A brief, "re" introduction.....

[construct]

Father's legitimate rights concerning a born child are all well and good, but a woman's body can't be the captive of a potential father's will.

 

[Kulindahr]

Father's legitimate rights concerning a born child are all well and good, but a woman's body can't be the captive of a potential father's will.

Volunteers are not captives.

 

[construct]

Volunteers are not captives.

Fifteen minutes of intimacy and six inches of geography don't give one the right to hold someone else's body captive for nine months. It sounds like indentured servitude.

 

[Kulindahr]

Hm, volunteers also can't make demands--- I didn't donate to the Red Cross so I can demand them to spend my money on what I care about in Japan; I don't go fuck a girl and then make demands when I volunteer genetic material in her cum bucket because I didn't want to wear a condom.

Yes, volunteers can't make demands -- so she can't demand that the father meekly allow her to terminate something half his.

If there was no condom, she either agreed to that or it was rape. If it was rape, she was no volunteer. If she agreed, then she volunteered to accept what came of her action.

Your example illustrates my point: by volunteering to donate, you agree to abide by the wishes of your partner, the Red Cross. You don't get to change your mind later.


Sex is a contractual arrangement. The contract has to be specified beforehand. Neither party can abrogate it afterward alone. This is simple responsibility and maturity.

 

[Kulindahr]

Fifteen minutes of intimacy and six inches of geography don't give one the right to hold someone else's body captive for nine months. It sounds like indentured servitude.

There's no captivity involved -- she was a volunteer. Backing out of whatever agreement was made means she is untrustworthy, and should be treated by the entire community as someone who won't live up to her responsibilities.

 

[Kulindahr]

^ You're indulging in irrational fantasies. I'm arguing that the woman is supposed to be a responsible human being, not a tyrant. If I flip your approach around, you're making men nothing more than sex toys, slaves to the desires of women who don't have to take responsibilities for their actions unless they feel like it, who don't have to abide by their own agreements.

You're showing me that Johan is right: you're not well acquainted with clear thinking.

 

[Kulindahr]

No you're not. And you aren't responding to anything I said. You are stating that men are superior to women. If the guy was concerned about offspring, then he should have had the concern to protect his genetic material. As soon as he deposits it and leaves then that's the end of it.

Are you carrying over arguments from other threads with which you weren't even involved just for libelous purposes? Oh how low, Kulindahr; pathetically low. Good thing I'm not a woman or you'd have me wearing my hijab in the kitchen, making you a sandwich while birthing your babies.

Resorting to fallacious arguments is a clear sign of fail.

Lie about my position all you want. I'm beginning with the fact of self-ownership and the principle of basic human interaction, which is contractual.

"Libelous purposes"? More irrational stuff. I made an observation about the way you think, based on what you post -- which you just confirmed again.

 

[Kulindahr]

False. Your fabricated worldview isn't the basis for you to make gross assumptions about all women.

False again. You stole what Johann said, and attempted ad hominem because you got nothing else. btw, what authority for such a diagnosis from either of you?

Pwned.

You continue to lie. You argue from our own delusions, not from what's in front of you.

Did Johan say you aren't worth discussing things with because of your irrationality? Well, if not, I will: you aren't worth discussing things with because of your irrationality.

 

[construct]

I'm beginning with the fact of self-ownership and the principle of basic human interaction, which is contractual.

You are not. First, your denial of the woman's right to unilaterally decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy through abortion violates her self-ownership. [irony]Robbery much?[/irony]

Second, sex, though a basic component of human interaction, cannot be consideration for a contractual promise.

 

[Kulindahr]

You are not. First, your denial of the woman's right to unilaterally decide whether or not to terminate her pregnancy through abortion violates her self-ownership. [irony]Robbery much?[/irony]

Second, sex, though a basic component of human interaction, cannot be consideration for a contractual promise.

If a car half mine, does my forbidding my roommate to sell it violate his self-ownership?

You make it plain that there's something present that she doesn't own by herself when you use the word "pregnant". "Pregnant" means that there's at least one other party involved; it means that there was cooperation.

Gee -- cooperation! That's inherently contractual. And there are possible "complications", and to proceed with the activity is to accept responsibility for those complications -- and that's contractual. So it was either cooperation and thus contractual, or you're asserting that the male is just a sex toy.

Now, for the contract, a woman might say, "If I get pregnant, it's my business", and if the guy accepts it, that's that. If not, they need to make another agreement.

 

[construct]

If a car half mine, does my forbidding my roommate to sell it violate his self-ownership?

You make it plain that there's something present that she doesn't own by herself when you use the word "pregnant". "Pregnant" means that there's at least one other party involved; it means that there was cooperation.

Gee -- cooperation! That's inherently contractual. And there are possible "complications", and to proceed with the activity is to accept responsibility for those complications -- and that's contractual. So it was either cooperation and thus contractual, or you're asserting that the male is just a sex toy.

Now, for the contract, a woman might say, "If I get pregnant, it's my business", and if the guy accepts it, that's that. If not, they need to make another agreement.

Sex is not the subject of contract. Either person can back out at any time for any reason or none. That doesn't sound like any contract I've ever heard of.

Furthermore, 'pregnant' does not imply that anyone else has anything bodily at stake. The physical consequences of the pregnancy relate only to the woman's body. If she owns herself, she owns her pregnant self, and no one else can make legitimate claims over her body whether or not it is pregnant.

It is completely different from a car. A car is a thing which two people can commonly or jointly own. If you didn't want to sell the car owned jointly with your roommate, he could sell his interest in the car to someone else, with or without your consent. Then you'd jointly own the car with someone else, perhaps even a complete stranger.

The two are different because, unlike the car, the fetus is not distinct and separable from the woman's body. It is a part of it. The woman can't give her fetus to someone else, and no one else can have a legitimate claim over it. If someone else were to sell his interest in it, it would be like his selling a stolen car because he would have no true ownership interest in either one.

I find it odd that someone who claims to believe that the social fabric is (paradoxically) woven from atomistic self-owned individuals would so strenuously insist on subjugating one of those self-owned individuals to another just because they freely had sex at one time or another. It seems to me that at that point he has shattered his entire social theory to tiny little bits.

 

[Kulindahr]

Sex is not the subject of contract. Either person can back out at any time for any reason or none. That doesn't sound like any contract I've ever heard of.

Furthermore, 'pregnant' does not imply that anyone else has anything bodily at stake. The physical consequences of the pregnancy relate only to the woman's body. If she owns herself, she owns her pregnant self, and no one else can make legitimate claims over her body whether or not it is pregnant.

It is completely different from a car. A car is a thing which two people can commonly or jointly own. If you didn't want to sell the car owned jointly with your roommate, he could sell his interest in the car to someone else, with or without your consent. Then you'd jointly own the car with someone else, perhaps even a complete stranger.

The two are different because, unlike the car, the fetus is not distinct and separable from the woman's body. It is a part of it. The woman can't give her fetus to someone else, and no one else can have a legitimate claim over it. If someone else were to sell his interest in it, it would be like his selling a stolen car because he would have no true ownership interest in either one.

I find it odd that someone who claims to believe that the social fabric is (paradoxically) woven from atomistic self-owned individuals would so strenuously insist on subjugating one of those self-owned individuals to another just because they freely had sex at one time or another. It seems to me that at that point he has shattered his entire social theory to tiny little bits.

She has subjected herself. Actions have consequences. Only children refuse to take responsibility for their actions. You're wanting women to be allowed to be children.

Biologically, what is in her when she is pregnant is not "part of her body". Parts of her body have her DNA, and only her DNA; this does not. It is not her.

There is nothing "freely " about sex any more than there is something "freely" about tossing lit cigarettes out the window in a dry forest. Both run the risk of consequences, which must be accepted. You're trying to do away with that in this one instance. Granted the instance is near to unique, but that doesn't do away with responsibility.

The only subjugation involved is what she has agreed to by engaging in sex: she has contracted a partnership by offering her body to be the receptacle for her partner's offspring -- that being an intrinsic possibility from the activity. If she doesn't want to have that contract, it's her duty to find a partner who will sign off his interest in the result, so she can do as she pleases.

 

[Kulindahr]

^
You continue to insist that women don't have to be responsible for their actions, with your reference for taking responsibility being "enslaved".

If she's pregnant, it's no longer her egg. It doesn't have only her DNA, so it isn't part of her body.

And if people are so immature as to have sex without agreeing as to how any consequences will be handled ahead of time, they belong back in middle school.

 

[Kulindahr]

Google searched your word, "subjected". It's quite "enslaved". I think it is pretty pathetic that you think an "abortion" is irresponsible.

If she's pregnant, it's no longer his egg. It doesn't have only his DNA, so it isn't part of his body. If he has no relationship with her other than as a momentary genetic dump and left, he was irresponsible for not wearing a condom, but that doesn't give him access to make demands on her body. It isn't as if she's required to obey a stranger's demands since the law doesn't force the two to marry.

Men don't have eggs.

Maybe you're starting to get it -- it isn't part of his body. It isn't part of hers, either. It's something they accomplished together, which makes it something they both have a say in. That the result resides within her body is irrelevant; she already agreed to its presence by cooperating in inviting it. If there are any "demands on her body" because of his wishes, she already assented to them by her actions.

Well, probably, but they don't always. People attempt to be responsible through condom usage, of course there are those organizations and individuals out there who argue condoms aren't effective at all or desire to completely fail at teaching sexual education. Perhaps if society would grow up and give up on their religious fairy tale lies, sexual conduct would mature beyond middle school.

I'd say that if he brought, and used, a condom, and pregnancy resulted from its failure, he's already stated his intention, by using one. If she supplies one and he uses it, the situation is the same. In either case, an agreement has been made that they don't want a baby . If conception results anyway, she's already under his agreement they don't want a baby, so she is contractually authorized to implement that agreement.


Troll much? Religion has little to do with this; the only connection is that in my experience, religious folks are more likely to recognize their responsibilities and less likely to just use others as sex toys. But they're still stuck with the consequences of their actions just like everyone else.

 

[nurseboy269]

[...]if a man impregnates a woman with the explicit goal of having a child, in a manner that is mutually consensual, then it would be morally unacceptable for that woman to later have an abortion.

I am not going to try to argue the actual legality of "father's rights" the legal precedence in this country has never sided with them. However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone has to like it, or agree with it, obviously.

There was a case in New York in which the husband alleged that the wife had an abortion to intentionally spite him because he refused to "tear up" a prenup agreement. The rights of the women allow them to spite their husbands?

There is a lot of talk about in this thread about how men have no rights...that women have the right to not have themselves held hostage because of pregnancy. Shouldn't the same apply to men? Or are they just 'sex toys'? Men can consent with their partner to conceive a child, and when the women tires of him, can abort the baby without him knowing anything...isn't that being held hostage? A women can intentionally become pregnant (lie about the pill, poke a hole in the condom, etc) have a child without the father knowing anything about it, and still hold him financially responsible for the next 18 years...isn't that being held hostage? Essentially, the men have no rights...isn't that being held hostage?

There was a case in the UK were a father sued his wife to prevent her from aborting their baby...he obviously lost, but after they communicated she agreed to carry the baby to term, and then gave up her rights to the child to the husband. Doesn't this make more sense?

I can understand what people are saying in this thread about "holding the women hostage"...I understand where you are coming from...it is the polar opposite of the opposing arguement that states that "men are held hostage". Shouldn't men have "some" say in this matter? Certainly not "all" say, but most certainly not "no" say? We should encourage dialog when there is objections raised from the father. This actually would happen to often I think, as I agree that most men do not care. I do not think it is realistic to think that men will always be favored, or women either. However, I think that there should at least be dialog, a chance for the father (if he chooses) can voice his objections and hopefully come to a decision, with the mother, that is mutually agreeable.

 

[construct]

I am not going to try to argue the actual legality of "father's rights" the legal precedence in this country has never sided with them. However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone has to like it, or agree with it, obviously.

There was a case in New York in which the husband alleged that the wife had an abortion to intentionally spite him because he refused to "tear up" a prenup agreement. The rights of the women allow them to spite their husbands?

There is a lot of talk about in this thread about how men have no rights...that women have the right to not have themselves held hostage because of pregnancy. Shouldn't the same apply to men? Or are they just 'sex toys'? Men can consent with their partner to conceive a child, and when the women tires of him, can abort the baby without him knowing anything...isn't that being held hostage? A women can intentionally become pregnant (lie about the pill, poke a hole in the condom, etc) have a child without the father knowing anything about it, and still hold him financially responsible for the next 18 years...isn't that being held hostage? Essentially, the men have no rights...isn't that being held hostage?

There was a case in the UK were a father sued his wife to prevent her from aborting their baby...he obviously lost, but after they communicated she agreed to carry the baby to term, and then gave up her rights to the child to the husband. Doesn't this make more sense?

I can understand what people are saying in this thread about "holding the women hostage"...I understand where you are coming from...it is the polar opposite of the opposing arguement that states that "men are held hostage". Shouldn't men have "some" say in this matter? Certainly not "all" say, but most certainly not "no" say? We should encourage dialog when there is objections raised from the father. This actually would happen to often I think, as I agree that most men do not care. I do not think it is realistic to think that men will always be favored, or women either. However, I think that there should at least be dialog, a chance for the father (if he chooses) can voice his objections and hopefully come to a decision, with the mother, that is mutually agreeable.

Throughout the post, you seem to equate fathers with husbands. That does make it a little easier. Requiring notification of the husband before abortion is okay by me unless there is a reasonable fear of abuse. The exception could be handled by court order. I think that's about as far as the law could reasonably go to encourage the dialog. (I agree that such dialog should be encouraged.)

The problem comes with unmarried couples. Again such dialog would be a good thing, but I don't know that it is all that enforceable. Should a potential father be permitted to force an abortion? For that matter, should a husband be permitted to force an abortion? I'm not ready to take that step. So I'm not willing to say the potential father should be permitted to force a woman to carry a baby to term.

Now as for "spite," I am not willing to place limitations on the reasons for an abortion. The woman, after discussion with her doctor, her husband, her one-night-stand, and whoever else she wants to talk to, has the right to make her own decision. She's the one who takes the risk to health; she's the one who will most likely have to rear the child (primarily); she's the one who gets to decide. I mean somebody has be authorized to make the final decision. I say it should be she.

 

[nurseboy269]

^ I was seeing a trend in other posts to equate the father as nothing more than a lustful, orgasm seeking, one night stand...as this is not always the case, chose to shine a differing light

"For that matter, should a husband be permitted to force an abortion?"
-As I am an "absolutist" in regards to pro-life...I would say no.

I do think it is funny (in general) that many women's rights activists are so stead fast in their belief that the fathers have no rights, opinion, say, etc in the pregnancy, but let that child be born, and they will be the first to come after him for child support.

It is certainly a double standard, me thinks. When a women becomes pregnant (unexpectedly) they dismiss the argument that she knew the consequences of sex "she didn't intend it-she ensured condoms were worn-etc-let her abort"...but going after the father for support.."you knew the consequences...it doesn't matter if you ensured you had a condom on...YOU took that risk, and now you will pay!"

 

[Kulindahr]

I am not going to try to argue the actual legality of "father's rights" the legal precedence in this country has never sided with them. However, just because something is legal, doesn't mean everyone has to like it, or agree with it, obviously.

There was a case in New York in which the husband alleged that the wife had an abortion to intentionally spite him because he refused to "tear up" a prenup agreement. The rights of the women allow them to spite their husbands?

