ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Tags abortion issues , adoption issues

Reply
Old 17th October 2019, 10:09 AM   #1
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Paper Abortions

Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.

The general argument seems to be that if women have the ability to unilaterally end a pregnancy by getting a medical abortion, then it is unfair that men may be financially responsible for a child given they have no such choice.

I think the background of this is that biological reality is assymetrical and our social history and moral frameworks can compound that assymetry, so no set of laws can be truly "fair" in the sense that men and women have exactly parallel options. The needs and rights of women, men and children are necessarily going to intersect in a way that leaves someone dissatisfied.

So I don't find "Women get X and men don't" to be compelling by itself.

1) The gestation process takes place inside a woman's body. Physically, with no laws in place, that means a heap of responsibility a woman has for a child, none for the man unless outside pressures demand it.

2) Babies can't get jobs. They are financially dependant on others. There are more or less three options. Either the biological parents are held responsible, the state takes responsibility, or some random other folks (adoptive parents, non profits) step in.

3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortion is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. Many women are raised in cultures which makes it more or less impossible without cutting all ties to their social supports. Giving a child up for adoption is not a light thing for a human you have carried in your body for nine months. Women's bodies release powerful hormones which create strong attachment between mother and child.

4) Introducing a paper abortion wouldn't restore a fair balance because signing a paper saying "Nope, don't want to pay for this kid" while it may elicit a social stigma, would always be FAR easier than an actual abortion. If by fairness you mean symmetry, then this would not be fair.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON

Last edited by Cavemonster; 17th October 2019 at 11:39 AM.
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 10:16 AM   #2
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,877
I feel that if someone choose a not to wear their seatbelt they should have to pay their own medical costs for their face going through the windshield. Likewise if a person doesn't want a child they can avail themselves of a whole array of methods not to. That the available methods vary by sex hardly justifies one sex from failing to use the methods it does have available.

And considering STDs most people should be using condoms regardless of whether they're employing other methods to prevent conception. Protection from pregnancy is not the same as protection from STDs. Again, wear a seatbelt or accept the aftermath. It's not difficult.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:15 AM   #3
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
[quote=Cavemonster;12859043]Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.

The general argument seems to be that if women have the ability to unilaterally end a pregnancy by getting a medical abortion, then it is unfair that men may be financially responsible for a child given they have no such choice.

I think the background of this is that biological reality is assymetrical and our social history and moral frameworks can compound that assymetry, so no set of laws can be truly "fair" in the sense that men and women have exactly parallel options. The needs and rights of women, men and children are necessarily going to intersect in a way that leaves someone dissatisfied.

So I don't find "Women get X and men don't" to be compelling by itself.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
1) The gestation process takes place inside a woman's body. Physically, with no laws in place, that means a heap of responsibility a woman has for a child, none for the man unless outside pressures demand it.
Outside pressure do demand it. So playing field is level so far.


Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
2) Babies can't get jobs. They are financially dependant on others. There are more or less three options. Either the biological parents are held responsible, the state takes responsibility, or some random other folks (adoptive parents, non profits) step in.
Not pertinent.


[quote=Cavemonster;12859043] 3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. [quote]

Abortion risks are proven lower than delivery risks. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Many women are raised in cultures which makes it more or less impossible without cutting all ties to their social supports. Giving a child up for adoption is not a light thing for a human you have carried in your body for nine months. Women's bodies release powerful hormones which create strong attachment between mother and child.
Also that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.


Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
4) Introducing a paper abortion wouldn't restore a fair balance because signing a paper saying "Nope, don't want to pay for this kid" while it may elicit a social stigma, would always be FAR easier than an actual abortion. If by fairness you mean symmetry, then this would not be fair.
Ease of abortion is not the point. The point is that the woman had all the choices as the man: abstention and prophylaxis, plus one. I'm just asking why she gets one more chance to change her mind but the father does not. Outlawing abortions would level the playing field too, but that is not an option.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.

