Feminist Columnist: 'Abortion isn't men's business'
February 9th, 2008 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & FamiliesI normally don't discuss the issue of abortion much, but recently several readers expressed interest in discussing the subject, and I promised a posting on it. The column Abortion isn't men's business by Connie Schultz of Newhouse News Service gives the feminist perspective on abortion, coupled with an anti-male message.
Abortion isn't men's business
January 24, 2008
Connie Schultz, Newhouse News Service
Every spring, a local boys' high school makes me their class project.
A stream of anti-abortion e-mail suddenly fills my in box, courtesy of male adolescents. How do these boys figure that a woman's womb is any of their business? How do men, for that matter?
Not long after I started writing this column in the fall of 2002, I lost a friend over abortion.
We had discussed countless issues, professional and personal, over the years. We often did not agree, but that just fed a spirited banter.
Then I wrote a few columns that made clear my support for women's reproductive freedom, including the right to abortion.
First, he sent me an e-mail expressing his "disappointment."
Then he sent another insisting that whenever I wrote about abortion, I sounded "angry," a trait he never had associated with me. I assured him that he was mistaking conviction for rage, and maybe we should agree to disagree.
That's when he started forwarding circulated e-mails that included "testimonials" from women who said they deeply regretted their abortions and had emotional scars that would never heal.
When I assured him that studies consistently show that most women who choose abortion do not suffer long-term psychological distress, he accused me of supporting murder. Before long, he was barely speaking to me.
I was sad to lose a friend, sadder still that he felt so compelled -- and entitled -- to lobby against women's reproductive rights.
Recently, two photos ran with an Associated Press story about Roe vs. Wade, which legalized abortion 35 years ago. In the first photo, pro-choice women rallied on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court. In the second, men picketed an abortion clinic.
The gender divide suggested by the photos is overstated. Many women oppose abortion rights, and plenty of men support them, but the photos did reflect a historical fact: Women's reproductive rights always have been legislated and adjudicated primarily by men, not one of whom will ever have to face the physical consequences of any pregnancy.
The older I get, the more wrong that feels.
Abortion remains a complex issue in this country. Studies still show that the majority of Americans believe that the decision to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her family and her doctor. Most, though, also struggle with the morality of that choice, and there is no end in sight for that internal conflict.
Advancements in prenatal medicine, for example, offer earlier alerts to myriad fetal abnormalities. These test results present excruciating choices for prospective parents, including those who insist they are pro-life. Four years ago, the New York Times reported that these same couples often decide to terminate pregnancies when the fetuses are not normal. They just don't like to call it abortion.
As the issues grow more complex, so do my own feelings -- not about women's rights but about those women who don't agree with me. In a recent column, for example, I criticized those who claim to be pro-life but did not care one bit for the plight of immigrants' children.
I still loathe that kind of hypocrisy, but some readers who oppose abortion rights, most of them women, asked me not to lump them with the extremists.
They, too, deplored the treatment of an immigrant mother who was separated for 11 days from her nursing infant. Many also agreed that men have too many opinions about an issue that affects only those with a womb. After such conversations, I regret not making that distinction. I also wonder how the abortion issue would evolve if women owned the debate.
Surely, there is common ground to be found in reducing the need for abortion while protecting that right.
And it's not the kind of work we can leave to the boys.
"));
19 queries. 0.927 seconds.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:06 pm
When talking about abortion, feminists use the word 'rights' a lot. This article is proof of that.
However, they basically never talk about the rights of the fetus.
When considering whether or not an abortion is morally right, one must figure out which set of rights is more important - the rights of the woman or the rights of the fetus.
As far as I'm concerned, the rights of the fetus always trump the rights of the woman, except for when the abortion is required in order to save the woman's life.
"Four years ago, the New York Times reported that these same couples often decide to terminate pregnancies when the fetuses are not normal. They just don't like to call it abortion.".
Isn't this basically eugenics?
February 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Sorry guys, but it is a woman's body, end of story. This case has been decided and anyone, man or women, who feels that a fetus, an unfertilized egg, a frozen embryo, etc are viable humans are delusional. From a scientific and medical point of view, it simply is not factual. I am a man and realize this without equivocation. My being an atheist assists me in seeing the issues very clearly and without a religious bent or the idea that there exists some "feminist conspiracy". It doesn't exist.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
"The gender divide suggested by the photos is overstated. Many women oppose abortion rights, and plenty of men support them, but the photos did reflect a historical fact: Women's reproductive rights always have been legislated and adjudicated primarily by men, not one of whom will ever have to face the physical consequences of any pregnancy."
This piece of text particularly intrigues me because it sums up an argument that I do not believe it is in the best interest for women to make.
If people begin to declare that a mans opinion on abortion is worth less than a womans opinion (or in some cases considered to be worthless) by virtue of the fact that men are not the ones dealing with the physical consequences. Then we can utilize the same form of logic to declare that a womans opinion of military action doesn't really matter because it is the men who deal with the physical consequences of the conflict.
The point is that everyones opinion matters... everyone has a perspective that can be valuable and should be considered in both cases.
I very much doubt the original author would appreciate being told that since american women don't face the physical consequences of military combat that they have no right to legislate on such matters... this is particularly interesting considering we have a woman running for president.
Should she be informed that since women don't have combat roles in the military that if elected she shouldn't be allowed to legislate on those issues?
Abortion affects everyone in society... therefore everyone has something to bring to the table... you don't get to disenfranchise people of the worth of their opinion merely because of their gender.
February 9th, 2008 at 12:28 pm
The day a woman can become pregnant with the contribution of a man (known or unknown) can ANYONE say, "...also agreed that men have too many opinions about an issue that affects only those with a womb."
Ironic that she cares about women's rights... immigrants rights... it appears the rights of many... that is, except the father.
The more they speak, the more hypocritical they come off. We just need to keep shining the spotlight on such inanity.
They want (and typically have) all of the rights and none of the responsibility. That's how they want it.
~Mister-M
February 9th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
It's amazing that simple-minded women such as this one can influence so many. Naturally it's all about her. She spouted your typical feminist illogic. The part about doctors discovering birth defects in the baby is as tired as the 'life of the mother' song and dance. Millions of irresponsible women have abortions purely for convenience. And to anybody who agrees with this woman I have to ask "How would you like to have been aborted?" You can be sure that you would have felt it. If a fetus is so much a part of a woman's body why does it separate itself from the mother after 9 months? A baby in a woman's womb is placed in a position of trust that the mother will carry through and give birth. That baby doesn't belong to the mother anymore than any of you belong to me. This is a classic case of when people look back on this society 100 years from now and ask "What were they thinking?"
February 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
There are many problems with abortion.
1. Why do all reproductive rights belong to the woman? Her right is whether to have sex and risk pregnancy. After that
there are 2 other cosiderations. The man who she could not have become pregnant without,. DNA will bear this out.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:04 pm
Next will read: "Raising children is simply not men's business."
February 9th, 2008 at 1:12 pm
This is what I sent Glenn on the topic he offered to post.
Pro-life
The argument against abortion for me is simple. Life begins at the moment of conception and is protected under the Constitution the same as any of us are protected. If the life of the unborn child is not worthy of our protection … then who is?
If we as a nation choose to disregard the rights of the most fragile, and defenseless, in our society, we establish a president that will ultimately affect us all.
Kevin Merck
I think the reason so many abortion advocates don’t like to discuss the issue is because at some basic level they know killing a defenseless human being is wrong.
This is an issue that truly does separate the men from the boys – and the girls from the women. It takes an infantile woman to argue for the right to kill the child that grows inside her body and it takes an equally immature man to support that childish malice.
We should have learned a long time ago that we need to protect the rights of even our worst enemy, not to mention a defenseless child, if we are to protect our own. This barbaric disregard for the life of an unborn child will eventually destroy our society.
Abortion of a child is a barbaric act, and the epitome of extremism. It takes a real tyrant to argue otherwise. In one hand we are talking about saving a human life, and on the other we are talking about ending that life … which is the evil and extremist view?
Kevin Merck
February 9th, 2008 at 1:19 pm
There are many problems with abortion.
1. Why do all reproductive rights belong to a woman? Her right is whether to have sex and risk pregnancy. After she becomes pregnant there are two other considerations. The man whom she could not have become pregnant without.
Dna will bear this out. And the child who is not a piece of tissue but a forming human being with a heatbeat 18 days after conception. What about the child's rights?
2. What does this teach our children? Killing is about convenience? We are our children's role models. Why does abortion haunt so many women? I don't hold it against women in particular, most are young and they have been taught this is an easy way out of a difficult situation.
3.We make it easy when we call it pro choice. It should be called pro life or pro death. Pro choice helps make the decision alot easier because it referred to as a simple choice. Like let me choose: Do I want pizza or hamburgers for dinner? See pro choice.
4. Look around if you have love ones near you and think if half of them were aborted, gone. Imagine if you yourself were aborted, gone.
5. Pro choice is a convenient way of not having to do any in-depth thinking. It is really just a way to say this would really inconvenience me so I choose to talk the easy way out so I'm not inconvenienced.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
For young women I understand that they are naive and society has taught them that this is an easy way out of a difficult situation.
For mature women I don't understand this. What about the "Great Maternal Instinct " that we are taught that all women supposedly have? This same instinct that family courts believe they have, that automatically makes women suited to be the better parent? Feminism is just about power. It's getting to the point where a woman gets to say who lives and who dies.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Ben, you aint the only atheist here. But think about it, would you support the right of a woman to kill her child after it has been born? Probably not, yet you would support that right a few weeks earlier.
I am pro-choice, but purely from a pragmatic stance. Abortions are more frequent in countries where it is illegal than countries where it is legal. It's safer to get it done properly.
But don't kid yourself in thinking that it's morally justifiable, you're killing children!
Consider this, do you support the right of a woman to binge drink during pregnancy and give her baby foetal alcohol syndrome (this is a real example). The child was born severely disabled, it won't see 25. Very few people can justify a woman damaging the baby in this way while it is in the womb, yet they are fine with a woman killing ti while it is in the womb.
Religious arguments are bull. I don't need to invoke magic to tell me that killing a child is wrong.
It is more acceptable if done earlier, preferably before the foteus has developed a nervous system. Another reason I am pro-choice.
Misandry is pretty common among the pro-choice crowd though. I saw a poster once, it read '65% of anti-abortion leaders are men, 100% of them will never be pregnant'
It had a load of men in suits in black and white. Subtly implying they are old fashioned for defending a baby. Theior heads were also cut of in the picture. What better way to dehumanise your opponents?
Abortion isn't men's business, who says it's womens'? A pregnant woman will never have a doctor murder her, she will never be aborted.
Also, the rates of being pro-choice are equal among men and women. Besides, even if more women did believe it was okay to kill a child, that doesn't make it right.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Personally I have no problem with eugenics, I'm not suggesting killing everybody sick but if you know your child will groe up with something like systic fibrosis what kind of sick SOB would want their kids to grow up in that kind of pain
February 9th, 2008 at 1:39 pm
A agree with this column. Abortion isn't men's business. But then I also think it follows that any ramifications regarding keeping the baby or aborting it -- isn't men's business either. Thus, all child support should be abolished.
Of course, feminist want control over their body AND the chivlaristic society to protect them and their babies when that's convenient. This is where they lose me. With true equality, there would be no father's involvement at all. Your choice, your baby.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
"Studies still show that the majority of Americans believe that the decision to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her family and her doctor. "
Yes, except the feminist concept of "family" and the legal one --- does not include the prospective father.
Of course, he is legally recognized once the child is born as the 18-year wallet on the hook for child support.
The contradictions are obvious.
How can this be fixed?
(Hint -- legal over-the-counter male birth control that is 99% reliable. A male birth control pill.)
How come that seems to be a fantasy when viagra makes millions in profits for Big Pharma?
February 9th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Dave M,
I think many of your points are good... but this one sort of bothers me:
"We make it easy when we call it pro choice. It should be called pro life or pro death."
The reason is because I've never actually seen anyone declare that they actually desire for women to have abortions.
Typically the issue rests on one group wanting the option for abortions to exist, and one group not wanting the option to exist.
Desiring options isn't the same as advocating one option over the other... I really don't see any evidence that anyone is "pro death"... they just aren't necessarily against it.
The same way someone may not be against capital punishment... it doesn't mean they enjoy the thought of people being executed.
February 9th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Why should a man have involvement in such a decision, if the child never has or had one.
The Supreme Court is reported to have made its ruling based largely if not mostly on the lack of a definition of a 'person'. I have no doubt other, potentially and actually far less consequential decisions have been made by the U.S. Supreme Court with no definitions in law.
If there is 'no definition in law' for anything in particular doesn't mean that something either doesn't exist or is, or isn't wrong or unjust. However, this is the same 'august body' that deemed VAWA II as non-descriminatory.
Mike
February 9th, 2008 at 2:02 pm
From doing some searching for her name i found a number of articles this woman has written. For the most part they sound like this one. And get this, she is married to a congressman. This gives her access to not only the "old boys club" but also the wives so it doesnt surprise me she is spouting drivel such as this.
As usual the fathers feeligs are secondary to a fact of nature. Because a woman has a womb she of course is superior.
Also like most feminists writers she refuses to acknowledge the fact that fathers feel just as depressed when a child they have helped to create is aborted but unlike a woman they normally find out after the fact and no time to prepare themselves for the blow....but of course thats secondary to the fact that a woman has womb and a man doesnt.
I am a supporter of abortion in the cases of Rape, Incest,Sexual Assualt or when the health of the mother is threatend, but I am not a proponent of a woman being allowed to abort a pregnancy without at least having to inform the father. I understand the potential risks involved with pregnancies ( I am a father of 5) and with abortions. My wife and I had discussed aborting our last child but decided against it. We BOTH decided it would not have been possible for us to go thru with it. It was a joint decision that many RvW supporters would have said I had no business being a part of. Point is though its MY family, my spouse, OUR life, OUR relationship and hence OUR decision.
I find it interesting that feminists will always talk about the fact that a woman has all the choices but rarely do they mention them having EQUAL responsibility.it goes back to the old argument about the man "Should have kept it in his pants". I believe the woman has as much repsonsibility to keep her legs closed. A man is stigmatized if he has a child with a woman that hes not married to but a woman can have 5 children by 5 different fathers yet she is not subjected to anything except sympathy for her unfortunate situation. A situation she could have avoided by keeping her legs closed.
So on and on it will go. The consant "males have no business with reproduction"schtick which will keep snowballing until the male birth control pill becomes a reality after which the story will change to men being "Perpetual children" and not allowing women the fulfil thier 'rights" to be mothers.
Im hoping that day comes sooner then later.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:05 pm
Something else to think about is an interesting legal issue that has always confused me. The way our current laws are structured if a fetus is terminated by the mother prior to a certain time period of gestation then the fetus is considered not to have been a person and no murder has taken place. By contrast, if that same pregnant woman were to be murdered at the same point in time of the fetus' gestation... the person who killed her can be charged with two counts of murder, one for her and one for the baby.
It seems to me that the way our current laws are structured it is the mother who determines when and if the baby becomes a person and she has the right to revoke that personhood at any point up until a few months before the child is born.
I guess my problem with that situation is that if the baby can be aborted because it isn't yet a person... then it certainly cannot count as the equivilant to any other human being if it dies by some other cause.
The who thing just lacks consistancy and seems awefully subjective... that is very bothersome to me.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:13 pm
Well Jason, I suppose in both cases, it's about being pro-death-in-certain-situations. Either pro-death for a mass murderer (certainly more reasonable than for an innocent baby) or pro-death when the mother doesn't want a baby.
Pro-capital punishment folsk don't call themselves 'pro-option', so pro-abortioners should really call themselves 'pro-abortion'
February 9th, 2008 at 2:16 pm
Callum,
I could agree to the groups calling themselves "pro-abortion" and "anti-abortion"... at least then things would be somewhat accurate.
As it stands, the titles of pro-choice and pro-life are just there to put spin on each of their respective platforms.
Life is good... choice is good... so they use words which will be attractive to their prospective adherents.
It would be the same as a group who supported capital punishment refering to themselves as "pro-justice".
February 9th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
"Yes, except the feminist concept of "family" and the legal one --- does not include the prospective father."
This is unbelievably true. A man lacks the right to abandon his child, yet a woman retains the right to kill the child.
It's a mad world.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Yeah I agree, it's all about PR.
Whenever I debate about it, I always say pro/anti-abortion. Much more simple and true.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:27 pm
Muddying the issue somewhat, this columnist was a Pulitizer Prize finalist for a series of articles that chronicles a man imprisoned for 13 years for a rape he did not commit. The articles caused the real rapist to come forward:
http://bjretirees.blogspot.com/2005/04/connie-schultz-wins-pulitzer-prize.html
February 9th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Dave... it's not "getting to" the point where women get to choose who lives and who dies... it's gotten there. It got there a long time ago.
February 9th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
My body, my choice! most definately has an astrisk after it. Look for it.
Get out a ladder and climb up to place this one on the mile-high stack that says an women's unrestricted reproductive rights ends the second a viable fetus attaches itself to the uterian wall. Her body at that precious second then becomes a shared responsibility for the next nine months.
An abortion (both must agree), dangerous behavior (including nutrition and drug use) are visible examples of this shared responsibility.
DanH
February 9th, 2008 at 2:49 pm
When the fertilized egg (zygote) attaches itself to the...
"Fetus" is a later stage. Oh, hell, just read about it here:
http://www.drspock.com/article/0,1510,5049,00.html
DanH
February 9th, 2008 at 3:24 pm
"Abortion remains a complex issue in this country. Studies still show that the majority of Americans believe that the decision to have an abortion should be left up to a woman, her family and her doctor."
The statement is too general to communicate the opinion of the majority. To which trimester does the "decision" refer? Should taxpayers be required to provide funding for abortion? Should doctors be forced to perform abortions?
"Surely, there is common ground to be found in reducing the need for abortion while protecting that right. And it's not the kind of work we can leave to the boys."
(In other words, this is a call for all women to unite against the empowered and immature gender. The need for abortion will by reducing "the burden of childcare." This can be done by providing women with more money from taxpayers and fathers.)
February 9th, 2008 at 3:25 pm
Oops.
(In other words, this is a call for all women to unite against the empowered and immature gender. The need for abortion will be reduced by reducing "the burden of childcare." This can be done by providing women with more money from taxpayers and fathers.)
February 9th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
Excuse me? The propagation of the human race is of no concern to approximately half the population of planet earth? Kindly do not tell men what they can have an opinion about. Madam. You are not only immoral, you are unAmerican.
My favorite position of the anti-lifers is that it's a "complex moral" issue. There is nothing complex about it. Many profess that they don't know, because they say none of us can know, when "human" life begins -- so abortion is OK. Let's assume for the sake of argument that we don't know when human life begins (and I do not agree with it.) Would these people feel it's OK to fire a load gun into a bush, not knowing if someone was behind it? Of course not. Does not "not knowing" justify possibly murder? Of course it doesn't. It never has, it never will.
If you "don't know," it's unjustified taking of a life.
And stop telling men what we're allowed to think.
February 9th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Haha Tim, what exactly do you mean by unAmerican?
What, she's the polar opposite of American? What exactly is that? She's an anorexic who loves soccer and hates to talk?
Please, you can come up with better slurs than that.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
I'll stick with unAmerican, thank you,. Callum. It's not a slur, it's a fact. In America, men are allowed to have and express opinions. There's actually an Amendment to our Constitution that expressly grants that right, unlike the "right of privacy," which is nowhere mentioned in the Constitution.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Jason,
I think many of your points are good... but this one sort of bothers me:
"We make it easy when we call it pro choice. It should be called pro life or pro death."
The reason is because I've never actually seen anyone declare that they actually desire for women to have abortions.
Typically the issue rests on one group wanting the option for abortions to exist, and one group not wanting the option to exist.
Desiring options isn't the same as advocating one option over the other... I really don't see any evidence that anyone is "pro death"... they just aren't necessarily against it.
The same way someone may not be against capital punishment... it doesn't mean they enjoy the thought of people being executed.
Jason I think you may have a good point.
Maybe I should say "For life" or "For death" instead of "Pro life" or "Pro death" I am just trying to use the current terminology being used by our society in this debate. Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I think the words Pro Choice takes the humanity out of the decision by making it a "choice" and not a child. Thereby easing people's conscience.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
What??
What are you talking about?
She's pro-abortion. You argue that because of that, she is unAmerican, despite America having relatively liberal abortion compared to some places in the world.
