New at Reason

Julian Sanchez | November 8, 2005

Cathy Young inspects the linoleum at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for evidence of Samuel Alito's dragging knuckles.

Comments

|11.8.05 @ 9:24AM|#

Why would the husband care about the product of pregnancy? It is not alive, it is just like a blood clot. He doesn't own the woman and cannot control her. The right to eliminate an unwanted product of conception is the most important right any woman has, if we don't have this right then we may as well have no rights at all because this right is specified by the constitutuion and is an irrevocable natural right given by god.

|11.8.05 @ 9:31AM|#

I won't wade into the messy abortion issue, but I must give Julian props for this line:

...inspects the linoleum at the Third Circuit Court of Appeals for evidence of Samuel Alito's dragging knuckles.

Nicely done!

|11.8.05 @ 9:33AM|#

Sally, how's your Latina cousin, Juanita?

To answer your question:

For the same reason a farmer is concerned about a seed. Although it most certainly is not a stalk of corn yet, it could become one.

Warren|11.8.05 @ 9:37AM|#

Endless yapping about abortion. No doubt there are many Americans who feel strongly about the issue. But whether Alito is the vote that overturns Roe, doesn't matter nearly as much as being unable to distinguish any activity human beings can conceivably engage in from 'interstate commerce'. But of course if he could, no senator, Republican or Democrat, would vote to confirm him.

|11.8.05 @ 9:39AM|#

Who's Juanita?

|11.8.05 @ 9:49AM|#

Juanita esta un chica muy loco.

And I've heard someone call our country "The Divided States of Abortion" and that pretty much hits the nail on the head.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 9:50AM|#

There is a poster called Juanita who posts silly things that nobody would ever think. Joe wants to put you in the same category as Juanita because he wants other people to think that nobody could sincerely feel as you claim to, Sally. I think that there people who feel as you do (whether or not you personally are one of them). I have seen them post on DU and have adjudged them sincere, if a bit calloused.

|11.8.05 @ 9:53AM|#

Dave W.-

I don't think joe is saying that only a troll could feel a certain way about the issue. Rather, I specifically recall "Jane" or "Juanita" using almost the exact same words as Sally in another thread. joe is remarking on the similar phrasing, not dismissing the idea.

|11.8.05 @ 9:54AM|#

Dave W.

"...the right (to have an abortion) is specified in the Constitution..."

Come on, dude, this is a troll.

gaius marius|11.8.05 @ 9:55AM|#

In practice, the law was essentially unenforceable, serving mainly as a symbolic reminder of the woman's moral obligation to inform her husband.

when this is how we've come to view law -- as something to be obeyed at our convenience, or only when we're being watched -- it's no wonder we have troubles.

Women, at the very least, have the moral obligation to include their partner in any decision regarding pregnancy, barring special circumstances such as abuse.

agreed. but aren't libertarians rather opposed to the legislation of morality? will ms young admit to having taken an entirely unlibertarian position here?

part of -- indeed, the core of the issue here is that laws like this deign to legislate a morality among the many by the edict of a consciously amoral government of the few. this conflict is the product of the centuries-long collapse of social cohesion that has followed the end of concord. imposing moral concord by edict from the top down -- especially when the top long ago forfeited any righteous claim to moral leadership -- is ultimately a futile strategy destined to foster only more division.

and yet, if the management class simply quit trying to enforce any common morality, given the advanced fracturing of our multicultural society of volatile proletariats, i wonder how long organized society would stand. what is transpiring in france is something that can and does happen in every western nation now with increasing frequency -- it exposes the deep unaddressed divisions within our broken civilization between an entrenched amoral managerial class and the unwashed masses that have long since quit believing in their laws and only barely suffer to respect them.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 9:56AM|#

I was kicked off DU for explaining that Roe v. Wade does countenance some regulation of some abortion. I think you underestimate how dim the dimmest feminists are these days.

gaius marius|11.8.05 @ 9:56AM|#

Come on, dude, this is a troll.

can a troll know a troll as such, mr joe? or in seeing a troll does he only see a like mind? :)

|11.8.05 @ 9:59AM|#

I am not a troll, gaius. I always post arguments in good faith.

|11.8.05 @ 10:02AM|#

OK, I just checked the archives and "Jane" has apparently not said that before. Somebody else said that before. Sally may or may not be serious, but the remarks have not been previously made under the name "Jane."

I should really back off on these identity speculations before I embarass myself any further.

|11.8.05 @ 10:04AM|#

*chuckle*

gaius marius|11.8.05 @ 10:06AM|#

I am not a troll, gaius.

i agree, mr joe.

|11.8.05 @ 10:06AM|#

Oh, yeah, Young's article:

"Yet the statute did not require a husband's consent to an abortion. It didn't even require the clinic to notify the husband. The woman simply had to sign a form attesting that she had told her husband about the abortion or that she qualified for an exemption for one of several reasons including domestic violence and rape."

Yeah, she could always just perjure herself on a legal document.

Similarly, zoning laws aren't a burden, because you can always put on that addition without a building permit. Gay marriage ban? Just lie on the lisence application and have one of the couple dress in drag. No problemo.

|11.8.05 @ 10:11AM|#

Oh dear.

While Cathy Young should be congratulated for trying to calm things down where the abortion debate rages, she misses the point.

Do we own our bodies or not? Does this change if a fetus suddenly makes an uninvited appearance? How can fetal rights, or spousal rights, exist when this must necessarily mean the elimination of a woman's original right to own her own body?

There are many people who will die for want of a new kidney. Perhaps Judge Alito might be a suitable donor. Should the sick individual have the right to take Alito's extra kidney against his will? What if the sick person only needs a bone marrow transplant? Mandatory blood donations, anyone?

So why is a woman's uterus always up for grabs?

It seems that libertarians should be rather sensitive whenever the state starts challenging anyone's right to own his or her own body. So while the pro-choice people should avoid lying in their advocacy, I certainly can't fault their position.

So I think its nuts for libertarians to shrug away Alito's blatantly anti-choice Casey decision.

|11.8.05 @ 10:13AM|#

agreed. but aren't libertarians rather opposed to the legislation of morality? will ms young admit to having taken an entirely unlibertarian position here?

If she had said she supported the law, maybe, but she didn't say that, so no.

|11.8.05 @ 10:18AM|#

Sally even uses the same e-mail address format as do Jane, Juanita, and Fred. Joe's speculation was spot-on.


Women, at the very least, have the moral obligation to include their partner in any decision regarding pregnancy, barring special circumstances such as abuse.

The problem with abortion and child-support and all such laws dealing with biological things like pregnancy and childbirth is that they are GUARANTEED to screw over one of the two people involved. Here's what I'm thinking, hypothetically: Let's say I cheat on my boyfriend with some guy. And I get pregnant. Uh-oh.

In such a case I would, probably, quietly go off and have an abortion, without telling anybody. And my motivations would NOT be entirely selfish, wanting to keep my affair a secret. I would keep it to myself (meaning not tell the father) in part because I know there's no way I'm going to have this baby, and nothing the father can say to change my mind. So, unless I dislike the guy and want him to suffer, why the HELL would I tell him something which only has the potential to cause him anguish? "Hey, dude, you might already be feeling guilty about our one-night-stand, and here's something else that will REALLY knock your socks off!"

Really, if I were pregnant and planned to KEEP the baby I'd certainly tell the father, but if I know for a fact that I'm getting rid of it, what good would telling the father do? In some cases, like this, wouldn't a "lie of omission" be the kindest course of action to take?

|11.8.05 @ 10:27AM|#

It isn't biologically alive until/unless it is wanted. Until then it is a blood clot.

|11.8.05 @ 10:31AM|#

Do we own our bodies or not? Does this change if a fetus suddenly makes an uninvited appearance?

By having sex, don't we invite pregnancy? no method of conception is perfect, this is why safe, legal abortion is necesary, but an unwanted pregnancy is not necesarily uninvited.


As to Sally's comments, they are very similar in tone to Janes, but the polar opposite, politicaly. Jane is far right, Sally far left. I suspect the same troll is having fun on both sides

|11.8.05 @ 10:32AM|#

I thing what Sally, Fred, Jane, Juanita is doing is making a point by posting a ridiculous parody of the opposition.

|11.8.05 @ 10:33AM|#

You men reading this--and especially those of you who either oppose abortion, or at the very least would like very much to have a baby of your own--what do YOU think about my hypothetical? We have a fling, I get pregnant, and I know there's absolutely no way I'm having this kid. Do you really want me to tell you about this? Or would you be happier not knowing?

|11.8.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Why would the husband care about the product of pregnancy?

Well, for me personally, considering I don't engage in extracurricular activities with anyone who would contemplate having an abortion, it would demonstrate that the mother was not honest with me when we discussed the issue prior to extracurricular activities. So, being informed about the abortion would allow me to terminate the relationship with said mother.

MP|11.8.05 @ 10:36AM|#

Do you really want me to tell you about this? Or would you be happier not knowing?

I might want the chance to talk you out of your position. In addition, if you chose to do something I'm solidly against, it reveals something important about your personality. So yes, I would be happier knowing.

|11.8.05 @ 10:41AM|#

I might want the chance to talk you out of your position. In addition, if you chose to do something I'm solidly against, it reveals something important about your personality. So yes, I would be happier knowing.

I guarantee such a chance would do you no good; you may as well ask for the chance to talk me into becoming a lesbian, or willing all my money to the KKK. Ain't gonna happen. So why waste my time and yours?


if you chose to do something I'm solidly against

Now, you see, I think that reveals something about your personality. You mention me "doing something you're against," while neglecting to consider that whatever I do or do NOT do, I am the only one who will be experiencing any actual physical/biological consequences here. Your statement could just as easily be phrased "If you choose to do things to YOUR body of which I disapprove. . . ."

|11.8.05 @ 10:41AM|#

We have a fling, I get pregnant, and I know there's absolutely no way I'm having this kid. Do you really want me to tell you about this? Or would you be happier not knowing?

For me personally, I wouldn't have had a "fling" with you if you are willing to have an abortion. Yet if, by some chance, my personal morality fails and I do have a "fling" with you, then yes, I really want you to tell me about it. I could, at least, make the offer to adopt the child and raise him/her myself. And, if you refused, it would allow me to have learned an important lesson about letting my guard down when it comes to my personal beliefs...

|11.8.05 @ 10:41AM|#

Endless yapping about abortion, indeed. Abortion is the circus-sideshow issue of American politics--really pathetic, considering how many questions the S.Ct. addresses each year that affect all Americans. All of those boring ERISA and environmental statutory rulings by the Court have a far greater impact on our country than all of its abortion rulings combined.

|11.8.05 @ 10:43AM|#

Per the law in question, one of the exemptions occurred when the husband was not (in the opinion of the woman involved) the biological father.

There were several exemptions, so that any fear of abuse or emotional consequence would allow the woman to testify that she did not inform her spouse for fear of reprisal.

It is certainly appropriate to question the wisdom of the law; Alito's more narrow mandate was to determine whether it constituted "an undue burden".

|11.8.05 @ 10:45AM|#

Again, this is nothing more than a "good wife" law. Remember, it's not about paternal notification but about spousal notification. I believe that if you were pregnant as the result of an affair, you weren't required to notify the actual father of the child. Regardless, as has been said before, even though a wife should tell her husband, it is wrong to legislate that.

Yes, it's unfair that some men do not have a say, especially when they certainly will have the responsibility should the child be born. But again, the government cannot make perfectly fair and equal something as inherently and fundamentally unequal as childbirth. If your wife screws you over and has an abortion without talking to you, well, sorry dude, your relationship sucks and Uncle Sam can't fix that.

As for the actual decision, although I disagree with a spousal notification law, if the determination of constitutionality rests solely on "undue burden", I don't think it's unconstitutional. And considering the complete lack of possible enforcement, the laws only end is to make some people feel good...and to give us something to endlessly debate about.

|11.8.05 @ 10:48AM|#

Jennifer, I'd want to know, even knowing I could do nothing about it.

|11.8.05 @ 10:49AM|#

Aaaargh! Guys, I was honestly just asking an opinion, not trying to start a debate, but you don't get it. People are saying "I'd want to know so I could talk you out of it/ offer to adopt the kid myself/ etc." No! Read what I wrote in the first place--I am not having this kid. You will not be able to change my mind about this anymore than you iwll be able to make me switch from a sci-fi fan to a football fanatic.

And so I'm thinking it would be kinder to never let you know that one of your hundreds of millions of sacred sperm happened to hit the target one day.

(And please, no more sniffing about "I'd never sleep with a woman who's pro-abortion." In my hypothetical you've already slept with someone in a committed relationship, so let's just say we're BOTH less than honorable in this case, shall we?)

|11.8.05 @ 10:49AM|#

And I posted before reading Zoidberg's response. Thanks for your answer.

|11.8.05 @ 10:51AM|#

You men reading this--and especially those of you who either oppose abortion, or at the very least would like very much to have a baby of your own--what do YOU think about my hypothetical? We have a fling, I get pregnant, and I know there's absolutely no way I'm having this kid. Do you really want me to tell you about this? Or would you be happier not knowing?

I'd certainly want to know, but I'm the type who would insist on helping you through the process, and therefore not against abortion, per se. Even if I did really want to keep the child, I'd still rather know. If I were religious, I could then at least pray for the child's soul. Otherwise, it would serve as a valuable lesson to stay away from married tramps. ;)

|11.8.05 @ 10:54AM|#

Stretch--
I'm not officially married in the eyes of the government. I live in sin. This hypothetical of mine just keeps getting tawdrier and tawdrier, doesn't it?

|11.8.05 @ 10:54AM|#

it seriously pisses me off that abortion is the #1 issue that people are worried about. i mean, of all the important things going on right now, this is a non-starter.

if you really want to eliminate abortion, there are several easy ways. the first is through proper, INFORMED teaching of sexual education. Sorry to say, but abstinance education is a pipe dream. Sure, tell the kids don't have sex, warn them. but you are living in lala land if you think 99% of the kids out there are going to deny the raging hormones churning within their bodies.

the way to reduce abortions is to make teens feel comfortable purchasing prophylactics to protect themselves. every male on this website knows the horror of going to the drug store and purchasing your first. (hell it is somewhat still embarrasing). but why is it embarrasing? because we are taught sex is a bad dirty thing, it is pervasive throughout society.

abortion isn't the problem, lack of informed education isn't the problem. teens are always going to have sex, you can't magically stop it by appealing to their morals.

|11.8.05 @ 10:56AM|#

And please, no more sniffing about "I'd never sleep with a woman who's pro-abortion." In my hypothetical you've already slept with someone in a committed relationship, so let's just say we're BOTH less than honorable in this case, shall we?)

That's exactly my point... I would want to know so I could reform my ways and be more "honorable" in the future. Being informed would make me realize there are consequences to irresponsible (my term) or dishonorable (your term) actions.

And, whether or not you are having the kid isn't the issue. It is that many males would like the courtesy/respect of being informed... just as you would like the courtesy/respect of having the ultimate decision of what happens to the pregenancy...

|11.8.05 @ 11:02AM|#

it seriously pisses me off that abortion is the #1 issue that people are worried about.

Agreed. They hear 80 or so cases per term, give or take a few. And yet this one issue, which doesn't even appear before them every term, is the driving force in the controversy and everybody knows it.

Disgusting.

|11.8.05 @ 11:03AM|#

Jennifer

I'd have to count myself in the "want to know, regardless" column. I think your hypothetical is wildly unrealistic in its limitations--my powers of persuasion can overcome a vast number of obstacles--but even in that situation, I'd like to know. I agree with K Toishi: I'd like to know the full consequences of my bad acts, in part so I can reform myself (just in case there is a hell).

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 11:06AM|#

You men reading this--and especially those of you who either oppose abortion, or at the very least would like very much to have a baby of your own--what do YOU think about my hypothetical? We have a fling, I get pregnant, and I know there's absolutely no way I'm having this kid. Do you really want me to tell you about this? Or would you be happier not knowing?

Because big pieces of my money and future money are potentially at stake, I'd want to know and want to know early. Also, because I feel that late term abortions cut into a somewhat functioning human brain, I would want to excercise my input to make sure that any aborting that was neccessary was done in a timely manner before little Feety could feel the blade too much. I think these are righteous and valid imperatives for me to pursue, in context.

Was I good?

|11.8.05 @ 11:07AM|#

I'm not officially married in the eyes of the government. I live in sin. This hypothetical of mine just keeps getting tawdrier and tawdrier, doesn't it?

And sexier.

Also, even without a way to alter the outcome, the act of simply voicing concerns is a benefit in and of itself.

|11.8.05 @ 11:09AM|#

Jennifer,

I'm not sure what you're trying to find out here. You're proposing a hypothetical that requires me to assume I've done something totally against my moral beliefs, and then asking me what my moral beliefs tell me to do next.

Garbage in, garbage out.

|11.8.05 @ 11:11AM|#

So the majority opinion is "would rather know regardless?" Wow. I am surprised. I would have kept it to myself on the theory that I'm being kinder to you by doing so. Hmmm.


And yet this one issue. . . . is the driving force in the controversy and everybody knows it.

