What do you think of men passing abortion laws?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

Personally I think the only people qualified to say wether it should be legal or not require a uterus.

However, if I may be allowed to throw in my two cents, I say make it the choice of the person. No one's forcing you to abort it.

This "should men be allowed to legislate?" question routinely comes up whenever abortion threads come up, which is surprising, because there are so many obvious holes in this reasoning that they really only bear enumerating for the sheer perversity of it all. But to wit:

#1) Are women allowed to vote on war-time measures, despite literally filling up one tiny fraction of one percent of soldier's coffins? Despite never having been conscripted in history and likely never will? Despite not being able to fight on the front lines (in the USA, at least)?

Are women allowed to vote on paternity fraud legislation?

Are women allowed to vote on testicular or prostate cancer funding?

If anyone were to suggest that women should not be allowed to vote on these issues, they would be rightfully pilloried as ignorant bigots.

#2) Inasmuch as it "takes two to tango", and inasmuch as the decision to abort or carry to term is a fixed-sum conflict between male parental rights and female parental rights, abortion legislation *does* affect men. I know the phrase "male parental rights" might look odd, given that men have none, but I'm speaking hypothetically here, so bear with me.

#3, and this is really the big one) When you look at opinion polls about abortion, the gender divide is incredibly tiny. In this 2003 poll (as seen on Wikipedia here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion_in_the_United_States#By_gender.2C_party.2C_and_region), we notice that 39% of people overall are in favor of abortion being generally available. When broken down by gender, men are actually HIGHER than women (40% vs 37%) as being in favor. This divide pales in comparison to the differential by political affiliation (29% to 43% range) or even geographic region (33% to 48%)

Give that a moment to sink in. The gender that is supposed to be so virulently anti-woman as to be opposed to abortion are actually MORE in favor of freely available abortion than women are. It's almost as if there's no justification at all for such wanton bigotry, and really, that's all it is. The "should men be allowed to legislate on abortion?" question is nothing more than the latest installment in the modern view that masquerades man-bashing from a male point of view as "self-enlightened introspection".

PS: if I give off a vibe as being damned mad about this nonsense, then I congratulate your astute observational skills.

I think it should be legal but I also think life starts at conception...so yeah go ahead and get an abortion but don't say that aborted fetus wasn't a person...

As for these men passing these laws, we live in a democracy so vote for someone else next time.

SeeIn2D:
-snip

I think it should be legal, and I see no problem with having men involved in this. Should we stop straight people making laws about gay marriage or stop average politicians from making laws about mentally handicapped people? Seems silly when I put it like that isnt it? Thats because it IS silly.

Stripes:

chadachada123:

Lumber Barber:
1. Yes, I think Abortion should be legal. I also think the woman should not receive any money or possessions from the man if he wanted to abort but she refused. It's a mutual fucking decision, you're entitled to nothing.

HOLY FUCK THIS.

That women can abort without input from the man is acceptable, since there's no other option other than forcing a woman to carry to term. However, that men have no option to 'abort' their status as the father and are COMPLETELY bound by whatever the female wants is, frankly, disgusting.

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

The issue is that pregnancy can kill a woman, especially a young or small woman not prepared for pregnancy. It absolutely sucks that a guy could lose a chance at fatherhood if the woman wants to abort, yes, but I consider it far, far worse to force a woman to put her life at risk for a guy, when the guy could, to be blunt, 'simply' find another partner that wants children. Not to mention the huge cost that child birth has if you don't have good insurance.

Even if death was impossible, the physical pain that a woman has to endure (and the psychological effects of forcing a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite inside of you) would be orders of magnitude worse than a guy losing a chance at fatherhood with a woman that doesn't want kids to begin with.

Frungy:

Finally some food for thought. I live in Japan and an unmarried foreign friend of mine got pregnant. She went to the clinic to get an abortion and was handed a form... which required consent from both the woman AND the man in order to get an abortion. Yup, she couldn't get an abortion unless she got the man's permission too. I was pretty shocked.

I gotta move to Japan.

I've been arguing (for a long time now) that my main problem with the issue is that it is a decision that both potential parents should be involved in but only the female gets to make. I understand that it is her body, but if she were to keep the baby and he doesn't want it, then he shouldn't have to pay child support or have any connection if he doesn't want it.

Hjalmar Fryklund:

ecoho:
ok sheild up!

im pro-life and i think abortion is wrong but i dont think any government has the right to make it illegal.

I would argue that most pro-choice folks don't particulary like abortion much (in fact, I have seen some state that they outright hate it), but that they see it as a necessary evil. Then again, maybe you were aware of this.