Please, define American, before you decry her as unAmerican. Honestly, you sound like you're going along the lines of 'Liberals hate America'. You can't just insult your opponents by questioning their nationality.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
The Ex_Husband
Dave... it's not "getting to" the point where women get to choose who lives and who dies... it's gotten there. It got there a long time ago.
Ex_Husband you are right in as far as abortion. I was insinuating into the future and should have made myself more clear.
What I want to say is women decide whether a "fetus" lives or dies. A woman decides who her children will live with the majority of the time.
Let's not fool ourselves and think it's the Judge. A woman can grant joint physical custody if she wants.
A woman can put a male in jail for rape with no physical evidence i.e. Duke Lacrosse case and many others.
With women gaining more and more legal powers in our country, not granted to others, will it be long before the courts just start handing power over to women to see if someone should live or die. They already somewhat have that power and are making other important and life or death decisions. Maybe the courts will just hand them this power to speed things up in court and reduce the courts work load.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
my opinion on abortion can be summed up
her body, her choice, her responsibility.
If she wants to abort fine its her body. If she wants to keep it fine its her choice. But if i don't want anything to do with the kid its not my responsibility since it wasn't my choice in the matter so don't ask me for money.
February 9th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Callum, are you paying attention? The author of this column suggests that men have no right to have an opinion or to speak out about abortion. My point is that this is an extremely unAmerican postion because it is diametrically opposed to the First Amendment, which expresses the most cherished beliefs of our citizens.
I did not attack liberals as being unAmerican. The ACLU and others routinely fights for the right of unpopular expression, and I support them.
In contrast, some in the pro-abortion camp actually believe that the "right of privacy" from which they derive their so-called reproductive rights, trumps the First Amendment. The right of privacy is nowhere mentioned in the Consttution. The Supreme Court in 1973 de facto amended the Constitution with Roe v. Wade (this despite the fact that there is an express provision in the Constitution that tells how it is to be ameded -- and it requires a lot more public support than the pro-abortion crowd would ever be able to mount).
Incidentally, we are likely one vote away from overturning Roe with the addition of Justice Alito (who, by the way, I've argued in front of -- and he's a brilliant jurist).
February 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
"Sorry guys, but it is a woman's body, end of story. This case has been decided and anyone, man or women, who feels that a fetus, an unfertilized egg, a frozen embryo, etc are viable humans are delusional. From a scientific and medical point of view, it simply is not factual. I am a man and realize this without equivocation. My being an atheist assists me in seeing the issues very clearly and without a religious bent or the idea that there exists some 'feminist conspiracy'. It doesn't exist."
Ben, I'm an agnostic and I can tell you that you clearly don't understand what you're talking about. If you wish to stick to science, fine, but then you still lose. Science textbooks have made it clear again and again that a human being's life begins at the moment of fertilization. "Viability" is a constantly changing line, by the way, and if that is your criterion for personhood, then I'll ask you this: if the line of viability is becoming earlier and earlier, does that mean that a seven-month-old fetus in 1900 was not a human being, but one in 2000 is?
February 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
Tim, freedom of speech isn't 'American', it exists in most countries in the world. I am listening, I'm just not buying your point.
If she's anti-freedom of speech, say so. Do not question her nationality because I, as a British citizen believe in freedom of speech as much as anybody(usually more), my nationality has nothing to do with it. You are obviously too used to seeing patriotism as a positive trait and hence used to calling your opponents unpatriotic.
You still havn't defined American. If believing in freedom of speech makes you American, then I'm American. But I'm not American, so your premise fails.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Thus endeth the civics lesson, Callum. The gaps, or more accurately the chasms, in your logic, render further discussion with you meritless.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
A woman has a right to her own body iff and only if a man has a right to his own body.
For me this means that my support of abortion is conditional:
if a majority of Americans support a ban of routine involuntary infant circumcision, then I support abortion and will oppose the repeal of Roe V. Wade and attempts to outlaw abortion.
If a majority of Americans resist a ban on routine involuntary infant circumcision, then I oppose abortion, and will support conservative judges who intend to repeal Roe v. Wade and ban abortion generally.
My preference is that both men and women have a right to their own bodies. But until the laws are written so the ban on infant circumcision is gender neutral, I oppose abortion.
Even better, I would prefer a political system in which people live in the world they voted for. If you oppose routine infant circumcision, you can have an abortion. If you favor routine infant circumcision, abortion should be illegal for you.
February 9th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
If one were a really committed misogynist, anti-women hater -- you might suggest that all of these problems could be resolved by denying women basic legal rights... which was the case a couple hundred years ago in those nostalgic years when "things were good." (Think modern Saudi Arabia -- our good friends with our gasoline.)
But what is funny is that with very few exceptions, no men's rights advocates want to deny women rights of any kind.
So, how come feminism still exists?
And, precisely what rebalancing in the gender wars are MRA's arguing for?
February 9th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
"Thus endeth the civics lesson, Callum. The gaps, or more accurately the chasms, in your logic, render further discussion with you meritless."
Tim, don't patronise me. You were wrong and as such could not answer my question and define American in a way that excluded the author of this article yet didn't include most of the world's population. Now you have the gall to walk away without even trying to defend your point.
Please, point out ANY 'chasms' in my logic. Because thusfar I have justified everything I have said, and you have neatly avoided plugging the holes in your logic which I clearly pointed out for you.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
bmmg39 Says: Science textbooks have made it clear again and again that a human being's life begins at the moment of fertilization. This pretty much can't be argued any differently but there are two stages of viability that must discussed.
bmmg39 Says: "Viability" is a constantly changing line, by the way... The viability of what???
The viability of the blastocyst is achieved if it is healthy and attaches to the uterine wall.
The viability of the fetus to survive outside the uterus is much less definable as it is largely dependent on the level of available medical intervention. For discussion, a good "normal" starting point for fetus viability would be near the beginning of the third trimester.
DanH
February 9th, 2008 at 6:12 pm
One has to wonder how a late-term abortion can be considered legitimate when we are all horrified by photographs of the consequences - so much so that they are banned from publication in mainstream media, and few people have seen them.
I appreciate that we practice the same censure of car-accidents and the other awful ends that people meet, but we at least acknowledge these victims as human and deserving of dignity.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
callum-- "plugging the holes .."
Please don't use this profane phrase on this site.
It gives the easily offended posters a reason to have you censored or banned.
Frankly I'm surprised the words "plug" and "hole" did not trigger the site's grammar software filter.
There is a respected journalist on suspension today over at NBC just because he used the word "pimping" in reference to a political strategy.
A little paranoia is a useful survival strategy...
February 9th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Hmmm.
Let's imagine that a man and a woman each contribute a sperm cell and an egg respectively, to an in-vitro fertilization process, and the resulting embryo is implanted into a surrogate carrier.
By the feminist view, at least as I understand it, the surrogate carrier, who has no biological relationship to the child whatsoever, is the one who has the right to rip that child (of the couple) out of her own uterous up until the fetus is what, almost 5 months along? (According to wiki, 4% of abortions in the U.S. are in the 16-20 week timeframe.)
And the feminist biological mother would not be bothered that her right to save the life of her child was no greater in that case than the right of any man in this country in any case?
Really?
Pregnancy is no small matter for a mother.
Pregnancy is also no small matter for a father.
The view that the only adults with any rights in a pregnancy is the "carrier" of the child seems between primitive at best, and morally insane at worst.
Yes, pregnancy does impact a woman's body. Yes, it does produce a new person who might be inconvenient to the woman who carries that child to term. It even presents the risk of death to the mother, though this risk is quite miniscule in the U.S.
But in the U.S., that woman can apparently abort that child up to a hard-to-fathom 20 weeks, or if she doesn't like the child or changes her mind, she can "anonymously" hand that child off at birth or soon thereafter without any obligations whatsoever and just walk away and not look back.
A man however, has no right to save his child from be aborted, certainly no right to seek an abortion of his child, and absolutely no right to walk away from the responsibility of a child born from his DNA.
Seems like a disturbing lack of symmetry in all of this.
Do feminists understand what symmetry means?
It's like the concept of equal rights isn't it?
Do women find it outrageous that, simply because they happened to be born female, they could be "forced" to have a child? I think they do. The notion that they could possibly (but rarely) even die in childbirth makes their outrage all the greater.
Funny thing is, men already face an analogous circumstance in America. They, simply by having been born male, can be drafted in to military service -- and for considerably longer than 9 months -- AND, their chance of dying in that service -- or being maimed or crippled for life, is much, much greater than a woman's likelihood of death or serious sequelae from childbirth.
Yep. I'm having a little trouble seeing the symmetry in America's expectations of its women vs. its men.
Seems a little out of balance from where I sit.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
Rob Case, you are exactly right about censoring photos of late-term abortions. These are widely viewed as tools of evil right-wing Christian nutcase-hypocrites who are bent on obstructing innocent young women from exercising a natural right. Your point is well-taken. Assuming these photos are not doctored, why all the fuss about them? Why does the abortion lobby recoil from them? The answer is self-evident. It knows that abortion is an ugly business, and that trumpeting what abortion reality is does not advance its cause.
Callum, you failed to leave a space between "thus far" in your last post.
February 9th, 2008 at 6:32 pm
Ahh, man-bashing.
Is there any problem it CAN'T solve?
February 9th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
Yes Tim I did, do you feel clever now?
Look, I'm sure everyone reading this has noticed that you havn't actually answered my question. Don't try and get one over because I made an irrelevant grammatical error, answer the damn question.
I don't expect you to come back with anything other than a definition of American that excludes the author of the article yet doesn't include most of the world's population.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pm
Hey, Callum, I am really scatching my head about you. To be perfectly candid, I don't even know what you're talking about. You seem to have mistaken my comments as a slur on non-Americans, for reasons that, frankly, are impossible for me to fathom. They certainly weren't intended that way.
I speak from an American perspective and in this country, when someone, like the author of that article, tries to shut up an entire gender from having its say on any subject, that's contrary to core principles Americans hold dear, as eloquently expressed in our Constitution.
For some reason you took great offense at that and have been carrying on about this for the past hour or two, in an unbecoming manner, I might add. If I want to be insulted, I'll go over to feministing. My comments were in no manner intended to disparage anyone's nationality. And that really is all I'm going to say on this subject. I find your continued personal attacks on me contrary to the spirit of Glenn's comment policies. Go pick a fight over nothing with someone else, I am finished with you.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
For starters, I'm loosely what you'd call pro-choice; it seems to be poor social policy to require a woman to carry a baby to term but I do not locate that policy prescription in any sort of "right". However, the notion that only people with wombs are affected by pregnancy is ludicrous. The social implications of pregnancy, childbirth, choice abortion, etc. have huge social consequences throughout society.
The personal IS political, or maybe the feminists didn't get the memo.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:30 pm
Tim, I never insulted you, it just pisses me off when people say things that are simply wrong.
Call her sexist if you will, but to say she in 'unAmerican' is factually wrong on every level.
I was merely doing my usual thing of rooting out rubbish on this blog. Glenn doesn't moderate so somebody has to keep some sanity.
The only reason I carried on was because of the arrogant to which you approached it. Refusing to even aknowledge your fault and dismissing any criticisms of your point. I don't mind people disagreeing with me, but when people say things that are factually wrong with impunity, it pisses me off.
Also, just to note: Americans may hold dear principles of free speech, so does the UN. That doesn't make the author un-UN does it?
Look, it's all too easy to say 'my opponent is a Nazi, my opponents hates freedom, my opponent is neurotic'
I see too much of it on here. If we're ever going to get anything done we need to move beyond childish name-calling and into reasoned, logical debate. THAT was my problem.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Also, 'I am finished with you'??
You aint the King. Next time try 'I am not continuing this discussion'
February 9th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Callum, the "freedom of speech" in America is guaranteed by the Constitution. Forgive me if I am mistaken, but both Canada and Great Britain have no such basic right, and speech can be, and has in the past been, much more restricted in both of those countries. As I said, please correct me if I am wrong.
As for Ms. Schultz, I am sorry that she is an abortion survivor. The world is better off without carriers of such blatant contempt for 50% of the population (and, don't forget, every woman who disagrees with her, and dead babies, too.)
As for abortion, it should be legal, but soundly condemned and discouraged (like smoking?) except in the most extreme circumstances. Especially given the ready availability of birth control, I have to think that the recent history of abortion should be a source of national shame for American women -- those who hold the next generation, and thus the future of society, hostage. One quarter of ALL babies conceived in this country are killed by abortion -- well over 1 million per year. That's roughly 50 million "missing" babies since abortion became legal. As this has occurred, our birthrate has consistently slipped below replacement level, notwithstanding that we have put financial incentives in place for women to have babies even if they weren't able to "close the deal" and land a husband. Now why did the Neanderthals disappear again?
Not men's concern? Absurd. If not, however, then ANY obligation on a man's part for a WOMAN'S child should be extinguished -- married or not. Your body, your right, your SOLE responsibility.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:36 pm
People who kill innocent people are pro-death. Feminists can candy coat their horrors until they turn blue but I ain't buying it. I recall a conversation with a feminist from a few years ago. She stated that men who try to abolish a woman's right to abortion are immoral and should be jailed. Let's see, she wants to kill a baby in her womb but he should go to jail for objecting. The broad and her feminist sisters are not only nuts but criminals too.
February 9th, 2008 at 7:48 pm
A.P. -- "Do feminists understand what symmetry means?"
Yes they do. No they don't. Yes they do. Well....
That is why we have VAWA.
You could not find one woman in 100 who could even define the word symmetry.
But they can all spell m-o-n-e-y.
It breaks my heart to look at women so clearly.......
February 9th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
leta,
my opinion on abortion can be summed up
her body, her choice, her responsibility.
If she wants to abort fine its her body. If she wants to keep it fine its her choice. But if i don't want anything to do with the kid its not my responsibility since it wasn't my choice in the matter so don't ask me for money.
I think your second line her body, her choice, her reponsibility is truly what is wrong with abortion. Her body happens to house a growing human being that has half of some else's DNA. You also kill "something," a fetus. a child, whatever you want to call it, something dies in the process.
If she tried to cut off her own finger our society would step in and make great efforts to stop her. It would still be "her body, her choice,her responsibility" but can you imagine the effort people would go through to convince her not to cut off her finger?
February 9th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
AP, that was a great post about the surrogate. I've come to the conclusion that the only thing a woman has a right to abort is the egg. After conception her options concerning the fetus are severely restricted because a man's DNA is involved. One way to stop abortion is don't give women a choice, by boycotting sex with them. You may laugh but what would you rather have, no children or an aborted child?
Tim Murray, I'm all for showing pictures of abortion. All murderers should be forced to look at their victims. Matter of fact I think that women who abort should be forced to see the fetus afterwards or better yet before the abortion. I just got a t-shirt idea: aborted baby picture with the words "Feminists Are Liars." ! I'll have to look into that.
People seem to forget that Planned Parenthood gets paid for every aborted fetus. I smell a rat.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
Dave M,
"If she tried to cut off her own finger our society would step in and make great efforts to stop her. It would still be "her body, her choice,her responsibility" but can you imagine the effort people would go through to convince her not to cut off her finger?"
Very interesting point and one which I forgot to mention.
One of the first questions I ask of someone who offers the "my body my choice" argument is whether or not they think suicide should be legalized as well.
More often than not their response is something like "well obviously they are mentally disturbed and need therapy".
They almost never say "sure... their body, their choice".
That sort of statement also applies to drug use and a number of other things that people might want to do to or with their bodies that is currently illegal.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:10 pm
"You aint the King." Damn right I'm not. The King is unAmerican.
"People seem to forget that Planned Parenthood gets paid for every aborted fetus." Good point, Stephen. Yet people treat that organization with the same kind of respect and reverance that they treat the Red Cross.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
bmmg39 says:
""Viability" is a constantly changing line, by the way, and if that is your criterion for personhood, then I'll ask you this: if the line of viability is becoming earlier and earlier, does that mean that a seven-month-old fetus in 1900 was not a human being, but one in 2000 is?"
This is the reason why from a legal standpoint RvW is on a crash course with itself.
The current statute makes it very clear that the dividing line between when the states interest in the life of the fetus surpasses the rights of the woman to abort is precisely when that fetus could be maintained outside of her body through medical intervention.
This means the whole debate might become a moot point as medical technology continues to improve.
February 9th, 2008 at 8:37 pm
Personally, I am in favor of abortions. I have paid for / contributed to the monetary cost of three abortions when I was the presumed father. The reason was very simple: I did not want to be a father. I did not want the responsibility.
In those situations, I was not married. To be even more specific, I was not in a committed relationship.
Rare is the abortion that is performed when two people are in a committed relationship. Typically, from what I have heard, in those situations where the woman chooses to have an abortion, the relationship is going through rough waters.
In short, the majority of abortions are performed on single women, in non committed relationships. In that situation, the man logically should not have any say in the process. In the situation of marriage - then yes, the man should have a say in the final decision. However, we would be foolish to discount the fact that if two people can not reach a mutually acceptable decision, someone is always going to have the "trump card."
Under American law, you can not have one law that would give more latitude to a class of people (unmarried) and not afford that same latitude to another class of people (married). It's that equal protection thing.
Since the decision to abort or not abort is made mostly by unmarried people, then technically, only they should have a say in the controversy over abortion. But, because of that equal protection thing, that is not possible.
To me, quality of life is much more important than quantity of life. Hence, I strongly support eugenics. I also recognize the fact that many people are not psychologically or emotionally equipped to be parents. Unfortunately, many arguments about abortion are hinged upon an unknown "thing" that is growing in the woman's womb without consideration of whether that person is capable of being a good parent. Yes, the argument can be made that the child could be placed for adoption - but in American society, very few people are willing to adopt a child, preferring instead to have a biological replica of themselves. Ironically, any two people can create a child, without interference from the government. Yet, when a couple wishes to adopt a child, they have to be squeaky clean, without fault. The rationale behind that is understandable, so a debate is not necessary.
Quality of life is something that America rejects. Quantity is much more important. With that belief, I am also a strong supporter of assisted suicide.
As I believe that I have the right to take my own life, with or without the assistance of a physician, because I do not have the quality that I think and believe I deserve or am entitled to, I must then also believe that a person has the right to terminate a pregnancy if they believe that they can not give a potential child a quality life.
Doc
February 9th, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Well with this lady's point can we come to the conclusion that the "maternal instinct" is just a myth?
February 9th, 2008 at 10:00 pm
If people are of sound mind and body they can do what they like to themselves. That includes killing themselves.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Doc, every argument you make in favor of abortion can also be made in favor of infanticide or leaving newborns in front of the wheels of a parked car. Just so you know.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
The general idea seems to be, that conservatives consider abortion to be murder.
I trust, then, that no woman who is a conservative will vote for Hillary Clinton.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
A person has every right to commit suicide if they want to.
And furthermore, a person contemplating suicide should never be involuntarily incarcerated, no matter what their apparent mental state. Counseling may be offered to the person by professionals. That is all. Endless speculation like "what if the person is too ill to respond to counseling", or "what if they don't seek counseling", is not the point.
February 9th, 2008 at 11:52 pm
Abortion is indeed a tricky subject. Anytime a woman says, "My body; my choice.", someone else could point out that no fetus is part of her body. a fetus simply resides in a woman's body. That is not the same as being like an insignificant organ, such as the appendix. There is a developing human being inside her; one that depends on her for survival. Aborting a fetus is almost akin to killing someone that is begging you to protect him.
Furthermore, it hurts me so to realize that one of those aborted fetuses could have been me. I shudder when I think of the fact that I could have been dehumanized and destroyed before I had the chance to sing my first song. There would be one less musician on the planet if that had happened.
However, if a woman has a great chance of dying while birthing, is it ethical to terminate the pregnancy? Can we presume that one life is mor important than the other? If so, which being is more important, the mother or the child? Is it humane to make a definetive decision on such questions?
February 10th, 2008 at 12:04 am
About the woman's ridiculous assertions that men should have nothing to say about abortions: murder is everyone's business. There are occasions when abortion is the least of all evils, such as in the "hard" cases including rape, mother's life or health at risk, serious fetal deformities, etc. But then the procedure becomes something akin to justifiable homicide. Abortion should not be a routine method of birth control, but that's how it's used. Apparently getting pregnant and responsibly using birth control can both be "inconvenient".
"Dr. Ruth" Westheimer said on her radio show on sexual topics years ago that she was opposed to abortion as birth control as well, once saying she hung up on a caller who said she had had four abortions. Dr. Ruth made it clear that the caller had simply made absolutely no attempt to use any other method to prevent pregnancy.
I came to Jay R's conclusion years ago: with all the methods of birth control and sterilization available, there should actually be little need for abortion. Public policy toward abortion should take the principle "an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure" into account.
Doc made a statement that is not totally correct: "Yes, the argument can be made that the child could be placed for adoption - but in American society, very few people are willing to adopt a child, preferring instead to have a biological replica of themselves." In reality, many couples wish to adopt. There actually is no shortage. But as he mentioned a few sentences later, prospective adoptive parents must go through a ridiculous screening (actually a licensing) process before being allowed to adopt an American child.
Single mothers are choosing to keep their child or abort rather than give the child for adoption, and among some cultures in the US giving up a child is ironically looked upon as "cruel to the child", so abortion becomes the choice instead! In addition, "open adoptions" permitting bio-moms to keep some contact with a child who was given up, and recent state court rulings that allow birth mothers almost unlimited freedom to change their mind and seek return of a child, have made adopting an American child ever riskier for couples here. We've all seen news stories in which a judge orders a child returned to its bio-mom years after it was placed for adoption. That has scared off prospective adoptive parents. The net result is that couples adopt from overseas instead to avoid potential hassles from bio-mom.
Back to the topic at hand. Should abortion for convenience be outlawed? It's tempting to say yes. But there will be consequences to a ban. One is that it could lead to state or federal investigations of miscarriages. You might scoff, but I know of a crime investigation involving an abandoned infant found dead a few years ago in which detectives attempted to access Planned Parenthood's abortions records for that area to eliminate potential suspects (women who had been pregnant). The other consequence, as Barry Goldwater once put it, is that the government that tells you you can't have an abortion might one day become the government that tells you you must have one.
That leads to a stalemate for which I have no answer: I really don't like abortion for convenience, but I foresee grave problems with attempts to ban it. But trying to bar men from expressing an opinion on this or any other topic is obviously no answer either. And it's actually no different from the practice of the fembot sites censoring contrary viewpoints, which has clearly become a favorite feminist tactic.
One thing men and women should have a serious discussion about is the cheapening of life that freeely available abortion has wrought. Euthanasia, mercy killing of infants, ending medical care to the elderly, hopelessly ill, or disabled, and openly permitting suicide were all taboo until the 1970s, after Roe v. Wade. Now they are routinely practiced in one form or another, and this is not good for society. A woman who can terminate a pregnancy can also terminate Grandma if the conditions allow. Men are getting wise to this, and that's why women don't want men to comment on abortion. It opened the door to many evils.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:58 am
Ben Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Sorry guys, but it is a woman's body, end of story. This case has been decided and anyone, man or women, who feels that a fetus, an unfertilized egg, a frozen embryo, etc are viable humans are delusional.
= = =
Sorry Ben but at one time the case for slavery was decided, that blacks had to sit in the back of the bus, that women could not vote or own property, etc., etc. Just because these things were decided does not mean that they are right nor does it imply that what is right should not be fought for because of a decision. It is exactly this attitude that will defeat any fight for right.
b
February 10th, 2008 at 1:01 am
Ben Says:
February 9th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
My being an atheist assists me in seeing the issues very clearly and without a religious bent or the idea that there exists some "feminist conspiracy". It doesn't exist.
= = =
I found this interesting too because being anything gives you a bend including atheist.
b
February 10th, 2008 at 1:36 am
I can't help but think that women who buy into this "my body. my choice." argument are mumbling "my baby" afterwards. Claiming that men should have no say in abortion is just a preemptive strike in controlling the child. If they establish that they do "own" the child they have a head start on influencing that child.
But all I can say is this: "If men have no say in abortion then let's see what women out say if out of nowhere all the sperm banks dried up."
February 10th, 2008 at 1:40 am
In another thread, someone said: "Do you want to win, or do you want to be right?"
And in this thread, Ed said:
"Public policy toward abortion should take the principle 'an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure' into account."
With that in mind, what is stopping men's rights' activists from taking action, ASIDE from Internet discussions, to campaign for better male birth control, since no one could seriously oppose it, especially if they said they were doing it to reduce abortions?
Name an activist man who, regarding the demand for male birth control, has been on TV or the radio at least as much as Matt Dubay (who, considering his own story, could have taken the opportunity to talk about the need for male BC, but didn't). Pretty hard, isn't it? This seems to indicate the demand isn't that big, which would explain why the pharmaceutical researchers might be dragging their heels. Profit is supreme, you know. If Margaret Sanger and her followers were willing to go to jail to make condoms and diaphragms available to the public, why don't we at least have lots of men on TV and the radio loudly protesting and FUNDRAISING for better male BC?
Yes, AIDS means that single men will always be under pressure to use condoms. Yes, long-term/married couples tend to stop using condoms because both men and women dislike them. However, this doesn't have to be an issue of men trusting women (or vice versa) - just a matter of understanding that:
1) all methods can fail (the female pill has a real-life 6% failure rate, according to the Alan Guttmacher Institute) so it's just plain dumb for couples not to use two methods each and every time, and
2) whether you're male or female, if YOU don't want a pregnancy, it's YOUR job to control your own fertility. If BOTH sides use BC, where's the problem?
BTW, even if she's using an IUD, there's still the risk of ectopic pregnancies, which can be fatal to her, so don't try to argue that there's no need for a backup contraceptive in that case.
Not to mention that, at mensnewsdaily.com, there has been NO in-depth discussion of reversible male BC methods that would clearly be preferable to a pill, namely, RISUG and the IVD. (These are nearly foolproof.) Read about them here:
http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/risug.php
http://www.malecontraceptives.org/methods/shug.php
If and when we get them, men everywhere could actually say to women "you can have a baby only when you give me what I want." Or, at least, they'd have 99% peace of mind while they were still using condoms in the relationship, since they'd secretly know that a pinhole wouldn't make much difference.
However, unless American men start demanding them loudly, they may never get them. Why? Profit, again. That is, pills have to be bought and paid for over and over, while the better methods don't.
If those aren't good enough reasons for men to start opening their wallets and taking to the streets for access to RISUG , etc., what is? Sitting around and waiting would obviously backfire.
Finally, you must read at least part of this New York Times Magazine cover story, "Contra-Contraception":
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/07/magazine/07contraception.html
It's nine pages long and it's about the conservatives' war on contraception in general - and how they might be winning. (Think of the pharmacists who are refusing to fill not just prescriptions for Plan B or RU-486, but birth control pills as well.)
My point, of course, is that aside from the lack of visible American male demand for better male BC and the willingness to fund it to the hilt, pro-contraception MRAs (are there any ANTI-contraception MRAs?) can't very well afford not to criticize the conservatives who would happily block birth control of any kind. Even if there turns out to be a small split between opposition to female BC and opposition to male BC, that still doesn't bode well for determinedly childfree men.
Lastly: I like to imagine a subway billboard like this:
"Don't believe in abortion?
"Don't want her to get pregnant either?
"Men.....Get RISUG. Take control of your OWN life."
And parents (single or not) could say to their sons:
"You use (male contraceptive X) to protect yourself and your future in case she makes a mistake. That's why I'm taking you to the doctor for that. However, a gentleman ALWAYS uses condoms to protect his partner - preferably until he's married. There are plenty of very bad diseases besides AIDS, you know. Some are permanent, and some can be caught easily by boys."
Of course, given how strong the temptation would be to refuse to use condoms, it might be better to wait until the boy is actually used to buying and using them. That is, until he's 20 or so.
Finally: I've heard this is hardly a foolproof method, for women at least, who are determined to avoid having children or stepchildren, but it can't hurt to say in the online dating services that you will never have children if you can help it. Assuming you're trying to avoid women who want them. (The women at alt.support.childfree complained that many divorced fathers saw such a statement from a woman only as a challenge, so they answered the women's ads when it was clear the women didn't want them to. I'm sure CF men had the same problem.)
February 10th, 2008 at 2:00 am
Callum says "I was merely doing my usual thing of rooting out rubbish on this blog. Glenn doesn't moderate so somebody has to keep some sanity." Is this carrying on an effort to keep sanity?
Callum says "The only reason I carried on was because of the arrogant to which you approached it. " Is this self-appointment not an arrogant approach?
"You aint the King. Next time try 'I am not continuing this discussion"
Posted previously (Murray) "Thus endeth the civics lesson, Callum. The gaps, or more accurately the chasms, in your logic, render further discussion with you meritless." Is this previous post not a hint of disinterest in continuing the 'discussion'? You aint the King.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:58 am
lenona: "no one could seriously oppose [a male birth control pill]"
Norman: Sure they could - feminists could oppose it, since it takes some of the power for deciding to reproduce, out of women's hands (for example, it would not be as feasible for a woman, to lie about being on the pill so as to get pregnant).
In fact, later in the same comment, lenona effectively gave that very fact as a reason, for why feminists and many other women would oppose it, when she said:
"If and when we get [a male birth control pill], men everywhere could actually say to women 'you can have a baby only when you give me what I want.' "
February 10th, 2008 at 3:06 am
Physiologically, a foetus is not part of a woman's body. It is not some type of appendage. It is an entitly which is growing inside the womb.
(Note that is not the same issue, as whether a foetus "is a human being" or not).
Experiments conducted on animals, have shown both that a zygote can grow external to a womb, on other parts of the body, as well as inside a male animal's body.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:15 am
A condom is male birth control.
A man does not wear a condom to protect his partner (from getting pregnant). He wears it to protect himself from her getting pregnant.
The woman is totally responsible for her own birth control, and cannot place the onus for that on a man.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:39 am
Abortion is a very powerful polical tool. One has only to look
at the ones that demand abortion be kept legal. They use fear to do
so. We hear about how many women would die in back alley abortions
if it were illegal but we sure do not hear how many die from legal
abortions because often the cause of death is masked by something
else.
One thing we seldom hear about also is that it is used to control.
As it is, a woman who does not want to be bothered with a child can
abort it, or in most states now, give it up by leaving it at a fire
station, hospital or other authorized locations no questions
ask...not even who is the father and does he want this child.
We hear about choice...but the choice only belongs to one side. If
she does not want the baby...well bye bye baby even if the father
wants it. However, if he does not want to be burdened with the
responsiblity of a baby..tough luck because she can have that baby
and force him to pay for that child for 18 or more years or she can
abort it even if he does want it. A Christian prolife ministry has
shown that more fathers who had a child aborted on them were
remorsful then the women who aborted them.
http://www.dadsrights.com/ed10.html
In reading President Bush's recent message to the anti-abortion
rally about protecting "the lives of innocent children waiting to be
born," I was struck by the lack of mention of the father's complete
inability to protect his own unborn child. In fact, no one seems to
acknowledge a father's rights to have a say in whether his child
gets to live.
one voice continues to be unheard -- that of the fathers of unborn
children.
As a family law attorney, I work daily with anguished fathers who
have little or no say in the lives of their children. The agony of
these men becomes unimaginable when the child is not yet born and
they have no way of protecting the life they helped to create.
Carey Roberts wrote: Fathers the fall-guy in the abortion debate
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/040304
Third is the decision to get the abortion. As proof of male
irresponsibility, people like to cite Carol Gilligan's famous study,
In a Different Voice, which found that in one-third of cases, the
father influenced the woman's decision to get the abortion.
But citing this and similar studies reverses the argument. If the
decision to get an abortion rests with the father one-third of the
time, then clearly, the woman has made the decision in the other two-
thirds of the cases.
But even Gilligan's one-third figure is suspect. A few years ago,
Arthur Shostak and Gary McLouth interviewed 1,000 fathers of aborted
children. Their book, Men and Abortion: Lessons, Losses, and Love
reveals that only 4% of the women had been opposed to getting the
abortion in the first place.
So the myth that women get an abortion because of coercion by
marauding sexual predators is an urban legend that serves to shield
us from one simple fact: abortion is by and large a female-dominated
decision.
The fetus that resides within the mother's womb inherits half of its
genetic material from the father. But as a result of Roe v. Wade,
fathers have no standing under reproductive law. Women, married or
not, have no duty to consult with, or even inform the father about
the abortion. And this is exactly what happens 15% of the time.
Fathers have been biologically disenfranchised.
It is a truism that rights and responsibilities go hand in hand.
When rights recede, responsibilities also diminish. Thus deprived of
their fundamental biological rights, is it possible that Roe v. Wade
also may have intruded on men's basic sense of familial obligation?
http://www.nymministries.org/tnf110c.html
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article4276.html
http://home.wi.rr.com/noparh/fathers.html
To conclude, I am very much pro life too...but I do not know very
many pro lifers that are so insenstive that they would rant and rave
to a person who had an abortion telling her she is a murder and a
baby killer. Yes, often a prolifer will call the abortion industry
baby killers but most reconize that the women having abortions have
not been given informed consent. They are not told that most women
who have abortions will often regret it down the road, that they can
often have physical problems as a result. They are not told that 5
years later, when looking a a group of 5 year olds at play, they may
well wonder...what would my baby have been like.
I personally have talked to many women who had abortions as well as
many fathers. Many of these men and women were still hurting
decades later and still had problems forgiven themselves.
In short, abortion is a multibillion dollar industry just as is domestic violence. These industries are controled by feminist and both are far more into contol then justice or choice
February 10th, 2008 at 6:24 am
"A stream of anti-abortion e-mail suddenly fills my in box, courtesy of male adolescents. How do these boys figure that a woman's womb is any of their business? How do men, for that matter?"
Indeed. I have often wondered how women imagine that a man's money is any of their business. Or a man's sexual behaviour. Or pornography consumption. Or whether a man chooses to marry and settle down, or just play around. Surely men are equally autonomous individuals, and women have no business trying to influence their behaviour.
Oh wait, sorry, I forgot. Only women have the right to do whatever they please regardless of anyone else. Women are allowed to try to control men, but men must never try to influence women's behaviour. Men owe women everything. Commitment. Financial support. Protection. A shoulder to cry on. So what do women owe in return? Nada. Nothing. Squat.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:57 am
In thinking more about this, the following occurred to me:
What is the woman who is pregnant, but doesn't wish to be, concerned with?
One guesses it is that the pregnancy (growing life -- whenever you wish to consider it crossing the threshold of being a "life") is imposing inconvenience and/or taking a toll on that "resource" which is her own body. They keep talking about "their body", right? It seems to be all about their body.
So if that precious resource (woman's body) is to be protected from inconvenience or resource-depletion by the courts, and its owner is to have rights transcending the right of all others, including the right of the life which gets ended by her choice, how is it fair for the courts to routinely impose body- and life-depleting slave contracts on men for children which those same women had against the will, or without the consent or agreement of, the men those women then go on to mercilessly deplete?
February 10th, 2008 at 10:17 am
I remember seeing ultrasound images of my daughter in her mother's womb when she was still in the early stages of pregnancy. I remember thinking then about the basic, undeniable truth of one of the most simple anti-abortion slogans: "abortion stops a heartbeat." It sickens me to think that her mother, my ex, could have legally chosen to end this pregnancy and snuff out this precious life without even notifying me, let alone requiring any kind of consent from me.
Men have no right to be involved in the abortion issue? IMHO, this whole argument simply illustrates the selfish and self-centered nature of our whole society, let alone so many of the current crop of "feminists."
If procreation is simply a woman's choice and "men have too many opinions about an issue that affects only those with a womb", then why do so many women seem to expect to have a man finance this choice for them?
February 10th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Nick S, I enjoyed the post about men and their business is a woman's business and we should stay out of their business. One reason I'm so totally against feminism is because at its core it seeks to subjugate men and empower women. Also, feminists by law have no morality. That's why they bed hop, kill babies alienate kids from their dads and do so many other horrors. Feminism brings out the worst in women and many of them consider it progress. It won't last and the end of it is going to be very ugly indeed.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
I don't understand the consistent failure to keep separate two issues:
A. what women do (why should MRAs care?)
and
B. institutional anti-male bias.
Now the focus of men's rights activists, in my opinion, and to the extent that I am an MRA, is B. The obsessive, negative concern with A is a sign of weakness. In fact, any concern with A is a luxury. Why do you even bother with women if the possibility of an abortion is unacceptable to you? Likewise for all of the other negative things said about them. If the risk of losing your children or finding yourself kicked out of yourself is so high, then maintain an insular distance from them. If I could manage to stay clear of trouble (no kids, never married) for all of these years, and I'm 48, then what on earth is wrong with you? I suppose it is for this reason I may not have enough in common with most MRAs.
This business of calling women murders is OK if you are against abortion, but abortion is a political matter that must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. Common morality cannot decide whether abortion is morally wrong, because the determination of which entities are protected by common morality is itself beyond the scope of common morality. Hence the endless controversy. A similar situation arises with animal rights. This holds whether you adhere to Bernard Gert's account of common morality (as in "Common Morality: deciding what to do" http://www.amazon.com/Common-Morality-Deciding-What-Do/dp/0195173716/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202663877&sr=8-1) or whether you prefer a more naturalist and less purely philosophical account of morality that includes the five themes of harm, fairness, community (or group loyalty), authority and purity (as in "The Moral Instinct" by Stephen Pinker, in http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/magazine/13Psychology-t.html?pagewanted=all)
It doesn't happen to bother me if women want abortions, etc. The only concern is B. Now you could say to feminists who insist that abortion is no one's concern but the mother (Gert incidentally mentions that the only other person possibly concerned is the father--but only as someone who expresses a concern with no moral force whatsoever) that men should have the right to their own bodies. If women have the right to uninterrupted sexual development, then men should have that right: no circumcision. That's at least some sort of political statement. But threatening to ban abortions is simply nonsense. It is not going to happen.
February 10th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
"kicked out of yourself" should have been "kicked out of your house" though the misstatement has a lot to recommend it.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
lenona says:
"With that in mind, what is stopping men's rights' activists from taking action, ASIDE from Internet discussions, to campaign for better male birth control, since no one could seriously oppose it, especially if they said they were doing it to reduce abortions?
Name an activist man who, regarding the demand for male birth control, has been on TV or the radio at least as much as Matt Dubay (who, considering his own story, could have taken the opportunity to talk about the need for male BC, but didn't). Pretty hard, isn't it? This seems to indicate the demand isn't that big, which would explain why the pharmaceutical researchers might be dragging their heels."
First of all, pharmaceutical researchers aren't dragging their heels.
Secondly, since when does activism suddenly result in a scientific breakthrough?
The rate of scientific progress is not proportional to the number of people marching with signs.
A good example would be to look at fuel cells or photovoltaics when it comes to the environment. There has been no dearth of campaigns to save the earth and reduce our carbon emissions, yet each year that goes by we put out more and more pollution because the research advances we make just cannot keep up with population and consumption increases.
The point is this, from a biological standpoint it is several orders of magnitude more difficult to develop a male birth control pill than a female one. The reason is actually quite simple... to prevent a woman from getting pregnant you only have to block one event, the release of an egg once per month. This is achieved in many cases by tricking the womans body into thinking she is already pregnant, the hormones related to this are well known precisely because it is easy to see what hormones are present in a pregnant woman that are not present otherwise.
By contrast, for a male birth control pill to even be remotely effective you have to bring sperm production to a stand still... literally stopping the production of millions and millions of cells every second of every day. That is a much more daunting task, especially when you want to make sure that there are no side effects associated with the drugs that bring that effect about.
Believe me, the pharamaceutical industry would love to come out with a viable male birth control pill... it's just not as simple as them saying "well we've got one, but we aren't going to put it on the market until we see some people marching out the window demanding it".
February 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
An ancient proverb of unknown origin states that, “A picture is worth a thousand words”.
Glenn uses imagery in most of his postings, and that probably contributes significantly to the effectiveness, and popularity, of his website.
Imagery is used in the courtroom very effectively, by both sides of the case, to either prove, or disprove, a theory or fact.
The film industry has perfected the use of imagery, in combination with convincing performances by actors, to the point, where many in our society, have trouble separating “movies”, from reality.
For anyone interested in seeing what a “woman’s choice”, translates into in the *real world*, those images are available on the internet.
Photographic evidence of past atrocities, are very useful in education, and the documentation of historical facts.
Kevin Merck
February 10th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
bmmg39, you are delusional. It is not a viable human at the point of conception. Science demonstrates this clearly. Get a life.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Until there is reliable male birth control that provides men with the same choices women enjoy, there is going to be a gender war about supporting babies that men never intended to make.
This will require something more scientific than condoms, and legal reforms that require DNA paternity tests for every child born -- and an "opt out" law if the guy is not the biological father. (Which according to current statistics would be 33% of the time...)
What we have today is a system that rewards women for being whores.
If you like what's happening, by all means ...
Do nothing.
February 10th, 2008 at 1:59 pm
Ben,
Viability is a mobile point dictated by current medical technology.
If at the point of conception an embryo can grow to be a human within a womans womb it isn't outlandish to expect medical science to advance to the point where that cluster of cells can be grown into a human without the need for a woman's body whatsoever.
The only thing that science demonstrates in this case is that viability changes dependant upon the technology available.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
Scientists and researchers who understand and study the early stages of human life (and biology) will inform you, the fertilized egg is very far removed from a human being. In order to become a living, breathing, conscious "person", the fertilized egg must complete an arduous process of growth and development. Anything can happen and often does in the early tenuous stages of cell division and embryonic growth.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Ben,
You are confusing terms here and that is where you are making a mistake.
You are confusing the notions of viability with that of being a human being.
What viability indicates is the potential to become a human being given the current stand of medical technology.
The point is that the "arduous process" that you refer to doesn't have to take place in a womb, that is why we currently place the limit of viability at around 23 weeks gestation, because that is the point at which we can reasonably expect to keep that infant alive in an extrauterine environment.
That point of viability isn't set in stone however as it is defined not by gestation time, but by the stage of development at which doctors could reasonably keep that developing human alive without the mother.
February 10th, 2008 at 2:36 pm
Jason, when you have a background in hard sciences (as I do, Chemical Engineering and Physics) and don't obtain your data from shills of "Focus on the Family", Pat Robertson or others, please come back and discuss this intelligently.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:09 pm
Ben says:
"Jason, when you have a background in hard sciences (as I do, Chemical Engineering and Physics) and don't obtain your data from shills of "Focus on the Family", Pat Robertson or others, please come back and discuss this intelligently."
Done... I hold a degree in physics as well.
Now maybe you can get off your high horse and deal with the facts of what viability actually means.
I am using accepted legal and medical definitions for the term, you are maing up bogus definitions to suit your argument.
February 10th, 2008 at 3:19 pm
Ben,
Just to drive my point forward with a little more evidence, I will show you a definition of viability issued by planned parenthood... an organization I am assuming you would accept the word of on the subject.
http://www.ppacca.org/site/pp.asp?c=kuJYJeO4F&b=139571
I draw your attention to the following under the "How is viability determined" section:
"In COLAUTTI, the Supreme Court defined viability as occurring "when, in the judgment of the attending physician on the particular facts of the case before him, there is a reasonable likelihood of the fetus' sustained survival outside the womb, with or without artificial support.""
Seems very similar to what I've been saying now doesn't it?
I guess those uneducated Supreme Court justices must be obtaining their data from shills too.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:05 pm
Ben said: "Sorry guys, but it is a woman's body, end of story. This case has been decided and anyone, man or women, who feels that a fetus, an unfertilized egg, a frozen embryo, etc are viable humans are delusional. From a scientific and medical point of view, it simply is not factual. I am a man and realize this without equivocation. My being an atheist assists me in seeing the issues very clearly and without a religious bent or the idea that there exists some "feminist conspiracy". It doesn't exist".
Ben, while I am a Buddhist and not an atheist, I have to agree with you on this one. However, let me ask you. If it is a woman's body, and a woman's choice, and a man doesn't have a say in this, should he (in your opinion) be able to opt out of any involvement with the child? That is, should he not have to be saddled with any financial and parental responsibilities for the child if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the man does not want any responsibility for the child? The reason I ask this question is because many that hold your same belief in a "woman's body, end of story" do not see a contradiction in a man being forced to pay for a child that they did not want. In my opinion, a man should have the same right to opt out of responsibility for a child if they didn't want the child in the first place, as a woman does for deciding to get an abortion, or keep the child.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
"...many that hold your same belief in a "woman's body, end of story" do not see a contradiction in a man being forced to pay for a child that they did not want."
The reason that no-one, let alone anyone who believes "woman's body, end of story", sees a contradiction (unless they are imagining or hallucinating one) is that no contradiction follows logically. These are logically independent political statements. You can have societies in which:
1. abortions are illegal and men must pay support for their biological children;
2. abortions are illegal and men need not pay support for their biological children;
3. abortions are legal and men must pay support for their biological children; or,
4. abortions are legal and men need not pay support for their biological children.
Any of these are possible and consistent. It is a matter for the legal and political system to decide which of these cases hold. Morality is simply too weak a system to rule any of them out because of a preference for or against abortion. Religious and conservative moralities might rule out 3 and 4, but not all equally informed impartial rational persons are either religious or conservative. So the matter has to be transferred to political and legal system for resolution.
It is understood that the resolution is temporary and political; the underlying controversy is not resolved by the legal and political system, nor can it be.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Anyway, MRAs who lobby against abortion are wasting their efforts as MRAs, since the issue has nothing politically to do with institutional bias against men. You could outlaw abortion and still have the broken family court system, extortional child support, and so on. Efforts to criminalize abortion are an excuse obsess over women's behavior, instead of grappling with institutionalized anti-male bias. It's for reasons like this that I left the NCFM. It's pointless attempting to get this through their skulls.
February 10th, 2008 at 4:59 pm
Extortionate, excuse me.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:00 pm
"bmmg39, you are delusional. It is not a viable human at the point of conception. Science demonstrates this clearly. Get a life."
Again, science textbooks and encyclopedia entries state clearly that fertilization brings about a new human being's life. "Viability" is a cop-out. Stating that a fetus has difficulty on her or his own, and then arguing that this makes a fetus a non-person, is akin to arguing that a newborn isn't a human being because (s)he still needs assistance from adults in order to survive.
And, by the way? People usually resort to "get a life" when they have no actual argument -- a phenomenon being demonstrated beautifully here.
"Jason, when you have a background in hard sciences (as I do, Chemical Engineering and Physics) and don't obtain your data from shills of 'Focus on the Family', Pat Robertson or others, please come back and discuss this intelligently."
You have degrees? Because it sounds as though you haven't taken seventh-grade science yet.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:01 pm
Stephen,
feminism is ultimately doomed to fail because their policies are economically and socially unstable. Moreover, as more men become marginalised by existing policies eventually enough will work to overthrow the existing order. The problem is that it will take some time for this to happen. And the damage done, particularly to relations between men and women, will take a long time to heal. Even if we could wave a magic wand and vanquish every trace of feminism from society today, it would probably take decades to fix the social problems generated.
You're right that feminism brings out the worst in women. Liberation is a one-way street. The prevailing doctrine effectively says that men owe women everything while women owe men nothing.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Xlp,
"These are logically independent political statements."
Not exactly, because each form of argument requires you to advocate opposing premesis.
When one person makes both arguments simultaneously they have to do a whole song and dance to get around the fact that thet are asserting as fact two contradictory suppositions.
In the case of abortion one makes the claim that the father has no responsibility to or for that child whatsoever, therefore his opinion means nothing in the decision process.
In the case of child support one makes the claim that the father does have responsibility to and for that child, therefore he is under a financial obligation to provide for it.
A father cannot simultaneously have and not have responsibility for the child.
That is where the contradiction sets in and why they are not logically independant.
The logic which gets you to each conclusion relies upon premesis which would contradict the other conclusion... that is a problem for which I have yet to see a well reasoned explaination.
The only way out is to suggest that his responsibility only begins after birth... but that quite frankly is a cop out, especially because even after birth the mother isn't required to tell the father if she is giving it up for adoption or just going to leave the baby in a hospital somewhere.
It seems to me the current logical structure goes something like this "men are responsible when and only when women want them to be... and in such cases they are responsible only to the extent that women want them to be"
That is an objectionable and unreasonable stance.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
"In the case of abortion one makes the claim that the father has no responsibility to or for that child whatsoever, therefore his opinion means nothing in the decision process."
False. The abortion controversy, as I have stated numerous times, concerns the inability of common morality to decide which beings are protected by it. Proponents of abortion would not concede that there is a child at all: they assert that there is a fetus. The assertion then is
"In the case of abortion one makes the claim that the father has no responsibility to or for that fetus whatsoever, therefore his opinion means nothing in the decision process."
Also, some would dispute the "if...then..." statement. Why is there a "therefore?" Some proponents of abortion would assert that the father was responsible for the fetus, but any responsibility the father has (he has a responsibility not to harm the fetus) is terminated if the fetus is aborted. However, if the fetus is not aborted and a child is born, the father has a responsibility to support the child. You can't find a contradiction, because these statements are independent. They may be deeply held by some people, but that won't substitute for logical consequence.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
"False. The abortion controversy, as I have stated numerous times, concerns the inability of common morality to decide which beings are protected by it. Proponents of abortion would not concede that there is a child at all: they assert that there is a fetus."
Except our current laws also allow the murder of a pregnant woman to count as two murders.
If what you are saying is true this should be an impossibility as you cannot murder a non-existant person.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
Anyway just because some radical feminist insists that the biological father can never inform a woman's decision to have an abortion does not mean that in real life, people never discuss what what to do in each case. It's just a political statement that cannot possibly inform an MRAs decision to eradicate institutionalized anti-male bias.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
How about if it is not men’s business then they should not write to or bother their male representatives nor get their female representatives to bother the male representatives to affect any change . . . this can be a double-edged sword for women. . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
"Except our current laws also allow the murder of a pregnant woman to count as two murders."
Well, that law may or may not be consistent with the idea that the fetus is not a child. It is still consistent for the mother only to decide to abort, but for it to be illegal for another person to induce an abortion or kill the fetus without the mother's consent. It is consistent for the law to state when and how a fetus may be terminated, and to exact punishment in case those conditions are not met.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Here's a better statement (sort of):
Anyway just because some radical feminist insists that the biological father can never inform a woman's decision to have an abortion does not mean that in real life, people never discuss what what to do in each case. It's just a political statement that cannot possibly inform an MRAs decision to abort the fetus of institutionalized anti-male bias.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Xlp,
Sorry for the double post, but I just read the following and would like your take on what you just asserted:
"Some proponents of abortion would assert that the father was responsible for the fetus, but any responsibility the father has (he has a responsibility not to harm the fetus) is terminated if the fetus is aborted."
Why is it the fathers responsibility not to harm the fetus?
If the fetus isn't a child and has no rights... then why should anyone care if he selected to harm it?
Clearly society at large doesn't mind so much if the mother selects to harm the fetus, right?
So what exactly is the difference here?
If the fathers responsiblity is not to harm the fetus, what exactly is the mothers responsibility?... or does she have none?
Mothers can drink and do drugs with relative impunity while they are pregnant if they so choose... those actions harm the fetus.
The truth is that both stances are in fact coupled, they are not nearly as independant as you suggest precisely because there is a dichotomy at play between what we declare is permissable for women and what is permissable for men. The fact that the baby develops within the woman only accounts for some of the legal differences we see... the rest have no justification whatsoever.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Chew on this awhile . . . If the male pill is given the okey-dokey, what do you think the odds are that it will be as widely covered under your heath insurance prescription plan as the female pill . . .?
I give that a ZERO percent possibility . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Xlp Thlplylp Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
"Except our current laws also allow the murder of a pregnant woman to count as two murders."
= = =
Not in every state . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
# Norman L. Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 2:58 am
lenona: "no one could seriously oppose [a male birth control pill]"
Norman: Sure they could - feminists could oppose it, since it takes some of the power for deciding to reproduce, out of women's hands (for example, it would not be as feasible for a woman, to lie about being on the pill so as to get pregnant).
In fact, later in the same comment, lenona effectively gave that very fact as a reason, for why feminists and many other women would oppose it, when she said:
"If and when we get [a male birth control pill], men everywhere could actually say to women 'you can have a baby only when you give me what I want.' "
Lenona: Well, maybe I should have been more specific when I said "seriously oppose." That is, yes, you can find one kook anywhere who might say that men should never have access to birth control that a woman can't sabotage. Just as you don't even have to search for kooks who say this country would be better off if women couldn't vote - Ann Coulter said that quite recently without being asked. (Sure, maybe she was joking, but with her you never know.) My point is that anyone who's serious about, say, running for public office is not so likely to shoot her mouth off like that - unless she's opposed to birth control in general, of course. Last I heard, Coulter is not running for any office, so she can say what she pleases, whether she means it or not.
And regarding that scenario about better male b.c. methods (and I don't consider pills to be a great form of b.c. when even WOMEN complain of having to remember to take them), I don't really expect most men to use pills OR implants, so I don't expect that scenario to happen much, if at all. I only mentioned it to make campaigning for b.c. sound a bit more fun. After all, from what I hear from the media, women's knee-jerk reaction to the idea of a male pill is not "he shouldn't have that right" but "I WOULDN'T TRUST HIM TO TAKE IT!" So it's probably safe to say that only 1% or less of women give any thought to the issue of losing the chance to get pregnant. Besides, as I pointed out to Mr. Sacks in a private email, chances are for the last half-century, many, many wives have cried to their female friends "my husband won't let ME go off the Pill. He says he's not ready. I don't know what to do." I.e., the majority (I'm not saying 90%) of women really don't want to "oopse" a man who doesn't want to be a father.
My long term hunch, which I think is quite reasonable, is that the main market for male b.c. will be married men whose wives ASK them to use it as a backup to their own b.c. The other big market will be rich, promiscuous celebrities surrounded by gold-digging groupies who are always trying to talk them out of using condoms anyway.
# Norman L. Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 3:15 am
A condom is male birth control.
A man does not wear a condom to protect his partner (from getting pregnant). He wears it to protect himself from her getting pregnant.
The woman is totally responsible for her own birth control, and cannot place the onus for that on a man.
Lenona: Somehow, I'd bet at least half of all American men would disagree with that. How else do you explain the thousands of men who get vasectomies here? I knew a divorced man in his 40s who got one even though he didn't even have a girlfriend at the time. Why? He didn't want any more children. Period. He wasn't about to count on technology to work every single time.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:48 pm
"Why is it the fathers responsibility not to harm the fetus?
If the fetus isn't a child and has no rights... then why should anyone care if he selected to harm it?"
The responsibility is at least legal: the law may specify conditions under which a fetus may be aborted, and it does. If the father is not also the operating physician, then he may be held responsible. In that respect he is no different from anyone else who might harm the fetus.
The fetus also (generally speaking) happens to reside in the mother's body. All persons have a duty, legal and ethical, not to harm the mother. But it is enough for the law to specify conditions under which a fetus can be aborted. The law does do this.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Xlp Thlplylp Says:
No, I was quoting it; Jason said it and I mentioned it.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
Lenona,
I think you are seriously underestimating the marketability of any pill related to sex.
If you want to argue that it won't be as popular as the female pill be my guest... but it would still be a huge money maker in the portfolio of any pharma.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
Yes, I made the statement... it wasn't meant to be taken as an all pervasive event, just something to keep in mind about legal inconsistencies.
Whether or not it is nation-wide doesn't alter the point I was making.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
lenona Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Besides, as I pointed out to Mr. Sacks in a private email, chances are for the last half-century, many, many wives have cried to their female friends "my husband won't let ME go off the Pill. He says he's not ready. I don't know what to do." I.e., the majority (I'm not saying 90%) of women really don't want to "oopse" a man who doesn't want to be a father.
= = =
That is funny, during that same time period in NY WOMEN had to ALLOW their husbands to get a vasectomy. If a husband wanted one he could not get one until his wife signed paperwork allowing it . . .hummmm
b
February 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
Xlp,
""Why is it the fathers responsibility not to harm the fetus?
If the fetus isn't a child and has no rights... then why should anyone care if he selected to harm it?"
The responsibility is at least legal: the law may specify conditions under which a fetus may be aborted, and it does. If the father is not also the operating physician, then he may be held responsible. In that respect he is no different from anyone else who might harm the fetus.
The fetus also (generally speaking) happens to reside in the mother's body. All persons have a duty, legal and ethical, not to harm the mother. But it is enough for the law to specify conditions under which a fetus can be aborted. The law does do this."
In other words... the reason is because the law says so.
Meaning there is no logical reason... it's just the way it is.
February 10th, 2008 at 5:55 pm
Xlp Thlplylp Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:50 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
Xlp Thlplylp Says:
No, I was quoting it; Jason said it and I mentioned it.
= = =
Sorry, thanks for the correction
b
February 10th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
I wonder if the sun times would print an article titled: 'Domestic Violence Isn't Woman's Business'. The editorial would be based on the premise that it isn't another woman's business what I do with 'my' wife. She belongs to me therefore I can beat her.
This is basically the argument this feminist is using for abortion. It's her fetus (not hers and her husbands); therefore she can do what she wants to it. Unless of course she decides to carry her child to term. Then HER choice become HIS responsibility.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
# Jason Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
First of all, pharmaceutical researchers aren't dragging their heels.
Secondly, since when does activism suddenly result in a scientific breakthrough?
The rate of scientific progress is not proportional to the number of people marching with signs.
A good example would be to look at fuel cells or photovoltaics when it comes to the environment. There has been no dearth of campaigns to save the earth and reduce our carbon emissions, yet each year that goes by we put out more and more pollution because the research advances we make just cannot keep up with population and consumption increases.
The point is this, from a biological standpoint it is several orders of magnitude more difficult to develop a male birth control pill than a female one. The reason is actually quite simple... to prevent a woman from getting pregnant you only have to block one event, the release of an egg once per month. This is achieved in many cases by tricking the womans body into thinking she is already pregnant, the hormones related to this are well known precisely because it is easy to see what hormones are present in a pregnant woman that are not present otherwise.
By contrast, for a male birth control pill to even be remotely effective you have to bring sperm production to a stand still... literally stopping the production of millions and millions of cells every second of every day. That is a much more daunting task, especially when you want to make sure that there are no side effects associated with the drugs that bring that effect about.
Lenona: Um, that's precisely why I DIDN'T suggest campaigning for faster access to a male pill. RISUG and the IVD (methods I advocated more than once in the post) are simpler and reportedly safer. Not to mention you can't forget to take them.
And regarding the statement "The rate of scientific progress is not proportional to the number of people marching with signs," I'd say, maybe not, but scientific progress certainly isn't slowed down by massive fundraising and publicity, and I don't see either at the moment. Especially publicity, outside of the Internet. (Not much even online, as I mentioned.)
I don't know whether pharmaceutical companies are truly worried or not about whether any male method will be profitable. I do know that it's been 50 years since the creation of the female Pill, and even the IVD, which sounds pretty simple (and non-hormonal), has yet to hit the market. That looks to me as though they're dragging their heels.
Finally, see this recent Canadian article. (I'm not saying it's fair, necessarily.)
http://media.www.mcgilltribune.com/media/storage/paper234/news/2008/01/22/Opinion/Off-The.Board.May.Cause.InferPillIty-3159872.shtml
Apparently, even before AIDS, "men wouldn't take" a pill even when it was available. As if there weren't plenty of female smokers who couldn't use the female pill either.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
"Human life" is a socially constructed concept. Human societies have generally made distinctions as to what does or does not constitute "viable human life", so "human viability" is not scientifically determined. Let's take an example of a severe sociopath: such a person has a genetic disorder that renders them incapable of feeling empathy for other human beings. Such individuals are the source of a massively disproportionate amount of social ills we experience.
Are such individuals really "viable" human life? I would say not, and if we had the technology to pinpoint such individuals with near certainty it seems reasonable for a society to discuss socially implemented infanticide of such individuals. Human society has always killed, and our evolution is part and parcel of weeding out undesirable individuals in order to promote the thriving of society. Infanticide, abortion and even removing "problem children" from society has been the rule in human history rather than the exception. Who really loses out when you put those young sociopaths and other severe personality disorders into a general social situation? The 90 percent who do not have severe personality disorders. This big pissing contest over who has the better scientific creds is laughable. Either you present testable and intelligible theories and argue for them using logic and evidence or you are just flapping your gums. Science is not some rarified, arcane art accessible by only the chosen few. Anyone in, probably, the top 20 percent of the IQ bell curve can, with a little time and effort, come to a pretty decent understanding of the different ways in which scientists explore and investigate our world.
One of you were lamenting about the lack of a male birth control pill hampering men's freedom to choose to have or not have a child. But what is really hampering men's freedom is the state enforcing child support for children who those men would have otherwise had aborted. To give men real freedom in this area all you need is to make it optional for a man to be on a child's birth certificate, and if he chose not to then he would be absolved of any support, or attachment, to the child.
This would almost certainly result in an large increase in the number of abortions. And that's a good thing. The more abortions had by the young, single, low-IQ and poor the better off is the rest of society.
We are far too squeamish about killing people for the good of society. Someone is only "viable human life" if society chooses to recognize them as such.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
Lenona,
"I'd say, maybe not, but scientific progress certainly isn't slowed down by massive fundraising and publicity, and I don't see either at the moment. Especially publicity, outside of the Internet."
At the present time government funding for scientific efforts has been seriously cut due to the last budget that went through congress.
The only programs that have substantial funding available are those directly related to the current administrations mission to Mars.
In other words... if you want research money from the government for the male pill at the present time you will have to find a way to spin it such that it will lead us to getting to Mars more rapidly... I don't see that happening any time soon.
February 10th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Asher Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
This would almost certainly result in an large increase in the number of abortions. And that's a good thing. The more abortions had by the young, single, low-IQ and poor the better off is the rest of society.
We are far too squeamish about killing people for the good of society. Someone is only "viable human life" if society chooses to recognize them as such.
= = =
WOW! I know that some one else said something very similar around 1936-38. I do not know what the answer is to the increasing numbers of people who cannot take care of themselves but we if we are not should be judged by our humanity towards others . . .
Do not get me wrong sometimes out of frustration I find the Darwin awards funny but to out right suggest aborting just because you are poor or know the fetus is defective at this point in our history is like opening a door to which you do not know what is behind it . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 6:55 pm
A society that allows men normal control of their family and numbers of children will always decimate a matriarchal society where men do not matter.
In this case, Western Society is slowly setting itself up for Islamification,
February 10th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Xlp Thlplylp said: "The reason that no-one, let alone anyone who believes "woman's body, end of story", sees a contradiction (unless they are imagining or hallucinating one) is that no contradiction follows logically. These are logically independent political statements. You can have societies in which:
1. abortions are illegal and men must pay support for their biological children;
2. abortions are illegal and men need not pay support for their biological children;
3. abortions are legal and men must pay support for their biological children; or,
4. abortions are legal and men need not pay support for their biological children.
Any of these are possible and consistent. It is a matter for the legal and political system to decide which of these cases hold".
While I may disagree with you on your logic, lets say for the sake of argument that there is no contradiction. My original question still stands: If it is a woman's body, and a woman's choice, and a man doesn't have a say in this, should he (in your opinion) be able to opt out of any involvement with the child? That is, should he not have to be saddled with any financial and parental responsibilities for the child if the woman chooses to have the baby, but the man does not want any responsibility for the child? Why or why not?
I understand it is a matter of the legal and political system. However, since peoples opinions shape whom they vote for and the initiatives that they support, then opinions ultimately shape the legal and political system.
February 10th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
#lenona said:
"..you can find one kook anywhere who might say that men should never have access to birth control..who's serious about, say, running for public office is not so likely to shoot her mouth off like that.. "
Norman: I'm not sure exactly who you consider to be "kooks", but radical feminists, who have had a tremendous impact on legislation in this country, may very well come out in opposition to a male birth control pill, for the reason I gave - this pill would take some of the control over reproduction out of women's hands. Also keep in mind that politicians are voted into offiice, and the majority of voters in most political elections are women.
#lenona said:
"[how do you] explain the thousands of men who get vasectomies here? I knew a divorced man in his 40s who got one even though he didn't even have a girlfriend at the time. Why? He didn't want any more children.."
Norman: I agree, lots of men get vasectomies. They do this to protect themselves from the woman getting pregnant - that is, they (the men) do not want children - as you mention.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm
"My original question still stands: If it is a woman's body, and a woman's choice, and a man doesn't have a say in this, should he (in your opinion) be able to opt out of any involvement with the child?"
I would support some form of choice for men. I don't have time at the moment to give reasons--they are political opinions in any case. My own sense of fairness doesn't mean that any of the four logically independent assertions become logically related.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
I also wanted to point out that one of the biggest problems in the legal system is the dogma of doing what is in the best interests of the child, when what is a far better fulcrum is what is in the best interests of society. Often what is done to further the welfare of some specific child has the effect of being detrimental to society. I think it would behoove so-called men's activists to inform greater society how the current anti-male bias in the legal system weakens the overall fabric of society. Let me give you an example of how this works:
Today, the family court system, divorce laws, etc. all make normal, decent men leery of marriage. Per many posts and comments on this site we see how an "empowered" woman can suddenly decide she's tired of a marriage and manipulate and use the divorce laws to completely screw over her husband. This creates a significant disincentive for decent, normal, successful men to get married and start families. Let's say you have a hard-working guy with no substance-abuse problems, no personality disorders and an above average IQ and financial stability. It is clearly in society's interest for this man to get married and raise a family with one woman. However, due to the laws discussed on this site that man is often dissuaded and impeded from that path by the anti-male legal system.
This is socially destructive. Men's advocates would do far better in advancing their cause by appealing to the self-interest of greater society than to whine about their "rights" being violated.
February 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Incorrect Bernie. Hitler's main claim to "fame" is that of attempting to eliminate the ethnic group that has the highest average IQ in the world today: the Jews. When people talk Holocaust that is almost always a specific reference to the killing of 6 million Jews, although the Nazis also targeted the gypsies, for example.
Are you aware that the Italian government, socialist/leftist by the way, is deporting tens of thousands of "Romanians"? What the news reports do not say is that those "Romanians" are actually gypsies, but mostly originating from the nation of Romania. If Hitler had stuck to people like the gypsies and left wonderful contributors to European society, namely Jews, alone we would not be talking about the Holocaust. if the Nazis had managed to finish off the Gypsies the world would, objectively speaking, be a better place today, and barring the anti-Semitism and other irrationalities, we would not be using the term Holocaust. BTW, the average gypsy IQ is about 70, while the average Ashkenazi Jewish IQ is around 110.
There is a world of difference between myself and Hitler: I am rational, he was grossly irrational.
BTW, the Nazis began targeting gays relatively late in the regime. Early on, Hitler was supported by many gays. For the record, I am fine with gay marriage as long as gay men abandon their current feminist allies and throw in their lot with the overwhelmingly straight middle class.
Hurt your enemies, support your allies. Any system of thought that does not incorporate that maxim is long-term suicide. It's your call Bernie.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:07 pm
Asher Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Hurt your enemies, support your allies. Any system of thought that does not incorporate that maxim is long-term suicide. It's your call Bernie.
= = =
I really do not have allies or enemies I just fight for what is right and decent, suggesting that the poor, the dumb, the smart, or whoever you wish to target should not have children in not right. You could be eliminating the person that has the cure to a disease that you or one of your family members has or will get . . . your call Asher
b
February 10th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Um, the dumb do not cure diseases and good social policy is not arrived at by attempting to find some hypothetical person who might cure some future hypothetical disease of one of my loved ones. And it blows my mind that something this obvious would escape you. As for ... "I really do not have allies or enemies I just fight for what is right and decent," ... well, there are as many ways of interpreting things like right and decent as there are different types of life. What is right and decent for the noble and right and decent for the base are two very different things.
If you do not have allies or enemies then you are completely apolitical because allies and enemies is the sine qua non of politics. Politics is about obtaining in coalitions what is unattainable individually, which is where the function of allies arises. But other types of life may have different, often opposing, political aims and that is where you get enemies.
This appeal to some abstract, Platonic ideal of "right" is just nonsense. Cultivate your virtues and in doing so hopefully you will demonstrate to others that you have something to offer them that will make their world better. And perish those who cannot offer such.
February 10th, 2008 at 9:50 pm
It is terrible to think that you see no social good in all people great and small, that social policy is not good because it considers the impact of people not born yet (much like the story of the Medicine Man and his cure lost to a creature considered insignificant).
Let me clarify right and decent. I will fight for what is right even if I have disagreed with a person on other issues. If that person is right and not receiving his just due at this moment in time he/she deservers to have people like me stand up for them and be counted.
As for the nobles and the base NO there is not a difference, not in my eyes, nor should it be in yours or anyone else’s to quote you "it blows my mind that something this obvious would escape you."
Regarding the enemies and allies that is from my perspective, I will fight for what is right and condemn what is wrong, and yes, it will be based on my life experience, of which you are now a part in shaping, thanks.
b
February 10th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
Asher Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
Incorrect Bernie. Hitler's main claim to "fame" is that of attempting to eliminate the ethnic group that has the highest average IQ in the world today: the Jews. When people talk Holocaust that is almost always a specific reference to the killing of 6 million Jews, although the Nazis also targeted the gypsies, for example.
= = =
BTW there is a debate as to the numbers (and just so you know yes I believe it happened) it could be 4 or less million or as high as 6 but the numbers are difficult to calculate because of people who left, fought and died, were other forms of war casualties like the rest of the population like bombings, etc. Furthermore the claim to infamy is what the media and text decide to concentrate on, and do not include all the atrocities that should have been included like equally titanic number of Christians were killed, latest estimate is about 3 million just to cite one example.
An after thought and I am not implying anything about you but I would bet that Hitler would state that he was rational also . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 10:34 pm
Connie Schultz said: "I also wonder how the abortion issue would evolve if women owned the debate"
Women may not own the debate as such, but they so own the power, and ultimately that is what matters. It may be true, that most of the high-level politicians who have been argueing with each other over the legality of abortion, are men. But ultimately each woman decides for herself whether or not she will terminate a pregnancy, whether doing so is legal or not.
If abortion ever did become illegal, the law forbidding it would be so regularly violated, as to be a joke.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
BMMG39 said: " 'Viability' is a cop-out. Stating that a fetus has difficulty on her or his own, and then arguing that this makes a fetus a non-person, is akin to arguing that a newborn isn't a human being because (s)he still needs assistance from adults in order to survive."
True. Here's the scary part: the influential animal-rights academic Peter Singer has made that argument about newborns already. He famously said years ago that parents should have the right to kill an infant within so many days after birth because the infant is not fully "human" by his definition. That sounds like the pro-choice arguments extrapolated to the "fourth trimester", that is, the one just after birth. This is a frightful example of how the permissive attitude toward terminating pregnancy for "convenience" has bled into other areas involving bioethics and life and death.
Bernie Misiura said: "Chew on this awhile . . . If the male pill is given the okey-dokey, what do you think the odds are that it will be as widely covered under your health insurance prescription plan as the female pill . . .?"
Ironically, most medical insurance plans exclude coverage for the female pill when used as birth control. (Its use for other medical needs, such as hormonal problems, often is covered, but insurers do monitor the intended use of the prescription.) Women have complained about this, justifiably in my opinion, when those same insurers routinely will cover male erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra and Cialis.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Asher,
I do not have time to go through all the reasons why your perspective here is dangerous, but I will say this, a society is best measured by how it treats it's weakest and most down trodden citizens.
When we utilize the cold and emotionless logic you are trying to apply here we lose sight of what really matters and that is doing the right thing.
What you are essentially trying to delcare is that there is no reason for altruism... that to focus the aid of the strong in order to lift up the weak is a fools game.
I completely dissagree with you... and furthermore, I would never want to live in the kind of society you are suggesting should be our goal.
February 10th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Bernie,
The saddest thing about most sociopaths or psychopaths is that they typically possess no ability to even see what they are doing as wrong. Few if any people ever think they are evil... they always see what they are doing as justified by some form of manipulated logic. If they ever saw themselves in that light they would most likely seek to change.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Asher Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
""Human life" is a socially constructed concept. Human societies have generally made distinctions as to what does or does not constitute "viable human life",
so "human viability" is not scientifically determined. Let's take an example of a severe sociopath: such a person has a genetic disorder that renders them
incapable of feeling empathy for other human beings. Such individuals are the source of a massively disproportionate amount of social ills we experience.
Are such individuals really "viable" human life? I would say not, and if we had the technology to pinpoint such individuals with near certainty it seems
reasonable for a society to discuss socially implemented infanticide of such individuals."
Apparently, we don't have the ability to determine whether or not a person is to be born a sociopath. This is not the point, however. Aborted fetuses have no chance to become adults and prove their usefulness or lack thereof. I find it hard to believe that every fetus aborted cinse the legalization was bound to be sociopathic. Are you saying you support abortion as long as it is manditory for those women who bare
unhealthy or dumb children?
February 10th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Ed Krampitz Jr Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
Bernie Misiura said: "Chew on this awhile . . . If the male pill is given the okey-dokey, what do you think the odds are that it will be as widely covered under your health insurance prescription plan as the female pill . . .?"
Ironically, most medical insurance plans exclude coverage for the female pill when used as birth control. (Its use for other medical needs, such as hormonal problems, often is covered, but insurers do monitor the intended use of the prescription.) Women have complained about this, justifiably in my opinion, when those same insurers routinely will cover male erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra and Cialis.
= = =
First, today I do not believe that to be true . . . but assuming that your statement is true, it would put Viagra and the pill on par with each other. Viagra treats a dysfunction and so does the pill as described in your scenario such as an irregular period . . . so your point perplexes me . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 11:10 pm
Sorry. That should read.
Are you saying you support abortion as long as it is manditory for those women who bear
unhealthy or dumb children?
February 10th, 2008 at 11:11 pm
Jason Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
= = =
Thank you, you put so eloquently into words that which I could not today . . . it has been a rough week for me . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The middle class is the love of my life; plumbers, carpenters, truck drivers, repair techs, etc, etc. The idea that there are only great and small is a vicious deceit as most of the population in the US lies squarely in the vast Great Middle. What you are calling "the small" are largely substance abusers, very low IQs, serious personality disorders and contribute nothing to society because they are PHYSIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of doing so.
As an amusing aside I move in some social circles with people are political junkies (i'm pretty non-political) and whenever I hear the preposterous "looking out for the little guy" I threaten "I will walk over there and break my foot off in your ass if I hear you use that phrase even one more time". It's rather amusing the absolutely stunned looks I see on faces when I say that slowly and deliberately. It's hilarious.
Moving on.
What's interesting is that I quite endorse a free-wheeling and combative politics, and very many highly valuable people to society, by my measure, quite disagree with me on many things, and you are quite possibly one of them. (That's a purely analytical statement and not butt-kissin'). Now when I call myself "rational" what I mean by that is I present my theories cogently and precisely and attempt to support them with evidence. I state them as rigorously as possible in order to allow them to be rationally discussed by others, as this is what makes for good, strong theories. When I say that I am "rational" I am stating a commitment to exposing my assertions and theories to as much critical analysis from other people and their competing, or complimentary, notions about the world. People often confuse "rational" with "absolutely best/ideal".
Now my claims can be empirically tested. I offer that the entire history of the human race, up until about 100 years ago has been one of eugenics, of some type or another. Societies attempted to promote the survival and thrival of types of people who were virtuous, beneficial, socially cooperative, intelligent, talented, strong, healthy, etc. and the recession of their opposites; societies and groups that did not do this perished in competition with societies that did. However, in the past century this has abruptly changed and we have implemented policies that promoted the exact opposite. This is a claim that we can critically analyze and subject it to testing and verification. I would be overjoyed to find that this theory is false and that I am fretting over nothing, but the hurdles to this happening are quite substantial because to believe that you pretty much have to believe in the blank slate theory of humanity.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:34 pm
Assortive mating, prohibitions against incest and non-progressive tax policy are all examples of implicitly eugenic social policy. If you support or condone any of them then, Congratulations you support eugenics.
February 10th, 2008 at 11:48 pm
Asher Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 11:31 pm
The middle class is the love of my life; plumbers, carpenters, truck drivers, repair techs, etc, etc. The idea that there are only great and small is a vicious deceit as most of the population in the US lies squarely in the vast Great Middle. What you are calling "the small" are largely substance abusers, very low IQs, serious personality disorders and contribute nothing to society because they are PHYSIOLOGICALLY INCAPABLE of doing so.
= = =
You are assuming much about my statement and putting words into my mouth changing the intent of my post.
Great and small for me covers a-z nothing more nothing less it includes the middle; my small does not necessarily include the druggies but does not eliminate them either.
- - -
Now my claims can be empirically tested. I offer that the entire history of the human race, up until about 100 years ago has been one of eugenics, . . . and all inbetween . . . and that I am fretting over nothing, but the hurdles to this happening are quite substantial because to believe that you pretty much have to believe in the blank slate theory of humanity.
= = =
I did mention somewhere that I agree to this but I would not want to be the one to make any of the decisions because I also agree with this
Jason Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 10:45 pm
Asher,
I do not have time to go through all the reasons why your perspective here is dangerous, but I will say this, a society is best measured by how it treats it's weakest and most down trodden citizens.
- - -
We do have a serious problem because each and every year there are more and more people that depend on the kindness of others and less and less people capable of offering this kindness . . . this includes people who have money that otherwise would not exist because some do not have any common sense and do not even know how to boil a pot of water to save their own life . . .
b
February 10th, 2008 at 11:59 pm
Asher,
The issue is that until around 100 years ago no society had the resources available to assist those who might conventionally be seen as at the bottom of the social ladder.
It is very difficult to justify distributing food, shelter and medical care to everyone when you personally have fears that your own family might not be provided for.
Those issues were resolved to a large extent with the advent of large scale industrialization which came with the added bonus of never before seen food production. As soon as many members of society were freed from having to worry about their own survival and could instead look at obtaining luxuries it became easier to start considering the fact that others still needed help surviving. Out of such concerns were born social programs intended to lift people out of the gutter and help them get a better start.
Now I am not going to defend the fact that some people use these social programs as a way of life instead of as a means to better themselves. However, their purpose has always been to ensure the well being of those who would have a difficult time surviving otherwise.
The important thing to keep in mind here is that it isn't sheer coincidence when we started to really care for everyone was at precisely the same time that we had the ability to do so. Prior to that it would have taken significant sacrifices from other members of society which might ultimately result in their own starvation.
Once you are confidant that you will never have to worry about putting food on the table it becomes much easier to make sure that the poor fellow living in the hovel down the street is provided for.
As for eugenics... I will agree that such things have always taken place to the extend that we have the ability to select who we mate with. However, generally eugenics refers to breeding programs guided by some governmental force, or enforced by barbaric means such as forced sterilization and the like.
Picking and choosing who we have children with is one thing... having the government decide for us is another.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:08 am
My comment in response to Bernie Misiura: "Ironically, most medical insurance plans exclude coverage for the female pill when used as birth control. (Its use for other medical needs, such as hormonal problems, often is covered, but insurers do monitor the intended use of the prescription.) Women have complained about this, justifiably in my opinion, when those same insurers routinely will cover male erectile dysfunction drugs such as Viagra and Cialis."
Bernie responded: "First, today I do not believe that to be true . . . but assuming that your statement is true, it would put Viagra and the pill on par with each other. Viagra treats a dysfunction and so does the pill as described in your scenario such as an irregular period . . . so your point perplexes me . . ."
Bernie, medical insurance companies are increasingly using the line that they will pay only for treatments for serious problems, e.g., accidents and illnesses that are life-and-death or could lead to significant impairment, not for lifestyle issues. Many people would argue that erectile dysfunction (ED) is certainly not in the former ("serious") category, especially since many of those same insurers won't pay for eyeglasses, dental work, or dentures that are certainly far more important to functional living that ED. (Some states mandate at least some coverage for glasses and such.) No one is going to die or be unable to work or care for himself from ED or lack of sex.
In addition, many also argue that insurance companies would actually save money in the long run by covering the pill because of the expense they must cover for prenatal care and birth if a woman gets pregnant. (But here, too, insurers once took the stand that having children was voluntary and wouldn't be covered, until Congress mandated coverage 30 years ago.) Finally, some of those same insurers will cover fertility treatment to a point, so they're willing to pay for some people's (pro-)reproductive choices but not others' (anti-)reproductive choices. Seems hypocritical.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:10 am
Bernie Misiura Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:54 pm
That is funny, during that same time period in NY WOMEN had to ALLOW their husbands to get a vasectomy. If a husband wanted one he could not get one until his wife signed paperwork allowing it . . .hummmm
Lenona: I don't know in how many states that's still the rule. However, I very much doubt that married women have always been allowed to get sterilized without THEIR husbands' consent.
Believe it or not, in the 1970s - and maybe even later than that? - the rule between doctors was that a healthy female patient could not be sterilized, no matter how much she wanted it, unless her age times the number of children she already had was greater than 120. I.e., if she were 25, had 4 children, and wanted to get sterilized, she had to have one more!
In the meantime, doctors are still very reluctant to sterilize ANY childless person, male or female, before age 30. I can't blame them too much for that, since the regret rate is reportedly 1 out of 3 or so. Quite a waste of time and money, that.
When a man went on the Today Show to say he'd had a vasectomy at age 28, the response was tremendous. You can read the article here - the blog is at the bottom.
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21115130/
Many people, thankfully, praised him and/or scoffed: "This is news?" However, many men and women alike grieved over his decision, saying he can never be truly happy by by "selfishly" thwarting God's will......bleah.
Example:
"I think he has NO clue of the possible joy and growth that he is missing out on! To me, this makes as much sense as my 8-year old nephew saying, 'I don't need any more school -- I already know everything!' Just one more narcisist (sic) to worry about himself and nobody else! Congratulations, Toby!"
On the other hand:
"I've always said that religion, parenting, and drug use have a common thought process - the people who are into them think you are missing out on the best thing in life if you don't share their views. 'If only you would try it you'll see how great it is.' "
February 11th, 2008 at 12:18 am
# Jason Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
I think you are seriously underestimating the marketability of any pill related to sex.
If you want to argue that it won't be as popular as the female pill be my guest... but it would still be a huge money maker in the portfolio of any pharma.
Lenona: I'll believe it when I see it.
I wouldn't be surprised if the female pill never got nearly as many TV ads in the 1960s as Viagra does now. But, then, Viagra's about sex, not contraception. (This, despite that, reportedly, Viagra doesn't work for men with non-physical problems.)
February 11th, 2008 at 12:27 am
# Jason Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
At the present time government funding for scientific efforts has been seriously cut due to the last budget that went through congress.
The only programs that have substantial funding available are those directly related to the current administrations mission to Mars.
In other words... if you want research money from the government for the male pill at the present time you will have to find a way to spin it such that it will lead us to getting to Mars more rapidly... I don't see that happening any time soon.
Lenona: So you're saying that anyone who wants federal funds for ANY medical research has to do that sort of spin? Show me. I haven't heard a thing in the news to that effect.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:48 am
# Norman L. Says:
February 10th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
#lenona said:
"..you can find one kook anywhere who might say that men should never have access to birth control..who's serious about, say, running for public office is not so likely to shoot her mouth off like that.. "
Norman: I'm not sure exactly who you consider to be "kooks", but radical feminists, who have had a tremendous impact on legislation in this country, may very well come out in opposition to a male birth control pill, for the reason I gave - this pill would take some of the control over reproduction out of women's hands. Also keep in mind that politicians are voted into offiice, and the majority of voters in most political elections are women.
Lenona: I'll believe it when I see it. Name one politician on whom you would bet big money to talk like that. Aside from those who, again, oppose contraception in general.
#lenona said:
"[how do you] explain the thousands of men who get vasectomies here? I knew a divorced man in his 40s who got one even though he didn't even have a girlfriend at the time. Why? He didn't want any more children.."
Norman: I agree, lots of men get vasectomies. They do this to protect themselves from the woman getting pregnant - that is, they (the men) do not want children - as you mention.
Lenona: Or maybe they do it because BOTH they and their wives don't want children? Why assume he's any more opposed to having children than she is?
What it comes down to is that, whether you're male or female, once an unplanned pregnancy happens, it's arrogant and foolish to assume that the other person will do, robot-style, exactly what you want or what he/she promised to do before conception. People who get themselves sterilized respect this. We're all only human.
Besides, just because some people get all googly-eyed once the baby is born doesn't mean you can count on it.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:05 am
Lenona,
"Lenona: So you're saying that anyone who wants federal funds for ANY medical research has to do that sort of spin? Show me. I haven't heard a thing in the news to that effect."
It's not that simple... but when the government has to choose between funding cancer research and male birth control and the budget is tight, take a guess where the money is going.
Ultimately at this point funding for that sort of research is probably going to have to come from industry.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:13 am
# Jason Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 1:05 am
It's not that simple... but when the government has to choose between funding cancer research and male birth control and the budget is tight, take a guess where the money is going.
Ultimately at this point funding for that sort of research is probably going to have to come from industry.
Lenona: Or a grass-roots movement. Or both. Won't know until you try.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:17 am
So many things here require responses:
Jason:
"I do not have time to go through all the reasons why your perspective here is dangerous, but I will say this, a society is best measured by how it treats it's weakest and most down trodden citizens."
Why is this? Because you say so? History is the story of human beings evolving increasingly interesting and complex human environments by relegating those "weakest and downtrodden" to the dustbin of history. Everything you see here today and value is only possible because humanity did the exact OPPOSITE of what you propose. There's no particular reason why reversion of the human species to less complex and interesting forms is not a real possibility.
"What you are essentially trying to delcare is that there is no reason for altruism... that to focus the aid of the strong in order to lift up the weak is a fools game."
You obviously are not reading what I'm writing. I am a middle-class socialist. I advocate heavy doses of altrusim for individuals who are capable of becoming well-functioning, contributory members of society, which is the vast majority of individuals, probably somewhere between 80 and 90 percent. What I advocate is effective altruism, i.e. that which really helps people, while you advocate and altruism that does nothing to promote human happiness. And your condescension to "the weak" is insulting and counterproductive for some of the very people you are trying to help. Many of the poor who have social potential just need a little bit of assistance in separating themselves from the completely potential-less and non-functional poor, and your brand of altruism actually hurts those poor who have social potential by lumping them in as "the weak".
Rondog:
"Aborted fetuses have no chance to become adults and prove their usefulness or lack thereof."
This is true. But our understanding of genetics and how it plays a role in human ability is advancing at a furiously rapid pace. By middle to late-middle age a person's IQ correlates about .8 with that of their parents. Things like personality, early-onset sexual maturity, personality disorders and substance abuse is also highly heritable. We have a pretty decent idea of how someone will turn out by looking at their parents.
"Are you saying you support abortion as long as it is manditory for those women who [bear] unhealthy or dumb children?"
Almost, yes. I think it's probably more prudent to design a safety net, educational and other social policies that makes bearing such children into pure misery. Let me give you an example. A child born with a adult-developed IQ at the 3rd percentile (about 75 off the top of my head) can probably use no more than about 3 or 4 years of formal schooling. After that, public schooling is simply really expensive and glorified baby sitting. If you have an educational system that ejects kids from the system once they demonstrate an inability to utilize REAL education and leaves their care solely to the parent. This would promise a woman bearing a child with an IQ of 75 fourteen years of finding something for that child to do until they reach eighteen; now that would be sheer misery. Even really low-IQ women could figure out the practical reality of bring up a child under those circumstances and would "choose" an abortion over a life of sheer misery. I can think of several other policies that could be designed to make life hell for having a child with a low IQ and personality disorders, which would promote the "choice" to abortion over having the child.
I am clearly not a "conservative" in the common understanding of the term but this type of policy would also promote marriage and stronger family ties, because two people could manage this situation far better than one. It would also give women an incentive to choose the "good guy" over the "bad boy" as this choice would literally become a life and death choice. Right now, social policy actually provides women with an incentive to choose the "bad boy" over the "good guy", which is seriously hurting the marital prospects of otherwise very marriagable men.
I do think forced abortions for the poor, single, drugged and stupid are better than what we have now but I'm willing to find a middle-ground.
Bernie:
I believe in being brutally honest and I would respectfully offer that you have a myriad mish-mash of sentiments that are pretty self-contradictory; i.e. non-rigorous. You cannot agree with both Jason and myself. Jason does not believe that human nature has any bearing on human society; he is a blank slater, a proponent of radical nurture. I am pointing out that there is a huge influence on human society from human genetics and that propagation of different gene lines has hugely different effects for human society.
"We do have a serious problem because each and every year there are more and more people that depend on the kindness of others and less and less people capable of offering this kindness . . . this includes people who have money that otherwise would not exist because some do not have any common sense and do not even know how to boil a pot of water to save their own life "
Game, set and match, to me.
Jason (again):
"Once you are confidant that you will never have to worry about putting food on the table it becomes much easier to make sure that the poor fellow living in the hovel down the street is provided for."
Again, you completely miss everything I say. For starters, mutual charitable societies have been around for quite some time, and they reinforced good behavior and good genes. I do not oppose all charity or call for the complete end of the social safety net. What I propose is that charity and social programs target those who can actually be lifted up, and not everyone is in that category. You also make the mistake that Marxists make in thinking that history is a linear process where once a level has been reached we have "arrived" and the worries, concerns and overcomings of the past are no longer a problem. My point is that the evolutionary gains of the last 70,000 years or so, the point of the so-called "cultural explosion, are being systematically reversed by the patch-quilt of social policy over the past 100 years.
This is happening because the type of people who are integral to providing that charity and safety net are the very people whose social and reproductive capital are being diminished, namely the Great Middle. When you punish something you get less of it and when you reward something you get more of it. Currently, we take away from the middle class who mainly propagate good gene lines to support the bottom of the bell curve who overwhelmingly propagate bad gene lines. I suggest you read Bernie's comment that "We do have a serious problem because each and every year there are more and more people that depend on the kindness of others and less and less people capable of offering this kindness . . . this includes people who have money that otherwise would not exist because some do not have any common sense and do not even know how to boil a pot of water to save their own life". And, Jason, the types of policies that people like you adovcate promote the propagation of bad genes and punish the propagation of good ones.
"The important thing to keep in mind here is that it isn't sheer coincidence when we started to really care for everyone was at precisely the same time that we had the ability to do so."
And it's even more important to note that it is this precise moment when we began reversing the genetic gains from the evolutionary process over the past 70,000 years.
"As for eugenics... I will agree that such things have always taken place to the extend that we have the ability to select who we mate with. However, generally eugenics refers to breeding programs guided by some governmental force, or enforced by barbaric means such as forced sterilization and the like."
Eugenics, writ large, is the rule in human history rather than the exception and the genetic gains from past eugenics can be reversed by the current policies of DYSGENICS (i.e. the promotion of bad genes). Current social policy already affects the choices of individuals in the mating market. Young marriageable women can choose the "bad boy" over the "good guy" because she knows that society provides a safety net to rescue her from her anti-social choices, and then the "good guys" get to pay for her choice by providing taxes for her choice to go with the "bad boy". Narrowing the mating pool to the socially desirable is the rule in the history of human society and has been done through some combination of actual policy or social stigma/promotion. The history of human evolution is a history of de facto eugenics (sterilization is only one of many possible eugenic policies) and the gains from past eugenics is being reversed by current dysgenics.
State coercion is heavily intertwined with the everyday lives of human individuals, forcing them to do things they would otherwise not be doing and not doing what they'd otherwise do. Currently, that coercion produces socially destructive outcomes; I am simply arguing to redirect government coercion into socially positive initiatives.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:24 am
Asher,
I will simply put it this way. You alude to the intelligence of one culture, but clearly you haven't paid much attention to their wisdom. Allow me to share some of it with you.
Rabii Hillel is quoted as having said the following "That which is despicable to you, do not do to your fellow, this is the whole Torah, and the rest is commentary, go and learn it."
It is essentially the jewish version of the golden rule.
What you should take away from that statement is that if you personally would not like for someone more intelligent than you are to decide that you are unworthy to exist... then you should never determine whether or not someone else is worthy of existing because you deem yourself to be more intelligent than they are.
It's very easy to sit at the higher rungs of the intellectual ladder and declare that those lower down aren't worth keeping around... but before you do that I suggest that you look up and hope that those above you don't share that same opinion.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:25 am
Oh, and what do you make of this?
http://www.opinioneditorials.com/guestcontributors/grills_20040227.html
I inferred that the author, Matt Grills, would not be interested in any non-hormonal implants either. But maybe he's changed his mind since 2004.....who knows?
February 11th, 2008 at 1:32 am
Lenona,
If people can coin a term like metrosexual and convince straight urban men to wear face creams and carry hand bags I am pretty sure the marketing people could sell men on the pill.
Also, I tried to send a link that would explain the current research budget issues, but I think both attempts got picked up as spam. Try googling 2008 nih budget if you are interested.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:39 am
Jason,
I'll check out the budget references.
In the meantime, my point is, why would a pill, with its obvious pitfalls, be any more appealing or practical than RISUG or the IVD? Especially since pills often involve hormones? Also, as I said, if men do the research and decide they WOULD prefer a near-foolproof, reversible vas-based method, they will have to demand it loudly, over and over, since such methods cannot be sold constantly like pills and are therefore not as profitable.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Well the idea of the pill would be that it is noninvasive and reversible.
It's probably the same reason men might opt to buy a pill for hair loss instead of undergoing some form of transplant surgery.
What are the reasons women select the pill over many of the other options available to them... i'd assume that the rationale would probably be somewhat similar. Something tells me that women aren't more likely to want to introduce hormones into their body than men are.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:05 am
Jason:
You are simply not listening. You blithely waltz past everything I say without even acknowledging it; you're not addressing one damn thing I've said and do nothing more than spout high-falutin' bromides. The Golden Rule has an equally dark side. You're aware of it right? It's dark side is that if I were in that person's shoes I'd expect them to do the exact same thing. Marc Hauser's Moral Minds has an excellent section on the evolutionary impact of the Golden Rule, it's not as "golden" as you think. The counterpart of "Do unto others ... " is "Do under others before they do unto you"; they are two sides of the same coin. What that means is that if the first aspect of the Golden Rule is not a universally followed concept it becomes the second aspect of that same rule.
The thinker you quote is a starry-eyed idealist. What I mean by that is that she attempts to establish that ideal by assertion as if it were some Platonic form pulled out from the ether with no history or geneology. You don't argue for that ideal, you simply assert it. You don't explain how it could have evolved, how it plays out in practical human life, whether or not it has any limits, if other ideals conflict with it, etc. You simply propose. Dogma is in a proposition, and I hate dogma.
The lazy poor have no moral qualms about taxing the hell out of me, and so my response is to make sure there are as few of them as possible; i.e. do unto others in kind as they do unto you. In short, war, and politics is simply war by other means.. When it takes a village to raise a child the village has an interest in which children it will raise. For every force there is an equal and opposite force, for every right there is a responsibility.
"I will simply put it this way. You alude to the intelligence of one culture, but clearly you haven't paid much attention to their wisdom."
Jewish culture is wise not flawless, see my above explanation of the problems of the Golden Rule and why that particular ideal is not usually discussed in classes on ethical philosophy. It's sort of like the fatal flaw in Pascal's Wager. Life is messy. The Golden Rule is spiffy-clean and, thus, is pure metaphysics.
"It's very easy to sit at the higher rungs of the intellectual ladder and declare that those lower down aren't worth keeping around... but before you do that I suggest that you look up and hope that those above you don't share that same opinion."
Jason, no offense but may I suggest some remedial reading classes. If you had any perception you'd realize that I'm well into the "fuzzy tails" on the right side of the bell curve. Eliminating everyone below me on that "intellectual ladder" would eliminate almost everyone on the face of this planet. If you'd actually bother to read what I write you'd have caught that I am talking about maybe 10 percent of the population AND you'd also have caught that my concern is with the Great Middle, of which I am not a part of, at least on intellectual measures. My point is that the bottom 10 percent hurt the prospects of the middle 80 percent IN WHICH I AM NOT LOCATED. In fact, the people most hurt by that bottom 10 percent are really the people just above them in the 11 to 30 percent range.
But you seem to think that I'm calling for the elimination of everyone but a sliver minority that is the cognitive super-elite. I am not doing any such thing. I am talking about not allowing run-away breeding by the bottom10 to 20 percent, at most.
Please, Jason, if you cannot actually respond to my points then do not address me at all. I have no interest in reading your propositional dogma.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:20 am
#lenona said:
"I'll believe it when I see it. Name one politician on whom you would bet big money to talk like that [speak out against a male birth control pill]. Aside from those who, again, oppose contraception in general"
At this point I'm not even sure what you're talking about - talk like what?? I'm just saying that radical feminists (such as Catherine MacKinnon), who often work behind the scenes to influence legislation, may be against the developement of a male birth control pill. These feminists don't need to "create" a politician who would openly speak against it. Politicians trip all over each other to avoid alienating feminists (so do judges).
#lenona:
"maybe they do it [men use contraception] because BOTH they and their wives don't want children? Why assume he's any more opposed to having children than she is?"
All I'm saying, basically, is that each party is responsible for their own birth control. Of course a man who wants to protect himself from his partner getting pregnant, is interested in insuring that she does not get pregnant. That seems self-evident to me.
February 11th, 2008 at 9:52 am
Asher says:
"You are simply not listening. You blithely waltz past everything I say without even acknowledging it; you're not addressing one damn thing I've said and do nothing more than spout high-falutin' bromides."
I told you before that I don't really have the time to address this in full, therefore I have limited my discussion to the most important issues which means being somewhat short and too the point. If you want a point by point refutation of what you are saying you are going to have to wait a day or two for my schedule to open up.
"The Golden Rule has an equally dark side. You're aware of it right?"
Any ideal can be perverted... any document can be used to justify horrors when put into the hands of someone who wants to see those things done. The bible for example has been used to justify the burning of "witches" and the torture of men and women who would not convert... yet nowhere in that document is the torture of other human beings ever acknowledged as being the correct path.
You cannot select out of history the murderers and tyrants and use their manipulated justifications as "proof" that the golden rule actually has a dark side.
I might as well use a serial murderer as "proof" that all human life has no value whatsoever because they believe human life has no value.
"The thinker you quote is a starry-eyed idealist. What I mean by that is that she attempts to establish that ideal by assertion as if it were some Platonic form pulled out from the ether with no history or geneology. You don't argue for that ideal, you simply assert it. You don't explain how it could have evolved, how it plays out in practical human life, whether or not it has any limits, if other ideals conflict with it, etc. You simply propose. Dogma is in a proposition, and I hate dogma."
I don't have to propose how it could have evolved to prove that the ideal exists any more than I have to propose how our eyes evolved to prove that we have eyes.
The fact of the matter is that there is a wealth of information available dealing with the evolution of altruistic tendencies dealing with both "in group" altruism and "out group" altruism. The very fact that we have members of our society who risk their lives to save the lives of others is proof of my thesis... the burden of proof falls upon you to show why these men and woman who do risk their own ability to reproduce just to save the lives of others would ever do such a thing if the ideal I am talking about does not exist.
From your perspective there is no explanation for why people donate vital organs to strangers that they have never met and will never gain anything from. You just want to discuss the examples throughout history of those who have been monstrous and use that as proof that doing monstrous things is okay... however you have failed to show why the behavior of those people is justification for your position any more than the fact that criminals exist is a justification for committing crimes.
"The lazy poor have no moral qualms about taxing the hell out of me, and so my response is to make sure there are as few of them as possible; i.e. do unto others in kind as they do unto you. In short, war, and politics is simply war by other means.. When it takes a village to raise a child the village has an interest in which children it will raise. For every force there is an equal and opposite force, for every right there is a responsibility."
And what about those who are richer than you and consider you to be lazy?
Or do you not desire to be judged by the same criteria that you are judging others?
That is my problem with your perspective, you've taken the stance that your position in society is unassailable, therefore you are free to attack any of those below you without threat from above. The issue there is that I very much doubt that you are at the top of the food chain, there are probably many others above you that would be quite content to declare you to be poor and lazy and say you are unworthy of certain rights and privileges.
You aren't talking about reducing your economic burden through legitimate means... you are talking about reducing your economic burden by killing off those who you don't believe are worthy of life... that is an indefensible position.
You seem to think that you are in a situation where I need to prove you wrong... that is incorrect... you are suggesting that society kill off entire sections of the populace because you have decided they are poor and lazy... the burden of proof is on you and it is HUGE... in essence I am the defense attorney here and you are the prosecution, you've got to show beyond a reasonable doubt why these people deserve to die just because you have deemed their lives inconvenient. All I need to do is issue a reasonable doubt and you lose this argument. It seems to me that you have an up hill battle.
Good luck.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Ive been reading some of the comments on male BC and I still agree that in the final analysis it comes down to this....Feminists will oppose it because it takes the control of when a child is concieved out of womens hands and gives men an out. They cannot stand that. That power is a cornerstone of many of the issues facing men today. The corrupt courts an attorneys depend on the "oops" factor.
Male BC will be a giant step forward for men because it will reduce the number of unplanned pregnancies, which reduces the number of court hearings, which reduces the amount of child support subsidies, which reduces the number of lawyers needed, and which in the end finally give the man the control over his reproductive legacy.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:05 am
Seriously, Jason, get some remedial reading help. You again blatantly ignore almost everything I say, but I'm beginning to wother whether or not this is less about incomprehension on your part and more about dishonestly. Clearly your cant is deceitful, but I'm wondering whether or not that is intentional.
"Any ideal can be perverted."
The problem is with the very notion of "ideal". An "ideal" is something that one considers immune from rational discussion, therefore, it's a take-it-or-leave-it proposition. As I pointed out before: propositional dogma.
