"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[Thanz]

"Equal protection under the law" means that the law must not tolerate a situation under which people (or groups of people) are granted or denied rights without just cause. It doesn't matter whether that situation is a stated goal or an unintended side effect.

Okay, let's drill down a bit here. Who is granted rights without just cause here? What exactly is the right they are granted?

 

[chris epic]

If a man is not ready to become a father, he can keep his pecker in his pants. If you take the risk of pregnancy, you must live up to those obligations when it occurs. And those obligations include support and access to the child.

Don't forget a woman can just keep her hoohoo in a chastity belt....it takes two to tango.

 

[Thanz]

Thanz wrote: "If a potential dad could just disavow a child? That would lead to even more unsupported children."

I kinda see what's going on. Its very difficult or impossible for a father to terminate his parental rights, before birth and especially after birth. So from your "if/then" statement- fatherless children becomes an economic detriment, not a moral detriment.

I don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps you could clarify/expand/say in a different way?

 

[Thanz]

Don't forget a woman can just keep her hoohoo in a chastity belt....it takes two to tango.

Indeed it does. So both should be responsible.

 

[chris epic]

Well, the cost benefit analysis is pretty irrelevant because I cannot afford to even contribute to the upbringing of a child. At all.

What you are saying is that any man wanting to have sex should both be able to afford and be prepared to afford the cost of half a child. this seems pretty unreasonable to me, especially in light of the fact that any woman wanting to have sex needs to be in the same situataion or be prepared to have an abortion.

So we end up with a bunch of celibate, frustrated 16-27 year olds, a whole heap of well heeled men in their 30's sleeping with everything they can get their hands on, cos they never had sex in their 20's (because they didn't want kids and were being socially responsible) and women of every age (who are prepared, morally, to have an abortion) with complete sexual freedom?

I may be exageratting slightly for effect, but this seems to be what you are suggesting?

(edited for format and my extensive typos!)

Its okay- I was busted for posting a slippery-slope as well . Listen, western civilization is riddled with SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX SEX- its not wonder that we think the world will go to poop if we're not able to get our "sexual" frustrations out. I think these young people would benefit the world more if they put their sexual frustration anxieties into productive activities like solving the world's problems.

 

[chris epic]

So just to get right to the point: Agree or disagree? Why?

Should fathers, whom want to protect their children, raise and love their children, and want their children in their lives be able, legally, to stop the woman carrying his child from having an abortion, go through the 9 months or pregnancy, and give the child up for adoption to the father?

 

[chris epic]

I don't understand what you are saying. Perhaps you could clarify/expand/say in a different way?

Sorry, maybe I read into that too far- It just sounded like "if its parents aren't going to suppor it, then the "state" has to support and that's unfair to the economy....did I read that wrong? I appologize if I did

 

[toddjh]

Hmm? They can not have sex. They can get vasectomies. Men have precisely the same right to police their own reproductive organs as women do.

No, that's absolutely not true. The ability to have an abortion gives women an explicit reproductive choice that men do not have.

Do you really think it's impossible to avoid those obligations? It might be impossible to avoid them and also have sex (with a women), but if you want to have sex you accept the attendant risks. Just like women do.

The attendant risks are much lower for women, since they have the option of terminating the pregnancy. The situation is not by any means equal.

Here are some things I'd like you to reconcile with that statement: tax deductions and credits, utility line taxes, sales taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, drug laws, seatbelt laws, drunk driving laws, public exposure laws, public urination laws, smoking bans...you know, it would probably be easier to list government actions that don't fall into this category.

"Public good" is not the same thing as "personal choices." That said, I'd like to see some of the things you mention (e.g. tax deductions) eliminated for that very reason.

You might still argue that government shouldn't do these things, but you certainly can't argue that is doesn't.

That's true. Consider my statement modified accordingly.

The law is not powerless to address any particular inequality, it's just a matter of whether we want to live in a Harrison Bergeron world or not.

This is causing a lot of confusion, so I'll try to put it in plainer terms, just so I'm not adding to the problem:

The government should not attempt to remedy biological inequalities for their own sake. It should attempt to remedy legal inequalities which stem from those biological inequalities. For example, the biological inequality of being in a wheelchair creates a legal inequality in the form of a violation of that person's right to equality of opportunity (which, while not mentioned specifically in the Constitution, is omnipresent in relevant case law). Equal protection demands that that legal inequality needs to be rectified by means such as the ADA.

There is no legal inequality which arises from the medical risks of pregnancy. There is, however, a legal inequality which arises from the option of abortion, in the form of discriminatory treatment of men and women. That inequality isn't necessarily an intended consequence of abortion, but it is created by it, and it's therefore the government's responsibility to address it, for the same reason we have the ADA.

Instead of cases were men claim to have been misled about birth control, and effectively have no hope of proving it, we'll have cases where women will claim to have been misled about a desire to father and support a child, and will have no way to prove it or to object to the unilateral opt out. That doesn't seem like any kind of remedy to me.

Sure it does -- it upholds equal protection. I can't stress enough how important that is to our society. You're also edging pretty close to supporting the logic which leads to things like modern-day eminent domain abuses. "For the public good" is not usually sufficient cause to curtail individual freedom.

 

[toddjh]

Okay, let's drill down a bit here. Who is granted rights without just cause here? What exactly is the right they are granted?

Women are granted the right to abdicate parental responsibility after conception. The fact that that is simply a side effect of legalized abortion doesn't negate the fact that it exists and needs to be addressed -- just as the fact that a disabled person's difficulties stem from biology doesn't negate the need for the government to address that issue, too.

The point is that it doesn't matter how the legal inequality is created, whether by conscious decision or unintended consequence. The question that remains is, given that women have this right, regardless of from what source it derives, what reason is there to tolerate a legal situation which supports sexual discrimination?

 

[Tmy]

The question that remains is, given that women have this right, regardless of from what source it derives, what reason is there to tolerate a legal situation which supports sexual discrimination?

Women dont have a special right, they have a special ability. The ability to carry a child. If a man was somehow able to carry a child he would also have the right to abort. The distiction is only physical. You cant do much with that.

Its like women complaining that men can use a urinal and women cant. Should urinals be illegal because they discriminate???

 

[chris epic]

Women dont have a special right, they have a special ability. The ability to carry a child.

That's misleading to use the biological fact that men and women are built differently justifies the inequity of rights to children that mothers and fathers have. Its obvious we're built differently, but men and women have an equal stake in the child itself. I would feel the same way about the loss of a child to abortion that I would a loss of a child to a miscarage and a woman would feel the same way about a misscarage as I feel about a miscarage. Looking outside of the circumstances and only at the heart of the matter: the child. A woman would have nothing to carry if it wasn't for the combined effort, as little as that effort is, for creating a human.

 

[Tmy]

A woman would have nothing to carry if it wasn't for the combined effort, as little as that effort is, for creating a human.

BINGO! Thats why they both are responsible to care for the kids wellbeing.

You dont have to believe in abortion, but the fact is that its legal.

 

[chris epic]

BINGO! Thats why they both are responsible to care for the kids wellbeing.

You dont have to believe in abortion, but the fact is that its legal.

I think I made it clear, or maybe it was in the Abortion thread I created, that I support anyone's exercise of legislated rights including a woman's right to choose. I realize its legal, what is not legal, which is what I have a problem with, is that I can't stop my partner from terminating my child's life against my wishes, desires, and biological obligations.

 

[chris epic]

I like this article alot better than the one this thread is based on.

http://www.glennsacks.com/pennsylvania_abortion_case.htm

 

[toddjh]

Women dont have a special right, they have a special ability. The ability to carry a child.

Okay, let's run with that. People in wheelchairs have a disability. Obviously the law can't give them the ability to walk, but it can give them concessions which give them access to the same privileges that the rest of us have (e.g. elevators, accessible doors and bathrooms, etc.).

By the same token, no, the law can't give men the biological ability to get pregnant, or have an abortion. But it can still do the same as the above: try to level the playing field by giving them access to the same types of privileges that pregnant women have. One of those privileges includes the ability to opt out of parental responsibility.

If you think it's acceptable for the law to go out of its way to try to minimize the impact of a biological inequality in the case of disabled people, why not the same with men? If it can't give them true equality, don't you think it should still try to come as close as possible?

 

[chris epic]

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/03/08/fatherhood.suit.ap/

Here is the same story, different article, that started this thread- its not as one sided or ebracive as the prior.

 

[Tmy]

Okay, let's run with that. People in wheelchairs have a disability. Obviously the law can't give them the ability to walk, but it can give them concessions which give them access to the same privileges that the rest of us have (e.g. elevators, accessible doors and bathrooms, etc.).

