Men's Abortion Rights.

PhantomWolf

Penultimate Amazing
PhantomWolf
Joined
Mar 6, 2007
Messages
21,203
So a relatively simple question with what is probably a nor so simple answer.

If you are a man and disagree with Abortion, can you express what you think gives you the right to dictate how a woman who is unrelated to you, and not in a relationship with you, should have to deal with her own body?

And so as not to be totally sexist, if any of our woman posters disagree with abortion, free feel to come to the table and express why you think you have the right to dictate other women's action with their own bodies too.
 
PhantomWolf said:
So a relatively simple question with what is probably a nor so simple answer.



If you are a man and disagree with Abortion, can you express what you think gives you the right to dictate how a woman who is unrelated to you, and not in a relationship with you, should have to deal with her own body?



And so as not to be totally sexist, if any of our woman posters disagree with abortion, free feel to come to the table and express why you think you have the right to dictate other women's action with their own bodies too.
Click to expand...
As a devil's advocate:

The fertilized egg (and from there onwards) is a human life... as such it deserves the same rights and protection as any other human life. It's our duty as society to enforce those rights and that protection.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk
 
From the thread title I thought this would be about something else.

Fwiw, I support a woman's (or man's) right to choose to terminate a pregnancy at a reasonably early stage thereof and in cases where there are special medical issues.
 
Personally think at the end of the day it is the choice of the woman involved, but having said that if the couple are splitting over it or whatever I would hope the woman gives a decent amount of thought to the blokes side if he wants to bring the child up separate from the woman. I know the woman still has to carry the thing to term, but a bit of give and take is always nice.

End of the day though. It is the womens body, so her choice.
 
Amazer said:
As a devil's advocate:

The fertilized egg (and from there onwards) is a human life... as such it deserves the same rights and protection as any other human life. It's our duty as society to enforce those rights and that protection.
Click to expand...


That is absolute nonsense. Or at the very most, it's just one very simplistic metric. (I realize you are being devil's advocate and just spewing their favorite talking point.)

It can just as easily be argued that a human being is not sentient until several months after birth. Compare human gestation periods to other mammals and research the various reasons for the length.

Don't get me wrong, you should still not be allowed to kill a newborn baby, just like you should not be allowed to kill a dog or a cat.


To be very clear, killing a 5 year old is much more evil than killing an embryo or a fetus is. Full stop.

The only people that would equate the two are the same people who have been brainwashed since they were children into being in a creator cult. FFS, they think everyone has a magical space ghost inside them so they can pretty much go **** themselves with having an opinion on actual science or law.
 
This is The End said:
That is absolute nonsense. Or at the very most, it's just one very simplistic metric. (I realize you are being devil's advocate and just spewing their favorite talking point.)

It can just as easily be argued that a human being is not sentient until several months after birth. Compare human gestation periods to other mammals and research the various reasons for the length.

Don't get me wrong, you should still not be allowed to kill a newborn baby, just like you should not be allowed to kill a dog or a cat.


To be very clear, killing a 5 year old is much more evil than killing an embryo or a fetus is. Full stop.
The only people that would equate the two are the same people who have been brainwashed since they were children into being in a creator cult. FFS, they think everyone has a magical space ghost inside them so they can pretty much go **** themselves with having an opinion on actual science or law.
Click to expand...

Depends how late in it is surely

When the conversation turns to after 25 weeks odd, unless the potential kid or mother is seriously in medical **** ville she gets a bit dodge
 
The complication is that there are two entities to consider - not just the woman (I've disregarded the man, because he should have absolutely no rights over the course of action that the woman may take (but I agree ... it might be nice to discuss the options! :))).

In my opinion, there should be (and indeed are, in some jurisdictions), time limits within which abortions may be undertaken. And those time limits should vary according to circumstances. A condition giving rise to either the mother or baby suffering or risking ill health, deformity and the like, should have a longer limit than a simple decision to abort for convenience - but both should be allowed - indeed possibly advised in the case of the former.
 
