"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[toddjh]

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

I agree. Slavery is a condition, not an attitude. The fact that it's freely chosen doesn't change that. A person who entered into slavery by choice is still a slave [insert BDSM joke here].

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"?

I asked him the very same question a few pages back, I think.

 

[Alliebubs]

I agree. Slavery is a condition, not an attitude. The fact that it's freely chosen doesn't change that. A person who entered into slavery by choice is still a slave [insert BDSM joke here].



I asked him the very same question a few pages back, I think.

Edited to say: Er, actually, never mind. Just read the first part of your post, and I don't really agree. But, hey, I'm glad we're getting some quality discussion on these boards!

 

[jj]

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?

That's not what the disputatious fellow is arguing. He is arguing for an equivelence between not-taking-care-of-baby (pre/post we'll leave out since he seems to) and stealing a car.

His entire argument is a straw man from start to finish.

I've already replied that since there are alternatives after birth for the mom, there have to be for dad, too. Mom (I'm assuming the "no family" model here, since that's the context) can put the child up for adoption. She has an option there. If she has no recourse to abortion, she has no option there. One has an option, the other doesn't. One is compulsory, one is not. This would seem to be a most basic, obvious element of the issue, yes?

 

[jj]

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.

So, then, mom has an option (even in a "pro-life" world), and dad doesn't?

Ok, you approve of sexism, I get it.

 

[jj]

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.

If abortion is illegal the mother becomes the property of the fetus/baby for 9 months. It really is that simple. Yes, it's imposed by nature, nobody's arguing that, I think, but that's the outcome of banning abortion.

Note that I have not suggested that woman can not bear children, since the term is limited and the issues regarding survival of the species are rather, well, I hope they're obvious, but I'm not sure how obvious to some they are any more, and that I have said over and over that the woman has control over her body. Period. End of discussion. Nobody should be able to force her to keep the baby (we're talking 1st trimester, remember?) or to not keep the baby. Period. The choice is hers.

Telling her she has to keep the baby means that she's the property of the fetus and then baby, and does it's (yes, natural) bidding, until birth.

 

[jj]

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.

Do not confuse "the law" with ethics. I'm arguing from an ethical perspective.

What the law says on parental rights, etc, is most often absurd, foolish, and so on.

Take, for example, the sperm donors (it's happened more than once) who have been forced to pay child support.

Take, for example, the child who was a victim of statutory rape, who had to pay child support.

Take, for example, the guys who held up their girlfriend's abortion unitl it was post-first-trimester arguing for parental rights.

How about the guy who finds out that the kid he's been paying non-custodial child support for for 10 years is not his, and who has to keep doing this?

The law state by state is inconsistant, and often either written or interpreted, very often with new scientific findings throwing the meaning of old laws into the dustbin, in a fashion that appears more meaningful in terms of a judge, jury or appeals court's agenda than with ethics, justice, or even the words of the law.

 

[LW]

If abortion is illegal the mother becomes the property of the fetus/baby for 9 months. It really is that simple.

So I was wrong when I assumed that my initial impressesion of your post was incorrect and that you had a reasonable point after all.

There is no sensible definition for 'property' that would include a fetus owning the mother.

 

[jj]

So I was wrong when I assumed that my initial impressesion of your post was incorrect and that you had a reasonable point after all.

There is no sensible definition for 'property' that would include a fetus owning the mother.

You do understand the term "constructive", do you not? Or do you assert that constructively making someone an unwilling, unpaid servant is not making them an unwilling, unpaid servant?

 

[Alliebubs]

Take, for example, the sperm donors (it's happened more than once) who have been forced to pay child support.

Take, for example, the child who was a victim of statutory rape, who had to pay child support.

Take, for example, the guys who held up their girlfriend's abortion unitl it was post-first-trimester arguing for parental rights.

How about the guy who finds out that the kid he's been paying non-custodial child support for for 10 years is not his, and who has to keep doing this?

The law state by state is inconsistant, and often either written or interpreted, very often with new scientific findings throwing the meaning of old laws into the dustbin, in a fashion that appears more meaningful in terms of a judge, jury or appeals court's agenda than with ethics, justice, or even the words of the law.

While those examples are very exceptional cases to whatever issue they may address, I still don't see the relevancy of citing those examples in relation to your point of view. Just because there are exceptions (and, of course there are exceptions to *every* rule/situation, including my point of view), it doesn't mean slavery is being conducted under "the law".

