h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Trying to avoid getting enmeshed in the above arguments, there is one point that did strike me.

Abortion laws do generally seem to have a 'risk to potential mother's mental and physical wellbeing' clause as a catch-all, covering cases from those where there is undeniable (maybe even imminent) serious medical risk through to more vague cases where a woman wouldn't want to carry a child and then give it up for adoption, but also feels unable or unwilling to care for a child at that point in her life.
In the latter cases, it would appear that even if there are no unusual medical problems expected with the pregnancy, the potential impact of the child *post birth* on the mother's mental state could be enough to justify an abortion.
It may be that the laws are interpreted such that the *normal* medical risks associated with pregnancy are considered sufficient to justify abortion on demand, in which case it might be better if the legislation was more up-front, but if post-birth possibilities are taken into account, it is clear that some poeple can see an asymmetry in that no account whatsoever is taken of the potential mental impacts on the father.

However, on the other hand, there is an unignorable biological asymmetry involved in mammalian reproduction. Abortion is still a procedure whichg takes place on a woman's body, and unless one is to force women to undergo abortions against their will, it is not possible to allow a fathers's desire for an abortion to override a mother's wish not to have one.
Equally, the way legislation works currently, if a woman can put up a good enough argument that her wellbeing will be sufficiently affected by the continuation of a pregnancy, then she may have an abortion whatever the father's wishes are. Given the time factor, it is not feasible to have long legal arguments about a particular pregnancy since much of a delay would make a court's decision irrelevant.

I'm not sure what can be done about this particular asymmetry except to recognise it as essentially unavoidable if abortion is to be allowed. In this case, women do have more power than men, but as a simple consequence of biology rather than politics or feminism.

Adele,
I do think the frozen embryo case covers several issues.

At the moment in the UK, the genetic father of any child is potentially liable for the costs of bringing up that child, whether he wanted the child or not. In fact, if a woman got herself pregnant from a discarded tissue in a bloke's bedroom wastebasket, I think the way things stand he could still end up financially liable.

Also, there's the issue of what the potential child gets told about their father when they grow up - I guess it's pretty bad to find out your father was a random bloke your mother met one night who may not even know or care you exist. I imagine it could be even worse to be absolutely sure that before you were even implanted in your mother's body, your father had made it clear he didn't want you to be gestated or born.

It seems pretty clear to me that since (unlike in abortion) the destruction of the embryo doesn't require any medical procedure to be undertaken on the woman, the rights of the father and mother should be equal in a frozen embryo case. Either they each have a veto, or neither does. They are not *her* babies, they are the couple's embryos.

What would happen if a couple going for IVF generated half a dozen embryos, had one implanted that was successful, and then the woman decided that she wanted to have another 5 children. Should the father have no say in the matter?

IVF does seperate out the two issues of genetic parentage and pregnancy. In the same way that a father can be dismissed after making his genetic contribution, so can a mother after producing an egg. Should a woman be allowed a veto on embryos being implanted in another woman if she doesn't want them herself. Does it make any *moral* difference if the 'other woman' is the her-partner's new partner, or half of an unrelated couple desperate for a child.

I don't think any of the parties involved in this case have covered themselves in glory. The women came across as whiny haridanss who were stamping their feet that an agreement they signed suddenly is binding and can't be done away with just by batting their eyelids and crying for the cameras.

The blokes looked shifty and monosyllabic.

What they didn't look like though was 'selfish pr*cks'. They looked like people who KNOW that as the law stands, the womesn's assurance that they didn't want any financial support stands for exactly nothing.

It is not discretionary to approach the CSA, as my flatmate can attest. If you don't tell them who the father is, they will stop your benefits until you do. Regardless of whatever private agreement has been made between the parties.

I think Hoo has a point (that twice this year, Blue Boy - don't let it go to your head. )

hi Potholer,

<>

That's an interesting point. I wonder if public reaction would have been different if it had been a man trying to 'bend the law' in order to use the embryos with another woman.

How do the women out there feel about that? Say your partner dumped you for someone else and the 'other woman' could not get pregnant naturally. Say it had been a rather nasty break up. Would you let them use *your* embryos?

Aside from the laws holding a man liable for the costs up bringing up the child (which could be refused by the woman, right?) I really don't see any reason other than spite that either a man or woman would not allow their ex-partners to use the embryos if wanted or needed.

<>

I'm not sure about this. At any rate, it wouldn't be much different than in the cases of adopted children or children raised by single parents.

az

hi Blues,

Really? A woman doesn't have the right to refuse financial help from the father?

az

Thats right. You 'have' to give details to the c.s.a or they will have any benefits you recieve stopped. Unfortunately them having the details doesn't necessarily mean they bother to do anything with them

So this only applies if the woman is on some sort of benefit then.

az

Yes..if you're not its optional.

Yes indeed, but without wanting to make this sound like a slur in ANY way, how many single women having a child aren't on, and don't need, benefits of some kind or other?

I also think ,in fairness, that there is a terrible mis-judgement of these man's characters going on here. It may be, and at least one of them has issued the a 'statement through his lawyer' to say this is the case, that they feel if these embryos were used that it would be their child, for which they would have emotional ties and moral responsibility for a child which, is at the end of the day, theirs.

The majority of lone parents (like myself) are on benefits beause it's so difficult not to be! I'd love to go back to work but simply couldn't afford to at the moment.

Exactly my point. The State has, in this case, found a more or less caste iron way to make sure the system works, providing they are prepared to enforce it.

Were the women in this case asking for support and would they have ended up on benefit? I mean, do they have good jobs or new partners or some other way to support both themselves and a child?

The emotional issue is the difficult one. Perhaps people need to think more about the possible outcome when they decide to do something like have embryos frozen.

I agree with Potholer that men and women should have completely equal rights in this matter.

az

Adele you have really been through some hard times with men, but does it makeit fair on the men in the case of the frozen embryos and their new partners (if indeeed they have any) for you to go slgginind them off and using negative language about them. Is it really good for you to hold such a negative perception of men in your head. I do not wish to belittle your hardships at the hands of men. I know that 50% of all murdered women are killed by their husbands, boyfriends or ex's, and that there is a lot of violence towards women from men, but that is not how all mean behave. If you go around with the idea that all mean are mean spirited you are doing us AND YOURSELF no favours at all.

Hoo I hope your case of paranoia clears up soon. It is very easy to see how many ways that women have got things better than men, but if you grow up in the woods sometimes its hard to see the trees. Men have many social, medical and legal advantages over women we just dont notice them because thats the way the world has been set up since people got together and started setting things up. Please dont be one of those whinny men who go one about minor errosions of our vast advantages. The worlds oldest profession was not set up to favour women it is merely a case of supply and demand. Maybe if guys didnt spend all their free cash on home cinema they might get a few more offers. I happen to have more than six pairs of shoes and more fancy clothes than my girlfriend who earns more than me AND has never once charged me for anything. Although I have been paid by women to take my clothes off.

Spending, hmm who buys more cars men or women? How many women have signed up to buy reallly expensive things like Nuclear subs or jet fighters?

Medical, when you go to the Doctor are you more likely to be diagnosed by a man or a woman. The fact that women have to reveal themselves emotionally and physically to men is off putting, but they are still more likely to ask for help. If men dont ask for help is it really fair to moan when we dont get it?

The one area that I agree with you on is custody of children after seperation. The body that deals with this is openly maternally biased and in my experience of dealing with children with bloody good cause too. Unfortunately this bias does lead to some men being unfairly treated. In individual cases where the wrong decision is made Im sure it is of no comfort that in the vast majority of cases it IS right to favour the mother.

az

"it is probably quite rare that a woman ever decides to 'abort a baby' that 'the father is desperate to have'"

Rarity or otherwise is irrelevant. The woman has rights, the man, none. If it happens once, that's still wrong. If it doesn't happen at all, the principle is still unjust.

"If you think that there is no personal responsibility involved when trying to decide whether to have an abortion or not, then think again, with a bit more compassion."

That's not what I said and I'd hope you knew that.

"I also think your use of the words 'mother' and 'father' are a bit out of line when talking about people who have so far only produced a potential human."

That's why I put "child" in quotes. But fair point - I was merely using them as shorthand, but I accept that they're not strictly accurate.

"Who was talking about taking the law in the opposite direction?"

Me. The law once favoured men. It was changed. But it was NOT changed to make things equal - it was changed to massively favour women. Like I say - you want equality? Let's have it. I'm game.

"<>
ah, not the last time I looked . . ."

Then look again - objectively.

"Oh dear, I'm sorry but I really can't take the last bit of your posting seriously. I do hope you were being facetious, as you said."

Like I said - only slightly. The law favours women in many, many ways, and men in hardly any. Can you name even a single law in which men have advantage over women? I can't think of any right away.

Whereas:

Any woman I impregnate can choose to abort the fetus without consulting me.

Any woman who chooses to can accuse me of rape, safe in the knowledge that when she is discovered to be a malicious liar guilty of wasting police time, her anonymity will be protected and I shall have no recourse against her for the ruin of my reputation.

Any woman who leaves her partner is practically guaranteed custody of the children, unless she's practically a drug-dealing prostitute.

Finally - not sure if this is still the case, someone correct me if I'm wrong. The poll tax laws of 1990 were the very first time ever in English law that a wife could be pursued for a debt owed by her husband - and it applied solely to poll tax debt. In every other case before and since, a MAN is legally responsible, not only for his own debts, but those of his wife, also. The wife, is, however, NOT commensurately liable for the debts of her husband.

And you think this world is run by men???

"I don't even know what it is you are so angry about."

One sided laws. Discrimination against a minority (yes, men are the minority). Why is it tolerated?

"As for the oppression we have all so recently escaped from . . . I think this depends on where one lives."

I think the majority of users here could be said to be in countries which discriminate against men, as I've detailed.

"Two women tried to have their frozen embryos given into their custody. So? Bending the law? They were only trying to get something they really wanted."

Yes - bending the law. They signed a binding agreement, on the understanding that the embryos would only be used with the consent of both parents. They've gone to court to try to bend the law to allow them to escape that agreement.

I agree they were only trying to get what they really wanted, but then again that's all Mike Tyson was doing when he raped that girl in that hotel, wasn't it?



adele, my sweet...

"if that's the story about the two women whose ex-husbands barred them from using frozen embryos, it made me seethe!"

Now, why does that not surprise me?

It didn't make you think, didn't make you consider the issues. Heaven forbid, woman, no! You have knees, and by golly they jerked, didn't they!

"Selfish p*llocks is the very least thing I would say about these men. Spite."

Speculation, based on a distorted worldview. Does that sentence sound like the thoughtless rant of an instinctive man-hater to anyone else?

""I have run off and have a new bit of crumpet, so I'll rub the salt in, for the old one, and end her last chance of ever having children.""

There was no mention at any stage of either of the men having new partners. One of the women ALREADY HAS CHILDREN, she just wanted more.

"Why? What harm does it do them, and their new fancy pieces?"

It commits them to a lifetime of deductions from their earnings, to support a child they do not want borne by a woman they are not in a relationship with. If these women had succeeded it would have been the equivalent of legally sanctioned and technologically facilitated rape of those men.

But of course we're only meant to have sympathy for rape victims if they're women, aren't we?

(I love that phrase "fancy pieces", by the way. The stereotypical acid drip of the woman scorned falls from your every word, Adele, and it seems you can't even see it yourself...)

"It's related to the urge to get custody of children that many men feel"

Actually, it's not. In fact, it's quite the opposite. Women like you, Adele, amuse me in that you seem to believe your gender has the monopoly on parental compassion. You're wrong, obviously, but you're too stupid to realise it, so you continue braying your nonsense to whomever will listen. It's the urge NOT to be a father to an unwanted child. That's completely opposed to the urge to get custody of one's children so that one can guide their upbringing properly, see them educated well, and prevent them from growing up like a woman you no longer trust.

" and the phenomenon, that has happened many times in Oz and NZ of disgruntled non-custodial fathers who have *killed* the children (and often themselves) on access visits, on a kind of "if I can't have them, I'll see that she doesn't, the ******" kind of thinking, (if it can be called thought!)"

The typical mindless feminist propaganda of generalising the actions of a few people who are demonstrably mentally ill across the whole male gender. Bravo.

