If our reproductive functions are not equal, why should we expect our reproductive rights to be equal?

Question

I support a position in "proportion to biological investment."
This would place the major share of responsibility and rights on women and reduce, but not eliminate, the economic burden to men. Is this a reasonable proposal?

Amy R - great response - I agree with everything you said.
I am suggesting a move toward greater responsibility on women to drive home the fact they they ARE more biologically invested and need to be better prepared before having sex. They should not expect that anyone else will automatically take care of the consquences of thier actions.
For the same reason, the male responsibility is not eliminated, but only reduced. He cannot simply walk away, but his legal burden is more in line with his biological investment. Nothing is preventing him from making a deep emotional and physical investment in the child's life if he chooses to, unlike the scenarios often raised by male rights advocates that fathers are denied the opportunity to spend time with their children.

bijou - it would not impact me negatively.
But why must property ownership be linked to reproductive rights ? Seems like separate issues to me.

Answer 1

I agree with you 100%.

Most people would agree that when a decision must be made, the right and responsibility to make that final call should belong (chiefly) to the person who has the most at stake.

Reproduction does take two of course so the man should not be entirely out of the picture in terms of rights and responsibilities. But until science comes up with a way for couples to literally share a pregnancy, it seems absurd to talk about having the exact same reproductive rights for men and women.

Answer 2

Not really. The situation is more complicated than that. One would have to define well what "proportion to biological investment" means. Who's to say that women give more than men? What are you measuring to determine this? These questions would have to be answered as succinctly as possible before it became law.

The initial question seems to also be missing a few premises. I'm trying to recreate the argument.

~Re -----> ~Rr
~Re
----------
~Rr

Since this is the conclusion it can be evaluated on it's own. Instead of using Modus Ponens as I did above, I'll use the opposite, Modus Tollens, to test for the validity of the statement. Via Modus Tollens we get:

~Re---------->~Rr
~~Rr
-----------
~~Re
-----------
Re
So essentially, according to the conclusion, if our reproductive rights are equal then our reproductive functions are equal. But the problem is that laws do not change the physiology of the people who live under it which is implied by using this argument against itself. But for a moment let's just assume that this logical argument is true. Equal means of equal value (or so I've been told endless amount of times). Are men's and women's reproductive functions equal. Well the argument itself says no (~Re). So now the whole argument is self-contradictory. So such a law would either imply an impossibility or be self-contradictory in nature.

The initial question is set up on slippery ground. One could ask "If our brain functions are not equal then why should we expect our voting rights to be equal"? "If our physical agility isn't equal, why should we expect our right to hold a job be the same"? The question itself seems almost eugenic in a way. I'll end by saying that such a law would eventually be contested in the Supreme Court if you live in the United States on grounds of the 14th Amendment.

Answer 3

Personally, I think it should work both ways. e.g. I see a lot of feminists complaining about financial support of children, yet if it were primarily women suffering at the hands of the Child Scam Agency, they'd be whining just as bad as guys do about it.
Now I believe if the woman is decent about family ties (e.g. after a split up with the dad), then the C$A shouldn't be involved - end of. Most guys are happy to help out financially toward the upkeep of their kids. For example, I was giving my ex a certain amount each month to do with as she pleased, but, she choose to use the C$A and in doing so, they awarded her LESS than I had been paying. Tough luck, babe!

If she is a so&so about letting dad see their daughter, then why should he pay for her to abuse him & his child/ren? Talk about downright insulting!

If he chooses to have zero contact with his child/ren just because they (mom & dad) split up, then yeah - go for the C$A, because it's not fair on the kids in that situation.

Anyway, if feminists want to pretend that a man's investment is only a few minutes of pleasure, then why do laws have to be made to lower standards to allow women into the police, army, fire & such forces? They cannot do the tasks to the same degree men can - but they have laws to 'assist' them. Men cannot do the childbearing like women can, and feminists want it to remain exactly that way.

Hypocrits?

You betchya!

Answer 4

Uh, why supply up thoroughly on the main uncomplicated and clever answer, extremely than applying it to shelter ninety 9 % of the problem? IF we had complete and precise intercourse practise, and IF sexually lively human beings had rapid get right of entry to to beginning administration, then there is be plenty fewer unplanned pregnancies. we could constantly decide for this, and all of the persons who oppose abortion could stop combating this infinitely extra applicable way. That pronounced. Requiring the mum to tell the daddy no remember what would desire to be risky for her. AND, it would be incorrect in each and every which you may think of way in circumstances of rape. you do no longer cover the case of the mum no longer desirous to proceed the being pregnant, and the daddy needing the ensuing toddler. i do no longer think of she could would desire to hold the being pregnant to term. it is already achieveable to sign away parental rights. What if the daddy DOES be certain, 5 months into the being pregnant he would not prefer to be a father? Now, the lady is saddled with a being pregnant she would not prefer below those situations, and the new child would have an absent father. in spite of if shall we stress the daddy to be fairly to blame, he's going to take it out on the new child in some way (the least being withholding affection, making the new child twisted up a minimum of for some years if no longer for existence). Face it, no longer that many 15 12 months olds are reasonable, and of unchanging minds. If a guy needs to be a father, there are approaches he can try this. It would not would desire to be this being pregnant. yet, maximum severely, the inequality right it extremely isn't arbitrarily imposed by applying human beings, yet is a standard organic and organic actuality. to that end, it is not comparable to all of the prejudice that are arbitrarily imposed on human beings by applying human beings, and that persons extremely could handle (like, the former day). i do no longer think of we've an criminal accountability to override an unfairness no longer of our making.

Answer 5

"Allowing men to breed and then move along without responsibility must seem attractive to men who prefer to have sex without protection, I am sure."

Why not? Anytime a woman aborts, legally abandons or adopts out of her responsibilities of being a parent she did the same thing. In other words, women already have this luxury and men should be extended a non-biological post coital choices as well. Anything else is sexists.

"They're man enough to play but not man enough to pay."
You're assuming that every sexual act results in a pregnancy and that every pregnancy results in a birth of a kept child. So if you're woman enough to make post coital decisions you should be woman enough to solely pay for it.

Regards

Answer 6

It still takes two to tango! Allowing men to breed and then move along without responsibility must seem attractive to men who prefer to have sex without protection, I am sure. Actually, if we did make sure all young women had proper education about reproduction and made affordable and reliable birth control available to all young women, they would be in control of their bodies - but we do allow young women to enter the sexual world uninformed or misinformed and unequiped. We also do not properly villify young men who want to avoid birth control methods in order to make their "mark in the world" on someone else's life. Until we have better birth control and better sex ed, women just have an unacceptably higher investment due to genetics - it is not reason to add poverty to that load - because the mother and the child both pay for that in the end. Single mothers are disproportionately represented in below-poverty-line households, why do you think making men less responsible will help that? Perhaps if we provide great financial support for all pregnant women, this would be OK? Are you ready to spend your tax dollars instead of just the responsible males?

Answer 7

Because in this situation the CHILD is the priority, not the man.

No. The only new thing in your scenario would be reducing the burden to men- women already have the major share of responsibility they don't need more.

Answer 8

Ok, then apply it to every other aspect: Men earn more by choice, men's votes should be worth more, 4 instance.

Answer 9

I agree with you. As long as the women are the only ones hosting and nourishing the fetuses, reproductive rights will always be tilted in our favour.

Answer 10

there is a matriarchal society in India called the nayar who already do this. of course men are not allowed to be property owners either...how would that sit with you?