Further, you make it seem like citing the law means I'm not seeing the ethical perspective. Of course I do. However, your argument in the beginning was indicating, at least at first glance, that the law itself might be the cause of legal slavery, or something to that effect. Hence, my use of "the law" in my post.

You also seem to indicate that the law and ethics are mutually exclusive. I'd like to hear more about that.

And in regards to all those examples you posted, do you have any specific situations you could reference, just so I, and others, could read and understand your point of view a little better?

 

[Thanz]

I've already replied that since there are alternatives after birth for the mom, there have to be for dad, too. Mom (I'm assuming the "no family" model here, since that's the context) can put the child up for adoption. She has an option there. If she has no recourse to abortion, she has no option there. One has an option, the other doesn't. One is compulsory, one is not. This would seem to be a most basic, obvious element of the issue, yes?

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think that it is true for the no abortion world. I do not think that the mother can give the baby up for adoption over the objections of the father. IF the baby is going for adoption, both parents need to consent. There are probably rules for when the mother doesn't know who the father is, or he can't be located, but in the world where you know who both parents are I don't think that the mother can just give away the child over the objection of the father.

Which means that adoption is not an option solely for the mother. In this world, each side has exactly the same options: adoption or care for the child yourself.

 

[jj]

While those examples are very exceptional cases to whatever issue they may address, I still don't see the relevancy of citing those examples in relation to your point of view. Just because there are exceptions (and, of course there are exceptions to *every* rule/situation, including my point of view), it doesn't mean slavery is being conducted under "the law".

I don't see that "very exceptional cases" mitigates these. I'd also like to know better that these are exceptional, as well. I know of at least one interstate paternity dispute regarding someone who was artifically inseminated in state A and wanted to apply state B's laws. Absurd, perhaps. Unfair to the victim in state A? I think so.

Now, telling somebody they have to eat, not drink, not smoke, etc, for you, that they have to put their health in danger for you, risk their life, etc, does seem extreme, yes? Or not?

Further, you make it seem like citing the law means I'm not seeing the ethical perspective. Of course I do. However, your argument in the beginning was indicating, at least at first glance, that the law itself might be the cause of legal slavery, or something to that effect. Hence, my use of "the law" in my post.

You also seem to indicate that the law and ethics are mutually exclusive. I'd like to hear more about that.

No, I'd settle for orthogonal, not mutually exclusive. It's an issue of how each projects on the other, not a binary statement.

And in regards to all those examples you posted, do you have any specific situations you could reference, just so I, and others, could read and understand your point of view a little better?

Hmm. All I can say is that I had references for each of them at the time. The statutory rape issue is discussed earlier in this thread. The issue of paternity via sperm donorship, umm, that was a while ago, I don't recall where any more.

 

[jj]

I've been thinking about this, and I don't think that it is true for the no abortion world. I do not think that the mother can give the baby up for adoption over the objections of the father. IF the baby is going for adoption, both parents need to consent. There are probably rules for when the mother doesn't know who the father is, or he can't be located, but in the world where you know who both parents are I don't think that the mother can just give away the child over the objection of the father.

Which means that adoption is not an option solely for the mother. In this world, each side has exactly the same options: adoption or care for the child yourself.

No, Thanz, they don't. In nearly all cases I'm aware of, the mom can give away the child for adoption. In some states, the father can take custody of the child if the mom wants to give the child up, in some states it's not so clear. In some states, the mom is cited as clearly having the claim on the baby.

But if neither does, the father is still commonly held liable, and the mother is not. Yes, this may be changing.

One of the really annoying issues that confronted us in New Jersey (hardly a "red" state) was that because we both kept our names, the bureau of vital statistics insisted on seeing a marriage license before it would put my last name on the kid's birth certificate. In fact, we corrected the form twice, and both times a "social worker" changed the baby's name, even AFTER we shoved a marriage license in their face. We finally had to go to the bureau and shove it in their face.

In some places, including NJ, the father, even the legally married father, just isn't even a human being.

 

[JamesDillon]

No, Thanz, they don't. In nearly all cases I'm aware of, the mom can give away the child for adoption. In some states, the father can take custody of the child if the mom wants to give the child up, in some states it's not so clear. In some states, the mom is cited as clearly having the claim on the baby.

Can you please provide a citation for one case or state statute that illustrates this point?

But if neither does, the father is still commonly held liable, and the mother is not. Yes, this may be changing.

By "liable," you mean, responsible for child support payments? Well, in our hypothetical, the mother is keeping custody of the child, correct? As the child's primary caregiver, she is subject to a slew of legal obligations that go above and beyond the obligation to write a check every month. It's certainly not the case that a mother who maintains custody over a child has fewer obligations under the law than the father, who is only responsible for making child support payments. If you mean to suggest that, in cases where the father has custody of the child, the mother generally is not responsible for making child support payments, I would like to see some kind of support for that assertion.

One of the really annoying issues that confronted us in New Jersey (hardly a "red" state) was that because we both kept our names, the bureau of vital statistics insisted on seeing a marriage license before it would put my last name on the kid's birth certificate. In fact, we corrected the form twice, and both times a "social worker" changed the baby's name, even AFTER we shoved a marriage license in their face. We finally had to go to the bureau and shove it in their face.

In some places, including NJ, the father, even the legally married father, just isn't even a human being.

Are you really suggesting that a bureaucratic error undermines your very humanity? If your sense of perspective is that skewed, then I suppose it would make sense that a legal prohibition on abortion is tantamount to slavery.

You do understand the term "constructive", do you not? Or do you assert that constructively making someone an unwilling, unpaid servant is not making them an unwilling, unpaid servant?

I think the argument here is that a pregnant woman is not the "servant" of her unborn fetus in any legitimate sense of the word. However, as has been stated by myself and several other people in this thread, a person who has children is required by law to perform certain caretaking functions for the child, and to do so without compensation. This hardly makes them the slave of their child.

Telling her she has to keep the baby means that she's the property of the fetus and then baby, and does it's (yes, natural) bidding, until birth.

Please elaborate on how this assertion is consistent with the common definition of the term "property."

That's not what the disputatious fellow is arguing. He is arguing for an equivelence between not-taking-care-of-baby (pre/post we'll leave out since he seems to) and stealing a car.

Actually my point was that, since the law places limits on everyone's personal liberty in some circumstances so as to protect the interests of other members of society, the fact that an anti-abortion law would subordinate the mother's liberty interest to the baby's life interest does not mean that such a law would create a condition of "slavery" in any legitimate sense. I have yet to hear a compelling response to that objection.

 

[Thanz]

No, Thanz, they don't. In nearly all cases I'm aware of, the mom can give away the child for adoption. In some states, the father can take custody of the child if the mom wants to give the child up, in some states it's not so clear. In some states, the mom is cited as clearly having the claim on the baby.

It appears that you are mostly correct; but not entirely. There is a process for blocking an adoption even if the mother wants it, but the right of the father is not absolute.

From: http://library.adoption.com/birthfa...pted-without-your-consent/article/6361/1.html

An unwed father has no absolute right to veto an adoption, but must take action to preserve his right to veto an adoption. Whether mom is considering adoption or not, you should, as soon as possible, preferably before the birth, (1) formally acknowledge paternity, (2) give the mother reasonable and consistent economic support (like paying her medical and child care bills, and sending her money), (3) regularly visit and communicate with the mother and the child, and (4) sign the relevant putative father registries. Being present at the birth and signing the birth certificate also helps. Consult the National Directory of Putative Father registries to locate your state's registry. Before the birth, consult an attorney experienced in adoption about preserving your parental rights. In addition to the advice your lawyer offers, ask the attorney about acknowledging paternity, bringing a paternity action, and getting a court order to keep the child in your state and out of the hands of a third party. Never abuse, threaten, or implicitly threaten mom in any way. Do not rely on mom. (This article does not concern state-initiated adoptions in child neglect, dependency, abuse cases, etc.)

(back to jjBut if neither does, the father is still commonly held liable, and the mother is not. Yes, this may be changing.

It should be. Support is the right of the child. The non-custodial parent should be paying support to the custodial parent regardless of gender. I do believe that is how it works here in Ontario.

One of the really annoying issues that confronted us in New Jersey (hardly a "red" state) was that because we both kept our names, the bureau of vital statistics insisted on seeing a marriage license before it would put my last name on the kid's birth certificate. In fact, we corrected the form twice, and both times a "social worker" changed the baby's name, even AFTER we shoved a marriage license in their face. We finally had to go to the bureau and shove it in their face.

Which name did you want the baby to have, and which did they keep switching it to? From your post, I am guessing that you wanted the child to have your last name and they kept switching it to your wife's.

For real fun, try explaining to X number of gov't agencies that yes, you do want to change your name as a result of your marriage and that yes, you do realize that you are a guy.

