NO CHOICE: Defeating womens "right to choose"Follow

Thoughts welcome ^^
--

Premise: The right of a woman to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term is ludicrous and flies in the face of the very notion of equality that women have pushed for since the suffrage movement. The right to choose does not exist and the right should be abolished in favor of other alternatives.


Reasoning: The concept of equal rights is to create a state where all people - men and women, old and young, black and white - have the exact same level of protection under the law. The system plays favorites to none and grants no exceptions. We all have the same basic guarantees, the same freedoms, and the same protections as human beings.

The choice of whether or not an abortion will be carried out has been placed solely in the hands of Women. Men do not get a say in the matter. Courts cannot force the decision one way or another. Ultimately it is the woman and woman only who will make the decision on whether or not to abort a pregnancy, and none have authority to change that decision once made.

This "right to choose" grants women an exceptional power over the process of bringing children into the world. Once impregnated men are cast aside and are no longer given legal nor moral right to anything having to do with the baby itself. A woman can drink alcohol, or smoke, or engage in strenuous activity - even to the point of risking birth defects if she so chooses. A woman can abort the pregnancy at a time of her choosing. A woman can opt to bear that baby or not and there is no grounds by which others can alter or change the decision.

The reason is quite simple: It is her body. Before the baby is pushed out of the birth canal it is not a living entity all its own; it is a parasitic organism growing inside a host. It is a part of her flesh and blood. As such she retains all rights to govern whether it will be born or not.

This is unacceptable as it removes males from the birth process entirely; it's doubly unacceptable as, without our sperm, the egg inside a female would not have undergone cellular division and grown into a fetus. Our DNA is at work - our gametes are in play - and I speak for my entire sex when I say that we should absolutely have some rights as to whether or not the baby is to live or die. That the choice lies totally in the hands of another sex is unconscionable. It cannot be reconciled under any system that purports to stand for true fairness and equality.



Solution 1a: The right to choose must be abolished. Women will have a valid complaint that their bodies are being utilized far in excess of what the male body is during the term of pregnancy, thus they engender a greater right to control the fate of the fetal tissue itself. This argument is not without merit, hence...

Solution 1b: To save women the tiresome burden of bearing children, all children shall henceforth be born in vitro.

Women will no longer need to carry a baby to term; their gametes will be put into a petri dish with male gametes and combined in order to make a fetus. The fetus will be grown in an incubator system and raised until such time as it is able to survive as a baby, at which point it will be turned back over to the mother and father. Proto-babies that are not claimed due to dissolution of a marraige or disavowment of custody rights will be destroyed promptly as per unwanted property regardless of the stage of development.

Women will be encouraged to have their ovaries emptied of eggs as they advance to breeding age. These eggs will be stored at fertility clinics for use by them and them only. Non-valid pregnancies will cease to be an issue. The choice to have a baby will be lodged and noted by the government by way of a binding contract that both parents shall sign, each avowing to handle 50% of the expenses and duties of raising their potential child until such time as the baby is eighteen years of age. (Alternate arrangements can be worked out pursuant to contract law and must be signed by both parties to be legally binding.)

As women will no longer be playing host to a fetus, they will lose their advanced "right of choice" and shall instead be placed on a level playing field with men. A woman may decide to abort, but if the man wants to have the child, she will be forced to pay child support for eighteen years as per the contract she signed -- unless custody arrangements and negotiations can be made that allow the male to take over the rearing of the child. This is not unlike the state that males are presently in. It is suitable that women shall need run the same financial risk when they find themselves in a relationship they no longer wish to be part of.

Such is the price of true equality.




Solution 2: It may be that women feel my methods are too draconian and harsh, and that they resent giving up their eggs, claiming that I am invading their bodies and somehow pillaging some sacred part of themselves, despite it only being half a chromosome set with an X on the 23rd pair. Oh, the horror.

Let it not be said that I am a cruel and unyielding sort; I have another potential solution. It may be that the right for a woman to choose whether or not to carry a baby to term must remain inviolate - it is, indeed, her body and none can force her to carry (or not carry) a baby against her wishes. It would be immoral to do so.

However, in the near future, it should be entirely possible with over-the-counter medical science to self-select the sex of the baby. This would be a prescription pill or something similar that men could take which would weaken or destroy sperm that carry the wrong sex chromosome. Men will be able to impregnate women with a baby of a selected sex. However, this ability will be strictly one-sided.

Men have always been responsible for the sex of babies just as women have always been responsible for carrying them to term -- As women have a right to choose whether or not to carry, I propose that men need a right to choose what sex the baby shall be. This right shall be granted to men only and shall remain inviolate, for truly, it is their body, and attempting to force a certain kind of sperm out of him would be as immoral as making a woman carry a fetus to term.

This, too, will provide real equality. The woman's right of choice comes from the biological fact that her body provides the host-space for a growing fetus. The man's right of choice will come from the biological fact that only his gametes can select the sex that a baby will become. As women have their choice, so too shall men, and equality shall be preserved forever more.

Would "Fu[i][/i]ck Off and die" be constructive?

I always try to help.

Let me know when science makes this possible, then maybe I'll discuss it.


You do know that in-vitro is only for the fertilization process, right?

I think someone's pissed his girlfriend is getting an abortion.

too long and its been ddiscussed to death here

My *******?

Good description there hon!

Oh, I may have left a Fire Extinguisher under your bed. I always put one there in case she bursts into flames.

Ok.
Is your Avatar a self-portrait?

If so, are you a magician?

If not Michael Jackson called and he wants his gloves back.

Go die and **** off you redneck son of a *****, the entire arguement is where life begins which you so easily leave out and assume it begins at conception. You ignore all the basic premises of the argument and succeed only in making a long article of ignorance.

Why is it always a guy who starts the abortion threads?

I dunno. I don't stalk Katie.

'Cause chicks are too busy deciding which ribbons look best in their hair to actually know anything about politics.

Ribbons are soooo '50s.

These days we're more into deciding which piercing matches our new tatoos.

Awww!!

/blush

/bateyes

/flirt

If we give credence to the OPs version of the world, I am sure there is some way you could conceive my offspring over the Interwebs. If ya really wanna...