# Abortion and Mens Rights

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376>\
**Category:** Great Debates\
**Created:** [March 13, 2009, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376 "2009-03-13T23:04:36Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/101 "2009-03-16T22:10:52Z")

</div>

I don’t agree that a fetus is a person, so I don’t think it should have any rights. By extension, I disagree with **Frylock** ’s assertion and thus am totally against giving men a say in abortion. However, I do agree that abortion proponents have been short-sighted in repeating the “her body, her right” argument which **Frylock** refutes

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/102 "2009-03-16T22:26:37Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> Anti abortionists want to insist that a fertilized egg is a person with equal rights of protection. The problem is science does not support that premise so then it is a matter of a woman’s right to make certain determinations about her own body.

Are you saying Science _does_ support the premise that the fetus _isn’t_ a person, or just that it _fails_ to support the premise that the fetus _is_ a person?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/103 "2009-03-16T22:28:02Z")

</div>

> [@YogSosoth](#):
>
> I don’t agree that a fetus is a person, so I don’t think it should have any rights. By extension, I disagree with **Frylock** ’s assertion and thus am totally against giving men a say in abortion. However, I do agree that abortion proponents have been short-sighted in repeating the “her body, her right” argument which **Frylock** refutes

Which assertion of mine do you disagree with? As far as I know, “It’s not sufficient just to say ‘her body, her right’” is my entire point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/104 "2009-03-16T22:29:20Z")

</div>

> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Put some sperm in storage, get a vasectomy. That’ll teach her who’s boss.

do a lot of Kleenex in several wastebaskets count as storage?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/105 "2009-03-16T22:36:04Z")

</div>

Although people don’t have unlimited rights when it comes to what they do with their own bodies, the law gives us pretty strong protection against _other_ private individuals doing things to our bodies against our will.

If a fetus were to be considered a person, why should that give it any special right to make use of a woman’s body? _I’m_ a person, and I can’t just go around doing whatever I like with other people’s bodies.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/106 "2009-03-16T22:44:27Z")

</div>

> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Are you saying Science _does_ support the premise that the fetus _isn’t_ a person, or just that it _fails_ to support the premise that the fetus _is_ a person?

The reason the time frame of an abortion and questions of viability revolve around that. Anti abortionists and fearful politicians claim person hood from conception. A cluster of cells is not a person.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Frylock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/ce7236/32.png) [@Frylock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frylock)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/107 "2009-03-16T23:12:01Z")

</div>

> [@cosmosdan](#):
>
> The reason the time frame of an abortion and questions of viability revolve around that. Anti abortionists and fearful politicians claim person hood from conception. A cluster of cells is not a person.

I didn’t understand that as a response to my question. (I think there may be a major typo in your first sentence–it’s ungrammatical and I’m not sure how to reconstruct it. This may be part of why I failed to understand the response.)

Are you saying science _supports_ the claim that a cluster of cells _is not_ a person, or are you saying it _fails to support_ the claim that it _is_ a person?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/108 "2009-03-16T23:18:26Z")

</div>

> [@Frylock](#):
>
> I didn’t understand that as a response to my question. (I think there may be a major typo in your first sentence–it’s ungrammatical and I’m not sure how to reconstruct it. This may be part of why I failed to understand the response.)
> 
> Are you saying science _supports_ the claim that a cluster of cells _is not_ a person, or are you saying it _fails to support_ the claim that it _is_ a person?

Sorry. I thought it was clear. Science does not support the idea that a fertilized egg is a person. as in fails to support. If a fertilized egg is not a person then it’s all the woman’s body right? There is no person inside her with rights as the anti abortionists claim.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/109 "2009-03-16T23:36:37Z")

</div>

> [@Paleface](#):
>
> Man, talk about bullshit. (your words, not mine) Yes, it is the Court’s job to strike down unconstitutional laws, but what the Court did was to proclaim something unconstitutional, that was not unconstitutional.

Wrong. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional makes them unconsititutional. SCOTUS is the definitive, authoritative word on the matter. Constitutionality is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, so it is actually impossible for the Supreme Court to rule incorrectly on it. They are the ones who DEFINE what is correct.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/110 "2009-03-16T23:38:50Z")

</div>

> [@Paleface](#):
>
> I spelled it out… if you enlist a state-licensed and board-regulated practitioner to preform a proceedure, you have left the realm of privacy.
> 
> Now, **Diogenes** said that was absolutly false, but Diogenes is confusing confidentiality with privacy. There’s a difference.

