Why are people against male abortion?
We live in a time where gender equality is still a bit of an issue in society. Now unfortunately, thanks to the media and some of the extremes that feminists would take to get themselves heard, it seems that when gender equality is concerned, many people think it's just about women. They think (more like been brainwashed imo) that women are still suffering more sexism than men in the West, even in these times. Unfortunately, thanks to many feminists and the media, it seems that the inequality and sexism against men has been played down and almost forgotten by many people in society. But that's not the thing that gets to me the most. What gets to me the most is that when people like me try to raise awareness of the inequality and sexism men face, people who claim to want equality then start to be unwittingly sexist against men.
An example of this is male abortion. Women currently have the legal right to have an abortion. I am not against abortion (for some reasons of my own). But surely if many people truly want equality between both genders, then surely they should support men's right to have male abortion (men not having to pay child support or not have any responsibilty towards the child)? When I question some people on their stance on male abortion, they start saying stuff like "Oh, but he was responsible for creating the child and the child shouldn't suffer. So hell yeah, he should accept the consequences of his action and be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want" (I will explain in post #2 why this argument doesn't work). But they never apply this to women who have abortions. Apparently, women shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of their actions but men have to. Sexism, yeah? Apparently child suffering is only important when the man is concerned. But when the woman is concerned, all of a sudden, child suffering (denying the undeveloped human being the right/opportunity to live life when the female aborts it) doesn't matter anymore. Sexism, yeah? Yet a lot of these people would claim to support gender equality.
*Cable shakes his head and sighs*
The problem I find with most anti male abortion people I come across, is that they keep using all these buzz words and emotional statements like "TEH CHILD SHOULDN'T SUFFERZ!!", "HE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT BEFORE HE HAD SEX" etc. They (particularly feminists) prefer to use those sort of emotional biased arguments, rather than getting logical about the matter. They don't like it when someone uses logic against them because their anti male abortion beliefs are not based on logic in the first place. And when they know they can't counter the logical arguments, they stop arguing and start using insults instead (e.g. you're a woman hater, you misogynistic pig, you douche etc).
So, the whole point of this thread is that it's about time we got logical about the male abortion issue. I thought about the situation/issue for a few minutes and put together a slightly logical argument quite quickly. It's a bit of a long read but it's very important that you read all of it and understand it. I'm not saying it's perfect or anything like that (I didn't bother to try and refine my argument). And at times, some of my premises are basically stating the obvious. You can read it below in post #2.
An example of this is male abortion. Women currently have the legal right to have an abortion. I am not against abortion (for some reasons of my own). But surely if many people truly want equality between both genders, then surely they should support men's right to have male abortion (men not having to pay child support or not have any responsibilty towards the child)? When I question some people on their stance on male abortion, they start saying stuff like "Oh, but he was responsible for creating the child and the child shouldn't suffer. So hell yeah, he should accept the consequences of his action and be forced to pay child support for a child he doesn't want" (I will explain in post #2 why this argument doesn't work). But they never apply this to women who have abortions. Apparently, women shouldn't have to suffer the consequences of their actions but men have to. Sexism, yeah? Apparently child suffering is only important when the man is concerned. But when the woman is concerned, all of a sudden, child suffering (denying the undeveloped human being the right/opportunity to live life when the female aborts it) doesn't matter anymore. Sexism, yeah? Yet a lot of these people would claim to support gender equality.
*Cable shakes his head and sighs*
The problem I find with most anti male abortion people I come across, is that they keep using all these buzz words and emotional statements like "TEH CHILD SHOULDN'T SUFFERZ!!", "HE SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT BEFORE HE HAD SEX" etc. They (particularly feminists) prefer to use those sort of emotional biased arguments, rather than getting logical about the matter. They don't like it when someone uses logic against them because their anti male abortion beliefs are not based on logic in the first place. And when they know they can't counter the logical arguments, they stop arguing and start using insults instead (e.g. you're a woman hater, you misogynistic pig, you douche etc).
So, the whole point of this thread is that it's about time we got logical about the male abortion issue. I thought about the situation/issue for a few minutes and put together a slightly logical argument quite quickly. It's a bit of a long read but it's very important that you read all of it and understand it. I'm not saying it's perfect or anything like that (I didn't bother to try and refine my argument). And at times, some of my premises are basically stating the obvious. You can read it below in post #2.
(edited 11 years ago)
Scroll to see replies
P1. A child is a creation from the equal input of the man's sperm and the woman's egg after sex.
