time to ask why men are opposed to a woman's right to decide to have an abortion

If it were merely a "woman's rights" issue you would have a point. However, it is considered (not by me) that the unborn offspring has "rights" and that the father has "rights" (partially based on a mystical belief involving continuity of his own "existence"). Also, there is a strong argument that "rights" per se are an anthropomorphic invention which fly in the face of biological systems, as indicated by less "sophisticated" species. Like it or not, we are animals.

So "the debate" inevitably boils down to conflicting belief systems embodied within social structures, rather than nebulous concepts of "freedom" which I, like others, find appealing.

I do have to say I disagree with the feeling it's all in the womans hands.

The fetus inside this woman is as much his as hers.

Yes, she's the one who has to go through the pregnancy and birth, but that doesn't make the baby more hers than his.

Marco got a woman pregnant, and she wanted an abortion. He took his son, and he and Morgan are now raising him.

The father has rights too.

I happen to agree with this statement, but if I believed a person existed from the time of conception, it would indeed be everyone's business. have to believe it were everyone's business. Kind of like murder were not one's business unless it involved a member of one's own family.

Whether you regard women as having an absolute right to abort (and therefore kill) a child at any stage of pregnancy prior to birth, depends on legal and moral factors you have not specified here. Many Americans regard abortions, especially late term abortions of babies that are otherwise viable even without incubators or special treatment as equivalent to murder. Prior to Roe vs Wade the Federal government was largely silent on the subject leaving it to state governments, proiperly in my view, as outside the eneumerated powers granted the Federal government in the constitution.

The Supreme court in a very controversial and somewhat tortured decision based on "certain enanations and suggestions" found in the constitution determined that women have a near absolute right to privacy and control of their bodies, and by implication the non life within them during pregnancy. Many found this ruling to defy both accepted morality and common sense.

However the law is what the courts say it is and Roe vs Wade is the law of the land. However the moral issue is one on which individuals can (and do) disagree. On a social level there are good reasons to give fathers some rights over their unborn progeny. If our society wishes to see men willing to marry women, create homes and families and contribute to their care and sustinence both directly and in rearing the next generation of society, it seems reasonable to give them some degree of control over the family to which they have legally bound themselves. If women wish to be absoilutely independent in this area they can't later fault men for wishing to avoid marriage altogether and fulfill their sexual needs outside of marriage, thereby depriving women of a major part of the social protection that has so long sustained them. They can't long have it both ways.

the cave man defense...?

I believe both men and women are still apes. We like to pretend that we didn't go through the same evolutionary process as any other animals. Of course it is nonsense to think we can evolve out of evolution, but that is another issue.

I happen to be a pro-choice ape. However, I agree with the general sentiment here that that has nothing to do with men versus women.

Men are opposed to abortion for the same reason that women are. Some people believe that abortion takes a human life.

There is no doubt that abortion takes a life - the foetus is living tissue by any defensible biological definition or standard. The only question unanswered is whather it is a human life. I find it incomprehensible to imagine that it is any other kind of life. If it is human then the q

There is no doubt whatsoever that a foetus or viable baby at (say) 34 weeks gestation is a life - by any accepted biological standard it is a living creature. The only question remaning is whether it is human life. I believe it is ludicrous to imagine or suggest that it is anything other than a human life.

Thus we are left with the question of whether infanticide at this stage of life is morally or legally permissable. There is no doubt that it is legally permissable in that our existing law establishes the right of women to kill whatever life may reside within their bodies up to the moment of natural birth. Whether that is morally permissable is a matter that depends on the moral principles one applies. Our constitution establishes the right of all humans to life. Thus our existing law requires that we regard a baby just before delivery as a non human or non person. That appears to defy reason.

I think a woman should be able to have an abortion up to 4 months. After that, all hell will break loose anyway, including the guy claiming rights. Women have to make up their minds before 4 months.

I wouldn't pass judgment, anyway, no matter what someone does about being pregnant at inopportune times. It's her business. You wanna walk in her shoes?

You are free to hold any opinion you like non the question. However I think you would have a great deal of trouble providing a self consistent logical argument in defense of the morality of the position you have taken.

Like you said.

You'd likely find this interesting:

http://davidbau.com/downloads/heinsohn_slides.pdf

The "right2life" thing is a leftover from Catholic doctrine.

If men could get pregnant the right to abortion would have been included in the first draft of the constitution.

Amen!!!

BBB

Amusing and interesting speculation. However, it is not an argument.

In the world which we inhabit, men do not get pregnant. Moreover, as far as I know the stistics for support for and opposition to abortion or for/against Roe vs wade don't reveal and significant differences by sex.

you can't say that often enough

And if women could pee standing up....

They can. The problem is their aim isn't very good.

Even if I personally opposed the right to abortion (which I do not), I would support a woman's right to choose, in order to avoid the back room abortions that would surely take place, without benefit of doctor or sanitary conditions. In many such cases, woman and baby both die or are disfigured.