[DRAFT] Daddy's Little Girl

[Candlewhisper Archive]

1:

TITLE:
Daddy's Little Girl

VALIDITY:
abortion allowed

DESCRIPTION:
Would-be father @@randommalename@@ is petitioning for a change in the law, after he found out that a year ago his partner @@randomfemalename@@ had fallen pregnant by him and then gone for an abortion without his consent or knowledge.

OPTION 1
"She may not have wanted that child, but I did," argues @@randomname(1)@@, suited for a memorial service for what he calls his 'murdered daughter.' "There's two people involved here, and as the father I deserved to know about the pregnancy, and to have a say as to the outcome. I'd have raised the kid myself, gladly. All I ask is that abortions only take place when both parents consent to it, barring fair exceptions for rape, unknown fathers, or fathers who can't be contacted in a reasonable timeframe."
OUTCOME:
after one night stands most women conveniently lose their partner's phone numbers

OPTION 2
"Really? Would you have carried the baby to term? Would you have been the one getting haemorrhoids, and weird cravings, and having to take time off work?" asks @@randomname(2)@@. "There's one person whose body is involved here, and that one person is me. Maybe I should have asked your opinion, but I wasn't obliged to. Female bodily autonomy is critical to women's rights. That's all that matters here."
OUTCOME:
mum's the word when it comes to secret pregnancies

OPTION 3
"Uh, there's actually THREE people here," interjects a particularly good-looking placard-bearing protestor, squeezing between the couple. "No, I don't mean me, silly. I mean, I followed the case closely, but I wasn't in the bedroom." There's a pause full of meaningful glances as the future possibility is weighed up. "Anyway, I mean to say that the baby herself had a right to life that no amount of parental autonomy can overrule. If they don't want the child once its born, that's a different matter, but every conceived life has the right to be born. Stop abortions now!"
OUTCOME:
expectant mothers offered congratulations often respond with "meh"

2:

TITLE:
Daddy's Little Girl

VALIDITY:
abortion allowed

DESCRIPTION:
Would-be father @@randommalename@@ found out that a year ago his partner @@randomfemalename@@ had fallen pregnant by him and had an abortion without his knowledge. He is claiming that this was immoral, and that his consent and agreement should have been sought.

OPTION 1
"She may not have wanted that child, but I did," argues @@randomname(1)@@, suited for a memorial service for what he calls his 'murdered daughter.' "There's two people involved here, and as the father I deserved to know about the pregnancy, and to have a say as to the outcome. I'd have raised the kid myself, gladly. All I ask is that abortions only take place when both parents consent to it, barring fair exceptions for rape, unknown fathers, or fathers who can't be contacted in a reasonable timeframe."
OUTCOME:
after one night stands most women conveniently lose their partner's phone numbers

OPTION 2
"Really? Would you have carried the baby to term? Would you be the one waking up at 3:25 in the morning with an insatiable craving for strawberry ice cream with pickles and Lebatuckese dressing on top? Would you be the one breaking into tears when reminded that popular rock band The Scarabs broke up forty-two years ago? Would you be the one having to explain to your boss that you won't be leaking fluids all over the workplace but that even if you did that still wouldn't be reason to fire you?" asks @@randomname(2)@@. "There's one person whose body is involved here, and that one person is me. Maybe I should have asked your opinion, but I wasn't obliged to. Honestly, it's an intrusion on my autonomy to even ask me who the father is, or what my real name is, or how far into the pregnancy I am. It should be no questions asked, and my decision only. Female bodily autonomy is critical to women's rights. That's all that matters here."
OUTCOME:
mum's the word when it comes to secret pregnancies

OPTION 3
"Oh it's totally your body, and totally your responsibility, and if you don't want the baby you shouldn't have to have it," nods your Minister of Alternative Energy, briefly agreeing. "Way I see it, the mother should have the option of stating their belief that the pregnancy should be terminated, and so should dad, and if one of them disagrees then they should be forced to look after the resulting offspring themselves, with no financial support or legal obligations at all for the dissenting partner. Of course, for a guy, that means finding some sort of willing surrogate to carry the lil' blob to term. Or a vat. So there are two people involved, or maybe one, or maybe one and a different one. Or maybe one and a vat. Hey, I deal in concepts, not details."
OUTCOME:
moving house can be traumatic for the very young

OPTION 4
"Uh, there's actually THREE people here," interjects a particularly good-looking placard-bearing protestor, squeezing between the couple. "No, I don't mean me, silly. I mean, I followed the case closely, but I wasn't in the bedroom." There's a pause full of meaningful glances as the future possibility is weighed up. "Anyway, I mean to say that the baby herself had a right to life that no amount of parental autonomy can overrule. If they don't want the child once he or she is born, that's a different matter, but every conceived child has the right to be live. Stop abortions now!"
OUTCOME:
expectant mothers offered congratulations often respond with "meh"

[Candlewhisper Archive]

One bump before I drop this in the staff submissions oubliette. Any thoughts anyone?