(except for late term abotions. yeah you support that your not human in my eyes.)

I remain ambivalent. I do however think that if the woman suddenly develops a crippling illness, or becomes critically weak, during late-term pregnancy, to the point that childbirth could kill her, then I am definitely giving abortion a shining green light.

if you can save both you should try if its one or the other family has the right to chose. now what i was speaking about is what china does were they wait till the child is almost born then jam a nedle in the head and kill it because its much cheaper.

LHZA:

Fluoxetine:
Both male and female politicians, as well as all civil servants, need to pass laws according to the majority wills of their district. Women have the right to vote, and their votes should be counted accordingly in all issues. No more, no less.

The gay marriage issue really got me thinking about this. We had politicians demanding voter recounts for gay marriage after a clear majority vote decided against it, and then after it was brought into legislature we had civil servants refusing to sign the certificates. It doesn't matter where you stand on the issue: ACCEPT AND OBEY WHAT THE VOTERS TELL YOU THEY WANT.

But to what extent? Just because it's a majority opinion, doesn't mean it's the morally right one. Think of votes that excluded woman from voting, Segregation laws etc. At some point it was a minority who believed those were the moral perogative.

Just because someone is found guilty of murder doesn't mean they killed a guy.

Enforcing morals and what YOU are so sure to be correct on others is what starts crusades and genocides. The majority vote system isn't perfect, but combined with the political skeleton of a republic it is absolutely the best a massive society can offer.

chadachada123:

Stripes:

chadachada123:

HOLY FUCK THIS.

That women can abort without input from the man is acceptable, since there's no other option other than forcing a woman to carry to term. However, that men have no option to 'abort' their status as the father and are COMPLETELY bound by whatever the female wants is, frankly, disgusting.

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

The issue is that pregnancy can kill a woman, especially a young or small woman not prepared for pregnancy. It absolutely sucks that a guy could lose a chance at fatherhood if the woman wants to abort, yes, but I consider it far, far worse to force a woman to put her life at risk for a guy, when the guy could, to be blunt, 'simply' find another partner that wants children. Not to mention the huge cost that child birth has if you don't have good insurance.

Even if death was impossible, the physical pain that a woman has to endure (and the psychological effects of forcing a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite inside of you) would be orders of magnitude worse than a guy losing a chance at fatherhood with a woman that doesn't want kids to begin with.

I did say that its different if the woman's life is in danger, not sure why people are missing that. If the woman became pregnant through consensual sex then she would have known the risks to begin with. If things dont go as planned for her but the father wants his child not to die then why should she be able to deny him said right? Its not like she was forced or didnt know it could happen so as far as I can see she accpeted the consequences of her actions when she did them. If she might die, or was manipulated or something then fine but for the most part we're on about a woman volutarily having sex and then not accpeting there were consequences. A man has a right to his childs life, if he didnt want to have the child but she did then he would still have to support it and she is forcing him to keep it, she would be taking control of his life. Isnt that equally wrong? If that reality is fine then cant it work the other way as well? Seems only fair to me.

JimB:

Stripes:
Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child?

Because it's not just the child's life he's gaining a "right" to. He is gaining a right to control the life of the woman the child is currently inside. What you are proposing has the unfortunate side effect of removing a woman's autonomy and handing the reins of her life over to the man who had sex with her.

The woman is the one who is at risk in a pregnancy. She is the one who deserves the right to decide to take that risk. "But I really want you to give me a baby" is an insupportable counterargument.

No one seems to care for the child here, also I did say it was different if the woman's life was at risk. If a woman gets pregnant through consensual sex then why the hell should she be able to just opt out if her own life isnt in danger? She knew what she was getting into so why on earth is she able to just say 'I dont feel like having a kid, therefore I can kill it'? Why can a oman opt out but not a man? If a woman wanted to keep a child but the man didnt then he would still have to suport it, as he should support his child. If your going to get pregnant, or chance it, then you need to have the responsibility to accpet the consequences. A man does not have the right to the life of his child, only a woman has that despite being only 1 of 2 parents. She handed the 'reins of her life' over to fate when she had sex. she had sex with a man, its not as if she was a victim of fate when she got pregnant and you cast a man who wants to keep his child as if he is somehow in the wrong. You say 'the man who had sex with her' to infer she somehow didnt have a choice in the matter. she did, so why can decide she doesnt feel like it? If a man said one day 'I dont feel like being a parent' and stopped supporting his children he would be a monster, if a woamn does the same she is some sort of victim.

JimB:

Stripes:
Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child?

Because it's not just the child's life he's gaining a "right" to. He is gaining a right to control the life of the woman the child is currently inside. What you are proposing has the unfortunate side effect of removing a woman's autonomy and handing the reins of her life over to the man who had sex with her.

The woman is the one who is at risk in a pregnancy. She is the one who deserves the right to decide to take that risk. "But I really want you to give me a baby" is an insupportable counterargument.

No one seems to care for the child here, also I did say it was different if the woman's life was at risk. If a woman gets pregnant through consensual sex then why the hell should she be able to just opt out if her own life isnt in danger? She knew what she was getting into so why on earth is she able to just say 'I dont feel like having a kid, therefore I can kill it'? Why can a oman opt out but not a man? If a woman wanted to keep a child but the man didnt then he would still have to suport it, as he should support his child. If your going to get pregnant, or chance it, then you need to have the responsibility to accpet the consequences. A man does not have the right to the life of his child, only a woman has that despite being only 1 of 2 parents. She handed the 'reins of her life' over to fate when she had sex. she had sex with a man, its not as if she was a victim of fate when she got pregnant and you cast a man who wants to keep his child as if he is somehow in the wrong. You say 'the man who had sex with her' to infer she somehow didnt have a choice in the matter. she did, so why can decide she doesnt feel like it? If a man said one day 'I dont feel like being a parent' and stopped supporting his children he would be a monster, if a woamn does the same she is some sort of victim.

chadachada123:

Stripes:

chadachada123:

HOLY FUCK THIS.

That women can abort without input from the man is acceptable, since there's no other option other than forcing a woman to carry to term. However, that men have no option to 'abort' their status as the father and are COMPLETELY bound by whatever the female wants is, frankly, disgusting.

Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

The issue is that pregnancy can kill a woman, especially a young or small woman not prepared for pregnancy. It absolutely sucks that a guy could lose a chance at fatherhood if the woman wants to abort, yes, but I consider it far, far worse to force a woman to put her life at risk for a guy, when the guy could, to be blunt, 'simply' find another partner that wants children. Not to mention the huge cost that child birth has if you don't have good insurance.

Even if death was impossible, the physical pain that a woman has to endure (and the psychological effects of forcing a woman to carry what amounts to a parasite inside of you) would be orders of magnitude worse than a guy losing a chance at fatherhood with a woman that doesn't want kids to begin with.

A woman who consented to sex also consented to the possibility of a child. Therefore she consented to carrying through with that child, if she wasnt willing to do that then she shouldnt have had sex. If she was raped, or her life is in danger, then fine. However if thats not the case then she has no right to end the life of the child if the husband wishes to keep it. If neither want it then im not sure, but thats not the issue right now. Once she has it she can be done, it can be solely the mans responsibility if she desires, but it is not fair to end the life of a child when the father wanted to keep it. It is not unreasonable for someone to carry out the consequences of their actions, men might be able to 'simply' find another partner (though thats a horrible assessment of such a situation) but the fact that their child died because the mother didnt feel like carrying it to term is not something one can get over, nor is 'I dont feel like it' a viable reason for abortion in general.

Stripes:
No one seems to care for the child here.

I don't think you read my first post on this topic. It's back on the first page of this thread, if you want to go looking for it. I also think you've skipped over all the posts made by people who explicitly say things like, "A baby is a human being and abortion is murder."

That said, no, I don't especially care about the baby. If there comes a conflict between the rights of the mother and the rights of the fetus, I will prioritize the mother every time because she has already been born. She is unarguably a person; the fetus's status as a person cannot be described with a similar consensus. More than that, any decisions made about one mother will ripple through society to affect all women, who already suffer from enough problems with objectification in the world without us mandating that their free will be considered secondary to our perception of what's best for their babies.

Stripes:
I did say it was different if the woman's life was at risk.

A woman's life is always at risk during pregnancy. In a healthy woman, the risk is minimal--probably equivalent to the risk of driving a car--but there is always a chance for complication.

Stripes:
If a woman gets pregnant through consensual sex then why the hell should she be able to just opt out if her own life isn't in danger?

Because if you criminalize abortion in the instances you mention, you require women to have to prove to a legal authority that their lives are in danger from pregnancy, which will require tests the woman might not be able to afford and take time she might not have before the pregnancy has progressed too far to stop; or you require her to prove the sex wasn't consensual, which means her attacker will have to be convicted of rape in a court of law, which proceedings can take longer than a pregnancy does and which accusations are extremely difficult to prove as a matter of law. What you are proposing is a tribunal of people who sit in judgment of all women and pass out permission for a woman to not risk her life or to carry her rapist's child, and this tribunal is likely to be made up of people who have a political stance to further.

