Men's rights on Abortion?

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.

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.

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.

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?

....... 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.

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.

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.

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.

....... 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"





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.

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: »

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.

JRant wrote: »

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.

I know. And if you read back on the thread I've given my opinion previously on what rights men could have in regards to a "legal" abortion.

But specifically right now we've moved onto discussing medical abortion and whether men should have a say in whether a woman gets one. And clearly the answer has to be no, because any procedure for enforcing that would be barbaric and because ultimately each individual has the right to personal integrity.

Right now, men have no say when it comes to abortion. The referendum on the eighth will not change that. So it's not a case of "women should only have abortion when men do". Because with that logic, men can never have an abortion equivalent unless the eighth is repealed.

And because realistically they are two very different issues requiring completely different frameworks, they can't be bundled into a single-issue campaign.