Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Men don't get pregnant, so they can't be compelled not to have abortions.

Men don't get pregnant, but they do experience a harm due to the woman's decision to carry the child to term or not. In fact, I think a pretty good argument can be made that requiring a man to labor for 18 years to support a child he didn't want or couldn't afford is more onorous than carrying a child to term.

Kilkrazy wrote:Women cannot father children, therefore are not liable to paternity suits.

Women, however, are liable for child support if they carry the child to term and then dump the kid off on the father. Women and men are roughly equivalent in the eyes of the law, except women get a second chance to avoid the consequence of their actions.

Men only get one.

I'd understand if you support sexism in the law. But don't try to pretend that there's no discrimination.

There's discrimination and there's unfair discrimination.

The biological differences between men and women make it inevitable that some circumstances will arise in which both sexes cannot be treated identically. That's a fact of life.

KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.

Manchu, I already mentioned that:

Melissia wrote:[...]This is a price of all forms of contraception in truth, yes, but you said there was no price for abstinence and that is false[...]

Again, the only "price" one pays for practicing abstinence is not having sex.

Abstinence does not lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Manchu wrote:KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.

Ah yes, the "I can't control myself because I am a man and men are pathetic weak-willed mentally slowed dweebs" argument.

I never liked it. Maybe I just don't have such a low opinion of the masculine gender.

Manchu wrote:Again, the only "price" one pays for practicing abstinence is not having sex.

No.

Manchu wrote:Abstinence does not lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Yes it does, as I posted above. All methods of delaying having a child lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.

Ah yes, the "I can't control myself because I am a man and men are pathetic weak-willed mentally slowed dweebs" argument.

What?

Try to pay attention. The idea that it is "unfair" that women can bear children and men cannot is silly. It is merely what KK calls "a fact of life."


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Abstinence does not lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Yes it does, as I posted above. All methods of delaying having a child lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

You do not understand causation.

Manchu wrote:What?

Indeed, the above mentioned argument is very much "what" inducing.

Manchu wrote:You do not understand causation.

You don't understand biology.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:You do not understand causation.

You don't understand biology.

What you're arguing isn't a matter of biology. It's a matter of absurdity.

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:You do not understand causation.

You don't understand biology.

What you're arguing isn't a matter of biology. It's a matter of absurdity.

Our biology HAS been accused of being absurd, but I don't really think that's very much the case.

To be clear, your argument is not representative of biology.

Aging and exposure to detriment over time causes the birth defects you're talking about.

Abstinence does not cause aging or exposure to detriment.

Abstinence does not cause any birth defects.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.

Ah yes, the "I can't control myself because I am a man and men are pathetic weak-willed mentally slowed dweebs" argument.

Isn't that the argument being made for abortion on-demand? Women can't be expected to use birth control or plan when to have children, so they need to have abortions available.

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Abstinence does not lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Yes it does, as I posted above. All methods of delaying having a child lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Doesn't that also include abortion, contraceptives, and not being raped?

Assuming a moral choice between abstention and abortion, are you making the case that it's morally preferable to conceive and abort a child than it is to encourage women* to abstain from sex?

* Women here, because (as discussed above) men have no ability to put off becoming a father if they don't feel that they're emotionally or financially in a position to have a child.

Kilkrazy wrote:The biological differences between men and women make it inevitable that some circumstances will arise in which both sexes cannot be treated identically. That's a fact of life.

You're not addressing the issue. Is it more "fair" to require a man to labor for 18 years to support a child that he is not emotionally, financially, or physically ready for than it is to require a woman to carry the child to term for 9 months?

biccat wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Abstinence does not lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Yes it does, as I posted above. All methods of delaying having a child lead to a greater chance of birth defects.

Doesn't that also include abortion, contraceptives, and not being raped?

That last one is the best. "According to biology, women who are not raped are more likely to have children with birth defects."

Manchu wrote:KK, I think that's what men have traditionally said in response to the "keep your laws off of my body" arguments.

There are different ways the principle can be applied.

It's embodied in European employment law and while it does not work perfectly, has not led to European women being subjected to Mediaeval style social restrictions.

@KK: I'm not sure what you mean. I'm referring to the argument that legalized abortion helps level the playing field between the genders. Perhaps mistakenly, I understood you to mean that obliterating biological differences is not a proper basis for determining whether a person is treated fairly under the law. Rather, some differences should not be ignored and the result although technically inequivalent is not necessarily inequitable.

Manchu wrote:Aging and exposure to detriment over time causes the birth defects you're talking about.

Abstinence does not cause aging or exposure to detriment.

Abstinence, like all forms of birth control, causes women to age more before conceiving a child simply by delaying a conception.

This is not a complex leap of logic. As I said, this seems to be a side effect of contraception that society seems to gladly accept, but it's still a side effect.

biccat wrote:
Men don't get pregnant, but they do experience a harm due to the woman's decision to carry the child to term or not. In fact, I think a pretty good argument can be made that requiring a man to labor for 18 years to support a child he didn't want or couldn't afford is more onorous than carrying a child to term.

The harm incurred by the decision of the woman to carry a child to term is the result of legislation (assuming that the harm does not emanate from an independent desire to abort), and therefore subject to change. That is, assuming the man does not seek the death of the fetus for its own sake, the harm is the result of the legal need to support the child; this can be considered and rectified should it prove desirable to do so.

The possible harm incurred by the decision of the woman to not carry the child to term is psychological, and can be considered secondary to the possible harm of the pregnant woman; which carries both physical and psychological dimensions.

I think the argument you're making regarding the requirement to support a child makes sense in the absence of marriage, but that marriage significantly complicates matters; perhaps to the degree that arbitration becomes more important than any commanding law.

To illustrate, suppose a special law is passed to make it illegal to chop off your penis. Obviously this would not apply to women.

However that does not mean that a law making it illegal to chop off your clitoris should or shouldn't be passed.

The core concern would be the desirability of restrictions on people's behaviour towards their own bodies.

Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.

@Melissia: As mentioned above, your non-complex (shall we say superficial?) leap of logic also concludes that women who are not raped are more likely to conceive a child with birth defects. If you can't figure out the problem in your thinking from there, you're on your own.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.

So how should abortion laws be framed?

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:Aging and exposure to detriment over time causes the birth defects you're talking about.

Abstinence does not cause aging or exposure to detriment.

Abstinence, like all forms of birth control, causes women to age more before conceiving a child simply by delaying a conception.

This is not a complex leap of logic. As I said, this seems to be a side effect of contraception that society seems to gladly accept, but it's still a side effect.

To moderate:

The argument Mel is making, as I understand it, is that while abstinence is not the cause of a higher incidence of birth defects due to aging, it necessarily leads to (assuming abstinence precedes sexual activity) giving birth at a more advanced age. In this way it is comparable to birth control, both being employed in the prevention of pregnancy.

The flaw in the argument, again as I understand it, is that abstinence precedes sexual activity.

That being said, I do agree that concerns over the optimal conditions for reproduction are not the core of the issue.

dogma, I've stated several times over that I only bring up abstinence in the context of preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than deciding what to do with them once they happen.

Kilkrazy wrote:Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.

Exactly.

Rather than permitting abortion, the law should be gender neutral and provide for means to "opt out of parenthood". For women it would be the cost of the abortion, while for men it would be the cost of the abortion plus whatever value we attach to the medical and physical consequences of having an abortion. Say $5000 for women, $10,000 for men.

Instead, we have a law that says "Women can opt out of parenthood. Men cannot."

Manchu wrote:dogma, I've stated several times over that I only bring up abstinence in the context of preventing unwanted pregnancies rather than deciding what to do with them once they happen.

I know, but it seems to me that the two of you are taking separate tacks on the same argument.

You both seem to agree that abstinence is a form of birth control. You both seem to agree that aging causes an increased incidence of birth defects, and therefore that birth control contributes to birth defects.

The difference seems to be that Melissia considers abstinence to be the less desirable option. For what its worth, I agree with that notion, but it doesn't really escape the original concern regarding who pays.

This is, of course, a comment aimed at both of you.

biccat wrote:
Rather than permitting abortion, the law should be gender neutral and provide for means to "opt out of parenthood". For women it would be the cost of the abortion, while for men it would be the cost of the abortion plus whatever value we attach to the medical and physical consequences of having an abortion. Say $5000 for women, $10,000 for men.

Instead, we have a law that says "Women can opt out of parenthood. Men cannot."

Men can opt out of parenthood, they simply have to pay child support.

I think this is, in principle (if not in practice regarding cost) fair.

Perhaps an addendum which placed a ceiling on the total lifetime provision of child support could be applied in certain circumstances.

dogma wrote:You both seem to agree that aging causes an increased incidence of birth defects, and therefore that birth control contributes to birth defects.

No, I disagree that birth control contributes to birth defects. I get that you chose "contributes" over "causes" in that sentence but the implication is still too strong in terms of whether abstinence entails social harm. The presence or absence of contraceptive practices, including abstinence, has no necessary effect on the likelihood of birth defects. The relationship is entirely incidental.

You can say that there are more birth defects among older mothers and you can say that some of these mothers are older upon conceiving because they have practiced contraception but you cannot say that contraception has led to the birth defects.

Manchu wrote:Again, the only "price" one pays for practicing abstinence is not having sex.

Along with sexual frustration, which can lead to high stress levels in people with high testosterone levels. High stress levels can lead to hypertension. Hypertension can lead to a heart attack. Not terribly likely in and of itself I'll grant you. But combined with other factors it can contribute significantly.

There's also the little detail of practicing abstinance denies one the opportunity to develop the skills and endurance to have a truly statifying sexual experience for both partners. Sticking two virgins together in a room on their wedding night is almost certain to result in one partner or the other (and sometimes both) being very disappointed.

You also don't learn much about your individual sexual tastes with abstinance, and the wedding night is the wrong time to learn that one of you thinks once a month is more than plenty, while the other wants to have sex daily. Divorces happen over that quite regularly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Manchu wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Manchu wrote:You do not understand causation.

You don't understand biology.

What you're arguing isn't a matter of biology. It's a matter of absurdity.

Again, I reference back to the article in the OP. If you're not ready to smile at absurd arguments, this is the wrong thread for you.

Manchu wrote:No, I disagree that birth control contributes to birth defects. I get that you chose "contributes" over "causes" in that sentence but the implication is still too strong in terms of whether abstinence entails social harm. The presence or absence of contraceptive practices, including abstinence, has no necessary effect on the likelihood of birth defects. The relationship is entirely incidental.

You can say that there are more birth defects among older mothers and you can say that some of these mothers are older upon conceiving because they have practiced contraception but you cannot say that contraception has led to the birth defects.

Not led to, but a correlation could easily be established. It wouldn't be especially meaningful, particularly if we assume all attempts to not get pregnant are birth control, but it would exist. However, in the same vein, its not entirely clear that advanced age "causes" birth defects so much as it creates more time in which a birth defect causing condition can manifest.

I am, however, inclined to believe that pregnancy at an advanced age is enabled by birth control, even if we're speaking strictly of contraceptives; ie. excluding abstinence and NFP.

Typing that out, it seems we're really on the same page.

@dogma: Yeah, I think that we are. The idea that people would criticize contraception as leading to birth defects is a bit too much for me.

@Vulcan: Premarital sex is not the key to driving down divorce rates. It's also not the solution to heart disease.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:Sticking two virgins together in a room on their wedding night is almost certain to result in one partner or the other (and sometimes both) being very disappointed.

I was once one of two virgins in a similar situation, although it wasn't my wedding night. And both of us left that room pretty happy as I recall.

Manchu wrote:@dogma: Yeah, I think that we are. The idea that people would criticize contraception as leading to birth defects is a bit too much for me.

@Vulcan: Premarital sex is not the key to driving down divorce rates. It's also not the solution to heart disease.

But the equivalencey of 'killing babies=abortion' is no less absurd than my claim, correct?

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Vulcan wrote:Sticking two virgins together in a room on their wedding night is almost certain to result in one partner or the other (and sometimes both) being very disappointed.

I was once one of two virgins in a similar situation, although it wasn't my wedding night. And both of us left that room pretty happy as I recall.

AHAH! So the great advocator of abstinance outside of marriage has himself indulged in sex outide of marriage!

So what would you have done, had the girl wound up pregnant in spite of any precautions you took?

Vulcan wrote:But the equivalencey of 'killing babies=abortion' is no less absurd than my claim, correct?

I agree that equating abortion to murder is absurd. It's hard to judge whether that's more absurd than saying premarital sex prevents heart disease or that abstinence leads to birth defects.

Vulcan wrote:AHAH! So the great advocator of abstinance outside of marriage has himself indulged in sex outide of marriage!

So what would you have done, had the girl wound up pregnant in spite of any precautions you took?

To be perfectly honest, I don't know. I can say that having unprotected sex at sixteen was a dumb thing to do. In the absence of contracting a venereal disease or conceiving an unwanted child, however, I can't say it's a dumb thing that I regret. I also can't say that I regret any of the premarital sex that I engaged in afterward ... at least not because it was premarital.

Vulcan wrote:
You also don't learn much about your individual sexual tastes with abstinance, and the wedding night is the wrong time to learn that one of you thinks once a month is more than plenty, while the other wants to have sex daily.

Truly, there are deranged people in this world.

biccat wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:Thus, the law would probably be framed around genital self mutilation, rather than gender specific cases.

Exactly.

Rather than permitting abortion, the law should be gender neutral and provide for means to "opt out of parenthood". For women it would be the cost of the abortion, while for men it would be the cost of the abortion plus whatever value we attach to the medical and physical consequences of having an abortion. Say $5000 for women, $10,000 for men.

Instead, we have a law that says "Women can opt out of parenthood. Men cannot."

I disagree.

The law is organised around pregnancy, as it necessarily precedes parenthood.