Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”
I dont see the parallels. If you want an answer, find another way to ask the question. You cant force me to understand something that does not fit the actual topic.
It fits, but if you don't want to engage, I guess I'll rephrase. I'll number the sections and you can tell me at which point they stop making sense to you.
For reference: I am trying to draw a distinction here between direct responsibility and indirect responsibility, and then apply that to pregnancy and birth, which are two different things.
1) If you are directly responsible for something, your actions caused the thing itself. For example - I just picked up a pen. I am responsible for the pen now being in my hand, because I chose to pick it up.
2) If you are indirectly responsible for something, your actions caused the situation in which the thing occurred, but you didn't cause the thing itself. For example, the only reason I picked up that pen was so I could use it as an example to you - which means you are indirectly responsible for the pen being in my hand, because your actions caused me to want to explain myself further with an example. If you hadn't posted on DP yesterday I would never have picked up the pen, but you didn't directly cause the pen to be in my hand - that was my choice, and you did not cause me to choose that particular pen. You are indirectly responsible.
3) Another example is one I have already used. If a dealer sells a car to someone who then hits a (blameless) pedestrian, the driver is directly responsible, since they chose to drive in the manner which led to the pedestrian being hit. However, the dealer is indirectly responsible for the collision - their actions created the situation in which the driver could choose to drive dangerously. If the dealer had not sold the car, the driver would not have been able to crash it - but the dealer did not directly cause the driver to hit the pedestrian - that was the drivers choice, the dealer did not cause the driver to choose to drive dangerously. The dealer is indirectly responsible, the driver is directly responsible.
4) In general, people are not held accountable for things they are not directly responsible for. So the dealer is not accountable for the driver's collision (even though without the dealer, the collision would not have occurred). If I had chosen to punch a stranger rather than pick up a pen as my example to you, you would not be accountable. And there are many other examples: a rape victim is not accountable for their rape, a gun dealer is not accountable for their customer robbing a bank (nor is the unwitting taxi driver who brought the robber to the bank), parents are not accountable for the actions of their adult children.
5) Using the criteria supplied in 1) and 2), both man and woman are directly responsible for a pregnancy. Their choices directly caused the pregnancy to occur. However,
only the woman is directly responsible for the birth, because only she can choose to (try to) carry a pregnancy to full term. The man is
indirectly responsible for the birth, because his actions caused the situation in which the woman could choose the birth, but he did not choose it himself. A great many people are indirectly responsible for the birth - the parents of both man and woman, the friends who hooked them up together, maybe even Barry White. But only the woman is directly responsible for the birth, since it only occurs if she - and she alone - chooses to allow it.
6) Combining 4) and 5), then - since the woman is the only person directly responsible for the birth, only she should be held accountable for it.
7) Yes, the consequences of 6) are that in a few situations (unknowable how many, since we don't know how many men would 'abort', we don't know how many women would choose to continue with a birth even after that, and we don't know what proportion of remaining cases the woman will need taxpayer support) the state will pick up some of the bill - and by extension, the taxpayer. However, you have no qualms with other situations where the taxpayer pays even though there are people available who are indirectly responsible - to claim that just this one situation is unfair to the taxpayer is inconsistent. You don't want to hunt down the parents of single mothers and force them to pay child support to their grandchildren - but you do want do hunt down the father, even though both are only indirectly responsible.
