"Roe v. Wade for Men"

[ImaginalDisc]

jj,

With due respect, that's simply absurd. Your argument seems to rest on the premise that any sort of governmental interference with absolute personal liberty constitutes "slavery." But that's exactly what the government does; its very raison d'etre is to place limits on personal liberty, for the sake of the collective good.

Surely you're not refering to the United States government. The purposes of the united states government are outlined quite clearly.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

While peronnal liberties are restricted as a means to securing these goals, restricting liberty is not the goal of our government. In fact, and it is antithetical to the goals of our government, and is generally used as little as possible.

The government places all sorts of obligations on me that apply whether I consent to them or not. Every time I pay my taxes, obey the speed limit, refrain from doing drugs or mugging someone on the street, my behavior is constrained by the limits the government places on my freedom. Society rests on a social contract in which each member sacrifices a degree of personal liberty in exchange for the security of person and property that can only be provided by the collective enterprise of the state. We can debate whether particular laws (that is, particular manifestations of the state's right to infringe upon personal liberties) go too far, but the idea that legal restrictions on personal liberties per se are illegitimate is ridiculous.

Which leads to my next point.


The idea that a legal obligation to abide by one's contractual promises constitutes "slavery" is equally baffling, and undermines the very idea of a contract. I imagine that a contract not to have an abortion would in fact be held void for policy reasons (because the courts would find it an excessive infringement on the woman's personal autonomy), but by your argument, no one could ever be compelled to honor any contractual relations. "What, you want me to pay my credit card bill? You can't do that! That's slavery!"

You know, just to save my aching hands some typing, I request there be a strawman smiley. Objecting to having been lied to by a sex partner does not equate to reniging on a contract.

 

[Cleon]

You know, just to save my aching hands some typing, I request there be a strawman smiley. Objecting to having been lied to by a sex partner does not equate to reniging on a contract.

Wow...That would turn every middle and high school in the country into a lawyer's wet dream.


(Well, the ones that aren't already having wet dreams about middle and high schools...But let's not go there.)

 

[toddjh]

Your argument seems to rest on the premise that any sort of governmental interference with absolute personal liberty constitutes "slavery."

jj, this sentence sums up my objection to your use of the term "slavery" very well. Banning first-trimester abortions definitely constitutes excessive restriction of the woman's liberty, but excessive restriction is not necessarily slavery.

Even if a woman were not allowed to have an abortion, she would still be allowed to own property and participate in contracts. She would still be allowed to move about freely. She would still be allowed to make her own business and personal decisions (that didn't involve abortion). She would still be allowed to vote, as well as run for office. She would still be allowed to marry, or not, as she saw fit. She would still have the authority to raise her children in any (legal) way she pleased.

Each of these things individually punches a big hole in the assertion that that woman would be a "slave" in the normal sense of the word, and, taken together, I can't see how any reasonable person could think that calling her position "slavery" is anything but hyperbole of the highest degree.

 

[Cleon]

Even if a woman were not allowed to have an abortion, she would still be allowed to own property and participate in contracts. She would still be allowed to move about freely.

...She would still be allowed to travel out of the country, such as to third-world countries with questionable medical practices who would now be host to many, many people making a killing (har!) performing abortions on the cheap.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

...hyperbole of the highest degree.

I agree with the rest of what you just said, but "hyperbole of the highest degree" is just an invitation for ridicule.

I nominate this for "Biggest hyperbole ever".

 

[JamesDillon]

Surely you're not refering to the United States government. The purposes of the united states government are outlined quite clearly.

While peronnal liberties are restricted as a means to securing these goals, restricting liberty is not the goal of our government. In fact, and it is antithetical to the goals of our government, and is generally used as little as possible.

The Preamble to the Constitution is not inconstitent with what I said earlier. The only tool that any government has to obtain any of its goals, however defined, is the coercive force of the law. I was drawing on social contract theory that has evolved since the days of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, of which the U.S. Constitution is a prime example, holding that the only legitimate basis for the coercive authority of the state is the social contract in which every citizen freely surrenders some personal liberty for the sake of greater security in his person and property.

You know, just to save my aching hands some typing, I request there be a strawman smiley. Objecting to having been lied to by a sex partner does not equate to reniging on a contract.

What does this have to do with what I said? I was responding to jj's argument that a contract agreeing not to have an abortion would constitute "slavery." Take a look at the language I quoted in my post.

 

[toddjh]

...She would still be allowed to travel out of the country, such as to third-world countries with questionable medical practices who would now be host to many, many people making a killing (har!) performing abortions on the cheap.

I'm pro-choice. I believe abortion, at least in the first trimester, should be allowed for both ideological and pragmatic reasons. I simply object to jj's use of the term "slavery" to describe what would happen if it were not.

Excessive restriction of liberty? Yes. Inappropriate government meddling? Sure. Slavery? Absolutely not.