On the one level yes, this is dumb. Yet on the other hand, think of something K. said earlier:

just as [a woman like me] would like the courtesy/respect of having the ultimate decision of what happens to the pregenancy...

Well, see, here's how I look at it: because of some quirks of biology and modern medical knowledge/technology, my having the ultimate decision isn't so much a matter of 'respect' as it is a matter of 'biological accident.' Respect is involved only to the extent that the only way to give the woman less power over a pregnancy than a man is to use some sort of force or coercion against the woman in question.

So you "respect" my right to decide what's happening here in the same way you "respect" my right to not be raped or killed--this is the bare minimum I'd expect from you, not something brag-worthy on your part.

It's more than abortion at stake here--it's a fundamental question of how much power the law should have over individuals. I view abortion rights as a first cousin to the drug war issue: to whom does my body belong?

MP|11.8.05 @ 11:15AM|#

I view abortion rights as a first cousin to the drug war issue: to whom does my body belong?

For one who is trying not to stoke up an abortion debate on this thread, you're really doing everything you can to pour gas on the fire.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 11:15AM|#

I view abortion rights as a first cousin to the drug war issue

the late term fetuses are sort of analogous to addicts . . . helpless, in the way, not functioning fully, inarticulate, politically unempowered. yeah, I kinda see the analogy.

|11.8.05 @ 11:16AM|#

Jennifer-

I'll repeat the only half-joking suggestion that I (and apparently others) have made before: Create a 4th branch of government to deal with this issue. Count up the number of people carrying signs in front of clinics (on either side of the issue) on a typical morning, multiply by 2, and that's the number of people elected to the Obstetric Branch.

That way the Supreme Court can deal with other issues.

Yeah, never gonna happen, but it's no more absurd than making appointment to the highest court in the land revolve around a single polarizing social issue.

|11.8.05 @ 11:16AM|#

it seriously pisses me off that abortion is the #1 issue that people are worried about.

I agree, as well, since it is an issue that does not directly affect me. Cato has a good piece echoing your sentiment...

The Key Issue for the Court Isn't Abortion

|11.8.05 @ 11:18AM|#

I'm not sure what you're trying to find out here. You're proposing a hypothetical that requires me to assume I've done something totally against my moral beliefs, and then asking me what my moral beliefs tell me to do next.

People make mistakes and violate their moral beliefs all the time. Heck, even the Pope goes to confession every week. Usually, when people mess up they return to their morals for guidance. I don't think it's an unfair hypothetical.

|11.8.05 @ 11:22AM|#

Crimethink, I am merely proposing a hypothetical where you are at some point in your life less than perfect. Only Jesus is completely Without Sin.

If it makes you feel better, adjust the hypothetical's particulars so that I'm single and I always THOUGHT I was anti-abortion until I actually found myself pregnant.

Gimme Back My Dog|11.8.05 @ 11:26AM|#

Jennifer,

I would rather not know. Unless you needed me to split the cost of the procedure (after showing me the receipt), there is no need to tell me.

|11.8.05 @ 11:26AM|#

"it's a fundamental question of how much power the law should have over individuals"

I agree, and disagree.

OK, this may be a bad explanation, but here goes. I believe that I, and I alone, am entitled to my property, the fruits of my labour. In other words, my money is my money. How's that for libertarianism?

However, since I took it upon myself to adopt two brats, I have voluntarily accepted the burden of taking care of them. (If I had become a parent in the usual way, my thinking would be the same.) Thus, they now have a claim on my property. If I refuse to feed them, then the state will (and should, I believe) act on their behalf to force me to pay up. My individual right to what is mine are limited. The state has power over me because two of its members (my children) have power over me. It's a power I gave them.

One could argue that, by becoming pregnant, a woman has given up some of her rights to her own body to another individual. As in my case with adoptees, the state has a duty to intervene on behalf of the unborn individual to force the pregnant woman to "pay up" with her womb.

Which reduces the whole debate back to: when does the unborn thingamagig become an individual with rights?

Once we settle that issue, everything else should be easy.

Sorry if none of this made sense.

R C Dean|11.8.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Do we own our bodies or not?

Sure. But assuming the answer to this question also answers the abortion issue begs the question of whether/when the fetus becomes a person who also owns his body.

Does this change if a fetus suddenly makes an uninvited appearance?

At some point, most people believe the answer is yes. Personally, I think that by the time you get into the third trimester, the "fetus" has achieved sufficient "personhood" that aborting it should no longer be allowed.

As for the 'uninvited' status of the fetus, well, sex is an invitation to pregnancy, so this would only apply in cases of rape.

How can fetal rights . . . exist when this must necessarily mean the elimination of a woman's original right to own her own body?

Because an absolute right for a woman who has an advanced pregnancy to terminate the abortion conflicts with the fetus' arguably equal right to own his own body. Its just the "right to swing your fist ends at my nose" nostrum, played out in every pregnant woman's placenta.

Being a parent or a spouse means giving up lots of rights - hell, half my property rights disappeared when I said "I do." Changes in status - single to married, fertile to pregnant - often entail changes in rights.

|11.8.05 @ 11:27AM|#

Because big pieces of my money and future money are potentially at stake, I'd want to know and want to know early.

None of your money's at stake here, Dave! Whatever y'all might think of my abortion opinions, at least grant that I'm not the type of woman who views pregnancy as a winning lottery ticket: "Whoopee! I can now stake a claim to every penny this guy earns for the next eighteen years!"

|11.8.05 @ 11:32AM|#

What R C said is what I meant to say.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 11:33AM|#

Let me tell you about my friend Bill. Bill was 50 when he found out he had a daughter and she was 17 and wanted to go to college. Bill spent a lot of time talking to lawyers. He paid the girl what he claimed was a large sum (I don't know how much). His work suffered tremendously. He managed to keep his job, but just barely. He was sad and his finances were put into great disarray.

The point for you Jennifer is don't make promises you may not be able to keep. I'd rather know than depend upon you to keep the kid from finding me when it wants $$$.

|11.8.05 @ 11:36AM|#

The point for you Jennifer is don't make promises you may not be able to keep. I'd rather know than depend upon you to keep the kid from finding me when it wants $$$.

The kid will not ask you for money because he will not exist, Dave. That's the whole point of this "abortion" business, remember? Unless my metaphysics are completely wrong and you end up haunted by the spirit of a ghost fetus, in which case I'm truly sorry but you'll have to take that up with God.

|11.8.05 @ 11:38AM|#

If it makes you feel better, adjust the hypothetical's particulars so that I'm single and I always THOUGHT I was anti-abortion until I actually found myself pregnant.

Yet, another reason I would want to know. That is exactly the situation I found myself in nine years ago. I had the abortion discussion pre-extracurricular, was assured it would never be an option, and then lo and behold, an abortion was had once there was a pregnancy. Knowing would help me to be even more cautious of whom I sleep with - or if i even sleep with anyone - since I choose to spread my seed cautiously...

As for the 'uninvited' status of the fetus, well, sex is an invitation to pregnancy

Lesson learned after the situation above. While I am no fan of abortion laws, I think there is far too little discussion about the "choice" involved in having sex to being with...

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 11:40AM|#

Yeah, I guess what I am saying is that should be considered as a moral duty to tell fathers. I gave a reason, if the kid was going to term ($$$). I also gave you a reason if you were aborting (help make sure abortion is performed early).

Either way, you should tell, unless there has been a rape or non-censensual choking or punching or something like that.

Remember, a legal right to stay quiet on preganancy is not a moral right to act like an asshole.

fyodor|11.8.05 @ 11:41AM|#

Jennifer,

I think I would want to know even though I may not like knowing. Even aside from the possibility that I might learn something and that knowledge can be useful even when it's not pleasant, I could just never say don't tell me. Even if it's not good for me, I could never consciously ask be in the dark, about just about anything. If an asteroid is about to end all life on earth and knowing about it would do me no good but instead put me in a panic, I would still want to know. Just my nature, and maybe human nature.

That said, I would NEVER want a law to FORCE you to tell me.

THAT said, whether such a law constitutes an unconstitutionally "undue burden," uh..... Hey, it's nice and sunny out there, but a little windy.

|11.8.05 @ 11:41AM|#

While I am no fan of abortion laws, I think there is far too little discussion about the "choice" involved in having sex to being with...

Or perhaps, far too much discussion of what the government should do to control individual outcomes from that choice. . .

|11.8.05 @ 11:45AM|#

But, speaking of the Alito topic...

I don't consider Alito's dissent all that noteworthy--based on my very limited reading about it, mind. In fact, I don't see that it gives any indication one way or the other about how the prospective justice would rule in future Roe-related cases.

|11.8.05 @ 11:46AM|#

An odd analogy occurred to me just now--in Kurt Vonnegut's satirical story "Harrison Bergeron," the law required all you guys to wear heavy weights chained to your body--because, you know, it's not fair that biology would otherwise make you much faster and stronger than me. Attractive people must wear ugly masks and black out their teeth, because it's not fair that biology should make some people more sexually desirable than others. Smart people have their thoughts constantly disrupted by loud radios, because it's not fair that some people are born smarter than others.

And I wonder what the pregnancy and abortion laws in this world would be, to compensate for the fact that it's not fair that women should have more say than men in pregnancy matters. Or maybe the law instead views it as "It's not fair that women have to deal with the physical consequences of pregnancy, while men don't."

|11.8.05 @ 11:52AM|#

Hee hee hee! Make you guys swallow syrup of ipecac every time the woman has morning sickness. . . .

|11.8.05 @ 11:52AM|#

I won't wade into the messy abortion issue


OT, but: nice (unintentionally?) gruesome pun, thoreau.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Jennifer,

The gender spilt on abortion is small to non-existent, if you believe the opinion polls. Whether men have a place in the debate or not, they are, as a group, no more or less pro-choice than women. So, it is incorrect characterize the current (and rather liberal) abortion law in the US as something that men have foisted on unwilling women.

You also seem to think that there is some kind of super-slippery slope lurking -- that the slighest pin prick in free abortion prerogatives will lead ineluctably to illegal abortion. I suggest you take a look at European abortion laws. Generally much more restrictive than in US, but really only later in the preganancy. You can probably tell from the wise posts I made above why I think this is better than the US system. But the point for you is: that slope may not be as slippery as you seem to think.

|11.8.05 @ 11:54AM|#

Jennifer

Technology will soon solve that problem. I wonder how the debate will sound when it becomes possible to incubate a fetus in an artificial container....

|11.8.05 @ 11:55AM|#

Unless my metaphysics are completely wrong and you end up haunted by the spirit of a ghost fetus, in which case I'm truly sorry but you'll have to take that up with God.

Best comment ever.

Count me as a dissenter from the party line here: If I had sex with someone with whom I was not in an LTR, and a pregnancy resulted, and the woman decided to abort it, no need to tell me. None of my business. If you decided to keep it, even if you didn't want me around, I'd want to know, because I'd feel morally obligated to contribute to its upkeep.

Now, if it's someone with whom I'm in a lifelong relationship, that's a different story; I feel I'd want to know, but I wouldn't support forcing her to tell me.

It's all academic for me. I had a vasectomy 10 years ago; best decision ever.

|11.8.05 @ 12:00PM|#

I wouldn't tell anyone I was getting an abortion in the situation Jennifer describes either. It would be pointless.

If the father were someone I was in a habit of making mutual decisions with on a daily basis, then I'd let him know. But if the pregnancy were the product of a fling, no.

|11.8.05 @ 12:01PM|#

So, it is incorrect characterize the current (and rather liberal) abortion law in the US as something that men have foisted on unwilling women.

I'm not thinking that men "as a group" are foisting something on women "as a group," I'm thinking of any individual woman who would want to get an abortion but find herself unable to do so because OTHERS are using force to make her do things to her body she would not otherwise do.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 12:02PM|#

it becomes possible to incubate a fetus in an artificial container

There will be big debates about which fetuses are brought to term and who decides that (the government or the biological parents). The debate will be especially nasty because genetic analysis will probably tell us which containers hold the future gays and which the future libertarians. The concern is that those containers might get accidentally knocked over, or worse . . .

|11.8.05 @ 12:02PM|#

Or perhaps, far too much discussion of what the government should do to control individual outcomes from that choice

Good point, as I disagree with the law in question (although I don't know it passed the legal threshold of undue burden). But, I think the lack of discussion on the former often invites discussion on the latter... however, illegitimate (no pun intended) the legal outcome may be.

|11.8.05 @ 12:04PM|#

I would want to know. I wouldn't want a choice or an opportunity to change your mind. But I would want to know that there were consequences to my actions one way or another. Maybe it would make me think twice about doing something like that again. Maybe it would make me feel like I could get away with being irresponsible. Dunno either way, but I would want to know.

Having said that I don't think it should be legally required to let me know.

|11.8.05 @ 12:13PM|#

It's all academic for me. I had a vasectomy 10 years ago; best decision ever.

Yet, another reason I would want to know (i.e. a vasectomy is a good way to make all this academic and not get burned again)... I'm getting awfully close to this point and setting aside some "seed" should it be needed in the future.

|11.8.05 @ 12:18PM|#

It's all academic for me. I had a vasectomy 10 years ago; best decision ever.

Yet, another reason I would want to know (i.e. a vasectomy is a good way to make all this academic and not get burned again)... I'm getting awfully close to this point and setting aside some "seed" should it be needed in the future.

|11.8.05 @ 12:19PM|#

Jennifer

That was an interesting thought experiment if nothing else. Makes me wonder if the following might be more or less true:

Those men who would have such a fling would tend not to care whether they are told in your scenario. On the other hand, those men who would want to be told would tend not to have such a fling in the first place.

Gross generalization. Might be worth a massive, government-funded study, though. :)

|11.8.05 @ 12:20PM|#

I have a very simplistic stance on the messy abortion issue: It is very messy. So let people make up their owns minds about it, and don't bring law into it unless we have reached some kind of consensus.

|11.8.05 @ 12:21PM|#

Hmm. Interesting range of viewpoints. I'm glad Serafina at least understands where I'm coming from.

The way I see it is this: if you're anti-abortion, why would I want you to be haunted by the idea that you "fathered a child subsequently destroyed"? If you're pro-choice, why would I want you to feel guilt over the fact that I had to undergo an unpleasant experience because of the time I spent with you? Whatever the father's opinion on abortion here, I'm assuming that he's fundamentally a decent guy, and I'm not out to "get" him. I'm trying to be considerate of your hypothetical feelings here, gentlemen.

Now, if it were my boyfriend that of course would be quite different. But I'd still feel bad for knowing that he's going to feel bad about this.

(extremely mild sarcasm) Geez. Try to maintain a sense of decorum and not run around whining about your problems at the drop of a frickin' hat. . . .(/extremely mild sarcasm)

|11.8.05 @ 12:24PM|#

Which reduces the whole debate back to: when does the unborn thingamagig become an individual with rights?

That's really the crux of the issue, which is why I think the term "pro-life" is more accurate than "pro-choice", though since the exact moment when individual rights come into play for an unborn thingamagig cannot strictly be decided through science, I believe both terms to be misleading. As far as I'm concerned, you're either for or against legalized abortion and your personal reasons for such include ideas such as life and choice.

Another interesting facet of the pro-choice position is that while the fulcrum of the argument rests on control over a woman's own body, the decision is made largely on the basis of what happens after the child is no longer a part of the woman's body. In other words, from my experience, the decision to have an abortion does not stem from choice about what to do with your own body as much as not wanting/able to care for a full born child.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 12:24PM|#

Unless my metaphysics are completely wrong and you end up haunted by the spirit of a ghost fetus, in which case I'm truly sorry but you'll have to take that up with God.

That all depends on what the ghost fetus tells me to do. She will be in charge of me if she can prove she is real. Maybe she will want us to all take it up with God together. I don't think any of this would happen, but once you take Jennifer's ghost as fact, it is a fact with important consequences!

Chances are what would happen instead is that you would just get the late term abortion, the 6 month fetus's brain would be cut causing great pain and nobody would care because everybody involved is calloused and nobody on the outside is allowed to know. Like some CIA prisons.

|11.8.05 @ 12:27PM|#

"Why hello there, guy I recently had sex with but with whom I won't likely be pursuing anything long-term. I don't know if you've been feeling badly about our encounter, or the fact that we're not having more encounters, or anything negative, but in case you're not, here's a Fun Fact bound to cast a pall on your memory. Guess what I did?"

Because, you know, if I'm ever going to be single and dating again, and there's any sort of accident, misery loves company so if I have to suffer then why not ensure someone else does, too?

Mere dating isn't enough for me. I wish to be a one-woman tornado, cutting a swath of male destruction through the trailer park of the human libido. . . whatever the hell that means . . .

|11.8.05 @ 12:34PM|#

a one-woman tornado, cutting a swath of male destruction through the trailer park of the human libido. . .

My new mantra....*sigh*

|11.8.05 @ 12:34PM|#

I'm trying to be considerate of your hypothetical feelings here, gentlemen.

I understand and appreciate that, but you assume that since the outcome is a given, the only possibly result in telling the man is to hurt him. While he may be hurt, the very act of knowing something is critical to many people, especially men. The state of non-knowing something drives me absolutely bonkers, moreso than any pain I might feel from the truth.

|11.8.05 @ 12:37PM|#

The state of non-knowing something drives me absolutely bonkers, moreso than any pain I might feel from the truth.

But you won't know that you're in a state of non-knowing. It's non-knowledge so far as you're concerned.

|11.8.05 @ 12:39PM|#

Would this be the right time to trout out the distinction between "known knows", "known unknowns", "unknown unknowns", etc.?

Or would that turn it into an Iraq thread?

|11.8.05 @ 12:39PM|#

It should be noted that I beleive your ethical obligation in this case approaches nil (especially if you'll never see the guy again otherwise), unlike the heavy obligation you'd have if your pregnancy occured in a relationship. But the question is whether or not I'd want to be told, which I would, not whether or not you have a responsibility to tell me.

|11.8.05 @ 12:47PM|#

But you won't know that you're in a state of non-knowing. It's non-knowledge so far as you're concerned.

Yes, and the very fact that such non-knowledge exists at all vexes me. ;)

Again, the question is whether or not I'd want to know, and I would. When you told me, I'd be glad to know and would prefer that over my prior state of ignorance. In my case, it's not my feelings that you're sparing, even though that may be your intention.

You're operating on the "what you don't know, won't hurt you" principle, which is fine but given the choice I will choose "hurt and knowing" everytime.

|11.8.05 @ 12:53PM|#

Y'know, Stretch, I can see where you're coming from, and yet from my perspective--the perspective of the one who has to actually make the choice regarding whether or not to hurt you--well, the whole right-and-wrong thing just keeps spinning in circles for me, and I can't pin it down. Perhaps I have the moral obligation to honor your wishes regardless of what they were. But then that puts me in the awkward position of being morally obligated to consciously hurt someone else. Can such an obligation ethically exist?

|11.8.05 @ 12:56PM|#

that puts me in the awkward position of being morally obligated to consciously hurt someone else

Actually, make that: obligated to hurt someone for no concrete benefit. We're not even talking about a situation where I could, for example, save people's lives by hurting an innocent man. We're talking about a situation where the only difference between the man suffering and the man not suffering is--knowledge for its own sake? I don't know. But nobody wins here--everyone is worse off than before, me and the guy. I'd personally feel better about keeping my mouth shut.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 12:58PM|#

But then that puts me in the awkward position of being morally obligated to consciously hurt someone else. Can such an obligation ethically exist?

Every woman who get a late term abortion follows what they feel is a moral obligation to cause pain. specifically, the ethical obligation occurs because the woman feels that the abortion is best for them who matters. the pain occurs when the blade goes in the brain. So there's a simple example.

|11.8.05 @ 12:59PM|#

Every woman who get a late term abortion follows what they feel is a moral obligation to cause pain.

I'm thinking in terms of an eary abortion, when there's no pain network anyway. And I'm talking about the man's pain, which is wholly unnecessary in all scenarios.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 1:03PM|#

I'm thinking in terms of an eary abortion, when there's no pain network anyway.

Yes, it is crucial to distinguish between early and late term abortions. For example, if your original hypothetical had specified , say, a 12 week abortion, my answer would be:

"tell or don't tell as you feel most comfortable."

Betcha like that answer better than my previous ones! 12 week versus 6 month makes a huge diff and one size hypo does not fit all.

|11.8.05 @ 1:07PM|#

Again, I believe your obligation to tell me approaches nil, though I would prefer it. You have no obligation to follow my preferences, because if you did you would have an obligation to tell me in the first place. It's a simple preference in this case, not a moral imperative.

And it's my body, I can choose to have you hurt it if I want to. It's in the Constitution. :)

|11.8.05 @ 1:08PM|#

"if we don't have this right then we may as well have no rights at all because this right is specified by the constitutuion"

Similar to, and often mistaken for "trolling", this is actually what scientists have termed "sarcasm". Considered to be an argument rooted intentionally, and sometimes humorously, in bad faith, it is often used to point out the absurdity of a set of differing beliefs while at the same time ridiculing those believed to hold such beliefs. A form of hate speech, its use, in civilized, managed society, is discouraged due to the embarrassment it causes for those it is directed against. A veritably venturous vehicle, infelicitous use can eviscerate the value of such vexatious verbiage, and render the very vision of the vocalization void. Its use is extremely rare on this forum, as most readers of Reason Hit and Run caliber, sophistos as they are, fail to appreciate the guttural joys of its effective use, and never, ever, stoop so low as to use it themselves.

or something like that

|11.8.05 @ 1:10PM|#

Crimethink, I am merely proposing a hypothetical where you are at some point in your life less than perfect. Only Jesus is completely Without Sin.

But what you're doing is no different from asking a person who favors capital punishment if they would want to be put to death if they've raped and murdered someone. Of course, no one wants to be put to death; likewise, no one would enjoy the knowledge that their offspring died in the womb.

I'm sure Hakluyt can come up with the name of this fallacy, assuming you Gullyites haven't scared him off... ;-)

|11.8.05 @ 1:14PM|#

Or, to go for a closer example, it's like asking someone if they would want to pay child support if they got a woman pregnant and would never have any chance of playing a part in their child's life.

|11.8.05 @ 1:15PM|#

But what you're doing is no different from asking a person who favors capital punishment if they would want to be put to death if they've raped and murdered someone

Good grief, Crimethink! I disagree--I think the hypothetical of "have sex with me" is quite different from the hypothetical "rape and murder someone."

Call me arrogant if you must. But they're just not the same.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 1:16PM|#

Besides, it is kind of hard to engage with Jennifer's when in the real world it is much more common for a man to not be told he has a born child than it is for a woman to suffer a physical assault for getting an abortion.

I always hear third hand about these battered women, but I actually seem to meet men who aren't told about their children, as well as women who decide not to tell the father about a an actual, borned child (even though physical attack never seems to be that likely).

As bad as Jennifer's problems are, some people have bigger ones.

dhex|11.8.05 @ 1:18PM|#

you know what's fucked up?

that "i control my body" works fine for abortion in lib circles but doesn't do a damn thing for all the other stuff we'd like government to get the hell out of.

that makes me sad. doing drugs is a lot less harmful than snuffing foetuses/cell clumps/the light of god's eye/etc.

|11.8.05 @ 1:19PM|#

it is much more common for a man to not be told he has a born child than it is for a woman to suffer a physical assault for getting an abortion. I always hear third hand about these battered women, but I actually seem to meet men who aren't told about their children

So--the government should use its force and authority to require citizens (women, in this case) to do certain things so long as they're not battered as a result? What? This seems to me a non-sequitur.

|11.8.05 @ 1:20PM|#

As bad as Jennifer's problems are, some people have bigger ones.

First of all, it's a hypothetical problem, not real. But secondly, so what? The "someone else has it worse" argument can be used to dismiss almost anything.

Dhex--

I agree.

|11.8.05 @ 1:21PM|#

So--the government should use its force and authority to require citizens (women, in this case) to do certain things so long as they're not battered as a result? What? This seems to me a non-sequitur.

An irony also, since forcing someone to do something against their will is also a form of battery.

|11.8.05 @ 1:23PM|#

RE: consequences for wife
I have read the statute and the only penalties seem to be for the doctor not getting the information needed.
Also, it would seem to me that the biggest hole the wife could use would be the physical abuse one. Abortion is a very sensitive issue in ways virtually every thing else isn't. Just because a husband doesn't rough his wife up for picking up the wrong brand of TP, doesn't mean that he won't stoop to that if informed a potential child of his is not going to have a chance at life.

|11.8.05 @ 1:25PM|#

. . . it is much more common for a man to not be told he has a born child than it is for a woman to suffer a physical assault for getting an abortion. . .


Surely you have a citation or four which demonstrates this to be true. Right?

|11.8.05 @ 1:25PM|#

Jennifer,

I've already offered a toned-down analogy, which you've apparently chosen to ignore. Even so, the difference is in degree, not kind; just because one does not relish the unpleasant consequences of a law for those who trigger them, does not necessarily mean one who does not intend to trigger them should oppose that law.

In any case, your question is a trap; if one who supports this law says yes, he would want to know, you will paint him as crazy; if he says no, you will accuse him of being a hypocrite. I have no desire for games, as the Operative would say.

|11.8.05 @ 1:27PM|#

your question is a trap; if one who supports this law says yes, he would want to know, you will paint him as crazy; if he says no, you will accuse him of being a hypocrite

Crimethink, seriously, my hypothetical has been maiing you far too angry today. Where on this thread have I said men who want to know are "crazy?" Where have I said those who don't are "hypocrites?" Where have I said anything even close?

|11.8.05 @ 1:28PM|#

"has been MAKING you far too angry"

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 1:28PM|#

An irony also, since forcing someone to do something against their will is also a form of battery.

