In cases of dispute the court should be the arbiter that considers all the points you mentioned...
I just don't see a court ordering a woman to carry on with a pregnancy and give birth to a child if she does not want to do so. Not only because it is kind of nasty to the woman in question, but also because there is no way of enforcing the judgement, short of tying her up and feeding her with a plastic spoon for nine months.
I chuck this under I-acknowledge-rights-of-others-only-if-I-don't-give-up-mine. It is a common perspective to our species.
I'd say it better belongs under You-ain't-tellin'-me-what-to-do-with-my-body. Another common perspective to our species.
Interestingly enough, many women feel that if they choose to keep the baby the man has to pay for all the child care and "take responsibility", despite the long term consequences for him
I agree, there is a burden placed on the man even if a child results from casual, whether or not he wants a child. Also, in divorce cases, kids are given to mother's care, with the father getting only visitation rights. Another unfair practice, if you look at it from the perspective of the parents.
(what if he is not at a point in his life that he wants a child? Can he just leave the pills on the table and leave?)
He can religiously use condoms at every relevant occasion. That would be much easier, imho.
This has to do more with history and women's movement than with objective assessment of rights of all parties involved
I haven't said anything about "rights". The point I was trying to draw your attention to was that most societies recognize that a woman who wants an abortion will get one, whether in a sanitary hospital with a real doctor operating on her, or if that is illegal, in a back alley or in her own toilet.
ya, my mom used to say the same thing too (she probably still does, I just don't bother asking her anymore :)
LOL :-) |