"The ex-husbands of these poor women should not have been so shamelessly pandered to!

You are SO right! How DARE these feckless men have expected to have the law upheld! How appalling that the judge actually expected these women to abide by legally binding agreements they knowingly entered into! How awful that these women were not allowed to simply change their minds and ignore the law and any concept of taking personal responsibility for their actions! Good heavens, what do we think these women are - adults? For shame! Women are irresponsible children without the ability to think for themselves, and the law damn well ought to recognise and reward that inadequacy! Go girl!

"I've had a couple of bad break ups, (as Hoo chose to get quite vicious about)"

I wasn't vicious. I merely suggested "fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me", and suggested some introspection might be in order. How awful and insensitive of me to suggest you engage your brain.



Potholer

"no account whatsoever is taken of the potential mental impacts on the father."

How true.

"I'm not sure what can be done about this particular asymmetry except to recognise it as essentially unavoidable if abortion is to be allowed. In this case, women do have more power than men, but as a simple consequence of biology rather than politics or feminism."

There's an obvious way of addressing the asymmetry - since the women have all the RIGHTS, give them all the RESPONSIBILITY. Simple. If they don't WANT all the responsibility, fine - they can sign a piece of paper waiving some of their rights, too - e.g. giving the father the power to demand an abortion. But unless they sign that, they're on their own - no state benefits, no legally enforceable requirement on the father to pay maintenance. Let the responsibilities on both sides match the rights on both sides - why not?

------------------
Blues:

"The women came across as whiny haridanss who were stamping their feet that an agreement they signed suddenly is binding and can't be done away with just by batting their eyelids and crying for the cameras."

Kinda reminds me of someone posting in this thread...

"The blokes looked shifty and monosyllabic."

Wouldn't YOU be shifty and monosyllabic if you were standing in front of a TV camera asking, perfectly reasonably, that your legal rights be respected, knowing full well that a horde of brainless harpies were seething at their televisions calling you a selfish p*llock for daring want the law observed?

"I think Hoo has a point"



---------------------
blicky

"Hoo I hope your case of paranoia clears up soon."

Don't hold your breath. Beside, just because I'm paranoid, doesn't mean I'm not right. Give me an example of a law of the US, Australia, New Zealand, or the UK, which FAVOURS men. I've listed loads that favour women - give me one, just one, law on the statutes of ANY civilised country, or the USA, in which women are explicitly discriminated against in the way men are in, say, cases of alleged rape, retirement age, custody disputes, or any of the others...

H.

Sorry folks, I'm unsubscribing. I just can't keep up with this thread. I intend to find out about the example of the baby (yes, i used the B-word again) with the expanded head and possibly bring this up again sometime in the future when I have the kind of time it takes to read huge backlogs and take on a hundred left-wingers at once all by myself.

One thing I'll say is IF that is a valid example that can really happen and there's no other way to fix the problem, which I intend to find out, THEN the life of the mother clause *is* after all nessicary in a parital birth abortion ban, though it must be phrased carefully to prevent abuse of the law.

Nerd42

Hoo, I think you would have to admit that while the law may favour women, society as a wghole still favours stupid white men. To the point where what the law says is virtually irrelevant anyway.

Hoo,
I did start off trying to concentrate purely on abortion, looking at the inequality that results from biology. In that narrow issue, it's hard to see how men and women can have equal rigts, at least until some artificial womb is developed that allows a fetus to be safely removed gestated in the case where a moter wants abortion and a father does not.

The responsibility/cost issue is a rather more complicated one, with unpleasant possibilities however the law is drawn up. (I'm not saying the current situation is the best one, being seemingly driven at least as much by a desire to save government money as to cater to child welfare, but I'd be wary of an 'anything is better than this' approach to changing things.)

(One thing I do find very disturbing about UK law is that (as far as I am aware) once a man's name is on a birth certificate, even if he later finds out a child is not his, he is expected to pay for it.)

Hi again Hoo,


<<"it is probably quite rare that a woman ever decides to 'abort a baby' that 'the father is desperate to have'" (me)
Rarity or otherwise is irrelevant. The woman has rights, the man, none. If it happens once, that's still wrong. If it doesn't happen at all, the principle is still unjust.>> (Hoo)


This is not irrelevant at all. It is the woman who will have to go through nine months of carrying a child. Things being as they are, the woman must have more rights than the man, who only planted his seed. He will not have to go through the physical stress of pregnancy himself. And so the woman must have the right to decide what happens to her own body.



<<"If you think that there is no personal responsibility involved when trying to decide whether to have an abortion or not, then think again, with a bit more compassion." >> (me)

<>. (Hoo)



Thank you.



<<"Who was talking about taking the law in the opposite direction?">> (me)

>>Me. The law once favoured men. It was changed. But it was NOT changed to make things equal - it was changed to massively favour women. Like I say - you want equality? Let's have it. I'm game.
<>
ah, not the last time I looked . . ."

<> (Hoo)

I do look very objectively at how laws are humane. I do not usually catorogize them between male and female. Laws *should* exist within our society for the benefit of all.


<> (Hoo)

As Blicky previously pointed out, the laws have mostly been on the side of men for centuries, it is only recently that women have been able to retain legal rights for themselves.


>>Any woman I impregnate can choose to abort the fetus without consulting me.>> (Hoo)

And why not? It is her body, not yours.

<> (Hoo)


That is total nonsense. How many women do you truly believe would ever charge a man with rape if this had not been the case? Perhaps a few lost souls who, yes, perhaps are malicious liars etc. But this is hardly the norm. And you know it!


<>

My mother was not allowed custody of her four children because my father took her to court and 'proved' her to be 'incompetent'. She was not even remotely a drug-dealing prostitute, just a very sad alcoholic. My father was also a very sad alcoholic, but somehow managed to hold down a job most of the time. Hence he got custody of us. Truthfully, neither of them should have had custody of us.




<<"I don't even know what it is you are so angry about.">> (me)
<> (Hoo)


Oh come off it. Men are the minority? Don't make me laugh. Try saying something a bit more intelligent, I know you can.


>>Yes - bending the law. They signed a binding agreement, on the understanding that the embryos would only be used with the consent of both parents. They've gone to court to try to bend the law to allow them to escape that agreement. >> (Hoo)

I have already said that because the women had signed a binding agreement then the hearing against them was probably just and fair. All things and all people considered. (me)


>>I agree they were only trying to get what they really wanted, but then again that's all Mike Tyson was doing when he raped that girl in that hotel, wasn't it?>> (Hoo)

That is possibly the most ignorant and stupid thing I have ever heard you say. I sincerely hope you didn't mean it.

az

The only example of men having a better deal than women is that we do not have to pay VAT on ravors while women do pay VAT on sanitary products.

Yes its small and pales in insignificance compared to the weight that the law gives to womens rights, but those inequalities are just a sop to women to make things a little fairer in a society that still operates as male closed shop whenever men and women who are not commited to fairness dont keep that pressure on.

Mne have ruled the roost for so long that we dont even realise how patriachal we have made society.

As for your reference to the UK, US, Australia etc... being civilised theres a little quote attributed to Ghandi

What do you think of Western Civllisation?

"I think it would be a good idea."

Blues:

"society as a whole still favours stupid white men. To the point where what the law says is virtually irrelevant anyway."

Yeah, I've read that book too. But I've got news for you - those are OTHER men. They're not you, or me, or anyone we know. They're RICH folks. And they might as well be a different species, as we all know. The LAW, as it is rigorously and ruthlessly applied to men like you and me, favours women at every turn, explicitly in written statute and implicitly in the grotesque biases of the courts in favour of women in almost every situation.

Potholer:
"(One thing I do find very disturbing about UK law is that (as far as I am aware) once a man's name is on a birth certificate, even if he later finds out a child is not his, he is expected to pay for it.)"

Exactly my point. That is nothing at all to do with responsibility, or justice. It pretends to be to do with "what's best for the child" - because a willing and paying cuckolded dupe in the hand is worth two absent and possibly untraceable or even unknown fathers in the bush, and nary any QUESTION of placing any financial responsibility on the by-definition duplicitous dishonest bitch who bore the whelp in the first place - which is spurious crap. What it really is to do with is "what's best for the taxpayer". Which is ironic, given that the majority of *them* are men...

H.