New at Reason

Tim Cavanaugh | January 20, 2006

As the 33rd anniversary of Roe v. Wade approaches, Ronald Bailey assesses the national argument, and the national consensus, on abortion.

Comments

|1.20.06 @ 9:25AM|#

Nearly 60 percent oppose a constitutional amendment that would ban abortion and 60 percent also think that Roe v. Wade should not be overturned by the Supreme Court.

60% is enough to guarantee that it will never happen.

40% on the other side is enough to guarantee that the controversy will never die down.

My stance is simple: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pro-lifers have the life thing down pat, and the pro-choicers are all over the liberty thing.

But with all the acrimony, neither side offers much in regard to the pursuit of happiness.

If one side or the other develops a sense of humor I'll immediately take a side. Two out of three ain't bad!

|1.20.06 @ 9:31AM|#

t:

I would argue that most pro-choicers aren't particularly interested in "liberty". They just want the government to give women special permission to abortion.

It doesn't even occur to them that it isn't the government's business to begin with.

Freak'n modern liberals..

|1.20.06 @ 9:43AM|#

And I'm not picking on you, t (hey, we mess around with loaded firearms), but another thing..

Many of the "pro-life" folk arent' particularly interested in the "life" of the mother. It doesn't matter if the birthing kills the mother in the process, or bring great physical/mental harm.. It's all about the womb booger (or, more accurately, it's all about the pro-lifer's fanatic idealogy).

Just say'n..

|1.20.06 @ 9:46AM|#

MNG-

Keep in mind that my stance is at least partly facetious. Otherwise I wouldn't offer to support whichever side gets a sense of humor.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 9:47AM|#

I've said it here before. I'll say it again. US abortion law should be made like Europe's: freedom to abort early, heavy gov't regulation / prohibition of the late term ones. This kind of law would make the issue a lot less polarizing.

|1.20.06 @ 9:52AM|#

I would argue that most pro-choicers aren't particularly interested in "liberty". They just want the government to give women special permission to abortion. It doesn't even occur to them that it isn't the government's business to begin with.

Unfortunately, the government will make it its business unless it is explicitly forbidden to do so.

And as a pro-choice person myself, "liberty" is exactly what the debate is about: who gets to control a woman's body? The woman, or the government? I'm still furious over the fact that I am forbidden by law to get myself surgically sterilized; the government has decreed that my belly remain some sort of Strategic Babymaking Reserve.

It's a shame that the privacy arguments behind Roe v. Wade haven't been extended to the drug war, though.

Ed from Boca Raton|1.20.06 @ 9:55AM|#

It's illegal to get your tubes tied?
When did this happen?

|1.20.06 @ 9:56AM|#

This kind of law would make the issue a lot less polarizing.


I don't think it would, Dave. It's an all or nothing game for both sides in this fight, but I agree that such a law would be preferable.

|1.20.06 @ 9:59AM|#

Jennifer,

Huh? What law is that?

|1.20.06 @ 10:03AM|#

It's illegal to get your tubes tied?
When did this happen?

They won't do it unless you already have X number of children. They refuse to believe that a woman who has no children maybe LIKES it that way, and wants to KEEP it that way. I could maybe understand refusing to sterilize an eighteen-year-old who might change her mind someday, but I'm damned sure old enough to know I don't want kids, and the first time I remember saying "I'm never having kids" was when I was fourteen.

And here's an open letter to the people who say "You'll change you mind when you have children of your own": get your brains out of your womb, and drop dead. Thank you.

|1.20.06 @ 10:08AM|#

Maybe it's not a law; maybe it's just that doctors won't do it for fear of lawsuits. (Though I do recall hearing something about a state law when I was living in Virginia.) Anyway, offering to sign a waiver guaranteeing that you will never, ever sue for damages over the loss of your fertility won't work.

I've given up trying, by now. Dammit, where's Dr. Nick when you need him?

R C Dean|1.20.06 @ 10:09AM|#

Jennifer, I don't think there's any law prohibiting a doctor from sterilizing you.

Instead, I think you are experiencing a doctor who is unwilling to take the risk that you will change your mind in a few years, and sue him/her. These doctors are exercising their inalienable right to decide what medical procedures they are willing to perform, and who they want to perform them on.

I would think the Planned Parenthood or someone similar could point you to a doc who will tie your tubes no questions asked.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 10:10AM|#

Abortion is less polarizing in Europe.

I mean look at Jennifer's comment above. We know Jennifer to be generally sensible, but here she comes with her all-or-nothing binarist tude: "who gets to control a woman's body?"

The question shouldn't be that simple and someone like Jennifer ought to be able to see that. The question is: "at what point are we dealing with two women's bodies, instead of one?"

But ppl like Jennifer or raised on a steady diet of US-style prochoice propaganda -- they can't even abide the question being framed like that. Same thing, but opposite, with people on the antichoice team.

The challenge is how we get ppl like Jennifer or my mother out of their binary way of thinking about the issue, and into the more subtle modes of thinking that understands that not all fetuses are created equal, and some of the later term ones look and act pretty darn human. Even within the later term fetus category, some pose a serious relative health threat to their female parent and some do not. There should be more than 2 categories (eg, prochoice, antichoice) here.

It is only when we let abortion be an all-or-nothing issue that allows someone like Jennifer to keep sounding as alarmist as she does here. By moving people into this muddy middle, ppl like my antichoice relatives will be marginalized and most of them will probably see the light, such as it is.

|1.20.06 @ 10:11AM|#

It's funny/sad how one can find a doctor to remove a guy's junk and shoot him up with enough hormones to grow titties and bleed once a month, but a young woman can't find a doctor to sterilize her.

R C Dean|1.20.06 @ 10:12AM|#

Anyway, offering to sign a waiver guaranteeing that you will never, ever sue for damages over the loss of your fertility won't work.

Because such waivers are about as much protection for the doctor as a wet Kleenex.

|1.20.06 @ 10:13AM|#

The question is: "at what point are we dealing with two women's bodies, instead of one?"

Once you reach the point where the baby can live an independent biological existence outside the mother. I'm not advocating abortion-on-demand for a woman in her eighth month of pregnancy, but the first three or four months? Absolutely.

But ppl like Jennifer or raised on a steady diet of US-style prochoice propaganda -- they can't even abide the question being framed like that.

Wrong. And nice way to assume that anyone who feels as I do must be a victim of "propaganda."

|1.20.06 @ 10:17AM|#

I think Cathy Young's article is a pretty good position paper in response to Jennifer's question "Who gets to control my body". I'm fine with that, and I'd appreciate it if society would also adopt the position of "if it's your body, then it's your money, too". Problem is, current situation gives all the freedom in the world to the woman, but the male involved somehow gets no say in things, but still gets the bill.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 10:23AM|#

Once you reach the point where the baby can live an independent biological existence outside the mother. I'm not advocating abortion-on-demand for a woman in her eighth month of pregnancy, but the first three or four months? Absolutely.

Wrong.

You did indeed prove me wrong. I am surprised and pleased to hear that thing about no abortion on demand in the 8th month. Usually when somebody says that the only issue is a woman's bodily integrity, then they aren't so reasonable about the 8th month as you are. Looks like I am the one who was lead astray by their preconceived notions here then, doesn't it?

Thanks, Jennifer. Your extra explanation made my day.

|1.20.06 @ 10:24AM|#

Matt touches on what I think is a pretty important issue. I support a woman's right to choose whether or not she wants to become a mother, but no such choice exists for men when it comes to fatherhood. Why shouldn't I be allowed to waive my legal and financial obligations to a child I did not willingly help to create, if I'm not already married to the mother? (Not that I would use this option myself, since I do have an incorrigible sense of honor. Other men might feel differently, however.)

|1.20.06 @ 10:25AM|#

Jennifer:

"And as a pro-choice person myself, "liberty" is exactly what the debate is about: who gets to control a woman's body? The woman, or the government?"

I'm not an anti-choicer by any means, but I don't think that that's what this debate is truly about---your anecdote about surgical sterilization notwithstanding.

Instead, I think this is a fundamental debate about when precisely a grouping of cells transforms into a living body that is endowed with all the rights and priveledges of a citizen. As this is a contentious issue, on which there is obviously no consensus, it seems that the best way to deal with it would be the magic of federalism. I'm pro-choice, but anti-statist---which, I think, is entirely consistent. This is not about a woman "controlling" her body (even though the radical pro-choice movement likes to frame it that way). You won't find too many people sitting around arguing whether a woman can use birth control (unless they're wackjob fundies).

Honestly, at the heart of it all, I don't think that there's a real fundamental difference between rational anti-choicers and rational pro-choicers. They just differ on when they think a clump of cells should be endowed rights. Instead, I think it's the radical sect of each side that creates this illusion that there is a big huge black line that divides pro-choice and anti-choice. That line simply does not exist...but as long as the federal government is making this one-size-fits-all declaration on it, this "line" will have to be universally defined. And this is unfortunate, to say the least.

|1.20.06 @ 10:25AM|#

"Once you reach the point where the baby can live an independent biological existence outside the mother."

That's not a clearly defined line. Plenty of babies post-birth cannot exist independantly. Some need transfusions, incubators, etc...

|1.20.06 @ 10:26AM|#

Problem is, current situation gives all the freedom in the world to the woman, but the male involved somehow gets no say in things, but still gets the bill.

True, this is a dilemma. Current law gives the woman all the freedom, but biology also gives her the lion's share of the responsibility. I don't think it's possible for the law to make the two genders completely equal in terms of reproductive issues, because biology has decreed that we are not. The only way to legally bring about reproductive gender equality would be to implement some horrible "Harrison Bergeron" notion of what equality should be.

|1.20.06 @ 10:28AM|#

Why shouldn't I be allowed to waive my legal and financial obligations to a child I did not willingly help to create

Did this hypothetical woman get pregnant by raping you?

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 10:36AM|#

That's not a clearly defined line. Plenty of babies post-birth cannot exist independantly. Some need transfusions, incubators, etc...

