Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”[W:589]

[JayDubya]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

The practical realities of the typical situation isn't equal though. As I've said before, there are three "classes" of individual involved here. The biological father, the biological mother and the pregnant person. The first two have equal rights and responsibilities while the latter has a different set of rights and responsibilities.

Aside from the statistical blip that surrogacy, in which someone has explicitly in writing agreed to do this whole thing, the biological mother and the pregnant lady are the same.

There is no fundamental sexism in recognising those differences because they're based on her status, not her gender.

No, they're based upon gender. By approving of both court mandated child support and legal abortion, you are absolutely saying that sex is consent to responsibility for men, but not for women.

Less realistic (currently) though philosophically valid would be the case where the biological father is somehow the one who is pregnant. In that case the status of the biological parents remain the same but all the rights and responsibilities of the pregnant person all pass to the father and suddenly everything is "sexist" in his favour instead.

As science fiction devices go, seems like an absolutely bizarre one to strive for.

Nevertheless, it remains the realm of fantasy / science fiction, and by the reality we face, supporting this clear double standard of "a man consents to parental responsibilities when he consents to sex" and "consent to sex is not consent for pregnancy" is supporting sexism against men.

 

[minnie616]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

...

There is no moral basis upon which to compel a "biological father" to pay child support for a child the "biological mother" decided-- solely on her own-- to gestate, birth, and raise without his knowledge or consent. Remember, that she had the full moral and legal right to choose to kill that child in the womb, and the full moral and legal right to give the child away for adoption without even naming him as the father, before the State comes along and forces him to pay child support; under the current system, she has full legal and moral authority over the decision to become a parent and he is bound to the consequences of her decisions.

This is obviously and grossly unjust.

Sorry it is not about morality, or being fair.
It is about the states compelling interest.

Once a fetus reaches viability the state has a compelling interest in the potentiality of human life and may proscribe ( ban ) abortions except in cases of health/life of the woman.

In cases where a child is born the state takes a compelling interest in that child and has a compelling interest in having both parents support/help support that child. ( unless the child is given up to the state for adoption )

I agree it's not fair to a man who had sex but did not want to be a parent or be responsible for a child.

But it is just the way it is since the laws say the states can have compelling interests at/ after viability.

 

[HonestJoe]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Aside from the statistical blip that surrogacy, in which someone has explicitly in writing agreed to do this whole thing, the biological mother and the pregnant lady are the same.

Typically the same individual but with two separate relevant characteristics. Those characteristics are the basis of the legal and social situation, not their gender directly.

No, they're based upon gender. By approving of both court mandated child support and legal abortion, you are absolutely saying that sex is consent to responsibility for men, but not for women.

On that basis, banning abortion would be sexist too since it only affects women. Literally anything that happens to affect the genders differently would be sexist - circumcision laws, cancer research, fluoridation of water, childcare provision... the list is endless.

The moral principles here are independent of the gender of the people involved. The practical reality isn't but that's a function of biology, not the decisions of people. For something to be actively sexist it would require someone to be taking a specific decision in that direction. We can't remove the natural imbalance between the genders in such situations and pretending we somehow can strikes me as much more damaging as acknowledging and dealing with that reality.

As science fiction devices go, seems like an absolutely bizarre one to strive for.

I wasn't raising it as something to strive for but as a demonstration of the principle I'm trying to get across.

by the reality we face, supporting this clear double standard of "a man consents to parental responsibilities when he consents to sex" and "consent to sex is not consent for pregnancy" is supporting sexism against men.

Only if you consider "parental responsibilities" and "pregnancy" to be exactly the same. Anyway, I do think sex is "consent" for pregnancy (for women obviously). I don't consider abortion to be about just "not being pregnant" though. If anything about this were simple, it wouldn't be such a controversial issue.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Biological choices? :lamo :lamo :lamo

I dont imagine you want to retract your biological argument, do you?

Review your argument and notice how I showed that men actually have the biological advantage. It is in fact LAW that makes the situation unfair, not biology, because once again, biology is not fair or unfair. The fact is it protect all of her choices to some degree, but protects absolutely NONE of his.

Biology makes it unfair, not law. It's not possible to make it fair. Is it fair that women cant decide that the man in the relationship gestate instead?

No. It's not fair. Everything in life is not fair, nor can it be made to be so. Men are aware of all this, are they not?

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Any why should that matter one bit?

This is all built around the idea that women in this nation can get an abortion in the 1st Trimester...without question.

Bod, Henrin, and a few other men in this forum believe than any man who unwantingly impregnates woman should be able to opt out paying child support within the 1st Trimester.

We'll call this pseudo-law "The 1st Trimester Rule". During that period, the woman accepts that no child support would be received from the man because he claims that didn't want a child OR she should have an abortion if she can't support it on her own.

Consequently, it's a matter of creating what's called filing Prima Facie Case. In other words, without evidence to the facts for which the case was petitioned, then there little chance of winning. Filing such a case without evidence is costly for the parties involved AND the state.

Such a case where the woman won't abort, then it will always be a, "he said"..."she said" case in which a judge would be forced to flesh out what he believes to be the truth. If the judge can't find evidence that supports the man's claim that he didn't want a child...and the state can't force the woman to have a medical abortion - the court would be forced to make the man pay child support.

Most all state constitutions make the state responsible for ensuring the basic needs of children are met. And at the same time, the state has an obligation to protect the taxpayers. So the state would be forced to make both the mother and father financially responsible. The state also has an obligation to attempt to recover any monies it pays toward the support of a child.

As you know, it's a frequent argument.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to my question to Bod: How can a man legally prove that he didn't want to father a child at the time he ejaculated sperm into a woman?

First off, a state legislation can never pass a 1st Trimester Rule without there being a way to answer the above question in a court of law. It would be a "legal necessity" for proof to exist - that the man didn't want a child - and the woman was completely aware of that "fact" prior to having sex - in order for the man to file a petition to be exonerated from child support if the 1st Trimester Rule was in effect. Otherwise there is no prima facie case.

So the dog-chase-the-tail court case would be something like the following:

The woman claims that the man made a promise to her that should she get pregnant that he would share in the support of the child. Then upon finding out she was pregnant - the man denies ever making such a claim. The woman may have religious reasons for not wanted to abort...or some other reason for not abortion. She'll testify that the man was keenly aware of this. Therefore she wants the man to share in "at least" the financial responsibility.

Who is telling the truth? How is it possible for a court to decide?

Let me answer that. It can't.

So back to square one. The state will do what it's constitutionally bound to do. It must protect the child's best interest!

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This is all built around the idea that women in this nation can get an abortion in the 1st Trimester...without question.

Bod, Henrin, and a few other men in this forum believe than any man who unwantingly impregnates woman should be able to opt out paying child support within the 1st Trimester.

Actually, I'm opposed to government imposed child support entirely and find the 1st trimester rule unrealistic since it would still lead to some men being bound to children against their will.

 

[Citizen.Seven]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Barring prior legal arrangement, i.e. marriage, men have no moral obligation for their bastard children. It is solely woman's choice to turn the pregnancy into a baby, and thus it is solely her responsibility.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Review your argument and notice how I showed that men actually have the biological advantage. It is in fact LAW that makes the situation unfair, not biology, because once again, biology is not fair or unfair. The fact is it protect all of her choices to some degree, but protects absolutely NONE of his.

Ejaculating sperm in a woman is a biological DNA contract of sorts. It is biological evidence to the fact that a given man "is the father to be", which was result of being involved in a sexual experience with a given woman - knowing that there was the potential for legal risks. Such evidence doesn't require proof of intent. The State doesn't care.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Ejaculating sperm in a woman is a biological DNA contract of sorts. It is biological evidence to the fact that a given man "is the father to be", which was result of being involved in a sexual experience with a given woman - knowing that there was the potential for legal risks. Such evidence doesn't require proof of intent. The State doesn't care.

a biological DNA contract? Oh god. facepalm

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Actually, I'm opposed to government imposed child support entirely and find the 1st trimester rule unrealistic since it would still lead to some men being bound to children against their will.

Henrin...you're opposed to government.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

a biological DNA contract? Oh god. facepalm

That's the facts, Jack...

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Henrin...you're opposed to government.

I'm also opposed to ridiculous contracts like the biological DNA contract. WTF is that? You even admitted that it doesn't matter if he agrees to this "contract". lol.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I'm also opposed to ridiculous contracts like the biological DNA contract. WTF is that? You even admitted that it doesn't matter if he agrees to this "contract". lol.

It doesn't matter if he agrees. He knew the potential legal risks prior to having sex.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

That's the facts, Jack...

Sorry, but your argument is dumber than the social contract argument. Yeah, well, it doesn't matter if you agreed to it or not. Because that is exactly how a contract works. :lamo

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Barring prior legal arrangement, i.e. marriage, men have no moral obligation for their bastard children. It is solely woman's choice to turn the pregnancy into a baby, and thus it is solely her responsibility.

The state will disagree. The man ejaculated sperm in a woman knowing the potential legal risks prior to having sex. The state is constitutionally mandated to protect the best interests of the child. It is superior over the man or woman's wants or intents. And the state is obligated to the taxpayers - who will be forced to pay for children who are inadequately supported. The state will hold both the woman and man responsible for the support of the child. The state will legally try to recover any money spent supporting a child from the person who doesn't contribute to the child's support.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Sorry, but your argument is dumber than the social contract argument. Yeah, well, it doesn't matter if you agreed to it or not. Because that is exactly how a contract works. :lamo

Well, my dumbness is supported by most state governments. Your biology argument blows. My biology argument is metaphorical, but very real when used as evidence against men who believe as you do. Biology is not your friend.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Well, my dumbness is supported by most state governments. Your biology argument blows. My biology argument is metaphorical, but very real when used as evidence against men who believe as you do. Biology is not your friend.

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, not some metaphorical bull****.

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

A contract is an agreement between two or more parties, not some metaphorical bull****.

