[Abortion Thread] (YET ANOTHER POLL!) Taking measure.

[Katganistan]

The quotes got screwed up along the way. I would never define myself as pro-life.

We can rebuild them; we have the technology.

Thanks, Luna.

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I believe I have said it before, but yes, I would be willing to part with my money into improving foster care.

Will everyone else do it too, that’s the thing? Because I often see that the interest wanes and ends after the birth. And really, it is after the birth that the help would be needed the most.

That's the thing, I know many people are not warm towards it, which is why I also bash pro-life people who are not willing to go that step, and, while I am just one person, I am trying to convince as many as possible that the most compassionate way to go about legislation is the better way.

[Katganistan]

While admirable, they will introduce problems namely: 1)who will support the child, if neither mother nor father wants the responsibility and 2) how will the already overburdened foster care system be expected to absorb all these Awomb babies? Conservatives are notoriously tight when it comes to welfare and support programs.

That’s a question I’ve asked. Ok, so the live birth happens, then what? Because this couldn’t be only important while in utero. What about what comes after?

I think we know what comes after given the homelessness, hunger and poverty in this, a supposedly first world nation.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Will everyone else do it too, that’s the thing? Because I often see that the interest wanes and ends after the birth. And really, it is after the birth that the help would be needed the most.

That's the thing, I know many people are not warm towards it, which is why I also bash pro-life people who are not willing to go that step, and, while I am just one person, I am trying to convince as many as possible that the most compassionate way to go about legislation is the better way.

Fair enough.

[Galloism]

Unless the rapist carried and birthed the child, they should have no right to visitation, and no right to demand their victim either get or not get an abortion.

Why should a rapist who carried and birthed the child get a right to visitation?

[The Free Joy State]

Unless the rapist carried and birthed the child, they should have no right to visitation, and no right to demand their victim either get or not get an abortion.

Why should a rapist who carried and birthed the child get a right to visitation?

For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.

That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.

Automatically removing that right from people who committed a reprehensible act would risk people who'd given birth having to prove some additional "likeability" factor to see their children, and it's not too difficult to see -- considering the trend towards authoritarianism in certain governments -- how such a test could be manipulated or extended beyond those who've done heinous things.

Additionally, when people commit other heinous acts, they do not have their parental rights severed.

People who commit rape and carry a pregnancy to term should not be able to demand support from their victim, and the victim should be able to not put their name on the birth certificate (if he would prefer). Just as rape victims who become pregnant should be able to seek an abortion, and -- if they choose to maintain the pregnancy -- have no contact (either themselves, or the resulting offspring) with their rapist.

But demanding that someone give birth and has the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.

[Galloism]

Why should a rapist who carried and birthed the child get a right to visitation?

For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.

I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.

That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.

Automatically removing that right from people who committed a reprehensible act would risk people who'd given birth having to prove some additional "likeability" factor to see their children, and it's not too difficult to see -- considering the trend towards authoritarianism in certain governments -- how such a test could be manipulated or extended beyond those who've done heinous things.

Additionally, when people commit other heinous acts, they do not have their parental rights severed.

People who commit rape and carry a pregnancy to term should not be able to demand support from their victim, and the victim should be able to not put their name on the birth certificate (if he would prefer). Just as rape victims who become pregnant should be able to seek an abortion, and -- if they choose to maintain the pregnancy -- have no contact (either themselves, or the resulting offspring) with their rapist.

But demanding that someone give birth haves the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.

So, to compare your proposal:

Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights

These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.

[The Free Joy State]

For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.

I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.

It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.

I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.

That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.

Automatically removing that right from people who committed a reprehensible act would risk people who'd given birth having to prove some additional "likeability" factor to see their children, and it's not too difficult to see -- considering the trend towards authoritarianism in certain governments -- how such a test could be manipulated or extended beyond those who've done heinous things.

Additionally, when people commit other heinous acts, they do not have their parental rights severed.

People who commit rape and carry a pregnancy to term should not be able to demand support from their victim, and the victim should be able to not put their name on the birth certificate (if he would prefer). Just as rape victims who become pregnant should be able to seek an abortion, and -- if they choose to maintain the pregnancy -- have no contact (either themselves, or the resulting offspring) with their rapist.

But demanding that someone give birth haves the resulting offspring automatically immediately removed seems a fundamental threat to people's -- law-abiding people's, too -- right to a family life, and it seems like cruel punishment -- almost like a way to coerce abortion, because women fear becoming attached.

