That’s exactly what I’m asking.
I repeat: Murder has everything to do with unlawfulness, not illegality. What the Supreme Court says pertains to illegality, not unlawfulness.
Sorry, sqweels. I jumped the gun, and didn’t quite grasp what you meant.
Anyway, my point still stands. If the opinions of men are irrelevant, then the Supreme Court had no business voicing any opinion with regard to Roe v. Wade–even if that opinion was to leave the matter to individual states.
You can’t have it both ways. If a man’s gender disqualifies him from rendering any judgment, then his opinion should be summarily ignored whether it is positive, negative or merely accommodating.
Ah, but then the state legislatures shouldn’t have any say either, since they’re mostly composed of men.
Which means we’d end up with women’s laws as a subset of human laws ('cos the only male only laws would be what–circumcision and prostate issues?)
I’ve always felt that anyone has to right to an opinion only if they’ve taken the time to become informed on the matter at hand, but with regards to abortion, only women of breeding age have to right to a decision. But I freely admit that’s an emotional reaction to the hatred espoused by 80-year-old spinsters holding bloody dolls at abortion clinic protests.
That is a question I often ponder. Should men who wanted their “potential children” aborted perhaps pay less child support? It feels like they should have a say on this considering the heavy financial responsibilities they have to the child if it is born. However until the child is born it is the woman’s body and giving anyone the ability to influence her decision seems like it may end up in women being coerced to abort even if they do not wish to do so. When basic biology meets law and religion it’s never pretty.
Damn, I was all set up to post and there it is.
Yes a man’s opinion matters. A line of reasoning is valid or invalid on its own merits.
The identity of the proponent of a given line of reasoning is of no importance whatsoever.
I thought the point of living in a democracy, also the point of a forum like GD, is that we can discuss different points of view. Does this mean that once the Supreme Court rules on something all opposing view are wrong?
That’s only if there’s one TRUE final answer on the subject. Abortion doesn’t have a correct answer that we can all objectively come to - so because its subjective, the identity of the propenent is important, especially when that identity determines whether he’d have to even take responsibility for the reprecussions of whatever side he’s fighting for.
I dunno?
Does a woman’s opinion matters about circumcision? 
I would still disagree that the identity of the proponent has bearing on the validity of an argument. Would a women’s opinion become invalid if she became infertile? How about a nun sworn to chasity?
You state that a man would never have to take responsibility for the reprecussions of his opinion and on this point I disagree. Just because someone may never be placed in a situation does not mean they are free from the effects of that situation.
To be less vague I’ll give an example. The draft.
Women cannot presently be drafted. However, if a son, husband, or father is drafted it most definitely effects them. Would you state that only men should have a voice on draft eligibility and methodology? Now I acknowledge that my example is imperfect given that the bar against drafting women in the U.S. is legal and not biological but I think it holds up as an analogy.
However, with that said I will grant that you have a point. In general, a member of an affected group is more likely to have a thorough understanding of issues involving that group. That is simply a generality though and is of no consequence when determining the validity of any single line of reasoning.
What I oppose is the shifting standard advocated by some self-proclaimed feminists I have known.
Before pregnancy, there’s an equal burden. A man has just as much responsibility to protect against pregnancy as does a woman.
If a woman becomes pregnant, however, suddenly, it’s “her body”. She has the right to abort her-and-the-man’s child if she so chooses, even if there’s no hint of potential physical complications. His opinion matters not, because, again, it’s simply “her body”.
If she gives birth, it’s back to the mutual thing. Now, the man has responsibility to support the child, even if she wanted to bring it to term and he did not.
I say, it’s either one way or the other all the way (barring physical complications, of course). If it’s “her body” during pregnancy to do with as she alone chooses, then it was “her body” before pregnancy, and the burden of protecting it against unwanted pregnancy was hers, and if she brings it to term against his wishes then that’s her choice and therefore her responsibility. On the other hand, if it’s their child after birth, then it was their child during pregnancy and their equal responsibility before conception.
Flame me if you will. Trust me, I’ve heard it all before and I don’t buy it.
No.
I think that my Congressional Representatives – in my case, all male – should be able to represent all of the people of my district and state in law-making. At the moment, I am not at all happy with the job that my Senators are doing, but I still stand on the principle.
