"Men Must Approve Abortion, Women Are Hosts"

[Luminesa]

How would you know Gauthier? If I may inquire.

Because talking like that as a female is usually daring fate.

So you're literally saying that if I, as a woman, say that a person should abstain from sex until marriage, that I am literally "asking for it"? Disgusting. I hardly know what sex you are, nor will I assume to know what your sex is, but if you're going to attack pro-life women simply because they are women, and women are statistically more likely to get raped and/or suffer domestic abuse, that's hardly pro-woman of you.

[Gauthier]

Because talking like that as a female is usually daring fate.

So you're literally saying that if I, as a woman, say that a person should abstain from sex until marriage, that I am literally "asking for it"? Disgusting. I hardly know what sex you are, nor will I assume to know what your sex is, but if you're going to attack pro-life women simply because they are women, and women are statistically more likely to get raped and/or suffer domestic abuse, that's hardly pro-woman of you.

And it's telling you immediately assumed rape was going to be involved.

[Riuttala]

Good.

[Luminesa]

So you're literally saying that if I, as a woman, say that a person should abstain from sex until marriage, that I am literally "asking for it"? Disgusting. I hardly know what sex you are, nor will I assume to know what your sex is, but if you're going to attack pro-life women simply because they are women, and women are statistically more likely to get raped and/or suffer domestic abuse, that's hardly pro-woman of you.

And it's telling you immediately assumed rape was going to be involved.

You're the one who said "daring fate". If it was just a girl getting pregnant during consensual sex with her boyfriend, you could say, "Because talking like that as a female usually doesn't mean much," or something like that. Which is still disrespectful, but not quite as bad. So why would I so terribly assume that rape could be involved? Because "fate" usually represents a force outside of one's immediate control, an unseen force that slowly drags someone to an imminent conclusion.

"Girls don't talk like that, because then they'll have to own-up once they actually get pregnant." It's bad enough that we have a bill calling women "hosts", instead of upholding their dignity as mothers. Swinging to the opposite extreme, and mocking a pro-life woman who "dares fate" by her views and saying, "Oh, wait until you get pregnant, let's see how well you hold onto your views," is cruel and belittling.

[Militant Costco]

And it's telling you immediately assumed rape was going to be involved.

You're the one who said "daring fate". If it was just a girl getting pregnant during consensual sex with her boyfriend, you could say, "Because talking like that as a female usually doesn't mean much," or something like that. Which is still disrespectful, but not quite as bad. So why would I so terribly assume that rape could be involved? Because "fate" usually represents a force outside of one's immediate control, an unseen force that slowly drags someone to an imminent conclusion.

"Girls don't talk like that, because then they'll have to own-up once they actually get pregnant." It's bad enough that we have a bill calling women "hosts", instead of upholding their dignity as mothers. Swinging to the opposite extreme, and mocking a pro-life woman who "dares fate" by her views and saying, "Oh, wait until you get pregnant, let's see how well you hold onto your views," is cruel and belittling.

While Gauthier's statement was confusing, I certainly did not find rape as the first word for "fate".

[The V O I D]

If you don't want a child, then either:
Use condoms/contraceptives
Abstain from sex
Put the baby up for adoption
Get sterilized (only if you NEVER want a child)

OR, we could, you know, NOT INFRINGE upon the woman's rights and let her abort? Yeah, let's go with that.

[New Larthinia]

Please demonstrate how it makes up bullshit, they give links to their assumptions in every video: I'm really curious that you prove me wrong.

Are you kidding me? You need to be blind, deaf or both to not see the right-wing bias in their channel's videos and sources.

You still haven't given me any concrete evidence, I'm waiting

[Godular]

And it's telling you immediately assumed rape was going to be involved.

You're the one who said "daring fate". If it was just a girl getting pregnant during consensual sex with her boyfriend, you could say, "Because talking like that as a female usually doesn't mean much," or something like that. Which is still disrespectful, but not quite as bad. So why would I so terribly assume that rape could be involved? Because "fate" usually represents a force outside of one's immediate control, an unseen force that slowly drags someone to an imminent conclusion.

"Girls don't talk like that, because then they'll have to own-up once they actually get pregnant." It's bad enough that we have a bill calling women "hosts", instead of upholding their dignity as mothers. Swinging to the opposite extreme, and mocking a pro-life woman who "dares fate" by her views and saying, "Oh, wait until you get pregnant, let's see how well you hold onto your views," is cruel and belittling.

