Discussion about abortion: part 2

Because he had sex with her, the outcome of which could be pregnancy. No contraceptive is 100%.

Purits- when a two people decide to have sex thay have to accept a risk of pregnancy.

Then, if pregnancy happens, it is quite obvious that a man cannot possibly decide for a woman whether to go ahead with it or not. Because preganancy happens to a woman, there cannot be that sort of 'equality' you're talking about.

What other solution have you got?

Well, purits, I don't want to have my tubes tied because there's a chance I might want to have another child in the future.

It's very simple, really. There are cells in my uterus that might, if allowed, become a life. Sometimes it's not the right time. Since allowing those cells to become a human being will affect me I have a right to not let that happen.

The man will not be pregnant and giving birth, will he? So he has no say. But because having sex obviously carries a risk of pregnancy, both parties have to be conscious of it and be aware of possible consequences ie termination or raising the child for woman, raising the child or at least contributing to the cost of raising the child for man.

Are you seriously implying that a man should have a say whether a woman should go ahead with pregnancy or not?

Or c, adoption

purits, let's try again.

A man and woman want sex but not a baby. They both have contraceptive options, the woman can take the pill, the man can use condoms. Both are 99% effective. So far so equal.

Contraception fails.

The man currently has two choices. He can (a) step up to the plate and share financial and emotional responsibility for the child with the mother or (b) he can avoid emotional responsibility but he will still have to make financial provision. Not great choices, but choices none the less.

If he decides not to take full responsibility, the woman can either (a) take full emotional responsibility herself and receive limited financial support or (b) have an abortion. Again fairly shitty choices.

So we have an equitable situation where both parents suffer some loss due to the unwanted pregnancy.

What you propose is that the man gets a third choice ie he takes no responsibility whatsoever and life goes on the same for him. Suddenly he gets a "good" choice where he personally does not suffer.

Of course to give him the "good" choice, you have to make the woman's choices worse. Now you have created inequity.

Incidentally, although you are clearly not pro-choice, are you pro-abortion or pro-life?

"Some women seem to feel that they are the ultimate arbiter of whether they should / should not have an abortion and that the man involved and society have no say in this.
Yet once a baby is born, women suddenly insist that the man is a part of the process and must pay towards the baby's upkeep, even if he never wanted the baby."

Of course a woman should be allowed to make a decision herself about what she grows in her own body and of course once a baby os actually born both parents should want to be part of the process.

am trying to imagine scenario in which a woman forces a man to pump sperm in general direction of her fallopian tubes

against his will, just seems a bit biologically challenging

I suppose she could obtain his sperm deviously and then use it, somehow am just not convinced this is sufficiently widespread (particularly relative to male perpetrated sexual violence) to suggest the odds are stacked in women's favour

How do you come up with the figure of £1K purits? Seems rather random to me.

Why not £100K? Or something more realistic in terms of the cost of bringing up a child?

Obviously most people can't afford £100K in one go. So why not spread payments over the 18 years. Sorted.

Ladyintheradiator: "ese questions give way more credibility to your 'idea' than it deserves so take them as rhetorics."

Yes exactly, purits, you're bonkers.

I have to quote a previous post by swallowedafly:

"and again if a man wants to have sex without any risk of having children he can do so by having a vasectomy. not by abandoning responsibility for children he has created by choosing not to have that operation but expecting a woman to have an operation terminating a pregnancy when it occurs.

there is a way for him to avoid having children. why wouldn't he do that OP?"

Purits, Please answer why you'd prefer women to have to pay some sort of penalty for sex but not men?

Tax payers! Where else?

No worries Mitch

purits - Whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat????????? Other responsible people should pay for (potentially) irresponsible men who don't want to face the consequences of their actions? You must be off your rocker!