What do you think of men passing abortion laws?
- Thread starter SeeIn2D
- Start date
Recommended Videos
If you're in a relationship it seems only natural that the father of the child/husband has a say in it. Yes, it's the mother's body, but it's still a child to both of them, not only the woman.
Now, I'm pro choice, but having said that, abortion is essentially no different than killing your two year old son, or five year old daughter. I mean this both from a biological and psychological standpoint. Obviously the foetus is not fully formed, and you might not have to same emotional attachment, but the parents will be scarred for life either way.
If you can't be responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy (I know it's not always possible, unfortunately), why would you be entitled to end the life of, basically, your baby? Lots of families choose to not abort, despite knowing they wont have the means to properly raise a child. They can't abort that child once it's born. Would they want to abort it a year later? It seems easier because, like I said, you don't have the same attachment, but the foetus is still there, alive and kicking.
Basically what I'm saying is that abortion should be reserved for very specific cases, and for any other adoption should be considered first. Sorry if I was too herpy-derpy here, just mes deux centimes.
Now, I'm pro choice, but having said that, abortion is essentially no different than killing your two year old son, or five year old daughter. I mean this both from a biological and psychological standpoint. Obviously the foetus is not fully formed, and you might not have to same emotional attachment, but the parents will be scarred for life either way.
If you can't be responsible enough to prevent the pregnancy (I know it's not always possible, unfortunately), why would you be entitled to end the life of, basically, your baby? Lots of families choose to not abort, despite knowing they wont have the means to properly raise a child. They can't abort that child once it's born. Would they want to abort it a year later? It seems easier because, like I said, you don't have the same attachment, but the foetus is still there, alive and kicking.
Basically what I'm saying is that abortion should be reserved for very specific cases, and for any other adoption should be considered first. Sorry if I was too herpy-derpy here, just mes deux centimes.
I think that while it is very obviously a woman's body and thus the buck kind of stops with her, there is a big problem with saying that the man has no say in it.
Let's say I am in a relationship with a long term partner, we have discussed having children, we have had consensual sex and she happens to get pregnant. Anyone who tells me at that point that I have absolutely no say in the decision to have or not have that child is just wrong.
If it's a one night stand, fine. If it's a guy who wants absolutely nothing to do with children, fine. When it's two people who both know that neither of them want kids and they have agreed on it, fine.
Men need to have some say, and when it comes to passing the laws I do think they need to at least be slightly involved as well, just to make sure that there is some consideration given to men who might want kids.
Also, some consideration needs to be given to men who don't want kids but the woman goes ahead with it anyway. When it's as a result of deception and/or a mistake and the guy says he doesn't want it but the woman goes ahead with it anyway, as long as he's made his intentions entirely clear, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support unless he wants to. Of course, if he's a horndog who goes around having unprotected sex with lots of partners then sure, slap the child support on him.
Let's say I am in a relationship with a long term partner, we have discussed having children, we have had consensual sex and she happens to get pregnant. Anyone who tells me at that point that I have absolutely no say in the decision to have or not have that child is just wrong.
If it's a one night stand, fine. If it's a guy who wants absolutely nothing to do with children, fine. When it's two people who both know that neither of them want kids and they have agreed on it, fine.
Men need to have some say, and when it comes to passing the laws I do think they need to at least be slightly involved as well, just to make sure that there is some consideration given to men who might want kids.
Also, some consideration needs to be given to men who don't want kids but the woman goes ahead with it anyway. When it's as a result of deception and/or a mistake and the guy says he doesn't want it but the woman goes ahead with it anyway, as long as he's made his intentions entirely clear, he shouldn't be forced to pay child support unless he wants to. Of course, if he's a horndog who goes around having unprotected sex with lots of partners then sure, slap the child support on him.
Of course men (and woman who are unable to get pregnant because of their age or other reasons) should be able to pass laws related to abortion. It would be rather strange if people couldn't get laws because it is impossible for that law to have a direct effect on them. Nobody is complaining about adults passing laws affecting high-schoolers.
Furthermore, abortion legislation does not solely affect women that are able to become pregnant: it just as well affects doctors and potential fathers.
I also highly doubt women in general have a different political opinion on abortion than man do. Both on the pro-life and pro-choice sides both genders are about equally represented.
Furthermore, abortion legislation does not solely affect women that are able to become pregnant: it just as well affects doctors and potential fathers.
I also highly doubt women in general have a different political opinion on abortion than man do. Both on the pro-life and pro-choice sides both genders are about equally represented.
Question: Do you agree that women should be able to choose or do you think that abortion should be illegal?
Abortion should be legal. Abortion are going to happen whatever you do and back street abortions could cause a lot of deaths. As well as the scientific reasons why it's ridiculous to make it illegal. There would be a similar situation as with prohibition, it would just carry on illegally.
Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?
I don't think men should be able to vote on abortion. I don't want men to dictate to women what they can do with their body. However elected officials should be able to act in their capacity whether male or female.
There is a disturbing background of controlling women that comes with making abortion illegal. I believe that people who are 'pro life' are actually 'anti woman.' They want women to be tied down and controlled.
The child support issue is difficult as it could be manipulated from both directions ie a woman could keep her pregnancy secret or a man could say that he preferred abortion when he didn't actively decide either way. I don't think there's an easy way to figure that one out. I certainly don't think men should be allowed to force women to have abortions.
The bottom line is that no one should be able to force a woman to carry a child and give birth.
Abortion should be legal. Abortion are going to happen whatever you do and back street abortions could cause a lot of deaths. As well as the scientific reasons why it's ridiculous to make it illegal. There would be a similar situation as with prohibition, it would just carry on illegally.
Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?
I don't think men should be able to vote on abortion. I don't want men to dictate to women what they can do with their body. However elected officials should be able to act in their capacity whether male or female.
There is a disturbing background of controlling women that comes with making abortion illegal. I believe that people who are 'pro life' are actually 'anti woman.' They want women to be tied down and controlled.
The child support issue is difficult as it could be manipulated from both directions ie a woman could keep her pregnancy secret or a man could say that he preferred abortion when he didn't actively decide either way. I don't think there's an easy way to figure that one out. I certainly don't think men should be allowed to force women to have abortions.
The bottom line is that no one should be able to force a woman to carry a child and give birth.
I don't know what to say about the specific question, and honestly, I don't want to really say much of anything one way or another about abortion.
The second point however is disguised quite well underneath the inherent controversy of the subject.
If you generalise it you realise that it's really not that simple.
So...
Should men be allowed to make decisions about whether women can have abortions? Problematic, and controversial.
But notice that the general case of this question is this:
Should anyone be able to make a decision about something that cannot affect them personally?
And here, unfortunately, we run into a much, much bigger problem.
The reality is this happens constantly.
In some regards it is the norm, rather than the exception.
How many of the people involved in devising murder laws have been murdered? None whatsoever.
How many of the people involved, in say, welfare legislation have ever even needed to make use of the services this provides?
Not zero, one would hope, but by and large very few of the people that rely on such things have much say in their provision.
Being dictated to by people that have never experienced something, and probably never will is what happens all the time.
There is room to say that this is very dubious, but if you challenge it as a concept, most politicians of any kind would not be allowed to make decisions about anything.
It makes for a pretty awkward question, because it's difficult to see how either option is really acceptable at the end of the day.
The second point however is disguised quite well underneath the inherent controversy of the subject.
If you generalise it you realise that it's really not that simple.
So...
Should men be allowed to make decisions about whether women can have abortions? Problematic, and controversial.
But notice that the general case of this question is this:
Should anyone be able to make a decision about something that cannot affect them personally?
And here, unfortunately, we run into a much, much bigger problem.
The reality is this happens constantly.
In some regards it is the norm, rather than the exception.
How many of the people involved in devising murder laws have been murdered? None whatsoever.
How many of the people involved, in say, welfare legislation have ever even needed to make use of the services this provides?
Not zero, one would hope, but by and large very few of the people that rely on such things have much say in their provision.
Being dictated to by people that have never experienced something, and probably never will is what happens all the time.
There is room to say that this is very dubious, but if you challenge it as a concept, most politicians of any kind would not be allowed to make decisions about anything.
It makes for a pretty awkward question, because it's difficult to see how either option is really acceptable at the end of the day.
