Lucienne
Posts: 1175
Joined: 9/5/2009 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Elisabella quote:
ORIGINAL: domiguy The time they had to exercise those concerns was before they chose to stick their cock in her. What is so hard to understand about this straightforward concept? Well I don't mind if anyone believes that, so long as they believe the same thing about a woman - that the time to worry about pregnancy was before she spread her legs. I obviously disagree on both counts but what I'm addressing is not whether or not *anyone* should have the ability to terminate parental rights, but why it is that people who strongly and passionately believe that one person should have the right to do so can be the same people who strongly and passionately believe that the other person should not have the right to do so. I think the very practical reason is that when a woman aborts, no one else has to pick up the slack. Baby gone. It's an exercise of reproductive rights, and the loss of the expectancy of parental rights. If men had the ability to terminate their parental rights, someone (frequently the state) would have to step in and provide economic support for that child. There is no equivalent cost when a woman terminates a pregnancy. I think a lot of people who are passionate about reproductive rights don't really give much thought to the scenario because it is about parenting rights, not reproductive rights. And it's not like this a unique burden faced by men. Once the child is born, the woman is also on the hook for supporting that child unless both parents consent to adoption (or they live in Nebraska, I guess). The disparity between men and women is at the reproductive level, not parenting. As Domiguy states, a man's control over his reproductive rights ends with the sperm donation. As the site of conception and gestation, the woman retains control over her reproduction much longer than the man.
|