7/1/2005 12:30:16 PM

yeah.

7/1/2005 12:31:45 PM

i do care if free speech is outlawed

7/1/2005 12:33:27 PM

Women should keep their legs closed if they don't want to get pregnant.

7/1/2005 12:33:40 PM

Free speech is fine, as long as the gov't approves what you say.

7/1/2005 12:34:33 PM

^^thats a valid point

7/1/2005 12:35:13 PM

SOME ANIMALS ARE MORE EQUAL THAN OTHERS

7/1/2005 12:36:06 PM

I don't see why anyone would argue for women to keep their legs closed

7/1/2005 12:42:31 PM

^ Exactly my thoughts on the topic.

Mike

7/1/2005 12:54:54 PM

I don´t make enough money to pay income tax, I don´t care if income taxes are stratospheric.

Or, if you like--

I´m an upper-middle-class white guy. I don´t care if welfare, social security, medicare, etc. all get abolished.

See, the lesson here is that you don´t have to be directly and personally affected by an issue to have a valid opinion on it, and also that pryderi is shitty at sarcasm.

7/1/2005 12:57:57 PM

7/1/2005 1:43:45 PM

sounds like pryderi is a virgin or something

7/1/2005 2:17:29 PM

lets all make up our mind first and then defend whatever we had someone else help us come up with!

7/1/2005 2:35:13 PM

ahahha

what?

i'm pretty sure people have good reasons for their opinions on abortion

...

gay rights/marriage on the other hand...

7/1/2005 2:36:55 PM

Ban abortion.

While we're at it.

Remove the "reset button" on console games too.

Nobody uses that shit.

7/1/2005 4:35:32 PM

I support a man's right to choose abortion for the chick he knocked up.

7/1/2005 5:27:02 PM

Child support is expensive.

7/1/2005 9:44:58 PM

yeah, he should just be liable for half the cost of abortion per child.

7/1/2005 9:56:27 PM

A man doesn't really have the right to tell a woman what to do with her body. He gave up that right when he released his seed.

7/1/2005 11:03:07 PM

yeah, so he doesn't have responsibility for her decision. oh wait...

7/1/2005 11:08:57 PM

^

The issue of child support is like the legalization of crack cocaine. Obviously, no red blooded libertarian can support failure to pay child support as a crime. (As a civil matter, sure you can sue someone for abadonment if you can show that made a promise they didn't fullfill.)

However, I think its really really really down low on the list of priorities.

7/1/2005 11:14:24 PM

Im a guy and I actually care about women's rights (cause I know, if men got pregnant, Republicans would say abortion is a God given right!)

7/1/2005 11:36:13 PM

very profound. very original.

7/2/2005 1:33:18 AM

Quote :

"ahahha what? i'm pretty sure people have good reasons for their opinions on abortion ... gay rights/marriage on the other hand..."

I am of the opinion that people hardly ever have good reasons for thier opinions. I don't know why, i just feel that way. [/imbeded irony]

7/2/2005 10:15:31 AM

I would like to disagree and reitterate what you have said.

7/2/2005 11:21:09 AM

not to be reused or reprinted w/o permission

Quote :

" The Case for Equality In the debate surrounding abortion one group is often left out, fathers. While establishing basic principals to discuss the morality of abortion, an inconsistency is formed that denies men of equal rights. Steven D. Hales identifies the accepted principals in his essay “Abortion and Fathers’ Rights.” Hales finds first that, “Women have the moral right to get abortions on demand… neither the father nor any other person can veto or override a mother’s decision” secondly that, “Men and women have equal moral rights and duties” and finally that parents are morally responsible for providing for their children. (Hales 119) If someone supports a woman's moral right to chose then they should also support a man’s right to refusal. There is currently a prima facie inconsistency that denies men the equal right to escape parenthood, and places unequal burdens and obligations on men. Men should have the same moral rights and duties as women, and should not be subject to any unequal burdens or obligations. For the purposes of this essay I will not debate the first principal and will assume that it is true. A woman’s moral right to an abortion is something that allows her to end her pregnancy not only in times of necessity, but also in times of choice. The support for this is that ultimately her body is her own, and she can make her own choices affecting her body. Judith Thompson says in “A Defense of Abortion”, “But if a woman houses the child, it should be remembered that she is the person who houses it.” (Thompson 94) Thompson uses this in an analogy discussing a woman’s right when her body is in danger, however this extends to all situations. Women have been given the right to morally get an abortion, but the majority of these abortions are not for health reasons. If a woman wants to get an abortion simply because she doesn’t want a child, thinks she can’t afford it, thinks it will interfere with her life, etc… it is perfectly acceptable for her to do so. It seems that by having an abortion she is able to prevent being responsible to the child as explained in the second two principals. By having an abortion a woman can prevent any moral obligations she would hav eto the child the future. However what about her partner, what rights does he have? A woman has a right to an abortion even if the father has objections and does not want the abortion. Conversely, if the father wants the woman to have an abortion she is under no obligation to do so and may still exercise her moral right for having an abortion. This means that a woman’s decision is her own, and she has no obligations to the father or anyone else. A man does not have this ability. While a woman can escape her obligations as a mother by having a morally acceptable abortion, the father has no method of escape. Because of the second two principals a man has moral obligations and duties to that child. If he does not want a child, can’t afford a child, thinks a child will ruin his life, he still is responsible for the child. The man does not have any rights to deny that child. If a father is not present he is labeled a “dead beat dad” and by law is still responsible for the financial support of the mother and child. He still has the legal “right” to abandon that child but for eighteen years he can not ignore the financial needs of the child and mother. Morally the father must support his child because of the accepted idea that parents must care for their children, however look at the problem that these principals create. The first principal allows a woman a moral escape from the responsibilities of being a mother; the second principal establishes that the man has equal moral rights and duties. If the man has equal moral rights, where is his method of escaping his future duties and responsibilities as a father? Because of biology, a man can not be pregnant… he can not just have an abortion and remove himself from these responsibilities. Because a man should have moral rights he should be allowed a method of morally escaping. Because a man does not have the option of exercising a moral right and getting an abortion if he does not want to be a father, then he does not have equal moral rights as a woman. A man should be able to say that he does not want the child and walk away. This inconsistency is based largely on biology, it would be naïve to say that a man should be able to simply walk away and deny his responsibilities because he does not have to carry the child and go through the pain of child birth. If a man decided that he does not want to be a father he should only be able to do so while the mother is capable of having an abortion. This allows the man the moral right to choose, and still holds the second and third principals, he has ultimate control over his body and life. Even if the man is limited in his time to choose there is still no way for him to understand the burden of carrying a child and giving birth, does this give the woman and special right. "

[Edited on July 2, 2005 at 11:40 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2005 11:39:33 AM

Quote :

