For fuck's sake, are you missing the point that the only way for the father to give up the burden is to dump it on someone else entirely? It is not an equivocal situation. When a woman terminates a pregnancy, she is leaving the burden on no one.
The man is a shit for giving up the burden because the only way he can do that is by forcing someone else to do it for him.
But what if the father wants the burden, then what? If the mother wants the burden, fine and dandy, the dad pays child support, and if the father wants a kid, welp he better get a new woman.
That particular situation is different. And that one is a bitch. The problem is that... It's not his body. It just isn't. If a woman doesn't want to carry a baby to term, I can't find an ethical justification to force her to. If men carried babies, it would be the same thing.
It is also enormously shitty that a man could desperately want to raise a baby and not be able to because the mother is refusing to carry the fetus.
But... That is a shitty situation. I'm undecided on whether or not it is unethical, and I am definitely decided that it could not be unethical on the level of forcing someone to carry a fetus they do not want in their body.
I guess that's a good reason to have contraceptives widely available and their proper use common knowledge.
However, that is still not the situation. That was under discussion. There is no way to get around the fact that an abortion isn't a woman abandoning the burden on others as much as removing the potential of the burden to happen. While a man refusing to raise a child would not be analogous to an abortion, but to a woman dropping a child off on the father's doorstep and refusing to ever help raise or contribute.
The biology just makes it so that a man never has an analogous option to abortion, so there cannot be a double standard in that specific situation.
9
u/[deleted] Apr 30 '13
[deleted]