Not at all. It is simply observing that it is easy for a person to say 'just do this', when they haven't yet or cannot ever actually experience the situation in question, right up until they actually do experience it.

That is to say: y'all saying 'just' keep the pregnancy or 'just' give it up for adoption or 'just' don't have sex need to stop talking out your collective asses. You do not know the woman's situation nor is it your business to know.

[Ashmoria]

Long story short, people who're against abortion and are in positions of power; will never stop attempting to outlaw abortion or at least place limits on how accessible abortion is for women. This situation is nothing new, and has been going on for longer than I've been alive.

yup

they try to work around the edges until there is no center left.

[Mechanisburg]

Even if I joined only recently, I followed this thread with interest and more than a few facepalms. I'd like to add something to the discussion.

This bill, nor any other, is enough to put a stop to abortion. Instead, mandatory sterilization following sperm cryostorage, for all fertile men, should be put in place to avoid this genocide of unborn babies.

There are a few reasons for this proposal:

• We already know that banning abortion won't be enough to stop it, just putting it underground;
• This proposal, on the contrary, would completely put a stop to unwanted pregnancies;
• No unborn babies would be affected by this bill, but grown 11-years old boys who certainly can take a little Burdizzo;
• This investment would be a long term one, greatly improving health and crime rates after an initial slump.

The only problems I can see with this, beyond the obvious (having to create all-female castration squads, finding the money to pay and equip them), is the fact the right to bodily autonomy of all men would be infringed on in the name of the Great Cause: but luckily, even if it goes directly against the right to bodily integrity/autonomy this is not enshrined in the US Constitution, and there's already precedent for its violation in the form of this, and other abortion bills - this one subordinating the right of the mother to the will of the father.

This bill might be criticized because it unfairly targets men: but even if men are unwilling to go through such a simple operation like bilateral orchidectomy - and for the life of me I can't think of any good reason - this bill only targets men because sterilizing them is easier and cheaper, their genitals and gonads being easily accessed.

---

Yes, this proposal is (mostly) facetious. I wrote it to highlight the sheer stupidity of these bills.

"I understand that they feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant."
Rep. Humphrey continued:

"So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in."

Rep. Humphrey is seemingly blissfully unaware of the fact an host, any host, after inviting a guest in their house, can at any time kick them out. Without a reason, even - this could be considered dickish, but we do not legislate against people being dickish. But often there is a good reason: pregnancy is not exempt from complications, and those complications can and often are life-threatening. And I shan't go in detail about what delivery involves (but by all means, you are welcome to google and gag at "delivery third degree ripping"), lest my post become NSFW/NSFL.

Even if the right to bodily autonomy is not enshrined in the US Constitution, it could be considered common law: we, as a rule, except in extraordinary cases, do not infringe on the bodily autonomy of anyone - one can eject a parasite, and have a cancer excised, but if that parasite came from the act of copulation suddenly everyone loses their mind. If people are willing to go down the route "infringing on bodily autonomy to avoid abortions," then my proposal is not only justified, but completely rational.

I often see people arguing for the fact the foetus is a human being and thus has a right to life. This could certainly be the case, but it is irrelevant to the discussion: the foetus has not the right to extract nutrients from the mother, nor the right to be hosted inside her body. "Your right to swing a fist ends where my face begins," is oft-repeated: if the foetus cannot sustain itself without the mother, the mother is not under any obligation to provide for it, nor to keep hosting it - she does so only because she consents, and this consent can be at any time revoked, and the fetus removed.

This is in fact enshrined in law, as a mother can give up her baby for adoption, often anonymously, and is under no obligation to provide for a completely formed and viable human being - why is she obligated to do so for the same being, at an earlier state of development?

Further, even if my earlier arguments about a right to bodily autonomy do not appeal to you - and I dearly hope your cognitive dissonance engine is developed enough to argue against bodily autonomy for women, but for bodily autonomy for men - from a purely medical, harm-reduction standpoint pregnancy kills more women than abortions.

Let's just give a look at the abstract from Raymond, 2012, shall we?

RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

There is no good reason to ban abortion:

• it won't work in reducing abortions, but it'll just drive them underground and make them less safe;
• it won't have a positive effect on economy or crime rates, as women who had to resort to DIY abortions will have a much higher mortality, and those who will have to deliver and possibly grow an unwanted baby won't have a positive effect on society;
• it enshrines in law a rather large exception to bodily autonomy for the sake of something that cannot even be considered a person;
• this bill, in particular, enshrines in law the fact men can force a woman in slavery for nine month after they had sex with her.

