What do you think of men passing abortion laws?

[Aprilgold]

Woman should be able to have a abortion without the fathers consent. I don't care that men are chatting about this because this affects both the mother and the father and as such both can talk about it. Also, please note that woman voted these men / woman into their positions to be their representative.

 

[TWEWYFan]

And if we want to stretch things further, there's also the father to consider, at least in most cases. He may not carry the child to term but the father is still losing their son or daughter.

That's impossible. You can't lose a son or daughter if you have none. Losing children to abortion is impossible by the very definition.

And if they wanted kids, try again elsewhere. Like you pointed out yourself: sperm is just sperm. There's no such thing as a right to have children no matter what.


Would be weirdness we're in for otherwise. Grab some random girl, rape her, argue before the judge 'but I have a right to have kids! My victim had no right to deny me that!', okay acquitted...

I said in "most" cases remember? I didn't think I'd need to specify that cases like rape were the exception. Besides it's not about the matter of the right to create kids it's about the right to protect the potential child that already exists.

 

[The Unworthy Gentleman]

Lemme just start out by saying that I'm pro-choice. Women should have the right to have an abortion...

However, the U.S. is a democracy and women have the vote. In fact there are more women than men (50.8% female, 49.2% male). If you have a problem with the composition of the elected representatives then you have to pause for a moment and realise that women voted these people into power. They elected them as their representatives and so they delegated to them the power to pass laws on their behalf...

she couldn't get an abortion unless she got the man's permission too. I was pretty shocked.

I agree with you almost entirely. If people are unhappy with the choices being made for them or the people making the choices then tough shit, you're clearly in the minority. That said, representative democracy is a bastardized version of democracy and I hate it because of that. Women should have the right to have an abortion though, that shouldn't be denied.

I think the second part is pretty fair though. Both the man and woman have the right to their child and I don't think the woman should have the entire say on whether the guy can have the child or not. It is a dick move for the guy not to sign though, he should try and find a partner who also wants a child and there should probably be some compensation involved for the woman.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way to sort things out, but I also think that the guy has some right to the child and it can't all be decided by the woman.

 

[Zaik]

I think this is an entirely irrelevant yes/no political talking point that is unjustifiably given excess attention to make sure that people stay divided into two political parties.

Besides, nobody in their right mind actually thinks this is a good idea. At least, not after last time. Making it illegal just results in people doing it themselves, which results in a whole lot of infections/deaths. Dead people can't pay taxes, so...

Sure, there are a few that get elected for their political party and not for their competence that don't "get it", and make moves against it, but tbh that just serves to keep up the illusion. There's never going to be a country-wide ban on it again.

 

[TehCookie]

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

 

[BNguyen]

While I do take a stance against abortion (I plan on working in healthcare) I do believe that in a case by case basis of allowing people to choose. If you have been raped, fine, if the baby will die or cause harm to the parent, fine, if you can't take care of it - put it into an orphanage, if you just flat out don't want it (for no particular reason or if your reason is lazy - ex. "I see the fetus as a parasite" The person is well off and is perfectly capable of raising it or sheltering it "My body, my right", or someone who sleeps around a lot but can't take care of the child) - you are a horrible person.
But it should be women's decision to pass a law on the matter seeing as how I'm not a woman and that if it is a single gender-based issue, that gender should have the soul decision on the matter. It would be the same as saying the women in government want to pass a law that if a married woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she has the right to make her man get a vasectomy.

 

[Erttheking]

Oh for the love of God, put it in religion and politics.

 

[Bazaalmon]

I believe abortion should be legal, however it shouldn't be used as a replacement for actual birth control (seriously, there are women that have had 7,8,9,10 or more abortions.) It's a serious decision to make. It's not just "Oh, I just don't feel like having a child right now." It's meant to be a last resort, not a first choice. If you're having consensual sex and don't want a child, use proper birth control.

As far as men making the laws, well, until more women are elected, you don't have much of a choice. They're supposed to make the laws based on their constituents. Unfortunately, some of our elected officials are elected by people who seem to hate womens' rights, and that's the view that they support. I hope that most people aren't like that though, and their views are reflected by their elected official, be they male or female.

And those people who are anti-abortion and anti-birth control just flat out view women as sexual property.

