Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

A key double standard in the abortion debate... Watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This isn't really thread where I'm aiming to discuss the morality of abortion. This is about a double standard in the abortion debate which has always left me baffled and mystified.

    Now look at this BBC link. Look at the argument Sarah Wade makes in the famous Roe vs Wade case in the US:

    A pregnancy to a woman is perhaps one of the most determinative aspects of her life. It disrupts her body. It disrupts her education. It disrupts her employment. And it often disrupts her entire family life.
    Furthermore along in the article the BBC states:

    Many people regard the right to control one's own body as a key moral right. If women are not allowed to abort an unwanted foetus they are deprived of this right.
    Now to me it looks like all proponents who argue for abortion make it seem like sex is an innate right for woman. The whole talk of abortion could easily be dismissed if women simply abstained from sex and/or were very diligent with their birth control methods.

    Now compare this to men. When men complain about a woman who has become pregnant and is demanding child support/whatever more benefits, most people tell the man to 'shut it', that he shouldn't have had sex if he doesn't want to bare the consequences and should 'man up' and do the right thing and support the child/woman. The main part to note in this argument is the fact that society tells the man that he should abstain from sex. It's been posted many times all across the internet and even on this site! This too keeping in mind that men have no birth control methods available to them [condoms are only a barrier advice, not a real form of birth control].

    So why doesn't the same standard which applies to woman apply to the man or why doesn't the standard which applies to the man apply to the woman? Why isn't a man allowed to 'abort' his duties to the child just like the woman is allowed? Or why isn't the woman forced to obligate her duties to the baby like the man is? You can equally argue that forcing men to give up a large chunk of their pay which they've put their body and mind through also disrupts their career plans/business plans and ultimately their family life [ie found a new partner and not having the same finances as from before]. It's a very big double standard which needs addressing.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with you. I think this is more an issue of child support inequality than abortion. Forcing someone to go through a pregnancy is a big deal but so is forcing a man to contribute to a child for 18 years.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Completely agree.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Completely agree. I think it'll be interesting to look at opinions by gender ...
    It's difficult because there's not exactly a male abortion alternative, because the child will be born. But it's ridiculously unfair to expect him to pay for a child he wants no involvement with when the woman has no obligation to do this.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    you are arguing not about abortion but about child support. BOTH parents have financial obligations to a child, not simply the father. Both parents have a moral duty to a child once it is born that should go beyond financial support.

    Birth control doesn't always work and if you have sex with a woman you are accepting that it's possible there will be a pregnancy. If you don't want obligations to a child don't have sex with a woman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think the point here is that once an abortion has happened, there is no child.

    However, if there is no actual, physical abortion, a child will come into existence. So if a man "aborts", there will still be a child who suffers emotionally, financially, whatever.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parentlurker)
    you are arguing not about abortion but about child support. BOTH parents have financial obligations to a child, not simply the father. Both parents have a moral duty to a child once it is born that should go beyond financial support.

    Birth control doesn't always work and if you have sex with a woman you are accepting that it's possible there will be a pregnancy. If you don't want obligations to a child don't have sex with a woman.
    You're ignoring the OP entirely.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parentlurker)
    you are arguing not about abortion but about child support. BOTH parents have financial obligations to a child, not simply the father. Both parents have a moral duty to a child once it is born that should go beyond financial support.

    Birth control doesn't always work and if you have sex with a woman you are accepting that it's possible there will be a pregnancy. If you don't want obligations to a child don't have sex with a woman.
    This is not a question of sex but equality. A female has more options available to her than a man does. A female can choose to have an abortion, to keep the child, to give the child up for adoption. The man just has to accept the decision the female makes. How does this seem fair?

    A woman has rights over her own body, so why is it not fair to say a man can have rights over his own money?

    Surely we should be taking a step to a more gender equal society?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    This is not a question of sex but equality. A female has more options available to her than a man does. A female can choose to have an abortion, to keep the child, to give the child up for adoption. The man just has to accept the decision the female makes. How does this seem fair?

