psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
The key word was "radical". I'm sure that a radical MRA is just as likely to be a misogynist. I'm not sure about the connection to "wife beater" though. That sounds more like a bully to me.
Men's Abortion Rights.
- Thread starter PhantomWolf
- Start date
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
Usually but not always. Age discrimination especially seems to be welcomed, at both ends of the continuum.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
And I am interrogating a couple of unspoken premises in the question. Since it is directed specifically to men, and not women, and implies that the answer might be different if a man is a relative of the woman or in a relationship with her.
Would it really be any different for a woman to hold an opinion for anyone other than her own self? Would the answer be any different if you substitute "woman" for "man" in the question? Likewise, would the answer change if we included men in relationships with women as the target of the question?
As I said earlier, I am pro-choice. I'm guessing that's an acceptable answer. As a man, that's an opinion I have a "right" to have. But if I had the opposite opinion, would the incidental fact that I happen to be a man make it any less valid than for a woman holding the same opinion? Another question that comes up is whether men have the "right" to hold any opinion at all on the matter, even the pro-choice position? After all, if being a man makes your opinion invalid, then maybe that should apply even if your opinion is the correct one?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Here's a question that I have posed to anti-choice people in the past, although I never got an answer (and the question works regardless of the person's gender):
If a woman came to your house and knocked on your door and she had a baby with her and she said the following, would you agree to take legal guardianship of that child? (Assume that abortion is illegal)
"I had this child against my will because it is illegal to have an abortion, but I cannot afford to raise this child. I want you to take full responsibility for raising this child from this day forward."
Would you agree to her demand? If not, why are you anti-choice again? It's not only about 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, it's about someone now has to raise that child too. Once out of the womb, that person need not be the mother. Maybe that person should be you?
If a woman came to your house and knocked on your door and she had a baby with her and she said the following, would you agree to take legal guardianship of that child? (Assume that abortion is illegal)
"I had this child against my will because it is illegal to have an abortion, but I cannot afford to raise this child. I want you to take full responsibility for raising this child from this day forward."
Would you agree to her demand? If not, why are you anti-choice again? It's not only about 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth, it's about someone now has to raise that child too. Once out of the womb, that person need not be the mother. Maybe that person should be you?
Last edited:
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
"Oh wow, I'm probably not qualified to be even a foster parent, but let me get my coat, and I'll bring you to someone who can help you right now."
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
No, that answer is a cop-out. First, let me give you a few numbers for context.
About 135,000 children are adopted in the United States each year. Source.
In 2014, there were 926,200 abortions performed in the US. Source
So, while under current law, where a woman has the right to terminate her pregnancy, there are enough parents willing to adopt (although there's still a lot of kids in foster care). If we had almost 1 million extra unwanted babies each year, you would probably run out of adoptive homes pretty fast.
So saying that you aren't "qualified" to raise a child, isn't really a satisfactory answer. Someone has to do it. If not the person who says that abortion should be illegal, than whom? If you sincerely hold the position, then you should be willing to adopt. Otherwise, you aren't willing to personally accept the consequences of such a policy.
Last edited:
I'm not anti-choice (or "pro-life" since we should use the positive labels for each side, imo, rather than being selective about it), but asking any specific person to take responsibility for a random kid isn't anything but an emotional pull and a jab at someone not willing to take responsibility for someone else's action (it's not like it's a minor commitment).
Also there is this option (which I would really rather not be used excessively if at all - I have mixed feelings about it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law
Also there is this option (which I would really rather not be used excessively if at all - I have mixed feelings about it)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe-haven_law
Foolmewunz
Grammar Resistance Leader, TLA Dictator
The thing is that neither link exists. You went with the popular Ebil Feminazis meme. I countered with the "MRAs are misogynists and wife-beaters" a less popular but nevertheless common theme.
If you stay away from stupid generic statements, I will. Deal?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
I think it's a reasonable question myself, at least for the purposes of making the person truly grapple with the issue. It's about asking them to take responsibility for the consequences of a policy which they support. I realize that it's not a minor commitment, which is exactly the point.
As I pointed out in my previous post, there would be about 900,000 more unwanted babies every year needing homes. Do we bring back orphanages? How do we as a society handle that? These are questions which the pro-life person should be willing to answer, if their position is sincere.
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
It's estimated that between 1 and 2 million aspiring parents are waiting to adopt. I can't find good data though - apparently this isn't a stat anyone is interested in. If you have a better number, feel free to share it.
There's some other numbers that are probably going to be hard to get at, too. Like the number of abortions of convenience, versus abortions of medical necessity and abortions arising from rape and incest.
And the number of parents who could afford to raise their child, and would simply do so if abortion was no longer the most convenient option, versus parents who would not be able to afford a child.
