Friday, March 10, 2006

A Response to Casper

I was going to post the following comments to Casper's piece about Abortion Rights for Men in the comment section of Casper's post. But then I got to thinking, I have the password to this blog and can post to it freely (Something Casper may be rethinking in the near future). So, here you go, a post in response to comments from Casper's post about my dialogue with Dad29 and Elliot from a previous post written by me.

Wow. That's a lot of background.

Alright, here are my somewhat thought out feelings on this.

This is a challenging explanation since so many people can not step outside of a world where women's actions and bodies aren't governed by someone else, (yes I'm being sarcastic) but I'll give it my best shot.

I understand that what I'm about to say is an opinion that Jenna does not like very much. I'm okay with that. See below:

I look at it like this: A man has a right to his DNA (by way of his sperm in this case). Once he agrees to let that sperm leave his body, his rights to it are somewhat willingly sacrificed. This is only because he enters into this situation with the full knowledge that if the girl gets pregnant, the decision to keep the child is, for all intents and purposes, out of his hands. This does not come as a surpise to him later.

He knows, in this country, the "contract" that is in place: He does not have the right to tell the woman what to do with her uterus or anything inside of it. So, in choosing to have sex in the first place, he is entering into this agreement.

Given that he has this knowledge, and the knowledge that if the girl should get pregnant, then in my opinion, he has agreed to the outcome of child support, should the girl decide to keep the baby.

To me it's a type of social contract. On a daily basis we all "agree" to hundreds of things by chosing to be citizens of this city, this state, even this country. Which is to say, while I may not want certain results, I know that by doing certain things I will get those results. Hence, if I do those certain things, I and only I am culpable for the results. If I do not like the possible outcome enough, then it is worth it to me to refrain from the action in question.

And what's more, I think the man gets off pretty easy ONLY having to pay child support. It is the woman who is left with the bigger issues: the raising of the child, the legal consequences of that child's actions, day care, schooling etc. and you can slap me silly if you're going to argue that the man has to pay MORE money via child support than the woman ultimately will over the course of that child's life. The men who leave get off easy.

Now on to the bigger point, and I touched on this before.

It is because of the unique situation present in a pregnancy, where one of the two parties involved faces the real physical consquence, that one of the two parties involved has the bigger claim on what to do.

The reality is this, for a child to be produced, the only physical requirment involved from a man is an orgasm. Obviously, it is not so in the case of the woman. The entire process takes place inside a woman's body, and as such, the bigger responsibility lies with the woman on whether or not her body will continue the process.

Is it fair? No. Is it the way it is? Yes. If you're that distraught about it, take it up with God.

Denying these basic physical entitlements to the process of pregnancy is what produces ridiculous pleas for economic and abortion rights for men. Which is to say, the day a man has to take a pregnancy test is the day I'll feel sorry for his "lack of rights" on the abortion front.

I'd like to state that most of the above comments were just my answer to the question that Casper put before me. The reality is, I do not support abortion unless it is for one of three situations I will outline below.

I think that when two people decide to engage in intercourse they are agreeing to the possible outcome of having a child. However, it is only when two people agree to have sex that any type of social contract is in place. In the case of rape and incest, two people did not agree and so on the one end, the woman can not be held responsible for upholding a social contract she never agreed to enter. This is why I believe she should have the right to abort the fetus.

To be sure, let's take a look at the flip side: The day the government forces a man to provide his sperm to impregnate a woman.

I think any man would have issues with that. I think they'd say: Only I can decide who gets to use my DNA to create a child! The government can't take my sperm and impregnate someone without my consent! You'd be right and I'd agree with you. That would be a major violation by the government.

This is why I am in favor of three kinds of abortions: 1) When the woman's life is in jeapordy due to the pregnancy 2) When the woman was impregnated through rape 3) When the woman was impregnated through incest.

Because, if a woman is raped and impregnated, but can't get an abortion, it is the day the government forces her to provide her DNA to reproduce. Just like I think it would be wrong to force a man to give his sperm to reproduce, I think it is wrong to force a woman to use her body to reproduce.

I cannot stress this fact enough:

That'd be the government telling her she had to accept someone else's DNA into her BODY, allow it to combine with her DNA, and then create a child in HER WOMB. In addition, I may be going out on a limb here, but I think that would also affect 9 months of her life, her ability to work and oh I'm just taking a guess here, but her family life may be disrupted, too. I mean beyond being raped and dealing with the emotional side affects and whatever diseases she may have picked up from it.

But wow. Isn't that freaky? Government ordered pregnancy. Kinda frightening when you really think about it.

Oh wait a minute. You guys support that. My bad. I'm just a conservative and against big government.

19 Comments:

At 11:35 AM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Michael said...

