From the standpoint of risk, an early abortion carries 1/10 the risk to the health of mother than a continued pregnancy, so the risk argument doesn’t fly.
It wasn't a comparative question, Capracus. Changing the subject doesn't work; see below in re "unequal advantage", for a more relevant consideration of this risk she undertakes. Meanwhile, his liability risk is his liability risk.
From the standpoint of having an equal opportunity in regards to a commitment to parenthood ...
From the standpoint of having an equal opportunity in regards to a commitment to parenthood, as
I said↑ when I walked into the discussion, every man should have the same right to terminate a pregnancy he is carrying as a woman.
... the mother has an unequal advantage in having the right to make that decision for both parents by continuing or stopping the pregnancy.
Ceteris paribus is not in effect; this is actually observable. "Unequal advantage" is terminology subordinate to your particular framework. Consider a process that takes about ten months, damages a body while as it progresses, requires difficult and dangerous labor or else surgery to complete, and then a period of months to years in order that one might recover physically as much as possible, although never completely, and is known to have the effect of drastically and even fundamentally altering the way a particular psyche functions in relation to the reality it perceives. In the decision to carry forward with a physically damaging, mind-altering process or not, the fact of its occurrence in and upon her body is only an "unequal advantage" according to an utterly egocentric framework in which another requires authority over her in order to advance his demanded right to satisfaction. Which, in turn, isn't exactly new as masculine, egocentric frameworks go.
While the father has no legal right to force a mother to continue or stop a pregnancy, at least some measure of fairness could be granted the father by allowing him to opt out of parental responsibility when a mother wishes to continue a pregnancy over his objection.
The question of "fairness" in exchange for authority over another person's body isn't even a proper joke.
• The decision to carry forward with a physically damaging, mind-altering process or not goes to the person whose body it will affect.
• To
reiterate↑: That some man doesn't want to account for his offspring isn't a rational justification for either masculine incompetence or some stupid and selfish privilege thereunto.
• Follow the bouncy balls:
→ The fact of unintended pregnancy means the male gamete should not have been present.
→ Sperm cells, as such, are not in this case a contribution to a process, but waste irresponsibly left behind.
↳ Littering does not automatically grant you a proprietary share in anything except legal responsibility for inadequately disposing of your trash.
While the father has no legal right to force a mother to continue or stop a pregnancy, at there is no measure of "fairness" to be granted the father by allowing him to opt out of parental responsibility when a mother wishes to continue a pregnancy over his objection, because there is nothing to exchange. You demand a measure of "fairness" for what amounts to putting precisely nothing on the scale: Littering does not automatically grant you a proprietary share over a woman. Full stop.
Again, it's time for men to stop treating their own sexual inadequacy or fears thereof as something to blame on everybody else.
And no, I'm not really up to giving the lecture on, "Better and Safer Sustainable Masculine Sexual Gratification", right now. The basic summary, though, is to be a better partner to women or else be the lover unto yourself you always wanted from others. In other words, it's a laborious hot mess as lectures go, and a whole lot of what goes into it a man ought to be able to figure out for himself, anyway.
• • •
Wicked Super Happy Bonus Fun Time: Here's the challenge, and anyone can play.
1) Find a particular connection between Shel Silverstein and the German heavy metal band Helloween.
2) Observe a question of scandal according not to what, but why; make what you will of the circumstances describing why.
3) Once you answer the question of scandal by rejecting scandalization, attend a more general implication of what the particular connection describes.
4) Now I can skip the the Gratification lecture altogether.