Of course once you move the machines in to assist, the viability point goes back in time, way back to:

approximately where they draw the abortion-on-demand line in Europe right now. It all works out real nice.

|1.20.06 @ 10:39AM|#

As a Liberal, I am puzzled by what MNG thinks the liberal argument for abortion is.

AS far as I can tell, the liberal argument is that the government should not have the power to control a woman's choice on this issue. [This issue is a rather straightforward one - one side believes that a fetus should have rights similar to babies, and the other thinks that the mother has the rights with regard to the fetus. It does not turn on libertarian grounds, rather it depends on when human beings develop interests or rights.]

My own thoughts on the conflicting interests with regard to abortion are fairly radical, but I would certainly be open to a compromise along European lines. One of the things I think you will find on the more insistent supporters of abortion rights is a distrust of an evenly executed policy in different locales. I am not too sure that the distrust is not justified.

One of the main sticking points with regard to late term abortions is also that liberals would like doctors to have wide latitude with regard to the health of the mother, and this is another issue where the distrust comes into play.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 10:45AM|#

One of the main sticking points with regard to late term abortions is also that liberals would like doctors to have wide latitude with regard to the health of the mother, and this is another issue where the distrust comes into play.

Yes, but this selfsame issue seems to be handled reasonably well in Europe as far as I can tell. So hopefully there is a working model should the US choose to follow.

|1.20.06 @ 10:49AM|#

Jennifer,

Should I have to pay 18 years of child support for the product of a one-night stand, even if took precautions? Does that seem acceptable to you? Let's reverse the situation and assume I knew that the woman got pregnant. She decides to abort. Do I have the right to override her decision if I'm willing to support the child financially? Is there not a double standard at work here?

|1.20.06 @ 10:50AM|#

Problem is, current situation gives all the freedom in the world to the woman, but the male involved somehow gets no say in things...

Nor should he. Using your logic, if a man can force a woman to have an unwanted child in order to give him "his say," then it stands to reason that he should also be within his right to force his mate have an unwanted abortion. After all, it's his sperm, he should have his say, right?

|1.20.06 @ 10:50AM|#

I'm not philosophically fond of German abortions law, which makes an abortion performed within the first three months of pregnancy illegal but unpunishable if the woman has received counseling three days beforehand from a state-approved source.

|1.20.06 @ 10:53AM|#

If you have ever known a woman who lost a child in the sixth or seventh month of pregnancy, it is pretty hard not to believe that we are not talking about two people rather than one. I think the vast majority of people in this country would agree to abortion on demand up to say three or four months and no abortion after that. True, woman should have the freedom to control their bodies. That freedom, however comes with the responsibility to figure out that you are pregnant and make a decision about what you are going to do before the fetus grows to such a point that it has become another person. I don't see how that is such a bad compromise on the issue for everyone sans the extremists on both sides.

|1.20.06 @ 10:58AM|#

Should I have to pay 18 years of child support for the product of a one-night stand, even if took precautions?

Yes, you should.

Let's reverse the situation and assume I knew that the woman got pregnant. She decides to abort. Do I have the right to override her decision if I'm willing to support the child financially? Is there not a double standard at work here?

Blame nature.


Dave, much --if not most -- abortion opposition is motivated by the concept that, at the moment that sperm meets ovum, the product is invested with an undetectable immortal soul and is from that point until at least birth an innocent human being. For people with that motivation, there is no "muddy middle" to which they can be dragged. Unless you want to mount a convincing argument against the existence of souls, or of ensoulment prior to birth, in which case I'm right behind you.

Upon preview and pursuant to John's comment, I agree, but then let's make sure we don't let an ultra-conservative agenda drive these situations that require longer and longer waiting periods, or lectures about how a 6-week fetus feels pain, or one clinic serving three states that's only staffed three days a week, etc. That stuff just serves to drive women past that 3-4 month point.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 10:59AM|#

up to say three or four months and no abortion after that

if a late term fetus endangers the life of the female parent, then I think you have to give on that, too, and let the endangered female parent make the choice so long as the life threatening risk is sufficiently substantial.

probably should go without saying, John, but my experience is that if you don't make this qualification then the prochoicers tend to jump all over you on both moral and "Constitutional" grounds.

|1.20.06 @ 11:03AM|#

Phil,

Fair enough. If we got rid of abortion after four months, then it becomes a medical procedure like any other.

|1.20.06 @ 11:08AM|#

Should I have to pay 18 years of child support for the product of a one-night stand, even if took precautions? Does that seem acceptable to you? Let's reverse the situation and assume I knew that the woman got pregnant. She decides to abort. Do I have the right to override her decision if I'm willing to support the child financially? Is there not a double standard at work here?

Should a woman have to face the risk of having a child from a one-night stand, even if she took precautions? It would be nice if she didn't, but biology is not as committed to gender equality as I am, alas.

Yes, there is a double standard, but Mother Nature is the one to blame. How can you possibly make things completely equal between the sexes?

Let's see--"if a woman has to undergo the discomfort of an abortion, then the man has to undergo an equally uncomfortable invasive prostate exam?" Surely not. "If the woman has to carry the child for nine months, then the man has to spend nine months wearing one of those stupid "empathy bellies"?" Insane.

How do you propose to bring about full, complete equality in regards to a woman getting pregnant?

|1.20.06 @ 11:16AM|#

We can say what we want about abortion and equality, but once a child is born some adults need to take responsibility for it. Maybe in Libertopia an unwanted baby would have to suck it up and find a way to earn his keep, but in the real world some adults have to take responsibility for the kid. For lack of a better alternative, that responsibility falls to the people whose decisions led to that child's existence.

Don't like it? Go get a vasectomy.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Let's see--"if a woman has to undergo the discomfort of an abortion, then the man has to undergo an equally uncomfortable invasive prostate exam?" Surely not. "If the woman has to carry the child for nine months, then the man has to spend nine months wearing one of those stupid "empathy bellies"?" Insane.

For a long time it was: (1) men die in war (and in the mines and on the railroad); and (2) women die in childbirth. There was a rough equality, even if people didn't quite think about it in those terms.

Now both risks are a lot less. I remember one time I tried to figure out how many childbirth deaths there were annually in the US. I never got a statistic I was comfortable with because all the stats seemed politicized in one way or the other.

|1.20.06 @ 11:20AM|#

I've been earning my keep ever since I starred in that diaper commercial. All the other kids in day care are nothing but parasitic looters! But me, I earn my apple sauce and strained peaches!

Dan T.|1.20.06 @ 11:22AM|#

Here�s my theory: anybody who says that abortion is murder but should be allowed in the case of rape or incest is really saying that having a baby is a just punishment for a woman willingly having sex.

Captain Holly|1.20.06 @ 11:23AM|#

The ironic thing about all this is that abortion wouldn't even be a national political issue were it not for Roe.

If the states had been allowed to regulate abortion according to the tastes of their citizens, you'd have abortion readily available in "blue" America, and relatively restricted in "red" America, and most Americans would be satisfied.

Instead, the All Wise Oligarchs of the Court imposed a single abortion standard on everyone, and thus created an issue that has been (ironically) more politically damaging to its supporters than to its detractors.

The greatest irony of all is that in the real world, conditions are gradually returning to those that existed prior to 1973. Most abortion providers are found in "blue" states or big cities; many "red" states have only one clinic statewide that is willing to perform abortions.

Given the fact that most abortion doctors are quickly approaching retirement age, few medical schools teach the procedure, and even fewer doctors are willing to do it, within the next 20 years I predict that abortion will be nominally legal, but virtually unavailable, in "red" America.

Which, interestingly, is exactly what would have happened if Roe had been rejected in the first place.

|1.20.06 @ 11:24AM|#

Here�s my theory: anybody who says that abortion is murder but should be allowed in the case of rape or incest is really saying that having a baby is a just punishment for a woman willingly having sex.

They are also saying that it's acceptable to kill a baby if Daddy was a rapist.

Dan T.|1.20.06 @ 11:32AM|#

How do you propose to bring about full, complete equality in regards to a woman getting pregnant?

Here�s the solution: within the first trimester of pregnancy, the father should be allowed to declare a �legal abortion�. This would eliminate him from all legal ties to the child, and the cost of this should be that he has to pay the mother whatever the current market cost of an abortion is at that time. The mother at that point can choose to pocket the money and have the child, knowing that the father will not be obligated to provide support, or she can use the money to abort.

Fair enough?

|1.20.06 @ 11:33AM|#

. . . within the next 20 years I predict that abortion will be nominally legal, but virtually unavailable, in "red" America.

. . . and if you think those states are net receivers of tax dollars now, boy, just you wait!!

|1.20.06 @ 11:36AM|#

Here�s the solution: within the first trimester of pregnancy, the father should be allowed to declare a �legal abortion�. This would eliminate him from all legal ties to the child, and the cost of this should be that he has to pay the mother whatever the current market cost of an abortion is at that time. The mother at that point can choose to pocket the money and have the child, knowing that the father will not be obligated to provide support, or she can use the money to abort. Fair enough?

No, because you still have a situation where a man has to merely sign a form and shell out some cash to rid himself of a child, whereas a woman has to undergo a surgical procedure with all the inherent risks therein.

See? Gender equality is impossible when it comes to reproductive matters. Your suggestion merely shifts things so that the inequality favors the man rather than the woman.

|1.20.06 @ 11:37AM|#

Hilarious, Dan T.

|1.20.06 @ 11:46AM|#

See? Gender equality is impossible when it comes to reproductive matters.

You ain't kidding. No wonder nobody brings this up at parties.

|1.20.06 @ 11:46AM|#

I think Captain Holly's prediction about access and geography is correct. Whatever may happen on the Supreme Court, in a decade or so Roe will no longer be the most important abortion rights case. Instead, the forefront of the battle over abortion will be Alabama vs. Greyhound.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.06 @ 11:53AM|#

Jesus Chrysler Jennifer, what state do you live in? Iran?

nmg|1.20.06 @ 11:54AM|#

As a Liberal, I am puzzled by what MNG thinks the liberal argument for abortion is.

