I often don't argue with the position Lisa is advocating here, because we're both on the same side about the important issue, and it seems to me we should focus on fighting together against those people who want to deny women the right to choose. But just to get this out of the way: It's just not true that a preponderance of men are anti…
I often don't argue with the position Lisa is advocating here, because we're both on the same side about the important issue, and it seems to me we should focus on fighting together against those people who want to deny women the right to choose. But just to get this out of the way: It's just not true that a preponderance of men are anti-choice. Preponderance means "more than half" and the polls show that most men are pro-choice. The reasons for that are pretty obvious, if you try looking at this from most men's point of view, especially young and unmarried men. As Dave Murray points out, If you are a man and your sexual partner gets pregnant, your life will get very seriously bent out of shape if you had no interest in raising a child with that woman at that point of your life. Yes, it will be worse for the woman. Whatever burdens are placed on the man are equally on the woman, and then compounded with all the things that happen to her body. But unless the man is a psychopath willing to skip town on the woman, the burdens placed on the man are still enough to make it very much in his interest to keep abortion safe and legal. The only people for whom that isn't true are a few impotent old Patriarchs who are in no danger of getting in this situation. Those people are powerful and dangerous, but they are definitely a minority of the male population.
Yes. Because we are not just meat. We are mind and emotion as well. The psychic weight of supporting children doesn't just burden the individuals involved but will impact the quality of care the child receives as well and influence what type of human being the child becomes. I rarely hear about this in the abortion debate.
I'm not saying no one should ever have to bear burdens. Life throws enough of those our way even without artificially imposed ones. Care should be taken to avoid pregnancy. Contraception should be free or insurance supported and promoted to the rooftops and back again. But, even with all of this in play (it's decades off at least because of those who think contraception allows women to get away with having a good time. Funny how this judgement is never leveled at men.) mistakes will still happen.
Why do we not have a duty of care to the unwanted child to consider the quality of it's life? Is it humane to bring an unwanted child into a world when you know it will be unloved, abused, kicked around? Why doesn't this matter or factor into the debate?
I often don't argue with the position Lisa is advocating here, because we're both on the same side about the important issue, and it seems to me we should focus on fighting together against those people who want to deny women the right to choose. But just to get this out of the way: It's just not true that a preponderance of men are anti-choice. Preponderance means "more than half" and the polls show that most men are pro-choice. The reasons for that are pretty obvious, if you try looking at this from most men's point of view, especially young and unmarried men. As Dave Murray points out, If you are a man and your sexual partner gets pregnant, your life will get very seriously bent out of shape if you had no interest in raising a child with that woman at that point of your life. Yes, it will be worse for the woman. Whatever burdens are placed on the man are equally on the woman, and then compounded with all the things that happen to her body. But unless the man is a psychopath willing to skip town on the woman, the burdens placed on the man are still enough to make it very much in his interest to keep abortion safe and legal. The only people for whom that isn't true are a few impotent old Patriarchs who are in no danger of getting in this situation. Those people are powerful and dangerous, but they are definitely a minority of the male population.
Yes. Because we are not just meat. We are mind and emotion as well. The psychic weight of supporting children doesn't just burden the individuals involved but will impact the quality of care the child receives as well and influence what type of human being the child becomes. I rarely hear about this in the abortion debate.
I'm not saying no one should ever have to bear burdens. Life throws enough of those our way even without artificially imposed ones. Care should be taken to avoid pregnancy. Contraception should be free or insurance supported and promoted to the rooftops and back again. But, even with all of this in play (it's decades off at least because of those who think contraception allows women to get away with having a good time. Funny how this judgement is never leveled at men.) mistakes will still happen.
Why do we not have a duty of care to the unwanted child to consider the quality of it's life? Is it humane to bring an unwanted child into a world when you know it will be unloved, abused, kicked around? Why doesn't this matter or factor into the debate?