Last edited by casebro; 17th October 2019 at 11:24 AM.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:21 AM   #4
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
I feel that if someone choose a not to wear their seatbelt they should have to pay their own medical costs for their face going through the windshield. Likewise if a person doesn't want a child they can avail themselves of a whole array of methods not to. That the available methods vary by sex hardly justifies one sex from failing to use the methods it does have available.
Hey, Mom didn't abstain or prevent either. Why should her decision whether or not to have the baby be such an onerous burden on the guy, with out him also have a last ditch escape?

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And considering STDs most people should be using condoms regardless of whether they're employing other methods to prevent conception. Protection from pregnancy is not the same as protection from STDs. Again, wear a seatbelt or accept the aftermath. It's not difficult.
Birth control pills are 10 times as effective at preventing pregnancy as condoms. Geeze, talk about not wearing your seat belt.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:25 AM   #5
rockysmith76
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: Jul 2019
Posts: 375
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post


2) Babies can't get jobs. They are financially dependant on others. There are more or less three options. Either the biological parents are held responsible, the state takes responsibility, or some random other folks (adoptive parents, non profits) step in.
So you're saying that Babies need to start getting jobs.
rockysmith76 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:26 AM   #6
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,307
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Hey, Mom didn't abstain or prevent either. Why should her decision whether or not to have the baby be such an onerous burden on the guy, with out him also have a last ditch escape?
Search out the word "reality" in the OP.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:26 AM   #7
Jungle Jim
Graduate Poster
 
Jungle Jim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 1,124
I didn't want to have children. I got a vasectomy. One of the best decisions I ever made.
Jungle Jim is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:28 AM   #8
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by casebro View Post


Outside pressure do demand it. So playing field is level so far.
There are two kinds of outside pressure, social and legal. If the social were fully effective, we wouldn't need the legal pressure.

To the extent that you could call the playing field level (there's still a lot of room for argument there) it certainly wouldn't be if you removed the legal pressure.



Quote:
Not pertinent.
How so? The fact that someone has to support a baby is the whole reason for child support and the whole reason the idea of a "paper abortion" exists. How can the need that drives financial responsibility not be pertinent?



Quote:
Abortion risks are proven lower than delivery risks. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.

But much greater than the risks of signing a piece of paper. But again you seem to be insisting that my points are not pertinent without explaining why. That's just a hand wave.


Quote:
Also that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.
Hand waving again.

Ease of abortion is not the point.

Quote:
The point is that the woman had all the choices as the man: abstention and prophylaxis, plus one. I'm just asking why she gets one more chance to change her mind but the father does not. Outlawing abortions would level the playing field too, but that is not an option.
Why should number of options be the sole evaluative criteria? Surely the quality of those options matters. If women could get abortions only if they climbed Mt Everest, aced the SATs and ran a 3 minute mile, that wouldn't matter because the choice exists? The quality and risks and consequences of a choice matter, not just the number of choices.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:28 AM   #9
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
A paper abortion would not be telling a woman what she can do with her body. Single women opt to have babies without expecting any financial commitment from the biological father all the time.

Hummm, what about using the medical system for a sperm donor. Isn't that a form of Paper Abortion?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:29 AM   #10
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by rockysmith76 View Post
So you're saying that Babies need to start getting jobs.
I mean, if they could just pull themselves up by their bootie straps, this whole issue would be moot.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:29 AM   #11
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,877
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Hey, Mom didn't abstain or prevent either. Why should her decision whether or not to have the baby be such an onerous burden on the guy, with out him also have a last ditch escape?
Because it's inside her body? If the male carried the fetus he'd have the "last ditch escape". Both parties had plenty of prior opportunities to "escape" and chose not to. That indicates to me they weren't very concerned about the risk. And saving foolish people from the consequences of their foolishness is ultimately impossible.


Quote:
Birth control pills are 10 times as effective at preventing pregnancy as condoms. Geeze, talk about not wearing your seat belt.
That's an argument in favor of using both condoms and the pill, not for using the pill instead of condoms.

You're not confined to using just one method of protection. And, I don't see why this isn't clear, some forms of protection don't protect against both undesirable outcomes.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:35 AM   #12
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post

3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. Many women are raised in cultures which makes it more or less impossible without cutting all ties to their social supports. Giving a child up for adoption is not a light thing for a human you have carried in your body for nine months. Women's bodies release powerful hormones which create strong attachment between mother and child.
I agree with the summary you posted, but wanted to expound of your point here.

