Could abortion be considered a double standard?

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: kellyjay

and the woman cant put in her UID properly or take the pill how it is meant to be taken to avoid such a circumstance....

LOL! You're not a woman are you?!

That's what I've been thinking for awhile.

Stuff just wasn't adding up.

a reply to: beezzer

How do you feel about the "morning after" pill?

a reply to: ladyvalkyrie

But it is an ethical hyperbole for equality.
And for those that say the man has no choice in the matter in that example, than I am sorry, but you actually don't believe in true equality.

It wouldn't matter if it was 6 months into the relationship or six years, the man views it as his one and only shot to have his very own child, and yet the woman has the ability to deny him this, he has no rights under the law, how is that equality?

And for the record I think 99.9% of woman would continue to carry the child, but the point still stands, the fact is if they wanted to they could say "too bad, so sad, my choice the baby is toast", and legally the man can't stop it. That is the point the OP is trying to make I just exaggerated an example to make people think.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

If a man can't find a woman willing to carry his "child" out of love, perhaps he can pay someone?
Sometimes, life just isn't phair.

a reply to: windword

Sometimes, life just isn't phair.

And you can accept that, as long as it's the man (or the baby) getting the proverbial shaft?

Life has to be tough, but not for women. Am I misunderstanding your position?

This thread is about these sorts of double standards.

To clarify, I'm referring to your perspective on the whole - not about a fictitious lonely man.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

Hey! What can I say? If a man can't find a woman to carry his offspring, whose problem is that?

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: kellyjay

and the woman cant put in her UID properly or take the pill how it is meant to be taken to avoid such a circumstance....

LOL! You're not a woman are you?!

That's what I've been thinking for awhile.

Stuff just wasn't adding up.

LOL ... maybe women install UID's in Scotland?

a reply to: windword

If is she perfectly fine copulating with him multiple times, but not on taking responsibility of the biology result of the union, for purely selfish reasons, I don't think that's on the man.

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

This thread is about these sorts of double standards.

It is not a double standard because the situation is not equivalent between the man and the woman. A double standard would be adultery being acceptable for a man but not a woman. A double standard would be a man and a woman doing the same job with the same expertise but receiving different wages.

With a pregnancy, each has a very different involvement. The consequences of the situation are very different for each. There is no equivalency so there is no double standard.

a reply to: WanderingSage

The basic question is... 'when' does a fertilized egg become a human being?
The basic answer is, aside from varied opinions of the most renown minds in the field, we just do not know.

Here in the opening decades of the 21st century, birth control is widely available for both genders. A female can walk into most any pharmacy and get 'the pill' on request for pennies. A male can acquire a prophylactic from the corner gas station. Short of rape and/or incest, there just no excuse for 'accidental' pregnancy anymore.

We have to be ready to accept the responsibility that comes with being physically mature. Short of that, we fail not just ourselves, but the human race.

That's just one ever-so-humble-opinion... my own.

...

a reply to: redoubt

The basic question is... 'when' does a fertilized egg become a human being? The basic answer is, aside from varied opinions of the most renown minds in the field, we just do not know.

No. The question the OP is asking has nothing to do with that.

originally posted by: Blue_Jay33
a reply to: windword

If is she perfectly fine copulating with him multiple times, but not on taking responsibility of the biology result of the union, for purely selfish reasons, I don't think that's on the man.

Was she on birth control, thus displaying her desire NOT to get pregnant.

Has he asked her to marry him? Did she say yes? No?

Did they talk about what would happen if she was to "accidentally" become pregnant?

for purely selfish reasons

The only reason people choose to have a child is because they WANT one. People want little copies of themselves, that they can dress up and mold, and project themselves onto.

If he wants a child, he should find someone who also wants a child, instead of selfishly insisting that a woman who doesn't want a child, give him one.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Since you seemed to have over-looked it, I'll ask my question again... I'm curious as to your answer...

Given a situation of "total equality", If there's a dead-lock on the decision of whether to keep or abort (one "for", one "against") who do you think should get the final say?

a reply to: OpenMindedRealist

There hasn't been one person on this whole thread that has said that men have no right to input on the matter. In fact, even the most vehement pro-choicers agree that the man involved should be included in the decision.

Have you ever wondered WHY a female wouldn't want to involve the man involved? Could it be that she told him she was pregnant and he flipped out? Became verbally or even physically abusive? Made threats, along the lines of 'you'll never see a dime of child support out of me' or 'me/my family has plenty of money I'm going to get full custody then take YOU to court for child support'? Or maybe he hasn't even done these things yet, but she knows he will? Or maybe the guy's shenanigans (cheating, drinking, not working) were ok when it was just dating but suddenly sh*t got real and she's seeing a vision of what the next 18 years of her life are going to look like? Or (as in the case of one friend of mine) she wanted to keep it, knew she couldn't afford to, had a nice couple lined up to adopt then the 'father' refused to sign off on the adoption then threatened to stalk her to see if she actually has the baby? "I know where you live. I know where you work." < and that guy seemed like a nice, charming guy for 8 MONTHS....until he found out that she was pregnant, then Mr. Hyde came out. THIS is the crap a lot of women face when they become pregnant- especially accidentally.

Statistically women are more likely to be abused when they become pregnant. Why don't we all fix THAT before we start worrying about abortion? Everybody is so protective of a damn zygote, but there's a resounding 'meh' when a pregnant woman gets beaten by the 'loving father'.

originally posted by: Annee
From my Ex, great man.

"If you stick WooHoo in HooHoo without a Raincoat, BooHoo"

In otherwords deal with it. If she keeps it, you pay, it's your kid. If she doesn't, her choice, deal with it.

So to be clear the argument for the woman having all the say is that she grows the baby in her belly for 9 months? Are there other points that could be made for the woman's side that couldn't also be made for the man?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

I will answer that at a very personal level, if I was married to her and if she was healthy and went against my choice in this area, our relationship would be instantly over.
Does that answer your question ?

a reply to: darkbake

So to be clear the argument for the woman having all the say is that she grows the baby in her belly for 9 months?

That's pretty important. Of course, assuming there are no problems during the pregnancy, there is still this for starters:
www.fitpregnancy.com...

Pregnancy and childbirth are no picnic and can be life threatening. Ok for the "father" to have the final say on whether or no the woman goes through it?

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

You didn't actually answer the question.

originally posted by: darkbake

originally posted by: Annee
From my Ex, great man.

"If you stick WooHoo in HooHoo without a Raincoat, BooHoo"

In otherwords deal with it. If she keeps it, you pay, it's your kid. If she doesn't, her choice, deal with it.

So to be clear the argument for the woman having all the say is that she grows the baby in her belly for 9 months? Are there other points that could be made for the woman's side that couldn't also be made for the man?

Um. How about the morphing of one's body to where it will literally never be the same again, ever? How about the pain of childbirth, which CAN be medically modified, but I've done it without meds, twice. Why? Well, the second time I had a child with a congenital heart defect, and I didn't want the med to cause the baby problems. It is excruciating. After birthing the baby, the placenta has to come out, which isn't much fun, and then, when you are emotionally, mentally and physically exhausted, the doctor stitches you up because you've torn yourself having the baby. It hurts. Then your feet can swell up to the size of softballs if, like me, you had to get up and walk to the PICU to see your child before they take him to surgery (open heart). Then, if you are wanting your special child to have breast milk and don't want it to dry up while you are away from them, you are up every couple of hours expressing it with an infernal machine while your husband sleeps and wonders why you are so exhausted.

Seriously. It is life-altering far beyond just having your bones soften in your pelvis, having your back hurt constantly, stretch marks, etc. etc. etc.... Seriously. If the man was having the baby, then he would get to say whether or not he went through all that...but it's not, it's the woman. As it stands now, he can rest assured that his few minutes of "contribution" to the physical aspect of child-creation have completely altered the life of his partner forever.

(ETA - Lest I forget: there are other issues like pregnancy diabetes, the pregnancy or the birth can be life threatening, like if a woman with diabetes gets pregnant it can kill her, etc. You know, just little things like that... Seriously, it is a pretty epic physical journey.)


Men don't understand, in general, what it is like to bear a child, and that is part of the issue here.

-- AB

originally posted by: Hefficide

So... The message, if I am understanding it, is that a female who chooses to engage in intercourse with a male is then to be stripped of her self-determination for a period of nine months, simply to afford the male the option of fatherhood? And then, after birth, the female is forced to exist under the dictum of the male partner, even if he opts not to exercise said option of fatherhood to any degree?

IE... You had sex with me and now that I have conquered you, you will live as I dictate, for the rest of your life. I might choose to participate, I might not. But YOU will exist solely to keep my options open.

This is what it all boils down to.

Its complete lack of understanding what equality is and means, which isn't equality that is the same, because we're not the same. Have read so many threads demanding feminists adopt male values and join the military for example.

Real equality as our Canadian constitution, and Norway's constitution, uses the word, substantive, meaning equalizing differences, because men and women are different, even their brain wiring and energies are, equal but different.