Since a man will never be pregnant, and therefore never be in the position to have to even consider an abortion, what good is his opinion on the matter? Should it count for anything? Does it?
I was going to try and flesh this OP out a bit, but that’s all I’ve got.
Yes. There are people who believe that abortion is murder. If it is then all genders have a right to comment.
Try this: Do men have a right to comment on late third term abortions? During the campaign Wesley Clark said he was in favor of abortion rights right up to crowning. Was he out of line in saying that? Would I be out of line in saying he’d lost his mind?
Now maybe if men never started out as fetuses you’d have an argument. But since you’re saying it your way it suggests that only potential perps can comment. Not potential victims. Using that logic could anyone except convicts comment on whether or not convicts can kill prison employees in order to escape?
Flame away.
Also, as a man you can be compelled to pay child support for a child once it is born. To the entent that your freedom can be curtailed it can be argued that you should at least be able to have an opinion that matters. On the other hand from a legal perspective I think you may be right. According to the latest Supreme Court decision even the opinion of a parent of a minor child is of minimal relevence.
There seems to be a growing trend in society that a person can’t comment on an issue (racism, religiosity, gender) unless one is a member of the group at issue. That’s a terribly divisive way to look at the world. Non-Jews should be able to have valid opinions on anti-Semitism just as non-minorities should be permitted to voice opinions about affirmative action.
So, yes, men should have a say in abortion. But what happens to a pregnancy that is wanted by the man but not by the woman? That, I don’t know. Should a man be permitted to hold a woman “hostage” and force her to carry the child to term? Well, a woman theoretically can force a man to have a child by refusing the abortion.
This is a difficult topic and I’m really interested in other perspectives.
On preview:
Sorry – cite? The latest Supreme Court decision I’m aware of was about IRAs, not children. What was the case about?
Murder by definition = illegal killing. Abortion (early) is not illegal as Roe vs. Wade is still intact.
I think that men’s opinions should probably be taken with a grain of salt, since it’s awfully easy to be all sanctimonious when secure in the knowlege that you’re never going to have to make that decision. It makes you too likely to reduce everything to the simplest terms and ignore the complexities of the issue. Of course, I’m always leery of people who have simple, pat black-and-white answers about things, because pretty much every single thing in this world has complexities, subtleties, nuances, innumberable shades of gray. By ignoring those shades of gray, you do a grave disservice to a whole lot of people.
Logic has no gender. Whether the proponent of an argument is male or female is 100% irrelevant.
Besides, as I’ve said many times before, if a man’s opinion has no value then the Supreme Court has no business in voicing an opinion on Roe v. Wade.
The same argument could be used to assert that this makes a man more impartial, and thus, a better judge of such matters. It would imply that a woman’s opinion should be taken with a grain of salt, since she has a vested interest in the issue that makes her opinion subject to personal bias.
Are you sure you want to go down this route?
No. Murder is unlawful killing, which is not quite the same as “illegal.” (“Unlawful” can mean “illegal,” but its more general meaning is “illicit” or “immoral.”)
Heck, there was a time when people could kill black slaves with impunity. Does this mean that killing them was not murder?
It may not have been murder in a moral sense, but it certainly was in an ethical one. Another, example would be that of Thomas Jefferson an icon to many he was also a slave owner. This was certainly legal at the time, but his image has been denigrated over time since it weakened his moral legacy. It raises the question of whether or not we might one day look down upon Bush, Clinton, Reagan and others for presiding over a nation with captitol punishment. Same could be said of all of us who eat meat. One day such an act may be looked upon in the mainstream as an “evil act” little different than the ancient Aztec practice of human sacrifice.
So you disagree that murder is merely illegal murder? 'Cuz that was precisely my point.
How is it not murder in the moral sense? What do you mean by moral sense?
I see where you are going with this but in general arguments should stand on their merit not on the status of the one doing the arguing.
I believe men can have very valid opinions as the father’s of the children. Do they have a right to make the decision? No. But, it is tricky. If a father wants the child to be aborted, should he have to maintain parental responsibilities if that is not what the mother chooses? That’s almost like the mother is forcing the situation on the father. I do think the father should still be responsible personally, but im not 100% certain on that thought.
I figure it should be as relevant as a woman’s opinion on paternit obligations…
Killing human beings during warfare maybe immoral but is NOT murder if done by conventional means…because it is NOT illegal…Certain tribes as we all know sacrificed human beings to demonstrate their devotion to a higher power. This was not murder at the time until a law is passed otherwise.
Thusly, until their is a law to the contrary and Roe vs. Wade is written off the books abortion is not Murder and not Unlawful.
A response to this could be that if the fetus is a female then OK, the woman has been a female fetus and a pregnant woman, so she can decide, but if the fetus is male, she has never been a male fetus so then a man’s opinion does really matter.
No offense, but did you even read the posting that you quoted? I specifically addressed that point, in no uncertain terms.
Murder is unlawful killing, not illegal killing. There’s a difference between the two, as I took great pains to emphasize.
But the SC ruled in effect that state governments have no business in voicing an opinion on whether women should be able to get abortions.
In an individual case - should the father be consulted, or have the choice discussed with him, yeah his opinion should matter. Should it be required, or made law? No, sorry I won’t go that far. It’s not a woman’s choice to have a vasectomy, or prostate surgery. Weak analogy, I know, but it’s off the top of my head.
An individual woman’s decision is ultimately hers and hers alone. In the right circunstances, it’s a team decision anyway, but the right circumstances don’t always exist.
Now, if you’re asking if men should have a voice in the general discussion about abortion and laws surrounding the issue - hell yes. We vote, we share the world, and we should have an equal voice in laws that determine the world we live in.