"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[JamesDillon]

So, you're comparing a blastocyst to an adult human?

For the purpose of making the point that one person's interests may be subordinate to another's without constituting slavery? Sure. Have you ever read Roe v. Wade? It did not hold that an unborn child is not a legal person; rather, it held that the unborn child's right to life is subordinate to the mother's autonomy interest during the first trimester, which is why abortion can't be restricted during that period. If the fetus had no legally cognizable interests whatsoever, then it would presumably be unconstitutional to regulate abortion at all, even up to the moment of birth.

 

[jj]

I am forced by existing laws not to rob you on the street. Or kill you. Or steal your car, or defraud you, all because the law views these acts as violations of your interests.

Does that make me your slave?

I can see now that your confusion appears to be deliberate malice.

As you well know, unless you are unacquainted with the facts of human reproduction, the fetus must grow inside mom. There isn't any other way presently, is there? So mom is the stuckee.

Mom has no choice.

On the other hand, you have the choice to not rob me, not kill me, bow wow woof woof.

Your question is inequitable, malicious, and dismissive. Your behavior is contemptuous, and unless you turn over a new leaf, I'll treat it appropriately.

 

[TragicMonkey]

Well, I'm out. This thread has degenerated into a silliness so profound even the monkeys are bailing.

 

[jj]

So, you're comparing a blastocyst to an adult human?

He goes rather beyond that, actually, he (apparently deliberately) confuses the involuntary with the voluntary.

 

[JamesDillon]

I can see now that your confusion appears to be deliberate malice.

As you well know, unless you are unacquainted with the facts of human reproduction, the fetus must grow inside mom. There isn't any other way presently, is there? So mom is the stuckee.

Mom has no choice.

On the other hand, you have the choice to not rob me, not kill me, bow wow woof woof.

Your question is inequitable, malicious, and dismissive. Your behavior is contemptuous, and unless you turn over a new leaf, I'll treat it appropriately.

I'll take that to mean that you don't have a good answer to my question.

To reiterate: Your position seems to be that a law outlawing abortion would make the mother the "slave" of her unborn child, because her liberty interests would be subordinate to the child's. My response is, the law places limitations on every single person's liberty interests, for the sake of preserving the interests of others, yet this is not considered slavery.

I don't understand the point of your reference to "choice." If abortion is illegal, the woman has no legal choice about whether to terminate her pregnancy. I currently have no legal choice about whether to steal your car. In both instances, the law proscribes certain behavior for the sake of preserving the interests of another person. Please explain to me, with as little invective as possible, why the first instance is one of "slavery" and the second is not.

 

[JamesDillon]

Cite a need for a person's reprodutive rights to be constrained by the coercive force of the state, and then show how this is relevant to the subject at hand.

I don't think there is such a need. Personally I'm all in favor of legal abortion. But the point I was making was that the government places limitations on personal liberty all the time, and this does not make us all "slaves" in any legitimate sense. We can and should have a discussion about whether or not limitations on reproductive rights are a good idea, but not every ill-advised law makes those subject to it the slaves of the state.

I objected to your making a strawman out of jj's post. I can argue against jj's point without resorting to logical fallacies, can you?

I still have no idea what you're talking about. The part of jj's post to which I was responding said,

I would go so far as to argue that it's illegal to ask the woman to sign a contract agreeing to have a kid and not have an abortion, because it's illegal in the USA to sell one's self into slavery.

My response is, a legal obligation to honor one's contracts hardly puts one in a state of slavery. I further added that this particular contract would probably be unenforceable for policy reasons. Please explain to me what "fallacy" I was committing. The word "strawman" is not a sufficient demonstration.

 

[jj]

I'll take that to mean that you don't have a good answer to my question.

Since I gave you an answer, that's simply dishonest. You don't like the answer, fine, but don't claim you didnt' get one.

.

I don't understand the point of your reference to "choice." If abortion is illegal, the woman has no legal choice about whether to terminate her pregnancy. I currently have no legal choice about whether to steal your car. In both instances, the law proscribes certain behavior for the sake of preserving the interests of another person. Please explain to me, with as little invective as possible, why the first instance is one of "slavery" and the second is not.

That's nothing but misconstruction.

There is presently no way, other than mom, to nuture the fetus, yes? True? Mom, in order to do so, suffers a bunch of effects ranging from discomfort and (usually temporary) loss of function, to medical problems and (sometimes) injury or death. Mom takes a risk, mom must feed the baby, through her, and assume all these risks. Note I've no problem with this if mom is willing to do this.

You offer, ridiculously and offensively, that deciding not to steal a car conveys the same level of direct, unavoidable consequences imposed by the nature of the situation. Deciding not to steal a car does not subject the non-stealer to high-blood pressure, weight gain, osteoporosis that is inherent in the (non)act of not-stealing.

Your position is prima-facie ridiculous, your claims of my position represent clear and obvious misconstructions, and your continued insistance on placing a position that I do not hold in my lap is both offensive and unjust.

 

[jj]

My response is, a legal obligation to honor one's contracts hardly puts one in a state of slavery.