Confidentiality falls under the ruberick of privacy. Doctor-patient confidentiality was at the heart of _Roe_.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/111 "2009-03-16T23:46:23Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> …The right to terminate a pregnancy does not give a woman control over someone _else’s_ body, which is what the OP wants here.

That really isn’t what I’m saying - or at least trying to say.

As I said earlier I have trouble reconciling this belief (that it shouldn’t always be _just_ the woman’s decision) with the fact that I recognize that it would violate a person’s right to their own body \<— a right I hold quite dear to my heart.

Unfortunately either the language or my mastery of it are insufficient to the task of expressing what I mean without recourse to words synonymous with “want” “desire” etc.

It isn’t that I feel that because a man wants a kid then a woman should be forced to bear it. Though I recognize this is one interpretation, and possible ramification, of what I said.

I do believe that given the criteria I listed in the OP the man should be taken into consideration.

I can’t argue this legaly even if I wanted to. Others far more knowledgable than me have already cited the relevant cases (I trust) and I can’t find fault in them - not that I’m qualified to anyway 😉

Likely I can’t even argue it logicaly because every arguement will result in the man choosing whether the woman remains pregnant.

It’s something that I feel. It isn’t that I feel hard-done-by. It isn’t that I feel like I’m being deprived of property. It isn’t that I’m pissed that biology is unfair.

I imagine it is something similar to the emotional feeling of a miscarriage except that a miscarriage IS biology and so you can take some comfort in it being nature doing its thing. The fact that it was never “a child” per se doesn’t alter the fact that you grieve and you mourn.

In this case the “miscarriage” isn’t nature doing it’s thing though, it’s a result of a decision. Given the circumstances in the OP I think that both people made a choice in instigating the pregnancy and both people should be involved in the decision to terminate.  
**Northern Piper** thank-you very much for the relevant Canadian Law! I knew which side the law came down on but it was cool to read the rationale and precedent.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\
**Post date:** [March 16, 2009, 11:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/112 "2009-03-16T23:57:51Z")

</div>

> [@](#):
>
> I think that both people made a choice in instigating the pregnancy and both people should be involved in the decision to terminate.

This is a practical impossibility, setting aside the gross impsition on the rights of the woman, it’s not possible to give both sides equal say, because if there is disagreement, there has to be a tie breaker, and the only one for whom any ethical arguemnt can be made for getting the tie breaker is the woman. This means that, from a practical standpoint, the woman’s decision is autonomous, and there’s no other way to do it.

There is no logical way to give another person “some” say. It has to either be all the say or none of the say.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![YogSothoth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/8edcca/32.png) [@YogSothoth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/YogSothoth)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/113 "2009-03-17T00:00:58Z")

</div>

> [@Frylock](#):
>
> Which assertion of mine do you disagree with? As far as I know, “It’s not sufficient just to say ‘her body, her right’” is my entire point.

Sorry, I came into this topic after the fact and only read your response, briefly, that someone quoted. If your assertion is that abortion is wrong, then I disagree with that. If your assertion is simply that the way pro-choice people argue about the law is wrong, then we have no disagreements

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/4af34b/32.png) [@Zeke\_N.Destroi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeke_N.Destroi)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/114 "2009-03-17T00:08:04Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> This is a practical impossibility, setting aside the gross impsition on the rights of the woman, it’s not possible to give both sides equal say, because if there is disagreement, there has to be a tie breaker, and the only one for whom any ethical arguemnt can be made for getting the tie breaker is the woman. This means that, from a practical standpoint, the woman’s decision is autonomous, and there’s no other way to do it.
> 
> There is no logical way to give another person “some” say. It has to either be all the say or none of the say.

You’re right.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cat\_Fight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/90ced4/32.png) [@Cat\_Fight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Fight)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 3:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/115 "2009-03-17T03:58:43Z")

</div>

Anyone here from [Arizona](http://www.azstarnet.com/metro/283977)? If so, er, yikes. How interesting that the same people trying to dissuade women from abortion are also assuring her that she’ll likely have support in raising a child – just, you know, not from the government. Let’s hope that those of you riled up over men’s reproductive rights are just as willing to get angry when it comes to women’s, which should be all but gone in 5…4…3…

