posted
My primary argument against abortion goes against my own belief in taking responsibility for one's actions. Of course I am opposed to abortion but my favorite argument against it also goes against my own beliefs in other areas. In abortion I see the unequal application of the law drawn across gender lines. In fact, the whole legal arena concerning reproduction is unequal. In the eyes of society and the courts, a man has one simple choice...keep it in your pants. Anything after that is his responsibility. If the mother chooses to keep the child the man is vehemently decried for his actions and legally bound to live up to the consequences of the choice he made nine months prior. Women are exempted from this and given repeated escapes from personal responsibility. If she so chooses, the mother can have the child and give it up for adoption with no consequences whatsoever. It is accepted when a mother delcares, "I'm not ready to be a mom" and gives up all rights and responsibilities for the baby, without question and often with praise. If the law is to be applied equally, the father should have the same option. "I'm not ready to be a father" and resign all rights and responsibilites while receiving praise from society. The mother can choose to keep the child and the father is still decried and bound to provide support and live up to that fateful choice. Once more, the mother could give up the child to the father and still be free from responsibility, financial or otherwise. Worst of all, her fourth and most final choice is to terminate the child. In this case the father has no input. If the father has no voice in this decision, he should have no obligation for the latter. A man has one choice...keep it in your pants. Women have four: keep your pants on, give it up for adoption, give it to the father, kill it. She receives praise for her struggles and the tough decisions she has to make along the way. Society will pat her on the back for any choice she makes. Well, I suppose society ignores her first choice. It is rarely suggested to a woman that she should have kept her pants on. A victim of her pregnant circumstance. As if that choice were solely made by the father. Society treats women as if they were rape victims; even I would not argue with any of her options if it were a consequence of rape. Is this a remnant of cave man nature. Does the societal lizard brain instinctively believe that men are still snatching women, dragging them off by the hair and having their way with them to enhance the gene pool? These arguments aren't addressed or perhaps never even considered. Equal protection under the law. Both father and mother should have the same rights and responsibilities. I'm afraid if this argument were tried in court, the outcome would only be that men could wash their hands of the situation as easilly as the women. If pinned in a legal corner our corrupted society would choose worse over better
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're neglecting some really important things.
1. The woman has to carry the fetus in her body, bearing considerable health risk, metabolic load, and pain, difficulties, etc. that the man doesn't have. That's why she has more rights in the early stages.
2. History and society. The typical historical societal response, which is still in effect for the most part, is the woman has sole responsibility for the child while the father gets off with writing a check once a month at most. To say that $450 a month is anything at all equal to the losing sleep, feeding, clothing, housing, teaching, doctoring, educating, and raising a child is ludicrous. The mother still bears the brunt of the responsibility, even if society has advanced to the point of demanding at least that $450 a month (or whatever it happens to be) from the dad.
3. Children need and deserve both parents to be active in their lives. Forget the mom, forget the dad, there's a new person here now who has justifiable demands from the people whose actions brought him or her into the world. Give up selfish thoughts of bachelorhood and attend to the needs of the child. That way lies wisdom and happiness.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, I suppose society ignores her first choice. It is rarely suggested to a woman that she should have kept her pants on.
On the contrary-- my experience is that women, more than men, are more frequently advised to abstain from sex. In my experience, it is seen as the woman's responsibility to care about contraceptives as well.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott, I agree with you and it is wise for a woman to be more concerned with pregnancy, before she has sex. I used the past tense "should have". Once pregnant, it's only sympathy for many the difficult choices she has ahead of her. The man already made his decision and has to live with it. Both parties should be responsible parents. If I had the option, I might prefer pregancy and adoption over 18 years of child support, but only the woman can carry the child.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Society is still hugely judgemental against single mothers, mostly because they are the ones visibly and permanently changed by the event and left holding the baby.
And yes, there is a huge difference in the expected sexual behaviours of women and men. I frequently hear mothers and fathers who are delighted that their son is 'getting some', as if it's a sign of his popularity and all around well adjustedness, while they worry themselves sick that their daughter might be sleeping with her boyfriend, let alone multiple partners.
quote: the mother could give up the child to the father and still be free from responsibility, financial or otherwise.
It's amazing how often the father does not offer to bring up his child alone with no input from the mother. Not that it's never been done. Just very, very unusual.
quote: and it is wise for a woman to be more concerned with pregnancy, before she has sex.
Er, you're advocating equal shared responsibility for their progeny and then saying it's more important for women to be concerned with contraception than men? Does that make sense?
I don't think I'll touch the anti-abortion issue, even with lead-lined gloves.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
malanthrop, choosing fatherhood might be the best choice, if at all possible. It would catapult the dad into the crazy but incredibly rewarding round of midnight feedings, floor walking with a sick child, teaching, disciplining, loving, and being loved by this vulnerable, innocent, brilliant being which is a child.
Paying 18 years of child support is a far distant second, and doesn't even come close to accepting full responsibility for the new life created.
Those are the choices given to dads. Rather than bemoaning those choices, it's best to accept them, even celebrate them, and then choose.
Posts: 6246 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:malanthrop, choosing fatherhood might be the best choice, if at all possible.
Part of Malanthrop's argument is that the father of the fetus doesn't necessarily have this choice left up to him. After the fetus is created, the mother is the determiner of whether the child is born or aborted; she also has the right to put the child up for adoption, or to keep it. If she puts the child up for adoption, the father may take custody of the child, but no financial repercussions are given to the mother (as far as I know); if she keeps the child, he is legally responsible for child support.
There is only one choice that is available to him legally, as far as I know, and that choice hinges on what is chosen by the mother. I'm not satisfied with this arrangement, but I don't know a way that is more fair...maybe artificial wombs?
We've discussed this subject before; my google-fu is weak this morning, and I can't find where.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a father and a greatful that my wife's mother chose to give her up for adoption rather than abort her. I didn't suggest it was more important for women to be concerned, rather "wise". There are worse things one could catch than pregnancy out there. I don't care if she said she were on the pill, I would still look after myself. Certainly both parents should be concerned with protection. Pregnancy only occurs when both fail in this.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:malanthrop, choosing fatherhood might be the best choice, if at all possible.
Part of Malanthrop's argument is that the father of the fetus doesn't necessarily have this choice left up to him. After the fetus is created, the mother is the determiner of whether the child is born or aborted; she also has the right to put the child up for adoption, or to keep it. If she puts the child up for adoption, the father may take custody of the child, but no financial repercussions are given to the mother (as far as I know); if she keeps the child, he is legally responsible for child support.
There is only one choice that is available to him legally, as far as I know, and that choice hinges on what is chosen by the mother. I'm not satisfied with this arrangement, but I don't know a way that is more fair...maybe artificial wombs?
We've discussed this subject before; my google-fu is weak this morning, and I can't find where.
If the father has custody, the mother does have to pay child support.
Posts: 1794 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
He only gets custody in this manner after the child is born. If she's generous enough to carry it for nine months on his behalf, I'm sure arrangements can be made. If he doesn't agree she aborts.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
quote:If she's generous enough to carry it for nine months on his behalf, I'm sure arrangements can be made.
So you're saying that women should be required to carry a child they don't want to term if the father agrees to waive all child-support claims?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would suggest that a woman be required to carry the child to full term unless she were raped or an abortion were medically advised due to abnormal risks. My premise is based on personal responsibility and the fact that men only have one choice. At the very least, men should have the same ability to waive responsibility for child as the mother. If she can just claim to not be ready, so should he. Free and clear, let the state deal with it. If the mother has that option, so should the father. If the father has no say in wether the child lives or dies then he should not be obligated to provide support. Both parties should have the same options.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
When one of those options is that he agrees (and is able) to carry the fetus for 9 months, you'll have an argument.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see the conception of a child in contractual terms. As soon as the moment is complete the man is legally obligated to terms he was aware of beforehand. The parties involved in this arrangement are both aware of the consequences. She can become pregnant and he is legally bound to provide support. No one would enter into a contract where the other party can modify or nullify the terms after the initial signing. There must be one moment where the law holds the man and woman equally culpable and equally liable. - neither is held liable against their will - both agree to keep w/custody tbd - both agree to abort
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
To be fair, Since the woman carries the child the father should be required to support her during the pregnancy and to pay for half the hospital bills.....if she chooses to keep it.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suggest the slower, but healthier choice: leave the law regarding fathers' rights (or non-rights) alone, and instead apply cultural pressure to getting fathers to see themselves as integral in a child's development.
The abortion argument cannot be validated on any terms except on those directly, intimately involved in the argument-- the mother and child.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:My primary argument against abortion goes against my own belief in taking responsibility for one's actions. Of course I am opposed to abortion but my favorite argument against it also goes against my own beliefs in other areas. In abortion I see the unequal application of the law drawn across gender lines. In fact, the whole legal arena concerning reproduction is unequal. In the eyes of society and the courts, a man has one simple choice...keep it in your pants. Anything after that is his responsibility. If the mother chooses to keep the child the man is vehemently decried for his actions and legally bound to live up to the consequences of the choice he made nine months prior. Women are exempted from this and given repeated escapes from personal responsibility. If she so chooses, the mother can have the child and give it up for adoption with no consequences whatsoever. It is accepted when a mother delcares, "I'm not ready to be a mom" and gives up all rights and responsibilities for the baby, without question and often with praise. If the law is to be applied equally, the father should have the same option. "I'm not ready to be a father" and resign all rights and responsibilites while receiving praise from society. The mother can choose to keep the child and the father is still decried and bound to provide support and live up to that fateful choice. Once more, the mother could give up the child to the father and still be free from responsibility, financial or otherwise. Worst of all, her fourth and most final choice is to terminate the child. In this case the father has no input. If the father has no voice in this decision, he should have no obligation for the latter. A man has one choice...keep it in your pants. Women have four: keep your pants on, give it up for adoption, give it to the father, kill it. She receives praise for her struggles and the tough decisions she has to make along the way. Society will pat her on the back for any choice she makes. Well, I suppose society ignores her first choice. It is rarely suggested to a woman that she should have kept her pants on. A victim of her pregnant circumstance. As if that choice were solely made by the father. Society treats women as if they were rape victims; even I would not argue with any of her options if it were a consequence of rape. Is this a remnant of cave man nature. Does the societal lizard brain instinctively believe that men are still snatching women, dragging them off by the hair and having their way with them to enhance the gene pool? These arguments aren't addressed or perhaps never even considered. Equal protection under the law. Both father and mother should have the same rights and responsibilities. I'm afraid if this argument were tried in court, the outcome would only be that men could wash their hands of the situation as easilly as the women. If pinned in a legal corner our corrupted society would choose worse over better
Holy solid block of text, Batman!
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
She can give it up. There are good families waiting in line to adopt but stretch marks might be too much of a sacrifice.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly, if both the man and woman are not prepared to accept the risk of having a child, they shouldn't be having sex.
Both the man and the woman have the opportunity to abstain. But once they choose to have sex, they are entering into a commitment that negates some of their rights, and not in a necessarily equal fashion.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:My premise is based on personal responsibility
So you want a child to be born to a woman who doesn't want it in order to punish that woman?
Where did you get the idea that malanthrop wants her to have the baby in order to punish her?
I'm not seeing that implied in any of what he's written, nor am I seeing that implied as a fundamental belief of those who do not support abortion rights.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am a father married to my babies' mother. We are fortunate like that. We had a scare before we had any kids. My wife was pregnant and at about 11 weeks she miscarried. The miscarriage was a bloody terribly painful mess, and we wouldn't wish it on our worst enemy. After the miscarriage, my wife went through varying degrees of psychological trauma that scared her into thinking we might not ever be able to have children and there was something wrong with her. Of course, we now see that isn't the case since we have two wonderful little bundles of joy.
My point with this story is we would most certainly want to adopt had there been something wrong with her that restricted her from having children.
I am pro life, and think unless a woman is raped or is faced with a life or death situation with the birth, is abortion a viable yet terrible option. My wife would tell you, even if she is raped or faced with a life or death situation with a pregnancy, she'd still have the child. Whether or not she still felt so after the fact, I hope and pray to never find out.
The fact abortion is so mainstream is sickening to us. I know of someone who made the choice to have an abortion, and she has never forgiven herself for that decision- for nearly 15 years she's wished she hadn't done so. She didn't know at the time, but she knows now she would've loved that child as she loves her only child, her daughter.
As a male, I would most definitely feel robbed in the worst sense if a girl I made a "mistake" with while growing up had decided to abort our child. I would have had NO choice in the matter, except to try and sway her opinion. Certainly, there are men who are irresponsible, and who would happily suggest or press thoughts of an abortion on a confused, maybe younger woman, but my hope is someday the contract of having sex is taken more seriously.
Having sex could always result in a child, protection or not, so to completely abstain from having sex until the man and woman, boy and girl are willing and able to go through having a baby together is the only solution/option as I see it.
Posts: 135 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
She can give it up. There are good families waiting in line to adopt but stretch marks might be too much of a sacrifice.
It's a hell of a lot more than just some stretch marks. Even aside from the physical trauma during and after pregnancy, there's often psychological trauma comparable to having a baby die, and there's virtually no support available for the women going through it. Here, have some interesting reading.Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
When it comes to reproduction, men and women aren't equal. That isn't a philosophical or legal question, its a biological fact. Any law that didn't recognize that indisputable biological inequality would be unjust.
I think there are many of inadequacies in current law regarding father's rights (and father's responsibilities) so I think there is plenty of room for debate about what rights men should have -- but to start off by saying that the law should treat men and women equally is patently ridiculous. Men and women are not equal when it comes to child birth -- they are indisputably and biologically different. Any just law has to recognize that fact.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Heavy on the anecdote, light on the data. Because this conversation needs MORE emotion.
Yeah, I know, but I wanted to share it because that's a side of the story I hadn't really thought about at all before, and I bet lots of other people haven't really thought about it either. (Also, I don't think anything I do is going to have much influence on the direction this thread takes. If I were smarter, I'd've stayed out of it entirely.)
Posts: 957 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Scott: but you are aware that even with healthy, normal births to mothers keeping the baby there are with moderately high frequency a lot more problems than just stretch marks, such as post-partum depression?
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: When it comes to reproduction, men and women aren't equal. That isn't a philosophical or legal question, its a biological fact. Any law that didn't recognize that indisputable biological inequality would be unjust.
I was waiting for someone to come to this point.
As for the rest, I'm not going to take it a piece at a time. I'm just going to say this: There are a great many single mothers in our society struggling to raise children in a world that is hostile to them and their struggles, and without the support of the father, who is given very little grief for walking away from his responsibilities. There are very, very few single fathers out there. This doesn't have any particular implications, IMO, for an abortion argument, but it does have societal implications. If we want to talk about what's fair and what's just, then let's also talk about what's real. There isn't a rash of women walking away from their responsibilities. There is a rash of men doing so.
Posts: 2392 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Christine: ...There are very, very few single fathers out there.
In case anyone else was curious:
quote:The details on marital status were part of a package of census data released about Canada's families, living arrangements and households. Statistics Canada calls this information its "family portrait" of Canadians. ... Of the 1.4 million single-parent families, about 20 per cent are headed by men. The number of men at the head of single-parent families is growing more than twice as fast as the number of women.
quote:After the fetus is created, the mother is the determiner of whether the child is born or aborted;
This much is true. But its also true that the woman is the only parent whose physical well being is directly impacted by the unborn child. Any law that doesn't recognize this indisputable difference would be unjust.
quote:she also has the right to put the child up for adoption, or to keep it. If she puts the child up for adoption, the father may take custody of the child, but no financial repercussions are given to the mother (as far as I know); if she keeps the child, he is legally responsible for child support.
This is no longer true in most states. A mother can not put the child up for adoption without the fathers permission. As for child support, all laws with which I am familiar deal with the "non-custodial parent" and the "custodial parent" and do not specify mother or father. So a non-custodial mother is subject to precisely the same legal responsibility as a non-custodial father. I can't vouch that this is true in every state, but it true in the overwhelming majority of states.
It can create a very difficult conudrum. A couple years back, a close friend of mine who was at the time 20 became pregnant with her second child, her husband was physically abusive and she was trying to separate from him when she got pregnant. Given her age and skill level, she did not think it was in the best interest of either child to raise them alone. She tried to give the second child up for adoption but could not because the father would not give his permission. She could however have had an abortion without his permission. It left her with a very bad slate of choices, abortion, allow the child to be raised by an abusive father, have the child and raise him alone knowing that both he and her then 1 1/2 year old would suffer because of it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
The foundation of his argument - that men should be able to if women should be, too - reminds me of Life of Brian.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm a woman, and I still think it's unfair that the man has absolutely no say in whether or not a woman keeps a pregnancy or chooses to abort the fetus.
While I do wish that men had more say in whether or not a woman would keep the child, there's always the argument that it's the woman's body that goes through the pregnancy.
Then there's the other side of the coin--I don't think I could ever support a man telling a woman to abort a child. This seems odd and out of place, but wouldn't it have to be offered to be considered truly equal? I'm opposed to this, but consider what happens when a mother tells the father, legally, that she's killing their child.
Look at it this way. Whether or not a man carries a child, he still is halfway responsible for creating one. That is another living, breathing creature with half of his DNA, created by him. Who can say that a man wouldn't feel as heartwrenched, as completely and utterly destroyed by the prospect of losing a child as a mother would be?
I know, considering less the mental implications and more the health ones, what a great ordeal for both body and mind it can be for a woman to go through pregnancy. However, it's not a travesty. It's nothing that is horrible and unbearable and ungodly. Women have been going through childbirth for thouands or years, or hundreds of thousands if you believe in evolution, far before the modern advent of prenatal care and drugs for labor.
Unless there are complications that actually put the woman's life in danger, it's nothing so unbelievably abominable that she couldn't deal with for nine months, until she can either give to the father or put up for adoption the baby that she helped to make. The people are both equal in conception-even if she was drunk, even if she was using protection, unless she was raped, which is a different story entirely, she made the decision to have the sex that spawned the baby, just as much so as the father did.
I'm not going to say whether or not abortion is right or acceptable, but saying it's one of the few options people can take for the "horrible" condition of pregnancy is ridiculous. Yes, pregnancy is horrible. Abortion is worse.
Unless you aren't of human origin, or came from a test tube, all our mothers went through it.
Now, on to other matters.
I'm no expert at social and legal situations, and I can't recommend an easy compromise. I only know that one must be made. And, when a mother chooses not to take care of the baby, she forfeits legal rights.
This is important, because I don't believe it's been mentioned, but all a father has to do not to have to pay for the child is to give up legal rights to them as well. This may seem bad, but this is in no way different than a mother doing the same thing. If a man wants nothing to do with a child and wishes not to take care of it, why doesn't he just forfeit the rights? If he doesn't want to do this, he certainly has to take care of the child by some means.
You can't have your take (or rather, namesake) and eat it too.
And, legally, should the child come to term, a father has as many legal rights to full custody of the child as the mother. However, in actual legal practice, there is often a bias towards granting the woman custody over the man, as so few men in relation to women actively seek and receive full custody and/or primary responsibility of the child.
All sides must be considered.
(Edited post for clarity and to add glossed over opinions.)
posted
A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Posts: 1495 | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, c-sections are meant to take at least 2 weeks recovery time (okay, most people have to cope with much less time off their feet because they have a baby to care for), it's a serious operation with it‘s own risks, plus there's the chance of infection etc that all surgery carries. You can potentially be up and at 'em hours after natural birth. There's going to be pain either way.
