nerdgirl

Disagree. If "equality" (parity) is the goal, giving a woman the ability to demand or prohibit a man from having a vasectomy (as one example) is the purely logical end w/r/t parity of eliminating a woman's choice to have an abortion or not. I wouldn't advocate for that either. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the additional analysis, comments, and history. One aspect that I've speculated on ... not to intellectually rigorous ends ... is how the experience of Tiananmen in 1989 impacted/is impacting the CCP strategy and tactics in Tibet and in Uighur areas? I've thought about looking at the three comparatively as domestic insurgencies ... maybe even throw in analysis of Mao's initial domestic insurgency as well. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Thanks for the reminder. It's a worth be reminded, imo. I do remember watching news reports as the events were happening. Unquestionably it impacted me. Some years later, I learned about the 8/8/88 student-led protests in Burma ... those aren't heard of as much because of much stricter control (than China) on media, and Burma is not China. Which also goes to a first-order explanation of why the US behaves the way it does toward China and the ruling state power. From a political realism perspective, a state deals with who's in power and pursues stability. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

But I'm talking about allowing the man to make a decision during the period of time that a woman can make a decision whether to have an abortion (which is before a child is born) ... Yes, I understand that. In an ideal world, the two are making decisions together. It's an artificial time frame tho', particularly if one wants to base the argument on a pursuit of parity of rights and autonomy w/r/t sex. During the time frame you're suggesting, that scenario could deny a woman autonomy over her body. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And what is the reasoning behind that legal ruling? It has nothing to do with the mother and it has nothing to do with the father. It's for the benefit of the child. On the flip-side, a father's rights to his children are protected even if the mother wants to abrogate those rights. A friend of mine is currently dealing with a related case of adoption law. The mother gave up custody. The child has been with the wanna-be adopted parents for over 6 months. According to the mother, the father didn't want the kid. He had no interaction during the early part of her preganancy and disappeared during the latter. The father was no where to be found initially. The lawyers, which my friend is one on the adoption team, were required to do due diligence and try to find the father. They did. He now wants custody. He's going to get the kid back (if he hasn't already). Part of the reason it took a while to find him was he was in jail, and perhaps understandly/perhaps not, he didn't tell anyone. It's his kid. The mother doesn't want the father to have the kid. That doesn't matter. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

We're back to the same place that this started. Men do have choices w/r/t having children. No one is arguing a woman should be able to force a man to have a vasectomy (i.e., deny his autonomy). Once there is a child born (not an egg, not 50 million of so sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) as a separate semi-autonomous being then the focus isn’t on her or him, it’s on the kid. That’s where one disaggregates the question of her autonomy w/r/t abortion, his w/r/t having a vasectomy or not, and resposibility for the third living, breathing, semi-autonomous being. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Actually I've acknowledged all of the components of your scenario. If you don't like the responses, there's little I can do about it. If you want to argue equity or parity (the latter is really the more correct term), in order for your hypothetical scenario of "if the woman has that right, so then should the man" ... than the notional woman should also has the right to deny a man's autonomy over his body. Do you want to allow someone else to demand or prohibit you (or any man) from having a vasectomy if he wants it? If you're going to give a man the ability to deny autonomy over a woman's own body, in order to achieve the "equality" that you keep noting, than his autonomy over his body must be subject to her desires and wants as well. That would be equality in *your* scenario. There's the sexism. Until you can argue for that, your scenario is the sexist one. I wouldn't argue for denying that autonomy to a man. Are you going to? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Not at all. I’ve just not denied a women’s autonomy over her body for 9 months. Do you honestly not understand how you are denying the man's autonomy? The woman has the choice on whether to have an abortion which determines whether the man has to pay child support. No, I’m not denying his autonomy. I’m not denying her autonomy either. The man has a choice to have a vasectomy (among many choices). Should a women being able to force a man to have one or not have one? (I would argue no, but that *is* a parity scenario to what [rehmwa] is suggesting.) … Seems like it might be a good poll, eh? The factor/piece/point screws up [rehwma]’s straw man. The man (& the woman) have choices. Afaik, no one is arguing that a woman should be able to demand a man have a vasectomy or not … because of her preferences. (although there are some nations that do forbid women from using contraception; most that do also forbid abortion.) He has choices if he doesn’t want to have a child and deal with the consequences. Once there is a child born (not an egg, not 50 million of so sperm, not an embryo, not a fetus) as a separate semi-autonomous being then the focus isn’t on her or him, it’s on the kid. That’s where one disaggregates the question of her autonomy w/r/t abortion, his w/r/t having a vasectomy or not, and a third living, breathing, semi-autonomous being. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

During the 1980s, did you consider the likelihood that Communists from South and Central America would invade the US to be a legitimate threat to US national security? I didn't and don't recall others thinking so. Albeit during a good part of the 1980s my primary interests were not foreign affairs or national security. It was an argument that I encountered earlier this evening. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Not at all. I’ve just not denied a women’s autonomy over her body for 9 months. Welcome to the pro-choice crowd.

I am honestly very sorry for your experience. In a perfect, idealistic world all children would be wanted, well-cared for, and loved. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yep, that’s what I’ve suggested. so, for the sake of equality, then you do agree the man should be able to 'opt' out of supporting a child that he disagrees with having? it's the only equivalent to the woman being the sole decider to abort or not No, it's not. You're still setting up two false choices. And you're still also aggregating the issues of a women's autonomy with responsibility for a child. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

What is a circular argument? Seriously I have no idea to what you are referring … your hypothetical scenario posits two options: effectively assume no autonomy for men or deny autonomy to women, Those are false options. Yep, that’s what I’ve suggested. If that’s what your want to argue for, that’s your argument. Not mine. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Uh, no ... men are autonomous. Women are too. So how do you "justly assign culpability" with out denying autonomy to a woman? Because your previous hypothesis was unjust -- either men have to be treated as non-autonomous or you deny women basic autonomy in your scenario. The notional argument you were making (to which I replied) effectively removes autonomy from the man. I really don't think your point is men should not be considered autonomous beings? I'm not sure how you got it, since I was arguing from Kant w/r/t land mine analogy, as something non-autonomous. As I explicitly stated *that's not case* for real-life men - you are autonomous (& that's a very good thing, imo.) Treating woman like non-autonomous beings is the underlying position of the Taliban and extreme versions of some other religious fundamentalisms. One of the problems with that argument is that it's not valid. You keep ignoring his choices. The man's position is not value zero. There is no "point" - it's rounded where it suits the argument. As an autonomous being each has choices, rights, and responsibilities. His choices, rights, and responsibilities do not obviate a woman's autonomy. Or as I more concisely wrote earlier: No, it [your notional argument] doesn't make sense. A man has choices to use contraception or not (temporary or permament). I look forward to you advocating as strongly for responsibility for those decisions. You've also aggregated what are "benefits" (altho' that's a poor word option, imo; it is the one that is commonly used) for a child with issues of autonomy of personhood for the woman. The first two in your list are the latter [Abort or not, Use contraception or not], and the bottom three are the former [Raise the child, Pay for college, Pay for the medical bills.] /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

It’s an interesting intellectual question that speaks more to technologically and the comparative difficulty of laws and ethics to keep up (how do you do ethics on something that doesn't exist?) than abortion per se, imo. A woman’s autonomy still takes precedence, imo. And because it is not the sole purpose. By comparison, guns can be used for criminal and non-criminal purposes, I don’t advocate restricting guns just because they can be used for criminal acts or other things that I may not like. It's also illegal in both China and India to select for gender (as well as in the US & most of the world, I suspect), so it’s already been legislated … clearly not completely effective legislation. Also further evidence that abortion is not the origin of the problem of high sex birth ratios. Making sex selective abortions illegal hasn’t worked very well in China because the cultural, economic, historical, and social issues underlying the factual preference are much more difficult to address. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

LOL! Thanks! /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sure let’s argue that. I think it’s more than Devil’s Advocate argument; it goes to fundamental concepts of autonomy, i.e., warning: philosophical arguments ahead. In such an argument as posed above one can think of men as land mines. (I _am_ going somewhere with this analogy.

I am responding to the bolded portion of your post. If you had not meant that as your central point, for people to respond to, then why did you bold it? For emphasis. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Whatever HGTV desires I may or may not have will be negated by the fact that I don't have cable. Maybe I can download the good ones ... any recommendations? /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Sex-ratios at birth are facts. The discussion, which you keep excising, was from abortion to eugenics to social problems arising sex-ratios in two nation states. The origin of that problem is the preference for baby boys over baby girls. There may be cultural reasons for that preference -- that's where your cultural argument becomes valid. That's not the discussion to which you replied, however. There may be culturally or socially biased-responses to the problem (ignoring it may be one example of such a response). That's not the discussion to which you replied, either. Perhaps, an illustrative comparison: Gun crimes. Guns (like abortion) are not the problem, (at least for those of us who oppose most restrictive gun control). The problem is criminal activity. Now one can find lots of social, cultural, and individual factors that impact criminal activity. Criminal activity is the problem there. Not guns. Like in this discussion, preference for boys over girls in the origin of the problem not abortion or sonograms. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That's fine. The reasons you gave for diagreeing were either tautological (in the Westphalian system states are parties to international treaties) or ones that have been shown to be not true, i.e., "state actors show competence in anything." There may be other reasons to object to the cited document (I dunno - international laws on children is not my area of expertise). /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

And the problem there is not abortion ... or sonograms, which are used to detect the sex of fetus. The problem is preference for baby boys over baby girls. In 2008, the sex imbalance (or sex ratio at birth [SRB]) in China ranged from 108:100 to 130:100 (the higher numbers in places like Guandong province, SW China). And the imbalance is increasing at a higher rate than expected; initial expectations were that the 120:100 (or 1.20 SRB) would not be reached until 2025. India has an SRB of 1.07. Average "natural" SRB values are typically 1.03-1.04. Your statement has a massive cultural bias. No, it’s a statement of fact. Particularly in the context of the conversation. If it was stated that the problem boys are better or girls are better because of [X], [Y], or [Z] religious, cultural, social, or other normative reasons (that were cited in the posts to which I replied/you excised) that would be cultural bias. The consequences of the cultural biases that led to the sex-to-birth ratio distribution are real. How they are address or if they are ignored is up to the people of those states. My telling them what to do would based up cultural assumptions (bias) would be something you might (*might) be able to build an argument against. But I’m not, so you’re argument is a straw man. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

That big ol' 30+ft white wall I'm not touching, except for a few touch up spots from when the stagers moved out their furniture. Yes, there are. Altho' my first plan in to hang Tibetan Buddhist prayer flags, altho' prolly not that many. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Yes. And lots of exposed beams and ducts. (It's a loft converted from an early 20thC factory.) /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying

Just one more "+" for rollers and brushes over sprayer.