|
Roachboy you note that you basically feel that male reproductive rights don't/shouldn't exist (if I read that right). I am personally against AA, I think that everyone should be given a fair and equal chance for things. I don't know what kind of person this makes me but I dislike people getting an unfair advantage based on a non-relevant criteria, being female or black should not affect your engineering prospects (I do engineering at Uni, handy example) however both blacks and women have specific AA scholarships etc to help them, if they were given to poor people who could not afford to go to uni, or the best person I would have no qualms about them. A "Middle Class White Male only" scholarship would likely be seen as racist/sexist though.
Males do have an input into pregnancy (50%) and are expected to contribute after the birth a significant amount of funds/time (assuming non-custody here). Now assuming that the guy did not want a child in the first place (and neither did the GF/Wife/Partner/Long Time Lust Object) however the rules then changed on him that he suddenly becomes more responsible? Both partners can attempt to have safe sex in the first place (condoms, pills etc, bring on the male pill imo) however sex != children, I believe UsTwo noted that 20 years and only 1 child through safe sex. Accidents happen, to penalise one side without penalising the other is unfair (maybe if the guy wants to opt out we have a committee of 10 people who get to kick him in the nuts or something), giving one side total control is also unfair.
To make a corporate analogy (woot I suck at analogies so bear with me), you have a phone contract, the company suddenly decides that you are paying too little and decides to increase your bill to 20% of your salary irrespective of usage. If you want to leave the contract you have to continue paying or risk jail... is this fair?
|