P2. But sex is something that is not solely used to produce offspring. It can be used as a source of pleasure.
P3. Based on P1 and P2, intent is crucial when man and woman have sex because on the one hand, they could be having sex to have pleasure. But on the other hand, they could be having sex to deliberately create kids.
P4. However, it is possible that despite one's intent to have sex only for pleasure, a child can be produced as an accident.
P5. Hence if the girl gets pregnant, that does not mean that it was the man's or woman's intent for that to happen.
P6. A man and woman have sex with only the intent of pleasure (P2) and woman gets pregnancy accidentally.
P7. Actions have consequences. Let's assume that people must deal with the consequences of their actions.
P8. The initial consequence of P6 (the initial action) is that a child is created. And that's it. That's the only consequence so far.
P9. As a result of P6, P7 must be followed. It's either they abort the child or they go ahead with the pregnancy and the child is born.
P10. Intent is key to P9. If the pregnancy was not intended when having sex, either man or woman is justified to deal with the initial consequence (P8) by aborting the child directly.
P11. The man decides that he doesn't want to keep the child because he never intended to create children initially (P2).
P12. Although the girl originally didn't intend to get pregnant, she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy for some reason (e.g. moral, religious reasons).
P13. According to P7, people must deal with consequences of their action. And according to P8, the only consequence at first is that the child was created.
P14. The man has two options to deal with the initial consequence (P8): Force the woman to get an abortion or walk away from the mother and child completely and not offer any support.
P15. Since the man cannot force the woman to abort the child since it's her body, he cannot deal with the initial consequence exactly how he wanted to. He took an action in having sex. The only consequence of his action was that a child was created. He has tried to deal with the consequence of his action by trying to get the woman to abort the child. But the woman has refused to grant his wish.
P16. As a result of P15, the man is redeemed of the consequence of his action because he tried to deal with the initial consequence by getting the woman to have an abortion but the woman refused.
P17. As a result of the man's redemption (P16), the man can now take the other option of walking away from the pregnant woman and is now officially out of the equation.
P18. P6 was the initial action of the woman. She chooses to deal with the consequence of the pregnancy by going ahead with the pregnancy. So, she has shown intent in having the child.
P19. She gives birth to the child.
P20. As a result of P19 (the new action), the woman must face a new consequence. The consequence is that the child has to be looked after physically, emotionally and financially.
P21. Instead of giving the child up for adoption, she chooses to keep the child. In doing so, she accepts full responsibility of her action (P19) and the consequences (P20).
P22. Since the man was out of the equation in P17, he cannot be responsible in any way for the woman's action (P19) and the (new) consequences of her action (P20).
P23. If P17, P21 and P22 are true, then the man is not obligated to pay any child support because he was not involved in the secondary actions of the woman (P19 & P21) and hence, the new/secondary consequences cannot apply to him in any way. The new/secondary consequences (P20) can only apply to the woman since she was responsible for the secondary actions (P19 & P21).
C. As a result of P23, the man shouldn't pay child support. And all responsibilities to the child are solely on the woman's shoulders. And if the child suffers, the mother is solely responsible for it.
And since the man is unjustifiably forced to pay child support, the lack of men's right to male abortion counts as part of the suffering that man faces.
I stress that it's important you acknowledge the consequences involved in my argument. There are only two consequences: P8 and P20. It is only the initial/primary consequence (P8) that applies to the man. The secondary consequences (P20) cannot apply to the man since he didn't take the actions P19 and P21. P20 only applies to the woman because she took the action P19 and decision P21.
So there you go. What do you think of this argument? If you disagree with it or are against male abortion, feel free to respond. But I must make it clear that I want any counter-arguments to be as logical as possible. You don't necessarily have to put a list of premises and stuff like that. But just make sure your argument flows with logic. Rather than using the typical stupid emotional arguments.
P2. But sex is something that is not solely used to produce offspring. It can be used as a source of pleasure.
P3. Based on P1 and P2, intent is crucial when man and woman have sex because on the one hand, they could be having sex to have pleasure. But on the other hand, they could be having sex to deliberately create kids.
P4. However, it is possible that despite one's intent to have sex only for pleasure, a child can be produced as an accident.
P5. Hence if the girl gets pregnant, that does not mean that it was the man's or woman's intent for that to happen.
P6. A man and woman have sex with only the intent of pleasure (P2) and woman gets pregnancy accidentally.
P7. Actions have consequences. Let's assume that people must deal with the consequences of their actions.
P8. The initial consequence of P6 (the initial action) is that a child is created. And that's it. That's the only consequence so far.