    A woman has rights over her own body, so why is it not fair to say a man can have rights over his own money?
    But physical abortion actually prevents a child existing, while a man's right to abort in that sense would simply mean ignoring the fact that a child does exist, and might subsequently suffer emotionally or financially.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    But physical abortion actually prevents a child existing, while a man's right to abort in that sense would simply mean ignoring the fact that a child does exist, and might subsequently suffer emotionally or financially.
    If that is what the man decides then so be it. A step towards equality does not favour one side.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    I think the point here is that once an abortion has happened, there is no child.

    However, if there is no actual, physical abortion, a child will come into existence. So if a man "aborts", there will still be a child who suffers emotionally, financially, whatever.
    Basically this. ^^

    The difference between the two scenarios which the OP describes is that in one, there is an actual child involved. A woman exercising her freedoms and aborting a bunch of cells is much different to the man cutting off vital support to a vulnerable child.

    Unless people support the view that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion, I see little value in the OP's post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FinalMH)
    If that is what the man decides then so be it. A step towards equality does not favour one side.
    How is that favouring one side? It's actually favouring the innocent party - the child.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    How is that favouring one side? It's actually favouring the innocent party - the child.
    If the mother decides to keep the child, and the father does not then the mother is creating the financial burden.

    Also the argument regarding emotional is disputable.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by parentlurker)
    you are arguing not about abortion but about child support. BOTH parents have financial obligations to a child, not simply the father. Both parents have a moral duty to a child once it is born that should go beyond financial support.

    Birth control doesn't always work and if you have sex with a woman you are accepting that it's possible there will be a pregnancy. If you don't want obligations to a child don't have sex with a woman.
    So should women who want an abortion be told, "If you didn't want a child, you shouldn't have had sex with a man"? :confused:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Algorithm69)
    Great post. I completely agree. It is hilarious how feminists cannot see these double standards and perpetuate the myth that we live in a "male privilege society".
    Feminists are inherently against all males, there is no 'equality' feminists request for, it's all for female superiority and this is easily seen in the agendas they promote. Never will you see feminists promote an area in which men are severely lacking in compared to women [Life expectancy to give one example].

    (Original post by joker12345)
    Completely agree. I think it'll be interesting to look at opinions by gender ...
    It's difficult because there's not exactly a male abortion alternative, because the child will be born. But it's ridiculously unfair to expect him to pay for a child he wants no involvement with when the woman has no obligation to do this.
    Yup it is.

    (Original post by berryripple)
    I think the point here is that once an abortion has happened, there is no child.

    However, if there is no actual, physical abortion, a child will come into existence. So if a man "aborts", there will still be a child who suffers emotionally, financially, whatever.

    (Original post by berryripple)
    But physical abortion actually prevents a child existing, while a man's right to abort in that sense would simply mean ignoring the fact that a child does exist, and might subsequently suffer emotionally or financially.

    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    Basically this. ^^

    The difference between the two scenarios which the OP describes is that in one, there is an actual child involved. A woman exercising her freedoms and aborting a bunch of cells is much different to the man cutting off vital support to a vulnerable child.

    Unless people support the view that a man should be able to force a woman to have an abortion, I see little value in the OP's post.

    (Original post by berryripple)
    How is that favouring one side? It's actually favouring the innocent party - the child.
    I'm not arguing anything about the situation that arises in both cases. I'm arguing in terms of how there is a double standard here. If a man does something 'wrong' [in this case getting a woman pregnant when he didn't intend to] society puts a lot of blame on him and vilifies him. When a woman does something wrong [in this case getting pregnant when she didn't want to] society empathises with her and tries to find a solution to the problem.

