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

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

She has no right to have a baby without a willing sperm contributor.

Well yes, that's about right.

Sorry, but I'm failing to see where you disagree with me, or what part you disagree with, if it's not the above.

Maybe I'm being dense, or I'm tired, but could you state your case more clearly?

1 Reply

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:

So ask yourself, men, are you a modern man or are you still an ape?

BBB

It seems the premise is false anyway.

These three columns represent american opinion of whether abortion should be;

"Generally available , Available, but with stricter limits than now, Not permitted."

Overall 39% 38% 22%
Women 37% 37% 24%
Men 40% 40% 20%

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States

So women, when you going to become at least as enlightened as men, and support your fellow women's right to abortion?

0 Replies

@chai2,

Well I think no man has the right to demand a child without a willing participating womb-holder. I think he has every right to an opinion about what he'd like her to do, and every moral right to be appalled if she chooses other than he would wish, but ultimately no right to force her to carry a baby she does not wish to carry.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

ok, now I understand.

however, what about the baby's opinion?

The growing fetus has more at stake than a woman who doesn't want to go through a few months of most likely healthy, few problems pregnancy.

So, if we have a man who will willingly take and spend the next couple of decades of his life being responsible for someone, and a child that would most likely favor being allow to be born and spend the next 80 to 100 years navigating the planet, a few months of the child bearing stuff pales in comparison.

3 Replies

@chai2,

Agreed. Which is what makes the idea of abortion so awful, especially as the pregnancy develops, but I see no alternative to leaving those decisions ultimately in the hands of the gestators themselves. I think no-one has the right to force either the innitiation or the continuation of a pregnancy.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

Eorl wrote:

Agreed. Which is what makes the idea of abortion so awful, especially as the pregnancy develops, but I see no alternative to leaving those decisions ultimately in the hands of the gestators themselves. I think no-one has the right to force either the innitiation or the continuation of a pregnancy.

Sometimes, and this is just my opinion, we are too concerned about our individual rights, which prevents us from doing what is right.

We are from different countries Eorl, but there seems to be this pervasive selfishness that has become the norm in developed countries.

It's as if it's wrong to put something else ahead of our own immediate satisfaction.

A woman choosing to temporarily put her own comfort aside for a matter of a few months cannot in my mind, be equated with women being forced by the Catholic church to have child after child, or being under the rule of men.

Honestly? Unless it's life threatening, or permanently damaging, it's just the right thing to do.

This ideal of a womans body being her own does not always hold up even after taking pregnancy out of the equation.

No one's body is entirely their own, man or woman. If that were true, I wouldn't ever get my body up early enough to get to my job, so I can earn money to put a roof over my head, and food in my belly.
Our bodies are not entirely our own when we must sit in a classroom or office, or driving a bus, when we want to be standing, running or reclining.
My body isn't my own when I'm ill, but I know it will eventually get better and in the meantime you just have to be sick, no matter how much you dislike it.

3 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Honestly? Unless it's life threatening, or permanently damaging, it's just the right thing to do.

Totally agree. To enforce by law, however, totally disagree.

1 Reply

@Eorl,

I mean by a mutually agreeable contract between the man and the woman.

Of course that involves law, but if men knew they could be part of a contract, they could start a discussion with the woman, rather than the automatic "it's my body"

The woman, if she knew she had something legally binding that the man would take and support the child, could be more secure she wouldn't be dumped on.

2 Replies

@chai2,

I'm all for that, and plenty of other ways women might be disuaded from having abortions, as long as the choice ultimately remains that of the woman.
I think it's a very common straw-man argument or even just a false assumption that pro-choice people don't think abortion is "wrong".
(Not that I think you are doing that, just thought it worth mentioning)

1 Reply

@Eorl,

What are some of the other ways you're talking about eorl?
I'd be really interested to hear.

1 Reply

@chai2,

Well, off the top of my head,

Prevention firstly; easy or even free access to contraception such as condom vending machines in high schools.
RU486 morning after pill readily available (Argubly the opposite of preventing abortion, but I don't quite see it that way).
Catholic church (and other similar) leadership encouragement of contraception.

Provide free and confidential acess to doctors for children of any age, including providing birth control without parental consent.
Further on.... Support for unwillingly pregnant, government supplied health care for mother and baby as well as better welfare post-partum. Better connection between potentional adoption outlets. Support for schoolage mothers, and university mothers, better workplace support and government sponsored maternity leave... etc.etc.

0 Replies

@BumbleBeeBoogie,

ಠ_ಠ

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

I mean by a mutually agreeable contract between the man and the woman.

Where does the baby sign?

0 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

So, if we have a man who will willingly take and spend the next couple of decades of his life being responsible for someone, and a child that would most likely favor being allow to be born and spend the next 80 to 100 years navigating the planet, a few months of the child bearing stuff pales in comparison.

Would you make this statement in cases of rape or incest? Would you allow such men the power to opppose the woman's right to abort the fetus if they contributed the sperm?

While these people are busy negotiating, and drawing up all those contracts, time is passing, and that fetus is developing--why should the woman have to delay having a D&C, which she might well want to have sooner than later, for her own physical and emotional well being, as well as for other reasons.

I find the idea of such a hypothetical contract, as the one you've proposed, unrealistic, and almost laughable, given how many men do not support or care for their already existing children. The numbers of such men far outweigh the relative few who would want to take and raise that eventual child, and would do so responsibly, and the wishes of those few do not justify giving all men the right to block a woman's abortion.

Do you really think most men who've gotten a woman pregnant in a one-night stand want to get involved in any of this? Do you think most of them really want to know if the woman is pregnant and planning to abort? How could the woman track him down to even tell him, if she knows next to nothing about him, not even his address, and he may have given her a phony name.

How about the married woman, who has an extra-marital fling, gets pregnant, and wants to abort without telling anyone she's pregnant. Whose permission does she have to get for this abortion--her husband's or her lover's--if a man has to approve the procedure?

0 Replies

@chai2,

Quote:

however, what about the baby's opinion

Partially developed fetuses don't have opinions. Nor do they have the legal rights afforded to already existing children.

This thread is really about the alleged "rights" of the sperm donor regarding a non viable fetus that is still in utero.

Quote:

No one's body is entirely their own, man or woman

Would you allow a doctor to perform surgery on you without your consent? Suppose, in the course of removing your appendix, a doctor decides to give you an unwanted nose job, without your consent?

Can all strange men be allowed to grope you?

The right to privacy over one's body is a Constitutional right.

1 Reply

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

A woman choosing to temporarily put her own comfort aside for a matter of a few months cannot in my mind, be equated with women being forced by the Catholic church to have child after child, or being under the rule of men.

still her choice.

Not a man's, not a country's, not a church's, not another woman's.

You make your choice for yourself.

Other women can make their own choices.

0 Replies

@chai2,

chai2 wrote:

Sometimes, and this is just my opinion, we are too concerned about our individual rights, which prevents us from doing what is right.

Is there some universal right thing to do that you are trying to explain to us?

1 Reply

@firefly,

Quote:

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.

I can't agree with this at all.

You don't want to "stigmatize" a single parent on public assistance with 10 kids? I am as much of a bleeding heart liberal as anyone. But there are limits.

Man or woman doesn't matter; anyone who has 10 kids they can't support deserves to be stigmatized.

2 Replies

@maxdancona,

But what if she's Catholic? People keep telling me I'm supposed to respect **** like that.

0 Replies

@maxdancona,

Quote:

You don't want to "stigmatize" a single parent on public assistance with 10 kids?

Don't those 10 kids have a biological father, or fathers? Why stigmatize the mother?

Why should I stigmatize the woman for not wanting to have an abortion? Are there now circumstances where we should pressure a woman to abort? What happened to the idea of choice? Suppose she wants the 10th child?

Why should we stigmatize only the mother, for anything she chooses to do regarding bearing a child, simply because she's on public assistance? Aren't the biological fathers responsible for anything once the child is born? And it is, realistically, only the woman who generally winds up being stigmatized in that sort of situation.

I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, I'm simply trying to be consistent with the topic for purposes of discussion.

If we are going to start giving the sperm donor the right to control what happens to a non viable fetus in utero, including the right to block an abortion of that fetus, then that woman on public assistance, with 10 children, might not be able to terminate her 11th pregnancy, even if she wanted to, if the biological father involved with that pregnancy opposed the abortion.

My general point, maxdancona, is really that we shouldn't stigmatize women for any choices they make regarding childbearing, whether they choose to have a child, or choose to terminate a pregnancy--these are highly individual and personal matters. And I do not feel that anyone, other than the woman involved, has the right to make those choices involving her body.

0 Replies

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