AS far as I can tell, the liberal argument is that the government should not have the power to control a woman's choice on this issue.

And this is a big glaring exception to the standard liberal position that government should have the power to control our choice on nearly every other issue. I think that was MNG's point.

nmg

|1.20.06 @ 11:56AM|#

When I was young, I believed the Malthusian agitprop fed me while I was growing up. I decided I never wanted to produce kids, so when I turned 18, I tried to get a vasectomy. I had no kids then and at the time I didn't even have a girlfriend. I went to the guy who did vasectomies associated with planned parenthood and tried to get one scheduled. He refused. I persisted (and even brought up the subject of abortion) and he agreed to do it, but with a one year waiting period.

I'm sure everyone there thought I'd never show up again, but a year later, I did and I got my vasectomy. This was more than twenty years ago.

As I grew older, I realized that the earth wasn't suffering from overpopulation and that there are benefits to having kids who are genetically yours. By the time I married, over ten years ago, we agreed that I'd get a vasectomy reversal and we'd have kids. The reversal didn't work and eventually I had my material surgically extracted so that we could attempt in-vitro (w/ ICSI). Our third attempt resulted in our, now almost four-year old, son.

After he was born, we tried for a second child, but my wife was already on the steep decline portion of the egg viability curve and we were told that we'd need to use donor eggs. We did just that and had twin girls who are now a little more than a year old.

Jennifer,

Getting my vasectomy at 19 with no kids was non-trivial. I have no idea if it could be done now, considering the rise of bullshit lawsuits. Getting tubes tied and untied is also riskier than vasectomy work. However, women certainly shouldn't be in charge of their own bodies, since without restrictions some might smoke cigarettes or choose to work at jobs below the minimum wage.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.06 @ 11:57AM|#

Dave, it is truly shocking when you realize how dangerous child birth once was (it's still up there, but much safer). Walk through any cemetary in any frontier town (or former frontier town) and the grounds are filled with little tiny headstones right next to woman sized headstones. Read the birth and death dates and you immediately make the connection. Non-scientific survey says that there were about 100 women dead by 30 from child birth for every 1 man that got shot playing poker.

Dan T.|1.20.06 @ 11:58AM|#

No, because you still have a situation where a man has to merely sign a form and shell out some cash to rid himself of a child, whereas a woman has to undergo a surgical procedure with all the inherent risks therein.
See? Gender equality is impossible when it comes to reproductive matters. Your suggestion merely shifts things so that the inequality favors the man rather than the woman.


I don�t think so. The father has to pay money, whereas the woman does not. At the point that a woman is pregnant (miscarriages aside), she�s going to have to undergo risky medical procedure either way (abortion or childbirth) so she�s not assuming any additional risk (I�m guessing childbirth is probably riskier than abortion, actually).

I suppose whether or not you consider this solution to be �equal� is a matter of opinion but at least in this case both parties would have a choice as to how they wanted to proceed with the matter.

Also, I suspect that with my solution in place we�d see a large drop in abortions and illegitimate births due to fewer unwanted pregnancies.

|1.20.06 @ 11:58AM|#

"They are also saying that it's acceptable to kill a baby if Daddy was a rapist."

Yeah, but what if he was a cop who found drugs on mommy?

|1.20.06 @ 12:01PM|#

Maybe instead of aborting the fetus surgically they could just inject corn syrup. That substance is so dangerous that it would undoubtedly cause a spontaneous abortion!

Dan T.-

Would you be willing to consider a payment of 2x or 3x the going rate for the procedure, in recognition of the risk and discomfort associated with the procedure? (Note to everybody else: I'm not advocating his solution, I'm just trying to see whether he will acknowledge that there's more involved here than just the fee.)

Dan T.|1.20.06 @ 12:04PM|#

Would you be willing to consider a payment of 2x or 3x the going rate for the procedure, in recognition of the risk and discomfort associated with the procedure? (Note to everybody else: I'm not advocating his solution, I'm just trying to see whether he will acknowledge that there's more involved here than just the fee.)

Sure, the actual amount of the fee is not set in stone so I don�t think it�s unreasonable to include an amount for whatever suffering that the procedure entails, although as I noted above the woman is probably not assuming any additional risk given that if she doesn�t abort she still has to give birth or undergo a c-section.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.06 @ 12:05PM|#

Just an anecdote about getting fixed:

I had a childless unmarried male friend when I was a yoot who desired to get a vasectomy. It was really a hassle and many doctors were reluctant to perform the surgery. Reasons cited: His age, his unmarried status, being childless, potential future liability for performing surgery on a guy who might be sorry later, and a couple of other things I've forgotten. He eventually found a doctor to perform the surgery but every single one either refused outright or tried to talk him out of it. This was in Californicate in the 1970's.

Even when I got mine after the House Blond was born I was questioned about motive. It wasn't the inquisition but I was surprised at how many questions they asked in trying to get a fix (pun intended) my state of mind.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.06 @ 12:16PM|#

Oh, and I highly recomend that men get fixed. It's quick and easy, relatively painless recovery (all I needed was some books, two days of bed rest, & a pile of Motrin). Everything still works exactly the same as before & you're still a man. Mine was the most difficult the doc had done and it still only took about an hour and a half. I walked in at 3:00 on Friday and was home in bed by 7:00.

It is far more effective than a tubal ligation, much less messy than an abortion, it gets your woman off of birth control and eliminates all of the side effects of that (like headaches) plus it eliminates or reduces the potential for long term consequences of using The Pill. Nobody has to remember to take anything every day, you can throw out all those stupid rubbers that you didn't use anyway because nobody likes taking a shower in a raincoat.

Plus, it only costs $500.00. Can't remember if the insurance covered all but the $500.00 or if that was the actual fee.

It's been seven years and I ain't looked back.

Do it today.

|1.20.06 @ 12:19PM|#

I wonder if doctors are more willing to perform vasectomies on young guys when the guy is ugly.

Hmmm, There may be a thesis in that somewhere.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 12:43PM|#

1 man that got shot playing poker

When I referred to men dying in wars, this isn't the type of thing I was referring to!

|1.20.06 @ 12:46PM|#

If one side or the other develops a sense of humor I'll immediately take a side. Two out of three ain't bad!

New slogan: "Choose life. Now get outta here, you whacky knucklehead!"

Welcome aboard, Dr. T.

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 1:01PM|#

any additional risk given that if she doesn�t abort she still has to give birth or undergo a c-section.

so logically you would take the pain of a birth and subtract the lesser pain of 1st trimester abortion to get a pain differential. The cash value of the pain differential would then be *subtracted* from the man's abortion payment (or one half abortion payment, if you really want to be fair in the economic sense).

|1.20.06 @ 1:24PM|#

Okay, I have this in my head:

A flask-type glass bottle with a picture on the label of a grinning thoreau wearing one of those doctor-type reflector thingys.. the wording:

DR. T'S GOOD OL' FASHIONED PREGNANCY REMEDY - MADE WITH THE GOODNESS OF CORN!!

(Let's ignore the facts that t is a physicist.. and a mid-westerner.. and a Catholic..)

|1.20.06 @ 1:42PM|#

I'm a pro-choice person myself, but someone here -- anyone -- show me where in the federal Constitution it says that there is an explicit right to privacy that translates into a woman's right -- a RIGHT -- to have a conglomeration of cells growing inside her body extracted. Has anyone here read the 10th Amendment? It may be a natural right, but as far as the Constitution goes, it's an invented one. That's why I support a constitutional amendment guarateeing the right.

|1.20.06 @ 2:03PM|#

I'm a pro-choice person myself, but someone here -- anyone -- show me where in the federal Constitution it says that there is an explicit right to privacy that translates into a woman's right -- a RIGHT -- to have a conglomeration of cells growing inside her body extracted.

The Constitution is a limit on what the government can do, not on what individuals can do. Which is why I have no patience with people who say things like "What's wrong with mandatory GPS in cars? The Constitution does not give you the right to drive places without the government keeping tabs on your whereabouts."

|1.20.06 @ 2:05PM|#

Who really gives a rat's ass what Dave or anyone else muses is the exact point at which a soul knits to a body? Hasn't a thing to do with the price of tea in China.

The 14th Amendment to the Constitution:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States...are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

All persons born or naturalized. A fetus is neither. Flush the wee parasites at will. Case closed.

|1.20.06 @ 2:06PM|#

(WRT the idea of men having a "financial abortion" for children they don't want to support.)

No, because you still have a situation where a man has to merely sign a form and shell out some cash to rid himself of a child, whereas a woman has to undergo a surgical procedure with all the inherent risks therein.

Whether or not the man or the woman were responsible or interested in having a baby, the woman gets to make the ultimate choice of whether or not the baby is born. That choice is hers, and the responsibility for the fallout of either decision should be hers, not the guy who (quite reasonably) has no vote in the matter.

Or, more concisely - Only women can have the babies and the choose whether to have the babies, so women are the only ones who should have to pay for the babies. (Absent any other issues.)

|1.20.06 @ 2:08PM|#

er, "the choice whether"

|1.20.06 @ 2:08PM|#

I have no problem with the Court finding a right to privacy in the shadows of the Bil of Rights. My problem is the way they seem to happily ignore the ones out in the glaring light.

|1.20.06 @ 2:10PM|#

"All persons born or naturalized." A fetus is neither.

Damn fine point.

So can we torture Iraqis? *ducks, runs!*

|1.20.06 @ 2:11PM|#

Or, more concisely - Only women can have the babies and the choose whether to have the babies, so women are the only ones who should have to pay for the babies.

So babies come about via immaculate conception, and men have no responsibility since they had nothing to do with it?

|1.20.06 @ 2:17PM|#

(By the way, I know full well that "immaculate conception" refers to Mary being born without original sin, not the virgin birth. I just don't care.)

|1.20.06 @ 2:25PM|#

So babies come about via immaculate conception

Not usually.

men have no responsibility since they had nothing to do with it?