    As a side note; I'd say a fetus at 24 weeks is more than a 'bunch of cells'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anything related to the abortion debate usually bores me rigid, but this thought from OP was very interesting. Thanks for sharing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by berryripple)
    But physical abortion actually prevents a child existing, while a man's right to abort in that sense would simply mean ignoring the fact that a child does exist, and might subsequently suffer emotionally or financially.
    Just to add. The mother of the child has the option of adoption, so if the father again says no. Then the emotional and financial suffering can be removed by the mother giving the baby up for adoption.

    If you're unable to afford a child, then you as parent she make adequate decisions to ensure that the child has the best up bringing.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    I'm not arguing anything about the situation that arises in both cases. I'm arguing in terms of how there is a double standard here. If a man does something 'wrong' [in this case getting a woman pregnant when he didn't intend to] society puts a lot of blame on him and vilifies him. When a woman does something wrong [in this case getting pregnant when she didn't want to] society empathises with her and tried to find a solution to the problem.

    As a side note; I'd say a fetus at 24 weeks is more than a 'bunch of cells'.
    It is not a double standard at all. We are talking about two completely different things here: One is the mother's choice whether or not to keep the child. The other is the obligations owed to that child once it is born. To try and compare these two things and create an argument based on some kind of male victim culture is ridiculous.

    As for where society stands on these two, very separate issues; I think it is hard to say. Different sectors of society hold different views. However look at it this way: when you are looking at the father's obligations, there really are only two possible results: a) he either meets his obligations and assists in providing for the child or b) he does not and the mother and the child (the real innocent) suffers as a result. These two results don't really occur when we consider the mother's choice of having an abortion.

    As for my views on when the bundle of cells becomes a child: not too sure. I only know the legal position. I am aware that there are differing views on it though.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    As for where society stands on these two, very separate issues; I think it is hard to say. Different sectors of society hold different views. However look at it this way: when you are looking at the father's obligations, there really are only two possible results: a) he either meets his obligations and assists in providing for the child or b) he does not and the mother and the child (the real innocent) suffers as a result. These two results don't really occur when we consider the mother's choice of having an abortion.
    Aha but this is exactly from where the double standards stem from.

    If a woman knows a father will not financially support the child and she has no means to support it she is creating the monetary burden to go ahead with the child and having it. She has a very simple option if she knows that the child will be depraved; abortion. It's legal for a reason. Now also keep in mind that in most cases the state also helps out greatly to single mothers and of course single mothers whose children's father is unemployed and doesn't have any income to support a child probably occurs in a lot of cases and the children grow up fine (wellI in terms of health. Children in general raised by single parents actually has many negative effects on children but that's another point for another thread)Now you may say well this is practically forcing a woman to have an abortion because the father does not support it.

    The counter argument to this is simple; well then how is it any different than a woman forcing a man to pay child support because she wants it and the man doesn't? They are two very similar scenarios the difference is that the woman holds all the power in both.

    As for my views on when the bundle of cells becomes a child: not too sure. I only know the legal position. I am aware that there are differing views on it though.
    Well like I said the law doesn't see it as a bundle of cells. A fetus at 24 weeks is far past than just a bundle of cells. I don't have anything against abortion but the limit needs a serious reassessing because it's far too high in my opnion.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Aha but this is exactly from where the double standards stem from.

    If a woman knows a father will not financially support the child and she has no means to support it she is creating the monetary burden to go ahead with the child and having it. She has a very simple option if she knows that the child will be depraved; abortion. It's legal for a reason. Now you may say well this is practically forcing a woman to have an abortion because the father does not support it.

    The counter argument to this is simple; well then how is it any different than a woman forcing a man to pay child support because she wants it and the man doesn't? They are two very similar scenarios the difference is that the woman holds all the power in both.
    You can't seriously be comparing abortion to making payments intended for the support of a child?


    Well like I said the law doesn't see it as a bundle of cells. A fetus at 24 weeks is far past than just a bundle of cells. I don't have anything against abortion but the limit needs a serious reassessing because it's far too high in my opnion.
    Your opinion is noted. I'm afraid I don't have nearly as much expertise in this field to make any arguments on it.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.