It is unconscionable.

Stripes:
She knew what she was getting into, so why on Earth is she able to just say, "I don't feel like having a kid, therefore I can kill it?"

Two things.

First, I think you definitely need to prove that a woman who gets an abortion in situations of consensual sex without predictable medical risk is doing so because she "doesn't feel like it." Without that proof, this is a horrible thing to say.

Second, you need to define things like "life," "kid," and "human" before you can argue that an abortion can reasonably be described as an act of killing; then you have to make your opponents agree with those definitions. Good luck with that. People have been stuck on that for ages.

Stripes:
If a woman wanted to keep a child but the man didn't then he would still have to support it, as he should support his child.

...What? What law are you referencing that says men have to support a child?

Stripes:
A man does not have the right to the life of his child, only a woman has that despite being only one of two parents.

Oh, spare me the tired "men are being oppressed by a woman's right to have an abortion!" claptrap. Yes, he's one of the two parents, but guess what? She is one of the one people involved whose body will be permanently changed by the process of pregnancy. The man can suck it up on this one. His desire to have a child is nowhere near as important as her right not to be secondary to his will.

Stripes:
You say "the man who had sex with her" to infer she somehow didn't have a choice in the matter.

Oh please. Words mean things, Stripes. If I had meant that she didn't have a choice in her sexual partner, I would have said "the man who raped her." I describe him as the man who had sex with her because that is all he is. That is all the sex act can explicitly or implicitly be inferred to mean. If you think it means she agreed to carry his child or to the possibility of having to submit to his desire to have a child, then I think you need to provide proof of her consent to those things.

Stripes:
If a man said one day, "I don't feel like being a parent," and stopped supporting his children, he would be a monster; if a woman does the same, she is some sort of victim.

I beg you to point out where I said or even implied women are victims. I have been arguing about who suffers the most risk and who therefore has the primary right to decide to take or inflict that risk.

Vykrel:

TWEWYFan:
Q1: I'm Pro-life
Q2: Yes I think it's fair. Leaving out the moral implications, women are not the only one's affected and as Esotera pointed out they're elected officials, it's their job.

please elaborate. who else is affected? don't say the fetus, because it has no memory and it wont suffer the slightest, thinking about what could have been.

if your argument is that the fetus is technically alive, the same can be said of sperm cells. using the same argument, one could suggest that male masturbation is basically mass murder. it isnt really fair that pro-lifers such as yourself consider a clump of cells to have the right to live, while at the same time considering a massive group of separate cells to not have that same right. aborted fetuses and spilled seed would both have wound up becoming the same result, had things been different.

anyway, regardless of whether or not that is your argument, its the first thing to consider.

second, over a million abortions occur in the US alone PER YEAR. it is safe to assume that the majority of those abortions take place because the woman is not ready or willing to have a child and raise it. imagine if abortion were to become illegal. birth rates in the US would rise by about 20%. that is a STAGGERING number. also, a good chunk of children born due to abortions being illegal would probably be put up for adoption, or would live unhappy lives, due to the fact that their parents werent prepared or up to the task of taking care of them. i should also point out that theres a chance of the woman having twins (and the twin rates are rising, by the way), so you can imagine what it would be like for a woman unprepared for even a single child being forced to give birth to two or three.

third, the woman's feelings and well-being need to be taken into account. childbirth is one of the scariest and most painful things i can imagine. i can completely understand having an abortion just to avoid it. and there are all kinds of complications that can go along with giving birth.

anyway, if abortion were illegal, i can promise you that there would be a lot more suffering in the world. i do believe, though, that the choice should be made very early on. after 10 weeks or so, the fetus really starts looking like a baby, and i dont like the idea of something so far along being terminated. i dont think it should be illegal, but i think its messed up for a woman to take her sweet time to decide whether or not to abort.

Edit: i would also not personally want my child aborted. i am a guy, but i would own up to the responsibility. i would leave it up to the woman, though. its her body, not mine. i only really have a say in what happens to the kid after it is born.

