Philosophy and logic: Abortion rights equality
Debate Rounds (2)
To preface; I believe in, and this stance operates under, the notion that all human beings have the sovereign right to decisions regarding their own body.
Firstly, the points you bring up have relevance, but in my opinion lack in scope. The circumstances you listed surely happen, but do so along with an infinite number of other possible scenarios. Every case is different, with responsibility falling differently depending on the circumstances. Blanket regulations cannot be built on "what-ifs" that don't apply to every situation they cover. Thus, determining which party is directly responsible for the conception is arbitrary, and should be irrelevant to the way the regulations are built.
So then, we must take the situation at face value, with no biased blame attached to either party. The pregnant woman has the right to choice over her own body. She has the option to choose whether she wants to be a parent or not. The father has absolutely no say in the decision to abort or not to abort, as consistently held by the courts. Another way of putting it:
""the courts have properly determined that a man should neither be able to force a woman to have an abortion nor to prevent her from having one, should she so choose. Justice therefore dictates that if a woman makes a unilateral decision to bring pregnancy to term, and the biological father does not, and cannot, share in this decision, he should not be liable for 21 years of support " autonomous women making independent decisions about their lives should not expect men to finance their choice." - Karen Decrow, former President, National Organization for Women
Logically, I liken this point to a historical principle that sparked our nation: "Taxation Without Representation". The colonists were fed up with being forced to pay taxes by the British government when they had no say in the matters related to that tax money. This was such an appalling infringement of rights that it helped lead to the American Revolution. While not a perfect comparison, I believe it serves as a precedent. It is unjust to hold a person financially responsible for a decision they did not make, nor have the power to.
Historically and biologically, men are superior as opposed to women(This isn't what I believe, this is what I have observed through research). Men have been granted more opportunities, physically are more capable, and are the predominant choice in the workforce. Thus, to see that equality should be given to women would be of altruism, however, to see that equality should be given in favor of men when men are already predominant would be of self-indulgence, thus, I believe it would be of good that society would require of men to contribute to the nourishment of their child, not only on their behalf, but also on the behalf of this society and its next generation.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.