And that's before we even get to things like welfare. Your scenario demands that I take personal responsibility for someone else's child, because they can't afford it. But I already live in a society that takes collective responsibility for such children. The mother on my doorstep is already receiving funding from me and all my fellow taxpayers, specifically for the raising of her child. Is there a shortfall? I'd be happy to help her connect with a private charity to make up the difference. Is there still a shortfall after that? Let's sit down and go over the figures. I can probably just write a check for the remainder every month. Is that enough personal responsibility for you?
I mean, we don't want to separate the child from its mother. If she wants to raise it, and the only obstacle is money, then she's got the money.
No, your mother sounds like one of those choosing beggars who says they want money for food, but if you give them food they throw it in the trash and berate you for not giving them money.
Someone has to raise the child. That someone should be the parents. If it's a question of funds, we can find the funds.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
In my question, I specifically said that she did not want to raise it.
The parents plural ideally, but a lot of women who choose to have abortions do so because they aren't in a stable relationship with the father who would be a good, supporting parent. Maybe she was raped. Who knows? Do you make an exception in cases of rape? If so, does she have to prove that she was raped, or is it enough to simply claim that the fetus was conceived through rape?
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
If it is between 1 and 2 million, that might be enough for the first few years. If each of those couples is willing to adopt 3 children, say, then it could be enough for 3 to 6 years? Hard to sure exactly how it would play out in reality, I concede. But the current numbers are that there's a lot more abortions than adoptions, so I think it's questionable whether there would be enough willing adoptive parents available in the long run.
ah, I see. That's fair.
To not respond too directly to the question (it isn't aimed at me as I'm pro-choice) I would add that all these figures about abortion and adoption could change quite dramatically with only a couple changes in law. For example, if men are allowed legal parental surrender given some paperwork sometime before the child is born, I'm betting a lot more abortions would happen (as women find out the father is uninterested in the child and obligations) OR a lot less pregnancies would happen (as the man cannot be "trapped" into providing for a child, even if he is tricked into conception via rape, lies about birth control, etc.). That's potentially a lot more or a lot less single mothers, and either a lot more or a lot less abortions. Not that I expect this particular legal change to happen any time soon if ever.
I feel these things are fairly unpredictable, and that figures on the topic might not even be that predictive 5-20 years after such a legal change.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
OK, fine, I agree that it's hard to predict exactly how a hypothetical policy change might play out in practice.
So let's treat it as a philosophical thought experiment, like The Trolley Problem. Philosophers and ethicists spend a lot of time thinking about the trolley problem even though it will probably never occur exactly like that in real life.
So, as a thought experiment, let's just assume for the sake of argument that the following is true:
We live in a society where, if you oppose abortion, then you are required to be willing to adopt and raise a child upon demand. Would you still oppose abortion if that was the price you had to pay?
If the argument is based on the right to life of the fetus, then arguably, the woman has to carry that child to term because otherwise the fetus would die. But, once the fetus is born, then anyone could take over the role of feeding and caring for that child if the biological mother doesn't want to perform that role. Obviously the child's right to life doesn't end when it is born, so someone has to provide for it. Shouldn't anyone who believes that also be willing to be the person who performs that role? Is this not a reasonable philosophical position?
I'm not sure. Ignoring rape, the mother ultimately holds some responsibility for being the one who had sex. I'm not sure being opposed to abortion means you should then hold the responsibility for the child. Are you thinking some kind of lottery system as a hypothetical?
I mean it's an interesting thought experiment.
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
Sure, but it might be rape too. Since it's a thought experiment we could say that she was raped for the sake of argument.
If we assume that the issue is decided democratically, then those who vote to ban abortion arguably hold more responsibility for the result of that policy.
It could be a lottery.
Maybe the rule is as follows (since it's my thought experiment): If a woman wants to have an abortion, she can apply to have an abortion (it could be anonymous). There is then a 72-hour period for anyone who objects to her having an abortion to volunteer to pay for all of her medical expenses and agree to take full guardianship responsibility for the child after it's born. If nobody volunteers, then after the 72-hour period is up, she gets to have her abortion. If there is a volunteer, then that person becomes contractually responsible to take on all those obligations.
Would there still be abortions under that scenario or would there be more than enough volunteers?
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,730
Not really. Most dramatically, the distinction between adults and minors is age discrimination. It's only in certain contexts and within certain age ranges that age discrimination is considered bad.
Southwind17
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2007
- Messages
- 5,154
It seems you might be getting confused between age discrimination and simple age distinction, to use your own word (just checking - there's a fundamental difference, of course
)?It seems you might be getting confused between age discrimination and simple age distinction, to use your own word (just checking - there's a fundamental difference, of course
the labels are the distinction, the discrimination is in the rights, privileges and responsibilities afforded to each group
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
Actually I did. You didn't mention misogynists at all. You went straight to "wife beater" (sounds worse). It's like saying that anybody who is not anti-racist goes around n_____ bashing.