By choosing not to have an abortion and to bring a baby to term, the woman chooses to accept responsibility for a child. The man has no such choice and should have no such responsibility.

What if the woman has the baby? Should she be forced to bring Mr. One-Night-Stand into her life as a father-figure for the child (or just to fulfill his interest in part-time raising a kid)? "Well, if she didn't want her kid exposed to that sleazy lothario, she should have had her tubes tied, huh?" doesn't seem any more adequate a comeback than "You didn't want that girl who never gave her last name to get money out of you for the next 18 years? Well, you should have had a vasectomy!"

|1.20.06 @ 2:26PM|#

By the way, I know full well that "immaculate conception" refers to Mary being born without original sin, not the virgin birth.

That appears to make, like, two of us. In the whole world.

|1.20.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Eric:

Naw. There are a lot of papists and ex-papists on this board, including yours truly.

Dan T.|1.20.06 @ 2:36PM|#

Hmm�all the sudden Jennifer is no longer a libertarian.

Funny how that happens when it's one of us that needs the state's help...

Dave W.|1.20.06 @ 2:36PM|#

All persons born or naturalized. A fetus is neither. Flush the wee parasites at will. Case closed.

Under your logic I could kill tourists with impunity. I can't. Because your logic is wrong. Case closed.

|1.20.06 @ 2:40PM|#

Naw. There are a lot of papists and ex-papists on this board, including yours truly.

I've had arguments with Catholics over this point, but OK, three of us. ;)

|1.20.06 @ 2:49PM|#

Well, Eric, as I said before, it's impossible to have full gender equality when it comes to reproduction. Your solution, apparently, is to shove every last bit of resonsibility on the woman, and absolve the man from all responsibility.

|1.20.06 @ 3:28PM|#

Jennifer, if it's a woman's body and her right to privacy and control over her own body (which I largely agree with), then it's the woman's responsibility to make decisions about her body.

but taking responsibility never sells well, no matter who you're trying to sell it to.

|1.20.06 @ 3:30PM|#

Biologist, I'm not opposed to taking responsibility; I'm opposed to one person taking sole responsibility for a situation created by two people.

|1.20.06 @ 3:33PM|#

Your solution, apparently, is to shove every last bit of resonsibility on the woman, and absolve the man from all responsibility.

It seems that Eric feels that freedom of choice and legal responsibility should be distributed evenly. I believe he is asking how the state is justified in placing a financial responsibility on a male for the decision made by a female. Alternatively, if the male should have financial responsibility, then it stands to reason that he should be granted some level of choice about whether or not to take on that responsibility.

|1.20.06 @ 3:37PM|#

Well, Eric, as I said before, it's impossible to have full gender equality when it comes to reproduction.

I'm not disagreeing.

Your solution, apparently, is to shove every last bit of resonsibility on the woman, and absolve the man from all responsibility.

Yes. Give the woman all the power and all the responsibility by default. It's her body.

If she makes an arrangement with another person to share the responsibility, that's all well and good. But unless someone signs on to help with the baby, the buck stops there.

|1.20.06 @ 3:40PM|#

I'm opposed to one person taking sole responsibility for a situation created by two people

Only one person is carrying the baby. As you keep pointing out, biology is unfair.

Dan T.|1.20.06 @ 3:44PM|#

Biologist, I'm not opposed to taking responsibility; I'm opposed to one person taking sole responsibility for a situation created by two people.

Kind of like how tobacco companies should be held partially responsible for people who get sick from smoking their products? After all, the smoker was not the only person involved in creating the situation.

|1.20.06 @ 3:57PM|#

I believe he is asking how the state is justified in placing a financial responsibility on a male for the decision made by a female. Alternatively, if the male should have financial responsibility, then it stands to reason that he should be granted some level of choice about whether or not to take on that responsibility.

I think it should be split fifty-fifty. The woman will be the only one dealing with the physical consequences; that's just how biology works. At the same time, the woman gets full say in whether or not she remains pregnant; that too is from biology.

But if she gets an abortion, the man should be responsible for half the cost; if she chooses to keep the child, the man should be responsible for half the costs. (And I think there should be a standard "Cost of Having a Child," rather than have any child-support payments be based on the man's salary. Getting knocked up after a one-night stand with Bill Gates shouldn't be the equivalent of winning the lottery.)

|1.20.06 @ 4:09PM|#

"By the way, I know full well that 'immaculate conception' refers to Mary being born without original sin, not the virgin birth."

"That appears to make, like, two of us. In the whole world."

"Naw. There are a lot of papists and ex-papists on this board, including yours truly."

Reporting here from the belly of the papist beast: Most Catholics don't know this either.

Gimme Back My Dog|1.20.06 @ 4:14PM|#

Jennifer,

So if a man does not wish to pay for an unwanted child, your advice to him is to either:

1) use foolproof birth control or,
2) never, ever have sex

Option one does not exist for men.

Option two makes as much sense as telling someone that doesnt want food poisoning to stop eating.

Is there a third option I am missing?

|1.20.06 @ 4:16PM|#

By the way, I know full well that 'immaculate conception' refers to Mary being born without original sin, not the virgin birth.

Was it Mary or Jesus? I'm confused.

The Wine Commonsewer|1.20.06 @ 4:17PM|#

Dave W, I know you weren't talking about that and I wasn't referring to your comment either. I was referring to the myth that lots of people were killed in gunfights in the old west. I happen to agree with your post about the perils of being male.

When I was a kid a male was taught from day 1 that he will grow up and get a job. Maybe college comes first, but the net result is that every male is expected to perform, full time, until retirement. For a woman, even today, it still remains an option. And the guys still have to mow the grass and take the trash out. :-)

|1.20.06 @ 4:23PM|#

Kind of like how tobacco companies should be held partially responsible for people who get sick from smoking their products? After all, the smoker was not the only person involved in creating the situation.

That's a merchant-customer situation, which would only apply to sexual matters if you're talking about prostitution. I don't think a prostitute who gets pregnant from a client should be able to get any child support or abortion pay; that's just an occupational hazard.

So if a man does not wish to pay for an unwanted child, your advice to him is to either:
1) use foolproof birth control or, 2) never, ever have sex

Those are also the only two options for women who never want to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant. There's a certain level of risk for both genders.

|1.20.06 @ 4:28PM|#

Was it Mary or Jesus? I'm confused.

Mary.

|1.20.06 @ 4:28PM|#

Jennifer,

"I think it should be split fifty-fifty. The woman will be the only one dealing with the physical consequences; that's just how biology works. At the same time, the woman gets full say in whether or not she remains pregnant; that too is from biology."

So the responsibility is 50/50, but the choice is 0/100? One individual is deciding for the other how their life will be lived?

Makes zero sense to me. You can't have it both ways, rather, you can with the muscle of the state, but it isn't just.

|1.20.06 @ 4:32PM|#

Under your logic I could kill tourists with impunity. I can't. Because your logic is wrong. Case closed.

Sure you can! But you'd go to prison. You can't kill foreigners with whom you're not at war. Even if local laws didn't prevent murder (and define murder as the killing of a human, not a potential or proto-human), you'd still be busted by the Geneva Convention. (Same goes for torturing Iraqis, Eric)

You Libertarian pro-lifers are a funny lot: "give the wee maggot a chance! Let freedom ring!" Until he's born, that is; then screw him, he's on his own and isn't it time he had a job and pulled himself up by his Carter's bootstraps?

|1.20.06 @ 4:35PM|#

"give the wee maggot a chance! Let freedom ring!" Until he's born, that is; then screw him, he's on his own and isn't it time he had a job and pulled himself up by his Carter's bootstraps?"

That would have been awesome if anyone said anything remotely similar. Oh well, maybe next time.

Gimme Back My Dog|1.20.06 @ 4:36PM|#

Those are also the only two options for women who never want to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant. There's a certain level of risk for both genders.

Women have multiple effective means of birth control. Men have one and it is the most unreliable.

Also, you switched from "paying for a child" to "getting pregnant". Not the same thing since women have access to abortion.

|1.20.06 @ 4:37PM|#

So the responsibility is 50/50, but the choice is 0/100? One individual is deciding for the other how their life will be lived?

How do you propose dividing the choice in such a way that doesn't give the man the ability to either force a woman to maintain a pregnancy she doesn't want, or force her to get an abortion she doesn't want?

Or to put it another way: how much control over a woman's body should a man have once he's had sex with her?

|1.20.06 @ 4:38PM|#

Some of the complaints about responsibility for children seem to come down to complaints about the fact that she can abort and he can't.

Hypothetically, if abortion were illegal, would anybody here still want to argue that men should not be responsible for children that they father? (Let's leave aside hypotheticals involving rape or stolen sperm or whatever.)

|1.20.06 @ 4:42PM|#

"So if a man does not wish to pay for an unwanted child, your advice to him is to either:
1) use foolproof birth control or, 2) never, ever have sex"

Those are also the only two options for women who never want to deal with the consequences of getting pregnant.

Those are not the same risks. The woman may get pregnant, but she can choose whether or not to have the child even if she didn't opt for sterilization or celibacy. That choice brings responsibility, and both should sit with her.

But if she gets an abortion, the man should be responsible for half the cost; if she chooses to keep the child, the man should be responsible for half the costs.

Why, though? I've given the argument that it should be the woman's responsibility because she has the ultimate power. Why should it be the man's at all?

|1.20.06 @ 4:44PM|#

"Or to put it another way: how much control over a woman's body should a man have once he's had sex with her?"

About as much as a woman's body has control over a man's wallet.

OK, just being facetious, that is a good question. I would think that if she were to assume 100% power of choice, she would assume 100% of the responsibility of that choice. I can't imagine paying for a kid you never wanted for 18 years being much more comfortable than having a baby you don't want.

It's tough because there isn't an immediately obvious middle ground, but any number of arrangements could be made.