 

[toddjh]

I agree with the rest of what you just said, but "hyperbole of the highest degree" is just an invitation for ridicule.

What can I say? I'm a glutton for rhetorical punishment. But I still call 'em like I see 'em.

I nominate this for "Biggest hyperbole ever".

No, this is the biggest hyperbole ever: Hyperbole.

 

[jj]

jj,

With due respect, that's simply absurd. Your argument seems to rest on the premise that any sort of governmental interference with absolute personal liberty constitutes "slavery."

If it's absurd, why do you have to develop some kind of straw man to argue with. Don't suggest you read minds, don't tell me what my position is, and don't tell me that it "seems this" or "seems that".

It's very simple, really, one person has to work, do bodily labor, be endangered, etc, involuntarily for another (arguably a) person, and does not have the option to say no. There is more to the position than that, but your attempt to illictly generalize this to 'absolute personal liberty' is purely disputatious and rhetorical. You're playing a game with me, and I deeply resent it.

Your attempt to extend that to absurdity is ridiculous, and contemptuous. If you wish to actually address a real position, we can continue to have a discussion.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

The Preamble to the Constitution is not inconstitent with what I said earlier. The only tool that any government has to obtain any of its goals, however defined, is the coercive force of the law. I was drawing on social contract theory that has evolved since the days of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, of which the U.S. Constitution is a prime example, holding that the only legitimate basis for the coercive authority of the state is the social contract in which every citizen freely surrenders some personal liberty for the sake of greater security in his person and property.

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.

What does this have to do with what I said? I was responding to jj's argument that a contract agreeing not to have an abortion would constitute "slavery." Take a look at the language I quoted in my post.

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?

 

[jj]

jj, this sentence sums up my objection to your use of the term "slavery" very well. Banning first-trimester abortions definitely constitutes excessive restriction of the woman's liberty, but excessive restriction is not necessarily slavery.

Even if a woman were not allowed to have an abortion, she would still be allowed to own property and participate in contracts. She would still be allowed to move about freely. She would still be allowed to make her own business and personal decisions (that didn't involve abortion).

Really? I guess you haven't followed some of the actions taken in the USA "for the sake of the children". Woman have had their activities restricted, both those that are very likely harmful and those that are not. As a (mostly) aside, a woman may NOT sign many kinds of contracts regarding pregnancy NOW, and that's true even if it's voluntary. Look at the laws regarding "baby selling". (Yes, that IS a different problem. And, yes, the road is quite muddy there.)

Dillon's whole illicit rhetorical attack is unfounded, and frankly looks malicious to me. If you wish to discuss it, don't take Dillon's words, use mine to discuss my position with me.

 

[toddjh]

Woman have had their activities restricted, both those that are very likely harmful and those that are not.

Again, I don't dispute that there is undue restriction of liberty when it comes to reproduction and children. I simply don't think the word "slavery" is an apt description of this restriction.

For one thing, slavery implies that one person is the property of another. In what sense is this the case in this context?

 

[Pyrrho]

Men should take responsibility for themselves instead of relying on the woman to practice birth control. If you're a man and you won't do this, too bad when the woman gets pregnant. Your life is your own responsibility. Refuse to take responsibility for yourself and you'll reap the consequences. That's life, pal.

 

[jj]

Again, I don't dispute that there is undue restriction of liberty when it comes to reproduction and children. I simply don't think the word "slavery" is an apt description of this restriction.

For one thing, slavery implies that one person is the property of another. In what sense is this the case in this context?

The woman is forced to do what is percieved as in the fetus' interest. In what way is that not ownership (albiet temporary).

I mean, other than being coerced into feeding, etc, a particular entity, engaging in certain behaviors, not engaging in others, not having rights to the functions of one's own body, etc...

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

We may not ever agree.

 

[JamesDillon]

The woman is forced to do what is percieved as in the fetus' interest. In what way is that not ownership (albiet temporary).

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?

 

[toddjh]

Men should take responsibility for themselves instead of relying on the woman to practice birth control. If you're a man and you won't do this, too bad when the woman gets pregnant. Your life is your own responsibility. Refuse to take responsibility for yourself and you'll reap the consequences. That's life, pal.

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.

 

[jj]

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.

Indeed.

Nothing here removes what should be a responsibility by both parties to ensure safety in all sense.

 

[ImaginalDisc]

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?

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

 

[Cleon]

I'm pro-choice. I believe abortion, at least in the first trimester, should be allowed for both ideological and pragmatic reasons. I simply object to jj's use of the term "slavery" to describe what would happen if it were not.

Excessive restriction of liberty? Yes. Inappropriate government meddling? Sure. Slavery? Absolutely not.

And more power to ya.

 

[toddjh]

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

Well, mainly I argue that your choice of words is counterproductive because it may make you come across as an extremist to the reasonable middle ground (Luke is a good example here). People are going to be less likely to take you seriously if you use rhetoric they consider excessive, regardless of whether you think it's justified or not.