Amazer said:
As a devil's advocate:

The fertilized egg (and from there onwards) is a human life... as such it deserves the same rights and protection as any other human life. It's our duty as society to enforce those rights and that protection.

Sent from my SM-M305F using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
No it isn't.

The idea that a zygote is "a human life" with full rights is a romantic notion at best. The underlying thinking is that the zygote's "rights" always exceed the mother's rights, because every zygote always successfully grows up to be a perfect beautiful bouncing baby that everyone must love. So that goo-goo gushiness and god-given authority overrides any sensible decisions by the parents.

That simply is not true in real life. The situations are always more complex than this ultra-simplistic view of god-given perfection.

Many pregnancies end naturally without a live birth. Miscarriage and stillbirths are facts of life. More frequent than we probably realise. Many women have had to deal with this. It's normal, natural, but also traumatic and heartbreaking.

And yet there are places in this world where women for whom this happens are being sent to jail because they are accused of breaking the law and "killing their baby" by means of "illegal abortion". So not only the heartbreak of miscarriage but torture for "defying god's will".
 
I can't find a way to justify agreeing with a "men's abortion right". My reasoning when it comes to abortion is based around "woman's body, woman's choice". I understand that seems to create an insurmountable sense of "unfairness", but unfortunately the only apparent way to assuage it is to allow another person to override an otherwise conscious and mentally-sound woman's right to medical self-determination, which I can't support.

Conceptually, the mother's desire to have an abortion and the father's desire to keep and raise the child carry equal weight. Nature happens to break the tie, by putting the embryo in the mother's body. One might argue that seems to give the mother an unfair "advantage", but the problem is that allowing the father's wishes to override the mother's and compel her to carry the child to term against her wishes doesn't restore balance, it just arbitrarily gives the father the advantage instead.
 
Last edited:
Checkmite said:
I can't find a way to justify agreeing with a "men's abortion right". My reasoning when it comes to abortion is based around "woman's body, woman's choice". I understand that seems to create an insurmountable sense of "unfairness", but unfortunately the only apparent way to assuage it is to allow another person to override an otherwise conscious and mentally-sound woman's right to medical self-determination, which I can't support.

Conceptually, the mother's desire to have an abortion and the father's desire to keep and raise the child carry equal weight. Nature happens to break the tie, by putting the embryo in the mother's body. One might argue that seems to give the mother an unfair "advantage", but the problem is that allowing the father's wishes to override the mother's and compel her to carry the child to term against her wishes doesn't restore balance, it just arbitrarily gives the father the advantage instead.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. My point in my first post in the thread, was that I just hope that the female and her support give at least a bit of serious thought into if the bloke asks if he can bring it up if she agrees to have it.

If she decides no, she decides no.
 
cullennz said:
I totally agree. My point in my first post in the thread, was that I just hope that the female and her support give at least a bit of serious thought into if the bloke asks if he can bring it up if she agrees to have it.

If she decides no, she decides no.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you've ever had to make that decision (with a partner or family member) but assuming the woman thinks only of herself when making such a decision is largely the stuff of fantasy.

In short, it's not that the sperm donor deserves any particular consideration, but the idea of bringing the fetus to term and rearing it or giving it up for adoption has, no doubt, been considered. "Daddy donor" doesn't carry any weight.

Why is the question configured with daddy donor being the "wanna keep the kid" party? How about the scenario where daddy donor wants to abort and the mother doesn't? I sincerely doubt that right-to-lifers who overlap with MRAs are going to support the man's right to demand an abortion.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I don't know if you've ever had to make that decision (with a partner or family member) but assuming the woman thinks only of herself when making such a decision is largely the stuff of fantasy.

In short, it's not that the sperm donor deserves any particular consideration, but the idea of bringing the fetus to term and rearing it or giving it up for adoption has, no doubt, been considered. "Daddy donor" doesn't carry any weight.

Why is the question configured with daddy donor being the "wanna keep the kid" party? How about the scenario where daddy donor wants to abort and the mother doesn't? I sincerely doubt that right-to-lifers who overlap with MRAs are going to support the man's right to demand an abortion.
Click to expand...

I know it is hard to get as I have only said it twice, but hopefully three times might help. I think it is the womans decision.


And to your other point, well mainly because it is a totally different scenario.

If the bloke wants to ditch the kid and the woman doesn't, the womans rights win 100% of the time.
 
Foolmewunz said:
I don't know if you've ever had to make that decision (with a partner or family member) but assuming the woman thinks only of herself when making such a decision is largely the stuff of fantasy.

In short, it's not that the sperm donor deserves any particular consideration, but the idea of bringing the fetus to term and rearing it or giving it up for adoption has, no doubt, been considered. "Daddy donor" doesn't carry any weight.

Why is the question configured with daddy donor being the "wanna keep the kid" party? How about the scenario where daddy donor wants to abort and the mother doesn't? I sincerely doubt that right-to-lifers who overlap with MRAs are going to support the man's right to demand an abortion.
Click to expand...

BTW

I just texted my brother in law to tell him apparently he isn't the father of my nephews. He is just the "sperm donor" of them.

He laughed, so thanks for that
 
cullennz said:
BTW

I just texted my brother in law to tell him apparently he isn't the father of my nephews. He is just the "sperm donor" of them.

He laughed, so thanks for that
Click to expand...

Biologically, that's what he is. Surely that's not a new concept to you? It's an oft-used description.
 
cullennz said:
I know it is hard to get as I have only said it twice, but hopefully three times might help. I think it is the womans decision.


And to your other point, well mainly because it is a totally different scenario.

If the bloke wants to ditch the kid and the woman doesn't, the womans rights win 100% of the time.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know you said it twice, but I'm curious why you think that the bloke's thoughts need to be taken into consideration. Just because he's the bloke? Since it's the woman's decision his thoughts are superfluous. We agree on that.

I'm just curious what new element you think he's bringing to the discussion... that she wouldn't have considered, already.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Yeah, I know you said it twice, but I'm curious why you think that the bloke's thoughts need to be taken into consideration. Just because he's the bloke? Since it's the woman's decision his thoughts are superfluous. We agree on that.

I'm just curious what new element you think he's bringing to the discussion... that she wouldn't have considered, already.
Click to expand...


It is just called caring about anothers view point.

I'm actually regretting even mentioning in now.

I get you don't think the male participant should have any input/participation in the decision process.
 
Let me break it down: Suppose I put MY dollar in a soda machine... who does the soda belong to?
 
Cain said:
Let me break it down: Suppose I put MY dollar in a soda machine... who does the soda belong to?
Click to expand...

A deposit for a mortgage with your missus, with her having to pay a bit off by herself is probably a better analogy.

With the twist the missus can sell the house on you if they feel like it and not give you the deposit back.

Or pay off a fair bit off the house if they chose to keep it for a while, then you have to chip in.
 
Not to try and stop a fun argument, but in case of those with reading difficulties, this thread is not about "Father's rights", it's about those men that think they should have right to a say whether a woman who they don't know can have an abortion of not. You know the ones that want to change laws around the world to prevent any woman having it.

Feel free to carry on now.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not to try and stop a fun argument, but in case of those with reading difficulties, this thread is not about "Father's rights", it's about those men that think they should have right to a say whether a woman who they don't know can have an abortion of not. You know the ones that want to change laws around the world to prevent any woman having it.

Feel free to carry on now.
Click to expand...

Really what you are asking is, what gives any man the right to decide whether a female stranger can or cannot have an abortion.

Another way of thinking of this could be, if you were in a position to vote for or against legislation to outright ban abortion, which way would you vote, and if you would vote to ban, justify your reasons for doing so.
 
PhantomWolf said:
If you are a man and disagree with Abortion, can you express what you think gives you the right to dictate how a woman who is unrelated to you, and not in a relationship with you, should have to deal with her own body?
Click to expand...
This sounds like a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. Whether you agree or disagree with abortion is a separate issue on whether a man has a right to dictate what a woman can do with her body.
 
PhantomWolf said:
Not to try and stop a fun argument, but in case of those with reading difficulties, this thread is not about "Father's rights", it's about those men that think they should have right to a say whether a woman who they don't know can have an abortion of not. You know the ones that want to change laws around the world to prevent any woman having it.

Feel free to carry on now.
Click to expand...

Got ya

:thumbsup:

Though I am curious to know why you think a woman who doesn't know the pregnant woman has an opinion more important to whether the pregnant woman can have an abortion, than a dude who doesn't know the pregnant woman.
 
Information Analyst said:
Yes, oft-used in the context of a sperm donation from someone not in a relationship with the would-be mother, with the identities of the respective parties not usually known to each other.
Click to expand...

Thank you, Professor Obvious. I take it you don't hang out with a lot of feminists, particularly radical feminists. If you did, you'd be familiar with the term of disparagement for the male partner.
 
Foolmewunz said:
Thank you, Professor Obvious. I take it you don't hang out with a lot of feminists, particularly radical feminists. If you did, you'd be familiar with the term of disparagement for the male partner.
Click to expand...
That doesn't make the terminology of a misandrist the official definition of a father.
 
gerdbonk said:
Men who cannot get pregnant have no abortion rights. A woman's body belongs to her and not to her mate.
Click to expand...

I'll try to squint real hard and find an argument against that: the sperm that comprises the zygote is the man's, and he should have a say about it.

Not great, but not zero.
 
Southwind17 said:
The complication is that there are two entities to consider - not just the woman (I've disregarded the man, because he should have absolutely no rights over the course of action that the woman may take (but I agree ... it might be nice to discuss the options! :))).

In my opinion, there should be (and indeed are, in some jurisdictions), time limits within which abortions may be undertaken. And those time limits should vary according to circumstances. A condition giving rise to either the mother or baby suffering or risking ill health, deformity and the like, should have a longer limit than a simple decision to abort for convenience - but both should be allowed - indeed possibly advised in the case of the former.
Click to expand...

Gee, dude, I know we rarely agreed on anything but, hey, welcome back.
 
Belz... said:
Not that I'm against abortion, but: if the zygote isn't human life, what is it?
Click to expand...
That is the burning question. At what point does it become human? Some would say "it ain't human until the umbilical cord is cut" and some would maintain that it is human from the moment of conception. Most would try to specify some point during the pregnancy but it is like trying to say how many whiskers a man should have on his face before you call it a beard. There is no "correct" answer.
 
psionl0 said:
That is the burning question. At what point does it become human? Some would say "it ain't human until the umbilical cord is cut" and some would maintain that it is human from the moment of conception. Most would try to specify some point during the pregnancy but it is like trying to say how many whiskers a man should have on his face before you call it a beard. There is no "correct" answer.
Click to expand...

Right, I mean, my abortion cut-off point is viability, because of how I see the foetus... but isn't it a human life still?
 
I don't think I have the right to dictate. I democratically elect politicians to do that job for me.
 
Belz... said:
Right, I mean, my abortion cut-off point is viability, because of how I see the foetus... but isn't it a human life still?
Click to expand...
I would tend to agree that it is human but then that leaves the question, "does it have human rights (including the right to life)"? If not then does the description "human" mean anything?
 
Abortion would be less controversial if it were reframed as merely applying the death penalty to trespassing in someone's uterus. Trespassing is already a crime, and the death penalty is already a thing, and everyone agrees women's bodies are property, so all the elements are already in place.
 
Foolmewunz said:
And wherever you see an MRA, can wife beaters be far behind? Radical feminists may include but are not necessarily, misandrists.
Click to expand...

Would have said Radical MRA to match the radical feminist, but get he point.

Strangely, not everyone who is slightly worried about mens issues is Egor the terrible
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom