BangkokReady

Oh, I did not know that. Sorry.

OK. I think I know the reply. I'll answer when I can. Not ducking anything. I'm obviously limited as to how much time I can spend responding. "Calling you out" makes it sound kind of undignified. A solid question.

No, I mean someone else asked the exact same question.

I can't keep writing the same thing multiple times. I appreciate you're writing one comment to one other user, but I have about four people each replying to everything I write and it's taking ages to reply. I'm pretty sure I answered this above. Can you take a look?

I don't suppose there is one. Of course the government could pay.

The court order means the man is made to give up a proportion of his income, therefore he is not free to do what he wishes with that proportion of his physical labour, therefore he has no bodily autonomy over that (for example) 33% of his physical labour. So 33% of the strain on his body does not go to his own benefit. That was the original scenario, but Placeholder had a pretty good answer to it where he claimed that the government would need to directly control the person's body for it to genuinely be an impingement of the man's bodily autonomy.

No, but if there isn't a court ordering a man to surrender a proportion of his labour, it doesn't relate to my hypothetical scenario.

Not even slightly. You didn't know what I was talking about from the start of your comments to me.

But, as I said, if Mr Smith has to work for his money, and the government says he has to give some of that money away, then some of that work is gone. That 33% of his labour is not his own. Well, it's a hypothetical situation and I'm saying if it is like this then it could be similar to that... OK. That's an interesting point! Probably the first one I've seen in this whole post in response to my hypothetical. If I have to say "effectively, in certain circumstances, etc." it certainly weakens the argument. If the comparison cannot be exact, then it doesn't really hold up to anywhere near the level it should. Good.

I'm afraid you're not making any sense. I explained my point in the previous reply, if you want to ignore what I'm actually saying and then respond to your own weird interpretation of one isolated and out of context comment, I guess you're free to do that, but I don't have much to say to it. What I wrote to you just now is the initial point I made and what I have been discussing, anything else is your misinterpretation. If you don't want to engage with the actual points I have made, I'm not sure we're even having a discussion.

Hardly. This is what I have been discussing. Simple as that. Perhaps you don't know about it, but people need to work to support themselves, and a court can make you give part of your income to support the child. That's it. I haven't said anything like that.

That's your opinion. I disagree. It's the basis of everything I have said, so I'm not sure why it's suddenly nonsense, given how many responses you have made. Working for 18 years obviously has an effect on someone's body. There's no way you can talk your way out of that. It really isn't even opinion.

What does that have to do with a court compelling a man to work impinging on his bodily autonomy? Really think about it this time. Let's try a bit more of an example. Mr Smith has a one night stand with Ms Jones. Ms Jones becomes pregnant. Mr Smith is the father. Ms Jones chooses to carry the baby to term, give birth and keep the baby. Mr Smith does not want her to, he does not want to be a father, he does not want to have a baby with Ms. Jones. Ms Jones has the baby. She asks Mr Smith if he will help with financial support. Mr Smith says he will not. Ms Jones sues Mr Smith for child support. Ms Jones wins and now Mr Smith has to pay 33% of his income to Ms Jones every Month for 18 years. Now, 33% of the resulting money from Mr Smith's labour is being taken from him, therefore 33% of Mr Smith's physical effort is no longer his own to use however he wants and no longer provides any financial reward. Even though Mr Smith wants this 33% of his physical labour to be for himself it is now being taken from him. His bodily autonomy in relation to 33% of his physical effort (work) is being impinged upon for the next 18 years. He has no control over this 33% of his physical effort, it is done for someone else, compelled by law. How does "but women work too" have any effect on this?

So 18 years of work has no effect on a man? Where's the jump?

You seriously believe that 18 years of work has no effect on a man's body?

And the man isn't one of the parents? You've literally proved your first sentence wrong with your second. Not relevant to what I am saying. Irrelevant to what I have said.

I explained it quite clearly, several times. Not even slightly. Not applicable here.

That has nothing to do with a man's bodily autonomy.

Has this guy ever been to Thailand? Also, if it's about Thais following authority and the law, why is he discussing Thais continuing to wear their masks now that the law has changed? Not a particularly good argument.

Why not knock some Thais a little? There are some Thais who wear facemasks outside far away from other people, some who don't wear their mask near other Thais then put it on as soon as they spot a foreigner, some don't wear a helmet on a motorcycle but do wear a mask. I think some Thais deserve a little knocking.

I'll probably continue to wear a mask outside. Due to pollution and racism. Nothing really to do with an actual fear of catching/spreading covid.

If you're walking slowly and you're only middle-aged, you probably have an injury.

Well, I wasn't actually arguing in favour of it, obviously. I was merely discussing it philosophically. I understand it perfectly. Obviously, and I haven't said anything to the contrary. Why then do you think it is not a case of removal of bodily autonomy when a woman can decide what is done with a man's body? The woman can choose whether the father of her unborn child is compelled to use his body to earn money to support that child through her choice of whether to keep the baby or not. The man has no say in this use of his body. His bodily autonomy is removed by the woman's choice.

How does working for 18 years have no affect on someone's body?

It's more about what choice the man has in whether the baby is born. The woman can choose to terminate or keep the baby, based, apparently, on her bodily autonomy in chosing not to suffer the physical cost that carrying and birthing a baby has on her body. The man, however, has no say in whether the baby is born or not, even though he can be compelled by a court to support the baby financially until it is 18, suffering the physical cost of doing 18 years of work. (I realise it will not be all of his physical labour over those 18 years, but it is a significant proportion.) A woman suffers a physical cost when a baby is born, but a man too suffers a physical cost when he is compelled to use his body to work for 18 years in order to support the baby. Ergo, the woman has bodily autonomy in terms of the baby being born and suffering a physical cost, while the man does not. CC: @ozimoron