"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Kevin_Lowe]

I live in a country where there is a mandatory public service for men (either military or civilian). So, by the accidental condition that I happened to be born male, I had to serve either 8-11 months in the military (did 9.5) or 13 months in civilian service.

That is more like slavery than pregnancy. (Though I wouldn't go as far as call it 'slavery' either).

I agree on both points, but I do think it is only a hair away from slavery and sexist to boot.

 

[JamesDillon]

As I said earlier getting run over is not an accidental condition either in that sense. Usually you have to have done something silly like leave the house, knowing that there were cars about, to get run over.

Ok, good point. I didn't mean to suggest that an accidental outcome must be one in which the victim played no causal role in bringing about the situation, but the language you quoted from my post does sound that way. Let's adopt the definition of "accident" from dictionary.com, "An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm." In this sense, both pregnancy and getting run over are accidents, despite the fact that the victim had some role in creating the situation. But even on this definition, I don't think that we can rule out criminal negligence.

You can't be criminally negligent by accident. The only accident involved is someone happening to walk by at just the wrong time (or whatever) to get killed by your negligent behaviour.

I don't quite understand how the outcome of negligent behavior is not accidental. Under the Model Penal Code, A person acts negligently when he should be aware when his conduct creates a substantial and unjustifiable risk. His failure to perceive it is a gross deviation from the standard of care exercised by a reasonable person." This is a higher standard than civil negligence, but it's basically the same idea. The fact that some harm must result for criminal liability to attach doesn't make the outcome less accidental-- for example, a person driving drunk who hits and kills a pedestrian in an accident could be liable for criminally negligent homicide-- that is, for an unexpected and undesirable event, resulting in part from his gross deviation from the standard of care exercised by a reasonable person. How is this not an accident?

Similarly while you can commit a crime unintentionally I can't think of any plausible scenarios where you accidentally commit a crime while just going about your normal, legitimate business.

I can think one that brings out the distinction I'm getting at very well:

Bob, 25, goes to a 21+ nightclub on a Friday night. While he's there, he meets Anne, and at the end of the evening takes her back to his apartment, where they have sex using a condom. Anne leaves the next morning, but that evening the police show up at Bob's door and arrest him. Turns out Anne is only 16, and had gotten into the nightclub with a fake ID. With her outfit and makeup, the fact that she was in the club drinking, and the fact that he had had a couple of drinks himself, Bob sincerely believed that Anne was of legal age. Unfortunately, statutory rape is a strict liability crime- it doesn't matter whether Bob genuinely believed Anne was over 21 or not, he's still in trouble. Bob ultimately gets sentenced to 2 years in jail for statutory rape, where he has the typical jail experience-- his daily routine is dictated down to the last minute by the jail administrators, and he works in the prison shop for 40 cents per hour.

Meanwhile, Anne finds out that she's now pregnant from her encounter with Bob; apparently the condom broke. Unfortunately for Anne, she lives in South Dakota, and can't get an abortion. For the next nine months she's miserable, with morning sickness, high blood pressure, etc. A rough pregnancy, and she's in pretty constant discomfort. At the end of the gestation period, the baby arrives, she gives it up for adoption, and goes on with her life. Bob is still in jail for another 15 months.

So, looking at the purely accidental outcomes for both parties, neither of whom were even negligent in their behavior (if anything, Anne was more negligent than Bob), whose condition more closely resembles that of slavery? I don't think either of them have a legitimate claim to be called a "slave," but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Bob.

Most importantly, of course, criminal punishment is reserved for antisocial and/or criminal behaviour. Not for getting pregnant.

Well, of course criminal punishment is reserved for criminal behavior. And I'll even concede that most criminal liability is for "antisocial" behavior, so long as we realize that some antisocial behavior is not intentional, and the results are accidental.

I would reiterate, lest I be misinterpreted here, that this discussion is all somewhat off the main point of the conversation-- I'm not suggesting that pregnancy is the moral equivalent of criminal behavior. My only point is that, looking at the objective conditions alone, imprisonment is a closer comparison to slavery than pregnancy is.

 

[JamesDillon]

I agree on both points, but I do think it is only a hair away from slavery and sexist to boot.

I agree as well; that's more like slavery than anything we have in the United States, but I still don't think it comes close to the actual institution of human slavery that used to be practiced here.

 

[jj]

I live in a country where there is a mandatory public service for men (either military or civilian). So, by the accidental condition that I happened to be born male, I had to serve either 8-11 months in the military (did 9.5) or 13 months in civilian service.

