You may think it trivial but men do have an interest. Eighteen years of child support or a loveless marriage as a result of an unintended pregnancy. Just as a woman's life is changed in a big way, so is a man's, where abortion is a pragmatic solution.
You may think it trivial but men do have an interest. Eighteen years of child support or a loveless marriage as a result of an unintended pregnancy. Just as a woman's life is changed in a big way, so is a man's, where abortion is a pragmatic solution.
Suppose that two unmarried people have consensual sex, taking supposedly responsible care not to cause a pregnancy, but it happens anyway.
Under current law, only the woman has any right to decide whether to bear the child. (Of course, it would be polite for her to discuss the matter with the father and take his views into account, but entirely optional).
However, if she decides to have the child, the man has no rights - none at all - in regard to that child. He has only responsibilities, no corresponsing rights. The woman can give it up for adoption or keep it. If she keeps it, the man is legally on the hook for child support for 18+ years, even if he is never allowed to see that child, much less make any decisions regarding it's upbringing.
If the woman agrees, he can choose to marry her, to have some rights.
If we change the scenarios and say that the woman intentionally lied about being on birth control, EXACTLY the same results apply as described above.
(There was even a case where the woman surreptitiously sequestered the used condom to use in impregnating herself without the man's knowledge, and won child support in the courts. A strange case; the man counter-sued based on not having given consent for his semen being used in that matter, but the court ruled that the semen was functionally a "gift" without restrictions on how it was later used)
I do not see this as impacting only the woman. It may impact her more on average (not in all cases), but both parties are hugely impacted and have a legitimate interest.
Now you would have a better case if the law allowed the man's rights and responsibilities to align more closely. Like if he agrees to the woman carrying to term, he is financially responsible; but if disagrees and favors an abortion, he would not be responsible for child support if the woman decides to give birth anyway as a single parent. That is, if a child is wanted by both gamete suppliers, both would be responsible for it; if only one (the woman) wanted the child, they would have both sole parental rights and sole parental responsibility. In this context, the woman would still have full control of whether to have an abortion, but not unilateral control over whether the man would be burdened with child support for a child in which has has zero rights. Note: I am not advocating this here, just saying that IF it were how things work, then your argument would be much stronger.
What I am saying is that child support cannot be completely disentangled from abortion, in the specific context of who has standing because of the impact on their lives, until and unless the previous paragraph were to become the norm.
That's pretty much what I said above about having "standing".
AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available, then a stronger case can be made that male fertilizers would thereafter not need to bear any undue consequences from abortion and could be well argued to have no standing *based on the impact upon themselves*, individually or collectively.
And in that case, and IF no fetus at any stage is considered to be a human being, the decision about abortion would strongly impact only one human being - the pregnant woman.
There are two major IFs above which cannot be entirely swept under the rug, tho.
(And just to head it off - nowhere have I asserted anything about "from the moment of conception", nor do I personally find that relevant.)
"AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available"
You seem to be convinced that I'm going to misinterpret everything you say at the moment, so let me just say that it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want.
There are a few wrinkles with this, most obviously the question of when the guy gets to abdicate responsibility? Does he get the same three months the woman gets before he can't back out? What happens if she doesn't realise she's pregnant until its too late to abort? What if she's made it clear to him ahead of time that she won't abort if she does get pregnant and he still chooses to have sex with her?
An under-appreciated point on the unwanted pregnancy issue is that men are to blame for what must be very close to 100% of unwanted pregnancies. A woman who doesn't want a child isn't poking holes in a condom or wrapping her legs around her parter's waist and forcing him to orgasm inside her after all.
Outside of contraceptive failure, an unwanted pregnancy is almost always going to be a case of the man losing control and impregnating the woman. No semen, no baby. So the question of whether he should be held blameless if the women doesn't want to go through an abortion, whether for religious or just personal moral reasons, isn't straightforward.
But the bigger point, again, is that men can argue their case about when and whether they should be held responsible for a pregnancy that they cause, independently of whether a woman has a right to an abortion. And, of course, women not having the option to get abortions only makes men's predicament worse.
I didn't mention "the moment of conception" anywhere in this particular conversation. Nor did you. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to "head it off." Can we go back to operating under the assumption that I can read and interpret English sentences without difficulty?ЁЯШЕ If I misinterpret something, as we all do from time to time, I'm sure you'll correct me. But you don't have to fill your responses with provisos.
> " it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want."
Can I be more precise? My point is that arguing that men should have no say in the legality of abortion because there is no substantial impact on their lives is invalid unless it really does have no substantial impact. (Note: two or more parties can each have substantial interests in an outcome, even if not equal interests).
However, men are free abstain from all discussions of abortion for any reason they wish, or no reason. I'm not in any way trying to force them to participate, just partially disputing a line of reasoning about why you think they should abstain.
(You brought up "from the moment of conception" in another response to one of my comments on this article, after I had not mentioned it in that subthread or indeed anywhere, so I wanted to avoid that happening a second time in this subthread. Search the comments if you doubt this.)
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept or debate your personal intuitions about the typical dynamics of unwanted pregnancy. Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive. You do very well at data driven argumentation, but when you shoot from the hip with that kind of guesses about the circumstances of unwanted pregnancies, let's say that it's less compelling.
I was dissenting in regard to a specific narrow sub-point - that since men cannot get pregnant and thus suffer no consequences, the legal status of abortion is none of their concern and should be decided entirely by women.
I think that line of reasoning (that only those classes of people who might be directly affected have standing to weigh in on an issue) leads to many undesirable corollaries and so must be questioned; and I also think that very few people honestly adhere to it (including you) so it's more a sweet sounding poetic notion than an actual reality. I have never yet met a pro-abortion man, nor an anti-abortion man, who abstains from the issue (no matter what they say), or who entirely defers to women to discuss it, donate to support their side, and vote on it. I believe those who promote that idea really only want anti-abortion men to abstain, not themselves, so it's generally not an honest point.
I think I've made my case for all that, and will let it rest; restating it in slightly different terms doesn't appear to benefit anybody.
Also (I did go back and check) ЁЯШД I mentioned the moment of conception because you wrote:
"So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells."
Now, it's true, "moment of conception" and "bundle of cells" aren't *exactly* the same thing. But can we agree that the conflation isn't exactly unreasonable?
I intended to refer to some people believing that a fetus is still not a human but just a bundle of cells (ie: tissues) up until the moment of birth, whereupon it suddenly becomes a human being within a second.
But if you were thinking that by bundle of cells I meant "two cells merging into a zygote" then I can see where this could be ambiguous.
This illustrates what I said in another reply, about how we know what we meant and so sometimes do not anticipate how it could be interpreted otherwise. Peace.
"Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive"
Are you really asking me to provide data regarding what happens while an unwanted pregnancy is conceived? Gathering that data might be a little...sensitive, don't you think? But this is hardly some wild guess, it's a logical conclusion based on the basic mechanics of conception.
Assuming that neither partner wants to make a baby, how do you suppose the semen finds it's way to the egg without the man putting it there? Excluding the cases where contraception fails, how can it be the woman's fault if the semen finds its way there?
Asking for data on such an obvious (and obviously impossible to scientifically research) point feels disingenuous.
Also, I think I've been very clear that I'm talking about lawmaking, not general discussion of the issue. I'd have a hard time claiming that men shouldn't talk about the issue at all given that I wrote an article about it, had discussions with numerous woman about it, posted one of those discussions here, and then had a bunch of other discussions about that.
As for the undesirable corollaries, I've mentioned repeatedly, both here and in the main post, that my feelings on this issue apply to this issue precisely because it's unique. I even asked you for an actual corollary. You keep repeating your position without addressing my response to the points you're making.
And lastly, your first comment here, before I'd replied to anything, instructed me "not to falsely impute beliefs" to you. I'm not sure if there's just a nuance gap created by text as opposed to in person conversation, but it feels as if we're clashing and I'm not sure why.
There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (mistake by either or both)
Failure of "rhythm" as birth control (mistake by either party)
Failure of "withdrawal" as birth control (mistake by male)
Misusing birth control devices though ignorance of either party
Malfunctioning of birth control outside the knowledge or control of participants (eg: an IUD) Deception: Male intentionally sabotaging condoms to generate pregnancy
Deception: Female deliberately wanting to become pregnant to force marriage, unsuccessfully
Both parties initially want pregnancy, but female changes mind
ETC
Any of those (and others) are plausible and likely happen at times, and lead to a desire for abortion. But I have no clue how frequent any of them are, and it seems fruitless for the two of us to discuss how similar or different our evidence-free guesses are.
---
In terms of not imputing beliefs to me, that wasn't addressed to you or to any specific person. Since I was questioning some of the reasoning used by pro-abortion people, it's common for some readers to assume that I must be anti-abortion. I've encountered similar dynamics from strong partisans many times, so when I know I'm discussing a hot button topic I sometimes try to head off a misunderstanding.
I'm kind of odd in that, within an appropriate discussion venue, I can question the strength or validity of specific arguments EVEN IF I support the overall conclusion (for other reasons). I don't believe "any argument which supposedly leads to my own conclusion is automatically valid". So we can all help refine our arguments or drop the less valid ones. (I really do believe in trying to argue in good faith, which includes omitting weak sub-points).
---
I confess that I'm puzzled as well, that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding between us. I have great respect for you and have often found your writing very insightful. I have good will towards you, and have been completely arguing in good faith, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Both of us can in general write fairly clearly much of the time, we both tend to think things through. And yet there seems to recently be a spate of unintentional (and seemingly unnecessary) miscommunications. It *feels* almost as if you are looking for some way to disagree, or assuming the worst interpretation of my words (and it might feel similarly to you). This is NOT my intention. Even when I disagree, my underlying goal is not trying to "best you" verbally, or show that I'm right and you are wrong - I see myself on a path of collaboratively seeking truth with a respected partner, initially sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing (often on just a sub-point). I prefer more illumination and less heat. It's honestly puzzling to me. Do you have any ideas?
"There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing."
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see how one could poll with any accuracy for this. It would be 100% anecdotal (and guesswork), with no means of verifying the respondent's claims, it would also require the couple to guess which sex act resulted in the pregnancy (they presumably wouldn't find out about the pregnancy until at least a few weeks later). Am I missing something?
And again, I'm not guessing, I'm just talking about the mechanics of women getting pregnant when neither the man nor the woman wants to, and excluding cases of contraceptive failure. The man has to ejaculate inside the woman. The woman can't prevent this except by refusing to have sex at all. But the man, if he can control himself, *can* prevent it.
Four of your examples mention contraceptive failure or misuse, two involve not using it at all, which is unlikely if neither party wants a child, one involves both partners initially wanting to get pregnant when we've already stipulated that neither want to get pregnant, and two involve deception designed to result in pregnancy, which wouldn't occur if neither party wanted to get pregnant.
There are lots of scenarios that could lead to pregnancy. But far fewer that could lead to pregnancy when neither party wants to get pregnant and the contraception doesn't fail.
I've been silly enough to have unprotected sex a few times over the years. I don't want children, so it's always been in my mind that I might get the woman pregnant, so on those occasions I've always made sure I knew whether she was using any protection. If she wasn't, I'd either stop immediately (I only had the willpower to do this once), or stopped long before I thought I might orgasm.
This is obviously irresponsible of both of us, but given that my orgasm is under my control alone, I'd consider it my fault if she got pregnant.
Maybe this allocation of blame is where we're disagreeing. Maybe you're saying that because the woman consented to sex without a condom, she's equally responsible for me orgasming inside her if that happens. If so, I can understand that point of view even if I don't quite agree.
-----------
As for the "heat" that seems to be popping up in our conversations, yeah, I must say, I'm as baffled as you are. I'm certainly not *feeling* or trying to inject any heat. I wouldn't waste anybody's time, mine most especially, by arguing in bad-faith.
As you say, usually we're disagreeing about minor points. I was willing to drop the conversation about slavery's brutality from the first reply. We agreed on the invalidity of comparing different forms of slavery immediately. I couldn't (and still can't) see any meaningful implications of a belief that one form of slavery was "the most brutal," but I'm not even slightly invested in the idea. Yet that's what the whole conversation seemed to hinge on. I was honestly baffled at why you were so invested, which is why I took that line of inquiry.
I was especially surprised by your response to me asking you about your rational objection to murder vs abortion. I asked a question about my honest interpretation of what you wrote. You do this kind of clarity seeking quite regularly in your responses to me and other people. I've never thought you were assuming the worst interpretation when I saw you do it.
I don't feel like you're disagreeing just to disagree, but it does sometimes feel as if you're expecting the conversation to take place only on your terms. There have been a few occasions where you've unilaterally decided that a topic that I was interested in exploring was irrelevant and we should drop it. Or that we should clear up a point of your choosing before addressing the rest of the reply (which then doesn't get addressed). Of course, you're fully within your rights to drop any point you choose. But I sometimes feel as if I haven't gotten any close to understanding your thought process. I just get to see your conclusions. Which isn't very satisfying when I disagree with your conclusions.
Conversation, to my mind, is a way of polishing our ideas by rubbing them against each other. The weak ones will crack, the strong ones will shine, and everybody benefits. You're an amazing contributor to this community. You're smart, you're insightful, you're engaged. I'm grateful you're here. In no world do I want to bicker with you. Especially given that we agree far more often than not.
If there's something about my style of writing that comes off as hostile to you, please do give me a couple of examples so I can bear that in mind in future. If you'd rather I didn't reply to you when you're in conversation with somebody else, just let me know, no hard feelings. I'm not trying to intrude.
As I said, text is a much less nuanced form of communication and it's easy to come across in a way we don't intend. But please, rest assured, I've not been trying to "win" or "best you." I try hard to be mindful of how I come across online, but I guess I wouldn't be very well suited to this job if I wasn't at least little argumentative.ЁЯШД
The instances I've suggesting just dropping the conversation have been when it seemed to me that we were starting to repeat ourselves without making progress in further refining the ideas. If you were feeling that there was more value to be had in continuing, I apologize; I was not trying to cut off a productive conversation.
I think that both of us have a similar, um, quirk, which may hook each other occassionally. I'm trying to put my finger on it, but it's sorta like being very meticulous about points of argument (using "argument" in the sense of a making coherent presentation, not in the sense of conflict). A negative framing could be about being picky, a positive framing could be about a flavor of intellectual integrity.
For example, you may make a point which I agree with, and most people would just consider it done. But if it seems to me that one of your sub-arguments is not valid, I might nevertheless push back on that sub-point. That reaction is probably not very typical in today's world. And it seems as if you have some related proclivities, prolonging a discussion about some detail beyond where most people would move on, just to "get it right". I likely go into more iterations of that with you than usual because I sense you do want to "get it right" too (rather than just trying to "win"), and because I generally respect your insights. Nevertheless, it may sometimes cause us to spend more time on a minor point than is justified; there are so many other discussions and essays about more major points to be written in the finite time than we have.
I'll be keeping all this in mind and see how that awareness can manifest in better writing. In the meanwhile, if I suggest terminating a thread (as described above), but you feel there is value in continuing (ie: that we are making some progress), speak up. I might be making the judgement call for termination too soon.
Peace. And looking forward to fruitful future discussions. By the way, where do you live?
How are they separate? I can't prove it, but I'd say that most abortions are about not wanting an unplanned child. Huge change in their lives, financial, etc. Both man and women are affected by that. Many men will be negatively affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The former is about who bears responsibility for the wellbeing and financial support of a child once it's been born. The latter is about whether a woman should be forced by law to carry a foetus for nine months, against her will, with all the psychological and physical implications that carries.
With or without Roe, men can challenge their obligation to pay child support. Without Roe, some women will have no choice but to carry a child they don't want. And then *also* have to deal with their obligations to the child.
I'm not saying men aren't affected if they father a child. I'm saying women are affected long before the man is. In ways the man will never be.
You may think it trivial but men do have an interest. Eighteen years of child support or a loveless marriage as a result of an unintended pregnancy. Just as a woman's life is changed in a big way, so is a man's, where abortion is a pragmatic solution.
True. But child support laws are a separate issue to abortion laws. I fully support men's right to weigh in on the former.ЁЯШД
Suppose that two unmarried people have consensual sex, taking supposedly responsible care not to cause a pregnancy, but it happens anyway.
Under current law, only the woman has any right to decide whether to bear the child. (Of course, it would be polite for her to discuss the matter with the father and take his views into account, but entirely optional).
However, if she decides to have the child, the man has no rights - none at all - in regard to that child. He has only responsibilities, no corresponsing rights. The woman can give it up for adoption or keep it. If she keeps it, the man is legally on the hook for child support for 18+ years, even if he is never allowed to see that child, much less make any decisions regarding it's upbringing.
If the woman agrees, he can choose to marry her, to have some rights.
If we change the scenarios and say that the woman intentionally lied about being on birth control, EXACTLY the same results apply as described above.
(There was even a case where the woman surreptitiously sequestered the used condom to use in impregnating herself without the man's knowledge, and won child support in the courts. A strange case; the man counter-sued based on not having given consent for his semen being used in that matter, but the court ruled that the semen was functionally a "gift" without restrictions on how it was later used)
I do not see this as impacting only the woman. It may impact her more on average (not in all cases), but both parties are hugely impacted and have a legitimate interest.
Now you would have a better case if the law allowed the man's rights and responsibilities to align more closely. Like if he agrees to the woman carrying to term, he is financially responsible; but if disagrees and favors an abortion, he would not be responsible for child support if the woman decides to give birth anyway as a single parent. That is, if a child is wanted by both gamete suppliers, both would be responsible for it; if only one (the woman) wanted the child, they would have both sole parental rights and sole parental responsibility. In this context, the woman would still have full control of whether to have an abortion, but not unilateral control over whether the man would be burdened with child support for a child in which has has zero rights. Note: I am not advocating this here, just saying that IF it were how things work, then your argument would be much stronger.
What I am saying is that child support cannot be completely disentangled from abortion, in the specific context of who has standing because of the impact on their lives, until and unless the previous paragraph were to become the norm.
Yep, I addressed this in my reply to Dave below. I think it answers your point.
But in case it doesnтАЩt, I refer you to this Dave Chappelle joke that makes more or less the same point, only funnier.
https://youtu.be/MoudH-RPnEE
That's pretty much what I said above about having "standing".
AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available, then a stronger case can be made that male fertilizers would thereafter not need to bear any undue consequences from abortion and could be well argued to have no standing *based on the impact upon themselves*, individually or collectively.
And in that case, and IF no fetus at any stage is considered to be a human being, the decision about abortion would strongly impact only one human being - the pregnant woman.
There are two major IFs above which cannot be entirely swept under the rug, tho.
(And just to head it off - nowhere have I asserted anything about "from the moment of conception", nor do I personally find that relevant.)
"AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available"
You seem to be convinced that I'm going to misinterpret everything you say at the moment, so let me just say that it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want.
There are a few wrinkles with this, most obviously the question of when the guy gets to abdicate responsibility? Does he get the same three months the woman gets before he can't back out? What happens if she doesn't realise she's pregnant until its too late to abort? What if she's made it clear to him ahead of time that she won't abort if she does get pregnant and he still chooses to have sex with her?
An under-appreciated point on the unwanted pregnancy issue is that men are to blame for what must be very close to 100% of unwanted pregnancies. A woman who doesn't want a child isn't poking holes in a condom or wrapping her legs around her parter's waist and forcing him to orgasm inside her after all.
Outside of contraceptive failure, an unwanted pregnancy is almost always going to be a case of the man losing control and impregnating the woman. No semen, no baby. So the question of whether he should be held blameless if the women doesn't want to go through an abortion, whether for religious or just personal moral reasons, isn't straightforward.
But the bigger point, again, is that men can argue their case about when and whether they should be held responsible for a pregnancy that they cause, independently of whether a woman has a right to an abortion. And, of course, women not having the option to get abortions only makes men's predicament worse.
I didn't mention "the moment of conception" anywhere in this particular conversation. Nor did you. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to "head it off." Can we go back to operating under the assumption that I can read and interpret English sentences without difficulty?ЁЯШЕ If I misinterpret something, as we all do from time to time, I'm sure you'll correct me. But you don't have to fill your responses with provisos.
> " it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want."
Can I be more precise? My point is that arguing that men should have no say in the legality of abortion because there is no substantial impact on their lives is invalid unless it really does have no substantial impact. (Note: two or more parties can each have substantial interests in an outcome, even if not equal interests).
However, men are free abstain from all discussions of abortion for any reason they wish, or no reason. I'm not in any way trying to force them to participate, just partially disputing a line of reasoning about why you think they should abstain.
(You brought up "from the moment of conception" in another response to one of my comments on this article, after I had not mentioned it in that subthread or indeed anywhere, so I wanted to avoid that happening a second time in this subthread. Search the comments if you doubt this.)
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept or debate your personal intuitions about the typical dynamics of unwanted pregnancy. Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive. You do very well at data driven argumentation, but when you shoot from the hip with that kind of guesses about the circumstances of unwanted pregnancies, let's say that it's less compelling.
I was dissenting in regard to a specific narrow sub-point - that since men cannot get pregnant and thus suffer no consequences, the legal status of abortion is none of their concern and should be decided entirely by women.
I think that line of reasoning (that only those classes of people who might be directly affected have standing to weigh in on an issue) leads to many undesirable corollaries and so must be questioned; and I also think that very few people honestly adhere to it (including you) so it's more a sweet sounding poetic notion than an actual reality. I have never yet met a pro-abortion man, nor an anti-abortion man, who abstains from the issue (no matter what they say), or who entirely defers to women to discuss it, donate to support their side, and vote on it. I believe those who promote that idea really only want anti-abortion men to abstain, not themselves, so it's generally not an honest point.
I think I've made my case for all that, and will let it rest; restating it in slightly different terms doesn't appear to benefit anybody.
Also (I did go back and check) ЁЯШД I mentioned the moment of conception because you wrote:
"So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells."
Now, it's true, "moment of conception" and "bundle of cells" aren't *exactly* the same thing. But can we agree that the conflation isn't exactly unreasonable?
I intended to refer to some people believing that a fetus is still not a human but just a bundle of cells (ie: tissues) up until the moment of birth, whereupon it suddenly becomes a human being within a second.
But if you were thinking that by bundle of cells I meant "two cells merging into a zygote" then I can see where this could be ambiguous.
This illustrates what I said in another reply, about how we know what we meant and so sometimes do not anticipate how it could be interpreted otherwise. Peace.
"Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive"
Are you really asking me to provide data regarding what happens while an unwanted pregnancy is conceived? Gathering that data might be a little...sensitive, don't you think? But this is hardly some wild guess, it's a logical conclusion based on the basic mechanics of conception.
Assuming that neither partner wants to make a baby, how do you suppose the semen finds it's way to the egg without the man putting it there? Excluding the cases where contraception fails, how can it be the woman's fault if the semen finds its way there?
Asking for data on such an obvious (and obviously impossible to scientifically research) point feels disingenuous.
Also, I think I've been very clear that I'm talking about lawmaking, not general discussion of the issue. I'd have a hard time claiming that men shouldn't talk about the issue at all given that I wrote an article about it, had discussions with numerous woman about it, posted one of those discussions here, and then had a bunch of other discussions about that.
As for the undesirable corollaries, I've mentioned repeatedly, both here and in the main post, that my feelings on this issue apply to this issue precisely because it's unique. I even asked you for an actual corollary. You keep repeating your position without addressing my response to the points you're making.
And lastly, your first comment here, before I'd replied to anything, instructed me "not to falsely impute beliefs" to you. I'm not sure if there's just a nuance gap created by text as opposed to in person conversation, but it feels as if we're clashing and I'm not sure why.
There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (mistake by either or both)
Failure of "rhythm" as birth control (mistake by either party)
Failure of "withdrawal" as birth control (mistake by male)
Misusing birth control devices though ignorance of either party
Malfunctioning of birth control outside the knowledge or control of participants (eg: an IUD) Deception: Male intentionally sabotaging condoms to generate pregnancy
Deception: Female deliberately wanting to become pregnant to force marriage, unsuccessfully
Both parties initially want pregnancy, but female changes mind
ETC
Any of those (and others) are plausible and likely happen at times, and lead to a desire for abortion. But I have no clue how frequent any of them are, and it seems fruitless for the two of us to discuss how similar or different our evidence-free guesses are.
---
In terms of not imputing beliefs to me, that wasn't addressed to you or to any specific person. Since I was questioning some of the reasoning used by pro-abortion people, it's common for some readers to assume that I must be anti-abortion. I've encountered similar dynamics from strong partisans many times, so when I know I'm discussing a hot button topic I sometimes try to head off a misunderstanding.
I'm kind of odd in that, within an appropriate discussion venue, I can question the strength or validity of specific arguments EVEN IF I support the overall conclusion (for other reasons). I don't believe "any argument which supposedly leads to my own conclusion is automatically valid". So we can all help refine our arguments or drop the less valid ones. (I really do believe in trying to argue in good faith, which includes omitting weak sub-points).
---
I confess that I'm puzzled as well, that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding between us. I have great respect for you and have often found your writing very insightful. I have good will towards you, and have been completely arguing in good faith, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Both of us can in general write fairly clearly much of the time, we both tend to think things through. And yet there seems to recently be a spate of unintentional (and seemingly unnecessary) miscommunications. It *feels* almost as if you are looking for some way to disagree, or assuming the worst interpretation of my words (and it might feel similarly to you). This is NOT my intention. Even when I disagree, my underlying goal is not trying to "best you" verbally, or show that I'm right and you are wrong - I see myself on a path of collaboratively seeking truth with a respected partner, initially sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing (often on just a sub-point). I prefer more illumination and less heat. It's honestly puzzling to me. Do you have any ideas?
"There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing."
I'm not trying to be difficult, I just don't see how one could poll with any accuracy for this. It would be 100% anecdotal (and guesswork), with no means of verifying the respondent's claims, it would also require the couple to guess which sex act resulted in the pregnancy (they presumably wouldn't find out about the pregnancy until at least a few weeks later). Am I missing something?
And again, I'm not guessing, I'm just talking about the mechanics of women getting pregnant when neither the man nor the woman wants to, and excluding cases of contraceptive failure. The man has to ejaculate inside the woman. The woman can't prevent this except by refusing to have sex at all. But the man, if he can control himself, *can* prevent it.
Four of your examples mention contraceptive failure or misuse, two involve not using it at all, which is unlikely if neither party wants a child, one involves both partners initially wanting to get pregnant when we've already stipulated that neither want to get pregnant, and two involve deception designed to result in pregnancy, which wouldn't occur if neither party wanted to get pregnant.
There are lots of scenarios that could lead to pregnancy. But far fewer that could lead to pregnancy when neither party wants to get pregnant and the contraception doesn't fail.
I've been silly enough to have unprotected sex a few times over the years. I don't want children, so it's always been in my mind that I might get the woman pregnant, so on those occasions I've always made sure I knew whether she was using any protection. If she wasn't, I'd either stop immediately (I only had the willpower to do this once), or stopped long before I thought I might orgasm.
This is obviously irresponsible of both of us, but given that my orgasm is under my control alone, I'd consider it my fault if she got pregnant.
Maybe this allocation of blame is where we're disagreeing. Maybe you're saying that because the woman consented to sex without a condom, she's equally responsible for me orgasming inside her if that happens. If so, I can understand that point of view even if I don't quite agree.
-----------
As for the "heat" that seems to be popping up in our conversations, yeah, I must say, I'm as baffled as you are. I'm certainly not *feeling* or trying to inject any heat. I wouldn't waste anybody's time, mine most especially, by arguing in bad-faith.
As you say, usually we're disagreeing about minor points. I was willing to drop the conversation about slavery's brutality from the first reply. We agreed on the invalidity of comparing different forms of slavery immediately. I couldn't (and still can't) see any meaningful implications of a belief that one form of slavery was "the most brutal," but I'm not even slightly invested in the idea. Yet that's what the whole conversation seemed to hinge on. I was honestly baffled at why you were so invested, which is why I took that line of inquiry.
I was especially surprised by your response to me asking you about your rational objection to murder vs abortion. I asked a question about my honest interpretation of what you wrote. You do this kind of clarity seeking quite regularly in your responses to me and other people. I've never thought you were assuming the worst interpretation when I saw you do it.
I don't feel like you're disagreeing just to disagree, but it does sometimes feel as if you're expecting the conversation to take place only on your terms. There have been a few occasions where you've unilaterally decided that a topic that I was interested in exploring was irrelevant and we should drop it. Or that we should clear up a point of your choosing before addressing the rest of the reply (which then doesn't get addressed). Of course, you're fully within your rights to drop any point you choose. But I sometimes feel as if I haven't gotten any close to understanding your thought process. I just get to see your conclusions. Which isn't very satisfying when I disagree with your conclusions.
Conversation, to my mind, is a way of polishing our ideas by rubbing them against each other. The weak ones will crack, the strong ones will shine, and everybody benefits. You're an amazing contributor to this community. You're smart, you're insightful, you're engaged. I'm grateful you're here. In no world do I want to bicker with you. Especially given that we agree far more often than not.
If there's something about my style of writing that comes off as hostile to you, please do give me a couple of examples so I can bear that in mind in future. If you'd rather I didn't reply to you when you're in conversation with somebody else, just let me know, no hard feelings. I'm not trying to intrude.
As I said, text is a much less nuanced form of communication and it's easy to come across in a way we don't intend. But please, rest assured, I've not been trying to "win" or "best you." I try hard to be mindful of how I come across online, but I guess I wouldn't be very well suited to this job if I wasn't at least little argumentative.ЁЯШД
About the baffling miscommunication.
The instances I've suggesting just dropping the conversation have been when it seemed to me that we were starting to repeat ourselves without making progress in further refining the ideas. If you were feeling that there was more value to be had in continuing, I apologize; I was not trying to cut off a productive conversation.
I think that both of us have a similar, um, quirk, which may hook each other occassionally. I'm trying to put my finger on it, but it's sorta like being very meticulous about points of argument (using "argument" in the sense of a making coherent presentation, not in the sense of conflict). A negative framing could be about being picky, a positive framing could be about a flavor of intellectual integrity.
For example, you may make a point which I agree with, and most people would just consider it done. But if it seems to me that one of your sub-arguments is not valid, I might nevertheless push back on that sub-point. That reaction is probably not very typical in today's world. And it seems as if you have some related proclivities, prolonging a discussion about some detail beyond where most people would move on, just to "get it right". I likely go into more iterations of that with you than usual because I sense you do want to "get it right" too (rather than just trying to "win"), and because I generally respect your insights. Nevertheless, it may sometimes cause us to spend more time on a minor point than is justified; there are so many other discussions and essays about more major points to be written in the finite time than we have.
I'll be keeping all this in mind and see how that awareness can manifest in better writing. In the meanwhile, if I suggest terminating a thread (as described above), but you feel there is value in continuing (ie: that we are making some progress), speak up. I might be making the judgement call for termination too soon.
Peace. And looking forward to fruitful future discussions. By the way, where do you live?
How are they separate? I can't prove it, but I'd say that most abortions are about not wanting an unplanned child. Huge change in their lives, financial, etc. Both man and women are affected by that. Many men will be negatively affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The former is about who bears responsibility for the wellbeing and financial support of a child once it's been born. The latter is about whether a woman should be forced by law to carry a foetus for nine months, against her will, with all the psychological and physical implications that carries.
With or without Roe, men can challenge their obligation to pay child support. Without Roe, some women will have no choice but to carry a child they don't want. And then *also* have to deal with their obligations to the child.
I'm not saying men aren't affected if they father a child. I'm saying women are affected long before the man is. In ways the man will never be.