[Verdant Haven]

What is the effect of the second choice? Given a starting position that already permits women to act autonomously, it appears that it doesn't do anything new - dismiss button style.

For the overall presentation, it begins with a freedom, and has two options to restrict it severely and one to leave it be. It feels to me that it is heavily inclined towards limitations, and doesn't really have a counterbalance.


(Edit: As a thought for a counterbalance, I could see a father, perhaps one woefully behind on child-support payments, arguing that he's supportive of women being able to choose, so long as men can as well. Basically a "if only one partner is needed to make that decision, let it be either one!" sort of thing).

[Laka Strolistandiler]

Given 1 night stands might also want to add validity for allowing adultery

[Candlewhisper Archive]

What is the effect of the second choice? Given a starting position that already permits women to act autonomously, it appears that it doesn't do anything new - dismiss button style.

For the overall presentation, it begins with a freedom, and has two options to restrict it severely and one to leave it be. It feels to me that it is heavily inclined towards limitations, and doesn't really have a counterbalance.

The idea was that the thing happened, but it isn't necessarily morally clear as to whether it should have been allowed to happen. Option 2 affirms the position of female bodily autonomy taking precedence. I see what you're saying though: maybe the premise should instead say that:

Would-be father @@randommalename@@ found out that a year ago his partner @@randomfemalename@@ had fallen pregnant by him and had an abortion without his knowledge. He is claiming that this was illegal, and that his consent and agreement should have been sought.

(Edit: As a thought for a counterbalance, I could see a father, perhaps one woefully behind on child-support payments, arguing that he's supportive of women being able to choose, so long as men can as well. Basically a "if only one partner is needed to make that decision, let it be either one!" sort of thing).

Wow, that's all kinds of horrifying!

Would make a great crazy fourth option, though right now I kind of like the narrative symmetry of "there's two people", "no there's one", "no, there's three". How would I suggest I fit that option into this pattern, do you think?

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Given 1 night stands might also want to add validity for allowing adultery

I don't think laws against adultery preclude one-night stands for single people, only cheating on your spouse.

[Verdant Haven]

What is the effect of the second choice? Given a starting position that already permits women to act autonomously, it appears that it doesn't do anything new - dismiss button style.

For the overall presentation, it begins with a freedom, and has two options to restrict it severely and one to leave it be. It feels to me that it is heavily inclined towards limitations, and doesn't really have a counterbalance.

The idea was that the thing happened, but it isn't necessarily morally clear as to whether it should have been allowed to happen. Option 2 affirms the position of female bodily autonomy taking precedence. I see what you're saying though: maybe the premise should instead say that:

Would-be father @@randommalename@@ found out that a year ago his partner @@randomfemalename@@ had fallen pregnant by him and had an abortion without his knowledge. He is claiming that this was illegal, and that his consent and agreement should have been sought.

Hmm, I think my question there would be on what possible basis is the father claiming it's illegal? Most of the issue options to permit abortion specifically state that it is the woman's right or, in some cases, responsibility, to make the decision. None of them that I can find imply anything about two party consent. Many of the nations receiving this will also have received the early issue 136, and since this one will go to nations that didn't outlaw it in 136, many are likely to have selected the option that states "it is Miss X's right to choose! It's her body; she can do whatever she wants with it."

He could definitely get away with claiming it's immoral, or that it *should* be illegal, but his position is extremely weak from a legal perspective. I think the position he takes in Option 1 is pretty solid as it is - it's just that option 2 needs a lot more oomph to push it beyond merely repeating what many/most nations receiving the issue will already have seen and agreed with before. Perhaps giving more benefits to mothers who seek abortions (time off for the medical recovery aspect, perhaps?) or subsiding the creation of clinics with "no questions asked" for other private health matters as well.

(Edit: As a thought for a counterbalance, I could see a father, perhaps one woefully behind on child-support payments, arguing that he's supportive of women being able to choose, so long as men can as well. Basically a "if only one partner is needed to make that decision, let it be either one!" sort of thing).

Wow, that's all kinds of horrifying!

Would make a great crazy fourth option, though right now I kind of like the narrative symmetry of "there's two people", "no there's one", "no, there's three". How would I suggest I fit that option into this pattern, do you think?

It is indeed horrifying. One alternative which I have heard proposed IRL would be the position that if the father doesn't consent to the continuation of the pregnancy, that he can be legally relieved of responsibility for the child. That is to say, the mother can unilaterally choose to keep and raise the kid without the consent of the father, but they do so alone and without child support or other rights. That way both parties have unilateral authority to end their participation, without the grossness of compelling a partner into an unwanted medical procedure.

In terms of fitting into the 2,1,3 pattern (which I agree is nice), I'd probably put it after the mother, in the third slot: 2, 1, 1, 3. It would work well as a "Yes, what she said, but equally for both potential parents!"

[Candlewhisper Archive]

For option 2 maybe something like "Honestly, it's an intrusion on my autonomy to even ask me my name, or how far into the pregnancy I am. It should be no questions asked, and my decision only."

Or is that too extreme?

[Verdant Haven]

For option 2 maybe something like "Honestly, it's an intrusion on my autonomy to even ask me my name, or how far into the pregnancy I am. It should be no questions asked, and my decision only."

Or is that too extreme?

I wouldn't even consider that particularly extreme, by NationStates standards! I think that's definitely a good direction and I might even push it farther, if you're comfortable doing so.

If she extends that request of anonymity and no questions asked to all medical procedures, it could give a fun time with effect lines about doctors having trouble treating patients who refuse to answer questions about their condition. ("This, and all medical care, should be no questions asked, and my decision only") I realize that could be going a bit far off the focus though, so just a thought!

[Sierra Lyricalia]

Option Two could be (a bit) funny harder hitting with more detail. e.g. "Would you be the one waking up at 3:25 in the morning with an insatiable craving for strawberry ice cream with pickles and Lebatuckese dressing on top? Would you be the one breaking into tears when reminded that popular rock band The Scarabs broke up forty-two years ago? Would you be the one having to explain to your boss that you won't be leaking fluids all over the workplace but that even if you did that still wouldn't be reason to fire you?"

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Option Two could be (a bit) funny harder hitting with more detail. e.g. "Would you be the one waking up at 3:25 in the morning with an insatiable craving for strawberry ice cream with pickles and Lebatuckese dressing on top? Would you be the one breaking into tears when reminded that popular rock band The Scarabs broke up forty-two years ago? Would you be the one having to explain to your boss that you won't be leaking fluids all over the workplace but that even if you did that still wouldn't be reason to fire you?"

Nice! Yoink.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Okay, incorporated that extra option, but realised that saying the dad has a right not to pay child support if he wants a termination while mum doesn't... well, that kind of veers of the core premise, which is "what if dad DOESN'T want an abortion?"

So modified it a little to stick closer to premise.

[Verdant Haven]

Looking solid - great changes.

I think I see just two minor items:

1) in the final option, I think there's was a word change that got left muddled in "but every conceived child has the right to be live." (right to live? right to be born?)

2) If my understanding is correct, the use of "fall pregnant" is fairly common and current in British English, but it's worth knowing that in American English it is often considered a bit crass and sexist these days (with the implication of being a "fallen woman"). Probably not a big deal, but worth being aware of the sense it may be read with.

[USS Monitor]

2) If my understanding is correct, the use of "fall pregnant" is fairly common and current in British English, but it's worth knowing that in American English it is often considered a bit crass and sexist these days (with the implication of being a "fallen woman"). Probably not a big deal, but worth being aware of the sense it may be read with.

It's uncommon to hear in the US, but I don't personally find it offensive.

I'm not really into this issue, but that might be a matter of personal taste because I just get tired of hearing about abortion.

[Jim the Baptist]

In option 2, it's really long because I feel like she is just rambling a lot and repeating her point in this roundabout way an unnecessary number of times, i.e. "there's only one person involved, and that's me... it should be no questions asked, and my decision only... maybe I should have asked your opinion... [women's rights] is all that matters here." etc. Then there is the really long explanation of all the different types of questions she doesn't want to be asked. I feel like all of these little throw-away lines and mini sentences could be condensed into one nice, succinct and clear statement that expresses her point. For example, after the randomname(2)@@, she could just say: "Women are entitled to autonomy over their own bodies - my body, my choice. That's all that matters here."

And just a small formatting thing - in option 1, the full stop after 'murdered daughter' should be outside the apostrophe because it's not a direct quote. You only put the full stop before speech marks but not when you are using single quotation marks.

Example from here: She pointed out that websites used for internet voting could be ‘spoofed’.

[Australian rePublic]

very interesting issue. I wonder how child support would play into this...