The Abortion and Vaccination Thread

[El_Machinae]

And as always, physical burden becomes troublesome when we start considering if there is another physically viable life in play and we aren't in a dire enough situation to be able to cleave the issue down to one as simple as one death prevents two in the calculus of loss.

There are more than two parties, sure. Even then parsing the burden between the mother and the father still leaves the mother bearing more of that burden.

We apportion responsibility because we're trying to apportion burden. The burden is spread, regardless. But there's only so much (total) that can be borne. If one person wants to reduce their burden, others must increase theirs (or fail to do so).

You know that I believe that the moral importance of the fetus starts in the third trimester and rapidly escalates, and I differ from many pro-lifers on this front. But I don't know that it changes the calculation much. If one parent wants to deny responsibility, other entities bear more burden.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't see there being any plausible alternative.

 

[El_Machinae]

Me neither. So, the people looking for reasons why one party or another to be 'blameless' is looking to shunt the resulting burden elsewhere. But that doesn't matter with an abortion debate.

The parent or the offspring or the state gets the burden. People are talking as if one party being held blameless means that the cost disappears. It doesn't. It's carried elsewhere

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Pulling it off (pun intended) is hardly an impressive feat... I'm afraid you really haven't been giving this much thought.

Pulling it off stealthily without being noticed, particularly in the middle of "congress" as stated, is slightly more impressive though. I mean I'm sure it has happened, just as I'm equally sure it's not particularly common, but it still surely requires a particularly inattentive partner or some impressive sleight of hand skills. I can't imagine it not being noticed 99 times out of hundred, if for no other reason than the rubber band-style twanging sound that would inevitably result from what would necessarily be a rather rushed procedure.

And even ignoring all that, it's still an awful argument as to why 100% of unwanted pregnancies are because of men, just because sometimes men might do this. Kind of like saying 100% of car accidents are caused by alcohol, because people drive drunk sometimes.

 

[Lexicus]

but it still surely requires a particularly inattentive partner or some impressive sleight of hand skills. I can't imagine it not being noticed 99 times out of hundred, if for no other reason than the rubber band-style twanging sound that would inevitably result from what would necessarily be a rather rushed procedure.

Have you ever...used a condom?

 

[Broken_Erika]

Have you ever...used a condom?

Does making balloon animals count?

 

[metatron]

Dear @MaryKB ,

i may have failed to pick up the relevant comment on your part over the course of the thread, but how do you feal about the reverse scenario.
E.g. how did you answer this question in the Haidt personaly test we all toyed around with:

"Adam and Beth have been dating for three years. Adam is reluctant to have children, so Beth tells him that she's on the pill when she isn't."​

It's not phrased as a question. We had to rank things on a scale from "very ok" to "very not ok" or some such. You probably remember.

 

[MaryKB]

I feel you've sort of totally missed the point? It's unethical for him to be relying on her using birth control, since that brings risk to her (also it's more expensive and not easy for her to get) He needs to take responsibility for making sure he doesn't impregnate her.

Yes, she's wrong to lie and deceive him, but it's a totally different situation here because that's not an unplanned pregnancy. Beth isn't going to do that and then go get an abortion, is she?

And such a question even existing is just another example you can see of how pervasive sexism is in our culture. You're supposed to agree how a woman is a villain for doing something awful to a poor innocent man. She's violating social norms, she's supposed to just provide him with his pleasure and be obedient, risking her body taking hormonal birth control so he doesn't have to worry.

My whole point is he's supposed to take ownership for his seed and making sure he doesn't impregnate her. He has total control to make sure she doesn't get pregnant, but he'd rather live in a world where she carries all the risks, has to do all the work, suffers all the side effects and stress and humiliation, so he can just freely use her whenever he wants.

And she's the one being judged.

This is what sexism is.

 

[Lexicus]

but it's a totally different situation here because that's not an unplanned pregnancy.

Which is really all that needs to be said about the "women deceives man" scenario or vice-versa. In those cases it is not an unplanned pregnancy and that presents a whole different set of ethical problems.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

I feel you've sort of totally missed the point? It's unethical for him to be relying on her using birth control, since that brings risk to her (also it's more expensive and not easy for her to get) He needs to take responsibility for making sure he doesn't impregnate her.

Yes, she's wrong to lie and deceive him, but it's a totally different situation here because that's not an unplanned pregnancy. Beth isn't going to do that and then go get an abortion, is she?

And such a question even existing is just another example you can see of how pervasive sexism is in our culture. You're supposed to agree how a woman is a villain for doing something awful to a poor innocent man. She's violating social norms, she's supposed to just provide him with his pleasure and be obedient, risking her body taking hormonal birth control so he doesn't have to worry.

My whole point is he's supposed to take ownership for his seed and making sure he doesn't impregnate her. He has total control to make sure she doesn't get pregnant, but he'd rather live in a world where she carries all the risks, has to do all the work, suffers all the side effects and stress and humiliation, so he can just freely use her whenever he wants.

And she's the one being judged.

This is what sexism is.

None of that is specified or even hinted at in the statement as written. This is all baggage you're bringing to the table yourself.

Have you ever...used a condom?

Obviously the B-2 Stealth Condoms haven't made it over here yet.

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't let anyone shame you for your naivete, it speaks well of you. However, it's possible to take it off. If you roll it from the base, where it already has the balloon like rim, it comes off quick, silent, and possibly messy. Depending on sight lines provided by said activity(wildly variable), music, intensity level, intoxication level, it's super possible. I believe the slang for it is "stealthing" ironically. It's also a sexual/assualt rape. Where it isn't yet, so will it be, and that is good. Lying about birth control/STD protection is an abhorrent act.

 

[Lexicus]

Don't let anyone shame you for your naivete, it speaks well of you.

There's no shame in never having used a condom. There is shame in speaking authoritatively on something you know nothing about, in order to make a dumb political point.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Like I said I'm sure it's possible and has happened. Music and intoxication level would relate to what I said about attentiveness I suppose. But then if there's any intoxication level it's rape anyway.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

There's no shame in never having used a condom. There is shame in speaking authoritatively on something you know nothing about, in order to make a dumb political point.

I have used them. Balloon animals are fun.

 

[Farm Boy]

Like I said I'm sure it's possible and has happened. Music and intoxication level would relate to what I said about attentiveness I suppose. But then if there's any intoxication level it's rape anyway.

Some intoxication probably passes muster. We tried the abolition thing, people didn't like it. It's the theft of will and the presence of repercussion that amplify the issue. General rule, anyone seeking to reduce the agency of another either through drugs, subterfuge, or lies is doing something skeezy. If there are significant repercussions, pursued unwilled, they're being evil. But trying to weigh it out in general is a fools errand. That's a case by case sort of thing for a court to mete out punishment, probably.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When I realized that most women walk around having to think about the possibility a man is going to assault them most of the time, and take active measures to lessen the risk and/or protect themselves in case it happens

Logic of quoted doesn't hold. Men are more likely to be assaulted at random than women. Women don't have to walk around thinking about much that you don't in terms of random assault/preventative measures.

We're all responsible for this world

That's a self-defeating argument, considering the rationale that uninvolved people should be taking responsibility while simultaneously asserting involved people don't have it/should have less.

Every man says "not all men", and every man thinks others are the problem and not him, and that's why things are still so bad.

Open + dismissive misandry doesn't seem to help whatever it is quoted is trying to complain about. Still brushing past that offer to argue in factual reality?

Yes, she's wrong to lie and deceive him, but it's a totally different situation here because that's not an unplanned pregnancy.

Quoted has zero credibility. Obviously, at least one person didn't plan it. In fact, the situation involved active deceit and creates a situation with no good recourse if her partner wishes to leave over the deceit.

If she felt it was unethical, she could have been honest about that and never taken the pill. The position you're stating is both unethical and dangerous.

This is what sexism is.

Quoted post is demonstrating overt sexism. Women can control their eggs every bit as well as men can "control their seed". But there was only one person lying in that hypothetical scenario, and to a close partner about something very important. Not only would I not date a woman who's done something like that, I hold men and women who pull that stunt in disdain/actively disrespect them. Poor judgment *and* dishonesty is not a good combination.

But then if there's any intoxication level it's rape anyway.

By what logic? Are we really going back to simultaneous/double-rape again? I'd imagine intoxication would increase the chances of not noticing, same with someone poking holes in it. I don't know, maybe with practice it's easier to sneak this stuff but it's not exactly a wholesome skill to develop.

That's a case by case sort of thing for a court to mete out punishment, probably.

Opens up way too much potential for uneven enforcements. Best is to hold people accountable for their actions regardless of substances unless someone else put the substances there (then you hold the other person accountable, likely as criminals). This also assumes that actions were possible (aka person not passed out).

 

[Farm Boy]

Lying and taking off a condom is a sexual assault. We punish sexual assaults with the power of the state. That sort of gravity requires a courtroom of the state.

If we accept that people can be participatory and too intoxicated to consent, the situation where two people are in that state of mind is inevitable. I don't think lack of ability to consent mixed with lack of ability to consent somehow creates ability to consent, so we have to come up with some other way to address the situation. Consent, if present, cannot be assumed to continue once the ability to provide it has passed, a principle of active consent, so yeah - we're in double rape territory unless we fashion different baselines for consent depending on sexual activity/role, which particularly adventuresome and probably nonhetero noncisgendered people are going to cast appropriately, and hopefully gleefully, aside anyhow.

 

[El_Machinae]

It requires a complainant. If both parties are drunk, and one says it was sexual assault, then a drunk person committed sexual assault.

If both parties are fine with it, then it's fine.

It's a weird breakdown when both parties feel assaulted afterwards.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Lying and taking off a condom is a sexual assault. We punish sexual assaults with the power of the state. That sort of gravity requires a courtroom of the state.

Is lying about being on the pill sexual assault, however? I've never heard of such a case being successfully prosecuted. Even taking condoms off probably doesn't see a lot of court time (I'd estimate significantly less than it occurs, but that's a largely ignorant estimate).

we're in double rape territory unless we fashion different baselines for consent

Physically acting the part has to count for something, as does one person's inability to do so if the intoxication levels aren't relatively similar.

I actually know an anecdotal story where two people got extemely drunk and woke up next to each other in bed the next day, from when I was in college. The girl in this case was a little freaked out. A fun question on this forum is "which, if any, of them did something wrong"?

It requires a complainant. If both parties are drunk, and one says it was sexual assault, then a drunk person committed sexual assault.

If one says it was sexual assault in the moment, yes.

If on decides it was sexual assault the next day in spite of actively committing to the act the previous day, no.

What do you do if both people claim sexual assault by the way? If they were both drunk, this should be valid.

 

[Farm Boy]

Ah, I think you're just putting the line for being too messed up to consent farther into messed up/can't act than I am. I think people who are blacked out probably can't consent. And I am fully aware of being on my feet and active for a while blacked out. I'm guessing other people can be too. Haven't done that in a long time, it's not particularly good for you. But people still do, I think.

Is lying about being on the pill sexual assault, however?

I think you have to say that it isn't. A sexual assault is a physical act of evil. An aggravated and specific type of battery if you trace back through common law(if you want to), I think. Lying about being on the pill does not change the physical act consented to, nor does it impose a physical pregnancy on the deceived. It doesn't fit the bill. Now that said, it can wrongfully(the deception specifically) obligate somebody for a lifetime - true. It's an evil thing to do, true. At most, it'd be a serious form of tort, and it probably doesn't meet those definitions. Recklessness causes shared responsibility*. If somebody does not want children, they have tools available to themselves personally and are under no obligation to engage in pregnancy causing activities. Those would be the courses of action to pursue.

*Even sitting stopped, appropriately at a stop light and getting crashed into on the road can create some degree of shared financial/civil responsibility for having been on the road.