Post

Faurexus wrote:

One more point, I also don't think "men don't have to deal with the consequences" is a valid argument, either. The fact that some group gets away with something doesn't make it acceptable for another group. That said, I actually agree with Uan aa Boa's post to the degree that absolutely I think a fully consistent pro-life position necessitates strong protections for pregnant women and new mothers and as far as possible ought to hold men responsible for the situations they put women in.

But what if women don't want to be "protected" but would prefer equality with men? In terms of making men responsible for their actions "as far as possible" how about a government agency turning up on the doorstep and saying "Here's your baby - whether you want or are able to care for is irrelevant," which (with the addition of pregnancy and childbirth) is absolutely the situation an abortion ban seeks to place mothers in.

Instead you still say

Faurexus wrote:

... in the case of a cryptic pregnancy or a failed abortion where the woman ends up giving birth, would they not have obligations to their child, unwanted as the child may be?

and again the man's obligation has been mysteriously forgotten.

I obviously don't think we can escape the biological reality of the situation, but Ruinenlust nailed it a few pages back. If men got pregnant there'd be drivethrough abortions at gas stations.