Post zamieszony przez osobe uzywajaca nicka 'a psik' na forum Kobieta.
Ostatnio czytalem to co na spodzie po angielsku.
W duzym skrocie: kobiety maja prawo do aborcji a co z mezczyznami ? ponizszy
tekst postuluje takie rozwiazanie prawne nazywane brak dyskrymincaji plci w
dostepie do aborcji
Mezczyzna ktory nie chce dziecka w ciagu miesiaca od momentu dowiedzenia sie
o ciazy partnerki powinien oswiadczyc prawnie (pisemnie) ze dziecka nie chce -
decyzja musi byc podjeta w czasie gdy kobieta ma fizyczna mozliwosc usuniecia
ciazy. W przypadku gdy kobieta decyduje sie na urodzenie dziecka pomimo
negatywnemu stonowisku ojca odpowiedzialnosc prawna, finansowa itp mezczyzny
jest rowna zeru - mezczyzna dokonuje aborcji swojego ojcostwa,
odpowiedzialnosci i obowiazkow.
A wiec aborcja dla wszystkich a co....jak rownosc to rownosc: jezeli kobieta
ma prawo do aborcji to dlaczego mezczyzna ma nie miec. Do poczecia potrzeba
dwoch a decyzja o aborcji w obecnym ustawodawstwie nalezy do jednej osoby
przeciez to jawna dyskryminacja.
ponizej oryginal tekstu
There are many things to celebrate in Canada on International Women's Day
(March 8), and this country's relatively grown-up approach to reproductive
choice is among them. Unlike in the USA, where lawmakers continue to court
the religious right by restricting access to choice, Canadian women with
unplanned pregnancies are legally free to choose among abortion, adoption and
parenthood. This is something of which all Canadians should be proud.
But as much as International Women's Day is about celebrating how far we've
come, it's also an occasion to look to the future, and our celebratory mood
is dampened by the knowledge that there is still a substantial group of
people in Canada who have restricted access to reproductive choice. Nearly
half of all Canadians can be forced into parenthood before they're ready,
even if they don't want children. These people have no access to abortion and
cannot choose adoption by themselves, so a broken condom or a missed pill can
be a life-altering event. When an unplanned pregnancy occurs, they have no
legal right to opt in or out of parenthood, and, if a child is born, they are
financially responsible for supporting it for 18 years or more.
That group is men.
A woman should have an absolute right to choose if she will carry a pregnancy
to term. But as the law stands, the biological father has no control over his
own destiny: if a woman decides to abort, he has to abide by that decision
(and quite right, too -- remember the Chantal Daigle case in 1989?). But if
she keeps the baby, he's on the hook for child support.
How does this jibe with feminist principles? If the substance of feminism is
a drive towards equal rights for men and women (and though it hasn't always
been, it really should be), then feminists should be prepared to stand up for
giving men the same reproductive choices that they enjoy.
We propose that Canada be the first country to institute what could be
referred to as the male abortion -- an idea at the centre of a disparate
movement sprouting up around the world. The idea is that men who find
themselves the biological parent of an unwanted fetus could sign a legal
document to relinquish all parental rights and responsibilities within a
month of learning of the pregnancy, so long as this gave the woman enough
time to opt for termination after he made his choice. (Before 16 weeks
gestation would be ideal, although in Canada, there are no restrictions on
when abortions can be performed.) Just like parents who place their children
for closed adoptions, men who opt out of fatherhood would have no right to
see or make decisions about the child and would not have any financial or
emotional obligations toward it.
At first glance, this proposal may make people's knees jerk, since many so-
called men's rights proposals are really veiled attacks on the women's
movement. But most of the arguments against the male abortion fall into one
of two camps: those that infantilize women by suggesting they should be free
to make choices for which they expect other people to take responsibility;
and those that hold men to a higher moral standard by invoking old-fashioned
anti-choice arguments ("he made the choice when he decided to have sex") for
a fresh purpose -- a decidedly anti-feminist tactic, since it implies some
inherent male superiority.
The reason feminists should support the male abortion is twofold: it
recognizes women and men as free agents, equally entitled to make decisions
and equally bound to take responsibility for them. And it depends,
absolutely, on free, cheap and unfettered access to abortion for women. To
legalize male abortion in Canada would mean forcing some provinces (like New
Brunswick and Manitoba), where abortions are restricted to federally funded
hospitals, to pay for more easily accessible clinics. (Except in PEI, where
women have to travel out of province, and often out of the Maritimes, for an
abortion -- a cause for national shame.) Abortion should be legally redefined
as an essential health service under the Canada Health Act, meaning that all
provinces would be forced to ensure the insured procedure is accessible,
universal and comprehensive.
Give all Canadian women freedom of choice, and give Canadian men the right to
determine their own future. Then we'd really have something to celebrate on
International Women's Day next year.
No dobrze, co feminizm na to? Co zdrowy rozsadek? Czy 'prawo do aborcji' nie
powinno byc symetryczne? Paradoksalnie, obecny zakaz wprowadza (w pewnym
sensie) symetrie sytuacji.