriminate against Ms X when we terminated her employment because of her pregnancy. We have fired every pregnant male we ever employed, too!” ?
Returning to the example of the cancer patient refusing treatment, and who is to blame for the resulting cancer death, try the following on for size:
A product carries this labelling, prominently brought to the purchaser’s attention: “Caution. Use of this product may cause an adverse reaction which if left untreated will certainly cause serious illness. In case of adverse reaction <list of symptoms> please contact your physician. Tell him the name of this product and the nature of your symptoms. Treatment is 100% effective if applied promptly.” Suppose also that the availability of the treatment has been vigorously campaigned for. Suppose further that anyone with enough smarts to come in out of the rain knows the risk attached to the use of the product and the nature of the treatment. Now, if I use this product, develop an adverse reaction, and wilfully ignore the prescribed treatment, should I be allowed to sue the manufacturer for the resulting serious illness?
But this is my point exactly. In order for the this logic of the OP to be true, you have to have an additional condition. That condidtion is the pregnancy. That condition requires 2 willing participants. Both of whom assume certain responsibilities. The only way that the decision not to abort implies that the woman takes on all responsibilities of child rearing is if you ignore this condition.
Let me put it another way. The decision to abort a fetus is certainly a decision to prevent a birth. With all of the attending ramifications. However, the decision not to abort is not identical to the decision to procreate. It certainly should not contain all of the attending ramifications. Specifically, the decision to participate in sex (by the male) can not be negated or changed by the female’s action at this point. Otherwise, you are positing that the decision not to abort is identical in every way to the decision to give birth. That is, you are positing A->~B implies ~A->B without reference to the necessary condition of pregnancy.
But this is my point exactly as well. It is ridiculous. To complain that a man should have a right to abort his fetus is just as silly as the situation you laid out.
I should think so. Will you be able to recover all of your costs? Probably not. Evidence that you were also responsible for the damage you suffered would probably be allowed to limit the damages. But unless I have not paid attention to the product liability discussions I have participated in, a company cannot completely delete its own responsiblity in something which is dangerous simply by labeling.
With the exception of the ready cure (and even then if we squint) your example sounds very much like smoking. They had to pay a lot of money recently.
From your earlier post:
Think about this from the other angle. If the legal right to abandon a fetus were granted to men, would you then teach your sons that it is ok to knock up as many women as they want? Would such a change really make a huge difference in the responsibilities towards your grandchildren you want your sons to take? Or is it possible, that you might teach them to chose their mates carefully (or to have sex responsibly) in either case.
No, that wasn’t your point exactly. Your point was to assert that “If A implies not-B, it is fallacious to claim that not-A implies B” - which is true in general but not in the specific condition we are considering.
No, I am not. The decision not to abort is identical to the decision to give birth. It is not identical to the “decision” to become pregnant, but it is identical to the decision to continue the pregnancy. You are still arguing for a “that’s just tough” line against the male - that consent to sex entails acceptance of all responsibilities with no further rights - which is plainly sexist unless you are willing to say “that’s just tough” to women as well.
No, it’s not your point exactly. To counter the complaint of unequal rights, you asserted (facetiously, on my reading of it) that a man has just the same right to abort a foetus that is biologically dependent upon him as a woman has, which I argue by analogy is like claiming that dismissal for pregnancy is not sexist because it is equally applicable to pregnant men. The latter position is unsustainable and therefore the former is too, unless my analogy is flawed.
True, but the labelling alone was not the whole thrust of the argument…
Yes - not least because of the misrepresentation of the product as healthy and benign. But “excepting” the ready cure is to ignore the bulk of the point I was making - that the responsibility for the resulting mess lies largely on me for refusing to take the readily available, universally publicised, and wholly effective remedy. Oh, and you’ll have to talk me through the squint, as well.
I fully intend to do so, in any case; as I would do were we still living in the bad old days when they could knock up someone who didn’t even have contraception available or access to safe, legal abortion. On the other hand, you may be setting up a false dichotomy here - implying that there are only two choices: to teach men to impregnate with no sense of responsibility, or to oblige them to concede all of the decision-making to women. There may be a middle ground somewhere.
At the moment, though, I am forced to say something like: “The law, in its wisdom, obliges you to pay for children you do not want and allows you to be denied the children you do want. You have no say in this. It will avail you nothing to show that you were deceived. Your female partner has the right to renege on any agreement, implied or stated, that does not accord with her whim of the moment. It doesn’t matter whether she said she was using contraception or declared that she either would or would not get an abortion. Your so-called ‘right’ to fatherhood is going to be dependent on satisfying the mother of your children that you are worth keeping around. Fortunately, most women are not evil. The odds are on your side. But the law is not. In this, possibly the most momentous aspect of human existence, you must rely on the goodwill of someone who is going to enjoy, in smaller or larger measure, the protection of State and society alike for whatever choice she makes. Let’s be careful out there.”
To be honest, I don’t know if I’ve got the balls to put it quite as plainly as that.
Except that in the case we are considering, they are not identical. That is, giving birth is not the same as procreating. As you indicate in your next paragraph.
Let me be more precise.