Oh, you mean like surprise child support that jumps out of you from the bushes one day and extracts cash from your wallet at injunction point. Yeah, sure. Like I said, we've got bigger, more real problems to be discussing in this area.

|11.8.05 @ 1:33PM|#

Like I said, we've got bigger, more real problems to be discussing in this area.

Like I said, anything can be dismissed by this statement.

|11.8.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Jennifer,

I'm sure you'll forgive me for assuming you have an agenda here. You've made clear your entrenched opinion on abortion on several occasions (as have I), so I don't think either of our forays into this topic should be taken as a disinterested search for truth.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 1:35PM|#

Surely you have a citation or four which demonstrates this to be true. Right?

I am tied with zero on direct citations with everybody else. One reason to believe that the number of assaulted women is low is that assaults on pregnant women are prosecuted in many jurisdictions, especially if the assaultee was no more than a fling. On the other hand, when say a close family member tells me that she ain't going to tell the father, there isn't anything anybody can do about it. So, don't lay the lack of stats on me.

|11.8.05 @ 1:37PM|#

You've made clear your entrenched opinion on abortion on several occasions (as have I), so I don't think either of our forays into this topic should be taken as a disinterested search for truth.

So truth-seekers can only be trusted when they have no opinions? What? All I'm saying is you seem awfully angry by my non-personal hypothetical question. My saying "what would happen if. . . ." is not in any way meant as the equivalent of "you, Crimethink, personally, are a weak and sinful person for having slept with me," okay?

|11.8.05 @ 1:40PM|#

For the last time Jennifer, I AM NOT ANGRY!!!! ;-)

|11.8.05 @ 1:41PM|#

Now you've got me all sulky, Crimethink.

Hmmph.

|11.8.05 @ 1:42PM|#

Jennifer,

No, those who have already made up their minds can hardly be called truth-seekers.

|11.8.05 @ 1:44PM|#

Now you've got me all sulky, Crimethink.

I'm sorry if I've e-battered you, Jennifer. But please don't hold that against our hypothetical child...

|11.8.05 @ 1:45PM|#

If we allow any limitations at all, even at 8.9995 months, then it will be completely banned. We must have the right to do whatever we wnt to our body or we may as well have no rights at all. All other rights are minor in comparison.

that makes me sad. doing drugs is a lot less harmful than snuffing foetuses/cell clumps/the light of god's eye/etc.

Not really because the cells are not biologically alive unless they are wanted. Doing drugs causes violence and has downstream effects on society.

|11.8.05 @ 1:46PM|#

But Crimethink, while I've made up my mind on abortion I haven't made up my mind about men who might possibly get me pregnant. What I'm saying is that, despite your accusation, I have NOT made any comments against men for their answers here--I merely explained why and how my way of looking at it was different.

You're almost implying that my attitude here is based on malice toward the man in question--I've explained it's quite the opposite.

R C Dean|11.8.05 @ 2:07PM|#

No, those who have already made up their minds can hardly be called truth-seekers.

That's because they are "truth-already-founders" at least in their own minds.

|11.8.05 @ 2:10PM|#

crimethink,

Are you getting people hypothetically pregnant again? :)

|11.8.05 @ 2:19PM|#

R C Dean: You are the only one who is making sense. So this is for you:

First of all, if you read my first post, I argued that it did not actually matter if a fetus was or wasn't a person if the woman did not want to have the baby.

I compared the fetus to someone in need of a kidney, and argued that his personhood and his right to life did not give him the right to seize another person's body for his own use.

I also think it is bogus to say that a woman has somehow given up ownership of her own body if she has sex. You libertarians need to be very careful about the conditions under which you give the state the power to assume control over your bodies. Stray semen doesn't cut it for me.

But then R C Dean made a good point: there must be some point when a fetus can make a legitimate claim on a woman's body:

>>At some point, most people believe the answer is yes [the fetus is a person]. Personally, I think that by the time you get into the third trimester, the "fetus" has achieved sufficient "personhood" that aborting it should no longer be allowed.

Of course, third trimester abortions have nothing to do with the Casey decision, which is about parental, oops sorry, spousal notification, presumably in the first trimester (or maybe the second, if the authorities create unnecessary delays).

But I do believe there comes a point when a woman may be said to have made her choice. This choice still carries conditions; for example, a woman may not be choosing to sacrifice her own life for the sake of a child, should something go wrong with the pregnancy. A woman in her third trimester wants her child.

We're getting pretty theoretical here, because the next question will be what to do with all those pregnant women in the third trimester who (after enduring the morning sickness, swollen glands, sore feet, cramps, gas, sore back, sore nipples and overall exhaustion) decide on a whim that they don't want to deliver their babies after all?

This woman is, of course, a fantastical creature from anti-choice mythology. But I suppose we can deal with her.

Yes, this mythological woman's fetus probably has a legitimate case to make for state intervention. But it probably won't have to, since no doctor would ever perform an abortion for this woman, where there is no health concern.

And if that fetus did make a case, it would be based on the woman's choice, not state ownership of the woman's body. The woman chose to carry the fetus well past the second trimester, well beyond any period that was necessary to come to a decision about the fetus. The woman had chosen to allow the fetus to start living its life, and having made this choice, there would be no going back.

Fetal rights follow from a mother's choice. This is why I would support murder charges against someone who murders a fetus that a mother had chosen to carry.

The State must not treat pregnancy as some God-ordained duty. It is our mothers' gift to us, freely offered, a debt that we can never repay.

|11.8.05 @ 2:19PM|#

Jennifer,
Count me in with the guys who would want to know. I feel a sense of responsibility to help pay for the abortion. But, I don't think you should be required by law to notify me.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 2:28PM|#

New poll:

How many guys would want to be notified if the pregnancy was going to be carried to term? When would you want to know in this case, sooner or later?

|11.8.05 @ 2:40PM|#

I'd want to know I was going to be paying for a child soonest. That's a major financial obligation on the horizon.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 2:42PM|#

I'll vote. I believe the biological father should be told right away, long before the planned birth. For financial planning reasons. Out of some tiny sliver of respect for my property rights. The law should be changed to make this happen.

|11.8.05 @ 2:42PM|#

Fetal rights follow from a mother's choice.

My thoughts exactly. The same way that certain children's rights follow from the parents' choices; not whether or not the child, once born, has a right to remain alive, of course, but whether the child has the right to stay up past 9, listen to rock and roll, etc. The strong must decide the rights of the weak according to their morality, and in my opinion, individual choice, with very limited forcible invovlement from the community (government), is the best way for the strong, adults, to decide the rights of the weak, fetuses.

How many guys would want to be notified if the pregnancy was going to be carried to term? When would you want to know in this case, sooner or later?

I would want to know the second the woman finds out she's pregnant, regardless of whether or not she intends to go through with it.

|11.8.05 @ 2:45PM|#

AnonCowherd,

Yes, that is the best option.

|11.8.05 @ 2:46PM|#

Let me act out the role of gaius marius and point out that the ancient Romans didn't accept a newborn child as a "human being" until its father acknowledged it. If he didn't, then it was just sort of an 'expelled blood clot' that was left to the elements.

Interesting? Yes. Relevant? Probably not. Do I give a shit? Not really.

|11.8.05 @ 2:56PM|#

Oh, you mean like surprise child support that jumps out of you from the bushes one day and extracts cash from your wallet at injunction point. - Dave W.

OK, I'm going to stir the pot. If having sex is not consent to care for the resulting child, and women have the option not to shoulder the burden, why not treat men the same way? Require the man to either sign or decline to sign a child support agreement during the first 12 weeks or so (or prior to sex, or at the beginning of a relationship) so that the woman can make an informed decision when there is still time for an early term abortion. No contract, no $$$.

|11.8.05 @ 3:16PM|#

Sounds fantastic, Vynnie.

|11.8.05 @ 3:20PM|#

...(or prior to sex, or at the beginning of a relationship)...

Except for that part. Ugh. Imagine: "I was wondering if you'd like to join me for a cup of coffee, and oh, could you sign this form that says I have to pay you child support if we have a kid?"

