Should men have a say in abortion ?

I'm not interested in your fucking youtube video.

You can't say shit on your own.

:EDIT:

Maybe you're scared.
 
What more can be said, Beer? There are two opposing views on the issue, and we will never agree.
 
Capracus said:
I would say it would be a case of domestic abuse to insist that a woman continue with a pregnancy she did not want. To request that a woman take the much less risky path in regards to her health can hardly be considered a case of abuse. What if a woman desired that a man impregnate her and he refused, would that also be an example of coercion because he withheld his essence from her? Why should he owe her fatherhood simply because she desires it at a time when it’s in her best interest health wise to stop the pregnancy? If she wants to continue over his objection, then she’s free to do so on her own. He should bear no responsibility for an entity that does not, and does not have to exist, and would only come into existence to satisfy the pleasure of the mother.

If a woman has the right to not become a parent and and avoid the complications and dangers of pregnancy, then the sperm donor should as well. This feminist makes the same proposition.

Men Should Be Able To Opt Out of Parenthood Too
https://thelibertarianrepublic.com/men-should-be-able-to-opt-out-of-paternity/
Click to expand...
Is he ''donating'' his sperm willingly, though? He could wear a condom, potential problem averted. Sometimes, in the heat of a sexual moment, it's not always front of mind to worry over birth control, but men should be as culpable for the end result of all sexual encounters, as a woman. The problem is, many men don't want to be held responsible, and then women are left having to deal with the consequences on their own. And, then many of those same irresponsible walk-away men, want to tell women through legislation, etc... -- you can't have an abortion. So, in essence, women are being held responsible for not only what we do in sexual situations, but what men do in sexual situations. Not to sound cliche but ''that's not fair.''
 
Last edited:
Bowser said:
What more can be said, Beer? There are two opposing views on the issue, and we will never agree.
Click to expand...
I didn't look at the video.

Try me if you're not afraid of hiding behind a video and all that....

:EDIT:
Since I've posted, you've failed to say anything I'd have to disagree with - you're a coward.
 
Last edited:
Musika said:
Yes, that is one silly argument, but in the context of this discussion she lends herself to another one.
Click to expand...
It's dumb. Namely, would you want to be aborted? It equates a fetus with a living person, when it's really just a potential one. And it's beside the point, which is that women are people with their own unalienable right to bodily autonomy. And secondarily, it's rare for abortions to occur so late term. When they do, there is usually a serious medical reason.
 
If white conservative males are able to dictate to women what they can and can't do with their own bodies, it can surely go both ways. Today it is those men saying "You're not allowed to have an abortion". Tomorrow, it could just as well be "You must have an abortion."

What these men are saying to women is: "We don't trust you to make decisions about your own body or about your own children. So, we're removing that prerogative from you and taking it for ourselves. We will control you, for your own good - your own good being, of course, whatever we decide it is."
 
Capracus said:
What if a woman desired that a man impregnate her and he refused, would that also be an example of coercion because he withheld his essence from her?
Click to expand...
Now there's a vacant argument! Coercion means forcing someone to do something. Denying someone a thing they desire has no element of force.
(His essence? Its just semen, same as what spills on the centerfold and the sheets.) Whether there is abuse depends on what's being withheld in what circumstances. For example, Muslim men are no longer allowed to rape their wives, but can withhold food if they refuse sex. That's coercion.
Why should he owe her fatherhood simply because she desires it at a time when it’s in her best interest health wise to stop the pregnancy?
Click to expand...
It depends on whether he has a contractual obligation. That goes both ways, too. If a couple previously agreed on parenthood, they owe each other whatever their roles call for. Either one can still opt out, but there is usually some penalty for breach of contract.
If she wants to continue over his objection, then she’s free to do so on her own. He should bear no responsibility for an entity that does not, and does not have to exist, and would only come into existence to satisfy the pleasure of the mother.
Click to expand...
Of course! But if he withheld his essence and she left him for a man who does consent to fatherhood, the question is moot anyway.
He has the option of divorce or attempting a reconciliation - but the latter course would include another man's child.
If a woman has the right to not become a parent and and avoid the complications and dangers of pregnancy, then the sperm donor should as well.
Click to expand...
Yes, every man has the option of not donating the sperm.
But, of course, a lot of men who never thought about the consequences when they carelessly "donated", do opt out. So do a lot of men who took marriage vows and deliberately fathered offspring. Lots of men opt out two, five, ten years after the fact. Very few women do.
 
I posted this by accident in another abortion thread that is running concurrently with this one. Excuse me if I post it again here, which is really where it should go.

Here are two scenarios for our conservative friends to contemplate:

1. A man is dying of bone cancer and needs a marrow transplant. Nobody in his immediate family is a compatible donor, but there is a cousin who could donate his marrow. The cousin, however, refuses to donate some of his marrow. He says that he has had a dream that he might not survive the anesthetic applied if the procedure to extract some of his marrow is carried out. There is no medical basis to think there is any great risk to the cousin, bone marrow extractions being routine surgical procedures. It is certain that without the transplant, the cancer patient will not survive, and it is extremely unlikely that another compatible donor can be found in time to save him.

Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the cousin in this case to undergo the procedure to donate some of his bone marrow to the cancer patient? Bear in mind that a man's life is at stake here and all life is sacred, as you tell us it is in the case of abortion.

2. A mother has a young child - 3 or 4 years old - with a heart problem. Due to a number of factors, this child can only be kept alive by physically connecting the child to the mother, so that the mother's heart can essentially act as a temporary pump for the child's blood. The child will almost certainly die if the procedure is not performed.

Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the mother in this case to be connected to the child, so as to keep the child alive? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the connection would need to be maintained for 9 months. Bear in mind that the child's life is at stake and all life is sacred.

Question: would it make any difference if it was the child's father who was to be connected in scenario 2 instead of the mother?
 
Another question:

Do you conservatives think it is right that a woman who becomes pregnant as a result of being raped, who then has an abortion, should be liable to be jailed for a longer term of imprisonment than her rapist would receive for his crime? Do you support this kind of punishment for abortion?
 
James R said:
Question: would it be appropriate for the government, through legislation say, to compel the mother in this case to be connected to the child, so as to keep the child alive? Let us say, for the sake of argument, that the connection would need to be maintained for 9 months. Bear in mind that the child's life is at stake and all life is sacred.

Question: would it make any difference if it was the child's father who was to be connected in scenario 2 instead of the mother?
Click to expand...
In the real world, almost no mother, and few fathers would hesitate to agree. No compulsion need be applied.
In the real world, women - statistically - make the best mothers. If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, she has a good reason.
 
Another question:

Do you conservatives agree with the legislator who said that an 11 year old girl who became pregnant as a result of rape should be jailed if she had an abortion, because there is an innocent life at stake (namely, the unborn baby's)? Is this what you support?
 
wegs said:
Is he ''donating'' his sperm willingly, though? He could wear a condom, potential problem averted. Sometimes, in the heat of a sexual moment, it's not always front of mind to worry over birth control, but men should be as culpable for the end result of all sexual encounters, as a woman. The problem is, many men don't want to be held responsible, and then women are left having to deal with the consequences on their own. And, then many of those same irresponsible walk-away men, want to tell women through legislation, etc... -- you can't have an abortion. So, in essence, women are being held responsible for not only what we do in sexual situations, but what men do in sexual situations. Not to sound cliche but ''that's not fair.''
Click to expand...
For the most part I agree. The exception I would make is if both parties agreed _beforehand_ what the outcome would be and who would be responsible. (True for a lot of things, not just paternity.)
 
Beer w/Straw said:
I'm not interested in your fucking youtube video.

You can't say shit on your own.
Click to expand...
That is true of several abortion opponents here. They are asked what they believe, and they answer with:

- more questions ("oh, so it's OK to kill kids?" or the like)
- links to Youtube videos
- links to religious leaders saying stuff about abortion
- pithy one liners that have nothing to do with the topic

They can't respond to the question directly, because often they don't have a good rationale for their explanation beyond "my side believes this so I do too."
 
Bowser said:
What more can be said, Beer? There are two opposing views on the issue, and we will never agree.
Click to expand...

You haven't said anything. You simply posted a video.

And seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you? Are you utterly incapable of describing whatever circumstances which might make this Gianna Jessen pertinent to this thread? I mean, at least with Musika, I can understand the relevance with respect to advocacy; although why he couldn't simply spell it out, instead of telling us--repeatedly-- to "google Gianna Jessen," is beyond me.

And what is it with the anti-abortion crowd that makes them, seemingly, incapable of honest discourse? I'm sure there's someone out there who will approach the subject in an appropriate manner, it's just that I, personally, have never come across such a person.
 
Do men want a say in abortion?
Yes, many men do.
Most, only if and as a particular conception concerns them, for one of four reasons: they're held accountable when they don't want to be fathers; they do want to be fathers; they feel responsible whether anyone else takes them to task or not; they care about the woman.
Many, for ideological/religious/sentimental reasons, are sincerely concerned about the newly conceived life. In this case, they generally have not given the matter a great deal of rational thought, but have an emotional/cultural/habitual response to the idea of terminating any pregnancy. (This btw is the only category wherein an individual might change his position.)
And there's the faction that simply can't face being left out of any decisions about anything regarding anybody - the control freaks.

Should men have a say in abortion?
I believe married men have a right to a say - but not the last word.
I'm inclined to believe that all of the first category - the ones with a vested interest in the outcome - should be heard, with serious consideration.
The ones with emotional and moral concerns should be able to engage in moderate, reasoned discourse and have their concerns addressed, fully and factually, in the light of real-world circumstances.
The last lot have talked and lectured and preached and exhorted and yelled and screamed and bellowed and roared and left nothing unsaid.
They need to give it rest.
 
Capracus said:
If a woman has the right to not become a parent and and avoid the complications and dangers of pregnancy, then the sperm donor should as well. This feminist makes the same proposition.
Click to expand...
We've been over this.
All the men already have exactly the same rights as the woman, including the right to avoid pregnancy by getting an abortion.
 
Last edited:
Jeeves said:
Should men have a say in abortion?

I believe married men have a right to a say - but not the last word.
I'm inclined to believe that all of the first category - the ones with a vested interest in the outcome - should be heard, with serious consideration.
The ones with emotional and moral concerns should be able to engage in moderate, reasoned discourse and have their concerns addressed, fully and factually, in the light of real-world circumstances.
Click to expand...

I agree wit the above... unless its directed to the pregnant woman who dont want to hear ANY of it.!!!
 
Jeeves said:
If a woman wants to terminate a pregnancy, she has a good reason.
Click to expand...

women or Girl
... i think the state should not interfere with the reasoning behind the termination choice.

morally it would be asking republicans to fill out a questionnaire sheet describing why they think the republicans should win and what key policys they would be choosing and examining their final mark prior to allowing them to vote.
(actually im starting to like this idea as compulsory with voter registration id cards for all states)

Jeeves said:
In the real world,
Click to expand...
little girls are sold by their parents to men as rape-bride-sex-slaves
child marriage is a saintly name for child sex slave
it is called culture and custom by many cultures
legal age of marriage shows clearly the "real world" intellect of human rights by the nature of legal consent concepts.

while i get your point, i think it is lost on many.
Err Go
a man who has real love for his partner would never interfere or object to her choice to have an abortion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top