A: decision to abort
B: give birth to a child
P: decision procreation
What the OP is positing is that
A->~B (The decision to abort prevents live birth)
and
B->P (giving birth implies a decision to procreate)
therfore
~A->P (the decision not to abort implies a decision to procreate)
That is, the decision to abort implies the prevention of a live birth. A live birth is necessary to procreate. Therefore, the decision not to abort is tantamount to the decision to procreate. (did I get that right?)
Perhaps the problem with this argument is a little more clear when we use different terms for birth and procreation. The difference between the dicision to give birth and the decision to procreate is one of responsibilities assumed, and the number of people involved. It requires 2 people to procreate. It only requires 1 to give birth. While simply having sex is not equal to a decision to procreate either, it is certainly engaging in an activity which could result in procreation.
Well, we have to be more precise. I am certainly not arguing that the male accepts “all” responsibilities. And I do maintain a “that’s tough” attitude toward women as well. We have not been discussing the female’s responsiblities toward the child, so whatever portion she has has not come up. But basically, I believe it takes 2 people to create a child. They both have to share in the responsibilities inherent in activities which could result in such an outcome. And they both have certain rights regarding the child as well. Their rights are not always identical. But most of these differences are due to biological realities more than legal conspiracies. At least during pregnancy.
The point I was trying to make, was that any extra power a woman has over the fetus is a direct result of the biological differences between males and females. Therefore, any inequalities are a result of the laws of God, so to speak, and not the laws of man.
I don’t remember exactly how that case came out. Do you? I seem to remember the courts holding that there were some legitimate concerns since the chemicals in question could affect women differently than men. But I could be making that up.
No. And I agree that the person in your analogy would have had much of the responsibility.
Right. That’s why I said we’d have to squint.
I agree with this. The only thing I am trying to add, is that this does not completely and forever absolve the company of its responsibility. It may change it, but it does not erase it. And as far as the analogy applies to the OP, I am arguing that a “right to choose” does not elliminate the male’s responsibilities. It may alter them, but it does not elliminate them.
I was trying to slyly indicate that there were other differences between smoking and the hypothetical you set up. It was meant lightheartedly.
Again, I agree completely. I think there is definately a middle ground. I believe that there are many moral arguments that you can make that the male has a responsibility to counsel and help the female make such a decision. Even if he does not have any legal power to affect it. So, you are correct. There is a definite middle ground between irresponsible impregnation and purean abstinence.
Well, don’t go too far in your paranoia. It may be true that men have no legally relavent say in a decision to abort, but that does not mean that she can break “any” agreement. And it does not mean you will be denied access to your children “with no say”.
In regards to pregnancy, this has always been the case since before we went up into the trees. Once the child is born, however, this is no longer true (not strictly speaking anyway). That is, your wife cannot now, on a whim, leave with your children and enjoy the complete cooperation of the State. She could have done so while she was pregnant, but once they were born, you had rights as well as responsibilities.
Not evil, no. But they are all dangerous. <that line works better in person. It is meant very tounge in cheek>
How about something a littel more restrianed. I have a son as well (14) and have talked to him a little (can you ever talk to them enough?). I would concentrate on the profoundness of the experience of parenthood. Its importance rather than its costs. Along those lines, I would stress the unique nature of the sexual experience with a woman whom he is sharing the experience of parenthood. Then I might explain that finding the right woman can involve sexual encounters which have to be entered into responsibily. This then could lead to a discussion of the mechanics of impregnation, contraception, and perhaps even the current state of child support laws. But I would like to think that I tailored the discussion to his particular perspective. That is, at a young age, concentrate on the anticipation of sex as much as the mechanics.
Something like this <bear in mind it is a rough draft and I have been up for about 28 hours straight now>:
Son, sex is one of the most important and beautiful experience you will ever have. When it is done right* it is the physical manifestation of the most profound love a man and a woman can share. In some circumstances it can lead to pregnancy and children. <insert clinical explanation here>
Children may be the biggest responsibility you can ever take on. They require love, guidance, love, support, love, patience, love, courage, love, and sometimes more love. They will at one time or another require of you more than you will be able to believe you can give. They will have to learn everything from you. And yet, as much as they have to learn they have at least that much to teach. You cannot learn as much about yourself, others and the universe in general as you can by fathering children.
But for any of this to be successful you have to find the right woman to share the experience with. She has to respect you as much as you respect her. Even more importantly, she has to love you enough to want to undergo this profound experience with you.
As joyous as parenthood can be, it can be just as devastating if you choose to do it with the wrong woman. As you look for the right woman you may encounter many oppoutunities to engage in sex. Untill you are sure that you have found the woman you wish to have children with, you will have to engage in safe sex. <insert mechanical discussion of contraceptives> <insert deiscussion of legally enforced child support>.
*<Insert joke about “even when its wrong…” make it as bawdy as is appropriate for individual child.>
No, your analogy is not flawed, it’s right on target. Excellent point!
You know what really chaps my ass about the whole “pro-choice” issue? It’s those who wear their so-called “pro-choice” ideology on their sleeve as some sort of badge of honor, who, at the mere suggestion that there just may be some instances when men should also be privileged to the “right to choose”, go into an absolute coniption fit.
It may be true that men have no legally relavent say in a decision to abort, but that does not mean that she can break “any” agreement. And it does not mean you will be denied access to your children “with no say”.
<that line works better in person. It is meant very tounge in cheek>