It is more complicated than that. People change. Circumstances change. A woman that would not have aborted a child could be thrust into circumstances or some physiological change that changes her into a woman that would.
Exactly. And that’s why the best way to prevent such abortions is to prevent pregnancies. The majority of abortions are done on single women.
That’s why abstience is so important, it helps prevent such events. Of course, there will still be abortions within the confines of marriages.
Isn’t the abstinence argument a double standard? Isn’t that the failed argument against a woman’s right to abort her child? If she doesn’t want a child she should not have sex.
It is a gross double standard. In this society there’s a whole “if a woman doesn’t want to have a baby she shouldn’t have sex”, but for men its almost expected that he has to have as much sex as possible with as many women as possible before he “settles down”.
I see the OP’s question as a method to expose the hypocricy that the body of an unborn child is legally bound to the body of it’s mother, therefore hers to do with what she wishes.
It isn’t just that the child is legally bound, the child is physically bound. Men dont’ have to walk in the shoes of the pregnant woman, they can so easily walk away.
This is what I think is one of the problems with the pro-life movement, there’s this “oh, once you accept to have your baby you’ll be so happy, pregnancy will be a walk in the park and you will put up with all that terrible pain in labour and then wow, it’ll be so great when you look in that baby’s eyes!!” et cetera.
We need to be realistic. Pregnancy can be really tough. To stay otherwise is to demean women and their circumstances. The pro-life movement can still denouce the killing of the unborn, we can still support women in crisis pregnancy, and we dont’ have to lie about the concept of pregnancy and parenthood to do it.
The best a man can do if his girlfriend/one night stand is seeking an aboriton is to tell her up front, “I don’t want you to have an abortion” and support her and offer her support, there’s a lot of testament of women who state the father just simply “do what you want, its your choice”. If the woman still has an aboriton when the man has told her he doesn’t want her to, well, it’s really jsut the man’s problem, isn’t it? If a man doesn’t want his child aborted, don’t create a child with a woman who’s not your wife.
Its really just that simple.
) is if the man doesn’t want the child but the woman does, then he doesn’t have to provide any support, financial or physical. As it is now, it’s a huge double standard. Women can kill the child against the man’s wishes (even if they’re married, the man has no legal say!), but if she wants to keep the baby, he has to pay child support for at least 18 years. How is that right? They both chose to not keep their pants up!