> [@](#):
>
> The state House voted 36-18 Wednesday to impose new restrictions on abortion.
> 
> HB 2564 would \*\*require a 24-hour waiting period before a woman could terminate a pregnancy. \*\*During that time, the woman would have to be told “the probable anatomical and physiological characteristics” of the unborn child at that point.
> 
> The bill also requires that the woman be told, in person, that:  
> • **The father of the child is liable for support, even if he agreed to pay for the abortion.**  
> • Medical assistance benefits may be available for prenatal care, childbirth and postnatal care if they decided against an abortion.  
> • Public and private agencies can assist the woman before and after the birth, whether she chooses to keep the child or put it up for adoption.
> 
> **“The requirement of a mandated lecture and a 24-hour reflective period is not only insulting but assumes that women do not adequately think through their abortion decisions, and that the state must do their thinking for them,”** said Rep. Olivia Cajero Bedford, D-Tucson.
> 
> […]
> 
> Rep. Steve Farley, D-Tucson, complained **no other medical procedure requires a 24-hour waiting period, including vasectomies and tubal ligations** , which end a person’s ability to have children.
> 
> But Rep. Steve Yarbrough, R-Chandler, said the comparisons aren’t valid, as abortion is the only medical procedure designed “to kill another human being, born or unborn.”
> 
> Rep. Frank Antenori, R-Tucson, said **there is “a duty to protect either our wives or our daughters from making decisions that may come back to haunt them further down the road in their lives.”**
> 
> The measure also would \*\*allow health professionals, hospitals and pharmacists to refuse to perform abortions, a right now reserved only for doctors. It also would allow them to refuse to provide “morning-after” pills, even to rape victims, with no requirement they tell a woman where she could get them. \*\*
> 
> Another provision specifies what factors **a judge may consider in determining if a minor is mature enough to have an abortion** without getting parental consent and requires any parental consent form be notarized.
> 
> And it says **only doctors can perform abortions, ending the practice by Planned Parenthood Arizona of letting nurse practitioners with specialized training do early-term procedures.**

Good luck with all that.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/116 "2009-03-17T12:15:15Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> Confidentiality falls under the ruberick of privacy. Doctor-patient confidentiality was at the heart of _Roe_.

Yes, confidentiality is considered private, but confidentiality pertains to the record of services provided. The service, (abortion) is state controlled and regulated, and performed by a state-licensed practitioner, thus, falls outside the proper definition of “private”.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Paleface](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/f19dbf/32.png) [@Paleface](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Paleface)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/117 "2009-03-17T12:28:36Z")

</div>

> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#):
>
> Wrong. The fact that the Supreme Court ruled the laws unconstitutional makes them unconsititutional. SCOTUS is the definitive, authoritative word on the matter. Constitutionality is whatever the Supreme Court says it is, so it is actually impossible for the Supreme Court to rule incorrectly on it. They are the ones who DEFINE what is correct.

No, the Supreme Court is to be bound by the Constitution. The Court is not to proclaim something unconstitutional as a monarch would ruly by decree.

The Court , in essence, ruled by decree when one of the Justices burried a phrase pertaining to privacy and the bearing of children within a seperate court opinion not pertaining to bearing children, just so the phrase could be dug up as a precedent to satisfy the privacy required by Roe.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Annie-Xmas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecc23a/32.png) [@Annie-Xmas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Annie-Xmas)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/118 "2009-03-17T12:35:01Z")

</div>

What if the man wanted the child so he could raise it with his gay partner?

The anti-abortionists are also hugely against gay parenting because “a child needs a father and a mother.” Yet if abortion were outlawed, there would be an epidemic of single woman giving birth. Since a child needs a mother and a father, I guess single pregnant woman should be forced to give birth for infertile couples.

Reproductively slavery it is.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 12:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/119 "2009-03-17T12:40:39Z")

</div>

> [@Paleface](#):
>
> No, the Supreme Court is to be bound by the Constitution. The Court is not to proclaim something unconstitutional as a monarch would ruly by decree.
> 
> The Court , in essence, ruled by decree when one of the Justices burried a phrase pertaining to privacy and the bearing of children within a seperate court opinion not pertaining to bearing children, just so the phrase could be dug up as a precedent to satisfy the privacy required by Roe.

Then who is the authoritative interpreter of what is constitutional?

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![cosmosdan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/a6a055/32.png) [@cosmosdan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/cosmosdan)\
**Post date:** [March 17, 2009, 1:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376/120 "2009-03-17T13:23:31Z")

</div>

> [@Paleface](#):
>
> Yes, confidentiality is considered private, but confidentiality pertains to the record of services provided. The service, (abortion) is state controlled and regulated, and performed by a state-licensed practitioner, thus, falls outside the proper definition of “private”.

So when someone is licensed to practice medicine in a certain state the state has the right to dictate which procedures are legal and which aren’t? The doctor and the patient can’t decide that?

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376.md?page=5)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abortion-and-mens-rights/489376.md?page=7)