Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Feminism: Sex and gender discussions

Discussion about abortion: part 2

132 replies

purits · 02/07/2010 11:48

Can someone explain this idea of "my body, my choice" because it has never sat easy with me.

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. It does seem to be a case of 'heads I win, tails you lose'. Not sure that is an apt analogy, but you get what I mean - it all seems stacked in the woman's favour and it all hang's on her "choice" and no-one else gets a look-in.
Doesn't seem equitable to me.
Go on: flame me and tell me where I'm going wrong.

OP posts:
purits · 02/07/2010 13:21

"However, if a man chooses to indulge in sexual activity that may potentially result in the production of a child then they have to accept that their actions have consequences."

Does that apply to the woman, too? Should they be allowed to have free abortions on the NHS or should they "accept that their actions have [financial] consequences". See what I mean - if the man doesn't want the child then he still gets an 18 year child maintenance bill. But if the woman doesn't want the child then she gets a free termination.

OP posts:
swallowedAfly · 02/07/2010 12:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Chaotica · 02/07/2010 12:24

x posted with slug

Chaotica · 02/07/2010 12:23

You are clearly mixing two issues up:

  1. As msrisotto says, the man doesn't incubate the baby, the foetus cannot survive without the mother and so if the woman doesn't want to be part of that process then that should be her choice (added to which, the child will be dependent upon her most probably for a long time after birth.)

  2. Anyone who has a baby should play a financial part in the baby's upkeep. This is largely irrelevant before birth, so only takes effect after the baby is born, but if the pg woman were starving and her partner had money or food, then you would expect the man to provide then as well. Merely by having sex, both partners make themselves liable financially for the consequences.

You don't have to agree with (1) to agree with (2), or vice versa.

I don't see what is stacked in the woman's favour here. You couldn't be forced to give someone a kidney (or force someone else to do so), OP; so why should the man have a say in (1). Of course, many women might want to give the man as say, but that is because they expect or hope for him to have a relationship with them or their child after birth.

slug · 02/07/2010 12:20

Since the man does not have to go through the risky and potentially life threatening process of pregnancy and childbirth, and since a man does not have to contribute physical resources to the development of the foetus, and since a man is far, far less likely to be made redundant because a woman carrying his child is pregnant, then I think women have a perfect right to have the ultimate decision about what happens i their bodies.

However, if a man chooses to indulge in sexual activity that may potentially result in the production of a child then they have to accept that their actions have consequences. If they really, really don't want a child, then there's always the option of a vascetomy.

msrisotto · 02/07/2010 12:04

There isn't much, if anything, that is stacked in a woman's favour by the way. She's damned if she does and damned if she doesn't with regards to having/not having children.

msrisotto · 02/07/2010 12:03

Well, it takes two to make a baby so just because the man doesn't incubate the thing, doesn't mean it isn't half his.

But, a woman's body is not in any part owned by a man, therefore, her body, her choice. Can you imagine the alternative to that? Forcing women to keep unwanted babies or forcing them to abort wanted ones?