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

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

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by InnerTemple)
    You can't seriously be comparing abortion to making payments intended for the support of a child?
    I'm not comparing abortion to child support. I'm comparing the "moral" obligations of both parents to the child and how society views both with tainted glasses.




    Your opinion is noted. I'm afraid I don't have nearly as much expertise in this field to make any arguments on it.
    No problem mate.
    Offline

    12
    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 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'.
    Really? If a woman has an affair with a married man, despite being the party who isn't in a relationship and therefore not betraying a partner, she is usually the one who is vilified. Double standards exist against both sexes and to protest otherwise is suggestive of an agenda. I'm not saying that this is right / fair, just an observation.
    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.
    The mother has no financial obligations to her (born) child if she doesn't want to have them. She is perfectly within her rights to give her child away for adoption after birth and rid herself of ALL responsibility (abortion aside here). A man does not have this right.
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Really? If a woman has an affair with a married man, despite being the party who isn't in a relationship and therefore not betraying a partner, she is usually the one who is vilified. Double standards exist against both sexes and to protest otherwise is suggestive of an agenda. I'm not saying that this is right / fair, just an observation.
    And a cheating husband is not vilified? Both are vilified, because the perception is that both have done something wrong.

    And. Are you saying that in this situation she is being wrongly vilified? (Assuming she was aware this man was married) She was actively doing something she knew would hurt somebody.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Really? If a woman has an affair with a married man, despite being the party who isn't in a relationship and therefore not betraying a partner, she is usually the one who is vilified. Double standards exist against both sexes and to protest otherwise is suggestive of an agenda. I'm not saying that this is right / fair, just an observation.
    Hahaha no, if anything people view it as worse when a man cheats on a women, look at tiger woods the man got hit with a golf club for cheating with her, everyone was then saying "you go girl".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by limetang)
    And a cheating husband is not vilified? Both are vilified, because the perception is that both have done something wrong.

    And. Are you saying that in this situation she is being wrongly vilified? (Assuming she was aware this man was married) She was actively doing something she knew would hurt somebody.
    Just look at the Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders case. I don't like her, but I'm willing to admit that she definitely got more stick for it. If we leave that case, let's look at the whole Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie thing. She was called a home-wrecker by the press and public, and Brad didn't seem to take any heat at all. I'm not saying that men who cheat are portrayed as the innocent party, but the situation is usually depicted as the woman being the seductress who has tempted him away from his girlfriend / wife.



    (Original post by jreid1994)
    Hahaha no, if anything people view it as worse when a man cheats on a women, look at tiger woods the man got hit with a golf club for cheating with her, everyone was then saying "you go girl".

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I'm talking about the comparative perception of a man in a relationship who cheats and the woman he cheats with, not the treatment of a singular serial cheater.

    To the both of you, however, I do understand that this topic is quite subjective and open to opinion. Perhaps an easier way to demonstrate that women do still suffer inequalities is by looking a pay. On average, for doing exactly the same job as a man, a woman's pay will be less. I'm not trying to enter into an argument on the ethics of this etc, I'm simply trying to point out that men are not the only ones who suffer double standards. Again, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to rule out the hyperbolic assertion that women have everything and now men are suffering as a result, because it's not true. I don't wish for this to become a drawn out argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Just look at the Kristen Stewart and Rupert Sanders case. I don't like her, but I'm willing to admit that she definitely got more stick for it. If we leave that case, let's look at the whole Jennifer Aniston, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie thing. She was called a home-wrecker by the press and public, and Brad didn't seem to take any heat at all. I'm not saying that men who cheat are portrayed as the innocent party, but the situation is usually depicted as the woman being the seductress who has tempted him away from his girlfriend / wife.





    I'm talking about the comparative perception of a man in a relationship who cheats and the woman he cheats with, not the treatment of a singular serial cheater.

    To the both of you, however, I do understand that this topic is quite subjective and open to opinion. Perhaps an easier way to demonstrate that women do still suffer inequalities is by looking a pay. On average, for doing exactly the same job as a man, a woman's pay will be less. I'm not trying to enter into an argument on the ethics of this etc, I'm simply trying to point out that men are not the only ones who suffer double standards. Again, I'm not saying it's right, I'm just trying to rule out the hyperbolic assertion that women have everything and now men are suffering as a result, because it's not true. I don't wish for this to become a drawn out argument.
    So as usual you've just given a select few examples.

    Here's some with the roles reversed:

    Giggs cheats on his wife with his brother's wife. He gets villified by the media. Guess what happens to the woman? She gets propelled to media status and actually makes money off from cheating on his husband's brother and gets a spot on Celebrity big brother. What has she done to be called a 'celebrity'?

    Tiger Woods cheated with many married women no one batted an eye lid at them.

    John Terry cheated with a woman who was in a relationship with his fellow team mate Wayne Bridge, no one cared about her all the blame was on Trry.

    The fact is that it depends on case by case and who is the more famous of the two.

    Now, let's talk about how the legal system rewards women who cheat on their husbands. I'm betting that you don't want to go there now....

    And the pay myth has been dispelled so many times I can't even be bothered to refute it now.

    So as usual it's feminist drivel coming out of your mouth to divert the topic at hand. Perhaps you could stay on topic now?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I do agree that women who do not want to get pregnant should stick to birth control exactly or abstain etc etc. However there is not a 100% effective pill and so some women do become pregnant even if they take it every day at the same minute. Once the child is born it is a ridiculous idea that men should be able to "abort" their duties to this child...

    There have been male equivalents of the pill trialled and tested but most were not brought in due to the overwhelming belief that men would not be as efficient at taking them than women are. Therefore women should not be forced to assume all responsibility if this is because of a fault in men.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lizzie232)
    I do agree that women who do not want to get pregnant should stick to birth control exactly or abstain etc etc. However there is not a 100% effective pill and so some women do become pregnant even if they take it every day at the same minute. Once the child is born it is a ridiculous idea that men should be able to "abort" their duties to this child...
    No one is forcing the woman to have the child. If the father is unwilling to support the child and the woman herself has no financial means to support it then one must ask; What is the point of having that child? What good can it do for the woman? If the woman wants no input of the man in whether or not she keeps the child then truly why should she also have the right of asking him for money.

    There have been male equivalents of the pill trialled and tested but most were not brought in due to the overwhelming belief that men would not be as efficient at taking them than women are. Therefore women should not be forced to assume all responsibility if this is because of a fault in men.
    Absolutely gobsmacked at the sexism of this argument perpetrated by feminists. How can men not be trusted but woman can? What about the fact that everyday thousands of women commit paternity fraud? Isn't that proof enough that women cannot be trusted?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    So as usual you've just given a select few examples.

    Here's some with the roles reversed:

    Giggs cheats on his wife with his brother's wife. He gets villified by the media. Guess what happens to the woman? She gets propelled to media status and actually makes money off from cheating on his husband's brother and gets a spot on Celebrity big brother. What has she done to be called a 'celebrity'?

    Tiger Woods cheated with many married women no one batted an eye lid at them.

    John Terry cheated with a woman who was in a relationship with his fellow team mate Wayne Bridge, no one cared about her all the blame was on Trry.

    The fact is that it depends on case by case and who is the more famous of the two.

    Now, let's talk about how the legal system rewards women who cheat on their husbands. I'm betting that you don't want to go there now....

    And the pay myth has been dispelled so many times I can't even be bothered to refute it now.

    So as usual it's feminist drivel coming out of your mouth to divert the topic at hand. Perhaps you could stay on topic now?
    I'll give you the Terry case, but the fact that despite pointing out that I'm not looking at cases of serial cheaters, the majority of cases you brought to attention were about serial cheaters shows that you're not listening and already have a preconceived idea about me as a person.

    The fact that you say 'as usual it's feminist drivel coming out of your mouth' when neither would I probably be classed as a feminist because of various beliefs I hold nor have I ever spoken to you demonstrates an astonishing amount of confidence founded in ignorance.

    The fact that you ask me to stay on topic is again demonstrative of you jumping into conversation with your mouth first and brain last. If you had bothered reading the conversation I had been having with the other posters, one of the first things I mentioned was that I wasn't replying to the OP but simply commenting on a point one of the posters made about a different topic.

    I haven't even stated my opinion on the thread topic, so there's no need to jump down my throat about it when I may very well share a similar opinion to you, although I have to admit, your demonstration of a lack of rational thought indicates that that may not be likely.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    No one is forcing the woman to have the child. If the father is unwilling to support the child and the woman herself has no financial means to support it then one must ask; What is the point of having that child? What good can it do for the woman? If the woman wants no input of the man in whether or not she keeps the child then truly why should she also have the right of asking him for money.
    I totally agree with this and my opinion would be if you aren't in a stable relationship you shouldn't have a child, I just know that you can still become pregnant without intention and may not believe in abortion.

    Absolutely gobsmacked at the sexism of this argument perpetrated by feminists. How can men not be trusted but woman can? What about the fact that everyday thousands of women commit paternity fraud? Isn't that proof enough that women cannot be trusted?
    I agree with this as well, but it is not always the women projecting this argument. Men have come forward and said they would not wish to do this because of their dented pride that they would technically be firing blanks...I think its a great idea and that it should be implemented as soon as possible!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    I'll give you the Terry case, but the fact that despite pointing out that I'm not looking at cases of serial cheaters,
    Like I said, it's depends on each case, usually the more famous of the two gets vilified in the media. And the Giggs/Terry case proves that.
    the majority of cases you brought to attention were about serial cheaters shows that you're not listening and already have a preconceived idea about me as a person.
    Only Woods could be classed as a 'serial cheater'.

    The fact that you ask me to stay on topic is again demonstrative of you jumping into conversation with your mouth first and brain last.
    Wut?

    You comment was clearly off topic and has sparked a different debate in this thread. If you wanted to point out how women are villfied in the media, perhaps you can create separate topic.
    If you had bothered reading the conversation I had been having with the other posters, one of the first things I mentioned was that I wasn't replying to the OP but simply commenting on a point one of the posters made about men always being worse off in everything.
    Well quite clearly not since the debate you sparked went completely off topic.

    I haven't even stated my opinion on the thread topic, so there's no need to jump down my throat about it when I may very well share a similar opinion to you, although I have to admit, your demonstration of a lack of rational thought indicates that that may not be likely.
    'Lack of rational thought'. Don't make me laugh please.

    Within a few lines of my previous post I had already disproved your point and destroyed your argument.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lizzie232)
    I totally agree with this and my opinion would be if you aren't in a stable relationship you shouldn't have a child, I just know that you can still become pregnant without intention and may not believe in abortion.
    Well if you don't believe in abortion and do not have the means you shouldn't really be having sex then. IF you do then you bare the consequences.

    Now I wouldn't have a problem with a man paying support if abortion was outlawed and every woman who fell pregnant HAD to keep it and there was no assistance by the state.

    Now however women get assistance by the state and abortions are handed out like candy.



    I agree with this as well, but it is not always the women projecting this argument. Men have come forward and said they would not wish to do this because of their dented pride that they would technically be firing blanks...I think its a great idea and that it should be implemented as soon as possible!
    I haven't seen any men come out and say this to be honest. It's mostly feminists who say this.

    Can you imagine the uproar if the female pill wasn't released because people didn't trust females? I mean can you believe the **** storm that would erupt?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I would like to point out that women do not have abortion "on demand", as the phrase has it, in the UK. This is a key point that I think is often forgotten in these types of discussions about "financial abortion".

    Under UK law, an abortion can usually only be carried out during the first 24 weeks of pregnancy as long as certain criteria are met (see below).

    The Abortion Act 1967 covers the UK mainland (England, Scotland and Wales) but not Northern Ireland. The law states that:

    abortions must be carried out in a hospital or a specialist licensed clinic
    two doctors must agree that an abortion would cause less damage to a woman's physical or mental health than continuing with the pregnancy

    There are also a number of rarer situations when the law states an abortion may be carried out after 24 weeks. These include:

    if it is necessary to save the woman's life
    to prevent grave permanent injury to the physical or mental health of the pregnant woman
    if there is substantial risk that if the child were born, s/he would have physical or mental abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped
    ...
    Before an abortion can proceed, two doctors must ensure that the requirements of the Abortion Act are fulfilled, and they must both sign the relevant certificate. Usually, one of the doctors will be your GP and the other doctor will work at the hospital or clinic where the abortion will take place. However, this is not always the case.
    http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortio...roduction.aspx

    EDIT: oooh look what got posted at the same time as my post.
    abortions are handed out like candy.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Like I said, it's depends on each case, usually the more famous of the two gets vilified in the media. And the Giggs/Terry case proves that.


    Only Woods could be classed as a 'serial cheater'.


    Wut?

    You comment was clearly off topic and has sparked a different debate in this thread. If you wanted to point out how women are villfied in the media, perhaps you can create separate topic.


    Well quite clearly not since the debate you sparked went completely off topic.



    'Lack of rational thought'. Don't make me laugh please.

    Within a few lines of my post I had already disproved your point.
    Urgh, I can't even be bothered to try to clarify / simply things so that you can understand them because you don't want to. The sad thing is, you've been so busy being rude that you haven't even given me the chance to tell you whether or not I agreed with some of the points you raised in you OP, which having received nothing but rash rudeness and insolence from you I wouldn't say if I did. This is not how to gain support for a cause. If you don't agree with something and you're attempting to rally support, being an ******** will only turn people away from your cause because of you as a person even if they agree with it.

    I've met your type before and it's unfortunate, because when they do have a good idea, they present it and themselves in such a way that people are not willing to listen to it. It's easy to get people who already agree with you to listen - it's convincing those who don't that is the challenge, and a challenge dare I say you won't win with your attitude. All the same, good luck.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Octopus_Garden)
    I would like to point out that women do not have abortion "on demand", as the phrase has it, in the UK. This is a key point that I think is often forgotten in these types of discussions about "financial abortion".

    Not reallly an abortion isn't that hard to get at all. You don't need a 'legit' reason for it to be carried out. If you don't agree with this then you don't actually know the situation.

    The only 'problem' is the 24 weeks period but that is far more than enough time [it should be brought down].
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I would guess that this is an "inequality" which comes from the stakeholders in the different situations.

    Situation 1 - during pregnancy: Stakeholders are the woman and the man. As you can't have half an abortion it is necessary for one of those stakeholders to have the deciding vote, and it makes sense that that is the woman as it's her who is more effected by the pregnancy / birth / abortion.

    Situation 2 - post birth: There are three stakeholder - the child and 2 parents. As a general policy in UK law a child's welfare is paramount including when what is best for the child is negative for one or both of the parents. Someone has to pay to provide for the child and it makes sense that it's the other parent, as they are more responsible for the creation of the child than other people in society (i.e. tax payers) are.

    So I think you're not comparing like for like. If a mother gives birth to a child and then leaves it with the father then she would have to pay maintenance even if she didn't want to. Once a child is born it becomes the most weighty stakeholder to be considered and therefore the question is "which one of these people / groups will pay?" rather than "is it fair that this person pays?" so you're focussing on the wrong person as the parents are no longer the most important stakeholders. Even if you think it's not fair, it would be even more unfair if the child were simply not provided for - why should the child lose out because their parents didn't plan them? I also don't think it's fair that taxes be used to provide for a child who has parents who could provide for it, because that means there is less money available for providing for children without parents or with very poor parents.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Evangelica)
    Urgh, I can't even be bothered to try to clarify / simply things so that you can understand them because you don't want to. The sad thing is, you've been so busy being rude that you haven't even given me the chance to tell you whether or not I agreed with some of the points you raised in you OP, which having received nothing but rash rudeness and insolence from you I wouldn't say if I did. This is not how to gain support for a cause. If you don't agree with something and you're attempting to rally support, being an ******** will only turn people away from your cause because of you as a person even if they agree with it.

    I've met your type before and it's unfortunate, because when they do have a good idea, they present it and themselves in such a way that people are not willing to listen to it. It's easy to get people who already agree with you to listen - it's convincing those who don't that is the challenge, and a challenge dare I say you won't win with your attitude. All the same, good luck.
    I'm not willing to tolerate arrogance and ignorance of any situations from posters like you.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ultimate1)
    Not reallly an abortion isn't that hard to get at all. You don't need a 'legit' reason for it to be carried out. If you don't agree with this then you don't actually know the situation.

    The only 'problem' is the 24 weeks period but that is far more than enough time [it should be brought down].
    Tell me, at what gestational week is the anomaly scan? It is at 20-21 weeks. A woman or couple, who have just had some of the worst news you can receive, have two to three weeks to make a decision that they will have to live with for the rest of their lives. And it's too long for you? Actually, given that you have to make it in time to make an appointment for the procedure, you probably have less time than that to make it.

    At present, 91% of abortions occur before 12 weeks.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012...abortion-limit
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Well if you don't believe in abortion and do not have the means you shouldn't really be having sex then. IF you do then you bare the consequences.

    Now I wouldn't have a problem with a man paying support if abortion was outlawed and every woman who fell pregnant HAD to keep it and there was no assistance by the state.

    Now however women get assistance by the state and abortions are handed out like candy.
    I believe in abortion and think that women in a committed relationship should be able to talk this through with men...Can you imagine the pressure from a boyfriend/husband on a woman who said she would not have sex with them unless it was for a child?

    I haven't seen any men come out and say this to be honest. It's mostly feminists who say this.

    Can you imagine the uproar if the female pill wasn't released because people didn't trust females? I mean can you believe the **** storm that would erupt?
    http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/20...rth-control-1/ Its not just women who say things like this... And yes I know people would kick up a fuss if the female pill wasn't released....but it has been a great advance.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
  • 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.