And that’s a nonsense argument. Men and women both can and do have opinions that go beyond self-interest.
This was one time when Trump, was, ironically, honest.
OF COURSE you should punish women for abortion if you criminalize it based on the idea that abortion is murder. If a woman murders her child, she’s a criminal, even if she hires someone else to actually do it.
Trump just failed to consult the standard GOP talking points, which call for getting around this obvious, inconvenient fact by saying only doctors would be held responsible.
Much like the rape and incest exceptions, this doctors-only policy is a pathetic dodge by anti-abortionists that undermines their reasoning.
By that logic, we should still be accepting the Roman principle of pater familias that allowed the father to wield the power of life and death over the members of his household.
I would have thought that my tongue-in-cheek comment was more obvious. Perhaps I didn’t phrase it correctly. My point was playing off of a couple of different factoids and generalizations:
-
since men don’t have to worry about getting pregnant, then, collectively, they may feel no personal stake in the outcome of a pregnancy. If it ain’t you or your family, who cares? Throw up any kind of roadblock so you can sleep at night.
-
if a man had to experience the pain of delivering a child through his plumbing fixtures, I think abortion would be as easy to get as Tylenol. Men can - and again, I’m generalizing - not handle the concept being in that kind of pain. I can very easily see a male politician suggest anything to avoid having to experience it again. After all, it affects him now.
Or else the lawmakers claim that they’re safeguarding women’s health while simultaneously saving babies.
And then shit like this happens:
(Summary: under Texas law, a woman was forced to go home and wait for her fetus to die inside of her because she was 20 weeks along, and the law won’t allow for late term abortions.)
Seriously, do these guys making these laws really believe that a woman who is already pretty far along in a pregnancy, say, in the third trimester, would want to have an abortion for any reason other than her own health being threatened, or the fetus having developed a severe abnormality?
Can’t buy that. Men have been suffering a lot worse than that in wartime for millennia. In the Crimean War/American Civil War/Boer War, large numbers of men had amputations without anaesthesia. The reaction to extreme agony is not a sex difference.
If we guys were the only source of the next generation of humanity, yes, we’d bear the pain. Beats extinction. (Barely.)
I think you didn’t quite get the point. The old quip to the effect that “if men could get pregnant, abortion rights would be taken for granted” is not attempting to put that forth as a reason for upholding abortion rights.
Rather, it’s just a wisecrack about the natural tendency towards double standards when comparing the restrictions we would impose on others to the freedom we would want for ourselves.
I would have thought so too, especially since (with all due respect) that epigram in one version or other has been around since at least 1971; but I’ve had to explain it now to two different posters in the same thread! Sorry for killing the joke. 
:dubious: And as this thread discusses, such amputations generally took only several minutes or even less. Labor pains usually last considerably longer.
I’m not saying that the pain of physical injury (which, of course, women are just as subject to as men in almost all situations except war: for example, check out some of the statistics for horrific injuries and death from burning for women who cook over open fires) isn’t a horrible thing. I’m just not convinced that it counts as “a lot worse than” childbirth.
Well, not nowadays you wouldn’t, at least not in the developed world; you’d get epidurals and analgesics, the way most women do in labor.
Anyway, of course the pain of childbirth is kind of tangential to the issue of abortion rights. The main reason women exercise the right to choose to terminate a pregnancy isn’t because labor hurts.
Yes and No.
Yes, it was triggered by the SCC decision, and yes, there was political deadlock on trying to get a new law - twice.
But No, in that the result of the SCC decision was that there was no criminal regulation of abortion. That was the status quo by the time Parliament tried to do anything, and evidently that lack of regulation was not enough to force a political compromise.
So that status quo evidently carried considerable weight because people could live with it rather than agree to change it. It was apparently not a bad option then, and seems the same now.
Except that’s like any other medical procedure. I can’t walk in and insist that a doctor yank out my appendix. It’s contrary to medical ethics to do surgeries unless there’s medical need of some sort.
In other words, Canadian law treats pregnant women as mature individuals who can be trusted to make sound moral decisions on a matter of great personal importance, without state regulation.
Fair enough. But, even if that is so, those feelings do not translate into political action. Two different conservative governments have declined to use their political capital to drive through changes, and the current Liberal government has made pro-choice part of their platform, and party discipline. It’s no longer considered a matter for a free vote. I think the NDP also takes that approach. That suggests considerable support, even if qualified, for the complete lack of regulation. Thirty years of experience with it has led to acceptance, it seems, compared to any more restrictive option.
Even if we “fell into it” via the SCC decision, thirty years of continuity does seem to qualify as it having become an accepted part of Canadian law and custom, more compelling than any other option.
You’re fine. Trying for a quick quip, and only on The Dope would it turn out that I get to watch the collective gears grinding as its debated on its scientific and sociological merits.
Just to pick nits - I accept all your other points - if this were the case there would be very few abortions performed in Canada. Only a small fraction of abortions are performed for medical reasons, since “I don’t want to be pregnant/don’t want to have a child” is not a medical issue. Your typical abortion terminates a pregnancy which is unfolding in an absolutely normal and healthy fashion; there is no medical problem requiring the intervention. Most abortions are generally considered to be performed for social rather than medical reasons.
That’s only if we assume that men would regard choice about their bodies as sacrosanct in a way that women do not.
Yes. I think the crux of the joke is the contrast, in a traditionally patriarchal society, between men’s strong expectations of bodily autonomy for themselves and men’s taking for granted the lack of bodily autonomy for women.
Naturally, since men never have been able to get pregnant, there’s no way of testing that assertion about how they would regard abortion if they had.
(And now I’ve had to explain poor Superdude’s joke three times. Tough crowd!!)
Truer words were never typed. 
Got a cute for this assertion? I’d like to see the evidence for this opinion please.
A cite for the fact that most abortions are elective? There’s a reason it’s called “pro-choice”, as opposed to “pro-necessary”.
Yes please, an actual cite.
Both of these are complete nonsense. Which follows the ridiculous assertion that men are the reason for abortion laws, however you want to define them. You don’t think men have a personal stake in pregnancy? Start with being a father for the rest of one’s life. Dismiss that? Then how about paying child support for 18 years, often an amount that creates significant hardship. Even collectively, as you mention, men have just as much stake in how children are raised as women.
And the second, I realize that is a common trope. See the thread about how kidney stones are more painful, and for longer, than childbirth. Or various injuries which happen to men more often than women. Or look at sports such as boxing and football, which males sign up for more than females. Pain tolerance is an individual matter, not one attributable to gender. I won’t downplay pain during labor and delivery, but most women receive drugs or treatments to reduce the pain. And many women have more than one child, which sort of negates the idea that the pain is intolerable and to be avoided at all cost.
If these items were also delivered tongue-in-cheek, then I apologize for missing the satire, but I think you might have been serious.
Do you really have doubt that most abortions are not elective? How often does a doctor order or strongly recommend an abortion?
According to this study, 90 to 97 percent are due to personal decisions unrelated to the health of the mother or baby, or rape/incest. The largest categories are “not ready for responsibility” and “cannot afford”. I’d say nearly all of the 90-97 percent could be alternatively handled by placing the baby up for adoption.
That would still mean pregnancy, and that could still have consequences for the woman that could impact her life (in various ways including economically) later on, even if she decides to adopt the baby out.