Abortion is sexist

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.

Exactly, there is a severe double standard. When a woman has the sole choice, she may want to have a baby even though the man may want to abort it. In this case, the man is stuck with child-spport and as far as opinion goes, "He should have thought about that, now he's taking responsibility for his actions." If the man wants to keep the baby, and the woman wants to abort, it's all of a sudden ok. Now the woman gets off from dealing with her responsibility for her own actions, while the man is punished and must mourn the loss of his offspring. If you could imagine the feeling a woman would get if the man had SOLE say in it. If you wanted to have the baby, but your husband, boyfriend, lover, etc...wanted to abort it, you'd feel as though you've lost a child.

Like GunnyL said, it will never be completely equal, but I feel it should be more fair than that. If the man is willing to take responsibility and raise his child that the woman wants to abort, I say allow the child to be born and give it to the man. Good Post Gunny
 
I'm happy. Particularly since my pig of an ex has absolutely no contact with his children, but still has to pay child support.

Of course, I had to get the crap beat out of me, my foot broken and my little girl had to get her eye blacked before the cops would listen, but hey, we women have all the power.

That's terrible. I've spent a lot of time working with battered and abused women and their children, and it's absolutely unbelievable the things you see. And it's across socio-economic strata (many people assume it's lower-income only).
 
It's a very good solution. If the man is willing to pay for the abortion because he doesn't want a child, and the woman refuses, the man should have an out. The woman's got one, but screw the man right? That's all this entire topic is ever about.

The woman can decide to have an abortion against the man's wishes and be absloved of her responsibility for a child, but he has no legal recourse if she decides to keep it against his wishes.

All of a sudden the concern is for the child. A concern that is absent if she decides to terminate the preganancy, then it's suddenly not even a child at all.

That's just crap.

It's the only sensible way to do it. If the child is brought into the world, what then, there's no child support because the man didn't want the child? Surely you can see what a monumentally bad idea that would be. All you're going to do is further increase poverty and all of the problems that go along with it.

If you get someone pregnant, having to support the child if she decides to have it is just one of the consequences of your actions. Your choice comes at the point of sex, and choices have consequences. The fact is, after birth you have a real child in the world who needs support.

Divorce and/or lack of support is one of the prime factors (if not the prime factor) in poverty for women and children. That leads to all minds of problems, including lack of education, higher crime, more government welfare etc., all because you want the guy to have an out instead of actually being responsible for himself.
 
Like GunnyL said, it will never be completely equal, but I feel it should be more fair than that. If the man is willing to take responsibility and raise his child that the woman wants to abort, I say allow the child to be born and give it to the man. Good Post Gunny

It can't really be fairer than it is, just by its very nature. Every solution boils down to a veto power for one person or the other. Since that's the case, it makes more sense for it to go to the woman.
 
I disagree. Both men AND women have the same zipper choice to make. Many inequalities have been rationalized away as "the only feasible solution" when they are not.


clearly, "equality" is only a mantra.
 
It's a very good solution. If the man is willing to pay for the abortion because he doesn't want a child, and the woman refuses, the man should have an out. The woman's got one, but screw the man right? That's all this entire topic is ever about.

The woman can decide to have an abortion against the man's wishes and be absloved of her responsibility for a child, but he has no legal recourse if she decides to keep it against his wishes.

All of a sudden the concern is for the child. A concern that is absent if she decides to terminate the preganancy, then it's suddenly not even a child at all.

That's just crap.

Yup!

The degree of sexism and gender bias one finds on these boards is somewhat astounding.

Men are this Woman are that bla bla bla!

I can't help but think these people need to get laid once in a while., and stop being pissed that the boy/girls weren't nice to them in Junior High school.

Get over it folks!
 
Shog, I don't think you quite grasp the concept of equality.

you also don't think the IRS grasps the concept of employment. so what.

You have just as much of a zipper choice to make as a man does. The difference being that YOU don't want that same choice thrown back in your face AFTER THE FACT while having no problem whatsoever thowing back in a mans face. Equality is a bitch, Ravi. Step up to the plate that your bra burning ancestors strove to provide to you.
 
Of course abortion is sexist. It has been since it's inception. What's her face who first brought the pill to women in poor, immigrant and black neighborhoods wanted to sterilize poor, minority women with or without their consent. The pill was her second choice.
 
you also don't think the IRS grasps the concept of employment. so what.

You have just as much of a zipper choice to make as a man does. The difference being that YOU don't want that same choice thrown back in your face AFTER THE FACT while having no problem whatsoever thowing back in a mans face. Equality is a bitch, Ravi. Step up to the plate that your bra burning ancestors strove to provide to you.

Wrong again. There is no equality in this issue simply because there is no equal situation. A man does not get pregnant. If he did, he'd have the same option to decide what gets done with his body.
 
If a man has no right to dictate to a woman what to do with her body, then a woman has no right to dictate to an unborn child what happens to its body.

If we're all individuals, I guess the baby is an individual too.
 
Exactly when a fetus becomes a "person" is the key issue. There's no consensus on it, so it is hard to base policy on it.
 
The unborn aren't protected by the constitution. It will be a sad day if they ever are.

That's because they aren't considered "persons." Whether we'll ever be able to identify the point at which they become a person is questionable.
 
Once they're born they're legally persons. The question is whether that status should pertain prior to birth, and if so how far before birth.
 
Of course abortion is sexist. It has been since it's inception. What's her face who first brought the pill to women in poor, immigrant and black neighborhoods wanted to sterilize poor, minority women with or without their consent. The pill was her second choice.

Margaret Sanger was her name. Look who their treasurer was of Planned Parenthood back then....Prescott Bush....upper right hand corner of link....he was also the one who help fund those "experiments" on sterilization...of Sanger's with gvt money....

http://www.randomhouse.com/doubleday/thefamily/media/thefamily_document007a.pdf

The Family by Kitty Kelley: Documents
 

Forum List

Back
Top