There is no good reason for the father to be involved in decisions about whether to go through pregnancy or not, as the father contributes initially only the sperm to fertilize the egg, and the burden of blood and nutrients, of stretch marks and incontinence, falls squarely upon the shoulders of the mother. The father has at most an emotional investment in the foetus: the mother has a far more tangible stake in the matter.

I posit, as other people before me did, that these bills are no more anti-abortion than I am: they are nothing more than an attempt on the part of these buffoons to control women's bodies and lives, and this bill in particular subjugates the mother to the will of the father. Cries of outrage should be heard from both sides: people who don't want abortion should be pushing against bills that prohibit it, on the ground that they are not effective; and they should be pushing for improved sex ed, and easier access to contraception and sterilization. But I am not observing this, and this leads me to suspect their true motivations.

[The of Japan]

Even if I joined only recently, I followed this thread with interest and more than a few facepalms. I'd like to add something to the discussion.

This bill, nor any other, is enough to put a stop to abortion. Instead, mandatory sterilization following sperm cryostorage, for all fertile men, should be put in place to avoid this genocide of unborn babies.

There are a few reasons for this proposal:

• We already know that banning abortion won't be enough to stop it, just putting it underground;
• This proposal, on the contrary, would completely put a stop to unwanted pregnancies;
• No unborn babies would be affected by this bill, but grown 11-years old boys who certainly can take a little Burdizzo;
• This investment would be a long term one, greatly improving health and crime rates after an initial slump.

The only problems I can see with this, beyond the obvious (having to create all-female castration squads, finding the money to pay and equip them), is the fact the right to bodily autonomy of all men would be infringed on in the name of the Great Cause: but luckily, even if it goes directly against the right to bodily integrity/autonomy this is not enshrined in the US Constitution, and there's already precedent for its violation in the form of this, and other abortion bills - this one subordinating the right of the mother to the will of the father.

This bill might be criticized because it unfairly targets men: but even if men are unwilling to go through such a simple operation like bilateral orchidectomy - and for the life of me I can't think of any good reason - this bill only targets men because sterilizing them is easier and cheaper, their genitals and gonads being easily accessed.

---

Yes, this proposal is (mostly) facetious. I wrote it to highlight the sheer stupidity of these bills.

"I understand that they feel like that is their body. I feel like it is a separate — what I call them is, is you’re a ‘host.’ And you know when you enter into a relationship you’re going to be that host and so, you know, if you pre-know that then take all precautions and don’t get pregnant."
Rep. Humphrey continued:

"So that’s where I’m at. I’m like, hey, your body is your body and be responsible with it. But after you’re irresponsible then don’t claim, well, I can just go and do this with another body, when you’re the host and you invited that in."

Rep. Humphrey is seemingly blissfully unaware of the fact an host, any host, after inviting a guest in their house, can at any time kick them out. Without a reason, even - this could be considered dickish, but we do not legislate against people being dickish. But often there is a good reason: pregnancy is not exempt from complications, and those complications can and often are life-threatening. And I shan't go in detail about what delivery involves (but by all means, you are welcome to google and gag at "delivery third degree ripping"), lest my post become NSFW/NSFL.

Even if the right to bodily autonomy is not enshrined in the US Constitution, it could be considered common law: we, as a rule, except in extraordinary cases, do not infringe on the bodily autonomy of anyone - one can eject a parasite, and have a cancer excised, but if that parasite came from the act of copulation suddenly everyone loses their mind. If people are willing to go down the route "infringing on bodily autonomy to avoid abortions," then my proposal is not only justified, but completely rational.

I often see people arguing for the fact the foetus is a human being and thus has a right to life. This could certainly be the case, but it is irrelevant to the discussion: the foetus has not the right to extract nutrients from the mother, nor the right to be hosted inside her body. "Your right to swing a fist ends where my face begins," is oft-repeated: if the foetus cannot sustain itself without the mother, the mother is not under any obligation to provide for it, nor to keep hosting it - she does so only because she consents, and this consent can be at any time revoked, and the fetus removed.

This is in fact enshrined in law, as a mother can give up her baby for adoption, often anonymously, and is under no obligation to provide for a completely formed and viable human being - why is she obligated to do so for the same being, at an earlier state of development?

Further, even if my earlier arguments about a right to bodily autonomy do not appeal to you - and I dearly hope your cognitive dissonance engine is developed enough to argue against bodily autonomy for women, but for bodily autonomy for men - from a purely medical, harm-reduction standpoint pregnancy kills more women than abortions.

Let's just give a look at the abstract from Raymond, 2012, shall we?

RESULTS: The pregnancy-associated mortality rate among women who delivered live neonates was 8.8 deaths per 100,000 live births. The mortality rate related to induced abortion was 0.6 deaths per 100,000 abortions. In the one recent comparative study of pregnancy morbidity in the United States, pregnancy-related complications were more common with childbirth than with abortion.

CONCLUSION: Legal induced abortion is markedly safer than childbirth. The risk of death associated with childbirth is approximately 14 times higher than that with abortion. Similarly, the overall morbidity associated with childbirth exceeds that with abortion.

There is no good reason to ban abortion:

• it won't work in reducing abortions, but it'll just drive them underground and make them less safe;
• it won't have a positive effect on economy or crime rates, as women who had to resort to DIY abortions will have a much higher mortality, and those who will have to deliver and possibly grow an unwanted baby won't have a positive effect on society;
• it enshrines in law a rather large exception to bodily autonomy for the sake of something that cannot even be considered a person;
• this bill, in particular, enshrines in law the fact men can force a woman in slavery for nine month after they had sex with her.

There is no good reason for the father to be involved in decisions about whether to go through pregnancy or not, as the father contributes initially only the sperm to fertilize the egg, and the burden of blood and nutrients, of stretch marks and incontinence, falls squarely upon the shoulders of the mother. The father has at most an emotional investment in the foetus: the mother has a far more tangible stake in the matter.

I posit, as other people before me did, that these bills are no more anti-abortion than I am: they are nothing more than an attempt on the part of these buffoons to control women's bodies and lives, and this bill in particular subjugates the mother to the will of the father. Cries of outrage should be heard from both sides: people who don't want abortion should be pushing against bills that prohibit it, on the ground that they are not effective; and they should be pushing for improved sex ed, and easier access to contraception and sterilization. But I am not observing this, and this leads me to suspect their true motivations.

I don't support a full ban. Very few people in US support full ban. Also you forgot about judging putting the baby up for adoption.

[Mechanisburg]

I don't support a full ban. Very few people in US support full ban. Also you forgot about judging putting the baby up for adoption.

And yet, people will argue for, defend, and support politicians who try to extend a full ban or just make abortion more difficult. I am not talking about any one person here, so your support or lack of support is not relevant to the discussion: I am talking about trends in the pro-life camp.

And no, I didn't forget about putting the baby up for adoption: it's irrelevant to the discussion, which is about abortion. Adoption would involve going through a full pregnancy and then delivery, with the risks and complications and 14-fold risk of death involved.

If any woman chooses to go through it and then put the baby up for adoption, more power to her. It is her choice to do so. But she should - for more than a reason, and very good reasons in my not so humble opinion - have the choice to terminate the pregnancy and eject the foetus, even if the foetus will die in the process.

Edit: wording.

[Dylar]

My thing with this law is that the father should have a say, BUT he should not have the final say on the matter. In fact, the woman should only get an abortion if the both of them agree on it. That way, if a woman doesn't want an abortion, but a man does, then no abortion happens. Now there's obviously a flaw with that idea, so I don't need to spell it out for anyone, so would anyone like to propose what we should do to fix the flaw in the law? And it needs to be changed from father to husband, or boyfriend, or whatever, so that you can severly cripple the whole rape case thing. Apologies for the bad grammar, if it is bad grammar, its the morning and I haven't had my coffee, and I'm trying to do three things at once.

[Mechanisburg]

My thing with this law is that the father should have a say, BUT he should not have the final say on the matter. In fact, the woman should only get an abortion if the both of them agree on it. That way, if a woman doesn't want an abortion, but a man does, then no abortion happens. Now there's obviously a flaw with that idea, so I don't need to spell it out for anyone, so would anyone like to propose what we should do to fix the flaw in the law? And it needs to be changed from father to husband, or boyfriend, or whatever, so that you can severly cripple the whole rape case thing. Apologies for the bad grammar, if it is bad grammar, its the morning and I haven't had my coffee, and I'm trying to do three things at once.

