[belorn]

Instead of name calling, lets try to create a productive discussion and define some general goals on what reproductive rights should be as human rights, rather than women rights or men rights.

1# No person should be handed responsibility to create or support a offspring without their consent.

2# No child should be without enough financial support to live and grown into an adult.

Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world. In every case there isn't, that is a problem we as a society should try to fix as best we can without causing too much harm to either the unwilling parent or child.

[1457389]

Markov chains are bad at understanding context, and so is the GP. This post is about village women's rights in India, how did we get a thread several comments deep about the rights of wealthy white men? Oh right, we are on HN I forgot...

[hackuser]

> Reproduction should only be legal when there is two consenting adults that want to bring a child to the world

Do you mean, only when a child has two parents, or only when sex is with consent?

[belorn]

Sex is precursor for reproduction, but since recreational sex is not only common but (in my view) the majority, I don't find it a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction. Just because a woman got a unwanted pregnancy through consenting sex doen't mean she should be forbidden to take an abortion. Both women and men can and do have consenting sex without consenting to be a parent.

The issue is how to deal with those cases, and make sure that everyone is treated in a fair way. Society should make rules that reflect a balance that respect people as much as it possible while doing as little harm as possible. I could suggest solutions here (like say, the government stepping in when there is only one consenting parent involved), but I don't claim to know what the perfect solution is. My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction. We need to start by defining common grounds and then ask how we can best reach those.

[hackuser]

> I don't find it [sex] a reasonable claim that it proves consent to reproduction

Excellent point; thanks for the insight.

> My point is simply that we don't have a human right of reproduction.

While society does have interests in many aspects of reproduction, I think those are greatly outweighed by fundamental liberty and the sanctity of your own person. As an important principle (not an absolutist rule, of course), we shouldn't tell people, including women, what they can and cannot do with their own bodies.

Also, governments have a dangerous track record with such policies. They've resulted in forced sterilizations and abortions, for example, and ethnic and religious discrimination.

[M_Grey]

There is unlikely to be anything like a perfect solution, and placing the burden on the taxpayer anytime a parent decides to brush the kid off seems unfair as well. A good guideline though, is that you can't force people into medical procedures, or force them not to get one they want/need. Given that life is unfair in that way, or at least not equal, the law is going to reflect that inequality to some extent.

[mc32]

In general I'd agree with you, but there are adults who really could benefit from medication but refuse to take it to their detriment and to the detriment to others in society. So I think, while I agree to a great extend with your above opinion, I think there are cases where professionals should be able to coerce people to take their meds.

Yes, I know abuse is possible, but given the alternative, I'm willing to take that risk, unless this kind of person has someone else who will be responsible and can be responsible for this person.

[M_Grey]

I have to be honest, the history of making people take medication has been an ugly one; I'm not sure if we've really moved past it either. If we had perfect medications without grievous long term adverse effects, I'd agree with you in any case though.

[belorn]

Do we then say that men should not have the right to decline parenthood because its too expensive for society, while at same time say that women should have the right because its a fundamental liberty?

We could, but it is not a good sound bite when calling for gender equality and reproductive rights. It also sound as there is more, maybe smaller steps that we could do to minimize the difference in rights and responsibility when it comes to reproductive rights.

[hackuser]

> men should not have the right to decline parenthood because its too expensive for society, while at same time say that women should have the right because its a fundamental liberty?

Yes. It's an interesting philosophical point, but there are real differences between men and women and this one is pretty straightforward.

[jimmywanger]

> but there are real differences between men and women

Thank you.

So you're saying that men should shoulder more responsibility for breeding for the greater good?

[M_Grey]

I appreciate you taking the time to find something worth responding to in the mess I seemed to have touched off. I agree with all of your points, but I'm also careful to suggest that if raising a child is something you're unwilling to do, you need to restrict your sexual activity accordingly. That can just mean protected sex with someone you trust, and know would be willing to terminate an unexpected and accidental pregnancy.

[celticninja]

What happens when the condom splits and someone changes their mind on termination when the rubber meets the road? Who gets the final say? I do not expect you to have the answer, just that regardless of every precaution taken, shit can get complicated once their is a fetus in play.

[M_Grey]

The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say, and both parties going in knew that was a possibility. You can't honestly be shocked that sex can have consequences, including some you might not foresee. If you can't afford, under any circumstances including the very unlikely, to have a kid? Don't. Screw.

[celticninja]

I agree in the final say being with the woman carrying the child however the father should be able to renounce all rights and responsibilities pre-birth if they do not want the child. Sex can lead to pregnancy and pregnancy leads to kids, both parties know the potential outcome so blaming it on one party seems a bit silly.

[M_Grey]

It's not blaming anything on one party, two people made a baby, two people have to pay. Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"? Again, pregnancy is a known potential complication of sex, and both parties knew that going in.

[jimmywanger]

> Why should either party get to just say, "No thanks"?

So now I'm confused. Do you support abortion or not?

I completely agree. If abortion is illegal, yeah, the man should have no say just like the woman has no say in giving birth and raising a baby.

If abortion is legal, it's the logical equivalent of a woman saying "no thanks" to the baby unilaterally. "My body, my choice" and all that.

I am not trying to be difficult, I just want to know where you're coming from.

[jimmywanger]

> The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.

> Don't. Screw.

Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.

[M_Grey]

>>The person who has to carry the child to term gets the final say

>You're talking out of both sides of your mouth. You don't have to carry the child to term, at least in the states or most western countries. You choose to carry the child to term.

Either you misunderstood what I said, or you think that there is something to be gained from harping on semantics. Either way... no thanks.

>>Don't. Screw.

>Have you spoken to teenagers or remember what that was like? They're still not fully formed human beings, under the influence of raging hormones. Don't expect old heads on young shoulders.

Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences, like having a child, or having to provide for a child. I have to say though, that in general this conversation does not seem to center around the impulsive choices of children, for the obvious reasons you've outlined. The usual way I see this issue framed is:

Condom broke. -or- "Conniving" woman poked a hole in the condom.

Neither implies reckless teenage abandon.

[jimmywanger]

> The usual way I see this issue framed is: Condom broke. -or- "Conniving" woman poked a hole in the condom. Neither implies reckless teenage abandon.

Nowhere in this thread was that brought up, and what is the relevance here? Don't put words in our mouths.

> Life isn't fair, and sometimes what you do as a teenager has long-term consequences,

Yes, like college loans. But people still ask for loan forgiveness. (See what I did there?)