That is more like slavery than pregnancy. (Though I wouldn't go as far as call it 'slavery' either).

Well, like many such laws, it seems and sexist. You don't have an option, but you do get paid, at least nominally, so compared to enforced pregnancy, I'd say you are forced to put yourself at risk, but you do get paid. Yes, that's thin, thin, thin difference, indeed, I'm not suggesting that getting paid justifies the coercion at all.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Ok, good point. I didn't mean to suggest that an accidental outcome must be one in which the victim played no causal role in bringing about the situation, but the language you quoted from my post does sound that way. Let's adopt the definition of "accident" from dictionary.com, "An unexpected and undesirable event, especially one resulting in damage or harm." In this sense, both pregnancy and getting run over are accidents, despite the fact that the victim had some role in creating the situation. But even on this definition, I don't think that we can rule out criminal negligence.

Either way, the usual course of accident when someone is the victim of an accident is to help them, not to punish them further.

I don't quite understand how the outcome of negligent behavior is not accidental.

My point was that the negligent behaviour was not accidental, not that the outcome was not accidental.

I can think one that brings out the distinction I'm getting at very well:

Bob, 25, goes to a 21+ nightclub on a Friday night. While he's there, he meets Anne, and at the end of the evening takes her back to his apartment, where they have sex using a condom. Anne leaves the next morning, but that evening the police show up at Bob's door and arrest him. Turns out Anne is only 16, and had gotten into the nightclub with a fake ID. With her outfit and makeup, the fact that she was in the club drinking, and the fact that he had had a couple of drinks himself, Bob sincerely believed that Anne was of legal age. Unfortunately, statutory rape is a strict liability crime- it doesn't matter whether Bob genuinely believed Anne was over 21 or not, he's still in trouble. Bob ultimately gets sentenced to 2 years in jail for statutory rape, where he has the typical jail experience-- his daily routine is dictated down to the last minute by the jail administrators, and he works in the prison shop for 40 cents per hour.

It's moderately revealing that the only example you can find involves an unusual, highly contentious law which also deals with controlling sexual behaviour.

Strict liability crimes are morally and philosophically questionable at best, as are age of consent laws which criminalise late-teenage sex (which goes on all the time and has no proven ill-effects I am aware of).

Meanwhile, Anne finds out that she's now pregnant from her encounter with Bob; apparently the condom broke. Unfortunately for Anne, she lives in South Dakota, and can't get an abortion. For the next nine months she's miserable, with morning sickness, high blood pressure, etc. A rough pregnancy, and she's in pretty constant discomfort. At the end of the gestation period, the baby arrives, she gives it up for adoption, and goes on with her life. Bob is still in jail for another 15 months.

So, looking at the purely accidental outcomes for both parties, neither of whom were even negligent in their behavior (if anything, Anne was more negligent than Bob), whose condition more closely resembles that of slavery? I don't think either of them have a legitimate claim to be called a "slave," but if I had to pick one, I'd go with Bob.

I think the most charitable way of reading JJ's remark is that what is wrong with both cases is the same thing that is wrong with slavery, that it is an instance of depriving another human being of their rights and freedoms for no proper reason. In that sense both cases are "like slavery", although Bob's is as you say more like slavery than Ann's.

Well, of course criminal punishment is reserved for criminal behavior. And I'll even concede that most criminal liability is for "antisocial" behavior, so long as we realize that some antisocial behavior is not intentional, and the results are accidental.

As I said earlier I have a hard time thinking of antisocial behaviour that is not the result of either intent or extreme stupidity. Harmless behaviour that is deemed antisocial by strict liability laws does not, in my mind, count as antisocial.

I would reiterate, lest I be misinterpreted here, that this discussion is all somewhat off the main point of the conversation-- I'm not suggesting that pregnancy is the moral equivalent of criminal behavior. My only point is that, looking at the objective conditions alone, imprisonment is a closer comparison to slavery than pregnancy is.

I think we already agreed on that point.

 

[JamesDillon]

I think the most charitable way of reading JJ's remark is that what is wrong with both cases is the same thing that is wrong with slavery, that it is an instance of depriving another human being of their rights and freedoms for no proper reason. In that sense both cases are "like slavery", although Bob's is as you say more like slavery than Ann's.

I think this is really the crux of the issue, and it seems that we're so close to agreement on this that I'm not sure there's much left to be said. My fundamental objection all along has been that not every deprivation of rights and freedoms for no proper reason can fairly be lumped in with slavery, because slavery involves such an extreme disregard of the humanity of its victims as to really be sui generis (or at least lacking any legitimate parallel in modern industrialized nations). I also think that this kind of hyperbole causes the abotion debate, an already sensitive discussion that treads on our most fundamental values, to become more polarized and emotional than it needs to be. When one side is crying "Slavery!" and the other side is crying "Holocaust!," it becomes impossible for well-meaning individuals with sincerely-held beliefs on both sides of the issue to discuss their differences in a manner likely to arrive at a workable compromise.

 

[strathmeyer]

Puh-leeze. The guy should have been using a condom anyway, whether she was or wasn't on the pill. Babies aren't the only nasty consequence to unprotected sex.

Awww... you're just mad a woman has never begged you to have unprotected sex.

Trust me, horney women are crazy.

 

[jj]

My fundamental objection all along has been that not every deprivation of rights and freedoms for no proper reason can fairly be lumped in with slavery,

Good for you, since nobody's suggested that. Yet another straw man.

because slavery involves such an extreme disregard of the humanity of its victims as to really be sui generis (or at least lacking any legitimate parallel in modern industrialized nations).

Yes, extreme disregard like forced to risk life, limb, appearance, safety, etc, for no reward at all.

I grant you that a forced pregnancy is only short-term slavery. So what? Does that make it any better?

I also think that this kind of hyperbole causes the abotion debate, an already sensitive discussion that treads on our most fundamental values, to become more polarized and emotional than it needs to be.

And I think that it's slavery, and deserves to be called slavery. I think you'll find I'm very far from the most "pro-choice" extremist, as well.

What do I think? I think that the situation is already polarized, and that by hearing relentless "big lie" distortions like "holocaust" you've been conditioned to think what I regard as a simple, factual comment, namely my comment about being forced to gestate a child being slavery, as somehow "extreme" when it is barely off-center. The fact that you would engage in such a biased, ridiculous debate, with straw man after straw man, illicit objection after illicit objection, suggestions (never fully developed) that somehow the penalty for pregnancy and active criminal acts might be equated, and that maybe there should be a penalty for pregnancy at all (a position you did back away from after insinuating it) suggests to me that I'm not playing with somebody who intends to have a fair, ethical, or reasonable debate. In shoirt, while arguing for pregnancy, you have repeatedly advocated all of the reasons one might oppose it. One might even suggest that you are a stealth propagandist.

As such, I've marked you as a person of questionable rhetoric, and whose ethics should be watched as well.

Take it or leave it, that's what I think.

 

[Alliebubs]

As such, I've marked you as a person of questionable rhetoric, and whose ethics should be watched as well.

Take it or leave it, that's what I think.

Not that I was apart of your debate with JamesDillon but, I think I'll leave that comment. We're here to discuss cogently on topics that might not be brought up in polite company, lest we ostracise those that would rather speak on the latest SUV, or movie, or what have you. Disagree with him, agree with him, burn his opinion in effigy... but, when you become personal and subscribe to ad hominem comments, that's when I tend to leave it. You're obviously a bright person, with a very passionate stance regarding this issue. Still, that doesn't necessarily give you the right to pass judgment on whose "ethics should be watched".

 

[jj]

Not that I was apart of your debate with JamesDillon but, I think I'll leave that comment. We're here to discuss cogently on topics that might not be brought up in polite company, lest we ostracise those that would rather speak on the latest SUV, or movie, or what have you. Disagree with him, agree with him, burn his opinion in effigy... but, when you become personal and subscribe to ad hominem comments, that's when I tend to leave it. You're obviously a bright person, with a very passionate stance regarding this issue. Still, that doesn't necessarily give you the right to pass judgment on whose "ethics should be watched".

You're saying I don't have the right to decide who I should watch for ethics and rhetorical abuses? Really?

Now, you've accused me of "ad-hominem" argument. I suspect you don't know what it is. I have attacked his words, certainly, and I've said that his attitude and his particularly evasive rhetorical behavior give me reason to question his behavior.

You, on the other hand, would tell me what I'm allowed to think.

Would you like to work on your position a bit more, next time. I've also played both "good cop" and "bad cop". 'Nuff said, Allie?

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

You're saying I don't have the right to decide who I should watch for ethics and rhetorical abuses? Really?

I have been having a reasonable discussion with the guy, in which I have been advancing a position very close to yours. He hasn't shown any particular signs of mendacity in that discussion.

I hate to say it JJ, since I usually agree with you on matters of morality and policy, but I think in this case the problem is on your end of the modem.

