One man's view of abortion

Measured from a man’s perspective, most women are under heavier burdens of stress than men – they ascribe importance to things that mean absolutely zero to most men – clothing, for instance, food prep, personal appearance, etc, etc . . .

That there are exceptions to the above views are obvious, but I believe few can doubt the validity of the statement that women generally suffer more from stress than do men . . .

Take now the situation in which a woman, bearing up under the normal gender ascribed stressors, finds that she is in a state of unwanted pregnancy, and deciding to rid herself of this, as she views it, onerous burden, suddenly is faced with the representatives of the causes of her discomfort, who, BTW, will suffer absolutely no physical, social, or financial consequences, are adding to her already heavy burden of stress by telling her that she cannot proceed as she wishes . . .

It is a credit to the unbelievable self-control of 99% of women in this situation, that they do not avail themselves of whatever method is at hand, hammers, loppers, guns, knives, chainsaws, or other methods to lay about them, screaming, “You arrogant SOB, how dare you tell me what I can do with my own body ?”

For men to sanctimoniously claim the high road of being the duly appointed representatives of all the ethical and moral models they can think of, buttressed by the biological shield that insures they will never have to suffer what the woman is enduring, (and consequently having no real clue of what they are saying or of how stupid they look) wear a mantle of long-suffering patience, when they should be on their knees, thanking their God (and their women) that they do not have to really know what the woman is going through, and further, that the women do not have control over their prostates . . .

The brave music of a distant drum, (FitzGerald’s Rubaiyat) in this case is obscenely adorned by a pompous mantle that ill-fits most men, and for which they should pray for forgiveness and for the ability to be a little more understanding . . .

FWIW, I am a happily married father of 3 – 2 girls and a boy . . .

So, only fertile sexually active (with fertile men) women can have an opinion about abortion.

gigi, I don’t read that in **geezer1’**s post. He says that people who aren’t affected by someone elses health choices shouldn’t have a say in that choice. And that people who aren’t under the stress most women are, have even less business wanting to interfere.

Well it is clear that there are many sides to this debate. And have been discussed on this board and countless others to ad nauseum. The OP’s thoughts, while clearly not original, are clearly his own.

Thanks for sharing.

Oh goodness gracious. I couldn’t possibly bear to be with child. Why, I’m already overwhelmed with my feminine inclination for matching my pants to my top, chopping carrots, and putting on moisturizer.

Oh really? So women spend time preparing dinner and primping in front of the mirror which cause us enormous amounts of stress and anguish due to their importance in our daily lives. Good to know.

The Romans practiced infanticide (usually by exposure).

Good thing I don’t drink coffee. It would have been sprayed all over my … iphone.:smiley:

Wow, what a rant from the OP. I’m pro-choice (if a bit uncomfortably), but at least I understand why many people are pro-life. To them, abortion is killing a person. Now, I don’t want to debate the abortion issue, but I understand the pro-life sentiment. I also understand the pro-choice sentiment. The OP seems to think pro-lifers pompously want to tell women what to do, dismissing the real argument. I don’t think that’s a fair representation at all.

Well, he at least established that some men don’t have a clue.

“As horrifying as the killing of newborns seems to modern people, in ancient Rome, babies weren’t considered fully human upon birth, Mays said. Instead, they gained humanity over time, first with their naming a few days after birth, and later when they cut teeth and could eat solid food.”

I have chopped no carrots today. I feel inadequate as a woman.

My first paragraph apparently proves my contention that a person shouldn’t make judgements on that which they have no knowledge, and I have absolutely no idea at all of the value women assign to such things . . .

Well, that went way south quickly didn’t it?

Well, I wouldn’t call the OP’s opinion humble. Maybe we need another forum for not-so-humble opinions. I say ¡Bravo! to geezer1 for taking such a clear stand and proudly proclaiming his commendable attitude on the matter!

But note also, some of us male-kind have at least a quantum of fashion sense. Very stressful, indeed. Myself, I always, at the very least, make sure I wear matched socks. Gimme credit for that. But I respect other peoples’ choice to wear mismatched socks if they find that less stressful, and I object to the moralistas who demand laws (Constitutional Amendments even!) decreeing that we must all wear matched socks.

I’m generally pro-choice myself, but frankly, I think the opinion given by the OP is a bit short-sighted. Framing pro-choice vs. pro-life as a men vs. women issue is a misunderstanding of the issues at stake and a misrepresentation for many reasons, one of the obvious ones being that there are men and women on both sides of the issue. I think it’s important to have an understanding of what opponents to your position actually think so we aren’t stuck arguing past eachother.

Putting it simply, this is a discussion about rights, but the rights that are at stake, as seen by either side, are different. To a pro-lifer, it generally isn’t about imposing a moral superiority, even if it often appears that way. Give a generous interpretation approach, and we can see that to a pro-lifer, generally, they see an unborn child as a life and they believe that the right to life is more important than any other right. Thus, even if they strongly believe in an individual’s right to make choices about their body, that right is superceded. In fact, that life supercedes all other considerations is a fairly common viewpoint, particularly among religious people. After all, even a strictly followed commandment, such as not working on the Sabbath, can be superceded if a life is at stake. Of course, one can argue about how consistently that view is applied by various people or whatever, but that’s really neither here nor there.

But this is why so often I see strong pro-life and pro-choice advocates seem to talk past eachother. To a pro-lifer, in general, the utmost value of life is so innately obvious to them so as to trump other considerations, that it doesn’t to a pro-choice person seems as if that person doesn’t have their moral compass straight since that one obvious aspect isn’t the same. This is why they see pro-choice people often as being immoral. By the same token, it’s precisely because it doesn’t seem so cut and dry, that it’s not so easy to say exactly when life begins, how we balance rights in various scenarios, where the rights and responsibilities of the government, parents, doctors, children all come into play, that that position seems to come from a point of an inability to sympathize and moral superiority.

Now, certainly there are a vanishingly small number of people who fight abortion because they’re mysogynists, or who support it because they are utterly immoral, but it’s disingenuous to frame the argument in those terms.

In honor of that, I will make no imposition on your prostate.

Very well put, I can never figure out why these concepts are so hard to grasp by those who hold a different viewpoint.

The Romans and other people practiced infanticide.

Sorry to disagree with you since I basically hold the same opinion you do (as my stepfather said: Hell, it’s their body), but I believe that a great many anti-abortion men, maybe a majority, have that opinion because they would deny agency to women. And it is the paternalistic religions that are most strongly opposed.