4 ms·

I don't like that only the woman has a choice. If they choose to continue the pregnancy against the father's wishes, the father will be forced to pay child supp

• gbrown 6y ago
  Whoa, this is about bodily autonomy, not economic inconvenience. You would subjugate women’s bodies for the economic concerns of males? That’s a completely nonsensical and abhorrent view.
  • wolco 6y ago
    Why does it have to be only one thing. If it is a bodily autonomy issue shouldn't those choices be responsible for the economical realities of those choices? It's a clear case of taxation without representation.
  • antepodius 6y ago
    The "Economic inconvenience" is forced labour. We only feel morally okay with it because men are disposable, and women are a protected class. I understand the argument that it's wrong to force a woman to carry and bear a child. It seems, though, that the lesser evil of forcing a man to give money to that woman shouldn't be allowed under similar ethical reasoning. (I.e. if it's okay to kill a foetus, it's okay to economically disavow it.) But this argument would be very unpopular.
    • ficklepickle 6y ago
      It's a matter of being responsible for your own actions. Don't want to be responsible for a human life? Don't impregnate a female.
      • antepodius 6y ago
        Yes, as I said: men are disposable, and women are cherished. Assuming no rape/nonconsent in either scenario: Male impregnates a female and regrets it: too bad, you're held responsible and have to help take care of the offspring. Female gets impregnated and regrets it: you're not held responsible, you're allowed to kill the offspring and don't have to help take care of it if you don't want to. Chivalry never died, in a strange sort of way. I'm not complaining about this; I just find it interesting to point it out.
    • gbrown 6y ago
      Your reasoning is sick and twisted, and should not be considered serious discourse. If you can find cases where men have been forced to impregnate women, then those specific cases should get their own, separate, discussion. Otherwise, GTFO with this vilest of mysogeny.
      • antepodius 6y ago
        I don't think this is the 'vilest' of misogyny, and I think the hyperbole does a disservice to women. This isn't really about rape; it's about the legal power asymmetry in entirely consensual sex. I'm not complaining about this, or advocating any policy positions, I just find it interesting to think about out loud. Your reaction is interesting, too. Why do you associate the gp post with misogyny?
        • gbrown 6y ago
          Because even in the case of entirely consensual sex, at the end of the day only one party is faced with important decisions concerning their own body. To try to insert non-physical concerns of a third party into that calculus is an order-of-magnitude type mistake in moral reasoning, and as such, shocking and unacceptable.
          • antepodius 6y ago
            We do that all the time with drug laws.
            • gbrown 6y ago
              ... and do you support that? Anyway, a much better example would be forced sterilization policies.
              • deleted 6y ago
                [deleted]