Why should she have the power to affect his life in that way, when he had no say in the choice?

|1.20.06 @ 4:44PM|#

Why, though? I've given the argument that it should be the woman's responsibility because she has the ultimate power. Why should it be the man's at all?

Because he is the one who got her pregnant.

|1.20.06 @ 4:49PM|#

Hypothetically, if abortion were illegal, would anybody here still want to argue that men should not be responsible for children that they father?

Hypothetically, if abortion were illegal, should a man be able to assert parental rights over a child fathered during casual sex with an acquaintance? Should the law force visitation rights or even require the woman to let the guy move in? If he makes more money and has a home life that appeals more to a judge, should that be grounds for giving him custody of "whatshername's baby"?

Gimme Back My Dog|1.20.06 @ 4:49PM|#

T,

Even with abortion outlawed, women still have more control over pregnancy due to a lack of birth control options for men.

Once there is a safe, reliable male birth control pill (which should be in a couple of years), then I will stop arguing that men should be able to opt out of the financial burden of an unwanted pregnancy.

|1.20.06 @ 4:50PM|#

Bottom line, folks, when a baby is born he or she needs adult caretakers. Yeah, I know, prescribing something based on need isn't very libertarian, but mother nature never signed an LP membership card.

So, who should these adult caretakers be? Ideally the adults whose uncoerced decisions led to the birth of the child. (I'm using the word "uncoerced" to leave some wiggle room for non-consensual sex or stolen sperm or whatever. But let's leave those cases aside for now.)

Let's pretend, for the sake of argument, that abortion was not legal. Could anybody give a good argument for why one of the biological parents should bear responsibility but not the other, if both consented and assumed risk when the child was conceived?

|1.20.06 @ 4:54PM|#

"Why, though? I've given the argument that it should be the woman's responsibility because she has the ultimate power. Why should it be the man's at all?"

Because he is the one who got her pregnant.

I'm not going to pretend that if I got a woman pregnant, I wouldn't help out with whatever she wanted to do. But...that's no answer.

If your point is that she couldn't have gotten pregnant without him, so he should pay up - why limit the responsibility to just the two of them? Why not throw in some for the friend who said, "Hey, I know a guy you'd like..." or anyone else whose actions were necessary to cause the pregnancy?

|1.20.06 @ 4:56PM|#

"Because he is the one who got her pregnant."

But 'getting her pregnant' is not what we're talking about, as she can change the state of that.

'Being/remaining pregnant', a decision of which he has no choice, is made entirely by her. At this point it has nothing to do with anyone else.

Getting pregnant doesn't equal 'baby'. Staying pregnant does.

|1.20.06 @ 4:58PM|#

dude sans dog-

What about in the era prior to the pill? Are you saying that back then it was proper for men to be held responsible for kids that they father? Also, even though women may have more reliable contraceptive options than men at the moment, it's not like men have NO options. If you want to argue that the balance of responsibility should be less than 50-50, I can see your point. I might not agree, but I can see it. But I can't see why the man should bear NO responsibility.


Eric-

I don't have any easy answers to your questions. Anybody who pretends otherwise has never been through a divorce. (My parents divorced, and the lawyers treated me like a piece of property to be divided, hence my deep hatred of lawyers.) Shared responsibility can be very messy, especially since rights and responsibilities go hand in hand. But that doesn't justify exempting one consenting party from any responsibility for a situation that he created. It just means that, sadly, there will be some messy situations to negotiate involving shared responsibility.

No easy answers here, but total exemption from responsibility is hardly a suitable answer either.

|1.20.06 @ 5:00PM|#

Hypothetically, if abortion were illegal, should a man be able to assert parental rights over a child fathered during casual sex with an acquaintance? Should the law force visitation rights or even require the woman to let the guy move in? If he makes more money and has a home life that appeals more to a judge, should that be grounds for giving him custody of "whatshername's baby"?

My answers, in order: Yes to parental rights, yes to visitation, no to moving in with the woman, and the last one depends on the situation. I expect men to take responsibility for kids they father, but rights should come along with those responsibilities. (Unless you're talking about an abusive man, of course.)

Gimme Back My Dog|1.20.06 @ 5:06PM|#

T,

I never thought about that, but I suppose that is what I am arguing. Bascially, freedom and responsiblity should go hand in hand. Now that women have nearly complete reproductive freedom, they should have nearly complete responsibility.

|1.20.06 @ 5:06PM|#

By the way, my answers to Erics' "if abortion were illegal" question also apply now, when abortion is not.

|1.20.06 @ 5:08PM|#

dude sans dog-

You need to look at relative levels of freedom. The pill may be more effective than the condom, but both are pretty darn effective. I can see the argument for something other than 50-50, but 100-0, or even 99-1, is simply unacceptable.

|1.20.06 @ 5:13PM|#

Thoreau:

I don't think the total exemption/total assumption of responsibility is an easy answer, either. I can think of many situations that could happen under such a setup that would be excruciating and heartbreaking. As I thought was clearly implied (but probably not) above, I'm arguing that the guy should have no automatic responsibilities or rights. Absent marriage or an arrangement of some kind where the reproductive and parental rights and responsibilities are divied up, they should all rest with the woman from conception to majority of the child, if born.

Imagine that setup as a guy for long enough and not get an uncomfortable twinge...well, if so, you're a sociopath and shouldn't be having or raising kids, anyway.

But I don't see any offered alternative, including current paternity law, that makes more sense.

|1.20.06 @ 5:17PM|#

So, Eric, you're saying that the default should be neither rights no responsibilities, and if he wants to see his kid he has to assume some responsibility.

That's a more interesting proposition. It's certainly a better way of putting it than the general vibe that I'd been getting from this thread.

Gimme Back My Dog|1.20.06 @ 5:18PM|#

T,

Abortion is more effective than condoms, by more than 99-1.

|1.20.06 @ 5:27PM|#

So, Eric, you're saying that the default should be neither rights no responsibilities, and if he wants to see his kid he has to assume some responsibility.

Yes, with the consent of the woman. If she doesn't want him involved in raising the child (and they weren't married or otherwise hadn't formally agreed that "we raise any babies you have"), I don't think he should have any recourse whatsoever.

Which, yes, would absolutely, utterly suck for such a guy.

|1.20.06 @ 5:38PM|#

It's certainly a better way of putting it than the general vibe that I'd been getting from this thread.

Well, I can tell some guys here are arguing from the perspective of "the woman decided to have the baby, knowing she'd be able to bleed money out of the man to support it".

I think there's a real element of moral hazard there, but it's not the whole story. It really does come down to the unfairness of biology in my view.

|1.20.06 @ 5:40PM|#

You guys and your Popery

I predict that abortion will be nominally legal, but virtually unavailable, in "red" America.

Which means we'd better stock up on coat-hangers and avoid the rush, because there's no way that Janie the Sorority girl is going to go without an abortion just because she attends Nebraska State. People, young people especially, tend only to see abortion as unforgivably evil until they need to avail themselves of the services of an abortion doctor. Then it's cool. Well, until they have to cover in front of daddy, then it's back to "Abortion=Baby murder."

|1.20.06 @ 5:56PM|#

there's no way that Janie the Sorority girl is going to go without an abortion just because she attends Nebraska State

Exactly. Which is why I predict that the cutting edge case in the battle over abortion won't be Roe Part Deux. It will be Red State vs. Greyhound.

|1.20.06 @ 5:59PM|#

So, Jennifer, let me get this straight: a woman (theoretically) has complete and total control of with whom she has sex. She also recognizes that she can get pregnant. Shouldn't that make birth control her responsibility? She should either already be on it or insist on protection, or no sex. If the birth control fails, that's a risk the WOMAN takes, because she should know by now what the potential consequences may be for HER body. A man probably knows, but it's not his body, so it's not his responsibility nor concern. He should protect himself from diseases, not from a condition that affects the woman only.

|1.20.06 @ 6:59PM|#

So, Jennifer, let me get this straight: a woman (theoretically) has complete and total control of with whom she has sex. She also recognizes that she can get pregnant. Shouldn't that make birth control her responsibility?

A man has complete control and total over with whom he has sex. He also recognizes he can get her pregnant. Shouldn't that make birth control his responsibility?

The statement is just as irresponsible no matter which gender it covers.

|1.20.06 @ 7:12PM|#

Don't just cut and paste part of my argument, because that's not its entirety. I was setting up the premise of "women get pregnant, therefore, they should be the ones responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen, and be willing to accept responsibility when it does". Sorry, but if you're going to assume women own their bodies, as I do, then you have to admit that they have to accept the consequences of what they do with them. Pregnancy isn't something that happens to men, it happens to women, and they are responsible for it's occurence and prevention.

|1.20.06 @ 7:18PM|#

Sorry, but if you're going to assume women own their bodies, as I do, then you have to admit that they have to accept the consequences of what they do with them. Pregnancy isn't something that happens to men, it happens to women, and they are responsible for it's occurence and prevention.

And you can just as easily say that if men are granted access to women's bodies, then the men will have to accept the consequences of what might happen as a result. Pregnancy doesn't happen to men, but it is caused by men. Both sexes share the responsibility.

|1.20.06 @ 7:22PM|#

I do find it amusing, that these libertarian, objectivist, Ayn-Rand-worshipping "take charge of my own destiny" types are at the same time insisting that if they get a woman pregnant, it's not their fault so they shouldn't be held responsible for it.

|1.20.06 @ 7:40PM|#

Jennifer:

I find it amusing that so many liberated, don't-tell-me-what-to-do-with-my-body types want the ultimate say without accepting ultimate responsibility.

|1.20.06 @ 7:43PM|#

Nobody has mentioned it yet, but in theory you could make the default payment scheme require that each party write down his wishes and seal it before divvying up the costs of the decision:

both want abortion: woman aborts, cost split

man wants abortion, woman opposes abortion: woman has kid, bears full cost

both oppose abortion: man and woman bear some sort of recurring cost, each gets 1/2 custody (unless both sides agree to different split)

man opposes abortion, woman wants abortion: woman gets choice of having kid and giving it to father to rear, or to abort and bear the full cost of the abortion

I don't see the above being workable because, even though there may be nothing more fair proposed, the general populace would never agree to it. However, if we're talking about hypothetical things that could make this situation better, in theory it should be possible to come up with some sort of way of coming to an agreement before coitus, and then only using the above method in the absence.