"You cannot select out of history the murderers and tyrants and use their manipulated justifications as "proof" that the golden rule actually has a dark side."
Everything has a dark side, and that is just the way thing goes. The instinct of parents to privilege their own children over those of their neighbors has a dark side in that it is also about privileging their neighbor's children less than their own. BTW, I'd point out that you are confusing "proof" and "demonstration", the primary refers to things that are logical and the latter to things empirical. The literature on the dark aspect of the Golden Rule is quite established, I gave a brief synopsis and I directed you toward a very scholarly work that discusses it.
"I might as well use a serial murderer as "proof" that all human life has no value whatsoever because they believe human life has no value."
Different types of life have different types of value. Or do you oppose all killing? Were the allies in world war 2 wrong to bomb armament factories knowing full-well that children in adjacent neightborhoods would be incidentally killed? No one believes int he "sanctity of life", no one. If you are willing to decide that even one person can be killed then life is no longer "sacred" as something that is sacred cannot be touched even once.
"I don't have to propose how it could have evolved to prove that the ideal exists any more than I have to propose how our eyes evolved to prove that we have eyes."
LOL, are you kidding? Eyes function the same regardless of whether or not be conceptualize them. Morality has a particular history and evolution, it is the product of the last 200,000 years of human biological evolution and development of the human brain. You are comparing apples to oranges. BTW, if it's not necessary to "prove an ideal exists" why have philophers spilled endless ink over the past several centuries trying to do just that. The actual evidence belies your claim. Evidence, Jason, evidence. I want EVIDENCE.
"The fact of the matter is that there is a wealth of information available dealing with the evolution of altruistic tendencies dealing with both "in group" altruism and "out group" altruism."
Were you raised on paint chips? I't should be blatantly obvious that I'm quite familiar with the literature on altruism, and I have explicitly stated this here. Dude, you NEED remedial reading help, please get it. I have stated at least twice here that I am somewhat of a socialist, and I'm quite certain that there are some hardwired instincts in the human brain that are what we call "altruistic". The difference between the two of us is that you advocate an infinite altruism that has no beginning and no end that is unconfined by any other concern, practice or ideal. Altruism is a necessary and proper component of human society but like any other aspect of human life it has its limitations and misapplication. A society that operates on nothing but the single principle of altruism, as you advocate, collapses in short order.
"The very fact that we have members of our society who risk their lives to save the lives of others is proof of my thesis."
No. Your thesis, when all the logic there is followed to its full conclusion, is that all human society ought to be organized by unending, infinite altruism unconstrained by any other consideration. No one I know disputes the factual existence of altruism, but many confused a small and limited function with infinite altruism.
"You just want to discuss the examples throughout history of those who have been monstrous and use that as proof that doing monstrous things is okay... however you have failed to show why the behavior of those people is justification for your position any more than the fact that criminals exist is a justification for committing crimes."
Okay, here we have several problems: an appeal to emotion through the usage of the term "monsterous", the misuse of the term "crimes". A good example of the problem with your usage of the term "crimes" can be demonstrated by the claim that "Europeans stole North American from the native Americans". The use of the term "stolen" here is a category mistake. The concept of "theft" is a term applicable only where you have a controlling legal authority (thank you Al Gore for that wonderful phrase) that establishes who owns what. Otherwise, it's just a war of all against all. The American natives were conquered, not stolen from.
Oh, and interests negate the need for "justification"? I'm not trying to show that my policies are "justified" but rather that they are practical and socially beneficial. No justification is needed.
"Or do you not desire to be judged by the same criteria that you are judging others?"
Ugh, ideals, ideals, ideals. People want to take money from me through taxation. They don't have any criteria in doing so, they just take because I have money. No one's judging anyone here, but simply advancing their own self-interest through the use of force. I am not "judging" anyone in the sense that you are using the term, but what I am doing is notifying the Great Middle that their interests are diametrically opposed to those of the bottom 10 percent and that what benefits the middle can only hurt the bottom and vice versa. I'm appealing to practice and interests not to any ideal. I want to see altruism directed toward the great middle where it actually benefits people rather than at the poor, where it doesn't even benefit them.
"That is my problem with your perspective, you've taken the stance that your position in society is unassailable, therefore you are free to attack any of those below you without threat from above. The issue there is that I very much doubt that you are at the top of the food chain, there are probably many others above you that would be quite content to declare you to be poor and lazy and say you are unworthy of certain rights and privileges."
HAHAHAHAHA, is this some sort of comedy routine? Of course my position in society is assailable, and in fact it is under assault constantly. I am already assaulted every day, as are the entire Great Middle. I simply want to wake them up to return the assault and obliterate their enemies. Again, dude, you need remedial reading help, so please get it. No one at the "top of the food chain" wants to eliminate everyone below them, no one. Dude, get remedial reading help, get remedial reading help, get remedial reading help. You need it. I am CLEARLY not advocating eliminating everyone below me and you simply ignore what I'm saying.
"You aren't talking about reducing your economic burden through legitimate means... you are talking about reducing your economic burden by killing off those who you don't believe are worthy of life... that is an indefensible position."
Nice straw man here. I think there are plenty of people who are alive today who I would consider human refuse, but who I do not advocate "killing off". I just don't want them to breed. Oh, and I defending my position quite well, unlike you who doesnt even argue for his postion and simply dogmatically proposes untethered ideals.
"You seem to think that you are in a situation where I need to prove you wrong... that is incorrect... you are suggesting that society kill off entire sections of the populace because you have decided they are poor and lazy... the burden of proof is on you and it is HUGE"
Straw man, straw man, straw man. No one wants to "kill off" any huge section of society, but rather to minimize their breeding by making it as difficult and as miserable as possible to do so. Uphill battle? Dude, I'm smoking your ass.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The Other Mike D Says:
Ive been reading some of the comments on male BC and I still agree that in the final analysis it comes down to this....Feminists will oppose it because it takes the control of when a child is concieved out of womens hands and gives men an out. They cannot stand that.
Lenona: And I'll believe that the average feminist thinks that when a famous one says it in the media - and clearly ISN'T JOKING! Doesn't have to be a politician.
In the meantime, my main point still is: All of this is moot unless men take to the streets - that is, TV and radio - and make it clear that yes, they do want as many contraceptive options as women have, they will actually use them once they have them (to keep the industry profitable and viable) AND they're willing to help fund research, etc. by paying for some of it out of pocket if necessary. As I mentioned before, Margaret Sanger and her followers knew they had to be willing to go to jail just for providing condoms, diaphragms and information about them to the public - and they did. (Yes, she was an abortion rights supporter, but the point is she would have gone to jail even if she weren't, because of the Comstock laws.)
Less talk, more action, please.
February 11th, 2008 at 11:53 am
One more thing - I should have said "famous moderate feminist." Not, say, Catherine McKinnon (sp?) or the late Andrea Dworkin. Katha Pollitt is not exactly a moderate type, but from her articles, I know for certain SHE would never oppose male BC.
February 11th, 2008 at 12:20 pm
Jason, you seem to be skirting around some machiavellian precepts, which is interesting, but recall machiavelli wrote two magnum opus books.
"The prince", very popular, book to justify grabbing power at all costs.
" the populas", not so popular, but equally as potent book addressing the only way a population can defend itself from the "ruthless prince".
February 11th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
As stated by other bloggers, all Connie seems to care about equal rights for everyone but men. How typical of any feminist!
When a man ops out of being a parent he is a dead beat dad and potentially jailed for it.
When a woman ops out of being a parent (abortion) she is exercising her rights as a woman.
When a man wants nothing to do with raising a child, he is financially responsible for it.
When a woman drops off a child at a hospital or firehouse she is NEVER held accountable or responsible again.
Men are naturally involved because that pregnancy is 50% our DNA. It is OUR child as well. This is not a question of the moral right and wrong of abortion but a question of rights of the parents.
"Four years ago, the New York Times reported that these same couples often decide to terminate pregnancies when the fetuses are not normal."
Notice how Connie conveniently here states how it was a "couples" decision. This mix and mingle of terminology and equality is a common tactic to make the reader feel as though the writer is really in favor of equality. Connie CLEARLY has no interest in equality in this writing!
WOMEN: The laws are set up to allow for every option for a woman and keep her free of any accountability or responsibility for that action.
MEN: The laws are set up to refuse us any choice or rights in this issue and hold MEN responsible for the choices and actions of the women.
This is all about responsibility. Women and Feminists continue to display a complete lack of responsibility and use legislation to enforce men's slavery and accountability for their actions.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Jason, I'd also point out that in a society where abortion is common and widespread appealing to human life is silly.
Today:
Women abort children they consider inconvenient for them.
What I'd like to see:
Society aborting children it considers inconvenient for it.
I'm just changing the the decision-making entity.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Peter:
"This is all about responsibility. Women and Feminists continue to display a complete lack of responsibility and use legislation to enforce men's slavery and accountability for their actions."
Peter, the solution is to absolve everyone of any responsibility period unless they explicitly take it on. Give men a Roe versus Wade by allowing them to choose whether or not to be on a birth certificate.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:22 pm
Asher said: "If you had any perception you'd realize that I'm well into the "fuzzy tails" on the right side of the bell curve. Eliminating everyone below me on that "intellectual ladder" would eliminate almost everyone on the face of this planet".
Wow, I just love the smell of arrogance in the morning.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Not being arrogant. Jason keeps blatantly misstating my position, by implying that I want to eliminate everyone on the "food chain" who lies below me. If that were true I'd be calling for the elimination of 99.99 percent of the human race. I am doing no such thing. It's just the facts, man. I'm simply using myself as a data point.
Al if you can't follow a simple conversation I suggest you avoid making an ass of yourself and not comment on it.
February 11th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
@Asher
You actually believe that you exist at the top .01% of all human existence? What exactly are the criteria here? I hold myself in very high regards and intellect but would never show the arrogance to state it. In fact the missing modesty would, by many, slide anyone down quite a few notches.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
Asher:
I disagree, I continue to hold people responsible for their actions. Call me old fashioned I guess. I do not like the implied movement to socialism via a system that removes responsibility from its citizens. There is implied responsibility with most actions in life. This should be no different, but I do see your point and potentially could agree with it if we are to leave it in the context of parenting or should I say birthing? Actually, the more I think about your suggestion (within this context) I seem to like it but requires much much more thought. For example; what impact would this have on society as a whole and who is to pay the bill for the very real consequences of responsibility non acceptance?
Interesting concept but I think there is way to many unforeseen consequences.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:32 pm
Ahser:
I must disagree that there is any "Fatal Flaw" in the Gambit. The concepts that Pascal proposes is statically sound and this is proved when the context is removed and the concept is again tested. If you could win $1 million dollars at no cost or risk of your own, would you take the winnings? You have only to gain and faced no risk in return. I would call anyone a fool who rejected the winnings.
I do like your statement of "for every right there is a responsibility." If only we could get the feminists and the pro choice activists and implementers to understand this and practice it. We watch every day as lack of responsibility dwindles away at our once robust list of "rights."
Wisdom has nothing to do with intellect and intellect has nothing wisdom but they are usually found together. All wisdom is not moral and all not all intellect reflects wisdom. The two are not intrinsically combined.
On a final note, as much as I hate to agree with it, your statement of "I am talking about not allowing run-away breeding by the bottom10 to 20 percent, at most" seems to be good advice and completely reasonable, IMHO.
February 11th, 2008 at 2:45 pm
I see this as an issue of perception of innate rights. Feminists have told the population, particularly women, that they alone have the right to decide anything with respect to their bodies.
(But a baby is not their body. Even the placenta is the baby. It biologically assumes it is safe within the mother's body, but this is not always the case.)
Anyway, within America, we have been taught that we need to fight for our rights. So women believe that if someone points out that the 'right' to the human race is NOT owned by women alone, women become furious and ready for a fight.
I think it is rediculous for any political entity to believe that they really have the right to deny procreation to anyone else. It nearly instantly creates a large desperate army willing to die for their cause.
Try someday to get between a large adult male dog and a bitch in heat. Have health insurance or full body armor available.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Peter:
"You actually believe that you exist at the top .01% of all human existence? What exactly are the criteria here? I hold myself in very high regards and intellect but would never show the arrogance to state it."
A formal proctored IQ test; not that online stuff. Look, the context of my comments was in response to Jason making this conversation personal by appealing to the idea that everyone with any sort of vaguely similar position to mine would want to eliminate *everyone* laying underneath them in the food chain. I could use measures other than IQ but that one seems to be the most objectively quanifiable.
"I disagree, I continue to hold people responsible for their actions. Call me old fashioned I guess. I do not like the implied movement to socialism via a system that removes responsibility from its citizens."
John Derbyshire who writes (has written?) for National Review has noted on numerous occasions that "in the war between the Individual and the State over the past century the State is the decisive victor". Big Government is here and it is here to stay. The only dispute is what you want Big Government to do. BTW, this is coming from a former Anarcho-Capitalist Libertarian, namely me.
"For example; what impact would this have on society as a whole and who is to pay the bill for the very real consequences of responsibility non acceptance?"
The primary consequence would be far more abortions chosen by the young, poor, single and low IQ. Minimizing procreation by the bottom 10 to 20 percent is the most important objective material class interest of the Great Middle, whether they realize it or not. No one will need to "pay the bill" because the undesirables will not be born, as those women will choose the rational route of abortion. The other consequence will be an INCREASE in the middle class birthrate as the middle class will not be worried about their children sharing neighborhoods with the children of the poor. This relates to what's called "white flight", middle class flight really, and I can expand on the reasoning if you wish.
"I must disagree that there is any "Fatal Flaw" in the Gambit."
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/graham_oppy/rescher.html
There is a link to a heavily theoretical discussion of Pascal's Wager. I can find more if you so wish. Today, even supporters of hypothetical arguments for the existences of some deity generally do not use Pascal's Wager.
"Wisdom has nothing to do with intellect and intellect has nothing wisdom but they are usually found together."
This sounds all well and good but it's like recourse to "free will"; it simply means whatever anyone wants it to mean. Can you quantify "wisdom"?
"I think it is rediculous for any political entity to believe that they really have the right to deny procreation to anyone else. It nearly instantly creates a large desperate army willing to die for their cause."
Ah, but that's the beauty. See, human beings are an ornery, cantankerous lot just itching to fight over stuff. I don't claim any "right" to deny procreation, rather A) we can if we have the balls B) it's in the best interests of the great american middle. We need a war. The feminist Democrats propose a war on poverty when what is the objective class interest of the great american middle is a war on the poor. If you want to reach the great american middle appeal to their interests and not some abstract notion of rights.
February 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
lenona Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 12:18 am
I wouldn't be surprised if the female pill never got nearly as many TV ads in the 1960s as Viagra does now.
= = =
I do not even know how to answer that . . . First where I live there were only three channels in the 60's and early 70's that were airing only from about six or 8 am to 1130pm and on the weekend if lucky a late show until 1 or 130am
Now I have well over 100 channels that hardly ever go off the air.
In addition, something like that would have met the censors, because morals and attitude were different so really you are not making a fair comparison.
b
February 11th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
Asher Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 1:17 am
Bernie:
I believe in being brutally honest and I would respectfully offer that you have a myriad mish-mash of sentiments that are pretty self-contradictory; i.e. non-rigorous. You cannot agree with both Jason and myself. Jason does not believe that human nature has any bearing on human society; he is a blank slater, a proponent of radical nurture. I am pointing out that there is a huge influence on human society from human genetics and that propagation of different gene lines has hugely different effects for human society.
"We do have a serious problem because each and every year there are more and more people that depend on the kindness of others and less and less people capable of offering this kindness . . . this includes people who have money that otherwise would not exist because some do not have any common sense and do not even know how to boil a pot of water to save their own life "
Game, set and match, to me.
= = =
No, you are incorrect. First you have taken what I said out of context because it was coupled with not wanting to have to make any of those decisions (to clarify that meant at this time) It is consistent because even though there is a problem it does not mean that the only answer is what you say to do. Who appointed you God to decide who should live or die or have children or not? Perhaps there is another answer but you do not see it, and when that answer reveals itself after you have condemned lives you would have committed an unthinkable travesty. You are also incorrect because things in life are not black and white there are shades of grey that have to be considered so I can agree with both of you because I have the capability to be gestalt and you do not does not make me wrong it makes you wrong. When lives are concerned until all alternatives have been examined and tried then an only then can you decide to make such a dire and unyielding decision.
b
February 11th, 2008 at 7:25 pm
Asher Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
If that were true I'd be calling for the elimination of 99.99 percent of the human race
= = =
WOW!
February 11th, 2008 at 8:05 pm
Asher says:
"Seriously, Jason, get some remedial reading help. You again blatantly ignore almost everything I say, but I'm beginning to wother whether or not this is less about incomprehension on your part and more about dishonestly. Clearly your cant is deceitful, but I'm wondering whether or not that is intentional."
Actually I have not ignored what you have said... as I explained previously my time is limited and as a result I cannot invest all the time you would like for me to play with you.
Some of us productive members of society have jobs... we do things that are important for society to continue progressing. You on the otherhand seem to have unlimited time to devote to this conversation which makes me wonder just who the lazy one is.
If you are truly the awe inspiring intellect you say you are then you should be a very important individual with many demands upon your time. As it seems that your time is very free I am left to wonder exactly how important you really are.
Let me spell it out for you... while you may be very intelligent it is my current belief that you have failed to reach that potential in any meaningful fashion so instead of going out and doing the work to better yourself you instead subect everyone else to your self appointed belief of superiority.
So convinced of that superiority you then claim to hold ascendancy over who is to live and who is to die based not upon any rational precepts but rather your own distorted sense of reality (i.e. that you believe since you are intelligent it is the intelligent who should survive and the "lazy poor uneducated masses" who should perish).
I am left to wonder if you would really be willing to do the dirty work of your little plan... if you truly have the dark and deranged heart to bloody your hands with the lives of those who you think are worthless. Or if instead you would foist that murderous responsibility upon the next unter class above the ones you wish to see eradicated.
I truly hope you don't have the stomach for that sort of thing as then you are even more depraved than your current rants make you appear.
"Different types of life have different types of value. Or do you oppose all killing?"
I oppose all forms of violence that are not directly necessary to defend someone from being injured. Even then I only support the minimum level of violence necessary to settle the situation... hopefully without seriously hurting anyone.
"No one believes int he "sanctity of life", no one."
Speak for yourself.
"LOL, are you kidding? Eyes function the same regardless of whether or not be conceptualize them. Morality has a particular history and evolution, it is the product of the last 200,000 years of human biological evolution and development of the human brain. You are comparing apples to oranges."
Actually since both evolved over thousands of generations I am comparing one evolved trait to another evolved trait.
Altruism is actually an active area of research for many biologists, I suggest you look up a few of them as you might find their work interesting.
"Straw man, straw man, straw man. No one wants to "kill off" any huge section of society, but rather to minimize their breeding by making it as difficult and as miserable as possible to do so. Uphill battle? Dude, I'm smoking your ass."
I am glad to hear that you've at least heard of a logical fallacy... from the looks of things you haven't heard of what an ad hominem is.
Furthermore, your exact statement is the following:
"The lazy poor have no moral qualms about taxing the hell out of me, and so my response is to make sure there are as few of them as possible"
In any argument the one promoting the more extreme position has the burden of proof... you are advocating the elimination of 10% of the human population (and that 10% seems to be arbitrarily up to you)... I don't care what means you choose to achieve that goal, the burden of proof is still on you. Not to mention that cruel and unusual punishment is against the constitution hence you are also advocating social upheaval which can have many unforseen consequences.
You are definately smoking something... but it isn't my ass.
My advice to you is that if you are really as intelligent as you want us all to believe... then go out into the world and do something productive to serve humanity.
As smart as you think you are there are great minds to whom you pale in comparison, one of those is obviously Albert Einstein... allow me to quote him for you here so maybe you'll see what someone we can all acknowledge is your intellectual superior has to say on this topic:
"A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."
Apparently your circle of compassion is still a bit limited... maybe after you've grown up a bit that will change.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
"No. Your thesis, when all the logic there is followed to its full conclusion, is that all human society ought to be organized by unending, infinite altruism unconstrained by any other consideration. No one I know disputes the factual existence of altruism, but many confused a small and limited function with infinite altruism."
Wrong... I just draw the line at forced sterilizations and breeding programs.
Call me crazy but I just don't like the idea of people subjecting others to that kind of control.
Talk about a straw man... you are acting like I am advocating the dissolution of the police force just because I don't want you eliminating 10% of the human population.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:25 pm
Sniff, sniff, everyone smell that? I think it is a troll . . .
b
February 11th, 2008 at 8:39 pm
Asher,
One final note here as something struck me as somewhat humerous. You say:
"People want to take money from me through taxation."
So clearly the only answer is to eliminate the people who want to take the money from you, right?
Did it ever occur to you to lobby for reduced taxes if that is what has gotten you all in a tizzy?
So instead of trying to reduce taxes you just want to eliminate the group who you think the money goes to through forced breeding programs and the like.
Sorry, but I think your logic is busted... that is the same thought process that would cause someone to chop off their foot because it is itchy instead of just reaching down to stratch it.
February 11th, 2008 at 8:40 pm
Can we leave the personal stuff aside and get back on topic please? Thanks.
February 11th, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Just when I was about to pompously announce that I have a Ph.D. in mathematics and then demand that certain members of the discussion reveal the disciplines in which they earned their doctorates! Good thing you intervened: another fatuous ad hominem ploy preempted!
February 11th, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Xlp
He, he, and I have the best credentials in the world they were learned the hard way, by personal experience, application and practice, much better than any for profit lamb skin institution/class that I have ever taken . . .
Classes are great but in the real world one has to know when to throw the class away . . .
Books are great but one has to know how to apply them to the real world . . .
b
February 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Bernie,
I could have personally done without the troll comment given the circumstances. I understand it to a certain extent and all but let's be honest here... the fellow I was conversing with wasn't making it extremely easy to hold civil discourse.
I admit I was mean... but I'd do it again in a heart beat :P
February 12th, 2008 at 1:30 am
Sorry Glenn,
I have to disagree with you on this one. The right to choose ends at intercourse, prior to this act any woman can get birth control, and for free if she can't afford it ,at any county clinic.Or just say no. Think about this, do men have reproductive rights?
If i want to father a child and she does'nt that abortion will occur regardless of my position. If she wants a child and I do not, she will, and I will be forced to pay child support. and also If she decides to have this child and then place it into adoption . I could not stop that either as has been proven in the miller case here in Pennsylvania in November.
as this man fought for custody of his daughter, the courts terminated his parental rights after this childs mother placed their child up for adoption without his knowledge. If you want to stop the gender bias you need to look at this issue as well.
February 12th, 2008 at 1:46 am
Interesting topic. Here are some different points of view:
1) It will not be long that stem cell research bares fruit, and women will be able to have babies without men. The donor will probably be another woman. We can approximate this today with sperm donation from banks. Hence many of the arguments above based on 'it starts with sex from a man' ... may now be, and will soon be moot. This is not where the argument is at.
2) If it were really true that having a baby was no one's business but mom's, then please a) let her deliver her own baby as it is no one else business especially not an expensive doctor's b) end child support, its mom's business only c) end public education as a lot of people with no kids are paying for it. But notice that we haven't heard any one of these 'its nobody elses business' people suggest that it is no one else's business at any other time in the baby's life. The only consistent thesis is a selfish one, "do what I say."
3) Do you, the woman who is planning to have an abortion, give much thought to my dreams to have a son or a daughter? No you are too selfish to see beyond your own nose, so perhaps it is best you have that abortion, as selfish people make bad mothers.
(There is also a high correlation between selfish people and those who have mental problems, so perhaps it is true, abortion doesn't cause emotional scares, the women themselves do.)
4) There are no unbiased studies on the question of psychological scares, true or false. Scientists have no idea how brains work. If we did, I would have a robot doing the house work. (oooh) All the women I know who have had an abortion seem affected by it. No matter if it is a scar, it changes their outlook, and I don't see anyone arguing that.
5) Abortion is a way too over used as a contraceptive technique. It is sad to see this result from laziness.
IMHO
February 12th, 2008 at 1:50 am
Back on track...is abortion something from which men should abstain giving an opinion? This is a trick question. It focuses on one part of the equation without looking at the issue as a whole. Responding to this question, depending on your context, can easily be argued either way. So let's step back for a minute and examine the problem. And, I apologize in advance for the length, but I thought it would be worth reading. I hope you find to be.
Our laws, our policies and our social ethics force men to think ahead, before having sex, yet society as a whole has determined men can only think with their nether regions. What an interesting paradox. The wisest sex, female, is held unaccountable for the action of sex, and the male, an easy target of society being the one that can't think, is held completely responsible for the action of sex. Now, obviously, I am being facetious in my broad stroke statements, but nonetheless, the conclusion is true.
However, it is not enough to point it out without offering a suggestion for improvement.
Abortion "rights" are nothing more than a woman being able to decide whether or not she wants to be a parent after she has had sex. Why, may I ask, is this a solely for women? But of course, that is not what this article wants you to think about. It focuses on abortion, the symptom of the problem.
If you are going to give the right to decide be a parent to those who are already pregnant, is it not a logical step to allow both parties involved the right to decide if they want to become a parent after the pregnancy occurs? Point blank, either it is for everyone or it is for no one. We concetrate so much on whether or not a woman has the right to choose life or death for an embryo, that we completely neglect the discussion as to whether or not a man has a right to choose financial support.
What has our society become that allows a segment of the population to choose whether life will be granted, but COMPLETELY denies the rights of another segment the right to choose if they want to financially support it? This country's laws currently stand behind a woman's right to decide life or death, but yet are completely (and in every way possible) against men's rights to decide about finance. "We will find you," I believe is the way Clinton put it. This is ridiculous; downright preposterous. If a woman can decide whether or not to be a parent after the pregnancy has occurred, then we have to alllow men the same right. Do we really hold men to the higher standard of "well, you should of thought about that before having sex?" It is illogical to allow women to kill a fetus and deny a man's right to choose whether or not to finance it. IF you believe in abortion, the woman's right to refuse to be a mother and to end a life, then you MUST believe in a man's right to refuse to become a father, a decision that doesn't involve destroying life. Does our society put more stock in money than life? Let me make a statement for our politicians that may need some "spinning" before they say it. "Well if you're female, go ahead and kill the fetus, but if you're male, we're going to make sure you pay for it...it's for the children." I can only ask, where is "it's for the children" if you are female?
Back to the solution...When a pregnacy occurs, we should first ask if the father wants to be a father. If he says "No," he is off the hook. Then we ask the mother if she wants to be a mother...regardless of what the male has said, if she says "No," the death sentence is upheld and the abortion happens.
I am neither a proponent or opponent of abortion...which is only the woman's half of the decision. I am a STRONG proponent of equality. IF you give the right to decide to one after the pregnancy occurs, you must give it to the other. Not just the Asians, not just the Lutherans, everyone! If you cannot, then the "rights" of all parties MUST be dissolved. This is the problem of a political issue. Some much focus on an issue from a single, decided point of view that the real agenda stays hidden behind "well-spun" speaches. So the focus of this article is about a woman's right to decide about her body, right? No, it is about offering special rights to a section of the population We must look at the big picture.
Abortion is a woman's choice currently. She can decide after a pregnancy occurs whether or not she wants to be a mother. Either bring equality into the big picture or abolish this "right" completely.
February 12th, 2008 at 6:16 am
Since it takes two to tango, and most sex is consential, then I as a woman and a single mother feel that a father should have as much say in abortion or birth as the mother has in it. A child cannot be created without equal parts of the male and female, ie: one egg, one sperm. That is the bottom line.
Some will use the arguement of forced sex as a justification of abortion, and while on that issue I have a tendency to agree that it would be the woman's sole decission, but then there are the few but real cases that it was not the woman who was raped but the woman who raped the man just so she could get pregnant. Now in this case the man should have the right to demand an abortion. Yes, I know a lot are laughing out there at my statement, but it is a fact that most women have for centuries used their bodies to get just what they want for years, and there are many men out there that were actually tricked into marriage and or parenthood by a pregnancy they weren't ready for and didn't want. There are also the cases of the men who claimed to be sterile when they weren't.
I do know a young man who was forced to continue a sexual relationship with his exwife just so he could have peaceful visitation with his young son. Everytime he tried to put distance between himself and the ex, she would start abusing the child, verbally and physically, not to mention, harrassing phone calls to the young man and his family, but also to his job and his lawyer's office. Always threatened with not seeing his child again, always accused of not caring about his child or his welfare. And trust me the courts will just not recognise that a woman can be so coniving and devious. I also know for a fact that this woman accomplished her goal of getting pregnant a second time, attempted to pin it on the young man, used the upcoming birth of "her" child to destroy the man's credibility with the courts and system in his fight for custody of his actual child, she lied about the actual fatherhood of the child, also lied about the conception time line so that it would look as if the child belonged to this young man. Bottom line is although the young man was willing to face his "responsibilities" with the new child, pending a DNA test which the woman at the birth of the child refused, and admitting in court that he was not the father, naming another man as the father, the courts refused to look at the deceptions and decided the two siblings shouldn't be separated and left the children with the woman who had proven she would lie and manipulate the system and anyone in her path to achieve her goals.
So yes I do feel strongly that a man should have a right to parenthood or not. He should have a say in the abortion issue, but since it is not going to happen in this life time, then I strongly urge all men young and old to take control back the only way they can, Keep it zipped or get the new male birth control and take it faithfully. Educate your sons early on, that if they are careless, weak willed, or forced that regardless of whether they were ready for parenthood or not, regardless of their feelings toward abortion, the laws give them no choice, they will have their lives shaped around her decission and she will in one way or another control how people will veiw the young man from that point forward. Educate your daughters, that it is not her due to be taken care of, that she is responsible for her own upkeep, no one owes her a living, and using her body and looks is not the way to secure her future. Educate her that it is wrong to abort, wrong to bring a child into the world without a willing father. Put your daughter on birth control. Does this sound flipsided, well maybe it is, but just goes back to the single fact it takes two to tango, so the only way to even the scoreboard is to change the way we raise our children.
Men take charge, get male birth control and put the abortion issue to rest. This is the only way, you can control who carries your child or doesn't carry your child, after all it wouldn't be your child if you hadn't participated, so do participate in whether there is a child or not in the first place. GET the new Male Birth Control pill and use it.
February 12th, 2008 at 7:53 am
The author, Connie Schultz, is married to United States Senator Sherrod Brown, Democrat of Ohio.
February 12th, 2008 at 8:52 am
I am a 46 year old father of an 8 year old child.
When I was in my 20s, I thought pro-choice was the way to go; I never gave it much thought, other than to me it was "logical" that if you could not take care of a baby, that you should not be forced to give birth to it or care for it. I thought that if I was a woman, I should have a right to decide.
I come from a loving, small, tight nit family, and I never thought I'd divorce (I did), or that there would be an abortion in my family (there was). In the early 90's, while married to my now ex-wife, she got pregnant, and against my wishes, had an abortion. We were in a state that basically worships women and hates men (California).
Until today, I periodically have nightmares about my unborn child. I look at my son (now 8), that we had a few years later, and realize that I may have been an unwilling participant in a decision to slaughter another one like him SIMPLY to support the "inconvenience" that my ex felt (s)he would have been at the time. I guess we killed a child because we wanted to uphold her right to not be inconvenienced. I guess the sense of entitlement in our society is running amok.
I now believe (strongly) that: - it's not a mother's child, but both parents', that the decision should have equal weight (just like the decision to engage in sex that might lead to pregnancy) - no one should have an abortion except for extenuating, horrible circumstances - if a mother/set of parents can't care for a child or don't want it (e.g. because of rape), they should give it up for adoption (we have tons of loving adults that can't conceive and would love to bring up a child). Anything else is selfish and an attempt at "ignoring" bad decisions.
Part of me died with my decision and part of my soul will forever be dark because of it.
Yes, a woman has a right to decide what happens with her body, but not with a child. She should make the decision BEFORE she gets pregnant, not find some excuse to try to erase a bad decision by killing a child. Had she abstained or used protection, she would not have to preside over or have created such a difficult situation.
February 12th, 2008 at 9:24 am
Nancy Sanders said...
Some will use the arguement of forced sex as a justification of abortion, and while on that issue I have a tendency to agree that it would be the woman's sole decission, but then there are the few but real cases that it was not the woman who was raped but the woman who raped the man just so she could get pregnant. Now in this case the man should have the right to demand an abortion. Yes, I know a lot are laughing out there at my statement, but it is a fact that most women have for centuries used their bodies to get just what they want for years, and there are many men out there that were actually tricked into marriage and or parenthood by a pregnancy they weren't ready for and didn't want.
Nobody here will laugh. In the US boys who have been raped by women are forced to pay child support if their rapist becomes pregnant and chooses to bear the child. I am currently trying to find out if Australia's Child Support Agency has any examples of the same. This would mean that our federal government is providing the mechanism by which a rapist can extort money from their victim for up to twenty years.
Some parts of the world, notably the UK and several Australian states, have been introducing laws relating to alcohol and rape which, I believe, have been made gender specific. The premise is that a drunk woman cannot consent. I would contend that this is a form of rape just as easily commited by women. I would also contend that, while the motivation for a male raping in this manner is almost certainly sexual gratification only, that the female may also be motivated by potential pregnancy and therefore control over her target or, at least, his income into the foreseeable future. "Power and control" indeed. My sister did precisely this to pin down her husband. In fact she brags openly about trapping him in this way. Utterly shameless. I've never had the gall to explain to her that she committed rape.
Mexico introduced new domestic violence laws a year ago, laws which I'm sure were influenced by US feminists. These laws can imprison a man for up to five years for refusing to have sex with his wife or partner. Mexican men effectively have no right to consent. In fact their government will hold a metaphorical gun to a man's head to enable a woman to rape him.
Men need to start taking their right to consent more seriously. If they don't they may lose it.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:15 am
A couple of weeks ago the show "Boston Legal" covered exactly what GWALLEN just stated. A woman gave oral sex to a man and spit the contents into a test tube, had herself fertilized and became pregnant. On top of that she freely admitted it. The man sued her because he did not want to be a father and an argument was made that she should be forced to take a pill and abort. Of course he lost.
What was most interesting about the show was the attorney's summation about how men have no rights in the matter. It was a briliant piece of work
Finally we are starting to see some outcries beyond us bitching here in forums like this. I'm not sure who said this
"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing." It's time to get out and into the streets with the message.
Funilly enough I agree it is a womans choice. If I were in that position I'd be dammend if somone were going to tell me what to do with my body and future. However I would make that decision and accept the consequences and the responsibility. I would not expect an unwilling other party to pay for my choices. Sadly that seems to be the form in many of the ANGLO SAXON societies. Thieves can break into your house to steal and if they hurt themselves you are sued. In this society women are the priveldged. The best way to win (or defer losing) an argument is to keep telling the right party they are wrong.
February 12th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Nancy:
Its not often I hear such open minded and fair words from women on most any subset of gender equality. I only wish more of your "Sisters" had the same intellect and fair minded approach to forwarding true equality for all regardless of gender instead of promoting gender specific privilege. Thanks for giving me some hope.
February 12th, 2008 at 2:07 pm
Jason Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 11:47 pm
Bernie,
I could have personally done without the troll comment given the circumstances
= = =
That was not meant for you . . .
b
February 12th, 2008 at 2:08 pm
and I salute you
b
February 12th, 2008 at 2:48 pm
Gwallan psoetd"
"Some parts of the world, notably the UK and several Australian states, have been introducing laws relating to alcohol and rape which, I believe, have been made gender specific. The premise is that a drunk woman cannot consent. I would contend that this is a form of rape just as easily commited by women. I would also contend that, while the motivation for a male raping in this manner is almost certainly sexual gratification only, that the female may also be motivated by potential pregnancy and therefore control over her target or, at least, his income into the foreseeable future."
In the movie "The Way We Were" with Barbara Streisand and Robert Redford, in the bedroom scene that is exactly what happens....he's drunk and asleep. She tickles his neck, he rolls over and has sex, ejaculates, rolls over, never having woken up. The next morning he has no clue. To me thats rape......but most girls I've talked to say it is not. Why? Because he was on top!..........go figure?
February 12th, 2008 at 3:13 pm
Abortion is men's business because a man is the father of the child.
Since 1973, women have aborted about 50,000,000 developing babies.
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/policy/abortion/graphab.html
In every instance the father had no rights.
February 12th, 2008 at 3:26 pm
I learned something new today from Connie Schultz. When a man is angry it's called "Rage" ....When it's a woman doing the exact same thing it's called "Conviction"
Thank you Connie !!
February 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Bernie Misiura Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
lenona Says:
February 11th, 2008 at 12:18 am
I wouldn't be surprised if the female pill never got nearly as many TV ads in the 1960s as Viagra does now.
= = =
I do not even know how to answer that . . . First where I live there were only three channels in the 60's and early 70's that were airing only from about six or 8 am to 1130pm and on the weekend if lucky a late show until 1 or 130am
Now I have well over 100 channels that hardly ever go off the air.
In addition, something like that would have met the censors, because morals and attitude were different so really you are not making a fair comparison.
b
I know perfectly well there were far fewer channels. Must I spell everything out? I was talking in terms of the PERCENTAGE of time given to commercials.
OK, maybe you do have a point regarding the censors. It didn't occur to me that would be the case, partly because the Pill got so much publicity, such as the Loretta Lynn song, the movie "Prudence and the Pill," etc.
In the meantime, I'm wondering why no one is commenting on my recent plea for "less talk, more action." As someone else said, "Do you want to win, or do you want to be right?"
February 13th, 2008 at 12:27 am
I just read all the comments here since my last post, and have but one question: how would someone prevent a woman who wanted an abortion, from getting one? If abortion is made illegal, all they can do is make it harder for a women to get one. That might create more problems than it "solves".
February 13th, 2008 at 1:50 am
lenona Says:
February 12th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
I know perfectly well there were far fewer channels. Must I spell everything out? I was talking in terms of the PERCENTAGE of time given to commercials.
= = =
Temper, temper, I cannot posibly devine what you mean unless you say it
- - -
OK, maybe you do have a point regarding the censors. It didn't occur to me that would be the case, partly because the Pill got so much publicity, such as the Loretta Lynn song, the movie "Prudence and the Pill," etc.
In the meantime, I'm wondering why no one is commenting on my recent plea for "less talk, more action." As someone else said, "Do you want to win, or do you want to be right?"
= = =
If I or anyone is right then I (we) should win that is the constant problem that we are dealing with on this site
b
February 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Since, to get pregnant, women need men, and since roughly 50% of aborted babies are male, and since taxpayers, including men, pay for abortions for poor women (who, BTW, have no business getting pregnant in the first place), I'd say that men have every right to express their opinions regarding abortion.
February 13th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
David Says:
February 13th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Since, to get pregnant, women need men, and since roughly 50% of aborted babies are male, and since taxpayers, including men, pay for abortions for poor women (who, BTW, have no business getting pregnant in the first place), I'd say that men have every right to express their opinions regarding abortion.
= = =
Although I agree with you in principle women no longer need men to become pregnant they can stimulate the egg into thinking it has been fertilized and create and almost clone. Furthermore if everyone waited until the could "afford" to have a child very few would be having children. Besides that is a very dangerous precedent to set.
b
February 13th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Bernie,
I believe that you may be mistaken in the "sperm less" theory you have. I am knowledgeable of the IVF techniques currently used and my own research shows that no such method currently exists or is in use. We can only talk about current application not theoretical possibilities. If I am wrong please point me to where I can become more informed of this new technology.
I am not exactly sure what the afford-ability of children has to do with this posting but I disagree that waiting until one can reasonably afford to have children to be WISE, not by any means setting a dangerous precedent.
February 14th, 2008 at 12:35 am
Peter,
So far as I am aware the technique Bernie is talking about isn't actually in practice when it comes to human fertilization treatments. However, what he is talking has been demonstrated in a laboratory setting. On that note it has also been demonstrated in the lab that adult cells can be stimulated to revert to an undifferentiated state similar to an egg or stem cell.
In any event at some point in the future reproduction will be possible without sex or pregnancy... men and women will be equally obselete on that score. Let's hope that we can all learn to get along before none of us are necessary.
March 6th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
women want for men to be involved in the financing of the child when they decide to have the baby and cry when they don't get it but still want 100% of the decision on whether or not they want to conceive that seems completely unfair and doesn't reinforce any need by the woman to have the man assume any sense of responsibility from day one. Having the man be required when costs come up in the baby's life is an extremely shallow and heartless approach on behalf of the woman.
April 14th, 2008 at 10:47 am
[...] manbashing is nothing new--see my previous blog post Feminist Columnist: 'Abortion isn't men's business' for an [...]