Is abortion only the womans right to choose?

well, to be honest, I haven't read full 14 pages, so I will just give my opinion on subject.

In my opinion men have absolutely no right to "choose abortion".

However, men should have right to choose against abortion, if sexual act was willing and there are no medical dangers for life of mother.

0 Replies

MyOwnUsername wrote:

In my opinion men have absolutely no right to "choose abortion".

However, men should have right to choose against abortion, if sexual act was willing and there are no medical dangers for life of mother.

Accordingly, you would deny a man the right to excercise dominion and control over the woman's body in the first scenario . . . meaning, in your opinion, a man does not have the right to forcibly compel a woman to terminate a pregnancy.

However, you would grant a man the right of absolute dominion and control over the woman's body in the second scenario . . . meaning, in your opinion, a man has the right to forcibly compel a woman to continue a pregnancy.

In other words . . . you would require a woman to obtain the man's consent to terminate a pregnancy . . . and without that consent . . . she would be required to carry the pregnancy to term.

You are giving men absolute dominion and control over women. You are relegating women to the status of reproductive recepticles who will bear or not bear children in accordance with the desires of men.

0 Replies

no, but I am not at all surprised that someone like you has such conclusions.

Someone, I mean, that is so gender-obsessive.

0 Replies

oh, btw, I politely suggest that if you would like to have a talk with someone that thinks men and women are not equal and don't have equal rights...you should check if there are some mirrors around.
Have a nice conversation.

0 Replies

Is it not true that you would require the woman to obtain the man's consent for an abortion, and without that consent, you would require her to bring the pregnancy to full term?

0 Replies

yes, that is true - your conclusions from such premise are, however, wrong.

0 Replies

Gender equality means that neither the man nor the woman have dominion or control over the other's body.

By requiring the woman to obtain the man's consent concerning what she may or may not do with her own body is tantamount to designating the man as the master and the woman as the servant who must obey her master.

Your failure to see the sexism in your own opinion does not make me the one who is sexist.

All things being equal, men and women should have equal rights. But, men and women are not similarly situated in matters of reproduction. It is a matter of pure biology that places the growing fetus in the woman's body, not the man's body. Inasmuch as it is HER body, it is HER decision whether to continue or terminate the pregnancy.

0 Replies

in my opinion main sentence in your post is - "it is a matter of pure biology that places the growing fetus in the woman's body, not the man's body".

It is also matter of pure biology that both father and mother are needed to "create" a child. This is not 17th century, people are or, if they care, CAN be educated enough not to have kids if they don't want them.

If someone is willing to take risks - go ahead. But if things go bad, well, tough luck. And it works same for both men and women.

Woman body is woman body, and there is no doubt about that - there is, however, doubt about is fetus really just "a part of woman body"?

I don't think men have anything to say about weather any woman in the world will be on diet every day, or eating everything she can, or doing 11,000 plastic surgeries, or have tattoos, piercings, or to do absolutely anything relating to her body.

However, men have absolutely same right to choose about their CHILD. Which is, as you correctly put it, only because of "matter of pure biology", put in woman's body.

All of that, once again, if sexual act was willing and there are no medical risks.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't think men have anything to say about weather any woman in the world will be on diet every day, or eating everything she can, or doing 11,000 plastic surgeries, or have tattoos, piercings, or to do absolutely anything relating to her body.

Absolutely anything?

Including inserting a coat-hanger into places I'd rather not think about? Or swallowing an abortificant? Or drinking large ammounts of alcohol, or eating insufficient ammounts to maintain the parasitic organism... I mean, fetus?

...

Your premise allows them to do these actions, yet would prohibit them during the period of pregnancy. Correct? Thus post-coitus a nine month period would exist during which she no longer has the normal rights to which you would allow her.

Quote:

It is also matter of pure biology that both father and mother are needed to "create" a child. This is not 17th century, people are or, if they care, CAN be educated enough not to have kids if they don't want them.

So far as I'm aware no birth control procedure, short of abstinence, is 100% effective. Four billion years of evolution has made our body remarkably good at resisting interference in its sexual reproduction system.

Even with vasectomies, in 1 in 1000 cases the vans deferens spontaneously regenerate and vasectomies may miss the rare mutation of a third vans deferens.

I think similiar things occur with tubal ligation but I'm less familiar with the statistics thereof.

Even in the case of the most stringent birth control there is a minute chance of pregnancy (far more likely than winning the lottery).

Quote:

However, men have absolutely same right to choose about their CHILD. Which is, as you correctly put it, only because of "matter of pure biology", put in woman's body.

Very well, new legislation. The father can claim the fetus, have it removed from the uterus and given to him as an alternative to abortion. What he does with it then is up to him.

0 Replies

of course there are risks (and people are obviusly willing to take them) but combination of contraception has pretty good chance to work.

As for "father can claim fetus" stuff, I would rather skip comment on such issues.

For me, child is equal responsibility of both parents (which then also gives them same rights).

If you think differently, it's perfectly okay. But then be consistent in it.

So, do you think that if father does not want child to be born and makes it clearly, he should be also free of any kind of responsibility after child is born?

I don't. I am just asking you to see if you are full of hypocracy, or you stick with your beliefs.