Comment by arrrg | Hacker News Reader

Comment by arrrg | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

A biological difference leads to different options for different genders. (The delineation isn’t even strictly along gender lines, though, since this only applies to people who can become pregnant. Most of those are women, sure, but many women cannot become pregnant, for example.)

If you value bodily autonomy (which I really hope you do – otherwise this discussion is kind of pointless) the only person who can decide what happens with their own body is the actual pregnant person – and no one else. This consequently means that we can only put this decision into their hands. It’s a function of the biological difference.

I mean, misogynist assholes like to bang on and on and on about biological differences (most often referring to things we don’t even really know are biological differences) and how those make it imperative to treat genders differently – but here we have a crystal clear example of a biological difference leading to different options for different people – and suddenly that’s no ok?

You are not addressing the issue.

We are discussing whether men or women have more rights. The ability that women have to force men into parenthood is a clearcut example of women having more rights than men, regardless of whether one agrees with the the existence of this right or not. Moreover, the critical cases here have nothing to do with "bodily autonomy", that's a smoke screen. They have to do with alimony. A woman can rape a man, get pregnant that way and the biological father has to pay alimony [1]. A woman can steal a man's sperm, get pregnant and the biological father has to pay alimony [2]. That's outrageous! What are you doing to redress this injustice?

As an aside, referring to "misogynist assholes" is rarely helpful.

[1] http://law.justia.com/cases/california/court-of-appeal/4th/5...

[2] http://www.nbcnews.com/id/7024930/ns/health-sexual_health/t/...

This is about kids. If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions. That’s the overriding doctrine in the law. This is the basic doctrine I very much do support. Both parents are supposed to be equally responsible for their offspring once it is in the world, no ifs and buts.

That the mother has the ability to not make the kid exist in the first place is a function of where the baby grows up, nothing more, and basically completely unrelated to that.

Can we please talk about this basic doctrine and not weird edge cases?

    If the kid exists both parents are responsible for it, no exceptions.

I strongly disagree with this doctrine, because it disadvantages men in practise. If the child was conceived against the explicit will of one the involved parties, that party should not be coerced to pay for, or look after the child. Women absolutely need to acquire written conception consent prior to conception. No written consent, no alimony. No means no. It's shocking that one needs to spell this out in 2015!

Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids because it asymmetrically sets up hurdles.

The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered. Once a kid is there it needs to be taken care of and both parents share that responsibility. Wanting to wriggle out of this responsibility is, frankly, highly immoral.

Also, conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy (of the person who is no pregnant). I find it shocking that you would jump to rape rhetorics for your political aims.

    Your doctrine would in practice massively disadvantage both women and kids

Your doctrine does in practice massively disadvantage both men and kids! Why do you insist that women need to be better off than men?

    The current way of dealing with things is kid-centered.

No, it's not. It is female-centered. What the woman wants is the law. It's easy to see. If in a divorce case, the child wants to stay with dad, that will be ignored, and the child will be given to the mother. Please familiarise yourself with the facts.

    Once a kid is there

You keep trying to reframe the discussion so that you don't have to admit to the truth, which is that women have more rights than men. Please stop this! So let's start again:

        Once a kid is there

Women should not force, brutalise or rape men into fatherhood. And where they do, the biological father has absolutely no obligation whatsoever to look after the child, and even less to fund the lifestyle of the criminal party. It is shocking, shocking that you defend these sorts of crimes.

    conception doesn’t impact bodily autonomy

So what? Stealing your money also doesn't impact bodily autonomy, should it therefore be legal?

OK, so what happens if the child is born and the woman drops it off at a "safe haven" without the father's knowledge? It's well out of her body, but a woman is never forced to be a mother if she doesn't want to be. On the other hand, a woman can have a child and force the man into fatherhood.

Safe havens are about saving babies’ lives, not their parents.

Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood since, you know, it’s necessary to at least have sex for that. All the rest is a function of where the baby is actually growing.

OK, let's assume a child exists.

A woman can make a man pay. A man can't make a woman pay, she can just give the child up because she HAS MORE RIGHTS to the child.

    Safe havens are about saving babies’ lives, not their parents.

No, they are about women's convenience.

    Also, no one can force anyone into parenthood

You are kidding, right. Sperm theft and rape of the father are counterexamples that have been discussed upthread.

"Sperm theft" and "rape of father" are so rare that this argument is utterly ridiculous in the face of persisting sexual violence against women.

"The father is 15 years old" happens frequently, and it doesn't even matter if the woman is an adult. He still has to pay child support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com