 

[Stripes]

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

Dont call a child a parasite, whilst technically a correct description it has so many negative connotations that it doesnt feel right to use, as if it is somehow at fault for being conceived. Like I said, if you have consensual sex then both parents should be prepared to support the consequences and its not right to make a human suffer because two people arent willing to accept their action's consequences. You say you wouldnt change your lifestyle to support being pregnant, thats fine, just dont choose to do anything which could result in that. If you make that choice, knowing the consequences, then you have no right not to take responsibility. I really cannot see why anyone could think otherwise, or that a fetus somehow isnt a human being (its a clump of cells I know but we are simply more developed clumps of cells at the base of it, aside from complexity and awareness we arent different at all).

 

[TomLikesGuitar]

1. Yes, I think Abortion should be legal. I also think the woman should not receive any money or possessions from the man if he wanted to abort but she refused. It's a mutual fucking decision, you're entitled to nothing.

HOLY FUCK THIS.

That women can abort without input from the man is acceptable, since there's no other option other than forcing a woman to carry to term. However, that men have no option to 'abort' their status as the father and are COMPLETELY bound by whatever the female wants is, frankly, disgusting.

Never thought of it like this but I suddenly agree.

Making it illegal is, of course, retarded, but I could never come up with a good way to make it a mutual decision. If instead you eliminate child support for a man who can prove he never wanted the child, you now have completely legitimized abortion.

It's really too bad good ideas like this go so largely unnoticed.

 

[Yopaz]

Abortion should be legal and freely available.

If you don't agree with it, don't use it. (Judge not, he who throws the etc...)

I always judge the person who throws the first abortion. That is how that saying goes, right?

OT: Me being a guy from Europe my stance on abortions is pretty much the same as the guy I quoted. Abortion should be legal. Also why does it matter if men pass the bill? Lots of women believes in the right to choose. Those who don't got the right not to have an abortion. I also believe that the woman should have the complete right to choose and that father or relatives shouldn't be able to butt in.

 

[VanTesla]

Alright well I'm sure most people in the US and probably some outside know about all of the abortion stuff going on in the US currently. If you don't then essentially the two major parties are divided on the issue of abortion (like many other issues) with the Democrats supporting the right to choice which basically says women have a right to choose whether they get an abortion or not, and the Republicans are supporting the right to life which basically says that women can't get an abortion.

Question: Do you agree that women should be able to choose or do you think that abortion should be illegal?
Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?

And my part of the argument is that a man should never pass a law about a woman's body simple as that. I obviously know that there are women in the government in both parties, but the people actually passing the laws will be majority male which I don't think is right. And conversely I don't think women should ever have the right to pass a law regarding a man's body. Anyone agree or disagree with this?

Captcha: whole shebang

I disagree on laws passed that intrude on womans right to get an abortion if it indangers the female, cause of pregnancy by rape, found the fetus would be born with a non-developed brain, incest, and etc. Also some females in Congress/States have voted for these laws that just baffle me and some have actualy been the writers of such laws... I also believe in a certain time period that a abortion can be acceptable, I would say 4-5 months be it max or what ever is the soonist the doctors can tell if said child would be developed in a mentally disabled state or may kill the mother.

If the parents or mother just want a abortion because they don't want the child and did not plan on it I say screw them and have the child and give it to people that will care for it instead of their dumbass for not being a responsible adult...

 

[VanTesla]

Oh for the love of God, put it in religion and politics.

But it should be in it's own category of right or wrong and common sense. People that make it about religion or politics just tick me off for what right does either have to decide or be apart of it...

 

[gim73]

Sigh... this is not a political problem, this is a religious problem. Yes, the US believes it is a democracy. Sure, a democracy can be a great thing. But it could also be one of the stupidest ways to run things ever. And here is how it breaks down. Imposing your religion on a field like medicine is a stupid idea. You might think it's clever to insert your religious beliefs into the laws of the country and make your religion the 'state' religion, but it's not. Any country that runs around with the state religion and state laws coinciding is heading for destruction. Abortion is a medical practice not too dissimular from cancer therapy. A dangerous parasitic organism is growing inside a woman that the body doesn't fight and could ultimately lead to death.

Arguing whether or not abortion should be legal is like arguing should the flu vaccine be legal.

And arguing whether or not men should be able to make abortion illegal is like arguing for women to yank medication that cures testicular cancer. The only man that should have any say in this argument should be the womans partner! (or possibly her father if she is underaged)

 

[Justanewguy]

Actually, many pro-life advocates support aid for young mothers as well as adoption processes. Not feeling pain and a lack of consciousness isn't evidence that a human being is no longer a human.

You're obviously passionate about your beliefs, but before you begin throwing stones at a crowd of good people, I suggest you take a moment to understand where those stones are going to hit. It's easy to shout about the evil pro-lifers and their want to take a choice away, but ultimately a lot of us our good people who just have a different outlook on what life is than you. Is that so bad or evil?

It's not that its "no longer a human being" its that its not a human being YET.

It was wrong of me to imply that pro-lifers don't care for the baby once it's born, but they seem to have a habit of voting for candidates who would rather pay invade third world countries than fund public serves like education and healthcare that those children need. I don't think people are bad or evil for disagreeing with me, I think they're bad or evil for ignoring the consequences of their beliefs. And We've already got too many orphans on this planet due to things like war, disease and accidents. We don't need to add teenagers who made a poor choice and rape to that list.

There are circumstances when humans have a lack of mental functions or a lack of nervous activity in parts of their bodies (severing the nerves at the spinal column, for example, will render the vast majority of a person's nervous system in-operational). My point was basically that, in terms of what life is, there's a widely accepted definition, and even single celled organisms fall into that category. As to what a human is, we define even dead skeletons of people as "human" because they have human DNA in them.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just trying to explain my out look. That said, I do find it a tad hypocritical to imply that pro-lifers vote for people who invade third-world countries. In history, the Republican and Democratic parties have each had presidents start or escalate conflicts, as well as presidents who have attempted the opposite. Bush is fresh in our minds, but honestly, in the past 50 years, two wars were started by Republicans. The 1st Persian Gulf with Bush Sr. and the 2nd with Bush Jr. Two wars were started by Democrats, Korea with Truman, and Vietnam under Kennedy. The two conflicts are actually quite similar too, with Korea and the 1st Persian Gulf being quicker, one term conflicts; while the Vietnam and 2nd Persian Gulf have extended into long drawn out wars.

Nixon, at the time, was considered a great diplomat and peace-broker; as well as being termed the "Environmental President." As an Environmental Science major, I can say with relative assurance that no President since Nixon has done so much for our environment. While we may remember him as a crook for Watergate, as a Republican President, he embodied many of the things that you would attribute to Democrats.

On the other hand, under President Obama, we've escalated a diplomatic conflict with Pakistan, enforced a no-fly zone over Libya, and are practicing brinksmanship with Syria and Iran.

My point is not that one party is good and the other is bad. I'm saying that it's not fair to focus criticism on the Republicans purely for the Bush years.

 

[TehCookie]

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

Dont call a child a parasite, whilst technically a correct description it has so many negative connotations that it doesnt feel right to use, as if it is somehow at fault for being conceived. Like I said, if you have consensual sex then both parents should be prepared to support the consequences and its not right to make a human suffer because two people arent willing to accept their action's consequences. You say you wouldnt change your lifestyle to support being pregnant, thats fine, just dont choose to do anything which could result in that. If you make that choice, knowing the consequences, then you have no right not to take responsibility. I really cannot see why anyone could think otherwise, or that a fetus somehow isnt a human being (its a clump of cells I know but we are simply more developed clumps of cells at the base of it, aside from complexity and awareness we arent different at all).

That's pretty much asking people who don't want kids to never have sex. Contraptions and protection isn't 100% foolproof, mistakes happen. Abortion is just another way of dealing with it. Also wouldn't having an unwanted child make the parents suffer? Aren't they people too? Also they may not take responsibility for their kid and neglect it instead. I would rather abort a baby than have it grow up unwanted and unloved. Also I don't care if it's human or not, if it's not aware I have no problem killing it.

 

[rigabear]

Q1 - The woman should have the choice in all circumstances (even if she wants to use it as contraception) until the child can survive outside the woman's womb (~24 weeks), at which point only in the case where the health of the woman is at risk.
Before this point it is just an extension of the woman's body and after it it is a human being. This is as clear a line as exists in this issue.

I don't think the man has the last vote (or any vote) when the woman does or doesn't decide to abort, but shouldn't be required to support the child if he wanted it aborted.

Q2 - Yes, because surely that is the point of an elected representative?
As others have pointed out the logical extension of saying they can't is that poor people can vote on issues that only affect the rich etc.
On top of that abortion clearly has social effects that impact men beyond the father.