Men's rights on Abortion?

Tell me how wrote: »

Over 53% of voters on the poll on this thread think men shouldn't have a say.
I genuinely can't believe that.

I wouldn't take it that way. I would take it that they feel that ultimately it should be 100% the woman's choice. Which is should.
Otherwise we'd have situations where we'd be locking up women to gestate pregnancies because their partner wanted them to.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

I posted in this thread a few months back and realised it was a pointless debate, feel free to go back and find my posts and you'll see why I am interested. This is just something that has been in my mind for the last few days.

The amount of posts on Facebook, twitter etc saying that men can't give birth therefore their opinions don't matter are mind blowing.

Well I don't think those opinions represent the majority. If it were the case, there would be no men in favour of repeal, but there are loads.

This post has been deleted.

NoviGlitzko

SusieBlue wrote: »

But it can't be equal. Someone has to have the deciding vote, and surely that person should be the one who has to carry the pregnancy?

Why though? If one of both parties doesn't want it, the other shouldn't force it into the world regardless of who's giving birth to it.

This post has been deleted.

SusieBlue wrote: »

But it can't be equal. Someone has to have the deciding vote, and surely that person should be the one who has to carry the pregnancy?

Of course it's not equal and it never can be but the way father's are routinely ignored in all aspects of a pregnancy will be replicated when abortion comes in.

Having just had our second child it really is striking who little father's are brought into any conversation with the medical professionals with respect to a pregnancy.

The exact same will happen with abortion whereby the male partners will be completely and utterly ignored in the process.

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

Why though? If one of both parties doesn't want it, the other shouldn't force it into the world regardless of who's giving birth to it.

Which is all well and good when you're talking about embryos in a freezer.

But you still have the issue that one person is pregnant. And that person has the right to make decisions about their own body. It's inescapable.

The only way to give a partner a voice in pregnancy is:

1. To force women to remain pregnant and give birth. Restraining them if necessary.
2. To force women to undergo an abortion; whether that requires ingesting pills or having surgery. Forcibly and with restraints if necessary.

There are no other options where a partner can say, "I do/don't want this baby" and the woman's personal rights are not horribly violated.

Tell me how

seamus wrote:

Shouldn't have a say in what a woman does with her body.

Ordinarily speaking, no a man doesn't have a right to dictate to a woman. But in the case of a pregnancy, is it just her body? In some cases, nature has evolved so that fertilisation takes place outside of the body of the female. That is not the case in humans. Nature dictates that the woman's body is the host for a shared offspring. I'm not suggesting the woman's health should be put at risk because of this but not that it's as simple as the man has no say on how his potential offspring is being treated.

How about a pregnant woman who wants to drink and smoke or do drugs?

Does the man have no right to suggest she shouldn't do so because of the risk to the health of the baby?

JRant wrote: »

Of course it's not equal and it never can be but the way father's are routinely ignored in all aspects of a pregnancy will be replicated when abortion comes in.

Having just had our second child it really is striking who little father's are brought into any conversation with the medical professionals with respect to a pregnancy.

The exact same will happen with abortion whereby the male partners will be completely and utterly ignored in the process.

I understand what you're saying, and I don't wholly disagree with you, but there is literally no way of changing that other than allowing a man have a level of control over a woman during pregnancy. She should have the ultimate say.
It can't be any other way.

Outlaw Pete

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Again, fetuses do very much exist.......

No - an aborted fetus never had consciousness so would never care it was aborted.

You're making a strawman argument. I never once said that a fetus would care about anything.

Taking the life of someone who has existed is not the same thing as aborting a fetus who never experienced life.

A fetus's life has not begun.

How can this not be human fetal life?

A 12 week fetus is not conscious,

So, we don't think it's okay to kill someone if they are knocked unconscious do we.

has no sentience.....

Sentience is a red herring for many reasons. Mostly because sentience is a philosophical argument more than anything else. Some believe insects are sentient, others trees and at the other end of the scale, some don't think newborn babies are.

...has never experienced life.

Of course they are experiencing life. Might be at a very low level, no more than a slug, but it's quite clear that fetuses are living and as they are human beings, we should respect their life.

There is no person.

Humans should not be ascribed personhood on the basis that they lack certain abilities. That's discrimination. Is Michael Schumacher no longer a person?

Are you trying to say that fetuses are living life the same as a born person?

A fetus is a living human being. Nothing remarkable happens when a fetus leaves the womb. It is an arbitrary point along the continuum of a human being's life. A human being no longer having to depend on another for sustenance is also arbitrary.

A fetus is a living human being that absolutely should have the right to not have it's life taken away, their heartbeat stilled, on the say so of another. Fetuses are human beings at their most vulnerable point in life and unless there is a damn good reason for it, they should be let live.

NoviGlitzko

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I'm not disputing that.

seamus wrote: »

Which is all well and good when you're talking about embryos in a freezer.

But you still have the issue that one person is pregnant. And that person has the right to make decisions about their own body. It's inescapable.

The only way to give a partner a voice in pregnancy is:

1. To force women to remain pregnant and give birth. Restraining them if necessary.
2. To force women to undergo an abortion; whether that requires ingesting pills or having surgery. Forcibly and with restraints if necessary.

There are no other options where a partner can say, "I do/don't want this baby" and the woman's personal rights are not horribly violated.

I respect that the woman is pregnant. But you're choosing the stance of the woman when the father has to go through HIS ENTIRE LIFE with a child that he doesn't want? I can't calculate how that's fair to me.

I'm strongly on the yes side BTW for what it's worth. I'm pro choice to the full so yeah, I think men should have the same right there.

seamus wrote: »

Which is all well and good when you're talking about embryos in a freezer.