Alright.
First, I was referring to fetus and here's why. Left alone, a sample of sperm will always be a sample of sperm, nothing else. Over the course of his lifetime, a man will produce many units of sperm and most will simply be destroyed like any other set cells in his body. You were right on that mark. Meanwhile a fetus, if left alone, will grow and mature into a fully formed infant. It's not just a collection of cells, no more than we are anyway. They are not the same thing.
And if we want to stretch things further, there's also the father to consider, at least in most cases. He may not carry the child to term but the father is still losing their son or daughter.
Second, that is speculation, not a valid argument. The same could be said for standard births; maybe the parents find out they aren't ready and give the baby up, maybe they'll just be crappy parents and the kid will be miserable. It's also possible the adopted child will be happy with their new family or even the birth parents will step up and raise a happy if unexpected child. What you have raised is the possibility of unhappiness, and the same could be said for everything in life. It's not justification.
Third, you're right, it is. I'll be the first to admit that the circumstances around childbirth and abortion are rarely black and white. I'll even go out there and say there might cases where abortion could even be justified; for example if the process would actually put the mother in mortal danger. Still it's the nature of child birth and the case of normal pregnancies the pain will pass, as will the infant if the parent don't care to take of it; they put it up for adoption and never think of it again. For reasons I've stated above I believe the cost is too high.

TWEWYFan:
And if we want to stretch things further, there's also the father to consider, at least in most cases. He may not carry the child to term but the father is still losing their son or daughter.

That's impossible. You can't lose a son or daughter if you have none. Losing children to abortion is impossible by the very definition.

And if they wanted kids, try again elsewhere. Like you pointed out yourself: sperm is just sperm. There's no such thing as a right to have children no matter what.


Would be weirdness we're in for otherwise. Grab some random girl, rape her, argue before the judge 'but I have a right to have kids! My victim had no right to deny me that!', okay acquitted...

Woman should be able to have a abortion without the fathers consent. I don't care that men are chatting about this because this affects both the mother and the father and as such both can talk about it. Also, please note that woman voted these men / woman into their positions to be their representative.

Blablahb:

TWEWYFan:
And if we want to stretch things further, there's also the father to consider, at least in most cases. He may not carry the child to term but the father is still losing their son or daughter.

That's impossible. You can't lose a son or daughter if you have none. Losing children to abortion is impossible by the very definition.

And if they wanted kids, try again elsewhere. Like you pointed out yourself: sperm is just sperm. There's no such thing as a right to have children no matter what.


Would be weirdness we're in for otherwise. Grab some random girl, rape her, argue before the judge 'but I have a right to have kids! My victim had no right to deny me that!', okay acquitted...

I said in "most" cases remember? I didn't think I'd need to specify that cases like rape were the exception. Besides it's not about the matter of the right to create kids it's about the right to protect the potential child that already exists.

Frungy:
Lemme just start out by saying that I'm pro-choice. Women should have the right to have an abortion...

However, the U.S. is a democracy and women have the vote. In fact there are more women than men (50.8% female, 49.2% male). If you have a problem with the composition of the elected representatives then you have to pause for a moment and realise that women voted these people into power. They elected them as their representatives and so they delegated to them the power to pass laws on their behalf...

she couldn't get an abortion unless she got the man's permission too. I was pretty shocked.

I agree with you almost entirely. If people are unhappy with the choices being made for them or the people making the choices then tough shit, you're clearly in the minority. That said, representative democracy is a bastardized version of democracy and I hate it because of that. Women should have the right to have an abortion though, that shouldn't be denied.

I think the second part is pretty fair though. Both the man and woman have the right to their child and I don't think the woman should have the entire say on whether the guy can have the child or not. It is a dick move for the guy not to sign though, he should try and find a partner who also wants a child and there should probably be some compensation involved for the woman.

I'm not saying it's the ideal way to sort things out, but I also think that the guy has some right to the child and it can't all be decided by the woman.

I think this is an entirely irrelevant yes/no political talking point that is unjustifiably given excess attention to make sure that people stay divided into two political parties.

Besides, nobody in their right mind actually thinks this is a good idea. At least, not after last time. Making it illegal just results in people doing it themselves, which results in a whole lot of infections/deaths. Dead people can't pay taxes, so...

Sure, there are a few that get elected for their political party and not for their competence that don't "get it", and make moves against it, but tbh that just serves to keep up the illusion. There's never going to be a country-wide ban on it again.

Stripes:
Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

TWEWYFan:
I said in "most" cases remember? I didn't think I'd need to specify that cases like rape were the exception. Besides it's not about the matter of the right to create kids it's about the right to protect the potential child that already exists.

There's no such thing as potential children. I'll also point out that I've never been able to find any lawbooks or treaty in which this was mentioned.

The right to the integrity of one's own body however is pretty much the centrepiece of all legal systems and human rights.

