Men's Abortion Rights.

Puppycow said:
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?
Click to expand...

My guess is that there would be fewer, but not none, because the number of volunteers is not the only issue. Pregnancy is, after all, a matter of its own. Matters both serious and frivolous might intervene. Health, career, education, relationships, travel, and just plain vanity all could be factors. In addition, not all abortions are by single women, and not all choices are made alone. And finally, there could be at least a bit of stickiness to the degree to which a person taking responsibility for a baby is entitled to oversee the life and habits of the expectant mother.

e.t.a.don't forget too, that although things have changed a lot, a pregnancy still can affect a person's future pretty drastically. A woman who finds herself pregnant may have numerous reasons for covering it up, ranging from social inconvenience or exclusion to the threat of violent parents. Volunteering to adopt doesn't answer all the needs.

And while we think of it, how binding would a volunteer parent's obligation be? Much can change in nine months - divorces, deaths, bankruptcies, relocations, and just changes of mind, not to mention issues of whether a child is what is expected. It's nice to think that a pro-life volunteer would not balk at finding out his chosen child is the wrong color or handicapped, or afflicted with a medical condition that will end up costing a fortune, but I would not count on it. How would the contract be enforced?

I still think it's a nice idea that would work for many, but I don't think it will do the whole job.
 
Last edited:
Puppycow said:
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?
Click to expand...
If you are trying to demonstrate that pro-life is an untenable position to take then I would suggest that you find another question. This is just not realistic.

For one thing, it may not necessarily be in the child's interest to hand them over to people who's parenting skills are not necessarily up to the task. Another thing is that the trauma of child birth and then giving the child away generally makes adoption not an option for many women. If they don't or are unable to procure an abortion then they are more likely to raise the child themselves.

ETA I would consider raising that child if the legal framework was in place and I had the concurrence of my family.
 
Last edited:
Ziggurat said:
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.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you want to spin it. You could also argue that one of the fundamental human rights is the right to guardianship for those who can't look after themselves.
 
Puppycow said:
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?
Click to expand...

Bit of a silly question imo.

What would happen if they made abortions suddenly illegal, you would still have them. They will just be driven under ground and you would get all the ugly issues with this that their used to be in darkened back rooms of peoples houses with some weirdo handing them out for cash.
 
bruto said:
My guess is that there would be fewer, but not none, because the number of volunteers is not the only issue. Pregnancy is, after all, a matter of its own. Matters both serious and frivolous might intervene. Health, career, education, relationships, travel, and just plain vanity all could be factors. In addition, not all abortions are by single women, and not all choices are made alone. And finally, there could be at least a bit of stickiness to the degree to which a person taking responsibility for a baby is entitled to oversee the life and habits of the expectant mother.

e.t.a.don't forget too, that although things have changed a lot, a pregnancy still can affect a person's future pretty drastically. A woman who finds herself pregnant may have numerous reasons for covering it up, ranging from social inconvenience or exclusion to the threat of violent parents. Volunteering to adopt doesn't answer all the needs.

And while we think of it, how binding would a volunteer parent's obligation be? Much can change in nine months - divorces, deaths, bankruptcies, relocations, and just changes of mind, not to mention issues of whether a child is what is expected. It's nice to think that a pro-life volunteer would not balk at finding out his chosen child is the wrong color or handicapped, or afflicted with a medical condition that will end up costing a fortune, but I would not count on it. How would the contract be enforced?

I still think it's a nice idea that would work for many, but I don't think it will do the whole job.
Click to expand...

Thanks for taking the thought experiment seriously. Like I said, it isn't really a realistic life situation, like the trolley problem, more just a frame for thinking about the issue.

If the person who volunteered dies, well, that's just an unavoidable
force majeure event I suppose. Otherwise, I see it as a binding contract. There's no changing your mind because suddenly circumstances became inconvenient or you want to make other life choices. You could, however, transfer the obligations to a third person if that person is willing to take over the obligations. But there is no guarantee that the volunteer would find someone willing to do that. That person is effectively the legal guardian and carries all the same responsibilities as a parent. All those potentially complicating issues are the same issues that parents face when they choose to bring a child into the world. They may go bankrupt, they may get divorced, who knows? The state is sort of the guardian of last resort. There will be some kind of equivalent to Child Protective Services, which can safekeep the child until a proper home or foster care situation can be arranged.
 
