Although there's some unfairness in power of the decision to have a baby. I'm not convinced there's any viable alternative. Any attempt to balance the power of decision making compromises individual rights of the women.
-
-
-
This seems to be the correct answer. Positive freedom for men would come at the cost of individual freedom for women
-
I faintly recall a policy debated somewhere in Europe that offered men an opportunity to sign off their responsibilities to a pregnancy within a specific time period (perhaps 3 months). There may be something there..but most ideas like that usually open space for bad actors.
-
Yeah because he doesn't have to decide whether the fetus lives or dies. Many women would sign off their responsibilities if they could knowing the baby would be born and cared for.
-
Yah..it would definitely encourage hedging one's bets. The most pragmatic option would ALWAYS be to sign off responsibilities as a default because you can always contribute later on your own terms.
-
Yes, exactly. The idea is a man who signs off on responsibility would opt for an abortion if he was the one to get pregnant but he can't coz he isn't. Therefore this option is to even up that imbalance and make it fair but it doesn't coz not same choice, same consequences.
-
Much easier to sign off responsibility & know that's the only consequence. Much harder to go through an invasive operation that ends the life of an embryo which could be your child whilst under the influence of rampaging hormones which make you incredibly emotionally sensitive.
-
Hormones are like madness. I think it very likely many men who would go for the signing option would not so easily have an abortion if they felt so tender & nurturing & emotional & knew this would end the life of their potential child even if rational mind said best option
- 3 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.