P9. As a result of P6, P7 must be followed. It's either they abort the child or they go ahead with the pregnancy and the child is born.
P10. Intent is key to P9. If the pregnancy was not intended when having sex, either man or woman is justified to deal with the initial consequence (P8) by aborting the child directly.
P11. The man decides that he doesn't want to keep the child because he never intended to create children initially (P2).
P12. Although the girl originally didn't intend to get pregnant, she decides to go ahead with the pregnancy for some reason (e.g. moral, religious reasons).
P13. According to P7, people must deal with consequences of their action. And according to P8, the only consequence at first is that the child was created.
P14. The man has two options to deal with the initial consequence (P8): Force the woman to get an abortion or walk away from the mother and child completely and not offer any support.
P15. Since the man cannot force the woman to abort the child since it's her body, he cannot deal with the initial consequence exactly how he wanted to. He took an action in having sex. The only consequence of his action was that a child was created. He has tried to deal with the consequence of his action by trying to get the woman to abort the child. But the woman has refused to grant his wish.
P16. As a result of P15, the man is redeemed of the consequence of his action because he tried to deal with the initial consequence by getting the woman to have an abortion but the woman refused.
P17. As a result of the man's redemption (P16), the man can now take the other option of walking away from the pregnant woman and is now officially out of the equation.
P18. P6 was the initial action of the woman. She chooses to deal with the consequence of the pregnancy by going ahead with the pregnancy. So, she has shown intent in having the child.
P19. She gives birth to the child.
P20. As a result of P19 (the new action), the woman must face a new consequence. The consequence is that the child has to be looked after physically, emotionally and financially.
P21. Instead of giving the child up for adoption, she chooses to keep the child. In doing so, she accepts full responsibility of her action (P19) and the consequences (P20).
P22. Since the man was out of the equation in P17, he cannot be responsible in any way for the woman's action (P19) and the (new) consequences of her action (P20).
P23. If P17, P21 and P22 are true, then the man is not obligated to pay any child support because he was not involved in the secondary actions of the woman (P19 & P21) and hence, the new/secondary consequences cannot apply to him in any way. The new/secondary consequences (P20) can only apply to the woman since she was responsible for the secondary actions (P19 & P21).
C. As a result of P23, the man shouldn't pay child support. And all responsibilities to the child are solely on the woman's shoulders. And if the child suffers, the mother is solely responsible for it.
And since the man is unjustifiably forced to pay child support, the lack of men's right to male abortion counts as part of the suffering that man faces.
I stress that it's important you acknowledge the consequences involved in my argument. There are only two consequences: P8 and P20. It is only the initial/primary consequence (P8) that applies to the man. The secondary consequences (P20) cannot apply to the man since he didn't take the actions P19 and P21. P20 only applies to the woman because she took the action P19 and decision P21.
So there you go. What do you think of this argument? If you disagree with it or are against male abortion, feel free to respond. But I must make it clear that I want any counter-arguments to be as logical as possible. You don't necessarily have to put a list of premises and stuff like that. But just make sure your argument flows with logic. Rather than using the typical stupid emotional arguments.
(edited 11 years ago)
Another stupid thing that I've noticed is that when people try to justifiy women getting abortions, they say "Her body, her choice". But we can easily apply a similar argument for men to have the right to male abortion: "His money, his choice". I don't have much of a problem with the former statement (the one concerning women). But it's funny that the former argument is acceptable for women but the latter argument is not acceptable just because it relates to men. Sexism?
Now, of course, if we dig deeper they may be some problems with the men/money argument. People can argue that no-one absolutely owns any of their money. Hence why the gov't is allowed to take away some of our money in taxes. But we can apply a similar argument for human beings owning their bodies. You'd think that if we own our bodies, we'd have the right to euthanasia, right? But the gov't doesn't allow us to. But how can that be? I thought we own our bodies. Shouldn't we have the right/freedom to decide what to do with our bodies? What about drugs? If we truly own our bodies, then we should have the right/freedom to take whatever substances we want, regardless of their effects on our bodies, right? But in the UK, we have the gov't making certain drugs illegal.
Let's dig even deeper. Humans are formed from the gametes of two parents. So does that mean that the parents have a claim to ownership of your body? Humans are made up of atoms. But these atoms are held together by forces that you didn't create. Hell, you didn't even create the atoms themselves. So how do you absolutely own your bodies?
So you can see my point that women saying "My body, my choice" isn't a completely true statement when it is critically assessed. But for the sake of not being pedantic or debating semantics, let's assume that women own their bodies and human beings (men in this context) own their money.
The argument for women:
P1. Women own their bodies.
P2. No outside agent should be able to force them to do something they don't want to do.
P3. They should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, as long as they're not causing physical harm to fully developed human beings.
P4. A foetus has a symbiotic relationship with the mother and resides in the mother.
C. Since the foetus can qualify as a part of her body or the fact that the baby resides inside her (P4), she should have the final say over whether to keep or abort a child as a result of P2 and P3.
Similar argument for men:
P1. Men own their money.
P2. No outside agent should be able to force them to pay for something they don't want.
P3. Man has made it explicitly clear early on that he doesn't want the child a girl he accidentally pregnated.
C. As a result of P1, men shouldn't have to pay child support for a child they didn't want, according to P2 .
What are thoughts on this argument? Yay or nay as a good argument in favour of male abortion?
Now, of course, if we dig deeper they may be some problems with the men/money argument. People can argue that no-one absolutely owns any of their money. Hence why the gov't is allowed to take away some of our money in taxes. But we can apply a similar argument for human beings owning their bodies. You'd think that if we own our bodies, we'd have the right to euthanasia, right? But the gov't doesn't allow us to. But how can that be? I thought we own our bodies. Shouldn't we have the right/freedom to decide what to do with our bodies? What about drugs? If we truly own our bodies, then we should have the right/freedom to take whatever substances we want, regardless of their effects on our bodies, right? But in the UK, we have the gov't making certain drugs illegal.
Let's dig even deeper. Humans are formed from the gametes of two parents. So does that mean that the parents have a claim to ownership of your body? Humans are made up of atoms. But these atoms are held together by forces that you didn't create. Hell, you didn't even create the atoms themselves. So how do you absolutely own your bodies?
So you can see my point that women saying "My body, my choice" isn't a completely true statement when it is critically assessed. But for the sake of not being pedantic or debating semantics, let's assume that women own their bodies and human beings (men in this context) own their money.
The argument for women:
P1. Women own their bodies.
P2. No outside agent should be able to force them to do something they don't want to do.
P3. They should have the right to do what they want with their bodies, as long as they're not causing physical harm to fully developed human beings.
P4. A foetus has a symbiotic relationship with the mother and resides in the mother.
C. Since the foetus can qualify as a part of her body or the fact that the baby resides inside her (P4), she should have the final say over whether to keep or abort a child as a result of P2 and P3.
Similar argument for men:
P1. Men own their money.
P2. No outside agent should be able to force them to pay for something they don't want.
P3. Man has made it explicitly clear early on that he doesn't want the child a girl he accidentally pregnated.
C. As a result of P1, men shouldn't have to pay child support for a child they didn't want, according to P2 .
What are thoughts on this argument? Yay or nay as a good argument in favour of male abortion?
(edited 11 years ago)
As much as I find the very idea completely unpalatable - I pretty much agree. If a woman is allowed to choose not to have anything to do with the baby (i.e. either aborts or gives it away for adoption), the male should be allowed to do the same (obviously they should have zero say in whether the woman should have an abortion).
Though I'm not quite sure it exists as you are describing it. Regardless of your refusal to accept gender bias, in the majority of cases, the man is the main breadwinner - hence why, if they abandon the child with the mother, they have to pay child support. If the reverse happens however (i.e. the woman is the main breadwinner in the unit and then abandons the child with the man) - would the courts not order the woman to pay child support? It rarely happens because the scenario rarely happens, but I'm pretty sure there is no gender bias when it comes to child support. (Maybe when deciding who gets custody, but I haven't seen evidence that it includes finances).
Though I'm not quite sure it exists as you are describing it. Regardless of your refusal to accept gender bias, in the majority of cases, the man is the main breadwinner - hence why, if they abandon the child with the mother, they have to pay child support. If the reverse happens however (i.e. the woman is the main breadwinner in the unit and then abandons the child with the man) - would the courts not order the woman to pay child support? It rarely happens because the scenario rarely happens, but I'm pretty sure there is no gender bias when it comes to child support. (Maybe when deciding who gets custody, but I haven't seen evidence that it includes finances).
I agree with you wholeheartedly. (Many) feminists don't want equality, they want revenge against men for the time in which women were considered unequal. Not to say that all feminists hold that perspective, but to be honest in today's world any other form of feminism is mostly redundant.
Also, the first spoiler in my sig raises a good point.
