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

@cuervo ,

cuervo, I can appreciate what a devastating experience you went through with your girlfriend. But you were, unfortunately, and very sadly, involved with a woman who profoundly deceived and betrayed you. She led you to believe that she loved you and that the two of you were going to welcome a child into the world, she involved you in plans, and choosing a name, so, of course, you began forming an emotional attachment to the child you believed was on the way. And then she betrayed you in a terrible way, a horrible and cruel way.

While I would support her legal right to have made such a choice, there is no way I would condone the way she went about doing it, by first involving you in a dream of impending fatherhood, manipulating you into feeling a bond with that potential child, and then suddenly aborting it behind your back. She did something horrendous, and unbelievably callous to you. That was more than just an abortion, she stabbed you in the heart by her deceit and betrayal. And, despite the devastation you felt at the time, I hope that, in retrospect, you realize you were far better off without her as a part of your life--and, had that child been born, that horrible, untrustworthy woman, would have forever remained a part of your life if you had wanted to have a relationship with that child.

Quote:

but can never get back what was lost that cold year of my life

What was lost and shattered was a dream--of a loving woman and of a child who would be yours--a dream of a family with close loving ties. And she destroyed the dream, not just of the child, but also of the loving woman. You can't get that dream back, but you got something better--a real family in your life now.

I genuinely empathize with how awful that year must have been for you, and I am so sorry for the pain that woman put you through. But, I am very happy for you that you now do have the family, and the children, which you always wanted.

1 Reply

@firefly,

I very much agree. I have to admit I have other feelings that tend to contradict this, but that's for me to live with.

0 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

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.

As far as the word "instrution", I was using the word shewolf used. If a woman feels being pregnant is a mere intrution, they need to deal with it. Knowing shewolf, I'm sure she meant to use a stronger word (correct me if I'm wrong shewolf), or that she sees the word as something much stronger than I do.

Accountability would definately apply to an unwanted pregnancy. That's what being accountable for your actions MEANS. What? We're just supposed to be accountable for what we're happy with? Being accountable means for your mistakes, and unplanned events as well.

I painted my initial post with a broad brush firefly, knowing I'd have the opportunity to fill in with later posts. Thanks for the opportunity.

Yes, there are always these "what ifs" that can be presented. However, I was counting on the fact that people understand that most pregnancies follow through to birth with no major complications. In this vast majority of pregnancies, nothing atypical happens to the woman, and most problems are not severe, and can be easily remedied. There of course is a whole nother class of pregnancy where there are serious, even life threatening complications.
That too would be dealt with in any contract between the father and mother. Perhaps, for example, agreeing that if the mothers life is put at risk, or if certain events occur, it would be best to terminate the pregnancy. The father of the child would not have the right or expectation to put the mothers life at risk, or cause serious permanent damage, or any other conditions that are agreed on in the contract.
Overall, as would happen in the majority of pregnancies where those problems wouldn't occur, I feel the father, if he wants the child, should not be denied his rights, because the mother wishes to avoid a matter of months of being pregnant, and labor.
Most people realize that even protected sex can result in a pregnancy, albeit the chances are slim.
When people have rights, i.e. the right to engage in sex, protected or unprotected, with whomever they want, they must realize there is an accountability associated with that.
If you don't want the accountability for the potential outcome (however small), i.e. pregancy, than forego the right to have sex.

I'm sure a legal contract regarding this would go into much detail as to exceptions to termination, to be agreed on by each person.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Quote:

If you don't want the accountability for the potential outcome (however small), i.e. pregancy, than forego the right to have sex.

I wouldn't disagree with you about that. Or, at least, the two parties involved should always make sure they are using adequate birth control.

But, part of accepting accountability for that pregnancy, or the consequences of that pregnancy, on the part of the man, should include accepting the intentional termination of that pregnancy if that is what the woman wishes to do, because, under existing law, that is her legal right. So, for a man to complain about his "right" to see that fetus develop to term ignores current reality and current law. And it further ignores the fact that a nonviable fetus cannot exist independent of her body and is not, therefore, a separate entity from her body, Regarding her body, and the medical procedures she wishes to have performed on that body, she should have the exclusive right of choice. Unprotected sexual intercourse can result in the eventual birth of a child the man does not want, or wants to support, and the woman's right to termination of a pregnancy can prevent the eventual birth of a child that the man really did want--and the man has to realize that, and accept both of those potential outcomes, before the sexual activity takes place, because that's really where his "rights" come into play.