I'd never heard of that Trolley problem thing.

Just read your link.

I am a kill the one person even if it's a relative kind of guy

The implications with autonomous vehicles I have always found interesting.
 
psionl0 said:
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.
Click to expand...

How much effort are you actually going to put into defending a dumb off-the-cuff comment? You're not really standing on your original contention, are you? I am giving you the benefit of the doubt that it was hyperbole. I responded with hyperbole.

It'd probably be wise to just leave it at that. There are some actual interesting discussions going on in this thread. This exchange is not one of them.
 
Last edited:
Foolmewunz said:
How much effort are you actually going to put into defending a dumb off-the-cuff comment?
Click to expand...
You are clearly not reading what you are responding to. I didn't defend my comment, I criticized your response.

You make a strawman response then "magnanimously" offer to drop the matter if I don't respond. Pathetic.
 
psionl0 said:
You are clearly not reading what you are responding to. I didn't defend my comment, I criticized your response.

You make a strawman response then "magnanimously" offer to drop the matter if I don't respond. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

You made a straw man statement to start with. My straw man was mocking yours. I'm at least aware of what I was doing; you're still doubling down and claiming that your statement was sensible. It wasn't.
 
psionl0 said:
Discrimination on the basis of sex/race/religion/age/disability/etc is usually frowned upon. Maybe we should add "birth status" to the list?
Click to expand...

I was mostly refering to criminals, for whom we remove some rights temporarily or permanently. Including in some cases the right to live.
 
Puppycow said:
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.
Click to expand...

Since we are talking about a thought experiment here, I would say that one would also need to look at the number of children being created artificially - whether it's single mothers going to sperm banks or gay couples looking for female surrogates.

Anyone have the numbers for those? Because I think that might actually tip the scales a bit.

It might also result in more people realizing that you are better off helping an existing child than insisting of breeding one on your own for some silly reason.



Of course, there's also the other side of the equation. A lot more available children needing to be adopted means a lot more work to process them - which will most likely result in a far weaker adoption criteria.

This means the likelihood of children being adopted by pedophiles, abusive parents, cult leaders etc
 
psionl0 said:
You are clearly not reading what you are responding to. I didn't defend my comment, I criticized your response.

You make a strawman response then "magnanimously" offer to drop the matter if I don't respond. Pathetic.
Click to expand...

this


for many years here
 
It's 2019, do people really still not understand where babies come from? There are multiple products and methods to prevent conception. I don't want to generalize or offend but damn, straight people are dumb. Every other problem is solved by tracing it to the source and stopping it there, why is this one issue where that's not done? "OMG all these babies, so many babies, out of nowhere and what can be done? It's unsolvable! Help us, law!" Perhaps it's best after all to be inundated with unwanted babies, one of them might grow up and figure out where they're all coming from.
 
TragicMonkey said:
It's 2019, do people really still not understand where babies come from? There are multiple products and methods to prevent conception. I don't want to generalize or offend but damn, straight people are dumb. Every other problem is solved by tracing it to the source and stopping it there, why is this one issue where that's not done? "OMG all these babies, so many babies, out of nowhere and what can be done? It's unsolvable! Help us, law!" Perhaps it's best after all to be inundated with unwanted babies, one of them might grow up and figure out where they're all coming from.
Click to expand...
Ah but what if the woman or man lied, if a condom burst, if the IUD fails.....?
 
Darat said:
Ah but what if the woman or man lied, if a condom burst, if the IUD fails.....?
Click to expand...

What if someone has a previously unknown evil twin who injects them with a drug that makes them horny? Deal with the largest cause of a problem first before dealing with outlying minor causes. One can get lung cancer from sources other than smoking but that doesn't mean people should smoke until a cure is found.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom