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

Monty Python (Life of Brian) on Women's Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

@edgarblythe,

Quote:

Even if I personally opposed the right to abortion (which I do not), I would support a woman's right to choose

You sound like Herman Cain.

0 Replies

ok. so we all agree that people should have the right to choose...

so what IF the father really does not want her to do that.. How would he be help responsible for that? How can someone MAKE HER keep that baby for him?
And is it an intrusion to have her carry a baby to term if, lets say.. the father takes it immediately after birth and is 100% responsible....
Would it BE ok to have a woman do that under those circumstances?

I mean.........thats going to be the only way that a father would have say so. And I think he would have to do something drastic WHEN he tells her no, to prove he will do it. Pay money? Go to jail if not? etc...

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

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

Who said it was?

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

You offered it in place of one. However, I'm glad to see your clarification.

Additionally I believe there is reason to doubt your amusing prediction about our constitution were men the carriers of babies. Consider the more or less eqivalent speculation that a constitutional convention cpmposed largely of women of the same period. Neither of us can prove anythiong about these hypothetical alternatives, but I believe the evidence is strongly suggestive that they would not then have denied the humanity of all babies up to the moment of birth, and would instead have avoided any such blanket right to pre birth infanticide.

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

Pre-birth infanticide . . . now there's a grossly propagandistic term. I suggest to you that abortion was not a controversial subject in the 1780s. Abigail Adams did suggest to her husband that the men must not forget their wives. Leaving aside that he was not at the convention, it was a waste of paper and ink on her part. Women's concerns have never had a terribly compelling part in the machinations of politicians.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

You are so right!

BBB

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

You offered it in place of one.

No, it was an observation. Take it as you will.

georgeob1 wrote:

Additionally I believe there is reason to doubt your amusing prediction about our constitution were men the carriers of babies. Consider the more or less eqivalent speculation that a constitutional convention cpmposed largely of women of the same period. Neither of us can prove anythiong about these hypothetical alternatives, but I believe the evidence is strongly suggestive that they would not then have denied the humanity of all babies up to the moment of birth, and would instead have avoided any such blanket right to pre birth infanticide.

The general consensus in the 1780s was that life began at quickening, which is somewhere in the middle of the second trimester. Abortion prior to quickening was regarded as no big deal.

1 Reply

@joefromchicago,

joefromchicago wrote:

The general consensus in the 1780s was that life began at quickening, which is somewhere in the middle of the second trimester. Abortion prior to quickening was regarded as no big deal.

I concur. Moreover I believe the basic cause of today's political/social issue is that Roe vs. Wade allows for no such distinction or no application of factors other than a woman's "privacy".

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

At least in the Catholic Church (and thus in countries which followed this religion), there was a difference between a "fetus inanimatus" ["fetus informatus"] and the "fetus animatus" ["fetus formatus"] = different kinds of souls, which made it only 'murder' when the 'child' (foetus) got a 'real soul'; and that was thought to be after more than three months of pregnancy.

That was correct by Pope Pius IX in 1869 (bull "Apostolicae Sedis"), although the 'Holy Officium' under Pope Innocent XI spoke already in 1679 just about a single soul.

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

I concur with that as well. The political issue here arose precisely because a very strange and somewhat tortured Supreme Court decision ("Roe vs Wade") found the existance of an absolute right of women to the privacy and control of their bodies through supposed "implications and eminations" from a constitution which made no references to it at all, and was written and approved by people who at the time very likely supported something like what you and Joe (above) noted.

By doing this they removed the power of states to modify the rules in any way - even though based on measurable public opinion, many states by democratic process would clearly have done so.

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

georgeob1 wrote:

I concur. Moreover I believe the basic cause of today's political/social issue is that Roe vs. Wade allows for no such distinction or no application of factors other than a woman's "privacy".

It's seldom that one encounters so much misinformation packed into so small a scope. Roe v. Wade most assuredly does allow for distinctions to be made analogous to the quick/non-quick distinction of the common law. That's why there's the trimestral distinction in the Roe opinion (the court considered -- at length -- the common law history and the distinction based on "quickening," but ultimately rejected it in favor of ... well, you know, science). And Roe v. Wade does admit other factors besides a woman's right to privacy. That's why the state has an interest in the fetus after the first trimester.

0 Replies

@shewolfnm,

shewolfnm wrote:

ok. so we all agree that people should have the right to choose...

so what IF the father really does not want her to do that.. How would he be help responsible for that? How can someone MAKE HER keep that baby for him?
And is it an intrusion to have her carry a baby to term if, lets say.. the father takes it immediately after birth and is 100% responsible....
Would it BE ok to have a woman do that under those circumstances?

I mean.........thats going to be the only way that a father would have say so. And I think he would have to do something drastic WHEN he tells her no, to prove he will do it. Pay money? Go to jail if not? etc...

In those circumstances, yes, I feel the woman should suffer this "instrusion" on her life, have the baby, and give it to him.

A contract would have to be done up. I think he should pay for all medical expenses of the woman. If the woman wants to pay part of it, fine.

If it turns out the man doesn't honor the contract, there could be a stiff penalty, up to and including jail time. The infant would be given up for adoption, to someone who wants it, since the mother doesn't.

An intrusion, an inconvenience is how that sounds, to a woman for a matter of months, doesn't hold much water with me, if the father wants, and will care for the child.

In a way, it's a matter of accountability. An accountability to the child you and someone started, and to the father.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Monty Python (Life of Brian) on Women's Rights
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFBOQzSk14c

Where's the fetus going to gestate? Are you going to keep it in a box?
Laughing

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

A contract would have to be done up.

Where would the baby sign?

0 Replies

@chai2,

this happend to me when i was 19 yrs old. My girlfriend of 8 months became pregnant when I found out I was so many emotions at once but mostly happy. I had always wanted to be a father. My girlfriend and I started planing and choseing a name. I only had a part time job then and I lived on my own in a small rented room while she lived with some friends we only had one car and it wasnt paid for, but life could not be better I had a woman I loved and a child on the way. Unfortunatly my girlfriend had a child with another man already and didnt want to have two daddys in the picture, so she , without telling me, went and had an abortion. I was devistaded. I felt robbed the life was sucked out of me the was nothing I could do SHE had the right to kill my baby to be I became depressed so depressed I could not stand living in my own home town so I packed a bag and left to the military. I feel responsible for that childs life maybe if i was more responsible or older I could have saved it.

since then I married and now have the family I have always wanted but can never get back what was lost that cold year of my life.

-Crow

2 Replies

@cuervo ,

and that is why i a man Oppose a womans RIGHT to an abortion i believe the father should have a RIGHT to life as well.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Don't you think going through a full term pregnancy is considerably more than an "intrusion" or an "inconvenience" in terms of it's effects on a woman's body?

There can be very serious, even fatal, complications in a pregnancy.

Why should a woman be forced to take any unnecessary risks to her own health or well being as the result of an unwanted pregnancy?

Quote:

it's a matter of accountability. An accountability to the child you and someone started, and to the father

I don't think that accountability necessarily applies to an unplanned pregnancy--where there was no agreement beforehand that both people wanted the pregnancy to occur because they wanted a child.
I don't think a woman has a responsibility to a nonviable fetus she wishes to abort, or to the father of that fetus--a nonviable fetus is a part of her body and cannot exist independent of her body--it is, therefore, her choice, and hers alone.

2 Replies

@firefly,

thats like saying why should a man protect a woman who is getting robbed if he knows he could get hurt doing so why should we risk our lives every day and give so much so a woman can have a right to vote and say what she pleases. we all make sacrafices for the persuit of happiness right. the only reason you feel you have a right to anything is because it was given to you when you were not aborted. If a woman has the right to terminate life then why cant a man tell a woman to terminate when he doesnt want to pay for child support.

1 Reply

@cuervo ,

Quote:

If a woman has the right to terminate life then why cant a man tell a woman to terminate when he doesnt want to pay for child support

I do not equate interrupting fetal development, prior to viability, with terminating a human life. A nonviable fetus, that cannot exist independent of the woman's body is part of her body--it is not yet a separate entity.
The man cannot force her to terminate the pregnancy any more than he can force her to continue the pregnancy, because in both instances we are talking about her body. And she should have the exclusive right to decide what is done to her body.

1 Reply

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know