What do you think of men passing abortion laws?
- Thread starter SeeIn2D
- Start date
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.Frungy said:
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.
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.
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.chadachada123 said:
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.
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.
You know what? I hate abortion talks. It's a nasty situation that everybody has been bickering about since I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG, and I don't really care. And because of this, I have decided that I am not really the advocate to talk to about it. So, my answers are going thusly, in one whole chunk...
The right to abortion should be determined only by people CAPABLE of giving birth. No other person has anything relevant to say. The argument at hand by people who do not have the PARTS is as mindless as drowning someone to prove that they're a witch.
The right to abortion should be determined only by people CAPABLE of giving birth. No other person has anything relevant to say. The argument at hand by people who do not have the PARTS is as mindless as drowning someone to prove that they're a witch.
1. I have a distinct problem with the idea that the choice is only a woman's, or even just the mother and father's. This stems from the fact that I have carefully thought about how to define a human life. In my opinion, there are two necessities for a human life:
A. It's human. This stems from the idea that it carries the human genome, and human DNA. A fertilized egg passes this test.
B. It's alive. We define single celled organisms to be alive. If a cell shows the ability to produce more cells like it, shows nuclear activity, or even just shows organelle processes, it is defined as living. A fertilized egg also passes this test.
For this reason I cannot support abortion because my opinion is that this becomes a human right's issue. I don't support the death penalty, war, or other forms of killing, and I cannot support what is, in my opinion, the death of a human life; or in this case "an abortion."
2. We vest our political rights in our legislature. Asking, "should men be able to legislate on abortion" (which as I've stated, in my mind is a human right's issue) is a little bit like asking "should non-gun owners be able to legislate on gun laws." The answer, quite simply, is yes, they should. A representative is elected to support the views of the people they represent. If they fail to do that, they should not be re-elected. A man can support the views of the people (male or female) just as a woman could.
That said, Edmund Burke once said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Our representatives will have to make decisions that cannot be simply held hostage to the whims of an ever changing American populace. Some stability must be held, and our representatives are elected to make these decisions and stick to them.
A. It's human. This stems from the idea that it carries the human genome, and human DNA. A fertilized egg passes this test.
B. It's alive. We define single celled organisms to be alive. If a cell shows the ability to produce more cells like it, shows nuclear activity, or even just shows organelle processes, it is defined as living. A fertilized egg also passes this test.
For this reason I cannot support abortion because my opinion is that this becomes a human right's issue. I don't support the death penalty, war, or other forms of killing, and I cannot support what is, in my opinion, the death of a human life; or in this case "an abortion."
2. We vest our political rights in our legislature. Asking, "should men be able to legislate on abortion" (which as I've stated, in my mind is a human right's issue) is a little bit like asking "should non-gun owners be able to legislate on gun laws." The answer, quite simply, is yes, they should. A representative is elected to support the views of the people they represent. If they fail to do that, they should not be re-elected. A man can support the views of the people (male or female) just as a woman could.
That said, Edmund Burke once said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion." Our representatives will have to make decisions that cannot be simply held hostage to the whims of an ever changing American populace. Some stability must be held, and our representatives are elected to make these decisions and stick to them.
America is a democracy, the laws in a democracy are supposed to be agreed upon by everyone. It's not complicated and parts of abortion law affect blokes as well so yes, it's perfectly alright for an elected house of representatives to decide on such matters. If people stopped being so damn partisan about gender life would be much better -.-
I'm against convenience abortions.
Men have as much of a say in this matter as women do simply because it's not a question of "rights" it's a question of life. If you disagree with that, I want you to, for a very brief moment consider how you would feel if you knew(not believed, not hoped, absolutely knew in the most profound sense) that life began at conception. Is it still a choice for the mother to murder another life? It's no more a "choice" for her than it is if I just murder a random person on the street.
Feel free to disagree with the "when" of life. I believe it starts at conception and that's why I'm against abortion.
Men have as much of a say in this matter as women do simply because it's not a question of "rights" it's a question of life. If you disagree with that, I want you to, for a very brief moment consider how you would feel if you knew(not believed, not hoped, absolutely knew in the most profound sense) that life began at conception. Is it still a choice for the mother to murder another life? It's no more a "choice" for her than it is if I just murder a random person on the street.
Feel free to disagree with the "when" of life. I believe it starts at conception and that's why I'm against abortion.
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.DVS BSTrD said:
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?
Abortion should absolutely be legal. Up until a certain number of weeks the fetus is nothing more than a glorified clump of oprganic matter. It has no "soul". It lacks what makes it human other than it's DNA.
I think that men should absolutely be able to have their input matter on questions of abortion, but not to force a woman to keep an organic clump against her will. They should be allowed to tell the required people that, "Hey, this is my offspring, I want it gone." and have that mean just as much as the womans input. They should never be able to force women to keep it though, that would be cruel.
On the political issue I cannot take a stand since I don't have the necessary knowledge of how US handles politics.
I think that men should absolutely be able to have their input matter on questions of abortion, but not to force a woman to keep an organic clump against her will. They should be allowed to tell the required people that, "Hey, this is my offspring, I want it gone." and have that mean just as much as the womans input. They should never be able to force women to keep it though, that would be cruel.
On the political issue I cannot take a stand since I don't have the necessary knowledge of how US handles politics.
Yes, women should be able to choose. However, I also believe that men should be able to choose in that they should be able to disavow themselves of all financial obligations towards the child as well as any legal right to do anything in the child's life. If abortion is cheaply available then we shouldn't get into the old problem this law was meant to counter (i.e. that of a woman going destitute because of an unwanted pregnancy which she could not support by herself.)SeeIn2D said:
Well, yes, of course, are you a sexist? It's impossible to argue that men only serve their own group. It was entirely white men who freed the black slaves. It was entirely men who passed women's suffrage once the majority of women supported women's suffrage. It was almost entirely men who invented all the myriad gadgets that transformed raising children from a full-time job into a part-time job thus allowing women to enter the workforce and still be mothers. It was mostly men who created the institutions to support women in their endeavors and it was men who enacted maternity leave. It was men who outlawed the barbarism of female genital mutilation.SeeIn2D said:
If men weren't allowed to act on exclusively female issues then women would be much worse off today.
I know im just jumping in right here, but im going to back up new guy real quick. Im a pro-lifer who does believe in helping new-born, underprivileged children. Most people I know who are pro-lifers believe in revamping the education system to be more effective. We also dont believe in invading countries to no other reasons than to invade them. Only if we have a reason, and to stay in America if we dont (lets not get into that point though). And healthcare... well if there was a way we could ALL pay in, and not SOME of us pay in and get help, then I would support more government intervention.DVS BSTrD said:
Again though, your throwing stone's just because "Oh man, evil pro-lifer's." We are more than what the media or politics say.