But you still have the issue that one person is pregnant. And that person has the right to make decisions about their own body. It's inescapable.

The only way to give a partner a voice in pregnancy is:

1. To force women to remain pregnant and give birth. Restraining them if necessary.
2. To force women to undergo an abortion; whether that requires ingesting pills or having surgery. Forcibly and with restraints if necessary.

There are no other options where a partner can say, "I do/don't want this baby" and the woman's personal rights are not horribly violated.

Or option 3; allow the man to legally “abort” the fetus. So they are not forced to have a child they don’t want.

SusieBlue wrote: »

I understand what you're saying, and I don't wholly disagree with you, but there is literally no way of changing that other than allowing a man have a level of control over a woman during pregnancy. She should have the ultimate say.
It can't be any other way.

I agree with you but we could do a hell of a lot better at including men in the conversation. I don’t think a man should have any control over a pregnant woman but at the same time a woman shouldn’t have control of a mans life for the next 18/22 years. That’s not right either.

facehugger99

Tell me how wrote: »

Ordinarily speaking, no a man doesn't have a right to dictate to a woman. But in the case of a pregnancy, is it just her body? In some cases, nature has evolved so that fertilisation takes place outside of the body of the female. That is not the case in humans. Nature dictates that the woman's body is the host for a shared offspring. I'm not suggesting the woman's health should be put at risk because of this but not that it's as simple as the man has no say on how his potential offspring is being treated.

How about a pregnant woman who wants to drink and smoke or do drugs?

Does the man have no right to suggest she shouldn't do so because of the risk to the health of the baby?

Who ever said that men didn't have a 'right to suggest'?

Suggestion is where it starts and ends though - final decision is with the woman on all maters pertaining to her body.

It's that simple.

NoviGlitzko wrote: »

I'm not disputing that.

I respect that the woman is pregnant. But you're choosing the stance of the woman when the father has to go through HIS ENTIRE LIFE with a child that he doesn't want? I can't calculate how that's fair to me.

I'm strongly on the yes side BTW for what it's worth. I'm pro choice to the full so yeah, I think men should have the same right there.

I don’t know why anyone who is truly pro choice would have any issue with this to be honest.

JRant wrote: »

Or option 3; allow the man to legally “abort” the fetus. So they are not forced to have a child they don’t want.

Sure. But that's a separate matter that is not relevant to medical abortions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MGqJZH9RrRo

JRant wrote: »

I agree with you but we could do a hell of a lot better at including men in the conversation. I don’t think a man should have any control over a pregnant woman but at the same time a woman shouldn’t have control of a mans life for the next 18/22 years. That’s not right either.

I agree, and even though I have no idea how it would be workable or enforced, I can see the point about a system where a man can "opt out" of a pregnancy and subsequent child rearing, if a woman wants to continue a pregnancy and he doesn't.
As I said, I have no idea how such a system would work, but I can see why some would support it.

Outlaw Pete

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Here we have an ultrasonographer (at 1m:52s) saying: "Nice healthy baby.."

Here we have another ultrasonographer (at 10 seconds or so in) saying: "I'm gonna say the baby's laying transverse"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wydN7mhJOIg

In fact, most expectant mothers, doctors, friends, family etc, all have no problem calling a fetus a baby. The only people who do in my experience, is those wishing to dehumanize them and I wonder why they would want to do that.

seamus wrote: »

Sure. But that's a separate matter that is not relevant to medical abortions.

Well neither is restrainting pregnant women to either continue or terminate the pregnancy. That is not on the ballot paper either so why is it okay to include them and rule out the legal “opt-out” one?

SusieBlue wrote: »

I agree, and even though I have no idea how it would be workable or enforced, I can see the point about a system where a man can "opt out" of a pregnancy and subsequent child rearing, if a woman wants to continue a pregnancy and he doesn't.
As I said, I have no idea how such a system would work, but I can see why some would support it.

It’s about the only way I can see that allows both parties a somewhat level playing field.

JRant wrote: »

Well neither is restrainting pregnant women to either continue or terminate the pregnancy.

Of course it is. Restraining a pregnant women to force her one way or another is completely relevant to the abortion debate, because ultimately that's the question; whether termination of a pregnancy should be a woman's choice.

why is it okay to include them and rule out the legal “opt-out” one?

Because the "legal opt-out" is not affected by the 8th amendment in any way, shape or form. There is nothing preventing it from being done right now, today.

Its not an all-or-nothing issue where women should only be allowed have abortions if men can have their equivalent. They're two very different issues and so require two separate debates.

Outlaw Pete

JRant wrote: »

It’s about the only way I can see that allows both parties a somewhat level playing field.

Personally, I am totally against paper / financial abortions as they give men a way of not facing up to their responsibilities.

Given that one of the reasons I don't think it should be legal for healthy women to abort healthy babies is because I feel they should accept the responsibility that they have created a baby, why would I then out of the other side of my mouth say that I think men should have a way of running away from theirs.

That would be hypocritical in my eyes.

seamus wrote: »

Of course it is. Restraining a pregnant women to force her one way or another is completely relevant to the abortion debate, because ultimately that's the question; whether termination of a pregnancy should be a woman's choice.

Because the "legal opt-out" is not affected by the 8th amendment in any way, shape or form. There is nothing preventing it from being done right now, today.

Its not an all-or-nothing issue where women should only be allowed have abortions if men can have their equivalent. They're two very different issues and so require two separate debates.

The clue is in the thread title Seamus, ie men's rights on abortion. I am certainly not not suggesting an all or nothing approach, merely stating my own opinions on how we could possibly make it more equal.

antiskeptic

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Really! 120,000 women chose a backstreet abortion in 1967 over the opportunity to have that abortion in a professional medical setting?

😀

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.

This post has been deleted.