Or, "Let me put on something a little more comfortable. And while you're waiting, you'll find a stack of forms next to the bed, just go ahead and pick one up off the top and sign it."

|11.8.05 @ 3:28PM|#

Good point, Zach. Vynnie's forms would mesh nicely with those anti-rape PC forms some colleges have, requiring the woman's written consent before each successive step in the seduction process.

|11.8.05 @ 3:32PM|#

I never fail to be amused by the apparently never-ending stream of men who appear to be interested in fathering countless children that they don't want to have to pay for, simply because nature did not give them the same abortion-choosing opportunity that it gave to women.

|11.8.05 @ 3:45PM|#

If I ever become single again there's no way in hell I'm dating anybody. Apparently, during the years I've been off the market, men have discovered and become super-pissed by the fact that pregnancy isn't an equal-opportunity state. Or something.

Seriously, guys--no names here, but some of y'all need to chill out. You're sounding like the Daddy equivalents of Andrea Dworkin. We women are not all motivated by malice toward you. Even if you accidentally get us pregnant.

|11.8.05 @ 3:48PM|#

Re: when life as a human being wtih rights begins

The situation is analogous to the problem of the Heap. If I recall correctly, the argument goes as such: One grain of sand is not a heap, nor are two grains a heap, nor are three. However, if add one grain of sand at a time, eventually, it will become a heap.

So an egg or sperm isn't a person with rights to thier own body, given. Thier combination into a 46 chromosomed thang isn't either, given. But a walking, talking 56 year old Supreme Court Justice is. And the question is: at what point, which exact moment did that change take place? At that point, the "kid" has rights, before that, it doesn't.

I've heard it argued that that point doesn't take place until the thang is viable outside the womb...but even when carried to term and birthed with no complications, a baby isn't viable outside the womb without significant care which necessitates the time and money of the adults involved. So I'd argue that the magical moment when life as a human with rights begins CAN logically be extended to unborn thangs.

Take it a step further...if sperms and eggs aren't human becuase they have a different number of chromosomes, then what about Downies?

|11.8.05 @ 4:00PM|#

I'm not officially married in the eyes of the government. I live in sin.

If they stick together, won't they eventually be married under common law? Anybody know?

And, no, I don't feel like looking up myself.

|11.8.05 @ 4:05PM|#

In my not-so-humble opinion, a fetus becomes a person with rights when it develops complex brain wave activity. From what I've read, this happens around the fifth month. From this, I would prefer that abortion be legal without any restrictions until complex brain wave activity begins. After this point, abortion should be illegal except in the case of "life of the mother". When the life of the mother is threatened by the pregnancy, then life must be weighed against life, and the choice must be made without any government interference.

Some will say, "What about the soul?" Well, there may or may not be such a thing as a soul, but there is absolutely no objective evidence of its existence, so the concept should be absolutely irrelevant with respect to the law.

Some will say, "What about a woman's right to her body?" As has been mentioned above, people make voluntary choices that limit their rights and sex is one of them. No rights are absolute. Even the right to life is limited.

|11.8.05 @ 4:08PM|#

If they stick together, won't they eventually be married under common law? Anybody know?


If I remember correctly, living together for a minimum of two years makes a man and woman commonlaw husband and wife. At least in Ohio. If my memory is working correctly.

*exasperated*: Oh, go look it up. :)

|11.8.05 @ 4:26PM|#

I think commonlaw marriage is seven years in Cali.

What the fuck is the deal with commonlaw marriage anyway? Is it some archaic law left over from the "olden days"? If people want to be married, can't they just, you know, get married?

|11.8.05 @ 4:41PM|#

Aren't you sorry you asked, Jen? And I've come to the same conclusion about dating once my current SO's gone, though for different reasons.

I'll out my sex by saying I had no idea so many guys felt so strongly and Catholic about it, that nookie morally entails risk of parenthood. Are you really that willing to hazard it just to get your dicks wet? And are you sure you won't be pissed off and chronically frustrated if I ensure my nonmaternity your way, via chastity? There is probably not much (good) sex to be had with women who are willing to become mothers at any time.

I've long heard it said that men are jealous of women's ability to give birth, but never believed it. Surely they don't want the pain and bloating, I thought. But I do think they're pissed off that they have no bodily control over the woman's actions. Jealousy, not envy.

|11.8.05 @ 4:42PM|#

PS. There is no common-law marriage in CA.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 4:43PM|#

Even if you accidentally get us pregnant.

Some of us men have taken it upon ourselves to take care of birth control for 20 years with no help from the ladies and (apparently) no accidents. We are the men you will need to find when you are single and want an HBI.

|11.8.05 @ 4:46PM|#

Zach - I was making a half-facetious reference to the Victorian model of marriage as a contract of adhesion for spousal and child support to be entered into before marriage. The textbook libertarian response (that I tend to agree with here) is that people should work out these arrangements between themselves rather than having them prescribed by the government. I'd like to believe that most people are mature enough to figure out how to do that on their own ... but that's a caveat of most libertarian thinking.

However, I'm the ultimate disinterested party (married, monogamous, childless and pretty much guaranteed by modern medicine not to have any no matter who I sleep with) who shouldn't be making policy. What about those of you in the dating scene? How would you resolve this without inviting Uncle Sam along on your romps in the sack?

|11.8.05 @ 4:47PM|#

... simply because nature did not give [men] the same abortion-choosing opportunity that it gave to women. - Phil

... the ancient Romans didn't accept a newborn child as a "human being" until its father acknowledged it. If he didn't, then it was just sort of an 'expelled blood clot' that was left to the elements. - ChrisO

;-)

|11.8.05 @ 4:48PM|#

heh, meant "to be entered into before sex."

|11.8.05 @ 4:50PM|#

Thanks for the correction, poco.

|11.8.05 @ 4:52PM|#

Poco--

What's especially sad is that many of the same men who are all but frothing here at the thought that a woman might abort their sacred issue without consulting them first are the same ones who complain the loudest about the fact that if they knock a woman up they can't legally force her to abort--instead, she basically chooses whether or not they have to pay child support for 18 years. And admittedly, that's unfair. But that's because of basic human biology, not some insidious female plot to keep men down.

Of course, Poco, when you and I and all our sisters say "Screw it, no more screwing, you guys are on your own so learn to type with one hand" then the guys will complain about that, too, Lysistrata-style. Just get yourselves vasectomies if it's that fucking scary, guys! You're as bad as Andrea Dworkin when it comes to holding members of a gender personally responsible for how our reproductive systems evolved.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 4:57PM|#

You're as bad as Andrea Dworkin when it comes to holding members of a gender personally responsible for how our reproductive systems evolved.

Your reproductive systems do not cause you to have children and not tell the guy. That decision comes from one of your distaff systems that relates to cognition, rather than reproduction. And, yeah, y'oughtta be personnaly responsible for the functioning of those cognitive systems.

|11.8.05 @ 5:01PM|#

Your reproductive systems do not cause you to have children and not tell the guy

Dave, we're on parallel wavelengths, so of course they're not meeting each other. I am talking, AGAIN, about the complete opposite of having kids and not telling the guy.

|11.8.05 @ 5:02PM|#

Jennifer,

You make sense. I'll be telling any sons that I might father "to be careful where you leave your sperm." Responsibility isn't a one-way street.

BTW, I wouldn't want to know in the case you described above. If I did find out, I would be pleased that you were having an early-term abortion. Sounds responsible to me.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 5:05PM|#

Yes, and in your area (notification of abortion), the existing law meshes well with what you want, especially since Webster or whatever that early 90s case was.

In my area ( timely notification of non-abortion), the law is way out of step with what men want and with what seems fair to both man and child.

That is why I think my area is more important for discussion than your area. In my area there is a pressing need for legal reform that your area does not currently exhibit.

|11.8.05 @ 5:12PM|#

Anyway, speaking of Alito... :)

|11.8.05 @ 5:18PM|#

Yeah, speaking of Alito, I don't like the way he'd make a woman tell a man (I don;t care who he is) about a medical procedure SHE has chosen to do. Yeah, I know it sucks that men get the short end of the stick here, but guys, honestly, it's not our fault. You shouldn't hate women for that, any more than we should hate you men because we have to deal with getting pregnant and you don't.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 5:20PM|#

Speculating about Alito is as useful as reading tea leaves. It's not surprising people shift so persistently to more relevant stuf.

|11.8.05 @ 5:31PM|#

Jennifer,

I don't think that you understand the meaning of marriage (for some people) or you might be conflating marriage with other forms of coupling. For many, marriage is supposed to be open and honest--a joining of two "souls". It's not the same as "living together". I mean no disrespect to your relationship. What works for you and your man is not my business, and I'm happy for you if it works for you. But marriage is a voluntary restriction of one's rights. I can't say that I really want the govt. involved in the decision, though, but I do think that the wife has a moral obligation to tell her husband. (I think any arguments about abusive husbands are irrelevant. If he's a violent asshole, then divorce him.)