While I do take a stance against abortion (I plan on working in healthcare) I do believe that in a case by case basis of allowing people to choose. If you have been raped, fine, if the baby will die or cause harm to the parent, fine, if you can't take care of it - put it into an orphanage, if you just flat out don't want it (for no particular reason or if your reason is lazy - ex. "I see the fetus as a parasite" The person is well off and is perfectly capable of raising it or sheltering it "My body, my right", or someone who sleeps around a lot but can't take care of the child) - you are a horrible person.
But it should be women's decision to pass a law on the matter seeing as how I'm not a woman and that if it is a single gender-based issue, that gender should have the soul decision on the matter. It would be the same as saying the women in government want to pass a law that if a married woman doesn't want to get pregnant then she has the right to make her man get a vasectomy.

Oh for the love of God, put it in religion and politics.

SeeIn2D:

Question: Do you agree that women should be able to choose or do you think that abortion should be illegal?
Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?

And my part of the argument is that a man should never pass a law about a woman's body simple as that. I obviously know that there are women in the government in both parties, but the people actually passing the laws will be majority male which I don't think is right. And conversely I don't think women should ever have the right to pass a law regarding a man's body. Anyone agree or disagree with this?

Captcha: whole shebang

I'm pro choice but I think your argument is extremely offensive. Should we only have Christians deciding if Christmas is a public holiday and only Jew deciding if Yom Kippur is a public holiday? Only white people get to decide how white kids are educated and only Chinese people deciding how Chinese kids are educated?

No thank you, I can not support your pro-discrimination stance.

I believe abortion should be legal, however it shouldn't be used as a replacement for actual birth control (seriously, there are women that have had 7,8,9,10 or more abortions.) It's a serious decision to make. It's not just "Oh, I just don't feel like having a child right now." It's meant to be a last resort, not a first choice. If you're having consensual sex and don't want a child, use proper birth control.

As far as men making the laws, well, until more women are elected, you don't have much of a choice. They're supposed to make the laws based on their constituents. Unfortunately, some of our elected officials are elected by people who seem to hate womens' rights, and that's the view that they support. I hope that most people aren't like that though, and their views are reflected by their elected official, be they male or female.

And those people who are anti-abortion and anti-birth control just flat out view women as sexual property.

TehCookie:

Stripes:
Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

Dont call a child a parasite, whilst technically a correct description it has so many negative connotations that it doesnt feel right to use, as if it is somehow at fault for being conceived. Like I said, if you have consensual sex then both parents should be prepared to support the consequences and its not right to make a human suffer because two people arent willing to accept their action's consequences. You say you wouldnt change your lifestyle to support being pregnant, thats fine, just dont choose to do anything which could result in that. If you make that choice, knowing the consequences, then you have no right not to take responsibility. I really cannot see why anyone could think otherwise, or that a fetus somehow isnt a human being (its a clump of cells I know but we are simply more developed clumps of cells at the base of it, aside from complexity and awareness we arent different at all).

chadachada123:

Lumber Barber:
1. Yes, I think Abortion should be legal. I also think the woman should not receive any money or possessions from the man if he wanted to abort but she refused. It's a mutual fucking decision, you're entitled to nothing.

HOLY FUCK THIS.

That women can abort without input from the man is acceptable, since there's no other option other than forcing a woman to carry to term. However, that men have no option to 'abort' their status as the father and are COMPLETELY bound by whatever the female wants is, frankly, disgusting.

Never thought of it like this but I suddenly agree.

Making it illegal is, of course, retarded, but I could never come up with a good way to make it a mutual decision. If instead you eliminate child support for a man who can prove he never wanted the child, you now have completely legitimized abortion.

It's really too bad good ideas like this go so largely unnoticed.

thylasos:
Abortion should be legal and freely available.

If you don't agree with it, don't use it. (Judge not, he who throws the etc...)

I always judge the person who throws the first abortion. That is how that saying goes, right?

OT: Me being a guy from Europe my stance on abortions is pretty much the same as the guy I quoted. Abortion should be legal. Also why does it matter if men pass the bill? Lots of women believes in the right to choose. Those who don't got the right not to have an abortion. I also believe that the woman should have the complete right to choose and that father or relatives shouldn't be able to butt in.

SeeIn2D:
Alright well I'm sure most people in the US and probably some outside know about all of the abortion stuff going on in the US currently. If you don't then essentially the two major parties are divided on the issue of abortion (like many other issues) with the Democrats supporting the right to choice which basically says women have a right to choose whether they get an abortion or not, and the Republicans are supporting the right to life which basically says that women can't get an abortion.

Question: Do you agree that women should be able to choose or do you think that abortion should be illegal?
Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?

