What do you think of men passing abortion laws?

[gazumped]

Pro-choice here, strong believer in the a-cluster-of-cells-does-not-have-more-rights-than-a-fully-sentient-human argument.

But if you say men can't pass laws on women's issues, does that mean we then can't justify rich people passing laws on the homeless? Abled bodied people passing laws on disability benefits and treatment? Well, to be fair, I think that'd make a lot more sense, but good luck finding a poor politician. Even a lot of the ones who come from poor backgrounds can't seem to resist the lure of private healthcare and schools (UK Member of Parliament Diane Abbott, I'm looking at you...)

I don't think the issue is necessarily that these people are men, after all, even Sarah Palin seems to lack the ability to emphasise with women who want agency over their bodies.

 

[aba1]

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.

Q1 - Women should be able to choose.
Q2 - If you have a problem with men passing these laws then elect some women!

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 agree with you in every way but I do feel the father should have a say in what will or won't happen to happen to his child as well. I get that women have to go through the procedure so they perhaps should get the deciding vote but I still think it is a little unfair for the father to have no say it is his kid too.

 

[The_Lost_King]

Q2 - If you have a problem with men passing these laws then elect some women!

That's like saying if I don't like the president elect a good one! There aren't any good ones. Seriously. both Mitt and Obama suck.

Then vote for another party, like the Libertarian party. The elections aren't just about who gets to be President. The two-party system in the U.S. persists largely because the populace by into the elections as merely the "Presidential Race", with a winner and a loser... instead of actually understanding that the elections are about representation.

My goodness, I'm not even a U.S. citizen and I understand the U.S. political system better than most people in the U.S.

captcha: vegan diet
Answer: No way in hell!

I know that there are other parties but just because I vote for them doesn't mean they are going to get elected. There will always has been and always will be only 2 parties that matter. Which is probably for the best. The reason a lot of democracies didn't work after ww2 is because their were 10 parties that all had the same standing. Plus I can't vote yet.

 

[aba1]

Oh boy I think I'm going to regret posting *prepares flame shield*

I disagree with abortion personally, mainly because I view an unborn child as having the same rights as a any human. I know that it can be argued that it is not really a human but a foetus or a bunch of cells so can be terminated without a problem however that logic doesn't sit right with me. For children that could be born with debilitating diseases or the birth would pose a risk to the mother, then that is a bit more morally grey for me, but I won't go into detail in this post. As for whether in should be illegal I don't know, I would personally have it limited to only in cases of risk to the mother or severe disabilities in the child. However that would mess create a whole new tangled mess of moral questions, with women who don't want the child and trying to force them to keep the child they don't is not something I could condone. So I guess the laws would have to allow women to choose what they do regardless of my personal feelings on the matter.

I think men should be part of the process of laws regarding abortion just as much as women. I mean they are affected by pregnancies also (not physically obviously), so it would be wrong to completely exclude men from the discussion. I'm not saying men should be able to dictate to women on abortion, but rather view points from both genders on either side of the issue should be considered when drafting up laws.

capctha: I love you

I can feel the love captcha

No need to worry dude it is a tricky subject and we are all mature people here who should be able to discuss ideas in a civilized fashion without hating someone for considering different opinions and options. If you keep a open mind it will encourage others to follow suit.

 

[DEAD34345]

People who are Pro-Life are Pro-Life because they believe it is not just about the woman's body, it is also about protecting the unborn child. To say it's just a law about womens' bodies is an opinion that only makes sense to people with one political opinion on it. Besides which, a law should be passed because it is right, not because the people who passed it belong to some arbitrary group of people who feel the subject matter is only important to them.

As for the question of abortion itself, I'm pro choice. I do feel that it's a very serious choice to make, though, and that people who use it frequently and repeatedly as a form of contraception are sick in the worst possible way.

 

[Snydeclyde]

Q1: Pro-choice
Especially since there are more circumstances than 'we forgot to use contraception', and if you get pregnant at an early age and don't want the baby that's a potentially severe decline in quality of life and potential for career advancement all for a silly mistake, though i do agree with an above poster that using it as a contraceptive method should yield some kind of punishment, or atleast have a limited use system to prevent abuse.

Q2: I think men should also get involved on this because most current laws mean a child, wanted or unwanted, affects both men and women.

Probably get flamed for this but:
In my opinion i don't think men get a fair rub of the green in this situation in that if a man gets a woman pregnant, states that he doesn't want the child or anything to do with it from day one ect, it doesnt matter because if the mother wants it, thats it and hes paying maintenance for 18 years, whereas if theres a pregnancy and the man wants the child but the woman doesn't she can just get an abortion and have the final say.

 

[Richardplex]

Q1 - pro choice
Q2 - I would hope people can be reasonable and intelligent about passing laws regardless of their gender, just as people can be unreasonable and stupid about it male or female.

If I disagreed with men passing abortion laws, that would be like, disagreeing with adults passing laws about education. It doesn't affect them because they've already gone through it, children/students should be the ones passing the laws!

 

[Frozen Donkey Wheel2]

Answer 1: I think abortion should allowed in the case of rape, and only in the very early stages of the pregnancy.

Answer 2: Men are perfectly capable of understanding the issue without ever going through it themselves. Plus, the father should be part of the decision. After all, it's his baby too.

 

[chadachada123]

Q1: I'm one of the few that not only thinks that abortions should absolutely be legally permissible, but that they are the moral imperative when you are currently unequipped or unprepared for child-rearing.

In short, if you bring a kid into this world without the money to raise him nor the drive to care for him when you could alternatively prevent him from ever gaining any semblance of consciousness nor the ability to feel pain you are an asshole. To me.

The rights issue doesn't even play into this, for me. Since the fetus has no ability to feel pain and no consciousness, there's no possible moral or legal issues with terminating it.

Q2: To allow them, absolutely. To prevent them, I'm not even sure that it should be on the table to begin with, for males or females. Why should females be able to dictate the rights of other females?

 

[chadachada123]

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.

 

[Tiberiu Paul Iordache]

Q1: I'm one of the few that not only thinks that abortions should absolutely be legally permissible, but that they are the moral imperative when you are currently unequipped or unprepared for child-rearing.

In short, if you bring a kid into this world without the money to raise him nor the drive to care for him when you could alternatively prevent him from ever gaining any semblance of consciousness nor the ability to feel pain you are an asshole. To me.

The rights issue doesn't even play into this, for me. Since the fetus has no ability to feel pain and no consciousness, there's no possible moral or legal issues with terminating it.

Q2: To allow them, absolutely. To prevent them, I'm not even sure that it should be on the table to begin with, for males or females. Why should females be able to dictate the rights of other females?

I absolutely agree with your opinion regarding the first question. If anyone is unprepared (regardless of how) to bear the burden of raising a child then THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE A CHILD.
If the unprepared ones did nothing to prevent conception well then the only choices left are abortion until they become prepared or giving birth anyway, ruining their own lives and most likely another life, a life that is COMPLETELY INNOCENT.

 

[Compatriot Block]

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.
2. Yes, I think men should have that right. Just like women should be able to have decisions about men.

I think the first point you raised is an important one.

I'm not sure how it should be handled legally, but I do think it is important to consider the man's opinion somehow, especially when he may end up being obligated to support the child. When viewed at that angle it seems a bit unfair to give the woman the only vote.

 

[yeti585]

Question: Do you agree that women should be able to choose or do you think that abortion should be illegal?

I think that a woman should choose. I mean put yourself in her shoes, she has been told she is going to have a child that she will not be able to support, (or doesn't want) the last thing she needs is someone shoving beliefs down her throat. If the mother just plain doesn't want the child, then she is not going to take care of it (it, because English does not have gender-neutral pronouns) well. What if the father does not want the kid/is not ready to be a father? then you have a single mother.

Question 2: Do you think that men have a right to help pass or stop a law which prevents abortion?

Yes, one-hundred-and-fifty-percent yes. It is a decision that effects them. You need two people to create a child, that or one person and a donor. But, I doubt many people that go the donor route are going to get abortions.

captcha: know your rights
captcha after error: political party
Uhh guuuuuuuuuys captcha is creeping me out

 

[Kaporal Kriss]

I always find this debate about abortion to be very ludicrous. Before you should consider abortion to be legal or not you should ask that very simple question; does your country have the program and the infrastructure to help those women and their children? Can you take care for those peoples once the baby has come to the world?
If you can take care of all those women and mostly young girls, if the baby can come to this world with a guaranty that he will be properly taken care of, THEN and ONLY then should the debate about abortion take place!

 

[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.

 

[Something Amyss]

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.

That's the earmark of a Republic, actually (which the US is, for the record). Democracy would be direct votes on the issues. We elect representative officials. In a Democracy, we would see a different outcome on abortion because the representatives we have will never line up with our own personal feelings. There are always other issues on the table and elections are a complex beast.

 

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

 

[godfist88]

1: i think woman should have the right to choose to do with their own bodies, it's not up to the government to tell us how to live our lives.

2: i think it's asinine that men are the ones passing these laws, what gives them the right to tell woman what they can and can't do? this isn't a patriarchal society, no matter how much they want it to be.

 

[Stripes]

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.

 

[DaphneRose]

Hm, there's a lot of discussion about how women voted these people into office and that these public officials represent the combined voices of their constituents.

And that's all true- in theory.

I think it's still pretty clear that, at least for now, the glass ceiling still very much exists. The people who have the money and prestige to run are generally

1) white
2) male
3) rich

The senate holds 100 chairs, of which only 17 are women.
In congress, out of 535 chairs, women only occupy 90.

Of course men, which traditionally hold these roles will likely only support those who fall into the same three categories (WMR) as them. Thus perpetuating the cycle of old, white, rich men in office representing an incredibly diverse population. They'll be the ones who get the most support, can run the most intense campaigns, and have the deepest networks to rely on in order to get their position. I don't think this'll last forever, as a side note, but it's definitely there now.

But even if it's just white rich men in office, they still have to represent their constituents, right?

Sure, except in 2011 162 restrictive abortion provisions were enacted [http://www.guttmacher.org/media/inthenews/2011/07/13/index.html]... triple of what was enacted in 2010, despite the US people generally being pro-choice [http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/january_2012/49_of_voters_are_pro_choice_43_pro_life].

Though, in actuality, that number seems to be swinging during this campaign season. Gallup polls have shown that people are now shying away from the label of "pro-choice" but the number of people who believe that abortion should be legal during certain situations (rape, incest, life threatening) are firmly on the rise...

So, knowing all this, how can our representatives continue to pass provisions and bills that ban abortion altogether, even if the fetus has already died in womb, or force doctors to arrange funeral services for aborted fetuses? Clearly, this is legislative shaming, some form of political warfare in an already traumatizing experience, and it's not what the people want. I don't know many Americans who believe that a child, victim, or mother who may die in childbirth should be forced to carry to term... or endure seeing the unborn fetus' heartbeat, funeral, or be inspected to see if she's being "coerced" into going through with an abortion.

So I think that perhaps there's something not quite right here.

Anyway,

q1. I do, but I think it should generally be reserved for a) rape b) incest c) mother's health d) major fetal anomaly
q2: Sure. The conception of a child comes from the meeting of two sexes. But there needs to be more women on the floor... and they need to be acknowledged, respected, and listened to. People seem to forget that they have the exact same qualifications (if not more so, being women) as the men in this particular issue. They've got years of government work beneath their belt, they fought for their seat, and represent a large number of people who clearly believe in them enough to vote them into office.

So that's my tangent for the day.