By the same token, no, the law can't give men the biological ability to get pregnant, or have an abortion. But it can still do the same as the above: try to level the playing field by giving them access to the same types of privileges that pregnant women have. One of those privileges includes the ability to opt out of parental responsibility.

If you think it's acceptable for the law to go out of its way to try to minimize the impact of a biological inequality in the case of disabled people, why not the same with men? If it can't give them true equality, don't you think it should still try to come as close as possible?

Men and Women are equal when it comes to PREVENTING a pregnancy. Once preggy dad is out of the equasion. We dont allow others to force themselves on ones body. Just as a women can not force a man to have his balls snipped a man cant force a women to carry to term.

Could you imagine where we could go if moms n dads could physically mutilate the other?? What next. Mom sues dad for the damage to her body cause she gets fat n preggy? How about sueing him for the pain and suffering of child birth????


To have a guy OPT OUT you are really not leveling any playing field. Mom isnt being brought down, instead its the child that sufferes for the sins of the mother. Ironically, the "sin" of giving birth to the child.

 

[Cain]

The ability to have an abortion gives women an explicit reproductive choice that men do not have.

As I noted a while back, this male-right-of-abandonment principle you're espousing is not relevant to Roe. Are you suggesting that men would not be allowed this unilateral opt-out if abortion was outlawed? You do realize that a woman could always carry a pregnancy to term and then put the child up for adoption, right? Previously mentioned safe haven laws make getting rid of an infant even easier. Men and women have equal protection when it comes to their body and their bodily fluids. A woman cannot steal my sperm, get pregnant, and then claim child support payments. I had no choice. Consensual intercourse is another matter.

The attendant risks are much lower for women, since they have the option of terminating the pregnancy. The situation is not by any means equal.

Women remain the primary care-givers. The man merely has to cut a check. How difficult is it to watch where you put your d!ck?

There is no legal inequality which arises from the medical risks of pregnancy. There is, however, a legal inequality which arises from the option of abortion, in the form of discriminatory treatment of men and women. That inequality isn't necessarily an intended consequence of abortion, but it is created by it, and it's therefore the government's responsibility to address it, for the same reason we have the ADA.

Fine, we can subsidize vasectomies and the costs of freezing someone's sperm.

Sure it does -- it upholds equal protection. I can't stress enough how important that is to our society. You're also edging pretty close to supporting the logic which leads to things like modern-day eminent domain abuses. "For the public good" is not usually sufficient cause to curtail individual freedom.

I think you're failing to appreciate the individual freedoms of the child -- the entity that had no choice at all in the matter. Unfortuantely, Mumblethrax has already seized on the fact that it's easier to transmit HIV man-to-woman than vice-versa. Anal sex is even riskier than vaginal sex. Do gay men have any legal recourse for their inherently riskier modes of love-making? One of the arguments underlying the ADA was the notion that people have a right to be public citizens. Well, humans are also sexual beings, and the disincentives against male-to-male love expression seems arbitrarily unfair.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

Do we know the extent of the problem? No, we don't. But I don't find the argument to be logically persuasive. There is a whole lot more to raising a kid than money. And the money that the mom gets doesn't cover all of the child expenses. It doesn't make sense to get pregnant primarily to get access to a man's wallet. Which is why I don't find it persuasive.

In Australia at least it depends a great deal on the income of the father, and in some cases "child support" payments can greatly exceed the cost of raising a child.

In addition it's possible for a woman to divorce one man and receive child support, and then remarry and be a dependant spouse supported by a different man while still receiving child support from their first partner.

If it's the case in the USA that child support (plus any other applicable payments, such as welfare payments) never exceeds the cost of raising a child minimally decently, then I'll agree with you. I did not have the impression this was the case, but I'm interested in seeing any relevant evidence.

 

[Kevin_Lowe]

A life is a life is a life- the "goo" is equivalent to the prehistoric, primordial, microbial ooze....you know, our great great great....grandparents

No.

In the same way, a baby isn't "morally" what ever that means) like an adult, a born baby is a potential adult. And its not just a religious belief, its biology- ask almost any biologist and they'll tell you that life for any organizm, starts at conception.

Tell that to almost any philosopher and they will say "So what?".

I don't care if its life has begun, I care whether it currently has the characteristics that make adult humans special in a moral sense.