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 5:34PM|#

Now that I have thought about it, my solution to the not-telling-father-about-child problems raised above is:

In the situation where the father was not promptly informed, the father only has to make any sort of support payments if he is given an option at taking full custody; and an option of 50% custody. And if you don't tell the father by age 12, then its game over for support requirements.

There is no reason that a child should be forced to live with a parent so unwise and cruel as to hide the child from its father. I wouldn't be surprised if even Jennifer is willing to sign off on this proposal because it is just so damn fair and self-evidently effective.

|11.8.05 @ 5:43PM|#

Jennifer, keep in mind you're putting up an unfair hypothetical.

You require the guys to believe, for the sake of argument that you're willing to 1) cheat on your boyfriend, 2) have an abortion to hide the cheating from him, and 3) keep them out of the loop, but that there's no chance of you changing your mind and having the baby, having the boyfriend dump you, and then come after them for money. Or having the kid and simply not telling them.

Unless I've missed it, nobody you've put the hypothetical to buys it, which is the source of the hostility. They and I (pro-choice and not one of the originally-intended guys) simply don't believe the setup and would expect the hypothetical woman to be completely capable of deciding to have the baby and relegate them to child-support-paying absent fathers.

Hmm. Vasectomies can be reversed...

|11.8.05 @ 5:57PM|#

Grr. That was me.

|11.8.05 @ 6:53PM|#

I wouldn't be surprised if even Jennifer is willing to sign off on this proposal because it is just so damn fair and self-evidently effective.

Again, just wondering why Dave;s default suspicion is always "The woman's out for my money." I've said many times on this board that I think the current child-support system treats men very unfairly, and I don't know why you keep trying to confuse that with abortion. They're opposite issues, really.

Eric--
I dunno; the fact that the hostility continues even after I change the hypothetical to "single and dating" makes me think a lot of this hostility is due to being kept out of the loop on an abortion decision.

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 7:26PM|#

I would prefer a blanket rule that requires all fathers to be informed, planned abortion or no. That simple rule is easier to understand and apply. However, some people, you included, think that there should be a prerogative not to tell when there is going to be a prompt abortion.

So, in a conciliatory gesture, I set about fashioning a notification rule that allows the abortion exception that you want. Even though I don't agree with you, I am trying to gauge and accommodate your feelings in crafting legal reform in the notification area. Abortion is related because it is one of the important exceptions in a good (and long overdue and much needed) notification rule.

Now, instead of giving the men a hard time here, how about you help us mpore co-operatively with the reforms we deserve so that they get written fairly as possible? we gave you Roe v. Wade. Now you help us here. One hand washes the other, ya know.

|11.8.05 @ 7:30PM|#

Only skimmed this thread, but as I understand it, Jennifer's original hypothetical was:

1) She has a fling with a guy she knows she has no interest in having a relationship with. There's no chance she'll reconsider on that point.

2) She learns she is pregnant and decides to have an abortion. There's no chance she'll reconsider on this point either.

3) If you were that guy, would you want to be informed of that decision, especially knowing you cannot change her decision?

Jennifer's inclination is that it would be kinder not to let the guy know, under those circumstances.

My answer:

(And bear in mind that I'm an abortion opponent, in a convoluted, nuanced, emergentist fashion that I won't try to explain here and now.)

I agree with Jennifer, at least in part.

After all, if a person (especially a woman) brings up the topic, one would usually assume it's because she wants to discuss it. If the topic is not up for discussion -- if the decision to have an abortion has already been made -- then there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing it.

So keeping it to herself strikes me as a great kindness.

And yet...

Maybe it's letting the guy off too easily.

Legally, the decision to have an abortion is entirely the woman's. Yet it seems that the guy should know he contributed to putting the woman into such a position that she had to make that decision. It seems to me the guy should be made to face up to his part of the responsibility for the act. For the sake of justice. And for social utility. If they guy knew, maybe he'd be more careful in the future about having flings (and having unprotected sex, if that was also a contributing factor).

So my answer would be: Yes, keeping it from the guy would be a kindess. But maybe it's being kinder than he deserves.

|11.8.05 @ 7:31PM|#

Jennifer, I guess if we do ever look for new beaux we'll have to vet them politically first, a la Elaine Benes. I don't want to be brusque and speed-dating about love, though. But mine has, ahem, demonstrated his commitment to pro-choiceness with a former girlfriend, so I definitely trust him enough to tell him first (my womb is forever Not For Rent as well). I wouldn't bother him with a mere pregnancy worry, though -- not until I were certain.

So I guess, guys, the woman is more likely to tell you if you'll both agree on the next course of action. But as Chris Rock says, the only correct involved-male response to such an announcement is, "So whatchoo gon' do?" Sigh. We need pro-choice and pro-life dating services so everyone will be happy.

|11.8.05 @ 7:33PM|#

Good point, Stevo!

|11.8.05 @ 8:36PM|#

Well, guys, I've changed my mind. I'm not getting an abortion after all; I'm having the baby and you'll be paying me child support every month for the next 18 years. There. Happy now?

|11.8.05 @ 8:37PM|#

a la Elaine Benes

Spongeworthy?

Dave W.|11.8.05 @ 8:38PM|#

Oooops, they just changed the law. No notification. Not timely anyway. I'll be taking custody there. And, yes, you will be paying child support to me. Say bye bye to lil Dave-i-fer.

|11.8.05 @ 8:45PM|#

I'm so glad I don't date anymore. That's what's beautiful about a committed relationship. None of that crap you hear about Togetherness and Commitment and Sharing and all; it's the fact that you Don't Have To Date to have an acceptable escort for any required or for-fun social functions. That is the secret to romantic happiness.

And I'm still not dating if I ever become single again.

|11.8.05 @ 10:04PM|#

Or, "Let me put on something a little more comfortable. And while you're waiting, you'll find a stack of forms next to the bed, just go ahead and pick one up off the top and sign it."

I don't know if you're.... a.. contract-worthy...

|11.8.05 @ 11:34PM|#

What's especially sad is that many of the same men who are all but frothing here at the thought that a woman might abort their sacred issue without consulting them first are the same ones who complain the loudest about the fact that if they knock a woman up they can't legally force her to abort--instead, she basically chooses whether or not they have to pay child support for 18 years.

I'm not sure if you're building a strawman, or if you're referring to me pointing out that men have no "freedom to choose" after conception. If the latter, keep in mind that that was merely a reductio ad absurdum, following pro-choice rhetoric to its logical conclusion. As I've made clear many a time, I do not believe that either men or women have the right to destroy their unborn children.

And admittedly, that's unfair. But that's because of basic human biology, not some insidious female plot to keep men down.

Heh, I just love this. Jennifer telling men to just accept that nature doesn't distribute the burdens of reproduction equally.

Step back for a moment -- can you not see that that argument cuts both ways?

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 4:45AM|#

So does the you're-making-me-not-want-to-date-you argument.

|11.9.05 @ 7:28AM|#

Let's see . . . doesn't want to be told about the abortion, has had a vasectomy, would want to be responsible for contributing to the upkeep of any children he did father whether involved in their lives or not . . . man, if my wife ever dies or leaves me, and Jennifer, poco or smacky is single, I'm on easy street!

(Kidding, ladies. Kidding.)

|11.9.05 @ 9:05AM|#

Step back for a moment -- can you not see that that argument cuts both ways?

Yes, Crimethink, and I've made THAT argument on aother abortion threads as well. basically, you can accept that nature gives the woman a slight advantage here, or use the law to shift the advantage from women to men. You apparently choose the latter.

|11.9.05 @ 9:06AM|#

I'm not sure if you're building a strawman, or if you're referring to me pointing out that men have no "freedom to choose" after conception

|11.9.05 @ 9:17AM|#

Whoa. The HTML went nuts on my last post, didn't it?

Dave W.|11.9.05 @ 10:48AM|#

so to speak

|11.9.05 @ 2:43PM|#

I've said many times on this board that I think the current child-support system treats men very unfairly, and I don't know why you keep trying to confuse that with abortion. They're opposite issues, really.

Not to a guy who may or may not be trapped in the child-support system depending on your choice of whether or not to abort.

I dunno; the fact that the hostility continues even after I change the hypothetical to "single and dating" makes me think a lot of this hostility is due to being kept out of the loop on an abortion decision.

Because the decision can affect the guy, even if you're really, really sure you'll pick the option that won't. Until you change your mind.

|11.9.05 @ 3:35PM|#

Not to a guy who may or may not be trapped in the child-support system depending on your choice of whether or not to abort.

Nonetheless, Eric, on this thread there have been men who insist on trollishly pretending that "If I had an abortion I wouldn't tell the guy" is identical to "I support child-support laws that are completely unfair to the man."