And my part of the argument is that a man should never pass a law about a woman's body simple as that. I obviously know that there are women in the government in both parties, but the people actually passing the laws will be majority male which I don't think is right. And conversely I don't think women should ever have the right to pass a law regarding a man's body. Anyone agree or disagree with this?

Captcha: whole shebang

I disagree on laws passed that intrude on womans right to get an abortion if it indangers the female, cause of pregnancy by rape, found the fetus would be born with a non-developed brain, incest, and etc. Also some females in Congress/States have voted for these laws that just baffle me and some have actualy been the writers of such laws... I also believe in a certain time period that a abortion can be acceptable, I would say 4-5 months be it max or what ever is the soonist the doctors can tell if said child would be developed in a mentally disabled state or may kill the mother.

If the parents or mother just want a abortion because they don't want the child and did not plan on it I say screw them and have the child and give it to people that will care for it instead of their dumbass for not being a responsible adult...

erttheking:
Oh for the love of God, put it in religion and politics.

But it should be in it's own category of right or wrong and common sense. People that make it about religion or politics just tick me off for what right does either have to decide or be apart of it...

SeeIn2D:
Alright well I'm sure most people in the US and probably some outside know about all of the abortion stuff going on in the US currently. If you don't then essentially the two major parties are divided on the issue of abortion (like many other issues) with the Democrats supporting the right to choice which basically says women have a right to choose whether they get an abortion or not, and the Republicans are supporting the right to life which basically says that women can't get an abortion.

Question: Do you agree that women should be able to choose or do you think that abortion should be illegal?
Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?

And my part of the argument is that a man should never pass a law about a woman's body simple as that. I obviously know that there are women in the government in both parties, but the people actually passing the laws will be majority male which I don't think is right. And conversely I don't think women should ever have the right to pass a law regarding a man's body. Anyone agree or disagree with this?

Captcha: whole shebang

If I ONLY had those two options, I would say abortion should be illegal. But in truth, I think abortion should probably be legal up until a certain point (8 weeks).

As for question two, my answer is more a response to yours. This is INCREDIBLY INCREDIBLY INCREDIBLY IGNORANT of the way the political system works in America. The elected official is the FIGURE HEAD of an organization made up of a conglomerate of diverse members lobbying the figure head on a decision to make. The average political works 80-100 hours per week doing two things: campaigning and listening to this conglomerate telling them what to do. In the words of my political science professor "a trained chimp could be president." It isn't like a bunch of white, heterosexual, upper class males are educating themselves on a particular issue and then making a decision. They're talking with members of their organization on what stance to take. More often, these stances are based off of how they can remain in power than some moral platitude.

So in short, I have no problem with males making the decision because it's not really males making the decision... it's an organization with plenty of female input. Whether it's a majority or not is another matter, but frankly, if women were so concerned about the fact that the evil man is making decisions "governing their bodies", the political landscape of America would be crucially different. I am an optimist. I think there is one human race, not two human genders. As such, humans are capable of making decisions that are best for humanity regardless of gender, race, etc.

Sigh... this is not a political problem, this is a religious problem. Yes, the US believes it is a democracy. Sure, a democracy can be a great thing. But it could also be one of the stupidest ways to run things ever. And here is how it breaks down. Imposing your religion on a field like medicine is a stupid idea. You might think it's clever to insert your religious beliefs into the laws of the country and make your religion the 'state' religion, but it's not. Any country that runs around with the state religion and state laws coinciding is heading for destruction. Abortion is a medical practice not too dissimular from cancer therapy. A dangerous parasitic organism is growing inside a woman that the body doesn't fight and could ultimately lead to death.

Arguing whether or not abortion should be legal is like arguing should the flu vaccine be legal.

And arguing whether or not men should be able to make abortion illegal is like arguing for women to yank medication that cures testicular cancer. The only man that should have any say in this argument should be the womans partner! (or possibly her father if she is underaged)

DVS BSTrD:

Justanewguy:
[quote="DVS BSTrD" post="18.379676.14895360"]Actually, many pro-life advocates support aid for young mothers as well as adoption processes. Not feeling pain and a lack of consciousness isn't evidence that a human being is no longer a human.

You're obviously passionate about your beliefs, but before you begin throwing stones at a crowd of good people, I suggest you take a moment to understand where those stones are going to hit. It's easy to shout about the evil pro-lifers and their want to take a choice away, but ultimately a lot of us our good people who just have a different outlook on what life is than you. Is that so bad or evil?

It's not that its "no longer a human being" its that its not a human being YET.

It was wrong of me to imply that pro-lifers don't care for the baby once it's born, but they seem to have a habit of voting for candidates who would rather pay invade third world countries than fund public serves like education and healthcare that those children need. I don't think people are bad or evil for disagreeing with me, I think they're bad or evil for ignoring the consequences of their beliefs. And We've already got too many orphans on this planet due to things like war, disease and accidents. We don't need to add teenagers who made a poor choice and rape to that list.

There are circumstances when humans have a lack of mental functions or a lack of nervous activity in parts of their bodies (severing the nerves at the spinal column, for example, will render the vast majority of a person's nervous system in-operational). My point was basically that, in terms of what life is, there's a widely accepted definition, and even single celled organisms fall into that category. As to what a human is, we define even dead skeletons of people as "human" because they have human DNA in them.

I'm not saying I'm right, I'm just trying to explain my out look. That said, I do find it a tad hypocritical to imply that pro-lifers vote for people who invade third-world countries. In history, the Republican and Democratic parties have each had presidents start or escalate conflicts, as well as presidents who have attempted the opposite. Bush is fresh in our minds, but honestly, in the past 50 years, two wars were started by Republicans. The 1st Persian Gulf with Bush Sr. and the 2nd with Bush Jr. Two wars were started by Democrats, Korea with Truman, and Vietnam under Kennedy. The two conflicts are actually quite similar too, with Korea and the 1st Persian Gulf being quicker, one term conflicts; while the Vietnam and 2nd Persian Gulf have extended into long drawn out wars.

Nixon, at the time, was considered a great diplomat and peace-broker; as well as being termed the "Environmental President." As an Environmental Science major, I can say with relative assurance that no President since Nixon has done so much for our environment. While we may remember him as a crook for Watergate, as a Republican President, he embodied many of the things that you would attribute to Democrats.

On the other hand, under President Obama, we've escalated a diplomatic conflict with Pakistan, enforced a no-fly zone over Libya, and are practicing brinksmanship with Syria and Iran.

My point is not that one party is good and the other is bad. I'm saying that it's not fair to focus criticism on the Republicans purely for the Bush years.

Stripes:

TehCookie:

Stripes:
Why, if the women became pregnant through consensual sex, should the father not have a right to the life of his child? Im not having a go at you but it confuses me that a woman cannot be forced to carry a child to term if she is not in mortal danger or was not consensual. Its not like she somehow has the right to opt out of a decision she made.

That is pretty much taking control of that woman's life though. When you're pregnant you have to take extremely good care of yourself. You can't drink, you can't even take medicine, you can't lift heavy things and there's probably even more than I'm not aware of. If you are carrying a child that you don't want you wouldn't have the same dedication to having a healthy baby. If I was forced to carry a child I would refuse to change my lifestyle for a parasite and that would be dangerous for it.

I think if the man doesn't want it and the woman does he shouldn't have to pay child support but the woman should not be forced against her will to carry.

Dont call a child a parasite, whilst technically a correct description it has so many negative connotations that it doesnt feel right to use, as if it is somehow at fault for being conceived. Like I said, if you have consensual sex then both parents should be prepared to support the consequences and its not right to make a human suffer because two people arent willing to accept their action's consequences. You say you wouldnt change your lifestyle to support being pregnant, thats fine, just dont choose to do anything which could result in that. If you make that choice, knowing the consequences, then you have no right not to take responsibility. I really cannot see why anyone could think otherwise, or that a fetus somehow isnt a human being (its a clump of cells I know but we are simply more developed clumps of cells at the base of it, aside from complexity and awareness we arent different at all).

That's pretty much asking people who don't want kids to never have sex. Contraptions and protection isn't 100% foolproof, mistakes happen. Abortion is just another way of dealing with it. Also wouldn't having an unwanted child make the parents suffer? Aren't they people too? Also they may not take responsibility for their kid and neglect it instead. I would rather abort a baby than have it grow up unwanted and unloved. Also I don't care if it's human or not, if it's not aware I have no problem killing it.

Q1 - The woman should have the choice in all circumstances (even if she wants to use it as contraception) until the child can survive outside the woman's womb (~24 weeks), at which point only in the case where the health of the woman is at risk.
Before this point it is just an extension of the woman's body and after it it is a human being. This is as clear a line as exists in this issue.

I don't think the man has the last vote (or any vote) when the woman does or doesn't decide to abort, but shouldn't be required to support the child if he wanted it aborted.

Q2 - Yes, because surely that is the point of an elected representative?
As others have pointed out the logical extension of saying they can't is that poor people can vote on issues that only affect the rich etc.
On top of that abortion clearly has social effects that impact men beyond the father.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked