Men: Why Do You Oppose a Woman's Right to Abortion?

Just out of curiosity, CR, do any of the women you know who regret having an abortion wish that they did not have the opportunity to choose?

I personally know several women who have had abortions. Of them, only one regrets it, and she had more than one.

Hypothetical: You = 3 kids, poor, sick, stressed, wife-anaemic + pregnant. Abort?

I still don't understand how it is a right. I have never seen it listed in the Constitution. Besides some sort of privacy BS listed.

Ever figure out how you felt in the post-zygote stage of your existence, assuming you feel that you existed at all.

Oh, that is a good question, when did your EXISTENCE begin?

Your solution is perfectly acceptable to you.

Though I confess I'm confused when you say you wouldn't let your body get you into that situation.

Are you saying that you wouldn't sleep with your wife unless you were attempting to make a baby,

or that birth control is 100%?

But your solution requires a lot of outside help and participation from others that not all families have access to.

I put forth that hypothetical because it seemed, until then, that we were discussing abortion as if it only ever happened to single promiscuous women and that having a baby was merely an inconvenience to them.

I think very often that there are situations that any of us could end up in.

I think in cases such as that none of us should be allowed to pass judgment on what that family or couple decide is best for their family.

FreeDuck wrote:

Though I confess I'm confused when you say you wouldn't let your body get you into that situation.

I didn't say that. Might want to reread my post. Do you mean when I said my personality wouldn't get into that situation so I couldn't comment what my personality would do under the circumstances without very bizzare occurances leading up to it?

I don't really mind abortions, I just think people are forced into taking obvious solutions like that because of a lack of creativity and unwillingness to accept the potential results of their actions.

FreeDuck wrote:

But your solution requires a lot of outside help and participation from others that not all families have access to.

I only invoked two people into the example... Surely we have some friends. Do I now have to imagine myself without social skills now too? You do realise that in real life without exaggeration I have around a hundred people I could go to for help of varying degrees... that's leaving aside official bodies and family. Surely hypothetical me could manage at least two.

Anyway, I am not trying to convince you or anyone else on this thread that abortion is wrong. We all have our reasons for believing as we do.

It is bad for everybody concerned.Ovid said so and I agree.

More men than women are involved in the so-called right to life movement? Why?

#4: If men, and not women, were physiological capable of carrying a new life to term, then we could, easily, expect that more women than men would be involved in the so-called right to life movement. Why? Because the sex that doesn't have to deliver the child (whether male or female) has a clearer view to the morals of the issue.

Ask any Pro-Life advocate how they would react to a daughter's pregnancy out of wedlock, and you will probably be met with initial hesitation. This doesn't, in any way, prove that a Pro-Life position is incorrect, only that it can be difficult to sustain.

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

#4: If men, and not women, were physiological capable of carrying a new life to term, then we could, easily, expect that more women than men would be involved in the so-called right to life movement. Why? Because the sex that doesn't have to deliver the child (whether male or female) has a clearer view to the morals of the issue.

Really? This seems counter intuitive, especially when followed by this:

Quote:

Ask any Pro-Life advocate how they would react to a daughter's pregnancy out of wedlock, and you will probably be met with initial hesitation. This doesn't, in any way, prove that a Pro-Life position is incorrect, only that it can be difficult to sustain.

The two paragraphs are consistent. Whether they are counterintuitive, depends upon your intuition.


Because you seem to be saying that people who are not personally involved (regardless of sex) have a better ability to determine whether another's behavior is moral. Or rather, those who do not bear the consequences of decisions are better able to make those decisions.

I am saying that the most difficult moral decisions are those that, to one degree or the other, run counter to one's interests.

Men do not have to give birth to children, and, generally, they bear less of the burden of caring for them than do women. It is easier for them to focus on the morality of the issue as opposed to its practicality.

I suppose one could make that argument but it wouldn't seem to apply to other situations. Are people who don't own guns better able to decide the morality of gun ownership for others? Do people who don't have children possess the ability to judge the morality of those who do? Are people who have never been in combat better able to judge the morality of the actions of those who have? Certainly there are some who think so, but on the whole it seems counter-intuitive.

The argument reflected above is highly flawed.

The point is not that men who do not give birth or shoulder the primary responsibility for raising them are in a superior position to judge the general morality of women, but that they are less conflicted in judging the morality of a given decision or action: abortion.

There is no substantive moral issue related to owning a gun. I'm sure those who are in favor of banning guns will argue that it is immoral to own a gun, but they are allowing their politics to govern their ethos. Using a gun can give rise to questions of morality, but it is a far stretch to claim the same for simply owning one.

People who are not engaged in a given combat event do have a better vantage point for judging the morality of the actions of the combatants. Some knowledge of what battle is really like probably makes for an even better perspective, but it is not the negation of a given position or state that improves moral clarity, it is the lack of or reduced personal interest in the circumstances and outcome of the action.

This should not at all be counterintuitive as it is an ethical premise that our society firmly holds.

No one would find it particulary fair to have the jury in a murder case made up of the victim's friends and relatives.

Who is in an easier position to make the correct moral decision about notifying the authorities of a very large amount of found money? The person who found the money or a third party?


"Judge no, lest ye be judged."

First of all, this is a non-sequitur. The issue of whether a man or a woman is more likely to have moral clarity on the issue of abortion has nothing to do with judging anyone. It is possible to assert that a given act is morally wrong without assuming the mantle of judge over any individual.

Secondly, I fully expect to be judged in my life, and have no difficulty in judging others. As a matter of fact, both you and I judge many people every day, and we have nothing to be ashamed of in this regard. You really can't get through life if you do not exercise judgment when it comes to the people you meet. Somewhere along the line this sort of childish notion that we should never judge anyone has become popular with a rather large group of people. A problem with this notion is that is rarely ever applied by the people who claim to adhere to it. Moral relativism doesn't simply mean a broader or looser set of morals.

I know that there is always a desire to use Christian scripture to argue against pro-life positions, but believe it or not, not everyone who is pro-life is a Christian, or a member of any organized religion. If the line were something like "Be careful of denouncing others because you can be denounced yourself," I'd find it more resonant with my own philosophy.

. . . the sex that doesn't have to deliver the child (whether male or female) has a clearer view to the morals of the issue.

. . . a sixteen-year-old boy was charged with beating his (also teenage) girlfriend in the abdomen with a baseball bat and thereby terminating her pregnancy.