So, to compare your proposal:

Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights

These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.

I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.

-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.

-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).

-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.

-- Rapists who impregnate someone else should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the rapist who becomes pregnant to keep parental access does not keep the rapist in her victim's life.

Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.

Or, would you like to remove the parental rights -- even visitation -- from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?

What do you propose doing with their children?

[Soldati Senza Confini]

I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.

It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.

I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.

So, to compare your proposal:

Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights

These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.

I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.

-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.

-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).

-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.

-- Male rapists should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the female rapist to keep access does not keep the female rapist in her victim's life.

Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.

Or, would you like to remove the parental rights from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?

What do you propose doing with their children?

We already remove parental rights for people who pose a danger to a child https://family.findlaw.com/parental-rig ... ights.html

The question here is not whether or not a parent should lose parental rights, we already do revoke these rights. The question is should we remove parental rights from rapists?

[Galloism]

I'm not sure why we should keep that as a legal basis - it seems unnecessarily sexist.

It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.

I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.

So, to compare your proposal:

Male rapist > male rapist must financially support victim, has no parental rights
Female rapist > male victim let off if he wants, rapist keeps parental rights

These two things don't appear all that similar in treatment based on sex.

I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.

-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.

-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).

-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.

-- Male rapists should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the female rapist to keep access does not keep the female rapist in her victim's life.

Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.

Or, would you like to remove the parental rights from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?

What do you propose doing with their children?

Well, I wouldn't recommend telling a rape victim we were going to leave their child with their rapist. You talk about giving the rapist a role in the life of her victim - that's a serious one. A constant reminder that your child is being raised by the woman who raped you because of accident of biology.

I can think of little worse mental torture - particularly when it was a statutory rape situation. A child rapist is now raising your child, and your only two choices are to walk away and always live with the torture of leaving your child with your rapist, or being involved in your child's life and constantly having to deal with (and pay) your rapist.

Talk about the state forcing your rapist to live rent free in your head.

[The Free Joy State]

We already remove parental rights for people who pose a danger to a child https://family.findlaw.com/parental-rig ... ights.html

The question here is not whether or not a parent should lose parental rights, we already do revoke these rights. The question is should we remove parental rights from rapists?

Yes, we revoke parental rights from those considered a danger to their children. And rightly so.

I have already answered that question: it sets a dangerous societal precedent to automatically remove, at birth, the child that someone has given birth to, with no rights to visitation -- unless that person is a risk to the child.

It's related entirely to the biology of the biology of the people who become pregnant, carry the foetus for forty weeks and endure childbirth.

I would argue the same if someone of the male gender became pregnant and gave birth.


I was talking about in relation to the resulting conception of rape.

-- Male victims probably should get financial compensation from their victim from the trauma he's suffered (criminal compensation is a thing in some countries), but that is outside the scope of this debate. Male rapists do not pay financial support to the victim; they pay it for the child.

-- Both impregnated rape victims and rape victims who impregnate someone else should be relieved of their parental responsibilities if they want (by abortion for the person who becomes pregnant, or a paper abortion for the victim who is forced to impregnate).

-- I did not gender the rapists: if a male rapist became pregnant and gave birth, then -- of course -- he should maintain his parental rights (Transmen do exist, and some have given birth). I think it is risky to automatically remove parental rights from the birthing party; I have already laid out my arguments for that.

-- Male rapists should not have rights to their offspring, no. Unlike the pregnant party, they did not give up their body for 40 weeks of their creation, and giving male rapists a parental role in the child's upbringing gives the rapist a role in the life of his victim (a constant reminder for 18 years). Allowing the female rapist to keep access does not keep the female rapist in her victim's life.

Female rapists (all rapists) have done a heinous and inexcusable thing. But I think that the arbitrary removal of parental rights is a dark and dangerous road.

Or, would you like to remove the parental rights from all other criminals who offend bodily autonomy: murderers, muggers?

What do you propose doing with their children?

Well, I wouldn't recommend telling a rape victim we were going to leave their child with their rapist. You talk about giving the rapist a role in the life of her victim - that's a serious one. A constant reminder that your child is being raised by the woman who raped you because of accident of biology.

I can think of little worse mental torture - particularly when it was a statutory rape situation. A child rapist is now raising your child, and your only two choices are to walk away and always live with the torture of leaving your child with your rapist, or being involved in your child's life and constantly having to deal with (and pay) your rapist.

Talk about the state forcing your rapist to live rent free in your head.

Oh, for fuck sake! Now you've jumped to statutory rape?

Well, I would suggest that if a person had raped a child that would suggest they are not safe to be around children and the case for removal just got considerably stronger.

I think I said -- on more than one occassion -- "barring risk to the child".

Well, I think a child rapist meets the definition of "risk".

[Galloism]

Well, I wouldn't recommend telling a rape victim we were going to leave their child with their rapist. You talk about giving the rapist a role in the life of her victim - that's a serious one. A constant reminder that your child is being raised by the woman who raped you because of accident of biology.

I can think of little worse mental torture - particularly when it was a statutory rape situation. A child rapist is now raising your child, and your only two choices are to walk away and always live with the torture of leaving your child with your rapist, or being involved in your child's life and constantly having to deal with (and pay) your rapist.

Talk about the state forcing your rapist to live rent free in your head.

Oh, for fuck sake! Now you've jumped to statutory rape?

Well, I would suggest that if a person had raped a child that would suggest they are not safe to be around children and the case for removal just got considerably stronger.

I think I said -- on more than one occassion -- "barring risk to the child".

Well, I think a child rapist meets the definition of "risk".

Why does a regular rapist not meet the definition of a risk to a child?

Rape is a serious crime, you know. And people who would rape other people aren't necessarily the good sort who don't feel like they shouldn't violate the rights of others.

Even if it's not statutory rape, isn't "hey totes, we're going to give your child to your rapist, but you don't have to be involved unless you want to, hope we're cool bro" make any sense?

Imagine the reverse - where a woman was raped by a man, we took the child and gave the child to the rapist, then told the mother they could be involved in the child's life if they wanted to, but otherwise have a nice life.

Sound horrifying? It does to me too. So does the reverse.

[The Free Joy State]

Oh, for fuck sake! Now you've jumped to statutory rape?

Well, I would suggest that if a person had raped a child that would suggest they are not safe to be around children and the case for removal just got considerably stronger.

I think I said -- on more than one occassion -- "barring risk to the child".

Well, I think a child rapist meets the definition of "risk".

Why does a regular rapist not meet the definition of a risk to a child?

Rape is a serious crime, you know. And people who would rape other people aren't necessarily the good sort who don't feel like they shouldn't violate the rights of others.

Even if it's not statutory rape, isn't "hey totes, we're going to give your child to your rapist, but you don't have to be involved unless you want to, hope we're cool bro" make any sense?

Imagine the reverse - where a woman was raped by a man, we took the child and gave the child to the rapist, then told the mother they could be involved in the child's life if they wanted to, but otherwise have a nice life.

Sound horrifying? It does to me too. So does the reverse.

I am well aware that rape is a serious crime, thank you.

I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.

These are all things that would have to be looked at.

Child Protective Services reviewing the familial situation and deciding to leave the child with the person who just pushed it out -- or to grant her visitation, while placing it with someone else -- is not "taking the child and giving it to a rapist" (unlike removing a child physically from the rape victim who had just given birth and giving it to their rapist).

Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.

But do I think that there should be one blanket ruling, allowing children to be automatically taken away from the people who've given birth? No.

[Galloism]

Why does a regular rapist not meet the definition of a risk to a child?

Rape is a serious crime, you know. And people who would rape other people aren't necessarily the good sort who don't feel like they shouldn't violate the rights of others.

Even if it's not statutory rape, isn't "hey totes, we're going to give your child to your rapist, but you don't have to be involved unless you want to, hope we're cool bro" make any sense?

Imagine the reverse - where a woman was raped by a man, we took the child and gave the child to the rapist, then told the mother they could be involved in the child's life if they wanted to, but otherwise have a nice life.

Sound horrifying? It does to me too. So does the reverse.

I am well aware that rape is a serious crime, thank you.

I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.

These are all things that would have to be looked at.

Child Protective Services reviewing the familial situation and deciding to leave the child with the person who just pushed it out -- or to grant her visitation, while placing it with someone else -- is not "taking the child and giving it to a rapist" (unlike removing a child physically from the rape victim who had just given birth and giving it to their rapist).

Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.

But do I think that there should be one blanket ruling, allowing children to be automatically taken away from the people who've given birth? No.

I don't even understand why there should be a preference in place for mothers over fathers as you seem to indicate in your previous posts. There's no reason to assume the mother, as a default, is a better primary parent than the father.

Essentially, why should the mother have default custody anyway? Why isn't default custody the father's? Or why not have a default custody, and start figuring these things out somewhere in the third trimester?

Essentially, the notion that the mother is a better default parent than the father is where you started with a sexist presumption, and from there, tried to come up with ways to justify that position. The baby needs to be given to someone after birth, but there's no reason to automatically presume that person would be the mother. It should essentially be a coin flip between mother and father by default, and given that it should be a coin flip by default, it would seem to be the presumption in a rape situation is that the child goes to the victim and not the perpetrator.

[Godular]

This thread seems to have deviated... could that be rectified?

[The Free Joy State]

I am well aware that rape is a serious crime, thank you.

I did not say that every other child should be left with the pregnant rapist. Merely that blanket rulings on taking someone's child away are a very dark road to go down, and risk had to be assessed holistically: the mother's beliefs and her likelihood of reoffending, whether there is an appropriate support system that is likely to keep her on the right road, whether she understands bodily autonomy, whether she's mentally capable, her psychological balance, whether she realises she committed an offence, does she/can she feel remorse.

These are all things that would have to be looked at.

Child Protective Services reviewing the familial situation and deciding to leave the child with the person who just pushed it out -- or to grant her visitation, while placing it with someone else -- is not "taking the child and giving it to a rapist" (unlike removing a child physically from the rape victim who had just given birth and giving it to their rapist).

Do I think that many people willing to violate the body autonomy of others are likely to be assessed as being capable parents? Probably not.

But do I think that there should be one blanket ruling, allowing children to be automatically taken away from the people who've given birth? No.

I don't even understand why there should be a preference in place for mothers over fathers as you seem to indicate in your previous posts. There's no reason to assume the mother, as a default, is a better primary parent than the father.

Essentially, why should the mother have default custody anyway? Why isn't default custody the father's? Or why not have a default custody, and start figuring these things out somewhere in the third trimester?

Essentially, the notion that the mother is a better default parent than the father is where you started with a sexist presumption, and from there, tried to come up with ways to justify that position. The baby needs to be given to someone after birth, but there's no reason to automatically presume that person would be the mother. It should essentially be a coin flip between mother and father by default, and given that it should be a coin flip by default, it would seem to be the presumption in a rape situation is that the child goes to the victim and not the perpetrator.

I started with no sexist presumption, merely the biological assumption that is underpinned in lat that whoever gives birth -- regardless of their gender -- is recognised at the moment as having the legal right to take that baby home.

Point me to one place where I said that the parent who gives birth is "a better default parent". Find me one post where I've said that.

I've also never stated any opposition to male rape victims filing for custody if they wish and feel they would make a better parent.

This thread seems to have deviated... could that be rectified?

Apologies, Godular.

[Galloism]

I don't even understand why there should be a preference in place for mothers over fathers as you seem to indicate in your previous posts. There's no reason to assume the mother, as a default, is a better primary parent than the father.

Essentially, why should the mother have default custody anyway? Why isn't default custody the father's? Or why not have a default custody, and start figuring these things out somewhere in the third trimester?

Essentially, the notion that the mother is a better default parent than the father is where you started with a sexist presumption, and from there, tried to come up with ways to justify that position. The baby needs to be given to someone after birth, but there's no reason to automatically presume that person would be the mother. It should essentially be a coin flip between mother and father by default, and given that it should be a coin flip by default, it would seem to be the presumption in a rape situation is that the child goes to the victim and not the perpetrator.

I started with no sexist presumption, merely the biological assumption that is underpinned in lat that whoever gives birth -- regardless of their gender -- is recognised at the moment as having the legal right to take that baby home.

You're trying to focus on a super tiny percentage of the population - less than 0.01% - and pretend you're not being sexist.

The fact that grandfather clauses allowed SOME black people to vote didn't make them not racist.

Your attempts at disguising the birth-based sexism won't work.

Point me to one place where I said that the parent who gives birth is "a better default parent". Find me one post where I've said that.

I've also never stated any opposition to male rape victims filing for custody if they wish and feel they would make a better parent.

For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.

That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.

There you go.

[The Free Joy State]

I started with no sexist presumption, merely the biological assumption that is underpinned in lat that whoever gives birth -- regardless of their gender -- is recognised at the moment as having the legal right to take that baby home.

You're trying to focus on a super tiny percentage of the population - less than 0.01% - and pretend you're not being sexist.

The fact that grandfather clauses allowed SOME black people to vote didn't make them not racist.

Your attempts at disguising the birth-based sexism won't work.

Point me to one place where I said that the parent who gives birth is "a better default parent". Find me one post where I've said that.

I've also never stated any opposition to male rape victims filing for custody if they wish and feel they would make a better parent.

For me, removing the child routinely would undermine the legal basis that when someone gives birth -- barring evidence of risk to the child or legal surrender -- they are entitled to parent (or at least see) the child.

That's why, with surrogacy agreements, the birthmother is entitled to take the child home -- despite any contract she may have signed -- in much of the Western world, because the law recognises her right to parent the child she birthed.

There you go.

And I say that women are "better" parents, where?

As I said -- I am merely describing the current legal underpinning. I don't even assign gender to "someone who gives birth... they are entitled to parent".

I make no moral judgements as to who is a "better parent", merely state facts.

But Godular wants us to stop.

[Galloism]

You're trying to focus on a super tiny percentage of the population - less than 0.01% - and pretend you're not being sexist.

The fact that grandfather clauses allowed SOME black people to vote didn't make them not racist.

Your attempts at disguising the birth-based sexism won't work.





There you go.

And I say that women are "better" parents, where?

As I said -- I am merely describing the current legal underpinning. I don't even assign gender to "someone who gives birth... they are entitled to parent".

I make no moral judgements, merely state legal facts.

But Godular wants us to stop.

Yes, the legal facts are quite sexist in point of fact - disproportionately favoring women over men.

I do wish people would stop acting like we should keep sexist legal facts on the books when we could replace them with equality.

[Beggnig]

I actually donate blood, so...

How much? Of course, the state owns your body, you must donate it all. Otherwise you get 99 years in prison. No exceptions.

Because of course all women die in childbirth from bloodloss!
I know you're trying to make a point but the salt is so obvious I'm worried I'm about to die of sodium chloride overdose, the laboured breathing and chest pain (from my sides splitting) has already set in, and I'm worried that the vomiting and and kidney failure are soon to follow.

[The Free Joy State]

And I say that women are "better" parents, where?

As I said -- I am merely describing the current legal underpinning. I don't even assign gender to "someone who gives birth... they are entitled to parent".

I make no moral judgements, merely state legal facts.

But Godular wants us to stop.

Yes, the legal facts are quite sexist in point of fact - disproportionately favoring women over men.

I do wish people would stop acting like we should keep sexist legal facts on the books when we could replace them with equality.

One gender will always be predominantly able to give birth over the other.

We can push for equal rights in the law, and equal protections for pregnant people regardless of gender, but if we remove the protections for pregnant people for fear of being sexist, what would that say for abortion law -- which, incidentally, is the topic.

Women have the first and final say in abortion because it is their body. Men don't get to pressurise their partner into having an abortion or not having one because providing sperm is not as labour-intensive as growing the foetus and giving birth.

So, equality... both parties get equal say? That wouldn't be equable. That would be giving one party -- with a relatively small part to play in conception -- an undue influence in the decision.

Or surrogacy. The law is the way that it is because the pregnant person must have the right to change her mind, and not be forced to give up her child -- exactly as with abortion (she must not be forced to keep it or abort). Say there was complete equality in that law: the intended parents were able to sue her if she changed her mind (either about going through with the pregnancy or -- if she decided to keep the baby -- to prevent her doing that). That would be robbing an individual of either her right to bodily autonomy or her right to a family life.

So, while complete equality under the law is an excellent principle, the rights of pregnant people must be acknowledged. Because -- whether male or female -- they are at one of the most vulnerable times of their lives (at greatly increased risk of domestic abuse, for example).

And their rights must be protected.

[Galloism]

We can push for equal rights in the law, and equal protections for pregnant people regardless of gender, but if we remove the protections for pregnant people for fear of being sexist, what would that say for abortion law -- which, incidentally, is the topic.

I don't see the link how we need to craft what happens after birth based on what happens before birth.

Abortion is acceptable because of bodily autonomy reasons, but once birth happens, those reasons are out the window. As you pointed out here:

Women have the first and final say in abortion because it is their body.

Can you explain how after birth can be related, given it no longer is in or involving the body of the mother?