There is no fixing the bill. As I said in my earlier post, the man - husband, or boyfriend, or whatever - has at most an emotional investment in the foetus and pregnancy of the mother, but she has a far bigger stake in the form of blood, and nutrients, and stretch marks, and incontinence, and her body changing, and her organs shifting.

The father should not have any say in the matter, at all: the father contributes only half of the DNA, but the mother contributes all of the matter making up the body of the foetus. The woman should only get an abortion if the woman, and the woman only, chooses to get an abortion.

[Ashmoria]

My thing with this law is that the father should have a say, BUT he should not have the final say on the matter. In fact, the woman should only get an abortion if the both of them agree on it. That way, if a woman doesn't want an abortion, but a man does, then no abortion happens. Now there's obviously a flaw with that idea, so I don't need to spell it out for anyone, so would anyone like to propose what we should do to fix the flaw in the law? And it needs to be changed from father to husband, or boyfriend, or whatever, so that you can severly cripple the whole rape case thing. Apologies for the bad grammar, if it is bad grammar, its the morning and I haven't had my coffee, and I'm trying to do three things at once.

you might want to think about WHY a woman wouldn't consult the father when getting an abortion. most do. why don't the rest?

just THINK ABOUT WHY THAT MIGHT BE. think of a good reason or 2.

[Ifreann]

If you don't want a child, then either:
Use condoms/contraceptives
Abstain from sex
Put the baby up for adoption
Get sterilized (only if you NEVER want a child)

And if you get pregnant, you can have an abortion. If you want.

You personally not liking that doesn't mean that is isn't an option. You can't actually stop women from terminating their pregnancies, short of strapping them to a hospital bed as soon as they miss a period.

---

Even if I joined only recently, I followed this thread with interest and more than a few facepalms. I'd like to add something to the discussion.

This bill, nor any other, is enough to put a stop to abortion. Instead, mandatory sterilization following sperm cryostorage, for all fertile men, should be put in place to avoid this genocide of unborn babies.[/b][/size]

I stopped reading here, because that's an insane proposal and I'm concerned that if I read the justification for it I'll go mad.

---

My thing with this law is that the father should have a say, BUT he should not have the final say on the matter. In fact, the woman should only get an abortion if the both of them agree on it. That way, if a woman doesn't want an abortion, but a man does, then no abortion happens. Now there's obviously a flaw with that idea, so I don't need to spell it out for anyone, so would anyone like to propose what we should do to fix the flaw in the law? And it needs to be changed from father to husband, or boyfriend, or whatever, so that you can severly cripple the whole rape case thing. Apologies for the bad grammar, if it is bad grammar, its the morning and I haven't had my coffee, and I'm trying to do three things at once.

Here's a crazy idea, how about let women decide for themselves whether to remain pregnant or not. That way you don't have to worry about other people abusing their power over women.

[Mechanisburg]

I stopped reading here, because that's an insane proposal and I'm concerned that if I read the justification for it I'll go mad.

That's a shame. My proposal is mostly facetious, I said as much, and I think I made good arguments against anti-abortion bills.

[Dylar]

My thing with this law is that the father should have a say, BUT he should not have the final say on the matter. In fact, the woman should only get an abortion if the both of them agree on it. That way, if a woman doesn't want an abortion, but a man does, then no abortion happens. Now there's obviously a flaw with that idea, so I don't need to spell it out for anyone, so would anyone like to propose what we should do to fix the flaw in the law? And it needs to be changed from father to husband, or boyfriend, or whatever, so that you can severly cripple the whole rape case thing. Apologies for the bad grammar, if it is bad grammar, its the morning and I haven't had my coffee, and I'm trying to do three things at once.

There is no fixing the bill. As I said in my earlier post, the man - husband, or boyfriend, or whatever - has at most an emotional investment in the foetus and pregnancy of the mother, but she has a far bigger stake in the form of blood, and nutrients, and stretch marks, and incontinence, and her body changing, and her organs shifting.

The father should not have any say in the matter, at all: the father contributes only half of the DNA, but the mother contributes all of the matter making up the body of the foetus. The woman should only get an abortion if the woman, and the woman only, chooses to get an abortion.

Here's an analogy for you: Two people decided they wanted to start a store. They are disagreeing on what the store's gonna sell: comic books, or video games.The one who wants to sell comic books donated half of the money to the project, and has been overseeing the construction for the past 9 months, while the person wanting to sell the video games, donated the other half of the money to the project, and has designed the store's interior and exterior. Who gets to say what the store sells, and why?

[Alvecia]

There is no fixing the bill. As I said in my earlier post, the man - husband, or boyfriend, or whatever - has at most an emotional investment in the foetus and pregnancy of the mother, but she has a far bigger stake in the form of blood, and nutrients, and stretch marks, and incontinence, and her body changing, and her organs shifting.

The father should not have any say in the matter, at all: the father contributes only half of the DNA, but the mother contributes all of the matter making up the body of the foetus. The woman should only get an abortion if the woman, and the woman only, chooses to get an abortion.

Here's an analogy for you: Two people decided they wanted to start a store. They are disagreeing on what the store's gonna sell: comic books, or video games.The one who wants to sell comic books donated half of the money to the project, and has been overseeing the construction for the past 9 months, while the person wanting to sell the video games, donated the other half of the money to the project, and has designed the store's interior and exterior. Who gets to say what the store sells, and why?

The issue with that analogy is that the raising of a foetus to child isn't a 50/50 responsibility.
The bloke contributes in a tiny way at the beginning, then the rest of the work is done by the gal.

[Felistan]

Abortion should be avoided at all costs. It should only be allowed in a situation of rape (non-consensual) sex .

[Felistan]

Abortion should be avoided at all costs. It should only be allowed in a situation of rape (non-consensual) sex .

[Dylar]

Here's an analogy for you: Two people decided they wanted to start a store. They are disagreeing on what the store's gonna sell: comic books, or video games.The one who wants to sell comic books donated half of the money to the project, and has been overseeing the construction for the past 9 months, while the person wanting to sell the video games, donated the other half of the money to the project, and has designed the store's interior and exterior. Who gets to say what the store sells, and why?

The issue with that analogy is that the raising of a foetus to child isn't a 50/50 responsibility.
The bloke contributes in a tiny way at the beginning, then the rest of the work is done by the gal.

Until the baby is born, then that "bloke" has the responsibility of raising and disciplining his kid, with the help of the mother.

[Mechanisburg]

Here's an analogy for you: Two people decided they wanted to start a store. They are disagreeing on what the store's gonna sell: comic books, or video games.The one who wants to sell comic books donated half of the money to the project, and has been overseeing the construction for the past 9 months, while the person wanting to sell the video games, donated the other half of the money to the project, and has designed the store's interior and exterior. Who gets to say what the store sells, and why?

This analogy is completely flawed. First off, one of the people contributed only the idea of starting a store, and is expecting the other person to contribute the money, the location, the merchandise, and the work in keeping it running for nine months, and thinks he can stop the person from going away because in the beginning she half-listened to his idea.

The father, as I already said, contributes only half the DNA, while the mother contributes all of the matter and nutrients that go in the body of the baby. The analogy is further flawed because here no work is involved, and certainly no work comparable to retail: the mother isn't sweeping the floors and organizing the merchandise for nine months, eight hours a day, she is expected to host the foetus and provide it with nutrients and let it shift her internal organs away for the equivalent of 810 days of work - nine months, 24h/24.

[Ashmoria]

Here's an analogy for you: Two people decided they wanted to start a store. They are disagreeing on what the store's gonna sell: comic books, or video games.The one who wants to sell comic books donated half of the money to the project, and has been overseeing the construction for the past 9 months, while the person wanting to sell the video games, donated the other half of the money to the project, and has designed the store's interior and exterior. Who gets to say what the store sells, and why?

This analogy is completely flawed. First off, one of the people contributed only the idea of starting a store, and is expecting the other person to contribute the money, the location, the merchandise, and the work in keeping it running for nine months, and thinks he can stop the person from going away because in the beginning she half-listened to his idea.

The father, as I already said, contributes only half the DNA, while the mother contributes all of the matter and nutrients that go in the body of the baby. The analogy is further flawed because here no work is involved, and certainly no work comparable to retail: the mother isn't sweeping the floors and organizing the merchandise for nine months, eight hours a day, she is expected to host the foetus and provide it with nutrients and let it shift her internal organs away for the equivalent of 810 days of work - nine months, 24h/24.

he doesn't even contribute half the dna. the mother supplies all the mitochondrial dna, eh?

[Alvecia]

The issue with that analogy is that the raising of a foetus to child isn't a 50/50 responsibility.
The bloke contributes in a tiny way at the beginning, then the rest of the work is done by the gal.

Until the baby is born, then that "bloke" has the responsibility of raising and disciplining his kid, with the help of the mother.

Abortion stops it getting that far.