dc_dux

Will....do you believe the Constitution provides a right of privacy, which was in part the basis for the Griswold decision (overturned a state law that prohibited sale/distribution of contraceptions) and the Roe decision?

Both recognized a Constitutional "right of privacy" either as an unenumerated right in the 9th amendment or as interpreted in the first clause of the 14th amendment.

If you believe in a Constitutional "right of privacy", you cannot enact a law that violates a woman's right of privacy.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

The "right to privacy" is no explicitly stated in the Constitution. As it's only inferred (privacy of beliefs [1st Amendment], privacy of the home against demands that it be used to house soldiers [3rd Amendment], privacy of the person and possessions as against unreasonable searches [4th Amendment], and the 5th Amendment's privilege against self-incrimination), the right itself does not include all information. In addition to that, information is not a part of a woman's body by any stretch, and if it is connected to the biological component, then it's not unreasonable to connect it to each part of the whole biological component, sperm and ovum. As such, the information belongs to each party who plays a direct role in the act of procreation, the mother and father. In addition to this, after the child is born, the ownership (or more correctly the responsibility) lies with both parties. As such, I believe that in fact it could be a violation of a father's privacy to withhold information on a joint venture. While the property belongs to the mother, the information does not, necessarily.

I'll summarize:
1) the Constitutional right to privacy, being implied, is subject to interpretation
2) As the father plays a direct role in the creation of the fetus and bears responsibility upon birth, the information is his as well as the mother's.

FoolThemAll

Man, I'm proving others' points all over the place!

That seems to be the objective fact that turns you toward the pro-choice position. I don't think I did anything to help you prove this point, though. In fact, as you note, I don't see confusion myself. More importantly, I don't see how confusion on the matter should lead naturally to pro-choice rather than anti-choice. It looks more like a crapshoot to me.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

dc_dux

Will....IMO what you are suggesting is that the right of privacy be re-interpreted to conveniently fit your law rather than decades of judicial precedent.

That some compromiise you propose!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

There's no reinterpretation. Roe v. Wade has never been used to discuss the ownership of the information of the paternal line. It has yet to be interpreted, therefore arguing this with the law is moot. There is no precedence.

It will have to be argued on it's merits.

BTW, the "right to be left alone" doesn't necessarily have anything to do with this from a legal standing.

dc_dux

I dont know how to state it any other way...you want to infringe on a woman's right of privacy in order to provide the man with a right to know.

Good luck if you really believe that you can make the case that this is a reasonable compromise.

I'm done here

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

Willravel

No. I'm suggesting that in fact the information is the property of both parties involved in conception and bearing the responsibility of the child once it's born. It's an infringement of a man's right to information that is partially his to prevent him from knowing.
You're apparently forgetting where I'm compromising from. In my personal ideal system, there would be no abortion outside of rape, incest, mental retardation, or a danger to the mother's health. I'm willing to compromise on this because it's only my particular, subjective belief. I am not asking for this at all, though. No, all I'm asking is "so can the father know?". Apparently, no one on your side is willing to change the system whatsoever.

But I'm guilty of not compromising.

“For everything you have missed, you have gained something else, and for everything you gain, you lose something else.” - Ralph Waldo Emerson

dc_dux

After seven pages of serious ideological differences leading to nowhere, a lighter touch may be in order:



Now carry on!

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

host

You started a thread founded on your idea that you are compromising by not opposing a woman's right to choose, but you do insist on a law, presumably with criminal penalties for non-compliance, requiring a woman to make a timely notification to recent sex partners, of her knowledge of her own pregnancy.

It is not unheard of for a woman (or a man....) to have several sex partners in a period where each, for the sake of compliance with your law, could be a candidate for paternity in the newly confirmed pregnancy. Would the pregnant woman, to "preserve their rights", be required to also make each partner aware of the other?

I'm assuming that meeting the notification requirements of your law would be a pre-condition of abortion. That would be a "foot in the door", to make a woman jump through a "new hoop", to exercise a right, already in law, for the past 38 years.

I explained what happened in Aurora, with the medical clinic experiencing a delayed opening, while the anti- abortion "crowd", convinced a sympathetic judge to issue a temporary injunction to delay the clinic's opening on the grounds that zoning and permitting for the clinic's construction was obtained through deceit by Planned Parenthood, because they made their applications via a realty subsidiary that listed the use of the building as a "medical clinic", and not an "ABORTION MILL"!

You think your idea is fair and reasonable, a compromise. What are you offering in this "compromise"? I don't think you understand that all you are offering is a "foot in the door" for those opposed to legal abortion to interfere, in a new way, with a woman's right to obtain one.

Have you considered that "some people", men and women, engage in intercourse on impulse, without exchanging last names, or other contact info, or by supplying their sex partners with inaccurate contact information? What happens to women who become pregnant as a result of those circumstances?
What happens if contact details are accurate, but the male doesn't respond to confirm that notification requirements have been met, because he is unavailable, does not want to confirm a potential paternal obligation, or doesn't recognize or remember the name of the "vessel" carrying his newly minted progeny?

You want to argue fine points of privacy rights precedent, but details of your proposal for a law which is actually a hurdle, a waiting period, a disqualifier for some women to have what they have now, a right to a safe, legal, medical abortion, are extremely lacking. If you object to implementing new legal hurdles in the way of exercising other hard won rights, voting, protections from discrimination because of race, or sex, age, or disability, because of the potential for abuse, by authority or by agenda driven opponents, why would you call what you want impelemented, a "compromise"?

If you don't get what you want, are you going to work to try to make it illegal to obtain an abortion?

If this is really a fairness issue, why didn't you respond to my idea about working to change parental financial support laws, as they pertain to males?

Willravel

I've not discussed any penalties, therefore this is a baseless presumption.
I see no reason for that. Each would be tested and the father would be notified.
I don't know. This is how compromise works. I offer something up where I have sacrificed part of my position in the interest of finding a mutually acceptable solution for both parties.
I think you know that is not in my nature. I may not agree with abortions, but as I've said time and again: this is only my personal belief and forcing them on others is wrong. What those people did in Aurora was wrong. I am a huge fan of PP, actually. I think the service they provide is vital to people who need it.
A quote from my previous post:
I am aware of these circumstances, and I don't know. I am left wondering if I will be the only one to provide an attempt at compromise in this thread.
Because it is. I am not proposing something totally favorable to my position, and that has concessions that take into consideration the needs or wants of your side. It is the very definition of compromise. Why, I wonder, is it that out of all of my fellow liberals in this thread, who are capable of brilliance and sympathy, I am the only person to attempt a compromise? Is it because the ideals behind Roe v. Wade has become gospel, a type of unquestionable faith, instead of being a reasonable conclusion to a human rights question? In what world is a conclusion beyond questioning?
This is plainly absurd. Nothing I have said suggests this whatsoever. It's a blatant strawman that has been used again and again. I am not trying to make abortion illegal. I would, actually, defend it's legality.
Because fathers already have rights after the child is born, this is not an issue that addresses this thread topic. This is about the legal rights concerning the unborn and the father.

Rekna

What if she had multiple one night stands and doesn't know who the father is? Or what if she never got his number?

Willravel

Off the top of my head? Names of each man and DNA tests for those who want them.

BTW, if the father doesn't care, then there's no sense in a test. I may have forgotten to mention that before.

FoolThemAll

Wow. You had to both read thoughts into my comment AND take my comment out of context. You must have really been in the mood for taking offense.

It's not disrespecting women, it's respecting the z/e/f.

Maybe, maybe not. But the nine months plus years of therapy still isn't a good enough justification for killing it. Think of the same argument in defense of infanticide; would you agree with it there?

No? Then our disagreement isn't over how hard pregnancy is.

I hate my connection, btw.

And host, thanks for nine minutes of my life that I'll never get back. Oh well, at least I learned that I'm probably racist.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

Rekna

What if she lies that she doesn't know who it is?

Willravel

I'm of two minds on the answer to this. On the one hand, preventing her from having an abortion could be a violation of Roe v. Wade, but on the other hand lying to the police is illegal. Perhaps she can have the abortion (to appease pro-choicers and to not interfere with Roe v. Wade), but the standard penalty for lying to a police officer is applied. This is assuming that the father doesn't have a verifiable history of violence.

Infinite_Loser

Much ado about nothing.

*Is glad he comes from a country where abortion is illegal*

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

Willravel

You're a dirty foreigner?

pig

will: i appreciate your desire to find a way to "even up the odds" in as far as the rights of the male to have knowledge of whether he has impregnated a woman he has been sexually active with. I can't speak for other men, or really other posters in general, but I can definitely sympathize with your position. If I got my girlfriend pregnant, I would want to know for sure. Although I'm pro-choice, I don't know how I'd feel about her getting an abortion, and particularly without my knowledge. I'd be interested in any information, of a non-anecdotal nature, of the number of otherwise healthy relationships in which a woman seeks to have an abortion without telling her boyfriend/husband/partner. I will admit that I have markedly less sympathy for the position of a guy who hooks up with a girl on spring break or the equivalent (one night stand), resulting in her becoming pregnant if she then proceeds to want an abortion. That type of sexual behavior inherently carries risk, and I don't think I'd feel the same way as if my girlfriend, with whom I have a pretty solid relationship, were to become pregnant. I'm wondering, in a nutshell, how much of a practical problem this particular issue is. I've known women who have had abortions, and in pretty much every case, the guy has known. He might not have liked her decision, although in most cases he was ok with it. Maybe not thrilled, but he respected her rights. Rights in the colloquial sense, if not the legal sense. Before I'd even want to speculate about possible changes to current law, which represents decades of fighting for this right for women, I'd need to feel compelled to believe it was a common problem. Otherwise, it looks to me like - regardless of your motivations - what it will turn into is another way to prevent a woman from exercising her rights.

fta: I can somewhat understand your position. I didn't mean confusion for you personally, but in the general sense as a population. The issue is far from settled as a society. Therefore, as I said, I default to the rights of the person I can definitely confirm is, in fact, a person. I don't think there is much confusion as to whether the pregnant woman is a fully-realized human, outside of questions of spiritual and philosophical enlightenment.

__________________
You don't love me, you just love my piggy style

FoolThemAll

Yeah, not much more to say here, but a few redundant notes.

You can only definitely confirm that the woman is a person because the law determines what a person is. A century and a half ago - and this is only brought up to make this one point - you wouldn't have such an easy time making that confirmation.

I understand that you meant general confusion. I only mean that using this confusion to determine a default abortion position seems like a crapshoot to me. Or even an invocation of the laziest aspect of conservatism - don't rock the boatism. Bad analogy: "There's too much confusion about metaphysical things - whether there's a God, which values are best, whether evil exists - so I'll just stick with what's empirically measurable." Great choice, now you've got a bunch of historical moralities at best and no justification for following any of them. "...oops, well I'll just kill some time on this Law & Order marathon then."

Wow, that's even worse than I envisioned. Sorry. Ignore that last bit.

__________________
I wonder if we're stuck in Rome.

abaya

Pig: Your last post reminded me of a couple I knew (when they were together). They had an open relationship, lived a thousand miles apart, she already had 2 kids from a previous partner, pretty young... and the current boyfriend made it VERY CLEAR that he never wanted to have kids with her. He had a hard enough time being around the kids she already had, from another man, complained about them constantly.

It turns out (I heard later) that she got pregnant twice with him, and got abortions both times... and he never heard about it, and he still doesn't know. She knew that he never wanted to have children with her, and she already had enough on her hands (and only saw him a few times a year, anyway)... so that was her justification, I guess. Now, WHY they weren't more careful with their BC, I don't know (they are both very intelligent people, but not very practical, I guess).

And WHY she didn't tell him, I don't know. I disagree with her/their personal ethics on several levels, but what can I say. If I had been in her shoes, I most definitely would have told the guy, even if he wanted to abort them ASAP anyway. But that's just me. I know the guy, and I'm pretty sure he doesn't give a damn that she got abortions without his knowledge... he would just be glad that he doesn't have to be responsible for those kids. He would probably be proud of her for not breaking down and telling him, actually... he really HATED the idea of having kids.

Anyway, so I don't know how common this is, but it happens. Do I think the guy should have been told? Yes, I do... and personally, I would have told him. Do I think there should be a law FORCING the woman to tell him? I don't know about that. This thread hasn't convinced me of anything yet. Yes, it was rude of her not to tell him, but I still don't see a real pressing need.

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

host

will, I trust your judgment, your ethics, your stated objection to abortion, along with your commitment not to seek to outlaw it, and....even with all of that said, I see you describing a police interrogation where the subject does not have the option of asserting a right to refuse to incriminate herself. This has developed from an understandable concern for men not being bypassed in a decision process that they have a stake in, a compelling interest to be included in, but now you've conjured up in my mind, armed men in uniform, questioning a woman to gain contact information about her sex partner(s).

It confirms some of my gravest conerns, and it is that foot in the door. I can see a party involved in fertilizing an ovum having standing because of an interest in the welfare and outcome, and I do want to be reasonable, especailly now that you have actually posted about one of my concerns, the "enforcement process" associated with your notification obligation.

Describe the methodolgy of enforcing your proposed notification steps and requirements, and I'll tell you whether it goes beyond my concept of a "foot in the door", "line in the sand". I think it would have some potential if the female were to forfeit something, other than her right to choose, if she did not comply with notification requirments.

If it wasn't for the fact that a mother cannot forfeit her child's right to paternal financial support, other than delay or denial of abortion services, or criminalization and enforcement of notification....it seems inconsequential if it isn't mandatory, I don't see how notification could be guaranteed or even the routine reaction.

If you can propose a way, I'd want to read it. I've gotten past my objection to the invasion of privacy of a new requirement to even volunteer to give information about sexual activity and sexual partners to a party other than a medical services provider, in strict confidence, solely for the purpose of potenitally involving the male partner. Because I view this as the road to a "foot in the door", and because I see common, if not frequent instances when a woman would not want to participate in or volunteer for notification, I can't visualize a proposal to do notification that would have any teeth.

I see a process that would turn into what you touched on...risk of perjury, and questioning by police, a judge, or both. In the process of compromising, one side has something the other side wants, and is willing to offer in return. The reason I asked if you would be possibly opting to challenge the right to choose, if you cannot achieve what you want via compromise, is because it would probably be the best way to negotiate a compromise.

I can see a day where abortion providers are required to have a pamphlet urging paternal notification, prominently displayed in an initial interview area for pregnant prospective clients. The potential for mandatory counseling is the added agenda of lumping enough required curriculum to extend the counseling into the third trimester.

Willravel

If no law has been broken, then it's not an interrogation in which one can plead the fifth. In other words, the answer to "Who is the father?" probably won't be "I killed a guy.", it will probably just be "John Doe" or "I don't want to tell you." Perhaps, considering this is not a criminal investigation, the idea of holding one accountable for lying to the police would be the wrong way to go. Maybe a new term, such as "failure to notify", would be more apropos. I dunno.
I can't remember writing anything about them being armed. I'm not even set on the idea that the people the woman answer to will be police. They can just be the workers at the clinic or hospital where the procedure will occur.
I can think of quite a few types of enforcement that could be used. One thing that I absolutely won't use is the right to abort. Hanging that over a woman's head is a clear violation of Roe v. Wade. One possibility might be community service. Say she has to serve food in a homeless shelter for 20 hours or something else that's not physically difficult (after all, recovery from an abortion can be physical). Another possibility might be some kind of mark on her police record, tantamount to a loitering charge or something else that's minor.

The problem is that I would want something that makes them think, "I don't really want *insert punishment here*, so I might as well just let the guy know", but I don't want it to be a serious punishment so that it seems like they're being punished for having an abortion.

Do you have any thoughts on a punishment you'd be comfortable with?
It's a conundrum, yes. The paternal notification is one of two or three options concerning paternal rights over a fetus are concerned. I've just concentrated on it because I thought of it first and it could have helped someone I know.
That's not a bad idea. I mean it has no teeth beside simply being annoying to have in one's face, but if it does help someone then I would consider it a victory.

GonadWarrior

I can't believe that one slipped by--it happens every day. Then liberals shovel money toward these single mothers, while decrying the skyrocketing illegitimacy rate. Who in their right mind would marry the father if it cut down on the government handouts?

Perhaps now would be a good time to post the following link. It created a veritable shitstorm of hatred, most of it highly amusing for its hypocrisy.

http://digg.com/odd_stuff/Pitzer_Stu...nist_Coalition