Will you marry...erm... have a civil partnership with me?

Here is the definition of equality.

It doesn't mean that things are specifically, exactly the same. It means that the rights of all people are equal. As in, the right to decide what happens to yourself and your body. It's not just a "women's issue", It's a basic human right. Turning it into the former might add to the perennial stance of hysterical victim-hood that people like Bitch enjoy so very much, but it actually detracts from the fact that this affects and should concern all people.

The real issue with humanisn (or whatever else) is that it doesn't cast a dramatic light on whichever group BitchPhD chooses to associate herself with

Are you suggesting that if a woman's life isn't in danger, or wasn't raped, that she's already made her choice and should keep the child?

Oh, that's right, the Vatican will take care of all the good little Catholic boys and girls, right?

What's a little struggle here in this life, when HEAVEN awaits you in the beyond.

Nothing you said there removes the ambiguity inherent in "equal". There will always be the difference in interpretation between "equal opportunity/treatment" and "equal results".

That would be true if society was the one who had to carry that fetus to term, give birth, and raise it.

So no.

If you believe that some god gave everyone freewill to make their own choices - then respect that and let them make the "wrong" choice.

I mean, don't they have to answer to some god? Just be smug in the fact that you make the choices that make that god happy and you will be floating in clouds playing a harp when you die and not those damn sinners.

:applauds:

To stir the pot some, there's something I've been thinking about related to this. I haven't come up with an acceptable solution yet, obviously. Society hasn't either.

After conception, what choices does a man have regarding whether or not to become a parent? What choices does a woman have?

Furthermore, given that the lives of both parties will be affected, how should responsibility for the decisions be divided. Granted, due to the risks of pregnancy and childbirth, the woman should have the greater share, but the man is not without responsiblity for the care of the child. To give either 100% power of decision would be to deny that the other will be affected by those decisions.

So what happens if they disagree? You can't get a little bit pregnant. The couple must either have the child, or not. Someone gets their way, and someone doesn't.

I'm beginning to think there's not a general rule that would grant equality to both parties, and the whole thing would have to be decided on a case by case basis.

Whoever has the uterus wins that decision.

Sure he should have a say so. But that's all he has is a say so. He doesn't have veto power nor does he have any sort of entitlement to her body - regardless of their relationship.

My girlfriend expressed her opinion when I was first being consulted for a vasectomy. As luck would have it, the testicles seemed to belong to me and subsequently I was able to make that final decision because it was my body - not hers.

If we were only talking about the right to make decisions for one's own physical body, you're quite right. And while it would be nice to make it so simple, a child has much farther reaching repercussions.

So, because she has a uterus, she has the right to make him a parent, or not, against his will?

Do I have a right to drop a child on your doorstep, and demand you care for it? Of course not; but neither do you have a right to tell me to not have it in the first place.

In essense, there's no solution to the problem that can result in the protection of everyone's rights. So why even bother to haul out rhetoric about gender equality. Let's just tell it like it is.

in a perfect world sure, but there's no way around it since, as you say, either the kid is born or it's not--someone does not get their way. since the woman is more directly impacted than the man in every case, by virtue of biology, she must have the authority to make that choice. her rights trump his in this situation.

it may not be "fair", but life isn't fair.

What I'm really getting at isn't about who has control over a woman's body; it's that women have a choice to whether become parents or not, while that same choice isn't given to men, for a number of reasons. First, a man doesn't, and shouldn't, have any right to dictate what a woman does and doesn't do with her own body. Second, once the child is born, it is in its best interest to have the support of both parents, and therefore the father cannot decide, legally, to not be a parent and support the child. Not in a country where people can sue anonymous sperm donors for child support.

Exactly. So why do we all talk about it in terms of gender equality, when it is gender unequal by it's very nature?

Simply put? Yes. Is that unfortunate? Sure, but it's not something that people have imposed, it's something that comes from the way the biology of the whole situation works. Ideally, if one parent-to-be wanted the baby and the other didn't (or visa versa) then that one would get the kid. But reality doesn't support that idea situation.

because what reproductive rights are held by women in a given society directly impacts the overall state of gender equality in that society.

All right; I'll accept that.

And I really don't have any problem with any of this, except too often it seems that when the inherent inequality favors women, it's all in the name of gender equality, but if it favors men, it's discrimination.

Ideally, at least to me, we would acknowledge that men and women are unequal in certain respects as a result of biology, not due to any failure of society. We should be treated equally when it's possible, and acknowledge our differences when it's not, yet still do our best to respect the rights of the other sex.

Ha! Listen to me; I sound like an idealist for once instead of a jaded, cynical realist.