In their judicial rulings, judges, male or female, should not be swayed by public opinion, the President’s “druthers,” or Congressional hissy-fits. In a perfect world, they would not be swayed by hormones or personal bias.
Everyone has the right to express an opinion on abortion. No one has the right to make the decision for the woman.
My belief has always been that a man can have what ever opinion he wants, the issue this debate should highlight is how that man then uses his opinion to form laws. Let’s face it, rich, old, white, men still set the laws for both the US and Canada.
Other posters have already mentioned we’re in a democracy, and my belief has always been that laws pertaining to abortion are oppressive, and it is the responsibility of a democracy to protect the minority from the majority. To me, abortion laws are men passing laws that oppress women–with impunity–knowing they themselves will never get pregnant.
As a comparison, it would be easy for a white person so say its okay for blacks to be slaves. Likewise, imagine Christians saying Jews should be kept in ghettos (Goodwin?). Or like a group of women passing a law that all men should be circumcised.
The problem with men expressing their opinion about abortion is that they don’t have to deal with the consequences, the way so many Americans supported the war in Iraq knowing full well that the bombs are dropping on the other side of the world.
I’ll state again that to me, and many others, abortion is an issue of oppression, in this case men dictating what happens to a woman’s body. Which to me is just a subset of “not in my backyard” thinking.
With that said, though, the father is an entirely different subject which I think should be a new debate.
Do you understand what an intense physical and mental strain pregnancy is on the human body? No, of course not, you’re a man. Maybe when it’s your health on the line, you’ll see why it’s cruel for a man who wants “his” baby to keep a woman hostage with a pregnancy she doesn’t want, or try to force her into an abortion she doesn’t feel she can have. The status changes during pregnancy because pregnancy is a big deal, biologically. The woman carries 100% of the physical burden; the fetus/child is inexorably linked with her, not the father. So yeah, if things are a little unequal legally that’s because they are biologically. When we get to the point that we can just dump eggs and sperm into an artificial womb and bake for nine months, then we can talk about how the man can have an equal opinion on the birth or non-birth of fetuses. Until then, sorry, but I think this is an issue where a woman’s opinion holds more sway than a man’s. Although I don’t think a man’s opinion counts for nothing (I don’t know if I, personally, could abort a fetus my partner really wanted, though I think I should have the legal right to do that), I do think it counts less.
(And no, I’ve never been pregnant, but I know people who have been. It’s not like carrying a really heavy backpack.)
Then the woman needs to take responsibility for that from the get-go.
As I mentioned above, I’m not talking about situations where there are complications. And certainly not about rape, incest, etc. Situations like that tip the balance toward the woman, no argument.
And yes, I’ve been there. Of course I wasn’t the one pregnant. But I took full responsibility for my part, was an equal partner, and supported her all the way. Still do.
All I’m saying is, this flip-flop business is BS. If “pregnancy is a big deal, biologically [and] the woman carries 100% of the physical burden [and] the fetus/child is inexorably linked with her, not the father” (which I agree with), then it is her responsibility to avoid pregnancy.
Sound harsh? Yeah, I know it does. But reality can be harsh.
If the consequences belong to her, then it’s BS to say both partners have an equal responsibility for birth control. The woman has a greater responsibility. I’ve known girls who relied on guys to provide a condom, and they use no back-up. Sorry, that doesn’t cut it.
Ok, I’ve had my say, nothing more to add. Others will disagree, I know that, and who am I to say I know best? My 2 cents, that’s all.
And the problem with women expressing their opinion is that they have a vested interest in the outcome, which can severely bias their judgment. So there.
Besides, men ARE affected by abortion, albeit not to the same degree that women are.
Lack of agreement does not imply the absence of a true answer to this question.
During the Civil War, there was considerable disagreement about whether black people should have rights or not. Are you suggesting that there is no real answer to that question?
Of course, opposing views are totally necessary and desireable in debating any issue. But…the purpose of the Supreme Court, right or wrong in anyone’s opinion is to pick one view as the end of the line in the majority opinion. My point was that anyone can call any killing or assisted killing MURDER but the Supreme Court as of this minute have allowed Roe vs. Wade to stay on the books. It is not unlawful or illegal if State rules and regs regarding abortion are followed.
Again, that only makes sense if there’s a correct answer to be biased against.
…I make it a point not to respond to black people examples. Can you come up with a less cliched/insulting analogy?