 

[chris epic]

So any guy can say that if a child is accidental/condom broke/pill failed, they do not have to pay child support?

yeah, sounds just as propostorous as the fact that a woman can terminate a pregnancy if a child is accidental/condom broke/pill failed

 

[chris epic]

I got to tell you- I wrote this whole thing once before but I timed out and lost it and had to re-write it again- its not comming out as articulately as it was the first time - but I tried

Maybe we can get back on track. One minute we're talking about 'Roe v Wade for Men' the next we're talking about 'slavery and holocaust'.

My mother helped bring a reality to my attention. Contrary to the US Constitution, we are not born with certain inalienable rights. We are born without rights, into a society that enculturates us with certain values that spawn desire. Finally, these desires are legislated and either turned into rights or resurface on the balot in a later date.

We are not born with the right to life because I'd like you to try to stand up for that right when an avalanche packs you in rock and ice and kills you.

The only thing natural is desire and the values that these desires come from are relative.

We only have the rights that are granted to us by our government. In the United States, persons born are subject to the same protections and rights as any other citizen. Unfortunately, this excludes feti en utero even though Senate Judiciary Committee S-158, 1981 reads:

"Physicians, biologists and other scientists agree that conception marks the beginning of the life of a human being--a being is alive and is a member of the human species. There is overwhelming agreement on this point in countless medical, biological, and scientific writings."

The only time a child in utero is protected is when the mother desires that child be born. For this there are laws concerning vehicular murder when an uborn child is terminated.

So outside of this circumstance, who can protect a child if a mother decides to terminate her parental rights? No one. Who can protect a child's rights if the father decides to terminate his parental rights? Almost anyone.

Now there is a difference between a father's parental rights and a mother's parental rights. A father can not legally terminate his parental rights by death of his child. However, a mother can. A father's parental rights lie greatly in financial responsibilities- this responsibility is more valuable than emotional support (go figure in a country that breeds capitalism) because 90% of the time, the mother is always awarded sole custody.

A mother can terminate her parental rights through adoption- and if so chooseth, she doesn't need the consent of the father. However, a father can be forced to pay child support for 18 years even if he has no desire to be a father.

There is a gross difference between the rights a father has when regarding his children and the rights of the mother regarding her children.

So the child in utero has no rights- its in the mother so the rights of the mother supercede that of the father's because the baby is in her body, not his- even though the baby is made up of 50% of the father's DNA- even though the baby is considered a foreign body which yeilds the expression "the miracle of birth"

So there are men's rights groups springing up over the world, bringing awareness to the fact that gender roles are being redefined on a daily basis and are trying to show that they are victims of sexual discrimination, too. Look, I'm sure they're not telling everyone to go watch Brokeback Mountain- just realize that things aren't black and white, even when it comes to men and women.

So you say that the very principal behind the legalization of abortion is the premise of the struggle for rights women have had to fight long and hard for? No, the principal behind abortion is the Fourteenth Amendement, and the 14 Amendement clearly states "equal protection of rights" and when I feel powerless at the fact that I can't bar my girlfriend from getting an abortion if I desire to protect my child and raise and nurture my child because she has the right to terminate her parental rights- but she can sue me for child support for the next 18 years because I don't have the equal right to terminate my parental rights- there is something very wrong with that.

That's what the whole arguement is about. I'm no longer with her- but 5 years ago I would have loved to be given the opportunity to raise my child- to be a daddy. But because I respected the fact that my girlfriend had the right to make the decision she did, I supported her 100%. I drove her to her appointments, I paid for half of the proceedure, and I was there for her emotionally after the fact.

So a guy wants to sue to terminate his parental rights, well so did Roe some 33 years ago. A lot of people were in opposition of her back then just like a lot of people think that this is pretty rediculous right now- I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[Tmy]

There is a gross difference between the rights a father has when regarding his children and the rights of the mother regarding her children.

So the child in utero has no rights- its in the mother so the rights of the mother supercede that of the father's because the baby is in her body, not his- even though the baby is made up of 50% of the father's DNA- even though the baby is considered a foreign body which yeilds the expression "the miracle of birth"


I desire to protect my child and raise and nurture my child because she has the right to terminate her parental rights- but she can sue me for child support for the next 18 years because I don't have the equal right to terminate my parental rights- there is something very wrong with that.

.

Your post has some misconceptions.

Moms are not awarded "sole custody" 90% of the time. Physical custody yes, but not sole custody.

Moms cant adopt a chid out against dads will. Mom does not own the child like she owns a car.

The problem you run into is that mom can abort BEFORE the child becomes its own person. Just the same, dad is responsible for the child until it becomes a person. She cant take Dad to court for fetus support.

There are limits to abortion. A child can be given rights before its born.

