SM "And the responsibility argument implies a punishment far in excess of any carelessness" so to is child support for a child that you didn't have a say in in the first place other than the act.

I agree that because we do or have done some thing it does not make other things right but I also don't think some of the absolutes used when convenient are meaningful either.

R0bert

RD,

In this debate the 2/3 figure or 60% of unwanted pregnancies being to women using contraceptive has been raised several times and while there are a small % that don't use contraceptives, there are millions that do, not always successfully. This can be due to simple things like antibiotics blocking the pill or diarrhea not letting it get absorbed.

The statistics are that about 1/2 of all children conceived in Australia are unplanned, but not necessarily unwanted (merely inconvenient timing).

I read the statistic from a link provided several years ago, and will try and find it, but not now. As you lack any statistics, perhaps you would like to confirm this.

Robert,

I would like to believe that human rights are fundamentals that one should avoid breaching at all costs. Torture is never justified, neither is forcing someone to have a child they don't want.

In some cases rights should be absolute.

@Squeers
I don't recall making an argument for "sanctity" of choice. I'm not of the opinion that there is anything at all "holy" or "godly" about choice. Free choice is a privilege? Indeed it is a perk of the privileged, if that's what you mean. Safe abortion has always been available to privileged women, while poor women died or were forced to carry on a pregnancy they couldn't manage.

Neither do I describe myself as "pro pornography," though Reist is openly "anti porn."

It's worth remembering that much of the pornographic violence Reist etc advocate against is already illegal in this country. Apart from an internet filter, there appears to be little else to be done, apart from enacting the laws already in place.

While you perceive porn as oppressive and paternalistic across the board, I don't agree with that perception. Neither do I see how such an un-nuanced position is useful, especially for the women involved in its production. While an argument can be made that such women are not exercising "choice" that's not an argument that appeals to many of them, and this is one of the points on which i disagree with Reist.

briar rose,
I think it's pretty clear I was using the term "sanctity of choice" rhetorically, as comparable to the old saw "sanctity of life", as an unchallengeable verity. I said <I don't hold to the notion of the sanctity of choice any more than I do the sanctity of life. Free choice is or should be a privilege, complement to social responsibility and mores, the social contract, rather than supremely vested in egotism. It's an ideological delusion to think choice is ever free--in any qualitative sense--or independent>. I was really lamenting that feminism seems to have degenerated into this kind of sanctimonious, free-market anti-intellectualism. You said on another thread, "if you are asking for my feminist credentials I have absolutely none" http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13244#229045 and yet your resume says you're a cultural theorist. So let's have some depth.
I said above <It seems to me you're both [you and MTR] trading on spurious universals and emotive catchwords, rather than reasoning and argument. I attributed Catholicism to MTR, in its universal sense, because at least she implies a social frame of reference, whereas you seem to deny it.
But none of these issues should be treated lightly. I haven't said I "perceive porn as oppressive and paternalistic across the board", though porn has entered a technological phase, violent, misogynistic and aggressively marketed. It's a bit coy trying to defend it because a few purists (very few) dream of making it wholesome. And it's a long stretch arguing it's a legitimate form of feminist expression and empowerment.
I remember arguing with a feminist once who insisted it was her right to smoke while pregnant, with every intention of seeing it through, and yet clearly she had a duty of care. I'm pro-choice, but abortion deserves a little more personal and social consideration than "any other medical procedure". I don't "see how such an un-nuanced position is useful", or conscionable.

'I remember arguing with a feminist once who insisted it was her right to smoke while pregnant'

Intriguing! Was she saying smoking while pregnant was a feminist issue? Probably not (So why the anecdote which proves even less than a single irrational person?), but it does open up a new debate.

Which is, if it's a woman's body, why is it frowned upon to smoke while pregnant. The child's rights should be secondary to that of the woman.

At what age foetus should the woman have to stop smoking and taking drugs? Because before it's a human, she can do whatever she likes. It's HER body!

I actually am pro choice BTW, and pro abortion-rights (Rather than the disingenuous 'reproductive rights'. Women have reproductive rights, they are fighting for the right to kill potential offspring, lets call a spade a spade)

I think Birth should be where we define a human, not 12 weeks or whatever it is. Just because you have ultrasound doesn't mean you can start creating laws for parasites:-)

I always think if you are anti-abortion, you should be anti-masturbation. Every sperm is sacred!

Actually, you should even be pro-rape. If you are really desperate to prevent any barriers to human life, we should encourage men to rape as much as possible. All this chivalry gets in the way of impregnating women, and denies future humans the right to life. The selfish women and men who decide to only engage in consensual sex are killing potential babies. I wonder if when sperm die in the testis they feel pain? I'm sure we could make videos of that!

I agree, Houellebecq, that the anecdote was a bit redundant. I think if the mother intends to have the child she has a duty of care not to smoke. I was otherwise pointing up the fact that all our verities are social conventions, even the idea of freedom of choice. The idea of free choice as something individualistic buys into the notion that subjectivity is something other than derivative, or that human rights in general were more than social conventions. That's why they're so plastic.