Changing the context, now, are we? How clever, nobody's ever tried that before.

I'm saying that the contract would be arguably illegal. You've chosen, even after your apparent shift of antecedant, to attempt the fallacy of trying to reduce an implication to an equivelence.

You just don't know when to stop, do you?

 

[Pyrrho]

The issue isn't one of responsibility, it's one of equality.

If a woman is careless with birth control and a pregnancy results, she has legal recourse to remove her responsibility. If a man is equally careless, he has no such recourse.

It's that disparity in control which is at issue here, not the completely separate issue of how to avoid being careless in the first place.

Well...knowing all that, it pays to be careful in the first place. I don't think men should be able to force women to abort pregnancies on the basis of equal legal rights. I might agree that men shouldn't be forced to pay child support if a woman chooses to bear their children, but that leads me back to the need for men to take personal responsibility and not rely on the other party to protect both of them from unwanted pregnancy.

 

[epepke]

Well, I'm out. This thread has degenerated into a silliness so profound even the monkeys are bailing.

Indeed. It is beyond the fringe of monkey comprehension.

 

[Alliebubs]

Since I gave you an answer, that's simply dishonest. You don't like the answer, fine, but don't claim you didnt' get one.


That's nothing but misconstruction.

There is presently no way, other than mom, to nuture the fetus, yes? True? Mom, in order to do so, suffers a bunch of effects ranging from discomfort and (usually temporary) loss of function, to medical problems and (sometimes) injury or death. Mom takes a risk, mom must feed the baby, through her, and assume all these risks. Note I've no problem with this if mom is willing to do this.

You offer, ridiculously and offensively, that deciding not to steal a car conveys the same level of direct, unavoidable consequences imposed by the nature of the situation. Deciding not to steal a car does not subject the non-stealer to high-blood pressure, weight gain, osteoporosis that is inherent in the (non)act of not-stealing.

Your position is prima-facie ridiculous, your claims of my position represent clear and obvious misconstructions, and your continued insistance on placing a position that I do not hold in my lap is both offensive and unjust.

Just thought I'd share my observations, now having read this thread on and off all day today and, quite frankly, I think defenses are being thrown up simply because opinions and ideas are being challenged. The entire premise of this so-called critical thinking site is to debate about what we "believe" and our perceptions with other seemingly articulate and careful thinkers. I don't really see any of that in this thread, save except JamesDillon's posts.

 

[JamesDillon]

Since I gave you an answer, that's simply dishonest. You don't like the answer, fine, but don't claim you didnt' get one.

I never said I didn't get an answer:

I'll take that to mean that you don't have a good answer to my question.

You offer, ridiculously and offensively, that deciding not to steal a car conveys the same level of direct, unavoidable consequences imposed by the nature of the situation. Deciding not to steal a car does not subject the non-stealer to high-blood pressure, weight gain, osteoporosis that is inherent in the (non)act of not-stealing.

The most sympathetic reading I can give to that is that, you feel my analogy is misleading because, whereas carrying a child to term requires certain affirmative acts on the part of the mother, my not stealing your car requires no affirmative acts? I disagree on two points. First of all, a law prohibiting abortion does not require the mother to take any affirmative acts; it simply precludes her from taking an action that would allow her to avoid certain consequences that are otherwise likely to occur.

Even if we accept your argument that an anti-abortion law has the inevitable effect of compelling the mother to perform certain affirmative actions, certainly the law may in some instances require us to do things, rather than refrain from doing things, without putting us in a state of slavery? For example, the law says I have to pay income taxes. That requires my giving up a substantial portion of my income, and filling out a set of complicated forms every year. If I don't do it, the government can throw me in jail. Or to offer an example closer to home, the law says that if I have a child, I have to take minimally good care of it. I have to feed it, and make sure it goes to school, and I can't leave the baby at home alone all night while I go out with my friends. If I fail to abide by those legal obligations, I am subject to criminal penalties. It doesn't matter whether I personally consent to those legal requirements or not; they apply to me regardless of my acquiescence.

Does that make me a "slave"?

 

[jj]

...

If you ever get around to discussing the argument the rest of us are having, let me know.

 

[jj]

The entire premise of this so-called critical thinking site is to debate about what we "believe" and our perceptions with other seemingly articulate and careful thinkers. I don't really see any of that in this thread, save except JamesDillon's posts.

So, making up straw men and burning them down is "articulate and careful"?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here?

 

[Thanz]

If you ever get around to discussing the argument the rest of us are having, let me know.

I think you are being too dismissive here.

What do you see as the difference between the care that must be provided by the parents after birth and the care pre-birth by mom? Why is one "slavery" and one not?

 

[Tmy]

You dont have to pay child support until the kid is born. Its not like youhave to pay "fetal support".

Even if mom has money and can support the kid on her own, that doesnt absolve the other parent of his responsibility to provide for the kid.

 

[Alliebubs]

So, making up straw men and burning them down is "articulate and careful"?

Or perhaps I'm misunderstanding you here?

