That men not be able to Yeetus McFeetus on repeat, for free, either, at taxpayer expense. I think we all understand that men are exactly half of what is required to create a McFeetus, no?
Do we all understand that women are now close to equally represented in the workplace? So we are also “the taxpayers” footing this bill.
Lastly, because I have company coming any second, men forced to pay child support are not solely supporting any of the children they are paying into. Either the mother or the taxpayer is picking up the other half of the tab, and child support is based on father’s income, not child’s needs. Women with deadbeats have simply got to deal with that much less as they scramble to make ends meet and give their children good lives. (Men are in this position as well, just not in as great a number.)
So: quality daycare, which would require higher pay and more selectivity of worker, help with ailing or aging family members so the single moms can work, etc etc etc. All the things the same conservatives opposing abortion scream against.
Then why isn’t there a mutuality of decision? How does “my body, my choice” fit this logic?
Currently women can choose to kill a man’s baby without him having any say… or women can choose to keep the baby and legally have the man on a financial hook for 18 years.
How do you defend selfishness in a request for mutuality in responsibility?
Because you keep putting the onus on women to prevent sex and pregnancy. The gatekeepers. It’s a very easy position for men to take, no? “What could I do? She’s a slut! I’m wired to take advantage of her lack of control!”
I must say I’m impressed to find continuity of logic here. Usually these conversations take an emotionally slanted bend around personal preference once a facade of logical thought is removed.
That said, I think most people genuinely mean well on each side of the abortion fence.
The pro-life crowd of course legitimately believes that a fetus, and usually even down to a zygote, is a human life and should be protected. It’s hard to finger these people as “bad” or as women haters when rhetoric and emotion are removed.
The pro-choice crowd legitimately believes that before a specific point of development a “clump of cells” , albeit with a future of life, is being terminated for the best interest of a future life with an unprepared mother. While I see contention as an objective thing within termination, these aren’t inherently bad people either.
I do take issue with casual abortions by people hiding behind arguments who technically could care for a child but simply won’t take ownership (the father too) but I digress. I definitely find late term and birth canal abortions abhorrent.
I see the act of abortion as more of a human issue to resolve than a m/f line of contention and think we could start a better dialogue around it by removing gender inequality in the decision making process.
I need onus on both. For care and disruption of life in addition to financial. I also need a safe place for the babies with two incompetent parents.
Safe, cared-for babies is what I stand for. If that means greater care for careless mothers and fathers, as a taxpayer I can handle that.
I would probably be for very extreme measures to reduce unwanted, uncared-for babies, like sterilization, at least until it could be shown that the people in question are now able to behave and parent responsibly.
Women control the access to their womb for men. Not the other way around. Not saying men don’t have culpability as it takes both. This is one of the glaring failures of the sexual revolution in my opinion.
Why can’t the mother pick up the entire tab? Equality and equal rights and all.
The problem I see with modern feminism is many women want all the perks and none of the responsibilities or feel like they should be catered to.
Add this with many men being raised to stay perpetual children and it is a really bad recipe.
I just want to add that I don’t only put this onus on women. I actually strongly put the onus on fathers and other male family members, perhaps more so on them than their daughters, and believe they are in the right to keep scumbags away from their daughters, like in the bad old days. I know several cases in modern times in which this was effective.
I never said they couldn’t, but it isn’t our role. You know this.
Men can impregnate 5+ women a day. Women can have one child a year.
Men are not developed to be the evolutionary filters of our (or really any) species. Women have done an amazing job of this for the past 200,000 years; why we would change that now is beyond me.
Aren’t you doing this by being in support of open access abortion?
Tell me if I’m misunderstanding your position on abortion here.
An alternative: not having children with men who are unfit to be fathers.
Again, women are the gatekeepers of sex - as they always have been.
Feminism and equality aren’t biologically wired into any of us. I don’t care what you believe, you cannot believe your way into changing evolutionarily evolved behaviors.
Something to consider before going the eugenics (Planned Parenthood™) route:
While it is difficult to find an exact, accurate number to answer this question, Some sources estimate that there are about 2 million couples currently waiting to adopt in the United States — which means there are as many as 36 waiting families for every one child who is placed for adoption. Based on this couples waiting to adopt statistic, many couples are waiting to adopt.
To be fair, looking at pre-suffrage law as we can be objective around law vs. general societal treatment, would you want to be subjugated to the same lack of rights and expectations?
I wouldn’t. And I wouldn’t want my daughter to be. That doesn’t mean agreement with the extreme examples of feminism and feminists previously mentioned. It’s not black and white, right or wrong.