" The second principal says that men and woman have equal moral rights and duties. The woman does not receive any special rights because she is a woman, or because she carries the child. To grant the pregnant mother special rights only causes another prima facie inconsistency. One argument as Hales points out is that, “The mother undergoes the burden of pregnancy and receives the benefit of guaranteed paternal support.” By limiting the time a man has the moral right to deny the child this problem can be avoided. If the father decides that he does not want to provide support then the mother is carrying the child with the knowledge that there is no guaranteed support. Her pregnancy is her choice and does not entitle her to any special support from the father. While the father should have the right to escape the responsibilities of fatherhood, does he still have any obligation to the mother? Some would argue that by having sexual intercourse a man is in effect engaging in a contract to support a child if pregnancy is a result of the act. The argument that a man has an obligation to the mother breaks down because of a couple points. If a man has an obligation to the mother what right does she have to him? It would seem that her obligation would be to carry the child if that is what the father wanted, denying the moral right to an abortion. Clearly the woman should have the right to have an abortion regardless of the wishes of the father, does this not hold true when the situation is reversed? There is also the idea that the act of sexual intercourse results in some obligation or agreement. In many cases of pregnancy one or both of the partners were taking measures to prevent pregnancy. By using contraception one is saying that they do not want a child, this should make it clear that they do not wish to enter into any agreement or take on any responsibilities. Any agreement that may exist is a result of a mutual understanding that their act may result in pregnancy. Even if neither partners use contraception there is no agreement if they do not have a mutual understanding that they would like intercourse to result in a pregnancy. In his essay Hales mentions another often accepted principal, the idea that fathers have the moral duty to care for their children. This moral duty exists regardless of the, “Intentions or desires of the father before the birth of the child.” This is another example of an inconsistency. This deals not only with the ideas in the third principal, but also with the idea that the father has an obligation to the mother. It is too easy to simply say that because the father has equal rights that he then he has the right to refusal and can walk away at any time. Even by limiting the father’s right to chose it would still be easier for him to choose to not be a father than it would be for the mother to choose not to have the children. While abortion is a morally acceptable choice for the mother it is still an emotionally difficult process that should not be looked at as a simple option. While the man can simply declare his refusal a woman must still go through the procedure. Dealing with this inequality is difficult. The difficulty comes in finding a solution that is in agreement with the three principals laid out in the beginning. While there is no easy solution, this apparent inequality is a result of the most morally equal option. A woman’s right to choose is a moral right that has as many supporters as it has people that oppose it. For the sake of argument, this essay has accepted that women do have a protected moral right to have an abortion. While there are many arguments and ideas involved, the idea underlying many of these is that the control of one’s body is an individual choice. Thompson points out that while carrying a child is a great kindness there is no obligation towards the fetus saying, “I am arguing only that having a right to life does not guarantee the right to be given the use of or a right to be allowed continued use of another person’s body.” While a man does not carry a child in his body, he still should also have obligation to the fetus. At first this may seem as a contradiction to the third principal but it is not. The third principal establishes the moral duty of a parent towards a child. Before the child is born the mother still has the moral right to get an abortion, which is not in conflict with the third principal. The man too given the right to refuse the child before birth is not denying his moral duties as a parent, but simply exercising the same right as the mother. A father’s body and life is his own and while being a father to the child would be a great kindness, there is no obligation for him to not deny the child before birth. For one to attack this idea they are also attacking a mother’s right to choose. In this essay I have looked at the accepted principals identified by Hales in “Abortion and Fathers’ Rights” and discussed some of the prima facie inconsistencies that are a result. The second principal states that men and women have equal moral rights. While women today have the right to choose, there is currently no legal or moral right for men. The first principal establishes the moral right for women to choose but mentions no equivalent for men. I have argued that men should be allowed the right of refusal. As I pointed out, there are issues that make this difficult and there are limitations on the man’s right but his method of escape should still exist. I suspect that the arguments in this essay may not be accepted by everyone that supports a woman’s right to choose. In addition to the inconsistencies established, many of the arguments supporting the woman’s right to chose can also be applied to the mans right of refusal. Men should no longer have unequal responsibilities but should have equal moral rights and duties as addressed in the second principal. Works Cited Hales, Michael. “Abortion and Father’s Rights.” Analyzing Moral Issues Third Edition. Boss, Judith A. New York. McGraw Hill. 2002. 117-125 Thompson, Judith Jarvis. “A Defense of Abortion.” Analyzing Moral Issues Third Edition. Boss, Judith A. New York. McGraw Hill. 2002. 91-101 "

and i realize its crappy, i started it at 2am and it was due at 9am

[Edited on July 2, 2005 at 11:41 AM. Reason : .]

7/2/2005 11:40:02 AM

you're teacher is not allowed to give you a good grade if you oppose any status quo.

7/2/2005 2:56:58 PM

^^I'd change principal to principle

7/2/2005 4:54:50 PM

^^^

The basic problem with that arguement is that a woman's ability to escape parenthood doesn't extend from some right to escape parenthood. It extends from the fact that the fetus is housed in her body.

For example suppose Adam and Becky concieve a child and place it invetro into another woman Carla. Carla then has the right to an abortion and but Becky cannot force her to do so even though Becky is the biological mother.

In placing the embyo into Carla, Becky has forfieted her right to abortion.

Now if the man where able to carry the fetus, which may be possible some day, then he has the right to the abortion.

7/2/2005 5:29:38 PM

you know, I think Guth did a pretty fucking good job of attacking that very argument, dumbass

7/2/2005 5:39:19 PM

^You make a good point, the

Quote :

", dumbass"

is particularly compelling.