 

[Alliebubs]

Now, you've accused me of "ad-hominem" argument. I suspect you don't know what it is. I have attacked his words, certainly, and I've said that his attitude and his particularly evasive rhetorical behavior give me reason to question his behavior.

Just so that I can make my proper use of the term "ad hominem" clear, lest you or others think I'm Latin-phrase-dropping in my responses:

(from Dictionary.com)

ad hom·i·nem ( P ) Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm)
adj.
Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason

Calling someone unethical when that person doesn't necessarily agree with your position is, in my opinion, resorting to this kind of behaviour. Have I used the term incorrectly? I don't think I have, really.

 

[TimmyBerry]

I've asked a question near the beginning of the thread, that was never answered..

http://www.babycenter.com/costofchild/
Cost of raising a child!

 

[chris epic]

Moms cant adopt a chid out against dads will..

You're right, I just did a little research on that.

Just the same, dad is responsible for the child until it becomes a person.

I don't understand- what do you mean responsible until the baby becomes a person?

There are limits to abortion. A child can be given rights before its born.

No, there are not limits to abortion. Abortions are completely legal in all 50 states, in every stage of pregnancy, and for any reason- even as little as citing psychological distress as a result of birth. Rights are given to pre-born children only when the mother shows and interest in the maintanance of the child through birth- such as a person being charged with vehicular homicide if they hit a pregnant mother and she lives but the baby dies.

So now that you've gotten my discrepancies out of the way- do you agree or disagreee with my main points?

 

[JamesDillon]

No, there are not limits to abortion. Abortions are completely legal in all 50 states, in every stage of pregnancy, and for any reason- even as little as citing psychological distress as a result of birth. Rights are given to pre-born children only when the mother shows and interest in the maintanance of the child through birth-

Chris,

That's simply untrue. Roe v. Wade did recognize the fetus's right to life, and it did put limits on abortion by balancing that right against the mother's liberty interest in her own body. Under Roe, the mother's liberty interest outweighs the fetus's life interest during the first trimester, such that abortions may not be prohibited during this time. However, after the first trimester, the fetus's life interest increases, such that by the third trimester, a state may prohibit abortion except in cases where the life or health of the mother is at risk.

The trimester scheme was muddled a bit by Planned Parenthood v. Casey, which affirmed the "fundamental holding" of Roe but did away with the trimester scheme, preferring instead to say that abortions may not be proscribed until the point of fetal viability, after which a state may prohibit abortion except where the life or health of the mother is at risk. It has never been the case that "abortions are legal... at all stages of pregnancy," nor has it ever been the case that unborn persons lack a legally cognizable right to life. The Supreme Court's abortion jurisprudence does recognize such a right, and attempts to balance it against the right of the mother to make decisions regarding her own body.

 

[chris epic]

after which a state may prohibit abortion except where the life or health of the mother is at risk.

Exactly- you're right 100%- I'm saying it looks different in reality than it does on paper. If a woman cites mental or psychological detriment- that is case enough to be allowed an abortion in the later stages of pregnancy. Therefore, a woman can get an abortion in all 50 states during all stages of pregnancy even if she says "having this baby will make me depressed". Look, this stuff is legal so I'm not opposed to women excercizing their legal rights- I know it seems like I am- but I'm simply pointing out the illusion that there are limitations to abortion. You're right- when Roe v Wade came out- there were intended limitations and only forty some-odd states went along with it- but today, 33 years later- Roe v Wade has evolved.

What I'm trying to do is voice the arguement that fathers have less rights, if any, than mothers do when it comes to their children, born or unborn- and I think the rights need to be balanced. I'm not trying to debate abortion so I'm going to ttry to stay away from the abortion debate and try to concentrate on the absence of fathers' rights in regards to their children.

 

[Tmy]

You're right, I just did a little research on that.

I don't understand- what do you mean responsible until the baby becomes a person?


No, there are not limits to abortion. Abortions are completely legal in all 50 states, in every stage of pregnancy, and for any reason- even as little as citing psychological distress as a result of birth. Rights are given to pre-born children only when the mother shows and interest in the maintanance of the child through birth- such as a person being charged with vehicular homicide if they hit a pregnant mother and she lives but the baby dies.

So now that you've gotten my discrepancies out of the way- do you agree or disagreee with my main points?

Hmmmm. I dont believe that states are powerless to protect a child before it falls out of mother. Often times courts are involved when it comes to commiting pregnant women who endanger the unborn baby via illegal drug use and such. Methinks that in most places (if not all) mother is not free to abort a baby that is so far along that its near her due date.