Also, the first spoiler in my sig raises a good point.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by callum9999
As much as I find the very idea completely unpalatable - I pretty much agree. If a woman is allowed to choose not to have anything to do with the baby (i.e. either aborts or gives it away for adoption), the male should be allowed to do the same (obviously they should have zero say in whether the woman should have an abortion).
Though I'm not quite sure it exists as you are describing it. Regardless of your refusal to accept gender bias, in the majority of cases, the man is the main breadwinner - hence why, if they abandon the child with the mother, they have to pay child support. If the reverse happens however (i.e. the woman is the main breadwinner in the unit and then abandons the child with the man) - would the courts not order the woman to pay child support? It rarely happens because the scenario rarely happens, but I'm pretty sure there is no gender bias when it comes to child support. (Maybe when deciding who gets custody, but I haven't seen evidence that it includes finances).
Though I'm not quite sure it exists as you are describing it. Regardless of your refusal to accept gender bias, in the majority of cases, the man is the main breadwinner - hence why, if they abandon the child with the mother, they have to pay child support. If the reverse happens however (i.e. the woman is the main breadwinner in the unit and then abandons the child with the man) - would the courts not order the woman to pay child support? It rarely happens because the scenario rarely happens, but I'm pretty sure there is no gender bias when it comes to child support. (Maybe when deciding who gets custody, but I haven't seen evidence that it includes finances).
The whole custody thing is that the courts decide which parent will give the child a better upbringing. So if the mother can provide but the dad can't then no I wouldn't expect him to pay; but this is unusual. In most cases it is the other way round and therefore the men do have to pay up.
<3 x
Original post by LETSJaM
Well he should have to take the consequences just like the woman did. Therefore pay up.
You clearly haven't read post #2 yet. Please read it and then get back to me.
But the male abortion term that I know is that the guy should give consent/be told prior to the abortion.
This is different to the 'pay up' rights that you've talked about.
This is different to the 'pay up' rights that you've talked about.
In the context of my OP and how I've seen the term used, I am defining "male abortion" as the right for men to not have to have any responsibility (e.g. financial) towards the child that they didn't want. Whether the girl has told him during the pregnancy or after doesn't matter. The fact is that if he hasn't declared any intent to have a child with the woman, he shouldn't have to have any responsibility towards the child.
But it would be preferable if the woman had told him early during her pregnancy and the man signed legal documents to confirm his male abortion.
Original post by Cable
x
You're right, and I think a lot of the double standards has been carried over from before abortion was possible (at least, safely and legally) - back when a woman and child had no chance without someone to provide for them.
Another issue (though it can't really be remedied) is that whilst a mother can choose to have a child against the wishes of the father, he cannot against the wishes of the mother.
Men should be able to sign off all responsibility to the child prior to birth.
As a result they sacrifice any connection to the child.
As a result they sacrifice any connection to the child.
Original post by OU Student
I have a friend who once said he believes that he shouldn't have a say in it; as he's not the one carrying the baby for 9 months and giving birth.
Did he also say that the CSA shouldn't be involved in chasing him for £money (like 'garnishing' his pay packet) for the next 16+ years, or did he want a say in his financial future?
Original post by LETSJaM
The whole custody thing is that the courts decide which parent will give the child a better upbringing. So if the mother can provide but the dad can't then no I wouldn't expect him to pay; but this is unusual. In most cases it is the other way round and therefore the men do have to pay up.
<3 x
<3 x
I'm pretty sure that's not how it works? I thought the courts decide who can bring them up the best (usually choosing the mother) and then force the other party (usually the father) to pay child support if they are in a financial position to do so, and the one bringing up the children was at least partially reliant on that income while still together. I.e. the court is within their right to not give any custody to the father yet still force them to pay maintenance.
Maybe I have the wrong end of the stick though?
While I do think that feminists present themselves as misguided, hysterical people, I think you are missing the basic point that there is a fundamental difference between deciding to terminate an abortion and "denying the right to life" and making a child suffer when they are actually here in this world. If a child is born to a mother who cannot afford to look after it then it is both parents' responsibility not to make that child suffer unnecessarily, even if the father decides he wants nothing to do with it.
Original post by rad_student
Did he also say that the CSA shouldn't be involved in chasing him for £money (like 'garnishing' his pay packet) for the next 16+ years, or did he want a say in his financial future?
No
I am unsure where I stand on this. However, if the man says the woman should have an abortion and she doesn't, she should be the one financially responsible for it.
