The taxpayer should not have to support the child before the father. How fair is it that women are the ones who gestate?
51% of women who abort were using contraception.
I am adopted and would never inflict that on a child. What others do is not my business, but we women do not owe the barren our progeny. We are not broodmares.
Most anti choicers in North America are Christian. Yes, some religions and even some denominations of Christianity are pro choice. ie the Jewish religion is pro choice. I am Christian and pro choice.
why should anyone "revere" human life?
"The taxpayer should not have to support the child before the father."
Well, no. The
mother should have to support the child if she chooses to have it anyway despite the father wishing to avoid those financial consequences. Again, why should the mother get to choose whether the father incurs those consequences? Your response undermines the entire argument.
"How fair is it that women are the ones who gestate?"
I'm glad that you posted this response, because you hit upon the reason why people are so willing to ignore the obvious problem with the abortion stance. The idea is to make it all about the woman's freedom so that no one notices the party that is negatively affected by the woman exercising her freedom.
It's obvious that in our society the standard for freedom is that you should be free to do anything you please, as long as there is no negative externality to someone else. And obviously in an abortion scenario there is a negative externality...another human necessarily dies. It clearly violates the societal standard we use for everything else.
So why is this even considered as an acceptable exception to the rule?
Because 2nd and 3rd wave feminists were angry that when men and women have sex, only women have biological consequences. That's it. The resentment of that biological fact drives this whole thing. It basically becomes, "This is unfair, and because it is, society ought to make an exception and prioritize even freedom that causes a negative externality in this case." So we deny the obvious and play games of semantics and obfuscate and act like the obvious negative externality really doesn't exist, etc., so that we can maintain this standard that doesn't apply anywhere else in society.
The problem with that is that—as almost every parent gets around to informing his or her children—life is not fair. It may not be fair for women to have biological consequences when men don't, but it's also not fair that some people are born with genetic predispositions to alcoholism or obesity or simply not being very attractive to whom they wish to be attractive. These Incel fellows who feel justified in resorting to violence in frustration of not being able to attract a sexual partner are following the exact same line of reasoning as the abortion justification. They feel that causing negative externalities to others is justified because they wish to have sex and feel that it is fundamentally unfair that the genetic lottery has left them lacking in the ability to attract a partner.
Anyway, we can't change the biological reality and make it so that men have to be biologically responsible for a pregnancy. We can easily make it fair for men to have choice over their financial obligations.
"51% of women who abort were using contraception."
Then they obviously were not using them properly, as I'm sure you know that the effective use statistics are much higher than that. And...what about the other 49%?
"we women do not owe the barren our progeny."
Nor did I ever say or imply that you did, but I do think you owe another human—assuming you voluntarily participated in creating it, which I think accounts for well above 90% of all unwanted pregnancies—their life if you can avoid taking it. Again, that's the standard for every other situation in society. And this again reflects the strategy here. Always ignore the unborn human in the equation.
"I am Christian and pro choice."
No you aren't. Not according to your post. You want to deny fathers choice according to your post.
"why should anyone "revere" human life?"
Are you sure you're even a Christian, if you have to ask that question? Obviously that's a much larger question, but it should also be obvious that if you don't find a sufficient reason to have reverence for human life, then there is no good reason for you to expect others to revere women's rights or for you to even have reverence or respect for them yourself. Yes, we disagree upon whether this particular question is a legitimate right, but it's nonsensical to argue for
any rights without the right to life being the most basic, fundamental right, as none of the rest of them can exist without that one. I found that to be a very odd question.