Quote:
Originally Posted by Steerpike  This is a terrible point. Abortion isn't like a house sale. By its very nature, the decision can only be made by one person. If you make it so the man has to consent, then you've essentially given a veto power and put all of the power in the hands of the man. If you don't have it so that the man has to consent, all the power is in the hands of the woman.
In the end, by its nature, the whole decision has to rest with one person. Not an ideal situation, but that's the way it is. As between the two people involved, it makes more sense to have the decision fall to the woman than the man. | As it stands now, the veto power is placed solely in the hands of the woman. The man is completely at the mercy of the woman's whim. If a woman chooses to keep a child the man is willing to have aborted, then the man should have a legal avenue to be absolved of all responsibility for the child from that point forward. As we all know, that is not the case.
It's never going to be 50-50 fair, but it could be more fair than it is.
__________________
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing” - Edmund Burke
So in the Libyan fable it is told
That once an eagle, stricken with a dart,
Said, when he saw the fashion of the shaft,
“With our own feathers, not by others’ hands,
Are we now smitten.” Æschylus |