Should men have a say in abortion ?

Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by RainbowSingularity, May 25, 2019.

  1. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    mooning your rights with a man
    im-a-let-you gestate because i have a penis

    "you want Beyoncé to notice you? do something really crazy man ! do something she cant ignore, demand her to give you her attention, just do something crazy, she wont be able to refuse you"
    "when you want something in this world, you gotta go out and take it ! take it like a man"
    "men dont ask for permission, they just take it"
    "make it happen"
    "just do it"
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Bells Staff Member

    Yeah, you noticed that too?

    It's hysterical, isn't it?

    I mean, we wouldn't be able to make any of this crap up, to be honest.

    Take Bowser as a prime example, he's now decided to change the subject:

    This is what he comes up with when the thought of a woman's fundamental human rights over her own body is brought up.


    Yes Bowser, male suicide, workplace health and safety and homicide rates are horrific.

    But what does this have to do with women's fundamental human rights over their own bodies?

    Are you suggesting there is a correlation? Are more men dying in the workplace because women decide to have abortions? Are more men killing themselves because women have human rights?

    But let's go there, shall we?

    Let's compare. Pre Roe vs Wade, shall we?

    In 1972, the year before Roe v. Wade, the rate of maternal mortality in the United States was 34 deaths for every 100,000 births. In 1973, after legalization of abortion, the rate declined by 50%.

    How about we compare it to suicide for men in the UK, from your BBC link?

    Now, I would like you, Bowser, to explain this to me.

    Around the world, Governments are putting forward measures that will reduce the rates of suicide, particularly among males, through programs, education, community support and the like. Lifeline numbers are easily available, as are suicide prevention numbers.

    In short, people are trying to reduce the incidents of suicide. And it is working. The numbers are going down.

    My question is this..

    Why do men like you support going backwards, to the days where in the US, so many women were dying due to lack of abortion access?

    Here's the thing about progress.. You want to move forward. You want to reduce deaths.

    I find it astonishing that you linked what you did, not only because of a clear example of trolling and trying to shift the topic and avoid answering any goddamn question or comment from a woman in a thread that pertains to our bodies, but also because you linked to subject matters and issues that everyone is trying to resolve to ensure less people die, while actively supporting legislation and policies that will see more women actually die..

    What the hell kind of person actively supports policies that will result in more women dying?

    Or are you that guy, who wants to force women to remain pregnant like we are some fucking incubators?

    See, the question of abortion rights is actually about human rights, Bowser..

    When Wegs and I express shock and disgust at how men are drowning out our voices about things that directly affect our bodies, it's not because we just think you are sexist prigs.

    It's because you seem to believe you know more or better about our bodies and should somehow have a say or control over our bodies, thereby dismissing our human rights.

    And you actually had the cheek to do so by linking things that affect male mortality, things that everyone is trying to improve to reduce the mortality rate, while actively supporting policies that would increase female mortality..
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. Bells Staff Member

    Democracy, Handmaid's Tale style..
    wegs likes this.
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tiassa Let us not launch the boat ... Valued Senior Member

    You could have been more specific.

    You were asked; you chose to respond otherwise.
  8. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    More talk from you about being-the-scenes conspiracies.

    I note that you have not managed to come up with a link or reference to the supposed private conversation you and I are supposed to have had, which you referred to above and which I directly asked about. I'm thinking there's nothing behind this latest conspiracy allegation of yours, either.

    Sorry, it's not clear whether you're confirming my hypothesis or making some other point. I didn't assert anything. I gave you my personal impression of the situation and I asked you a question. Like Bowser, you seem unable or unwilling to answer straight questions. Why is that?

    Yes, I have. Thanks for asking.

    It's interesting that you characterise my views on abortion as political. I'll concede that such views necessarily become political because it is state actors who are determining whether women can access abortion. But the basis of my position lies more in moral philosophy than in politics. I'm not primarily motivated to argue for the right to access abortion because I don't like the conservative, Republican legislators who are trying to remove that right. The right is a human right. Ideally, it should be above politics. I would also add that the science, the economics and the sociological evidence all also strongly points to the conclusion that abortion ought to be freely available. Anybody objectively evaluating all the evidence and making a sensible moral decision, taking all relevant interests into account, should be able to reach the same conclusion, regardless of their political persuasion. And, indeed, I note that there are many Republicans who support the right of women to access abortion. In fact, I think the figure is that about 70% of Americas across the board support that, which means that at least 60% of Republicans do.

    To the question of honesty in discussions of this topic on sciforums, I put up the evidence of the current thread as an exhibit. Some time ago, I put a number of specific questions to the anti-abortionists here, such as yourself, including two scenarios that may at this point seem unrelated to the main question. I have received no direct replies to any of those questions I asked, to date. For you part, you have chosen instead to say that you can't/won't answer because you're afraid I will ban you or something for daring to hold a different opinion to mine.

    So, what I can say is that, while I have had honest and open discussions about this topic in the past - some of which went on for hundreds of posts, by the way, with no moderator intervention from me - my assessment of this current discussion with you and Bowser is that neither of you is coming to it in good faith. In fact, you're afraid to discuss the matter with me at all, if we are to take your posts on the matter at face value (which, sadly, I don't think we can).

    The proof is in the pudding. See what happens when you ask me a direct question. See if I avoid it, or try to change the subject, or ignore it, like you and Bowser do with my direct questions.

    In the end, you and I both leave a trail of posts behind us in our time here. My record is now about 20 years long. I am not perfect. I am not faultless. But I am quite happy for my honesty to be judged by readers based on my record. Can you say the same about yours?

    You choose to come here. If sciforums is an oppressive place, akin to North Korea, as you would have it, then why do you keep coming back? To fight the good fight against the forces of darkness, of which presumably I am the Satan? To speak truth to power? Or what? Maybe your motives are not quite as lofty as all that. Maybe you're here for the trolling, for all I know. You tell me.

    What strikes me as particularly interesting in your case is that you're some kind of Christian, are you not? My understanding of Christianity is that, in its ideal expression, it holds its followers to high standards of honesty and integrity. I'm not getting that from you.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  9. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Du you believe all zygotes go to heaven?
  10. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    There are a number of them. Some are more overt than others. There are some knowing sexists and some for whom it probably has never occurred to them that they are sexist. But let's call it like it is: Bowser is knowing sexist, and he's just fine with that.

    Even when you ask them directly - as I did earlier in thread, for instance - a consideration of the pregnant woman's interests at any stage of the abortion debate just slides away unnoticed and unremarked on in the pro-life rhetoric. The woman is nothing more than an incubator for the precious unborn child - precious only up to the moment of it's birth, of course. It's just one more thing that exposes the lie about reverence for life that the pro-lifers tell. Only certain specific lives matter to these people. To tell the truth, I think for some of them it's not even that the babies' lives matter; what really matters is that they can exert their power to put women in what they consider to be their place. It's about dominance and control.

    Certain topics really bring the sexists out of the woodwork. Pretty much anything relating to women's rights is guaranteed to do the trick. Every time women assert their autonomy - whether it be having a vote or being able to choose an abortion - the sexists and misogynists come out in force to fight tooth and nail to prevent it.

    Look at this response to your post, from Bowser:
    See what he did there? No comment on the substance of your post. Just a dismissal of what you wrote with a one-liner, and a misleading one at that.

    Sure, Bowser doesn't resent you because you're a women. He resents you because you're a woman who won't toe his line. In his world, women ought to defer to him, not challenge him.

    Just quietly, I might say that I pointed out the same thing in what I think was my first post to this thread.

    I have noticed that there have been men in this thread who have argued amongst themselves while for the most part completely ignoring the input of the few women who have participated in the thread. I would have thought that, since women are the ones who are most affected directly by abortion, listening to and taking seriously their views on the matter should be a priority. But instead we get a lot of pompous pontificating from men who assume they know better than the little ladies what is good for them.


    It can't be overemphasied that laws prohibiting abortion won't stop abortions from happening. It never has before. What will happen is that women's lives will be put in jeopardy as they procure backyard abortions.
    wegs and RainbowSingularity like this.
  11. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    what percentage of Republican women think they should not have the right to access an abortion if they choose ?
  12. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Nice of you to jump to Musika's defence; I'm sure he appreciates it. In doing so, you're taking the thread further off-topic and on to matters of administration of the forum again. Since you have chosen once again to do this publically, I will respond to a few points you have made, because they do throw a light on certain matters.

    I agree. By now, I'm sure you or I could almost write his posts for him if we were so inclined. Mind you, the same could be said about a lot of people here. We're all predictable, given a long-enough acquaintance.

    Another conspiricist who implies without actually coming out and saying what he means. Which questions can't be discussed? I'm not saying there's aren't any, but it would help to know exactly what we're talking about if we're having a discussion.

    You think so? From my point of view, it quite nicely exemplifies and encapsulates certain attitudes and opinions that some of our members hold. It has also been quite a display of their approach to dealing with objections or, more accurately, refusing to deal with them.

    Meh. I have a lot of private conversations on this forum. I have 20 years of posts, as I mentioned earlier. To expect me to recall every detail off the top of my head might be regarded as optimistic by some. Your memory might be superior.

    I recall saying that, for the most part, our members are adults and thus supposedly are in possession of a certain level of maturity. I might also have said that some of us are educated and professional, which I am sure is true. Based on my own observations, I don't think its true in general that our members are highly educated. As for people getting upset, well that tends to happen in hot-button discussions like the one in the current thread, like it or not. It's more a matter of how you deal with being upset.

    It's kind of ironic that, just a bit above this post, we have Musika telling us all that he's quaking in his boots with fear because I might ban him because he disagrees with me. Yet here you are quoting a discussion in which I effectively defended Musika's right to be here [though there was no direct reference to Musika in that discussion, for the benefit of other readers], against your desire that we can do without the Bowsers and Musikas of sciforums. Hmm... food for thought.

    Lest our readers get the wrong idea, see that bit in brackets, where I wrote "see what I did there?" Those words were to make it clear to you, if there was any doubt, that I do not have "intense hatred" for anybody here. Most likely, I used the term "intense hatred" to mirror something that you had previously written as a characterisation of me. I know Americans don't do irony well, but here's another example. Good we cleared that up for you, though.

    Point taken. There is some truth in what you say.

    Another valid point.

    I haven't gone back to look. But either way, his reference to a private discussion that may never have taken place is a rhetorical device that he needed to be called on.

    There's no doubt that the likely motives for starting this thread in the first place could be held up to the light. I suppose, in a way, that's what you're doing. Nevertheless, that kind of thing remains a difficult thing to police in terms of moderation. My inclination is not to go around second-guessing people's motives when you're wielding a hammer.

    Every post adds to the tapestry that reveals the person behind it. Not everybody comes here with good intentions.
  13. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    From a poll published yesterday (7 June 2019), we can say this about women who identify as Republican or Democrat. (I'm not sure whether these are registered people or just people who say they support one or the other party.)

    77% of Democratic women identify as "pro-choice".
    68% of Republican women identify as "pro-life".

    62% of Republican women would like to see Roe v Wade overturned, or restrictions added to existing abortion laws.
    73% of Democrat women want to keep Roe v Wade the way it is or expand it to allow abortions under any circumstance or reduce existing legal restrictions.

    84% of Democratic women said they would be more likely to support state laws decriminalising abortion or making (criminal) laws less strict.
    62% of Republican women said they would be more likely to support laws to criminalise abortion or make existing (criminal) laws stricter.

    62% of Republican women oppose laws that allow abortion at any time during pregnancy in cases of rape or incest. They are the only demographic group to voice majority opposition to that. For example, 59% of Republican men say they would support such laws.

    Based on the polling, the greatest divide in opinions on abortion are not between men and women in general, but between supporters of the two political parties, and especially between the women of each party.

    To add my own speculation: one reason for this is that women in general are deserting the increasingly conservative Republican party. Those who still identify themselves with it tend to be hard-liners on a number of conservative social issues.
  14. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

  15. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    I look at what I wrote, and what you quoted, then I look at your reply.

    Did you comment on treating the foetus as an adult from the moment of conception? No.
    Did you you comment at all on the desires of the pregnant women faced with an unwanted pregnancy? Of course you didn't.
    Did you directly address anything I wrote in the part you quoted? No, you did not. Why is that?

    Instead, you've repeated something I already know. You say you believe human life has a right to exist. Well, so do I, up to a point. Is this the best you can do?

    Ban it, you mean. Outlaw it.

    Again, in passing, I look at what you quoted from me and what you wrote in response. You did not even attempt to touch on any of the themes I raised in the passage you quoted. Instead, we get from you this narrow focus on one single point, and not the most important one. Why is that? Why did you ignore the rest?

    Let's move on, regardless.

    I'm pro-choice. My position is that an unborn foetus, embryo or late-term baby is a human being. So, can we deal with that instead of this straw-man version that pro-choice people deny the humanity of the foetus?

    What I deny, after careful examination of the matter and grappling with the science and the philosophy of it all, is that a blastocyst, or a fertilised ovum, or a foetus up to a certain stage of development, is a person like you and me. Your skin cells are human. Your hair is human. Your sperm are human. Being human doesn't confer personhood on something.

    But that is not the be all and end all, anyway. Even if the unborn child is a person, we then are confronted by a conflict of rights and interests: namely those of the unborn child and those of the mother. My question to you is: why should the mother's rights to bodily autonomy be subordinated to the rights of the unborn child?

    If you're really so concerned with the sanctity of human life, tell me why you want to force women to go through the danger of pregnancy and childbirth against their will? Are you aware that carrying a baby to term is one of the most dangerous things a woman can do in her life?

    I see what you tried to do there, too. You tried once again to take the discussion off on a tangent, this time by making it personal.

    It is interesting that you regard pregnancy and the raising of children as, at worst, an "inconvenience". I know you've never been pregnant. Maybe you've never raised children either, or maybe you have a wife who did/does the heavy lifting in that department. If you do have a wife, maybe you ought to ask her about her experience of pregnancy and the nurturing of children. You might learn something.

    As for my mother, you'd have to ask her. I am incredibly grateful to her for bringing me into the world, for bringing me up and for supporting me in uncountable ways throughout my life. I hope that I have not been an unworthy recipient of her love and kindness, and that I have given something of value to her in return. I think I know what she would say to you in response to your impertinence, but I can't speak for her.

    That depends. What are you going to do?

    See, the thing is, Bowser, I don't think you're going to actually do anything. I think this is just an excuse to get out of the frying pan. It would be nice if I could take what you say at face value, but your ongoing lack of honesty makes that virtually impossible. You make your bed.

    Saints or whores, is it? You sure do seem to be an expert on women.

    45 million potential criminals, mass murderers, wife beaters, drunks, etc.

    But, you know, we can do better than guessing. We can look, for example, at the impact that Roe v Wade had on crime rates 20 years down the track. Guess what? A lot of those unwanted children, who would otherwise have led difficult and troubled lives and being a criminal burden on society, were never born. How do you think that affected crime rates in the United States?

    By the way, you ought to respond to Bells, too, before you leave the thread. How about making that a priority - you know, talk to a women about this? Or do you need to hear her questions from a man in order to take some notice?
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2019
  16. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Bowser just wants to fuck, have no responsibility and have as many babies as he can.
  17. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    You can never know.
    There are all kinds of polls, but they don't reflect what the women of the GOOP really think and feel, because they have no autonomous voice. Like their spineless husbands in legislatures, they bow to the party line. What you see is that claxton-voiced self-righteous blond spokes-bot that the GOOP always pushes out in front of the cameras - my theory is they're bred for the purpose in Stepford AL.
    Of course, there is also a large population of not-necessarily-Republican women, mostly beyond reproductive age, who are afraid of God, as well as/instead of their men.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  18. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You're making assumptions.
  19. Beer w/Straw Transcendental Ignorance! Valued Senior Member

    Is it true?
  20. wegs Matter and Pixie Dust Valued Senior Member

    What can be challenging with any forum, group, club, etc is trying to find that perfect balance between tolerating varying view points and becoming an echo chamber. If we become an echo chamber, then we lose diversity, but we need to draw the line at allowing people to use the forum as a pulpit for their prejudices.

    As for me? I'm going back to my drama-free bubble.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    RainbowSingularity and Write4U like this.
  21. Jeeves Valued Senior Member

    Sure. Recharge, then get bored and return to the hurly-burly.
    RainbowSingularity likes this.
  22. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    what came before judis ?
    ...prejudis !
  23. RainbowSingularity Valued Senior Member

    i could personality profile the groupings for you but it would be unfair to those women who fall into that group.
    lets just say the GOP fundi's prey on certain positions of self actualization and pre-req experiential positions.

    it fits their narrative quite nicely when they are at perfect breeding age.

    you know what is missing from their world that clearly shows how twisted they are.
    women in leadership roles and gay men working in their party & political administrations.
    if thats not a clear enough warning bell then your sleep walking toward a cliff.

Share This Page