However, there are plenty of perfectly sensible medical and psychological reasons why a c-section would be preferable for a particular mother than a natural birth. That’s absolutely up to her and her doctor - as is whether she breast-feeds or uses terry-cloth diapers, or any of the other things that random bystanders get oddly judgemental about when it comes to other people‘s babies. I don't honestly see what your friend's wife's birth plan has to do with anything, especially since (as the US hasn't got socialised medical care) you probably aren't even paying your tax dollars towards it.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: A coworker of mine is having a child. He said his wife has decided to have a c section because there are less chance of complications and they believe it to be easier for the mother and child. C-sections are like epidurals and abortions have become birth control.
Bullshit.
To what part exactly, were you referring Kwea? Were you referring to the metaphor in the second part, about C-sections and abortions becoming far too overused for something not intended for their cause, or the first part?
The second part I agree with. The first part I don't. Natural birth is just that-natural. My sister was born by C-section, as were me and my twin brother, and I know that it can be very hard on the mother.
My sister's adoptive mother was recuperating for weeks, and had to get a special caretaker to help take care of her for several weeks after the delivery.
Natural childbirth is biologically developed to be the best, and most natural (teehee) means of delivering a child. The entire female anatomy is developed in the way it is solely for this reason.
Therefore, C-sections are highly unnatural, in that they go against natural evolutionary means. They are of course necessary, in some emergency situations, when natural childbirth is not an option, and can even be lifesaving--this doesn't in any way make them preferable or better when natural childbirth is an option. (Natural childbirth for the sake of this argument referring solely to vaginal delivery, drugs and other factors not taken into consideration here.)
Posts: 135 | Registered: Jun 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Digging through all the crazy rhetoric, I agree that the fact that women tend to have a veto over the life of their child seems a little unbalanced. However, I think the hypothetical situation ignores the reality of when this kind of thing actually arises.
Imagine the extreme. A woman and a man meet at a party and hijinks ensue. Two weeks or so later, the woman realises that she is pregnant and decides not to keep the baby. The man hears through the grapevine she is pregnant, and using this new Rights for Men law, files an injunction to force this woman to bear the child, promising to raise the child and pay all the expenses.
Suddenly, the situation for the woman changes. Depending on her job, she may have to rearrange her life. She may suffer all kinds of health complications. She must attend scheduled meetings with this man she doesn't really know.
And what other rights does the father have? As the "pre-parent" of the child, does the father have the right to dictate how the woman lives her life? Can he dictate if she has a c-section if he deems it necessary? Can she have a c-section if he doesn't want her to? What if the woman dies in complications-- is the man responsible for manslaughter? Can men impregnate women and then force them to carry children to term on purpose?
Suddenly, this woman is forced to go through a highly taxing physical endeavor for this man she's barely met. The hypothetical woman's situation verges on a form of paid slavery (assuming she is compensated richly for her discomfort/pain/injury).
(I smell a futuristic, creepy story in which the woman undergoes this and realises that since she's now forced to bear this child she doesn't want it raised by this jackass etc.)
I think that, unless a fetus can be transferred to an artificial womb, this will always trample far more on women's rights than it does on men's the other way around. It will inevitably be a very bad situation.
Of course, this assumes abortion is legal. Having abortion being illegal is basically the same situation, except it is the state forcing the woman to carry the child to term, rather than the man.
If you believe abortion should be illegal, then having the man control the woman isn't that much of a step away from this, so I would expect it to be more acceptable. Since this is the premise of the thread, then it's not surprising that this is proposed.
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Arguably, in my extreme situation, that could be almost not at all, considering how much luckier people normally know each other before marrying and deciding to have children.
This could be much more acceptable if the woman and the man were married, have now divorced and the woman is now going to abort her 3-month old fetus because she can't bear the thought of him (as it were).
Posts: 8473 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