Because it's not just the child's life he's gaining a "right" to. He is gaining a right to control the life of the woman the child is currently inside. What you are proposing has the unfortunate side effect of removing a woman's autonomy and handing the reins of her life over to the man who had sex with her.Stripes said:
The woman is the one who is at risk in a pregnancy. She is the one who deserves the right to decide to take that risk. "But I really want you to give me a baby" is an insupportable counterargument.
George! Hey, Georgie, you dead fuck! Get ova here!Lunncal said:
Personally, my thoughts on the whole matter is that until over 50% of the male population experience their first pregnancies and their first labor pains, they shouldn't have a fucking say in the whole deal, as it concerns legalities. They contribute anywhere from 10 seconds to 45 minutes, roughly, throughtout the whole ordeal. Plus around 2 million sperm, if you wish ot get that technical. Women have to deal with this shit for 9 months on average, and there are certain health risks to consider when going through pregnancy. Any law - and let me make this clear: 80% percent of laws passed in the United States serve to protect the needs and desires of special interest groups, not of the common citizen - that attempts to restrict options concerning someone else's health care, especially in the case of pregnancy, is absolute bullshit and should be stricken down and/or erased from existence.
This too.Lumber Barber said:
OMG a politics thread, prepare the flame-shields!
OT: I think that abortion is not a single sex decision, as both a mother and a father must exist for a baby, therefore the mother AND the father should be the ones to make the decision, unless only one of the parents is present to make the decision.
I also believe that a both genders should be allowed to vote on the issue.
OT: I think that abortion is not a single sex decision, as both a mother and a father must exist for a baby, therefore the mother AND the father should be the ones to make the decision, unless only one of the parents is present to make the decision.
I also believe that a both genders should be allowed to vote on the issue.
I'm pro choice, but I can anger most most people with my thoughts on the matter.
As a pro choice person who believes that the aborted organism in an abortion is not sentient, the idea of Men making the decision, or even of men's opinions carrying equal weight, is disgusting.
But I also understand that if you are a pro-life person, who naturally believes that the aborted organism is endowed with moral consideration, sentience, and the same state of person-hood as a born baby, not only are men equally capable as women to decide what exactly constitutes consciousness (which far eclipses all other concerns in deciding abortions legality), but it might even seem a dangerous bias to heavily lean on the testimony of individuals who may have a vested interest in ignoring the possibility that a certain act is literally equivalent on moral reprehensiveness to any genocide in history. If you accept the premise that a potentially aborted fetus may be concious (I don't), then asking a vocal supporter of women's rights her thoughts on abortion is literally equivalent, or in fact much worse, then putting a Nazi in charge of policing a Jewish community. If you accept the premise (Again, I don't), then that analogy is not an overstatement or exaggeration.
Now I get to see if someone starts accusing me of being anti-women. That's always...fun.
As a pro choice person who believes that the aborted organism in an abortion is not sentient, the idea of Men making the decision, or even of men's opinions carrying equal weight, is disgusting.
But I also understand that if you are a pro-life person, who naturally believes that the aborted organism is endowed with moral consideration, sentience, and the same state of person-hood as a born baby, not only are men equally capable as women to decide what exactly constitutes consciousness (which far eclipses all other concerns in deciding abortions legality), but it might even seem a dangerous bias to heavily lean on the testimony of individuals who may have a vested interest in ignoring the possibility that a certain act is literally equivalent on moral reprehensiveness to any genocide in history. If you accept the premise that a potentially aborted fetus may be concious (I don't), then asking a vocal supporter of women's rights her thoughts on abortion is literally equivalent, or in fact much worse, then putting a Nazi in charge of policing a Jewish community. If you accept the premise (Again, I don't), then that analogy is not an overstatement or exaggeration.
Now I get to see if someone starts accusing me of being anti-women. That's always...fun.
I know ill probably get alot of stick for this but,
question 1: I agree that women should be able to choose if they have a abortion or now, but i also believe that a man should be able to go on record and say that he doesn't want the kid, and not be forced to pay in return for not having any contact with said child.
Or let me sum the way things are now a pregnant woman has a choice, a man is duty bound to follow her choice whatever it may be, no questions asked. Equality!
i mean seriously, come on now, if a woman wants a abortion but a man doesn't there should at least be a court hearing or something to decide if the child should be born or not, because right now it can be just nope i don't care about your opinion im getting a abortion and there's nothing you can do about it in some places.
But then again that does sound like a logistical nightmare and all so, and i dont understand on what basis it would be judged or anything of this sort so... really im starting to reconsider this idea already as being very dumb and all... well this makes my opinion totally invalid it seems, i should just delete this post now.... ughhhhh welcome to rant zidine! home of completly illogical and nearly impossible ideas enjoy your stay.
Question 2:
Of course men should be able to have a say in this.
But let me put it this way,
Its not like a man would have a opinion on you know if a future potential child they helped create gets aborted or not and what governs it, its not like it affects them or anything, its not like potential fathers should be allowed to vote on a law deciding whether on not there potential child can be born or not. This is a utterly ridiculous and sexist idea.
Im not saying that abortions should be illegal, infact im on the other side of the fence, but why should we remove a mans right to vote on something that there a part of as well.
*flame shield up*
question 1: I agree that women should be able to choose if they have a abortion or now, but i also believe that a man should be able to go on record and say that he doesn't want the kid, and not be forced to pay in return for not having any contact with said child.
Or let me sum the way things are now a pregnant woman has a choice, a man is duty bound to follow her choice whatever it may be, no questions asked. Equality!
i mean seriously, come on now, if a woman wants a abortion but a man doesn't there should at least be a court hearing or something to decide if the child should be born or not, because right now it can be just nope i don't care about your opinion im getting a abortion and there's nothing you can do about it in some places.
But then again that does sound like a logistical nightmare and all so, and i dont understand on what basis it would be judged or anything of this sort so... really im starting to reconsider this idea already as being very dumb and all... well this makes my opinion totally invalid it seems, i should just delete this post now.... ughhhhh welcome to rant zidine! home of completly illogical and nearly impossible ideas enjoy your stay.
Question 2:
Of course men should be able to have a say in this.
But let me put it this way,
Its not like a man would have a opinion on you know if a future potential child they helped create gets aborted or not and what governs it, its not like it affects them or anything, its not like potential fathers should be allowed to vote on a law deciding whether on not there potential child can be born or not. This is a utterly ridiculous and sexist idea.
Im not saying that abortions should be illegal, infact im on the other side of the fence, but why should we remove a mans right to vote on something that there a part of as well.
*flame shield up*
Remember how the US government officials are elected, women have as much say in who is in congress as men, regardless of whether there are more men actually in congress than women. However, let's rephrase your question in a way that is meaningful to many more people than just women in the US
Should rich people be able to pass laws regulating the economy?
Should urbanites pass laws that have any effect on rural communities?
Should individuals who could literally buy a hospital pass laws about healthcare?
Should individuals who are immune to a draft pass laws regulating when one is instituted?
Should individuals who aren't soldiers have pass laws on military spending and when a nation goes to war?
There a whole host of reasons why the people who control government, really have no business having that control, the fact that they happen to be men and one honestly minor issue of their nation has a bigger impact on women is the least of them.
Captcha: am I happy?
The escapist website is becoming self-aware. Hail skynet.
Should rich people be able to pass laws regulating the economy?
Should urbanites pass laws that have any effect on rural communities?
Should individuals who could literally buy a hospital pass laws about healthcare?
Should individuals who are immune to a draft pass laws regulating when one is instituted?
Should individuals who aren't soldiers have pass laws on military spending and when a nation goes to war?
There a whole host of reasons why the people who control government, really have no business having that control, the fact that they happen to be men and one honestly minor issue of their nation has a bigger impact on women is the least of them.
Captcha: am I happy?
The escapist website is becoming self-aware. Hail skynet.
While yes, for most of US history there were only two parties, they were not the same parties as the ones around today. The dominant parties have changed many times in our short history, and during those transitions there were usually periods where 3 parties were dominant. Further, there have been several elections where people who were not in any of the dominant parties effected the outcome of an election, and there are usually a few seats in congress held by non-dominant party members.The_Lost_King said:
why do I bother, I've said all this before, nobody cares.
OT: This is what I believe^Lumber Barber said:
Zachary Amaranth said:
The USA is a democracy, a representative democracy. A republic is just a country without a monarch, China and North Korea are republics.RT-Medic-with-shotgun said: