Okay - let us suppose that the world's most effective contraceptive was brought out on the market tomorrow. It is 99.99% effective - no side effects, no long term effects, does not affect sexual drive, performance or proclivity BUT it is for men only. Oh! and for the sake of this argument it is endorsed as OK for use by all major religions So, would men do the right thing and take this contraceptive if it meant reducing unwanted pregnancies and thereby reducing the abortion rate?
Men would take it for personal reasons, not for public policy reasons, same as women. If they were given the chance of course.
What i am asking is - if we evened out the burden of responsibility in relation to contraception would men be as conscientious or more conscientious than women And I will understand if the answer makes people uncomfortable
I think more conscientious than women. I'd guess there are fewer guys trying to trap a girl into marriage than visa versa.
Since most abortions result from one or the other (or both) being too lazy or ignorant to use contraception in the first place, it would make little difference.
Marrying a person you don't love in a "shotgun wedding" is not responsibility - paying child support, visiting the child, etc is.
Either way - it would be a moot point. It would be like saying a mother has a right to terminate a 2 year old child with Down's Syndrome, just because the father choses not to support it, and a person with Down's Syndrome can't sustain itself without draining from her own resources.
So forcing a woman to become a single parent is more responsible than either taking the correct precaution in the first place or "doing the right thing"?
She wouldn't be forced to become a single parent. She wasn't forced to have unprotected sex to begin with, and she's being forced not to date and find a new man who is seeking a real relationship, not marrying someone he does not love because of an outdated belief that "shotgun weddings" are the right thing to do, when they do more to destroy families and children than anything. Both individuals should have taken the precaution in the first place. Marrying a person you don't love would not be the "right thing", it would be the wrong thing, and would be bad for the child (not to mention both of the parents). Paying child support, and being involved in the child's life would be the right thing.
Of course, Bowerbird! That is almost a redundant question to any sensible male. Unwanted children are one of the greater tragedies of life (and I am speaking here from the child's point of view) and bad for society in every respect. Unwanted children, especially those who are shuttled from pillar to post, know they are unwanted, and it is cruel to bring children into the world under those circumstances. And, LOL, from a purely selfish point of view, if the fear of pregnancy is no longer present, it might mean I get more 'bonking' - which is never a bad thing.
This is about male responsibility to prevent pregnancy - and suddenly, once again and unsurprisingly, the woman is being blamed Paying child support and being only peripherally involved in the child's life is no substitute for full marital support
It is not possible to give "martial support" someone you don't love, whether the man or the woman. In order for a marriage to work, it has to be based on mutual compatibility and knowledge of relationships. A young couple who've never had a relationship who "think they're in love", get pregnant due to not even knowing what a condom is (or purposely try to get pregnant), and get married because they are under the well-intended, but totally misguided belief that it's "the right thing to do" - are setting themselves and their kids up for disaster. Such "marriages" are the reason so many marriages end in divorce or end up young children witnessing their parents constantly fighting and hating each other while trying to put on an act of being in love just "for the kids", and are worse for the kids than if they were raised by single parents. Your argument is about as valid as an argument for arranged marriages, or the Bronze age belief that a rapist was morally obligated to take his victim as his wife. I guess that's a real "marriage" in your eyes - hey at least he's supporting her kids.
Sorry but that is an evasion - women already carry much of the burden of contraception because there are more choices for women. I am merely reversing that by asking if men would be more responsible if they had the same options
Males and Females both have condoms. If I wanted to have safe sex, I would want my girlfriend to do something too. Whether it's too much of a burden or not, slipping up has many negative consquences.
I doubt shotgun marriages are the reason many marriages end in divorce. I would be curious as to how many actual shotgun marriages happen in Western countries now days. I'd guess there are probably more single parent homes than shotgun marriages.
Men would forget to take it. Either that or they would refuse to take it, believing that because it is the woman who gets pregnant, it is her responsibility to prevent a pregnancy.
Actually I think a lot of men would be willing to take it since a lot of men do not want to unexpectedly be fathers and be forced to pay child support for 18 years of their life.