Or surrogacy. The law is the way that it is because the pregnant person must have the right to change her mind, and not be forced to give up her child -- exactly as with abortion (she must not be forced to keep it or abort). Say there was complete equality in that law: the intended parents were able to sue her if she changed her mind (either about going through with the pregnancy or -- if she decided to keep the baby -- to prevent her doing that). That would be robbing an individual of either her right to bodily autonomy or her right to a family life.

Actually this isn't strictly true. A lot of states use DNA to establish parentage, so a surrogate which is using donated eggs/sperm/embryo from the birthing couple has no rights to the ensuing child.

Some states are outliers and favor the surrogate parent.

[The Free Joy State]

We can push for equal rights in the law, and equal protections for pregnant people regardless of gender, but if we remove the protections for pregnant people for fear of being sexist, what would that say for abortion law -- which, incidentally, is the topic.

I don't see the link how we need to craft what happens after birth based on what happens before birth.

This thread is about abortion, Gallo.

Not child custody. Abortion. I was trying to get us somewhat back on-topic.

Abortion is acceptable because of bodily autonomy reasons, but once birth happens, those reasons are out the window. As you pointed out here:

Women have the first and final say in abortion because it is their body.

Can you explain how after birth can be related, given it no longer is in or involving the body of the mother?

I was explaining why complete legal equality does not work in practise.

While child custody isn't the topic here, I never said that the most appropriate parent should not seek and gain custody, merely that the person who gives birth should not be automatically denied custody without establishing all the facts. But I try and avoid veering too far off topic.

Or surrogacy. The law is the way that it is because the pregnant person must have the right to change her mind, and not be forced to give up her child -- exactly as with abortion (she must not be forced to keep it or abort). Say there was complete equality in that law: the intended parents were able to sue her if she changed her mind (either about going through with the pregnancy or -- if she decided to keep the baby -- to prevent her doing that). That would be robbing an individual of either her right to bodily autonomy or her right to a family life.

Actually this isn't strictly true. A lot of states use DNA to establish parentage, so a surrogate which is using donated eggs/sperm/embryo from the birthing couple has no rights to the ensuing child.

Some states are outliers and favor the surrogate parent.

In the UK, the birthmother has automatic rights until she negates them.

EDIT: But Godular has asked us to stop this, so maybe we should drift more back towards abortion.

[Galloism]

I don't see the link how we need to craft what happens after birth based on what happens before birth.

This thread is about abortion, Gallo.

Not child custody. Abortion. I was trying to get us somewhat back on-topic.

Abortion is acceptable because of bodily autonomy reasons, but once birth happens, those reasons are out the window. As you pointed out here:



Can you explain how after birth can be related, given it no longer is in or involving the body of the mother?

I was explaining why complete legal equality does not work in practise.

While child custody isn't the topic here, I never said that the most appropriate parent should not seek and gai custody. But I try and avoid veering too far off topic.

Complete legal equity should be the norm, and would work in practice. If you favor inequalities in law based on sexist notions regarding "complete legal equity does not work in practice", that's a sexist position - full stop.

Hell, we used to have legal inequity the other way - the father had default parentage and rights unless rebutted. This was also the truth in England - for centuries. This was also unjust.

We stopped that and started doing it the other way. So did you (in fact, you did it first). If it works one way, AND it works the complete opposite way, I don't see how working in a way in the middle that actually follows principles of legal equity would be in any way a problem.

Actually this isn't strictly true. A lot of states use DNA to establish parentage, so a surrogate which is using donated eggs/sperm/embryo from the birthing couple has no rights to the ensuing child.

Some states are outliers and favor the surrogate parent.

In the UK, the birthmother has automatic rights until she negates them.

Yes, the UK is a very sexist place. Hell, when it comes to rape of men, it's not even recognized as rape, so it's sort of a funny discussion to have when we started with abortion rights when it comes to rape victims.

But in regards to parental rights and such, the UK is a very sexist place. You should get to work on that.

[Cameroi]

if my mother had had an abortion, she would not have been my mother. i would think this kind of obvious.

and some other birth giving gender of a person on some world would have.

same me would have been born, somewhere else, to different parents, had a different childhood with them.

punishment for abortion is an absurdity we wouldn't even be discussing, if better methods of pregnancy prevention,
were provided free to all genders from adolescence on.

in a culture that did not hate logic, they would be.

(and this IS NOT some 'in character' pretend opinion. this is my real life personal belief and position. no ifs, ands, buts or maybees or any other kind of bull.)