Unfortunately, however, I don't think the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus carrier were ever discussed in paper/article.

7/2/2005 6:22:35 PM

7/2/2005 6:26:11 PM

Quote :

"^^I'd change principal to principle"

doh
it was 3 fuckin am though, i probably missed a lot of shit

Quote :

"Unfortunately, however, I don't think the rights of the mother vs the rights of the fetus carrier were ever discussed in paper/article."

what do you mean by that? i tried to cover all the angles

basically my paper was addressing the double standard, not really addressing the moral issues of abortion (in fact for my paper i accepted that it was moral)

Quote :

"you're teacher is not allowed to give you a good grade if you oppose any status quo."

haha i started regurgitating some shit about the hybrid war-law model for war but got tired of it by page 4 and decided i was gonna stir things up

he actually wrote me an email at the end of the class saying i was one of his brightest students and he always enjoyed my ideas, so i guess he liked some original thought

i got an A on the paper, it was my final

[Edited on July 2, 2005 at 7:54 PM. Reason : bragging]

7/2/2005 7:44:21 PM

Quote :

"what do you mean by that? i tried to cover all the angles basically my paper was addressing the double standard, not really addressing the moral issues of abortion (in fact for my paper i accepted that it was moral)"

The point is simply that the right to abortion extends not from being the "mother" but from carrying the fetus. Thus, whoever carries the fetus whether its the mother, father, or a surrogate has the abortion right.

The fact that this right is used to get out of supporting an unwanted child is unfortunate but ultimately immaterial. It is a sad by-product of the right to blood and body and thus there is no reason to articfically replicate it so that other people can also get out of supporting an unwanted child.

7/2/2005 9:23:02 PM

i don't think you read my paper
cause i covered that, even had a quote from judith thommson about it

so you agree that there is no moral obligation by a father to provide any support, right? because if it is all from carying the child then the father has no obligations

you are arguing where the right comes from, i just accept the right exists and deal with the prima facie inconsistancy that comes from the idea of equal rights and obligations

[Edited on July 2, 2005 at 10:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/2/2005 10:02:55 PM

^
I think what you are missing is that its not mothers who have the right to abortion. Carriers have the right to abortion. There are carriers who are not mothers. These are surrogates. In such cases the surrogates have the right. The mothers does not.

So this is your relevant counter-factual: Surrogate has baby. Mother doesn't want it. Does mother have to pay child support? Yes she does. Because being a mother does not get you out of child support. Nor does being a father.

So you see it is not being a mother that gives you the ability to get out. Thus, there is nothing about being a father that gives you the ability to get out.




Perhaps, this will clear it up more. You pre-suppose that mothers have the right to abortions. In arguing abortion rights this would a strawman arguement because mothers do not have the right to abortion.

You have to base the arguement from the fact that carriers have the right to abortion.



[Edited on July 2, 2005 at 10:41 PM. Reason : different perspective]

7/2/2005 10:38:12 PM

I guess we aren't concerned about basic spelling or grammar in papers these days.

[Edited on July 2, 2005 at 11:23 PM. Reason : fuck, way to cheapen the value of a ncsu degree]

7/2/2005 11:21:33 PM

most of the grammar errors were fixed on my phone before i printed it and turned it in

^^ i make it clear that mothers have the right because they are carriers in the beginning of the second paragraph
you didn't read my paper
but it doesn't matter because my argument starts after the rights of the mother. i don't have to explain why mothers have rights because i accept that they have rights


i think i know what you aren't understanding. at the beginning of my paper i go through a few points that i accept as true. if you don't agree with those points then it doesn't really matter what my argument says. i was accepting those assertations to be true, if you beleive they are false then you can do that. if you would like to learn more about those assertations read the material cited


or maybe i'm just not understanding you. i don't see how your point affects the points i make in my paper.

[Edited on July 3, 2005 at 12:32 AM. Reason : .]

7/3/2005 12:10:32 AM

Quote :

"i make it clear that mothers have the right because they are carriers in the beginning of the second paragraph you didn't read my paper"

The problem is that mothers are not always the carriers. One can't argue that "mothers" have the right because they are carriers when they aren't always carriers.

This is important because the statement by Hale:

Quote :

"Women have the moral right to get abortions on demand… neither the father nor any other person can veto or override a mother’s decision"

is a sloppy and/or a false interpertation of both the law and the primary moral arguement behind abortion. Hale confuses the terms woman and mother, and the ideas of mothers and carriers.

Quote :

"i think i know what you aren't understanding. at the beginning of my paper i go through a few points that i accept as true. if you don't agree with those points then it doesn't really matter what my argument says."

Right, I am not argueing that your arguement in inconsistent. I am arguing that its premises are false and thus its conclusions are inapplicable.

7/3/2005 10:27:44 AM

Quote :

" Hale confuses the terms woman and mother, and the ideas of mothers and carriers. "

could you work through why that changes my argument

7/3/2005 12:06:16 PM

only one problem, kwsmith. if a couple goes through a surrogate, chances are they aren't going to want an abortion. Thus, the surrogate / carrier idea is m00t. Abortions aren't performed on surrogate mothers. They are performed on the biological mother of the child. Thus, Guths point stands. The mother is the carrier. They can be viewed as one and the same in the context of abortion.

7/3/2005 12:18:19 PM

^ and ^^

There are basically two ways this arguement can go:

1) Jill has two apples and Jack only has one. Thats not fair, jack should have another apple.

Some people find this compelling but the free minds/free markets response is generally something like,"life ain't fair, suck it up and stop being a little bitch"


2) Jill has two apples because she's a girl. Jack has one apple because he's a boy. Boys and girls should be treated equally and so this is unfair.

This arguement is much more compelling but it needs to be shown that Jill's "girlness" is why she has the extra apple.

Essentially this is what Hale is confusing. If it was a woman's "motherness" that gave her the right to abortion then "fatherness" could give me the right to financial abandonment.

However, it is not "motherness" that gives women the right to abortion it is "carrierness." This is proven by the exampe that a non-carrier mother loses the right to abortion, despite the fact that she is still the mother.

Said another way: You can't argue that fathers ought to have the same right as mothers to abortion when mothers don't have that right in the first place. Now yes it does so happen that most carriers are also mothers, but this is just good luck (or bad luck) on thier part. You can't argue that you are entilited to someone else's good luck.


A similiar racial argument might also clear things up. The President alone has the power to pardon federal criminals. Only white men have been Presidents. Thus only white men have had the power to pardon federal criminals. This is unfair to black men. Thus a black man should be appointed to a position of "federal pardoner"

This arguement doesn't hold water because there the President's power to pardon doesn't extend from him being white. He just also happens to be white. Yes, being white probably helps him become President, but it is not his "whiteness" that justifies his use of the Pardon. Therefore, another man's "blackness" does not give him the right to pardon.

7/3/2005 1:52:12 PM

Quote :

"This is proven by the exampe that a non-carrier mother loses the right to abortion"

only that doesn't happen. if you aren't the carrier but are still the mother, it means that you have chosen to allow the child to be born. The carrier has also chosen it as well. Thus, abortion doesn't come into play. Thus, the point doesn't stand. like I already said.

Quote :

"Said another way: You can't argue that fathers ought to have the same right as mothers to abortion when mothers don't have that right in the first place. Now yes it does so happen that most carriers are also mothers, but this is just good luck (or bad luck) on thier part. You can't argue that you are entilited to someone else's good luck."

WRONG. it is a de facto right. Like I said, in the context of abortion, the mother and the carrier ARE THE SAME. thus, to speak about the mother in the context of abortion is to also speak of the carrier. And, Guth's points still stand. There is an iniquity inherent in the system.

7/3/2005 2:26:05 PM

Well first I would be suprised if there was no example of a mother who had given up her egg changing her mind and not wanting the child to be born.

Secondly, you can't have de facto moral rights. Otherwise you could argue that the rich have the defacto moral right to live a life of luxury. This is unfair and thus we need redistribution of wealth.

Or that whites have the defacto right to not face a history of slavery and thus should pay reperations.

7/3/2005 3:20:43 PM

For biological reasons, mothers (or "carriers") have more rights than fathers.

7/3/2005 3:56:19 PM

here

8/22/2005 6:59:17 PM