The parts within the quote within a quote that are in bold were originally posted by me.
Quote:
Originally posted by alek0
Quote:
Originally posted by Pyrrho
Secondly, at least in the United States, doctors are willing to perform sterilization surgery on people with no children.
It is not that simple, especially for people below 30.
As for the idea that a woman could have avoided the pregnancy as well, that is certainly true (in the kinds of cases we are discussing; obviously, this idea does not apply to cases of rape). But it does not follow from that that she should not be allowed to have an abortion.
Why not? You are using the same excuse to deny men the right not to become parents. And that same reasoning is used by anti-choicers as an argument against abortion.
From the mere fact that the pregnancy could have been avoided, it does not follow that men should not have right to decline parental rights and not pay child support.
Why do you believe that a man must pay child support no matter what?
|
Also, there is another issue here - if a woman cannot provide for the child, it is morally wrong of her to have it at all.
|
In the U.S., doctors are willing to perform vasectomies on men under 30 with no children. I have no comment on what doctors do in Hong Kong.
As for why I said "As for the idea that a woman could have avoided the pregnancy as well, that is certainly true (in the kinds of cases we are discussing; obviously, this idea does not apply to cases of rape). But it does not follow from that that she should not be allowed to have an abortion", you should reread the original post, as you simply omitted the portion where I explained why that is the case. Here it is again:
Quote:
As for the idea that a woman could have avoided the pregnancy as well, that is certainly true (in the kinds of cases we are discussing; obviously, this idea does not apply to cases of rape). But it does not follow from that that she should not be allowed to have an abortion. It is perfectly legal to have a tattoo removed, though obviously one could have avoided the tattoo in the first place. For any procedure to be illegal, there should be a reason for it to be illegal. Now, there may be some reason to prohibit abortions, and that is certainly something that people argue about. It is not, however, the subject of this thread, and I do not care to discuss whether or not an abortion should be legal or not here. But from the mere fact that the pregnancy could have been avoided, it does not follow that abortions should be illegal.
You state:
"If abortion is legal, a man should have a way out of consequences of unwanted pregnancy."
Why do you believe that? The reason why women can have an abortion and men cannot is NOT the result of inequality in the law, but the simple fact that men cannot get pregnant.
Let us imagine, for the sake of clarifying that idea, a world in which both men and women can get pregnant. We would then add to our current list of 5 possibilities:
6. The man gets pregnant, not the woman. Woman wants to keep it, man doesn't and he aborts. Fair enough, it is his body.
(Notice the borrowed wording from your # 3.)
We then have a precisely symmetrical set of situations. And thus, the rules are precisely the same for both men and women. (The pregnant one, and only the pregnant one, can have an abortion; otherwise, all results are the same regardless of which one is pregnant.) Consequently, they are perfectly fair (at least in the sense that they treat men and women the same; they still could be the wrong rules for some other reason, but there would be perfect equality between the sexes regarding this matter).
The only difference between that world and ours is the fact that men cannot get pregnant. That is a biological fact, not one that is part of the law. So, if you do not object to the rules in the imaginary world pictured above, your objection to applying the exact same principles to this world is simply the fact that men cannot get pregnant, which, again, is a biological inequality, not a legal one.
|
The fact that something can be avoided is not a reason to say that whatever condition is created should not be treated. I gave the example of a tattoo removal above, but this idea applies to other things as well. Suppose, for example, I choose to go skiing. And suppose I break my leg while skiing. Obviously, I could have avoided the broken leg by not skiing. But it would be absurd for a doctor to say: "I will not set his leg because he could have avoided having a broken leg!" But that is EXACTLY what would follow if whatever could have been prevented should not be treated. So, unless you think the doctor SHOULD refuse to treat people's broken legs from skiing accidents, you don't believe that being avoidable means that one should not be able to receive treatment. The same idea applies to pregnancy.
And, as for why only women get to have abortions, that is because only women can get pregnant. It is not because I want to allow women to do something that men cannot do, it is simply a biological fact that only women can get pregnant, and therefore only women can have abortions. Please reread the quote above involving situation 6. The rules are EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.
Regarding providing for the child, the principle now in effect is: If either parent wants the child, then the parents of the child are both financially responsible for it. THIS IS EXACTLY THE SAME FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN.
Now, none of this proves that the laws are as they should be, but the inequality of the law that you are complaining about is nonexistent. The inequality is biological, and is only a matter of who can and who cannot become pregnant.
05-23-2003, 07:41 PM
.