The literally fatal flaw with your argument is that you're leaving out the third person in the equation.

The fetus is a genetically distinct human being that NEITHER the mother NOR father should be able to kill.

The child's right to life trumps the rights of either parent (unless the mother's life is literally in danger from the pregnancy).

The only way you can argue otherwise is to say a fetus isn't human.

And if you say that, I'd like you to tell me what the hell it is.

 
At 12:16 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger David Casper said...

Cant, the biggest issue I have with your argument is the unbending belief that "it's her body." Nearly half the states in the country have laws allowing for two charges of murder to apply when a pregnant woman is killed. This would seem to me a recognition that the unborn child is a seperate and distinct human being. If that's the case, the choice to have an abortion goes beyond it being about the mother's body alone. It's another person's body over which someone is making that ultimate decision.

 
At 12:55 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

Casper by definition a fetus is a parasite.

To test your theory that an unborn child is a seperate and distinct human being, let's remove one from the womb before it's developed.

Whoops.

It is not a seperate and distinct human being for the majority of the time that it's in the womb.

I am aware that because of my argument I have to disagree with the laws you cite. And I do.

Unlike most of the people I'm debating here, I recognize that I have to be consistent. I'm okay with that.

 
At 1:09 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

elliot,

I am assuming that your comment is in response to the second half of my post, the part that pertains to abortion rights for raped women.

You are right to say that I do not account for the rights of the third "person" in the equation.

I do so intentionally. Dad29 commented that just because one crime has been committed (the rape), it does not mean that another crime should be allowed (the abortion).

It is my position that in not allowing the woman to choose if she wants to keep the baby, and FORCING her to go through with the pregnancy IS A CRIME as well.

So, what we've got, if we were to map it out are the two following scenarios:

A crime is committed (rape). Another crime is committed (abortion (if you believe that's a crime)).

OR

A crime is committed (rape). Another crime is committed (the government forcing a woman to use her DNA and her body and her entire life for that matter to produce a baby).

In both scenarios, in my opinion, crimes are committed.

Of course the easiest solution to this problem is for MEN TO STOP RAPING PEOPLE. Then we wouldn't be having this debate. However, since one half of our species will apparently always struggle to be civilized, that will never happen, and we are left to choose between two bad outcomes.

It is with apparent ease that you and Casper and Dad29 want the worst outcome for the woman and the best outcome for the child.

It is not my belief that any fetus has a "right to life" that is stronger than a woman's right to HER life. And by her life I do not mean existence. I mean her life as she knows it.

I only feel this way in the case of women who were raped. Why? Because she never entered into the pregnancy willingly. As such whatever "right" you perceive that fetus as having is, in my opinion, not greater than the woman's right to her life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

I do not see that as possible when the government mandates that she have a child that is the result of an action she never participated in willingly.

 
At 1:20 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger David Casper said...

I think the parasite comparison goes too far.

In the most general sense of the word, I can understand the allusion, but take a look at this:

http://www.l4l.org/library/notparas.html

There is a difference.

I just don't think making the comparison is going to serve as the strongest support for your argument.

 
At 1:40 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

I'll give you that. Let me ammend: A human being is like a parasite in that it is an organism living in another organism and deriving its nourishment from the host (is metabolically dependent on the host).

Therefore, the point still stands that it is not a seperate and distinct human being.

And to that guy's point that a fetus is not an "invading" organism...well I think that's a matter of opinion. In the case of rape, to call it an invasion would be an understatement.

I'm sure that being raped once is bad enough. Forcing a woman to carry the rapists' fetus is like being raped every day again and again for nine months.

To have that guy INSIDE you growing and living and feeding off of you? I understand why you can't grasp something like that. As a woman, it makes me want to vomit.

How can you not see that this is WRONG?

 
At 1:51 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Michael said...

Is it human life or isn't it?

If it isn't, what is it?

If the answer is a "parasite," explain to me how a newborn suckling at its mother's breast is any less a "parasite."

(Seems very much like a leech to me.)

Shouldn't the mother be able to kill it too, if she finds carrying it around too burdensome?

 
At 2:23 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

I find it interesting that no one is answering the question I put forth in my original post:

But wow. Isn't that freaky? Government ordered pregnancy. Kinda frightening when you really think about it.

Isn't that freaky, boys? Isn't there SOMETHING WRONG with that?

WHAT is WRONG with my reasoning? And I want an answer that doesn't rely on a poor, little, innocent fetus.

Alright boys, it's been a real treat but I just learned I have to go back to the office and finish up a project. So, I'll be leaving you now.

 
At 2:38 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Michael said...

Seems like we've just been talking past each other.

I'm not comfortable with the rape thing.

But a couple of things:

1.) Even the South Dakota law allows a woman to use the "morning after pill" to prevent becoming pregnant if she's raped.

2.) The government isn't ordering that she becomes pregnant. It's acting in the defense of the life of the innocent third party. The right of that innocent life to LIVE outweighs the right of the mother to not be upset or have her lifestyle effected.

Am I in favor of women being raped or submitted to incest? Of course not. But if you believe a fetus is a human life, I don't see how you can make it pay for the crime of its father by murdering it.

It really is a case of the lesser of two evils.

 
At 3:47 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

Elliot,

(yeah I'm working but I can't resist)

You are right to say that a woman can prevent a pregnancy with the day after pill.

However, as I've stated, in South Dakota a pharmacist can refuse filling a prescription if it goes agaist his/her moral beliefs.

What that does then, it put the choice in the hands of the pharmacist. It also assumes that a woman has the time, money and prescription to get a day after pill.

It's called day after pill for a reason. I don't think we can assume that every woman in South Dakota who gets raped is going to have access to that pill in the time she needs for it to be effective, and we can't also assume that she can even get the pill in a state where pharmacists are legally entitled NOT to give out the pill.

Lastly, I did not say that government is forcing the woman to get pregnat. Rather I said the government would be mandating the pregnancy.

A pregnancy the woman never agreed to or wanted.

We may just have to agree to disagree on this one.

I do not ever see how it could be right for my government to say that if someone forces their sperm into my body I MUST go through with a pregnancy because the day after pill was not available to me or because it did not work.

 
At 4:26 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Michael said...

Fair enough.

I still respect you. ;)

 
At 4:30 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

But will you tomorrow?

;)

 
At 6:10 PM, March 11, 2006, Blogger Michael said...

I'll respect you even more!

 
At 11:02 PM, March 11, 2006, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I don't even think that I want to post my comments in this thread. But after reading it I think that I need a smoke.

Very good discussion!! More to think about than I want to this time of night.

 
At 4:05 PM, March 12, 2006, Blogger Dad29 said...

OK, I'll be the wet blanket.

Your entire thesis begins from the premise that an immoral sexual liaison is permissible. It ain't. I don't give a rotten damn what the "law" says or does not say. (In this regard, Althouse posted a link to an interview with Tom Wolfe which contains an excellent line from W. to the effect that 'society' is now PROUD of its sexual aberrancies...)

THEN you have to create (and you have) theoretical situations, far removed from reality, to support your initial premise: that sexual congress is fine and dandy outside of the marriage contract.

You're working on being a lawyer, which is not necessarily a compliment, my man...

 
At 7:45 AM, March 13, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

Hey Dad29,

Just a couple of things I'd like to point out:

Actually, my entire premise is dependent on the fact that rape is not legally permissable. Since I see the consequences of intercourse as agreed upon by individuals who willingly engage in sex, and raped women do not willingly engage, then those women can not be upheld to the same consequences.

There is nothing theoretical or unrealistic about the fact that a prescription is required to obtain the day after pill.

There is nothing theoretical or unrealistic about the fact that pharmacists in SD can refuse to give out the day after pill.

There is nothing theoretical or unrealistic about the fact that the day after pill does not always work.

Can you please tell me what, in your opinion, is theoretical or unrealistic about any of what I just stated?

And for the record, I already have an established career and it has nothing to do with lawyers or being a lawyer.

And lastly, while I appreciate the sentiment, it's "my woman" to you!

 
At 11:22 AM, March 13, 2006, Blogger Dad29 said...

What's theoretical and unrealistic is "Forced pregnancy."

And as was pointed out above, two wrongs don't make a right. Killing an innocent is not exactly the remedy for rape.

 
At 7:02 PM, March 13, 2006, Blogger Tanker311 said...

Dad29,

If it is not a forced pregnancy, then tell me please, what is it?

Let's look at the facts, since you seem to think I'm full of nothing but theory.

If a girl is raped, then she unwillingly has sex.

One could even say that she is FORCED to have sex (the implication there being against her will).

So if a girl is FORCED to have sex, and as a result of the intercourse becomes pregnant, then one could say she became pregnant UNWILLINGLY. (ie it was not by her chosing)

If she has no recourse to terminate the pregnancy, then she is FORCED INTO PREGNANCY. What is unrealistic or theoretic about that?

You're losing me here. Either you don't want to admit that it is a forced pregnancy or we've got a problem with definitions. I am thinking that you just don't want to admit that it is, in fact, a forced pregnancy in the case of rape.

Lastly, to your "two wrongs don't make a right" point, I feel that it is MORE wrong for the government to FORCE a woman to create a life she did not chose to begin than to allow her to terminate it.

 
At 8:17 PM, March 13, 2006, Blogger Dad29 said...

If you say so.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home