[flagged]
As for georgeburdell thinking women are more advantaged against men, he should do some experiments applying to jobs with equivalent credentials as a man vs a woman, both in child bearing years. It doesn’t take a genius to figure out that the average man in that age range will need or ask for fewer days off than the average woman.
https://www.cnbc.com/2026/09/04/jobs-report-women-payrolls.h... is a report I've read recently (it's partially due to the growth in the healthcare industry due to aging population). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFCljh6dBIg&t=144s is a discussion that captures the modern perspective for young men.
The idea that maternity leave plays into this in any signifigant way is totally old-fashioned (in my opinion).
Women essentially have a higher effective charisma thanks to their greater sexual market value. There were some studies that showed women have an in-group bias to support women, but also men have a cross-group bias to support women. People naturally pefer women.
> Contrary to prevailing assumptions, men and women faculty members from all four fields preferred female applicants 2:1 over identically qualified males with matching lifestyles (single, married, divorced), with the exception of male economists, who showed no gender preference.
In a meta-analysis of 57 such studies, Galos and Coppock (Science Advances 2023 [2]) found a small 1.2% bias favouring women overall, with gender-coded fields generally have a preference for applicants of that gender (5.1% towards women in nursing, admin, early childhood education; 3.0% towards men in trades, engineering, executive roles).
[1]: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1418878112
[2]: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade7979?hl=en-GB
>You have to address if the thing inside the tummy is a person or not, and when.
As an aside, the data overwhelmingly shows neither women nor doctors are choosing to abort viable fetuses willy nilly. The real world effect is, as the data shows, to cause doctors to think about their financial and criminal liabilities before their patients' well being.
https://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2019/04/raw-data-abor...
Framing it as a question of women's bodily autonomy assumes there is only one person involved, which is exactly what abortion opponents dispute. So your framing doesn't settle the issue.
The crux of the issue is if and when the thing in the tummy is a person.
Like the state cannot hook you up to a blood transfusion machine (or whatever), plug you into some guy who needs your blood, and then keep you there. And you cannot be prosecuted for murder for denying a life-saving blood transfusion to some guy who needs your blood. That's somewhat analogous to pregnancy.
The state will however happily violate bodily autonomy to achieve much lesser goals, like putting needles in you for blood tests or to literally kill you.
Keeping another person alive is arguably one of the more worthy goals.
> That's somewhat analogous to pregnancy.
The comparison goes in the right direction, but it's not quite there. Your examples are all about inaction, while terminating pregnancy generally requires action.
Be that as it may, it does not and cannot force you to donate your organs or blood, even as a condition of incarceration.
> The comparison goes in the right direction, but it's not quite there. Your examples are all about inaction, while terminating pregnancy generally requires action.
Not quite true. If you were hooked up to a blood transfusion machine, you'd have to unhook yourself. Maybe a better scenario would be a dialysis machine that connected one human to another human's kidney.
Umm...
Yeah but if it's a person then it's not about bodily autonomy because the abortion denies the baby bodily autonomy.
At that point it's about what we owe other people.
Who is “we” in this statement? The “owed” amount seems to be entirely paid by considerably less than half the population.
I also don’t appreciate that you are arguing on behalf of a group you are clearly in agreement with yet your phrasing avoids committing to the stance. You present yourself like you’re just giving them due consideration and respect but you only give that side these graces.
The men would get the benefit of spending time with their newborn children in a way they cannot do today, while their significant others get the benefit of another person available to help them out full-time through the child's early months. The cherry on top is that businesses would be far less able to view women as men who take more time off.