 

[jj]

Which name did you want the baby to have, and which did they keep switching it to? From your post, I am guessing that you wanted the child to have your last name and they kept switching it to your wife's.

We had decided on my last name. They kept switching it back to my wife's, on the idea that "she has a different name, so you're not married". Never mind that a copy of the marriage certificate was stapled to the *&(&9 thing.

For real fun, try explaining to X number of gov't agencies that yes, you do want to change your name as a result of your marriage and that yes, you do realize that you are a guy.

Holy moly, I can only imagine!

I know a couple who combined their last names into one, and both changed their name. The guy had a (*&(* of a time.

 

[Silly Green Monkey]

Odd, I'd been told when I married that the name I signed on the marriage license would be my name. I suppose I could ask Dr. McNeilsmith (his name was Smith, he married McNeil) whether or not he had trouble with his name.

 

[LW]

You do understand the term "constructive", do you not? Or do you assert that constructively making someone an unwilling, unpaid servant is not making them an unwilling, unpaid servant?

Well, if you mean "constructive" as

2. Law derived by inference; implied by operation of law; not obvious or explicit

then, no, I wasn't aware of this definition for the word until I checked it from a dictionary a couple of minutes ago (like I said, English is my native language so I don't know all nuances of all words).

I don't understand why you included that second sentence in your post. You argued that the mother's body becomes legally private property of the fetus. Being an unwilling unpaid servant has nothing to do with being legally private property. I think that using the 'forced to work' sense of 'slavery' to describe abortion ban is justifiable but a bit on the hyperbole side so I wouldn't use it myself.

But the 'legally considered to be private property' side can't be reasonably justified. Let's examine the constructive "derivations by inference and implications" of this matter:

I said in my post that the defining quality of slavery is that person is legally private property of another. The same dictionary has the following definition for property:

Law the right of possession, use, or disposal of something; ownership

I don't know how things are in other coutries, but around here there are a lot of things that you can with your property: you can sell it, you can rent it, you can use it anyway you want, and as long as you are not breaking any laws about protecting environment you are free to throw it away [unless your is property is "frozen" by a court order because you are involved in litigation about your debts], and after you die your survivors may inherit it.

Now, according to Finnish law (Laki holhoustoimesta, 1.4.1999/442), a person who is less than 18 years old does not have full property rights. He or she may conduct only "minor and inconsequential" transactions. Instead, the child has a guardian who manages the property. By law the parents of a child have joint guardinship unless a court decides otherwise.

So, if the body of the mother is legal property of the fetus, then the father has 50% of say what the mother does with her body because of the joint guardianship. If she wants to do anything that has any effect on her body, she has to either get the father to approve that or go through courts to get a decision overruling him.

Then there's the question of inheritance. If a person who doesn't have children dies, his or her property goes primarily to the parents (Perintökaari 5.2.1965/40). So, in the case of a miscarriage the father will inherit a 50% ownership of the mother's body (the rest 50% going to the mother).

These are implications of the mother being legally private property of the fetus. Don't you agree that they are a bit absurd?

 

[Alliebubs]

Actually my point was that, since the law places limits on everyone's personal liberty in some circumstances so as to protect the interests of other members of society, the fact that an anti-abortion law would subordinate the mother's liberty interest to the baby's life interest does not mean that such a law would create a condition of "slavery" in any legitimate sense. I have yet to hear a compelling response to that objection.

Yes, exactly.

 

[jj]

Yes, exactly.

So, forcing someone to feed, care for, take serious physical risks, obey various authorities who tell you to do this, not to do this, etc, in ways that you would not otherwise be restricted, have no option but to take these physical risks, the physical labor (no pun intended), discomfort, etc, is what, then?

It's interesting that the people who don't like my choice of words dance around the phrase "involuntary", and attempt to equate something physically imposed with something voluntary, time and time again.

I guess they just think they own the woman's body.

 

[jj]

Odd, I'd been told when I married that the name I signed on the marriage license would be my name. I suppose I could ask Dr. McNeilsmith (his name was Smith, he married McNeil) whether or not he had trouble with his name.

I suspect it varies by state. The folks I know who got great grief were in Illinois, but the biggest battle was with the State Department, who wouldn't issue the passports in their chosen name.

In NJ, the presumption appears to be that people who don't have the same last name are not married, regardless of evidence or situation. I am quite sure (having investigated) that this presumption is not a legal presumption, but rather one reflecting the employees of the state who actually carry out the work.