For example, there could be a very small pre-printed form that just has a couple of places to check and to sign. Then if a woman wants to hold out for Jennifer's terms, she can do so trivially and if a man wants to hold out for Eric's, he can also.

With standardization of the form and significant publicity, there really wouldn't have to be a lot of discussion and head-scratching. We could even abbreviate the choices to "J" and "E". There are a lot fewer choices to be made than there are sexual practices to discuss.

Hey, we're both "J"s, great!

Uh oh. You're a "J" and I'm an "E"... if you're not willing to switch, do you have a sister?

I see that even less likely to fly than my default algorithm above, but in theory if you used both methods, you'd have a much fairer situation than anything proposed so far.

Although I'm an atheist, I'm also of the opinion that religion does a lot of good things. Overall, I think religion has been a good influence on families, but I think it's done a horrible job with non-procreative sex.

|1.20.06 @ 7:46PM|#

I find it amusing that so many liberated, don't-tell-me-what-to-do-with-my-body types want the ultimate say without accepting ultimate responsibility.

Biologist, can you think of a way to divvy up the responsibility between the two parties involved?

|1.20.06 @ 7:54PM|#

yes: if one has the ultimate decision-making power, then it's ultimately one's responsibility to bear the consequences of one's decisions.

so, I guess what I'm saying is, as a matter of law, there shouldn't be any divvying up of responsibility: it's the woman's body, it's under her control (leaving aside rape, incest, etc.), so the responsibility falls to her.

as a matter of personal ethics, that's not the way I personally behave, but it depends on what level you're asking the question.

|1.20.06 @ 7:57PM|#

But again, Biologist, you're overlooking the role the man plays in this. A lot of these posts seem to labor under the misinformation that a woman gets pregnant all by herself, so she should bear the burden all by herself.

|1.20.06 @ 7:59PM|#

Personal responsibility: a man gets to have sex, and any fallout from it is entirely his partner's problem.

No, I don't buy that definition.

|1.20.06 @ 8:04PM|#

no, you're overlooking (conveniently, I might add), that ownership and control implies ultimate responsibility in the final analysis.

biology isn't fair from either side. believe me, after all, I'm a biologist.

|1.20.06 @ 8:07PM|#

no, you're overlooking (conveniently, I might add), that ownership and control implies ultimate responsibility in the final analysis.

How am I overlooking the role the man plays?

Or let me ask another question: are you saying that men should be free of all responsibility when it comes to sex? (Assume I'm talking about consensual sex, of course.)

|1.20.06 @ 8:09PM|#

legally, or morally/ ethically?

|1.20.06 @ 8:10PM|#

and as long as we're discussing consensual sex, can I pretend it's sensual consensual sex?

|1.20.06 @ 8:11PM|#

Take your pick.

|1.20.06 @ 8:15PM|#

actually, it doesn't really matter how you answer my question, if you read my post at 7:54 pm, you should be able to tell

|1.20.06 @ 8:15PM|#

It's the child who has the right to support, not the woman, which makes the entire idea of a "legal abortion" risible, I think. It's not just dividing up what are her rights and responsibilities and which are his.

|1.20.06 @ 8:17PM|#

but when does an entity become a legal person whose rights the government is obliged to honor and defend?

|1.20.06 @ 8:25PM|#

At birth certainly, and arguable at the point at which the fetus is viable.

Men have options for controlling their fertility. Condoms, vasectomy. Neither as convenient as some of the methods women use, but neither of them are hugely invasive. Men need to take responsibility for their own reproduction just as women do. Sorry men can't have abortions, but that's the break of being a man.

|1.20.06 @ 8:34PM|#

I agree that men have the ethical obligation to take responsibility, but do they or should they have the legally enforced responsibility?

Jason S.|1.20.06 @ 10:24PM|#

Once there is a safe, reliable male birth control pill (which should be in a couple of years), then I will stop arguing that men should be able to opt out of the financial burden of an unwanted pregnancy.

Back when the birth control patch went on the market, Craig Kilborn joked that scientists were also experimenting with a birth control patch for men. It didn't have any drugs in it; it was just printed with the words "I make $17,000 a year."

|1.20.06 @ 11:31PM|#

The entire thread above about what the proper distribution of rights and responsibilities of parenthood between men and women (which have been skewed because of legal abortion) is the practical argument for why marriage exists as a legal institution and why sex outside of marraige was considered an immoral act. The disputes, recriminations, and figuring out who' who is just too messy without a framework.

For those males who think it's unjust that your miss right now can choose to saddle you with a dependent for 18 years that she can choose dispose of with impunity in the first few months. Sorry, it's not unjust, it's unfair, and what fool gave you the impression that life was going to be fair? If the child lives, it will require support, denying your support is an injustice to your child, not to the female you made the kid with. If you're a man you'll understand this, if you do not understand you are merely a boy with fully functioning testicles.

|1.21.06 @ 4:19AM|#

Again, I say, women are the ones who get pregnant so therefore they are the ones responsible for taking the chance that they will. Men obviously play a part in conception, but women should realize that pregnancy is something that happens to THEM! Period. So it's their responsibilty...if you want women to control their bodies, they should stand up and accept responsbility for what happens to their bodies.

|1.21.06 @ 4:22AM|#

This is not an abortion issue. This is a judicial tyranny issue. It drives me nuts every time I hear "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land." Since when is a case decision a law? Aren't laws legislated through Congress? Is it called The Roe V. Wade Act?

Every situation is different. If some guy decided that he wanted to divorce his wife without paying alimony because she keeps aborting his children, does the judge have the right to say "Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, so your wife could do anything she wants. And if you want to divorce her, you still have to fork over fifty percent of your money." That's fucking tyranny!

Nobody has a right to an abortion, since somebody other than yourself would have to perform it. If every doctor in the United States decided not to do abortions for whatever reasons, do you have the "Constitutional" right to force them to do it? Do you have a "Constitutional" right to deny them their medical licenses if they don't?

Even if you use the morning-after pill, somebody else has to manufacture it. What if companies decided not to manufacture it anymore because of too many lawsuits? Are you going to force them to make it anyway?

And so what if Roe v. Wade is overturned? Only a hysterical female would believe that abortion would be automatically banned across the U.S. Correct me if I'm wrong, but murder itself isn't even banned by the Constitution. That's handled by the individual states.

BTW, I'm female.

|1.21.06 @ 11:09AM|#

zeroentitlement,

All persons born or naturalized. A fetus is neither. Flush the wee parasites at will. Case closed.

If you want to play the literalist game, the 1st ammendment doesn't protect any unspoken expression that doesn't come from a printing press. And the 4th ammendment says nothing about wiretapping. Be careful what you wish for.

|1.21.06 @ 11:20AM|#

Jennifer,

Before Roe, the law did treat men and women equally with regard to reproduction. ie, once the child was conceived, both parents were required to fulfill their roles in raising the child they conceived. The inequality arose when would-be mothers were given an "escape hatch", as Bailey so slimily put it, while would-be fathers were left without one.

Not that I'm in favor of giving would-be fathers the right to demand an abortion, or refuse to pay child support, of course. But when an escape hatch for one necessitates a death warrant for another, I prefer not to have one.

|1.21.06 @ 11:26AM|#

Also Jennifer,

Since you've now taken up the role of Biological Realist, how do you feel about laws (such as NY's) mandating that employers provide health insurance which covers birth control pills, in the name of gender equality?

|1.21.06 @ 11:31AM|#

thoreau,

My stance is simple: Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The pro-lifers have the life thing down pat, and the pro-choicers are all over the liberty thing. But with all the acrimony, neither side offers much in regard to the pursuit of happiness.

I hate to hurt my side's chances in the sense of humor department, but however funny that joke was the first hundred or so times you posted it, it's getting a wee bit old. Can we throw it in the "Why does ______ hate America?" wastebin, mmkay?

No offense meant, thoreau, you're a smart and funny guy most of the time. :-)

|1.21.06 @ 11:54AM|#

Gimme Back My Dog:
So if a man does not wish to pay for an unwanted child, your advice to him is to either:

1) use foolproof birth control or,
2) never, ever have sex

Those aren't the only choices. See Brokeback Mountain, or the newly released porn version Bareback Mountain.

There is a third way. Rejoice!

|1.21.06 @ 12:01PM|#

crimethink, you are correct in pointing out that jokes tend to sour with age. That speaks well of your discerning taste in humor.

I'm not quite ready to endorse Alito, but you're moving me in that direction :)

|1.21.06 @ 12:11PM|#

Upon further review of some of Stevo Darkly's postings, I am prepared to announce a firm position on abortion.

I concur with His Howliness Rex Rover: A puppy's life begins at conception.

|1.21.06 @ 12:12PM|#

thoreau,

This may come as a surprise to you and my other faithful readers, but I'm not entirely sure that I support Alito. While I do think that Roe and its successor, Casey, should be overturned, a shift of one vote from OConnor to Alito would not produce that. Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Kennedy all would vote to uphold those decisions.

And Alito's tendencies to defer to executive and legislative power -- which would affect Commerce Clause, enemy combatant, etc cases -- worry me greatly. To put it bluntly, I never thought I'd reach the point where the fear of a Republican administration led me to oppose the nomination of a probably anti-Roe justice.

|1.21.06 @ 12:15PM|#

thoreau,

Well, that doesn't mean anything, since presumably you support the right to put puppies to sleep.

|1.21.06 @ 12:19PM|#

thoreau -- at least tell me that you'd support exceptions for rape and interspecies copulation.

|1.21.06 @ 12:40PM|#

What you say makes sense, crimethink. I never meant to suggest that you take a single issue approach to the Supreme Court. It was mostly a tongue in cheek comment on the subject of humor.

