I doubt that would work. Let me know if it ever happens.

"Jesus Christ slowguy, for a guy who claims to be a genius, you sure are showing zero ability to make a rational argument here beyond repreating this over and over and over and over again. Please, try and dig beneath this very superficial statement. Steve and I and others have explained ad naseum that there are very good reasons why this same right cannot be extended to men. Either address some specific points, or shut up already. "



Thanks for the input.

---

Slowguy

(insert pithy phrase here...)

I hope to never hear about it if it does ;)

---

_______________________________________________

The lack of a $0.50 condom can cost you dearly. (not directed at you JHC)


And I'm happy that's not something I have to worry about!

Are you saying that you play the guitar unprotected?!

Be careful or you could end up with a little ukulele running around the house. =)

---

=======================
-- Every morning brings opportunity;
Each evening offers judgement. --

No way man, my girlfriend plays piano - we have to watch out for these:

---

_______________________________________________

It's probably my misunderstanding of RvW. It appears to give the woman the right to control HER BODY, as she fits, which could be interpreted to mean that the non-viable fetus is just part of HER BODY. If it is still THEIR non-viable fetus in HER BODY then it gets back to the question of why doesn't the man get any say in what happens.

To keep pushing the car analogy, if a man parks his/their car in the woman's garage, can she dispose of it as she pleases? ;-)

Best interest of the child goes away for the man, if you interpret RvW to say that at some point, that which is to become the child, is only part of her body, because it is no longer his. Of course, you could also say that it is in the best interest of the car and other drivers (society), if the woman has it insured.

"Keep you laws of MY body!" Ok, fine, it's yours, be responsible for it, financially and otherwise. Or else, keep your laws of OUR non-viable fetus.

not PART OF her body, IN her body. Her body is used to support and develop a non-viable fetus to a viable one. She has the legal right to determine if that use of her body will continue.

Car analogy: If the woman doesn't want the car in her garage, she can have it towed away. She is not obligated to wash the car, inflate the tires, and change the oil, is she?

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Car analogy: If the woman doesn't want the car in her garage, she can have it towed away. She is not obligated to wash the car, inflate the tires, and change the oil, is she?



What about the best interests of the car?

;)

---

_______________________________________________

It's probably my misunderstanding of RvW. It appears to give the woman the right to control HER BODY, as she fits, which could be interpreted to mean that the non-viable fetus is just part of HER BODY. If it is still THEIR non-viable fetus in HER BODY then it gets back to the question of why doesn't the man get any say in what happens.

The "ownership" issue is moot. If it helps you to think of that way, then just realize that it doesn't matter who the fetus "belongs" to. Even assuming it's THEIRS, her "right to privacy" temporarily trumps his "possessory interest," effectively giving her the ability to control what happens to THEIR fetus. He can, and should weigh in on any decisions, but ultimately SHE gets to decide whether to keep or abort the baby.

After viability, she no longer has that option, and must take the baby to term (absent a very few exceptions).

What people seem to be objecting to is that time period after conception and before viability in which HIS responsibilities are ultimately not within his control. I won't go over, yet again, all of the legal mumbo jumbo that goes in to the analyses, except to say that within that time period, "fixing" the fairness issue by allowing the man to disavow or threaten disavowal has two MAJOR roadblocks.

1. It would effectively encourage women to abort children under the threat of losing any potential financial support from the father. That's a bad thing, in my opinion. Any solutions to unwanted pregnancies should discourage abortion wherever feasible.

2. In the event the woman refuses to terminate, it allows the man to escape financial responsibility, which is not in the best interests of the child.

So basically, it becomes a win-win situation for the man and a lose-lose situation for the woman and child. How is that more fair?

To keep pushing the car analogy, if a man parks his/their car in the woman's garage, can she dispose of it as she pleases? ;-)

I don't know much about the law of bailments, adverse possession, etc., so I won't try to answer, except to repeat that the car analogy is vastly different.

Best interest of the child goes away for the man, if you interpret RvW to say that at some point, that which is to become the child, is only part of her body, because it is no longer his.

Even if I accept that proposition, RvW doesn't and cannot be interpreted to say the fetus/child/baby/mass of cells is not partially his. At best it can only be interpreted as saying there is a temporary interference with his right to control what happens to it.

Of course, you could also say that it is in the best interest of the car and other drivers (society), if the woman has it insured.

I'm not touching this argument anymore. The car analogy is non-starter.

"Keep you laws of MY body!" Ok, fine, it's yours, be responsible for it, financially and otherwise. Or else, keep your laws of OUR non-viable fetus.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Well, if the car is in pieces all over the garage floor, she doesn't have to put it together. But if she does put the car together, and decides to take the car out of the garage, then she has an obligation to the car.

BTW, this would never happen, because girls can't put cars together <duck and run for cover>

---

Swimming Workout of the Day:

Favourite Swim Sets:

2020 National Masters Champion - M50-54 - 50m Butterfly

Thanks for the discussion Steve, I have learned a lot.

My last remark in my last post was to point out how the impression that the pro-choice side gives with it's arguments, can lean to a misunderstanding of the law.

"Keep your laws off MY body" is pretty much what RvW said. IOW, women currently (thanks to RvW) have a personal privacy interest in their bodies that prevents the state from completely proscribing the performing of abortions up until the point of viability.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Which can lead to the "Well, if it's YOUR body, you pay for it."

Which can lead to the "Well, if it's YOUR body, you pay for it."

Which doesn't take into consideration the best interests of the child.

We have now come full circle, yet again.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

"But the child is no longer his, since it became HER body."

Now I know it's a misinterpretation of an oversimplification of what is presented.

"But the child is no longer his, since it became HER body."

Now I know it's a misinterpretation of an oversimplification of what is presented.



I agree with you - people who use that slogan convey the message (at least to me) that either the embryo/fetus is part of her body or irrelevant to the equation. Which is, of course, not true at all.

---

_______________________________________________

"But the child is no longer his, since it became HER body."

Now I know it's a misinterpretation of an oversimplification of what is presented.

Yeah. Let's not do this one again, because even though RvW is grounded in "Keep your laws off MY body," that doesn't transform the fetus into not being "HIS." Look at it this way, the argument is not that the fetus is part of HER body (and thus not HIS), but that the state can't prevent her from aborting THEIR fetus because it's HER body that THEIR fetus is in.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

The only important thinkg to remember, is that when your dog licks peanut butter off your balls, it's not cheating because it's YOUR dog.

---

_______________________________________________

Exactly, and also, if it's ultimately HER CHOICE, why isn't it ultimately HER RESPONSIBILITY. All the noise that surrounds this issue, obscures the reality.

I understand that, actually, I always did, it was just a question of whether or not RvW opened the door for more legal contortions to get the father out of his obligations.

<<Exactly, and also, if it's ultimately HER CHOICE, why isn't it ultimately HER RESPONSIBILITY>>

Are you really still asking this question? It's because it is NOT in the best interests of the child to put the sole burden of providing necessities upon the mother. The father had a hand in creating the child so the father bears SOME of the burden of supporting the child. The courts find this inconvenience to the father to be acceptable so that the inconvenience to the child (the only truly innocent part of the equation) is lessened.

If you limit the parties to this new "family" solely to the mother and father, then I can see (don't necessarily agree with) your argument that it is more "fair" to make the woman bear the brunt of the financial responsibilities for the child. However, when you factor in the child (which you MUST), I think the fairest thing to do is to make BOTH parents responsible for providing necessities.

Sorry, we have moved onto a discussion of the (wrong) message sent by many people though slogans etc.

<<Sorry, we have moved onto a discussion of the (wrong) message sent by many people though slogans etc.>>

You'll have to clarify this as it makes no sense whatsoever.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson

Think efernand is pointing out that this question is one that is raised by those who don't think through the rationale, or are uninformed as to what RvW really says.

---

-------------------------------------
Steve Perkins

Ah. Okay. I was thrown by the lack of quotation marks. All the other slogans being tossed around were "quoted." I misinterpreted eferand's quote "Her choice/her responsibility" as him stating that as his opinion. Sorry 'bout that. No offense intended.

---

''The enemy isn't conservatism. The enemy isn't liberalism. The enemy is bulls**t.''

—Lars-Erik Nelson