Perhaps there is a misunderstanding afoot here; I do feel that JamesDillon's posts are very well thought-out, and logical. His arguments are very sound, in that he's pointed out a very important and salient point of the issue at hand: The law, and its interpretation, must be crafted with the best interests of society in mind, as well as keeping that interpretation to the narrowest possible reading of said law. Now, I'm not a lawyer, nor a law student, but it strikes me as logical and carefully thought out, to take this into consideration before labelling something as "slavery". Your argument of drawing a parallel between a mother being forced into some sort of biological slavery (even though, according to your American laws, she is still legally able and free to terminate the pregnancy) isn't necessarily apt or appropriate, since, if the hypothetical mother-to-be in question chose to bring the baby to term, the freedom to choose is an available option. Once the mother decides to follow through with the gestation, (and, from a legal perspective, after a certain number of weeks) she is now legally responsible to carry it to term with no malice or ill-intent (e.g., deliberately hurting herself in order to terminate the pregnancy). Now, one could make an argument that if her decision was made under duress, I suppose, if, say, her family's religious beliefs or the father's wish to keep it, these should be interpreted as mitigating factors in her decision. But, the law, to my understanding, doesn't take those factors into account; a woman's body is her own, and if said woman decides to keep the baby, then *it is her decision*. Those that are trapped in the bonds of slavery do not have the freedom to choose; that is the very definition of someone subjected to slavery (Slavery, in this reading, not limited to African-Americans, naturally; sweatshops could be considered modern-day plantations... maybe? Another thread for this discussion, perhaps. But, I digress.)

Having said that, as a parent, you are legally obligated to act in the best interests of the child; this does NOT make you a slave, right? So, why is one interpretation (the mother carrying the baby to term) totally acceptable and relevant, but the other (once the baby is born, the parents have a legal right to take care of it) not applicable?

Again, to reiterate, I am not a lawyer, but your argument, especially in light of JamesDillon's very convincing and logical points, just doesn't make sense to me.

 

[toddjh]

Your argument of drawing a parallel between a mother being forced into some sort of biological slavery (even though, according to your laws, she is still legally able and free to terminate the pregnancy) isn't necessarily apt or appropriate, since, if the hypothetical mother-to-be in question chose to bring the baby to term, the freedom to choose is an available option.

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe he's only using the word "slavery" to describe the hypothetical situation where abortion is outlawed.

Having said that, as a parent, you are legally obligated to act in the best interests of the child; this does NOT make you a slave, right? So, why is one interpretation (the mother carrying the baby to term) totally acceptable and relevant, but the other (once the baby is born, the parents have a legal right to take care of it) not applicable?

Because, in the latter case, the obligation stems from a conscious decision on the person's part (i.e. deciding to carry the baby to term) and can be assumed to be consensual. On the other hand, if abortion is outlawed, then people could end up with a decades-long legal obligation even if they went to great pains to avoid pregnancy and just got unlucky, or if there was dishonesty involved, as there may have been in this case.

I think that situation falls far short of "slavery," but I do agree there is a substantial difference between the two.

 

[Thanz]

I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I believe he's only using the word "slavery" to describe the hypothetical situation where abortion is outlawed.

Because, in the latter case, the obligation stems from a conscious decision on the person's part (i.e. deciding to carry the baby to term) and can be assumed to be consensual. On the other hand, if abortion is outlawed, then people could end up with a decades-long legal obligation even if they went to great pains to avoid pregnancy and just got unlucky, or if there was dishonesty involved, as there may have been in this case.

I think that situation falls far short of "slavery," but I do agree there is a substantial difference between the two.

If he is assuming the outlawing of abortion, then you must continue the assumption through the latter case if we are thinking of "slavery".

In a world where abortion is outlawed, how is being forced to carry the baby to term "slavery" but being forced to care for it to age 18 not "slavery"?

 

[LW]

You argue that it is not formally slavery. I argue that it is constructively slavery.

This is what I think about your choice of the term.

I have read quite a lot of history books including quite many that describe societies where slavery was a part of normal everyday life. My mental picture that I associate with the word 'slave' comes from that context so that the defining feature is that a slave is a person who is legally private property of another person. The 'forced to work' meaning is secondary to me. [This is also reinforced by the case that in my native language (Finnish) 'slave' without any qualifiers has almost always the 'property' meaning and if you want the 'forced to work' meaning you add a suitable qualifier to the word.]

So, when you first wrote that ban of abortion is slavery, my first immediate interpretation was that you were trying to appeal to the emotion using a bad analogy: "Abortion-ban is like slavery and slavery is bad so if you don't support abortion, you too are bad". Obviously, this was not your intended meaning. But that is the message that I received. And based on the replies, I wasn't the only one to understand it that way.

That is the reason why I think calling ban on abortions slavery is not a good idea. The word 'slave' simply has too large 'property' implications going with it and those implications are completely incompatible with the abortion issue. There is a great risk that your argument will be misunderstood either as empty rhetoric or in the worst case as a sign of far-out extreme political views.