To put it bluntly, I never thought I'd reach the point where the fear of a Republican administration led me to oppose the nomination of a probably anti-Roe justice.

I know what you mean. As of early December I thought that the FISA Court was a dangerous thing: Judges who meet in secret and give the executive branch what it wants 99.99% of the time, often after the deed has been done. Now I find myself arguing that use of the FISA Court would be a step toward a freer society with a more strictly limited government.

If this administration keeps turning more things upside down, who knows what sorts of things we'll be arguing for/against a year from now?

|1.21.06 @ 4:57PM|#

A lot of these posts seem to labor under the misinformation that a woman gets pregnant all by herself, so she should bear the burden all by herself.

Way to ignore what's actually said and dismiss a dissenting opinion, Jennifer.

|1.21.06 @ 6:36PM|#

Nobody has a right to an abortion, since somebody other than yourself would have to perform it.

Comment by: passingthru at January 21, 2006 04:22 AM

wow, and people call ME a semanticist!

but anyway, one last comment for Jennifer: look up the definition of the word "ultimate". I'm using in the sense of last or final. since women have the final say over the fate of a pregnancy, they get to choose responsibility or to avoid responsibility. men should have the same say legally, but society is welcome to shun an asshole who impregnates without supporting his kids, and women should avoid having intercourse with him

|1.21.06 @ 8:05PM|#

After reading the posts by Jennifer vs. Eric the .5b and biologist, I'm not sure which side I agree with. May I ask a Socratic question?

Suppose a woman buys tobacco products and develops related health problems as a result. Such an outcome is a widely known potential risk of using tobacco. Nevertheless, it's her body, and her choice.

However, we can't ignore the role of the tobacco seller in this equation. Isn't it his responsibility to help pay for the woman's medical bills? She didn't get sick by herself. So why should she bear the burden by herself?

Doesn't the tobacco company, by agreeing to sell her tobacco, and knowing of the risks, by implication agree to share in the risks this entails?

And if the woman is entitled to financial restitution from the tobacco company -- say, 50% of the cost of her treatment -- does the tobacco company have any say in her choice of ongoing medical treatment for which it paying 50%?

Discuss.

|1.21.06 @ 8:24PM|#

Stevo-

The difference is that we aren't talkin about the father's responsibility toward the mother. We're talking about the father's responsibility toward the child. A child differs from a tumor in some fairly significant ways.

I suspect that was your point.

|1.21.06 @ 9:13PM|#

Dr. T: Actually, I was hoping to stir up some more talk to help me decide where I stand on this. I admit I have never seen a man's (legal) right to (a financial) abortion argued so ably.

I think this is a case where our traditional cultural view (if a man and a woman have sex, and she becomes pregnant, then he has impregnated her with a baby, which he has a duty to help raise) has not yet caught up with our current prevailing legal view (if a man and a woman have sex, and she becomes pregnant, then she [and only she] has a choice to make). These different views about "the right thing to do" must clash, especially since we can find both views held within the same person.

Right now a woman's legal right to an abortion has turned the womb into a kind of box for a "Shroedinger's fetus" experiment. Is the fetus a being that has acquired an absolute right to parental support? Or is it a non-being that one parent has an absolute right to stop supporting? Our culture's current answer to both questions is somehow, "Yes."

One more observation. In most of human history, if people not in a stable relationship had sex and the woman got pregnant, it was relatively easier for the man to avoid stepping up to fatherhood, and relatively more difficult for a woman to escape motherhood. Therefore, women acted as the sexual gatekeepers. They had the most to lose, and the least control over the consequences to themselves.

Now abortion is an option, and with a science and a justice system more willing and able to identify and hunt down "deadbeat dads," this is reversed. It is relatively easier for a woman to escape motherhood, and becoming relatively harder for a man to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood.

If this goes on long enough, you'd expect women to become more sexually aggressive and men to start adopting the "gatekeeper" role (with regard to wallets not wombs), becoming more hesitant about casual sex and its possible consequences. I think we're seeing some of the former, and not so much of the latter. The latter, I think, because of cultural inertia and millions of years of ingrained sexual instinct and evolution that rewarded sexually aggressive males. But instinct can be overcome and evolutionary pressures can change. I wonder what kind of male we may be breeding, and whether that's a good or bad thing.

|1.21.06 @ 9:18PM|#

Short version of Stevo's post:

|fetus> = (|entitled to support>+|not entitled to support>)/sqrt(2)

But the unentitled state is an unstable excited state with a lifetime of 9 months, after which the fetus undergoes a transition to the entitled state.

|1.21.06 @ 9:31PM|#

"I do find it amusing, that these libertarian, objectivist, Ayn-Rand-worshipping "take charge of my own destiny" types are at the same time insisting that if they get a woman pregnant, it's not their fault so they shouldn't be held responsible for it."

I think it should be pretty obvious that this is a gross distortion of the argument being made. It's not fundamentally a question of fault - it's a question of rights and responsibilities. The woman has total control over whether the fetus is aborted or carried to term, and this is as it should be. But that also seems to imply, where both parents aren't willing to raise the child, that this responsibility also lies with the mother. We all seem to agree that men and women are inherently unequal here, but Jennifer seems to have a pretty slanted view of that inequality if she thinks men should have zero rights to determine if the fetus comes to term but half responsibility for it if it does.

"A lot of these posts seem to labor under the misinformation that a woman gets pregnant all by herself, so she should bear the burden all by herself."

Again, this is obviously not at all accurate (and hopefully meant tongue-in-cheek). The reason some people are arguing that the woman should bear responsibility for a child brought to term is not that she conceived it all by herself, but that she has complete control over whether it's aborted or brought to term.

From a practical, public policy standpoint, it's easy to imagine some problems caused by this line of reasoning. But from a basic moral standpoint, I don't see how Jennifer's argument holds water.

|1.21.06 @ 9:48PM|#

Seriously, though, Stevo, you do have an interesting point.

But as far as comparing the relative degree of control that each gender has over reproduction, consider two points:

1) It's not like men have no contraceptive options. Sure, condoms aren't idiot-proof (much to Darwin's dismay), but they're still pretty damn effective when used responsibly. (Which raises the interesting evolutionary point: If the careless guys are disproportionately likely to pass on their genes....) With freedom comes responsibility.

2) Abortion may be the ultimate in fool-proof ways to avoid having a kid, and it may be the sole prerogative of the woman (in law and/or some people's beliefs), but let's not ignore some facts of life. Many women would simply not consider abortion as an option. Whatever the reasons for that, we can't use the existence of this option to conclude that women have perfect control over their bodies, since that's ignoring the aversion that some women might have to it.

Whether you think it's due to social conditioning or an instinctive aversion to terminating a pregnancy or whatever, this is not an option that women undertake lightly, and many won't undertake it at all. There mere legality of this option is not enough to absolve men of all responsibility.

|1.21.06 @ 10:14PM|#

society is welcome to shun an asshole who impregnates without supporting his kids, and women should avoid having intercourse with him

I agree, but would you feel the same way about society shunning a woman who got pregnant and then had her offspring destroyed to avoid a few months of pregnancy?

|1.21.06 @ 11:53PM|#

I honestly would like to know, from the intelligent individuals on this board (ned, thoreau, crimethink, I'm looking at you) what is wrong with the argument that "pregnancy happens to women, like it or not, and therefore they are the ones responsible for protection and, when it fails, the care of the child".

It seems to me making the man responsible is akin to making the bartender responsbile for serving an alcoholic: it's a condition you know could happen to you, you should control or, failing that, take care of it.

Sidenote: I think that this should be the legal case; morally, I would never abandon I child that I had proof of fathering. That's just trashy.

|1.22.06 @ 1:22AM|#

There mere legality of this option is not enough to absolve men of all responsibility.

Not of all responsibility, I don't think. Not moral responsibility. But what about legal responsibility?

There's something off-kilter about arguing that people have a certain legal right, but many will not wish to exercise it, therefore they are exempt from the responsibilities that may require them to avail themselves of that right.

Like, I have the right to work and earn an income. But suppose I hate working and choose to stay home and mooch off my family and friends. And suppose my charitable support is less than my spending, so I incur debts. Am I still not legally responsible for my debts -- me and no one else -- just because I choose not to exercise another right that would give me the means to escape them?

Doc, you brought up some thoughts that may likely deflect attention from the point I meant to bring up, which was:

If a woman knowingly and consensually accepts a substance into her body, knowing that there is a risk of an undesirable outcome as a result ... and she has the sole legal right to decide whether or not to admit said substance into her body ...

(A) Does she have sole legal responsibility for the results?

(B) Or does the guy who helped put the substance into her body have some legal responsibility also?

I am hearing it argued, with some persuasiveness, that (A) is more consistent with libertarian principles.

On the other hand ...

"pregnancy happens to women, like it or not, and therefore they are the ones responsible for protection and, when it fails, the care of the child"

... I have to admit, that particular phrasing somehow rubs me the wrong way. Part of me wants to say, "But the guy contributed to the pregnancy..."

Again, I think it's a conflict between the traditional cultural viewpoint (the male partner is 50% in control of the actions that result in a woman being pregnant, and therefore 50% responsible) versus the modern legal precept (the woman is and should be 100% in control over whether she is [continues to be] pregnant, and therefore ...?).

|1.22.06 @ 11:47AM|#

Stevo-

I would agree that, in general, a woman has sole responsibility for the consequences of accepting a substance into her body. Whether that consequence is lung disease due to tobacco or 9 months of pregnancy due to semen (assuming consensual sex, yadda yadda), she is responsible.

So, I can see an argument that the man has no responsibility to pay for the morning sickness pills. A legal argument. As a moral issue I'd tell the guy to suck it up and pay for the damn pills.

But a child is not just a consequence. A child, at least by the time of birth (let's leave aside the issue of when life begins, since our concern here is when child support payments should begin) is a separate person. The question is, who is responsible for that child?

Children pose a challenge to libertarian notions, at least when applied in the most naive and dogmatic manner. Small children cannot provide for themselves (even the most straw-man version of a libertarian would agree that you can't expect them to work in a Nike factory until at least the age of 5), so somebody will have to. We might get into debates over whether parents from the Church of Christian Science can deny their kids chemotherapy or whatever, but we'd all agree that parents at least have an obligation to feed and clothe their kids.

So, who should these responsibilities be assigned to? I'm going to say the biological parents, unless they negotiate some other arrangement or find somebody willing to adopt. Maybe this is just a pragmatic choice, maybe it's a choice rooted in outdated moral notions. Or maybe it's rooted in the fact that they both consented to sex knowing the potential consequences.

I'm aware that somebody could say the store owner sold somebody tobacco knowing the potential consequences, but the tumor isn't a separate entity. I'm not talking about the man's obligations toward the mother, I'm talking about his obligations toward his child.

|1.22.06 @ 11:50AM|#

Tell you what: Tobacco companies should have full responsibility toward tumors. If a tumor is removed, the tobacco company and patient can split 50-50 the costs of keeping those cells alive in a petri dish.

|1.22.06 @ 6:35PM|#

OK, thoreau, now I'm leaning toward your and Jennifer's arguments again. But I'm still thinking about it.

|1.22.06 @ 10:24PM|#

I agree, but would you feel the same way about society shunning a woman who got pregnant and then had her offspring destroyed to avoid a few months of pregnancy?

Comment by: crimethink at January 21, 2006 10:14 PM

if society wants to shun in that situation, then let the shunning begin

the interpretation of the right to peaceably assembly to of necessity include the right to freedom of association, which necessarily includes the right to freedom from enforced association, gives members of society the right to shun - to not associate with people they don't like for whatever reason they see fit

|1.22.06 @ 11:05PM|#

I was worried at first that testosterone was crippling some brains here, but despite a rough start I think this thread may be the best route to understanding the libertarian position in general (and its potential complexities when applied) I have yet seen on these boards. It is particularly interesting that the link between tobacco use and sex was made.

My two cents: Our current society has taken the position that, yes indeed the tobacco seller is responsible in part for the consequences of the consensual transaction between seller and buyer (particularly when the seller tries to hide or minimize the risks). And they have also taken the position that, yes indeed, the consensual partners in sex have some shared responsibility for the consequences. A consistent view on the part of society. (Choice B, from above). With the additional view that the consequences go beyond the dyad involved in the transaction, and therefore society has a stake (particularly in regards to children, but also disease). I think all are reasonable positions.

And society (as per Roe) has taken the very correct and libertarian view that the woman has ultimate control over her body (regarding this issue), but that their are other parties with legitimage concerns. Wouldn't this be the point of contact between the libertarian and the moderate Democrat/Republican? A precedent to cite and extend? A way to persuade the center towards a more libertarian approach to governing?

Kudos also on getting to the link between rights and responsibilties (which are to the child in this context). One that I think is missed in too many discussions of libertry.

Lots of food for thought here. I don't know how you guys have the time to post as often as you do. I don't even have the time for my occasional (mostly useless) comments.

|1.23.06 @ 12:02AM|#

So, who should these responsibilities [for a child] be assigned to?

Absent any other agreement to spread or hand off the responsibility or circumstance making her incapable, the mother. The baby exists due to the mother's deliberate, conscious choice to complete the pregnancy.

I'm going to have to stick by the idea that the mother's choice to bring a pregnancy to term is fundamentally different from the choice of the mother and father to have sex in the first place. I haven't seen anyone give a convincing explanation of why they should be equated.

|1.23.06 @ 12:14AM|#

my favorite part of this discussion is how Jennifer agrees that the facts of biology make pregnancy unfair, therefore our legal system should see to it that the unfairness falls on males.

|1.23.06 @ 8:22AM|#

My favorite part of this discussion is that because the SCOTUS has created a right for women to be unjust to their children (by killing them in utero), men should be allowed to be unjust to their children by denying any financial responsibility for the children who do live. The first injustice does not justify the second. Particularly since a child raised by single mother is much more likely to grow up impoverished than one who is not. Libertarian philosophy (or least how some libertarians would like that philosphy to work) does not seem to deal with family matters in a sane or constructive way.

Men also have the responsibility of knowing where they cast their seed. The man should presume that any pregnancy resulting from a coupling will be brought to term and act accordingly. That is taking responsibility for one's own actions.

|1.23.06 @ 8:39AM|#

my favorite part of this discussion is how Jennifer agrees that the facts of biology make pregnancy unfair, therefore our legal system should see to it that the unfairness falls on males

Actually, I'm trying to think of a way to make the unfairness be divided between the sexes, as opposed to the many posters here who think the woman should bear the full brunt of it.

|1.23.06 @ 9:22AM|#

So, let's say that as long as the woman has the decision over whether or not to abort she has full responsibility for the kid.

Now, let's say Roe is overturned (hypothetically), and some states have legal abortion and other states don't. If the woman lives in a state where abortion is illegal, but she has the option to cross state lines, what should the law be?

Remember that if abortion is illegal then the decision over whether not to have a kid fell equally on both sexual partners when they decided to have sex and assumed the risks (including the risk that their contraceptive might fail). From the standpoint of that state's laws there is no "second chance" option of abortion that rests entirely with the woman. From the standpoint of that state's laws, the decision to assume risks was made when they had sex.

Now, what if during her pregnancy the woman moves to a state with legal abortion but doesn't abort? Assume, for the sake of argument, that she made the move early enough in her pregnancy that abortion was still a very feasible option. Does responsibility for the kid now fall squarely on her shoulders?

And what if she didn't move out of state, but she did live in a city near the border, and the state on the other side of the border had legal abortion?

These questions may be hypothetical, but many H&R posters (not accusing anybody in particular) have said that abortion should be a matter of state law. They have argued that abortion should be legal as a matter of liberty, but the legalization should be done at the state level for Constitutional reasons.

So, if abortion should be a state-by-state matter, and responsibility for a child should depend on whether or not the woman had the option to abort, what would you say if different states had different abortion laws?

|1.23.06 @ 9:26AM|#

One more twist: What if abortion was legal, but only in a very narrow window of, say, 40 days? If conception happens anomalously early in the cycle, or a woman is irregular, it might take a few weeks for her to suspect that she's pregnant. That might leave less than 3 weeks for her to verify the pregnancy, make a very difficult decision, schedule an appointment, and travel a considerable distance if she lives in a state where abortion clinics are hard to find.

Do we still want to argue that she has a meaningful abortion option and therefore the decision to carry the kid was fully hers and freely made?

|1.23.06 @ 11:35AM|#

Refocusing on the obligation of a parent to a child (versus the parent's obligations to the other parent), I had another thought over the weekend.

Given the legal right to abortion without consent of the partner, doesn't that logically still transfer all the parent-to-child obligations to the shoulders of the woman? By which I mean, if she now has 100% of the choice (legally) as to whether to bear the kid and be a mother, doesn't she then inherit 100% of the responsibility to that kid (legally)?

Again, I'm talking legally.

And I haven't had a chance to think about thoreau's latest points, which appear to add interesting wrinkles.

|1.23.06 @ 11:41AM|#

The problem with that, Stevo, is that it means no man who fathers an unwed child has any responsibility for it at all.

|1.23.06 @ 12:04PM|#

stevo: we agree, as through a glass, darkly

|1.23.06 @ 12:13PM|#

"...it means no man who fathers an unwed child has any responsibility for it at all."

Which must be considered in light of the fact that no man who fathers an unwed child has any say at all in whether it's aborted or carried to term.

There are two sides to this unfairness, but you only seem concerned about one of them.

|1.23.06 @ 12:35PM|#

There are two sides to this unfairness, but you only seem concerned about one of them.

I offered above a potential starting point to work out a compromise offering to split the difference somehow between the two sexes, but most of the responses were compromise-free: "it is entirely the woman's responsibility. One hundred percent."

And now this thread will vanish off the main page very soon, so there's no time to try and discuss anything else. But I'm still surprised: I offer to split the difference fifty-fifty, everyone else says "No, it's one-hundred-percent the woman's problem. . . ' and I am the one accused of being one-sided here?

|1.23.06 @ 12:38PM|#

The problem with that, Stevo, is that it means no man who fathers an unwed child has any responsibility for it at all.

Yeah, that's the problem. I think that's what the right to an abortion has brought about, legally speaking. We just haven't caught up to the logical conclusion yet. Logically, why would a man have a legal responsiblity to a child if he has no legal say in whether it will (be brought into existence)(continue to exist)?

Oops, Ned just said something similar.

And I still haven't had time to think about thoreau's latest points.

|1.23.06 @ 12:40PM|#

Stevo-

This thread is about to drop off the main page, but I'd like to continue this discussion. Email me if you want to talk more about the implications of laws differing by state.

|1.23.06 @ 12:58PM|#

"I offer to split the difference fifty-fifty"

You're talking about splitting the responsibility 50/50. What about splitting the choice 50/50? I certainly wouldn't advocate that, and I think few people if anyone here would, but just splitting the cost of raising the child 50/50 when the woman has complete say in whether there's a child at all is not fair. Maybe some smaller fraction than 50%...no idea how that number would be agreed upon though.

"No, it's one-hundred-percent the woman's problem..."

I feel like this has been pointed out over and over, but that's only half of what people are saying. It just happens to be the only half you quote, and it gives a distorted view of the other side's argument, which is that if it's completely the woman's choice whether to carry to term, then she also bears the responsibility.

|1.23.06 @ 2:02PM|#

we could continue the discussion over at grylliade.com

|1.23.06 @ 2:33PM|#

That might be a good idea, since it may be at least a few days before I can think serious thoughts again.

|1.23.06 @ 7:00PM|#

whoops, it's grylliade.org

my bad, people