There is a lot of talk about in this thread about how men have no rights...that women have the right to not have themselves held hostage because of pregnancy. Shouldn't the same apply to men? Or are they just 'sex toys'? Men can consent with their partner to conceive a child, and when the women tires of him, can abort the baby without him knowing anything...isn't that being held hostage? A women can intentionally become pregnant (lie about the pill, poke a hole in the condom, etc) have a child without the father knowing anything about it, and still hold him financially responsible for the next 18 years...isn't that being held hostage? Essentially, the men have no rights...isn't that being held hostage?

There was a case in the UK were a father sued his wife to prevent her from aborting their baby...he obviously lost, but after they communicated she agreed to carry the baby to term, and then gave up her rights to the child to the husband. Doesn't this make more sense?

I can understand what people are saying in this thread about "holding the women hostage"...I understand where you are coming from...it is the polar opposite of the opposing arguement that states that "men are held hostage". Shouldn't men have "some" say in this matter? Certainly not "all" say, but most certainly not "no" say? We should encourage dialog when there is objections raised from the father. This actually would happen to often I think, as I agree that most men do not care. I do not think it is realistic to think that men will always be favored, or women either. However, I think that there should at least be dialog, a chance for the father (if he chooses) can voice his objections and hopefully come to a decision, with the mother, that is mutually agreeable.

This is what I've been talking about, but the retort is always that men are just the sex toys, only women have rights, and as women they're allowed to do whatever they feel like with no regard for their responsibilities or the feelings or rights of anyone else.

Oh, I forgot; because they're women, no one else has any rights. Men are just dicks with bodies attached for the sole purpose of providing sexual pleasure without responsibility to women.

Or so those who refuse to consider all persons as equal regardless of gender keep telling me.

 

[nurseboy269]

This is what I've been talking about, but the retort is always that men are just the sex toys, only women have rights, and as women they're allowed to do whatever they feel like with no regard for their responsibilities or the feelings or rights of anyone else.

I saw it heading that way...I have been reading and agreeing with you. I meant to post days ago, but it has taken me this long to think about what I actually wanted to say.

 

[Kulindahr]

The problem comes with unmarried couples. Again such dialog would be a good thing, but I don't know that it is all that enforceable. Should a potential father be permitted to force an abortion? For that matter, should a husband be permitted to force an abortion? I'm not ready to take that step. So I'm not willing to say the potential father should be permitted to force a woman to carry a baby to term.

"Force"?

The thing is that by joining in sex she has accepted responsibility for the consequences, so no force should be necessary if she's a mature human being.

But given that this is a cooperative venture, the point I've been trying to make is that there shouldn't even be any question about it: the two participants should have settled the terms of their contract, rather than leaving it vague -- even if it's nothing more than the woman setting the terms of access to her body and telling the guy to agree or get on down the road.

As an aside, this is one of the reasons there are so many reactionary "Christians" out there these days: the contract for such situations was a given, the one Christian churches thought was correct; no one had to negotiate or agree to anything. They don't like the fact that people are in charge of themselves and not answerable to the churches, that people could agree that if the gal gets pregnant she's going to have an abortion at the point when the fetus looks sort of like a salamander, then pickle the little thing and put it on a shelf (if someone wanted to be so weird). They don't like that people are free to decide to have sex outside of marriage in the first place, of course, but that's only the beginning.
There's a book they ought to read, that gives the proper example for this: preach to your own crowd, not to anyone else. It's the letters of St. Paul, and they really ought to get acquainted with them.

Now as for "spite," I am not willing to place limitations on the reasons for an abortion. The woman, after discussion with her doctor, her husband, her one-night-stand, and whoever else she wants to talk to, has the right to make her own decision. She's the one who takes the risk to health; she's the one who will most likely have to rear the child (primarily); she's the one who gets to decide. I mean somebody has be authorized to make the final decision. I say it should be she.

Obviously she can make that decision, because she controls the habitat of the little critter in question. But that's no more than might-makes-right ethics. Morally, she's obligated to go with whatever she agreed to with the father. Of course the corollary to that is that he has the moral obligation to no leave her in the lurch, but to provide at least half the support for the whole thing, from conception to high school graduation, if she requires that.

Or they can negotiate something else -- just so long as they recognize their personal responsibilities and obligations.