Original post by MangoFreak
I agree with you wholeheartedly. (Many) feminists don't want equality, they want revenge against men for the time in which women were considered unequal. Not to say that all feminists hold that perspective, but to be honest in today's world any other form of feminism is mostly redundant.
Also, the first spoiler in my sig raises a good point.
Also, the first spoiler in my sig raises a good point.
Your spoiler in your sig certainly raises a good point.
Original post by Unidentified
While I do think that feminists present themselves as misguided, hysterical people, I think you are missing the basic point that there is a fundamental difference between deciding to terminate an abortion and "denying the right to life" and making a child suffer when they are actually here in this world. If a child is born to a mother who cannot afford to look after it then it is both parents' responsibility not to make that child suffer unnecessarily, even if the father decides he wants nothing to do with it.
If the woman couldn't afford the baby then she shouldn't of had it. AS woman can give the baby up for adoption so that is the same as making the child suffer after it is born.
Original post by callum9999
As much as I find the very idea completely unpalatable - I pretty much agree. If a woman is allowed to choose not to have anything to do with the baby (i.e. either aborts or gives it away for adoption), the male should be allowed to do the same (obviously they should have zero say in whether the woman should have an abortion).
Ok.
Though I'm not quite sure it exists as you are describing it. Regardless of your refusal to accept gender bias, in the majority of cases, the man is the main breadwinner - hence why, if they abandon the child with the mother, they have to pay child support. If the reverse happens however (i.e. the woman is the main breadwinner in the unit and then abandons the child with the man) - would the courts not order the woman to pay child support? It rarely happens because the scenario rarely happens, but I'm pretty sure there is no gender bias when it comes to child support. (Maybe when deciding who gets custody, but I haven't seen evidence that it includes finances).
I see where you're coming from. But if you read post #2 fully, you will see that there is no justifiable reason to make men pay child support for a kid he doesn't want (even if men are the usual breadwinners). Unless of course, you spot a flaw in my argument that justifies men having to pay child support.
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by Hopple
You're right, and I think a lot of the double standards has been carried over from before abortion was possible (at least, safely and legally) - back when a woman and child had no chance without someone to provide for them.
Another issue (though it can't really be remedied) is that whilst a mother can choose to have a child against the wishes of the father, he cannot against the wishes of the mother.
Another issue (though it can't really be remedied) is that whilst a mother can choose to have a child against the wishes of the father, he cannot against the wishes of the mother.
Agreed.
But even though it's unfortunate that men cannot abort a child against the wishes of the mother, there's nothing really anything we can do about that.
I cannot comprehend the pain that those men must feel. Jeez. Writing this is almost bringing tears to my eyes.
I actually disagree with you.
There is no equality when it comes to abortion. The woman is ending a potential life, the man is saying he won't pay for that life. Those are vastly different things. I don't think (m)any women can go through with an abortion without a hell of a lot of thinking about it first; they are ending a potential life, it's not an easy decision to make. Whereas all a man has to do is say he won't pay, he's not the one with the dead fetus on his conscience (if you take that perspective). I think too many men would take the easy route and refuse to pay, leaving a lot of women to make a very difficult decision. Kill it or live with it in poverty. That's not fair on the woman, she shouldn't be forced to either kill it or struggle on her own to bring it up.
As I said, there can never be equality when it comes to abortion because of the vastly different roles of men and women. And personally, I'm against the idea of male abortion because I think it would put women in a terrible situation and I know I would never want to have to make that choice so I wouldn't inflict it on women either.
There is no equality when it comes to abortion. The woman is ending a potential life, the man is saying he won't pay for that life. Those are vastly different things. I don't think (m)any women can go through with an abortion without a hell of a lot of thinking about it first; they are ending a potential life, it's not an easy decision to make. Whereas all a man has to do is say he won't pay, he's not the one with the dead fetus on his conscience (if you take that perspective). I think too many men would take the easy route and refuse to pay, leaving a lot of women to make a very difficult decision. Kill it or live with it in poverty. That's not fair on the woman, she shouldn't be forced to either kill it or struggle on her own to bring it up.
As I said, there can never be equality when it comes to abortion because of the vastly different roles of men and women. And personally, I'm against the idea of male abortion because I think it would put women in a terrible situation and I know I would never want to have to make that choice so I wouldn't inflict it on women either.
Quick Reply
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 2 days ago
Why is the political left now censorious and authoritarian??Last reply 2 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 2 weeks ago
TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?Last reply 2 weeks ago
Research Rankings of universities if you add Research Quality & Intensity percentagesLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