Look, women who wish to bear a child and then hand it over to the father will do so. Women who wish to bear a child and relinquish it for adoption will do so. But, both of those scenarios can also have emotional and psychological consequences for the woman as well--she has gone through a full term pregnancy, and child birth, and then handed over a living, breathing, fully developed human being to someone else. Not every woman can, or even wants to, go through that sort of experience. It is quite different than terminating a pregnancy by interrupting the development of a nonviable fetus so that potential child does not ever come into being--the woman doesn't have an actual child out there, somewhere in the world, she may continue to think about, and have some longing for, for the rest of her life. The point of choice is just that, choice in terms of options, particularly the options of what she does with her body.

What do couples say during the early stages of pregnancy--"We are expecting a baby"--the operative word being "expecting", with full recognition that baby is not yet here, it is not yet a child.

But lately, I've also heard men saying, "We are pregnant". Really? We are pregnant? Is his body undergoing profound hormonal shifts and physical changes? Can he experience gestational diabetes, or pregnancy-related hypertension, or a whole host of other medical problems, both major and minor, which can occur during pregnancy? Sorry, we are not pregnant--she is pregnant.

To answer BBB's initial question, I think men, many men, experience pregnancy envy, and envy the ability of a woman to host the development of life, and the ability to bring a fully developed child into the world--it's the ultimate act of creation---something she can do even with a sperm donor because it is only his sperm which is biologically needed, whereas her entire body, and not just her egg, is involved with the creation of a viable child. And trying to control her reproductive rights, and what she chooses to do with her own body, is essentially an attempt by men to diminish that power of a woman to bring forth life, because, by diminishing her power to also terminate a pregnancy, and asserting their "rights" in the matter, they are trying to deny her far more complete biological bodily role in the development of human life and also trying to put her back in a subservient position, where she cannot act without male permission. Freud made a big deal of penis envy on the part of women, but it's important to take a look at pregnancy envy in men as well, and how that plays out in our culture.
When we get to the stage, which I'm sure we will eventually get to, where we can incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, then I would concede that men and women have an equal say in whether that fetus should develop to term.

And, let's not forget that abortion issues do not only pertain to pregnancies which occur from sexual intercourse--in vitro fertilization also results in the birth of children. And, most often, after in vitro, more than one fertilized egg is intentionally implanted in the woman in order to maximize the probability of at least one successful implantation. If the woman then becomes pregnant, with multiple embryos, some of those embryos may have to be selectively aborted in order to insure the viability of the others, or the health of the mother, or simply because every potential mother doesn't want to wind up like Octomom, or even the mother of quintuplets or quadruplets or triplets, with all the very realistic life and financial and emotional demands that go along with multiple births.
So, are we going to deny the woman, in consult with her doctor, the right to selectively abort those additional unwanted embryos?

There are an awful lot of issues that generally never get touched on in the usual discussions about abortion.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

But, part of accepting accountability for that pregnancy, or the consequences of that pregnancy, on the part of the man, should include accepting the intentional termination of that pregnancy if that is what the woman wishes to do, because, under existing law, that is her legal right.

That the existing law. Perhaps it should be changed. Laws are changed all the time. And no, I'm not talking about preventing a woman from having a legal abortion. I'm saying perhaps it's not a good law if the father of the child wants it, and will take care of it.

So, for a man to complain about his "right" to see that fetus develop to term ignores current reality and current law.

Ditto

And it further ignores the fact that a nonviable fetus

Nonviable fetus. Are you talking about a fetus that has something physically wrong with it, or just has not developed enough to live on its own?

cannot exist independent of her body and is not, therefore, a separate entity from her body,

Assuming you mean a fetus that is not yet developed enough, well, it Will become developed enough if given a chance. If I have a tumor or growth, or need to have my appendix removed, those things will Never become an individual entity, and it's my right to remove them. The fetus Will become viable if given the chance, and if it's aborted, it's future rights will be violated.

A newborn infant will have many future rights that it will be incapable of taking advantage of for years. However, it can't defend itself, or care for itself, any better than a fetus can, to make sure it lives long enough to enjoy those rights. We don't just say "it's an intrusion having this infant I must care for. Therefore I'll just walk away and let it die. If the response is "that's against the law", well I've already given my opinion on that. In the words of Mr. Bumble "the law is an ass "

Regarding her body, and the medical procedures she wishes to have performed on that body, she should have the exclusive right of choice. Unprotected sexual intercourse can result in the eventual birth of a child the man does not want, or wants to support, and the woman's right to termination of a pregnancy can prevent the eventual birth of a child that the man really did want--and the man has to realize that, and accept both of those potential outcomes, before the sexual activity takes place, because that's really where his "rights" come into play.

Why does the man have to realize and accept that? Oh yes, it's the law.

Look, women who wish to bear a child and then hand it over to the father will do so. Women who wish to bear a child and relinquish it for adoption will do so.

I feel if the father wants the baby, and takes it from the mother to raise himself, it should not matter what the woman wishes, in that if it's not going to cause her permanent physical damage, the fetus should be allowed to be born and given to the father. If the father doesn't want the baby, that is a different story, with an entire different set of problems.

I don't think any woman should be forced to Keep a baby herself, just because it came out of her, but that happens every single day.

I think there is a stigma against women who have a baby, and doing what is best for everyone concerned, gives the baby up for adoption.
What is difficult is having to face people you see every day, who have seen you get bigger, know you are pregnant, have all the usual conversations with you, only to realize you're not going to keep it.
Oh sure, people give lip service about how the mother is doing the best thing, but some will say that to her face, and privately think she should Want to keep it, that something is wrong with her for not wanting it.
I think when those attitudes change, more women will be willing to give birth and release to someone else.

But, both of those scenarios can also have emotional and psychological consequences for the woman as well--she has gone through a full term pregnancy, and child birth, and then handed over a living, breathing, fully developed human being to someone else. Not every woman can, or even wants to, go through that sort of experience.

If a woman can't, that's one thing. If she doesn't Want to, well you know, life's tough. That's where the accountability comes in. We all have experiences we don't want to go through.

What? Women don't have emotional and psychological problems associated with getting an abortion?

It is quite different than terminating a pregnancy by interrupting the development of a nonviable fetus so that potential child does not ever come into being--the woman doesn't have an actual child out there, somewhere in the world, she may continue to think about, and have some longing for, for the rest of her life.

Yes, women never regret, think about, perhaps have some longing for an aborted fetus. What was a thinking? It would be horrible knowing an actual child was out there living with its father.

The point of choice is just that, choice in terms of options, particularly the options of what she does with her body.

What do couples say during the early stages of pregnancy--"We are expecting a baby"--the operative word being "expecting", with full recognition that baby is not yet here, it is not yet a child.

The operative word "expecting" is in regards to the fact the woman is expecting a baby to come out of her uterus in a few months. Not that it isn't a child yet.
People say they are expecting a child not only in early stages of pregnancy. They say it right up until it sees the light of day.

But lately, I've also heard men saying, "We are pregnant". Really? We are pregnant? Is his body undergoing profound hormonal shifts and physical changes? Can he experience gestational diabetes, or pregnancy-related hypertension, or a whole host of other medical problems, both major and minor, which can occur during pregnancy? Sorry, we are not pregnant--she is pregnant.

You'll get no argument there. I have always found the expression "we are pregnant" silly.
Again however, you are concentrating on the small number of pregnancies with big problems, not on the majority which, while coming with discomfort and labor pains, are not life threatening.

Pregnancy is not a disease.

To answer BBB's initial question, I think men, many men, experience pregnancy envy, and envy the ability of a woman to host the development of life, and the ability to bring a fully developed child into the world--it's the ultimate act of creation---something she can do even with a sperm donor because it is only his sperm which is biologically needed, whereas her entire body, and not just her egg, is involved with the creation of a viable child. And trying to control her reproductive rights, and what she chooses to do with her own body, is essentially an attempt by men to diminish that power of a woman to bring forth life, because, by diminishing her power to also terminate a pregnancy, and asserting their "rights" in the matter, they are trying to deny her far more complete biological bodily role in the development of human life and also trying to put her back in a subservient position, where she cannot act without male permission. Freud made a big deal of penis envy on the part of women, but it's important to take a look at pregnancy envy in men as well, and how that plays out in our culture.
When we get to the stage, which I'm sure we will eventually get to, where we can incubate fetuses in artificial wombs, then I would concede that men and women have an equal say in whether that fetus should develop to term.

And, let's not forget that abortion issues do not only pertain to pregnancies which occur from sexual intercourse--in vitro fertilization also results in the birth of children. And, most often, after in vitro, more than one fertilized egg is intentionally implanted in the woman in order to maximize the probability of at least one successful implantation. If the woman then becomes pregnant, with multiple embryos, some of those embryos may have to be selectively aborted in order to insure the viability of the others, or the health of the mother, or simply because every potential mother doesn't want to wind up like Octomom, or even the mother of quintuplets or quadruplets or triplets, with all the very realistic life and financial and emotional demands that go along with multiple births.
So, are we going to deny the woman, in consult with her doctor, the right to selectively abort those additional unwanted embryos?

There are an awful lot of issues that generally never get touched on in the usual discussions about abortion.

1 Reply

@cuervo ,

I think a man has a right to prevent an abortion as soon as he is capable of carrying the foetus to term himself.

BBB's original question did touch on the matter of why men may feel otherwise. The planting, protecting and growing of our offspring is very human, we invest more of our time and energy to it than most other animals. To attempt to quash the instinct for protection of our young in men, would be to throw out the baby with the bath water (if you'll excuse my highly apt but probably inappropriate metaphor)

2 Replies

@firefly,

thank you. You have my respect you answered in the most respectful way posible while still holding your opinion but without disrespecting mine. again thank you

-Crow

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

I think a man has a right to prevent an abortion as soon as he is capable of carrying the foetus to term himself.

I have heard this argument before.

To me, it's the same as saying a woman has the right to have a child as soon as she is capable of producing her own sperm.

It takes two to tango and both dancers have their rights.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

and when pigs fly too.

your answer is neither productive nor resonalble because you know it is biologicly imposible to do so.

1 Reply

@cuervo ,

Quite right. For a man to have his alleged right to the birth of his child would require nothing short of enslavement of a woman. There's no way around that. It illegal and I think immoral to force a woman to stay in a room, let alone be forced to undergo everything carrying and birthing a child requires.
Does that suck for men? Sure. Do they have it worse than women? Hell no.

0 Replies

@cuervo ,

And thank you for saying that, cuervo. I am very glad you do understand that, while we may have differing opinions, I do respect and understand your position, and I am not at all unsympathetic toward it.

0 Replies

@firefly,

Thank you, thank you, thank you!

BBB

0 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

Assuming you mean a fetus that is not yet developed enough, well, it Will become developed enough if given a chance....The fetus Will become viable if given the chance, and if it's aborted, it's future rights will be violated.

A newborn infant will have many future rights that it will be incapable of taking advantage of for years. However, it can't defend itself, or care for itself, any better than a fetus can, to make sure it lives long enough to enjoy those rights.

A non viable fetus, which is the appropriate medical term, is one which cannot exist or live outside of utero, even with the aid of artificial supports--it is too inadequately developed, it cannot survive as an independent being.

We don't make legal decisions regarding a fetus based on the fact that it's "future rights" will be violated, particularly when deciding the matter against the already existing rights of the woman carrying that fetus. Her rights are current, already existing, and immediately applicable, the alleged "future rights" of a fetus are hypothetical and based on conditions which might or might not occur--i.e. a spontaneous abortion, or miscarriage, might occur and those "future rights" might never materialize, a viable child would not come into being.

A newborn infant, on the other hand, has immediate rights which are protected by law.

Quote:

I think there is a stigma against women who have a baby, and doing what is best for everyone concerned, gives the baby up for adoption.

That's because some wrong-headed people may view someone who relinquishes a baby for adoption as being unnatural, or rejecting her god-given obligation as a mother, or they may simply feel that a woman should be forced to live with the consequences of her "mistake".
But, now we even have surrogates bearing children for other women, or so they can be adopted by men, and those surrogates also relinquish the child at birth to the care of another, and we tend to view such surrogates in a positive light.

There may also be a stigma against a woman who has an abortion. Being called a. "baby killer" or a "murderer" isn't terrific either.

I feel it is wrong for anyone to stigmatize a woman for any choice she makes in that regard--whether she chooses to bear a child and give it up for adoption, or whether she chooses to have an abortion. I make no moral judgments regarding either choice, and I think we should work to reduce any existing social stigmas on woman for such choices.
And, if that woman is a single mom, who already has 9 children she dearly loves, and they are all living on public assistance, and she opts to have #10, rather than abort, she's going to be stigmatized too.
It's time we stopped stigmatizing women for any of the choices they make regarding motherhood.

Quote:

Again however, you are concentrating on the small number of pregnancies with big problems, not on the majority which, while coming with discomfort and labor pains, are not life threatening.

Pregnancy is not a disease.

The problem is, you are treating pregnancy as those it's a minor inconvenience--nothing more than lugging around an increasing weight in your uterus, maybe getting backaches and some relatively minor physical discomforts, and going through a brief period of labor pains.

Pregnancy is a hell of a lot more than that in terms of it's biological effects on a woman's body--it creates profound changes in the functioning of her body, and it can give rise to complications and consequences in her body which can amount to considerably more than just "discomfort" and which, can in fact, be life-threatening during the pregnancy, or which can result in life-long physical/medical consequences even after she has given birth.
Obviously, a woman who really wants to have a child, willingly accepts such risks. It is quite another matter to force that situation on an unwilling woman who doesn't want to go through it, and does not want that eventual child after it is born.

The only reason we don't have more women dying during pregnancy and childbirth, as they do in underdeveloped or emerging countries, is because we have better medical care and medical interventions, but that doesn't mean that conditions arising from pregnancy, requiring all that additional medical care and treatment, aren't going to occur here--and the woman will have to go through them--and, while they can enjoy a good record of treatment success, there are no guarantees that is always the case, sometimes they fail, even with the best medical care.

Two years ago, a single woman I was acquainted with became pregnant with her first child. She was 21, in very good health, and wanted this child. She had no reason to anticipate any medical difficulties with her pregnancy, and certainly didn't think it would affect her employment at her full time non-physically demanding job.
This poor young woman then went through a very difficult pregnancy with very serious, potentially life-threatening, consequences. She was hospitalized at least three or four times, on an emergency basis, for severe hypertension in additional to gestational diabetes, causing her to miss a substantial amount of time from her job, in addition to the time she lost from work for periods before and after these hospitalizations because she felt so ill. She was loaded up with all kinds of medications which left her feeling weak and generally rotten. She used up all of her sick time, and vacation time, from her job, and came very close to being fired because her employer needed someone in the office to do her job, so she constantly worried about not being able to support her child after it was born.
She was quite frank in describing her pregnancy as "going through hell"--and this was for a child she wanted. And she had been in great health, with no medical problems, at all, prior to this pregnancy. Fortunately, for her, they were able to control the potentially life-threatening problems with medical interventions and medications, but some women are not that fortunate, and it was still quite an ordeal this young woman went through--that pregnancy wreaked havoc on her entire body.

Even a medically uncomplicated pregnancy causes all sort of emotional changes and mood shifts, because of significant hormonal charges, and those too can affect a woman's functioning. And those effects do not always stop with the birth of the child, which is why some women suffer from post-partum depression, and some even suffer from post-partum psychosis.

So, I'm definitely not in agreement with you, chai, on the issue of pregnancy being no more than a few months of "discomfort". Sometimes that might be true, but other times it's not, and that can't always be predicted in advance.
And I would never force an unwilling woman to go through a pregnancy just so she can produce a child for someone else--including the biological father.

And you did not address, at all, the issues I raised regarding in vitro fertilization, where implantation may result in the development of multiple embryos, some of which might have to be selectively aborted in order to assure the viability of the others or the mother's health. If the biological father objects to such selective abortion, should the woman be forced to carry and bear all of them?

I think one basic problem with the father's "rights" position you are putting forth regarding a fetus is that you are viewing it as though it is a custody issue involving an already existing child, when that it is not the case.

"Custody" of the fetus definitely resides with the mother during pregnancy, in fact, custody resides within the mother, within her body. And, until such time that that entity can exist in the world, as a separate and independent entity, it must be regarded as a part of her body, and she must be allowed to exclusively make her own decisions regarding her body.

This is not a gender issue of womens rights vs mens rights. That's really an incorrect characterization. It is an issue of an individual's privacy rights over their own body.

From a gender perspective, however, a male and female do not make equal contributions to the biological development of a viable human being. They both make equal genetic contributions to that future child, through her egg and his sperm, but that fertilized egg cannot develop to produce that child without the additional biological contributions of that woman's entire body throughout her pregnancy. Far more than a uterus is involved--her entire body is involved in maintaining and developing that future child. So, until that child is born, the mother's contribution to the process of human development goes far beyond the contribution of an egg. As long as her body is a necessary part of that process, she must have the final say on what happens to it or what is done to it.

While I can see why some men might view this biological situation as being "unfair"--since she's in physical possession of the fetus and he isn't--that's life folks.

Is it "fair" that men can be the biological fathers of virtually limitless numbers of children, well into their old age, while a woman's ability to conceive depends on her number of eggs, and monthly periods of good timing, and her potential for motherhood ends with menopause? That's life folks.

I think we have to distinguish between legal rights and "fairness" regarding this topic. The law can be fair only where there are equitable interests involved. Regarding this topic, the interests aren't equitable--her body is involved, his isn't.

2 Replies

@firefly,

firefly wrote:

The problem is, you are treating pregnancy as those it's a minor inconvenience--

No, I'm not. I know what pregnancy does to a female body.

Your story re the young pregnant woman you know is anecdotal. So what? I, you or many others can tell many times more stories of pregnant women that have no problems associated with it.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Quote:

I know what pregnancy does to a female body

And, the bottom line is that it's her body. And she has the right to decide to terminate a pregnancy that is taking place inside her body--for whatever reason she chooses to do so. It's her body.

2 Replies

@firefly,

Well by God, you're right.

Your repeating the same thing yet again, with no discussion of what others involved preceive as their rights, has completely changed my mind.

0 Replies

@firefly,

True enough, but at some point there is also a distinct life, also with a right to continued existence within her body . Moreover that life was the creation of two individuals, each with a responsibility for the new life and each with rights to protect it.

You are merely repeating a well-worn, cant, but misleading, phrase that addresses only part of the issue,

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

Quote:

but at some point there is also a distinct life

And, that is the point where the fetus is viable outside of the uterus--until that time, it is not "a distinct life" because it cannot be sustained without the woman's body, even with artificial means, it is still part of her body.
When the fetus develops to a point of viability it can be viewed as being "a distinct life".

Quote:

Moreover that life was the creation of two individuals

The fetus contains genetic materials from two individuals, but for a living, viable human to be born, it must develop within the body of only one of those individuals--the female's body is what facilitates, supports, and sustains, this process of development/creation, and not the male's. The issue is her right to privacy, her right to control her body.
Once the child is born, both biological parents have equal rights regarding custody.

Quote:

with a right to continued existence within her body

There is no such legal right "to continued existence within her body"--a non viable fetus has no independent rights--it is her body..

Quote:

that addresses only part of the issue

I an addressing the issue raised by BBB, which focuses on male opposition to a woman's right to decide on abortion.
"Fetal rights" really doesn't enter into the issue the way BBB has framed it. This is not the usual right-to-life perspective.

Quote:

Moreover that life was the creation of two individuals, each with a responsibility for the new life and each with rights to protect it

That line of reasoning makes the male responsible for the female's entire body and medical well being during pregnancy--since those factors affect a developing fetus and it's capacity to be born. So, he should be paying half of her medical bills and living expenses, to help care for her body throughout that pregnancy, right? Even if he has no interest in her or that potential child? Even if he isn't sure the child is his?
Suppose he knows she's drinking a lot of wine that can affect fetal development, even cause Fetal Alcohol Syndrome, what do you want him to do, have her arrested for child abuse before the fetus is even viable? Suppose he supplies her with drugs during her pregnancy, or simply knows she uses drugs, do you want to see him criminally charged if she gives birth to an addicted child?

Suppose the woman doesn't even tell the man she's pregnant and just has an abortion. Do you want to charge her with a crime if she doesn't tell him she's pregnant? Require her to get his written permission before she can abort?

How much responsibility do you want to saddle a man with in exchange for giving him control over her body?

1 Reply

@firefly,

You are redefining the questions to ratiuonalize your preconceived answers. OK by me, but don't confuse these logical flights with rational argument.

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Eorl wrote:

I think a man has a right to prevent an abortion as soon as he is capable of carrying the foetus to term himself.

I have heard this argument before.

To me, it's the same as saying a woman has the right to have a child as soon as she is capable of producing her own sperm.

It takes two to tango and both dancers have their rights.

Yes, that seems right to me. If she can't produce her own sperm, she'll need to find a way to convince a man to willingly help out. If at any point prior to ejaculation he chooses to withdraw his participation, he has the right to do so. She has no right to have a baby without a willing sperm contributor.

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