If you can't handle the biological truth then why try to use it to make a bogus argument. Now your crying that argument is the opposite of what your claiming.

Biology is evidence that the man engaged in an act that he knew PRIOR to that act - was a potential legal situation that could go bad.

By his prior knowledge of the legal risks he accepted the legal ramifications of a potential outcome by ejaculating sperm into a woman. That potential outcome is called pregnancy. His DNA is evidence to that fact. That is biology used as evidence in a court of law.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This is all built around the idea that women in this nation can get an abortion in the 1st Trimester...without question.

Bod, Henrin, and a few other men in this forum believe than any man who unwantingly impregnates woman should be able to opt out paying child support within the 1st Trimester.

We'll call this pseudo-law "The 1st Trimester Rule". During that period, the woman accepts that no child support would be received from the man because he claims that didn't want a child OR she should have an abortion if she can't support it on her own.

Consequently, it's a matter of creating what's called filing Prima Facie Case. In other words, without evidence to the facts for which the case was petitioned, then there little chance of winning. Filing such a case without evidence is costly for the parties involved AND the state.

Such a case where the woman won't abort, then it will always be a, "he said"..."she said" case in which a judge would be forced to flesh out what he believes to be the truth. If the judge can't find evidence that supports the man's claim that he didn't want a child...and the state can't force the woman to have a medical abortion - the court would be forced to make the man pay child support.

Most all state constitutions make the state responsible for ensuring the basic needs of children are met. And at the same time, the state has an obligation to protect the taxpayers. So the state would be forced to make both the mother and father financially responsible. The state also has an obligation to attempt to recover any monies it pays toward the support of a child.

As you know, it's a frequent argument.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Back to my question to Bod: How can a man legally prove that he didn't want to father a child at the time he ejaculated sperm into a woman?

First off, a state legislation can never pass a 1st Trimester Rule without there being a way to answer the above question in a court of law. It would be a "legal necessity" for proof to exist - that the man didn't want a child - and the woman was completely aware of that "fact" prior to having sex - in order for the man to file a petition to be exonerated from child support if the 1st Trimester Rule was in effect. Otherwise there is no prima facie case.

So the dog-chase-the-tail court case would be something like the following:

The woman claims that the man made a promise to her that should she get pregnant that he would share in the support of the child. Then upon finding out she was pregnant - the man denies ever making such a claim. The woman may have religious reasons for not wanted to abort...or some other reason for not abortion. She'll testify that the man was keenly aware of this. Therefore she wants the man to share in "at least" the financial responsibility.

Who is telling the truth? How is it possible for a court to decide?

Let me answer that. It can't.

So back to square one. The state will do what it's constitutionally bound to do. It must protect the child's best interest!

I find that the same kind argument of 'I didn't mean to kill that innocent bystander when I was shooting off my gun'. If you don't mean to shoot an innocent bystander, don't use bullets in your gun.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

If you can't handle the biological truth then why try to use it to make a bogus argument. Now your crying that argument is the opposite of what your claiming.

Biology is evidence that the man engaged in an act that he knew PRIOR to that act - was a potential legal situation that could go bad.

By his prior knowledge of the legal risks he accepted the legal ramifications of a potential outcome by ejaculating sperm into a woman. That potential outcome is called pregnancy. His DNA is evidence to that fact. That is biology used as evidence in a court of law.

No, you're using biology to establish a contract between the man and his child. It's a garbage argument that like the social contract argument has absolutely no proof behind it. It's just, well, this is the way I think it should be, so I'm going to dream up this contract and bind you to it.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Sorry, but your argument is dumber than the social contract argument. Yeah, well, it doesn't matter if you agreed to it or not. Because that is exactly how a contract works. :lamo

You agree with you go make a deposit. If you don't want to pay the penalties for an improper deposit, don't make the deposit.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

You agree with you go make a deposit. If you don't want to pay the penalties for an improper deposit, don't make the deposit.

I hate implied consent arguments. They're valid in certain cases, but in the vast majority of cases they're absolute bull****. You also know that argument is bull**** or you would apply it to women and not allow them to abort, but no, it only applies to men. Figures.

 

[year2late]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I hate implied consent arguments. They're valid in certain cases, but in the vast majority of cases they're absolute bull****. You also know that argument is bull**** or you would apply it to women and not allow them to abort, but no, it only applies to men. Figures.

It is almost like you believe that women do not ever pay child support.:roll:

 

[Removable Mind]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No, you're using biology to establish a contract between the man and his child. It's a garbage argument that like the social contract argument has absolutely no proof behind it. It's just, well, this is the way I think it should be, so I'm going to dream up this contract and bind you to it.

No, now you are using biology as contract. I used it metaphorically. The man's sperm, which fuses with an egg is biological proof that he engaged a sexual act, which he knew prior to engaging in ...had potential legal consequences that is not in his favor.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

It is almost like you believe that women do not ever pay child support.:roll:

It's almost like I want to repeal child support laws entirely. Oh wait, that is exactly what I want to do. It's also kind of like the woman is not bound to the sex equals consent retardation that the man is.