Historically, women facing an unwanted pregnancy have often chosen not to terminate, even when abortion is available. Even in cases where it is obvious that continuing the pregnancy will bring tremendous financial and other hardship into their lives. This happens frequently enough to a wide cross section of women that it should be obvious that pragmatic concerns for their own well-being are not the only factor that is being considered when it comes to deciding to abort an unwanted pregnancy. To be more clear, lots of women are choosing not to abort even in cases where that is clearly the best solution for them personally. This happens far too frequently to be explained away as hysterical women, manipulative tactics, welfare queens, or any such disparaging motive. Clearly they feel some moral or other obligation to the unborn child that is at least factored in with their own priorities.

While the stigma around abortion is certainly changing, it seems abundantly clear that this is still the case. Saying that women are "choosing" to remain pregnant of their own free will is not really an honest reflection of their decision making process. Granting men the right to terminate all responsibility, in these cases, would be granting them a right that exceeds that of the mother, because the men can walk away without having to decide to actually terminate the pregnancy and deal with all the ethical and social hurdles inherent in such a decision.

Conversations like these often involve scenarios with conniving parties, sabotaging birth control and acting in bad faith. That is rarely the cause of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Usually it is a case of people either using precaution and being unlucky, or being impulsive and not using enough protection. Talking about these edge cases of bad faith actors (sperm jacking women and the like) is not really that instructive for the reality of the situation. Coercive reproduction is largely a tangent worthy of it's own discussion and solutions, such as "stealthing" being categorized into law as a form of criminal sexual behavior.


Realistically, there is no solution that is going to be optimal for everyone involved. There are multiple conflicting parties, the mothers, the fathers, the potential child that will need support if it is born, and the welfare state that isn't eager to provide for needy children unless all other options have been exhausted.

Given these conflicts, the "caveat emptor" for men seems to be the best solution, to my eye. Some will be careless and some will be unlucky and find themselves in situations where another party (a woman) is in a position to unilaterally change their lives (abort or not). Such is the reality of biology.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 17th October 2019 at 11:39 AM.
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:50 AM   #13
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I agree with the summary you posted, but wanted to expound of your point here.

Historically, women facing an unwanted pregnancy have often chosen not to terminate, even when abortion is available. Even in cases where it is obvious that continuing the pregnancy will bring tremendous financial and other hardship into their lives. This happens frequently enough to a wide cross section of women that it should be obvious that pragmatic concerns for their own well-being are not the only factor that is being considered when it comes to deciding to abort an unwanted pregnancy. To be more clear, lots of women are choosing not to abort even in cases where that is clearly the best solution for them personally. This happens far too frequently to be explained away as hysterical women, manipulative tactics, welfare queens, or any such disparaging motive. Clearly they feel some moral or other obligation to the unborn child that is at least factored in with their own priorities.

While the stigma around abortion is certainly changing, it seems abundantly clear that this is still the case. Saying that women are "choosing" to remain pregnant of their own free will is not really an honest reflection of their decision making process. Granting men the right to terminate all responsibility, in these cases, would be granting them a right that exceeds that of the mother, because the men can walk away without having to decide to actually terminate the pregnancy and deal with all the ethical and social hurdles inherent in such a decision.

Conversations like these often involve scenarios with conniving parties, sabotaging birth control and acting in bad faith. That is rarely the cause of unwanted and unplanned pregnancies. Usually it is a case of people either using precaution and being unlucky, or being impulsive and not using enough protection. Talking about these edge cases of bad faith actors (sperm jacking women and the like) is not really that instructive for the reality of the situation. Coercive reproduction is largely a tangent worthy of it's own discussion and solutions, such as "stealthing" being categorized into law as a form of criminal sexual behavior.


Realistically, there is no solution that is going to be optimal for everyone involved. There are multiple conflicting parties, the mothers, the fathers, the potential child that will need support if it is born, and the welfare state that isn't eager to provide for needy children unless all other options have been exhausted.

Given these conflicts, the "caveat emptor" for men seems to be the best solution, to my eye. Some will be careless and some will be unlucky and find themselves in situations where another party (a woman) is in a position to unilaterally change their lives (abort or not). Such is the reality of biology.
The more I think about this, the more it seems to boil down to an "Equality vs Equity" issue. Is it important that everyone gets something we can call the same, or is it important to take into account how different people are specifically effected?
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:52 AM   #14
Bob001
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 9,304
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.
.....
Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.
Bob001 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:56 AM   #15
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.
I'd have no issues with that setup. But I don't think that's quite what proponents are asking for.

And as you say, it would likely have a strong contraceptive effect.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:57 AM   #16
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.
I would argue that it doesn't really matter when the discussion takes place, because the mother can't bargain away the child's right to be supported.

Going without support will not only be a burden for the mother, who might agree to such terms, but also to the child which was not a party to such a bargain.
__________________
Gobble gobble
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 11:58 AM   #17
RecoveringYuppy
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 9,307
Originally Posted by Bob001 View Post
Sounds like it would only be valid if the man asked the woman to sign a document before they engage in sex: "If I make you pregnant I'll abandon you and I won't pay a penny. Okay?"

I suspect it would serve as an effective contraceptive.

And no court would recognize that as a valid contract.
__________________
REJ (Robert E Jones) posting anonymously under my real name for 30 years.

Make a fire for a man and you keep him warm for a day. Set him on fire and you keep him warm for the rest of his life.
RecoveringYuppy is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:01 PM   #18
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
I would argue that it doesn't really matter when the discussion takes place, because the mother can't bargain away the child's right to be supported.

Going without support will not only be a burden for the mother, who might agree to such terms, but also to the child which was not a party to such a bargain.
It would only be a burden to the extent that the mother can't financially support the child on her own income.

Some number of single mothers choose not to seek child support for varying reasons.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:05 PM   #19
SuburbanTurkey
Master Poster
 
SuburbanTurkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2018
Location: Boston, USA
Posts: 2,189
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
It would only be a burden to the extent that the mother can't financially support the child on her own income.

Some number of single mothers choose not to seek child support for varying reasons.
Sure, and the children grow up less well off than they might have. It's complicated because the wealth of the child is directly tied to the wealth of the parents, so you really can't separate the two. A child who's single parent does not pursue child support or available welfare is disadvantaging their child in many cases.

Even in cases where poverty and neglect aren't at risk, the child would arguably benefit from the single parent receiving support. Money is opportunity, and less is less, even if that falls well above any poverty benchmark.

It's a weird situation for sure, hard to parse through.
__________________
Gobble gobble

Last edited by SuburbanTurkey; 17th October 2019 at 12:07 PM.
SuburbanTurkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:14 PM   #20
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by SuburbanTurkey View Post
Sure, and the children grow up less well off than they might have. It's complicated because the wealth of the child is directly tied to the wealth of the parents, so you really can't separate the two. A child who's single parent does not pursue child support or available welfare is disadvantaging their child in many cases.

Even in cases where poverty and neglect aren't at risk, the child would arguably benefit from the single parent receiving support. Money is opportunity, and less is less, even if that falls well above any poverty benchmark.

It's a weird situation for sure, hard to parse through.
While that's all true a child could be better off with more money available, as far as the state making a mandate, it's a little harder to support.

If both parents are raising a child, there's no state mandate for them to spend any particular amount of money on the kid beyond basic needs. So long as a kid is fed, clothed, educated and sheltered, the state doesn't tell families they need to spend more on a kid because they have the resources.

I'd have a hard time supporting that that needs to change when talking about a non-custodial parent. The most important thing is that a child's basic needs are met.

And I'm not arguing that non-custodial parent's SHOULDN'T be on the hook beyond basic necessities. I just can't personally see that as a strong argument if the custodial parent is okay with it and all needs are being met.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:15 PM   #21
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,913
Shucks. I was hoping that this was going to be an origami gone wrong thread.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:20 PM   #22
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by Elagabalus View Post
Shucks. I was hoping that this was going to be an origami gone wrong thread.
https://cdn.thingiverse.com/renders/...w_featured.jpg
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:25 PM   #23
Elagabalus
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 4,913
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
That appears to be Clark Foam™.
Elagabalus is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 12:55 PM   #24
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,432
Leaving aside the generally unimpressive arguments from fairness, it just seems like bad policy to me. It would introduce perverse incentives that would magnify some unfortunate reproductive strategies.

Just do the right thing and convince your girlfriend to have an abortion. Or get a vasectomy, if you don't have people skills.
mumblethrax is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 01:04 PM   #25
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
[quote=casebro;12859118][quote=Cavemonster;12859043]Inspired by a recent thread in forum community, I wanted to make a place to discuss the idea of paper abortions.

The general argument seems to be that if women have the ability to unilaterally end a pregnancy by getting a medical abortion, then it is unfair that men may be financially responsible for a child given they have no such choice.

I think the background of this is that biological reality is assymetrical and our social history and moral frameworks can compound that assymetry, so no set of laws can be truly "fair" in the sense that men and women have exactly parallel options. The needs and rights of women, men and children are necessarily going to intersect in a way that leaves someone dissatisfied.

So I don't find "Women get X and men don't" to be compelling by itself.



Outside pressure do demand it. So playing field is level so far.




Not pertinent.


[quote=Cavemonster;12859043] 3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks.
Quote:

Abortion risks are proven lower than delivery risks. But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.



Also that has nothing to do with the subject at hand.




Ease of abortion is not the point. The point is that the woman had all the choices as the man: abstention and prophylaxis, plus one. I'm just asking why she gets one more chance to change her mind but the father does not. Outlawing abortions would level the playing field too, but that is not an option.
Would you also allow a woman to make the same paper abortion?
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 01:18 PM   #26
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,015
I was brought up with the idea of taking personal responsibility for my actions, if I was involved in the production of a person I can't see why I should be able to avoid my personal responsibility in making the mess.

As I was told as a kid "you made the mess you clear it up".

The only time I think there is any kind of ambiguity in regards to personal responsibility (that either party involved in the making the mess, sorry person has) is if one deceived the other. But in the end if you have sex that could result in a person being created then you have to accept there is always some risk that you may create a person even if you really didn't want to and took reasonable steps to avoid it. Life is simply "unfair" in some regards.

I have never ever smoked in my life, not even a single puff on a fag, yet I may still get lung cancer, life is simply unfair in some regards.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 03:34 PM   #27
luchog
Neo-Post-Retro-Revivalist
 
luchog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Emerald City
Posts: 16,133
An interesting thing to keep in mind is that the idea of a "paper abortion" only exists because our concept of parental responsibility is a very recent one even by modern standards. Prior to the latter half of the previous century, it really didn't exist as we understand it.

For most of history in the west and many other cultures, simply abandoning unwanted children was common practice for men who couldn't keep it in their pants. Nobles in particular would often father substantial numbers of bastards, who were then left to fend for themselves. The mothers of those children generally had little to no recourse for support from the father.

Mothers who were unable to care for children with family assistance (families which all-too-often themselves ostracized unwed mothers and their children), typically abandoned them at orphanages, or various religious institutions (convents, monasteries, etc.); or they killed the children outright (a common enough practice for the children of prostituted in some historical cultures). Something which is far less common today.

While some historical cultures did have some sense of parental responsibility, most did not. For those that did, these were almost entirely religious strictures, and linked directly to prohibitions on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. Remedies included forced marriage, and punishments included death for one or more of the parents.

In any case, historically, people have typically lived in large family groupings (much larger than the current "nuclear family"), and the children could depend on some sort of support from the mother's family at the very least. In the case of more primitive cultures, responsibility for all children was at least partly invested in the entire village or tribe -- the origin of "It takes a village to raise a child". Both of these cases ensured that children were cared for in the event of losing a parent to illness, injury, death in tribal warfare, or any of the other causes common to a time of high mortality rates.

The atomization of modern families has removed those customary support systems in much of the developed, and even developing, world.

We've also developed another concept in the modern world that was either absent or weaker in most historical cultures, the welfare of a child as an absolute good. Hence the legally-enforced taboo against infanticide.

So to compensate for the breaking of support systems and ensure the welfare of children, we've developed the concept of obligatory parental responsibility, and enacted welfare state programs to compensate for instances of parents being unable to support their child, or persistently resistant to supporting their child.

What the reactionaries and MRAS seem to so desperately want is a return to the days before the concept of obligatory parental responsibility; but without the customary support system that existed through much of that time.
__________________
When you say that fascists should only be defeated through debate, what you're really saying is that the marginalized and vulnerable should have to endlessly argue for their right to exist; and at no point should they ever be fully accepted, and the debate considered won.
luchog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 03:47 PM   #28
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
Originally Posted by Cavemonster View Post
3) The options women have to give up a child are all much more fraught than signing a piece of paper. Abortions is still considered murder by a huge chunk of the country. It's also a medical procedure with risks. Would you also allow a woman to make the same paper abortion?
Certainly, they do it- it's called Adoption. They don't name the father, just give up the baby. So no physical abortion. But a man can't unilaterally do the same.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 03:51 PM   #29
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 76,514
There's an old thread on this, maybe even a half dozen threads. The child support is just that, child support. Sorry guys, you can't just walk away from your kids. That you think it is unfair is too bad.
__________________
That new avatar is cuteness overload.
Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 03:54 PM   #30
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
Originally Posted by luchog View Post
An interesting thing to keep in mind is that the idea of a "paper abortion" only exists because our concept of parental responsibility is a very recent one even by modern standards. Prior to the latter half of the previous century, it really didn't exist as we understand it.

For most of history in the west and many other cultures, simply abandoning unwanted children was common practice for men who couldn't keep it in their pants. Nobles in particular would often father substantial numbers of bastards, who were then left to fend for themselves. The mothers of those children generally had little to no recourse for support from the father.

Mothers who were unable to care for children with family assistance (families which all-too-often themselves ostracized unwed mothers and their children), typically abandoned them at orphanages, or various religious institutions (convents, monasteries, etc.); or they killed the children outright (a common enough practice for the children of prostituted in some historical cultures). Something which is far less common today.

While some historical cultures did have some sense of parental responsibility, most did not. For those that did, these were almost entirely religious strictures, and linked directly to prohibitions on pre-marital and extra-marital sex. Remedies included forced marriage, and punishments included death for one or more of the parents.

In any case, historically, people have typically lived in large family groupings (much larger than the current "nuclear family"), and the children could depend on some sort of support from the mother's family at the very least. In the case of more primitive cultures, responsibility for all children was at least partly invested in the entire village or tribe -- the origin of "It takes a village to raise a child". Both of these cases ensured that children were cared for in the event of losing a parent to illness, injury, death in tribal warfare, or any of the other causes common to a time of high mortality rates.

The atomization of modern families has removed those customary support systems in much of the developed, and even developing, world.

We've also developed another concept in the modern world that was either absent or weaker in most historical cultures, the welfare of a child as an absolute good. Hence the legally-enforced taboo against infanticide.

So to compensate for the breaking of support systems and ensure the welfare of children, we've developed the concept of obligatory parental responsibility, and enacted welfare state programs to compensate for instances of parents being unable to support their child, or persistently resistant to supporting their child.

What the reactionaries and MRAS seem to so desperately want is a return to the days before the concept of obligatory parental responsibility; but without the customary support system that existed through much of that time.
I like. A deeper conceptualization.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 03:56 PM   #31
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Because it's inside her body? If the male carried the fetus he'd have the "last ditch escape". Both parties had plenty of prior opportunities to "escape" and chose not to. That indicates to me they weren't very concerned about the risk. And saving foolish people from the consequences of their foolishness is ultimately impossible.




That's an argument in favor of using both condoms and the pill, not for using the pill instead of condoms.

You're not confined to using just one method of protection. And, I don't see why this isn't clear, some forms of protection don't protect against both undesirable outcomes.
Today's discussion is about pregnancy.
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 04:30 PM   #32
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 51,877
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Today's discussion is about pregnancy.
And using a condom plus the pill is less effective at stopping pregnancy than just using the pill alone? Is that your position? Oh, and the other thing about condoms: the male can take responsibility for using them, and he can't be deceived about it, either. In case them evul, scheming womuns are after his precious sperm so they can have his baby against his will!
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 04:32 PM   #33
Cavemonster
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 5,748
Originally Posted by casebro View Post
Certainly, they do it- it's called Adoption. They don't name the father, just give up the baby. So no physical abortion. But a man can't unilaterally do the same.
Women can't legally put children up for adoption against the will of the biological father.

The father has a legal parental right.
__________________
The weakness of all Utopias is this, ... They first assume that no man will want more than his share, and then are very ingenious in explaining whether his share will be delivered by motorcar or balloon.
-G.K. CHESTERTON
Cavemonster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 06:49 PM   #34
mgidm86
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 5,815
How much does a vasectomy cost in the US? Is it covered by insurance?

I'm kinda too old for kids (well not physically uh oh) and zero sex life now so I have no skin in this game. Just wondering. And it's an interesting subject.

I understand the men's side of it, but I have nothing to add really. Maybe men could contest their liability on a case by case basis? Maybe they already do?

Yes, men can get screwed over by conniving women, I've seen it, but they can also ruin a woman's life. Seen that too.

Shrug. I'll follow the thread.
__________________
Franklin understands certain kickbacks you obtain unfairly are legal liabilities; however, a risky deed's almost never detrimental despite extra external pressures.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 07:51 PM   #35
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,259
Originally Posted by mgidm86 View Post
How much does a vasectomy cost in the US? Is it covered by insurance?

I'm kinda too old for kids (well not physically uh oh) and zero sex life now so I have no skin in this game. Just wondering. And it's an interesting subject.

I understand the men's side of it, but I have nothing to add really. Maybe men could contest their liability on a case by case basis? Maybe they already do?

Yes, men can get screwed over by conniving women, I've seen it, but they can also ruin a woman's life. Seen that too.

Shrug. I'll follow the thread.
Vasectomies are completely or partially covered by most kinds of insurance. Without it, they're around a grand or two. So, basically affordable for many people, but definitely not peanuts. Still, the procedure itself freaks a lot of guys out, and I understand that.

Whatever happened to that male birth control pill that was supposed to be coming out?


ETA - Turns out, it has apparently passed human safety tests! But it sounds like they are still doing some tweaking. One person in this article said it should be available within 10 years. https://www.technologynetworks.com/d...y-tests-317223

Last edited by isissxn; 17th October 2019 at 07:57 PM.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 07:55 PM   #36
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
And using a condom plus the pill is less effective at stopping pregnancy than just using the pill alone? Is that your position? Oh, and the other thing about condoms: the male can take responsibility for using them, and he can't be deceived about it, either. In case them evul, scheming womuns are after his precious sperm so they can have his baby against his will!
I do not avoid women, Mandrake...but I do deny them my essence.

My take (fwiw, as a married man with two children): I don't have a lot of sympathy for men who want to avoid their responsibilities. As Cavemonster pointed out in the OP, the biology is simply not symmetrical and if you think that men got the bum deal, you're daft. Only women can get pregnant, so saying that men and women should have exactly the same choices and if a woman has a right to terminate her pregnancy the man should have the same choice doesn't make sense to me. If you don't want to be potentially on the hook for this, then take the necessary steps to ensure that it never happens. Sorry, but that's it. Condoms and other forms of birth control may fail. It would behoove you to also discuss with any female you plan to have sex with what she would do if she were to get pregnant and take precautions accordingly (including avoiding vaginal intercourse, if she would keep it).
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 08:33 PM   #37
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 24,073
Originally Posted by isissxn View Post
Whatever happened to that male birth control pill that was supposed to be coming out?


ETA - Turns out, it has apparently passed human safety tests! But it sounds like they are still doing some tweaking. One person in this article said it should be available within 10 years. https://www.technologynetworks.com/d...y-tests-317223
Yeah, human safety tests are just the first phase. Now they will need to do more trials for efficacy. They've determined that the pill is probably safe to take, but have yet to establish that it produces the intended effect. But it looks promising.

And, it isn't something that begins working immediately. You have to take it every day for at least a month 2-3 months and keep taking it before you can be confident that you won't produce viable sperm.
Quote:
Because the drug would take at least three 60 to 90 days to affect sperm production, 28 days of treatment is too short an interval to observe optimal sperm suppression, Wang explained. They plan longer studies, and if the drug is effective, it will move to larger studies and then testing in sexually active couples.

"Safe, reversible hormonal male contraception should be available in about 10 years," Wang predicted.
I'm guessing that will be a difficult option for a lot of men. A condom starts working the moment you put it on, but this one, not for months. And what if you miss a day? Does the clock reset?
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 08:43 PM   #38
isissxn
Rough Around the Edges
 
isissxn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2014
Location: Deep Storage
Posts: 6,259
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Yeah, human safety tests are just the first phase. Now they will need to do more trials for efficacy. They've determined that the pill is probably safe to take, but have yet to establish that it produces the intended effect. But it looks promising.

And, it isn't something that begins working immediately. You have to take it every day for at least a month 2-3 months and keep taking it before you can be confident that you won't produce viable sperm.


I'm guessing that will be a difficult option for a lot of men. A condom starts working the moment you put it on, but this one, not for months. And what if you miss a day? Does the clock reset?
Yeah, these are good points. This method is far from a perfect solution. But still, it would be nice if men had an option that was a little less drastic than undergoing a vasectomy. Condoms exist, of course, but they have a 17% failure rate, and a lot of people (both men and women) seem to have issues with them. Latex allergy is a big one. Desensitized experience is a lesser (but still notable) factor. I'm not excusing carelessness, I'm just acknowledging everything I understand about the current obstacles.

If both parties have a workable pill option, I think that would be a step in the right direction.

It's crazy just how risky sex actually is when you think about it. Spontaneity makes it fun, but it can also make it riskier.
isissxn is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 08:45 PM   #39
xjx388
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 7,451
Weird, a colleague and I were discussing this just today.

A woman can have a "paper abortion;" she can give the baby up for adoption.

A man has absolutely no power in the situation. If he wants to keep the baby but she doesn't want to carry it, too bad. If he wants her to abort but she won't, too bad. That's a consequence of biology, yes, but so what? There is still an inherent and large imbalance there: The woman's decisions completely impact the man's life and the man has no decision making ability at all.

The only real question here is whether or not the current situation meet our standards of ethics, specifically the idea of equality before the law. Our system strives to treat everyone equally and it's pretty clear to me that we don't treat men equally under the law. The only solution is this idea of a paper abortion. Allow men the right to terminate their responsibilities under the same restrictions women are subjected to. But that decision is forever. From that point forward, the man is never allowed to see the kid; it would be as if the fetus was terminated.

The fatal flaw with this is that it totally ignores human nature. What if the couple gets back together? What if later on down the road, the kid wants to meet the dad? What if the dad regrets it and wants to see the kid?

As such, I can't endorse the idea of a paper abortion. Once a kid is born, both parents are responsible. That's just the way it is.
__________________
Hello.
xjx388 is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 17th October 2019, 08:57 PM   #40
casebro
Penultimate Amazing
 
casebro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 16,976
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
....
The only real question here is whether or not the current situation meet our standards of ethics, specifically the idea of equality before the law. Our system strives to treat everyone equally and it's pretty clear to me that we don't treat men equally under the law. The only solution is this idea of a paper abortion. Allow men the right to terminate their responsibilities under the same restrictions women are subjected to. But that decision is forever. From that point forward, the man is never allowed to see the kid; it would be as if the fetus was terminated.

The fatal flaw with this is that it totally ignores human nature. What if the couple gets back together? What if later on down the road, the kid wants to meet the dad? What if the dad regrets it and wants to see the kid?

......
Comparable to today's adoption, correct?
__________________
Great minds discuss ideas.
Medium minds discuss events.
Small minds spend all their time on U-Tube and Facebook.
casebro is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:03 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.