“Victims” may be too strong a word but maybe not.
A male can be as broken up about a failed pregnancy as a woman. He can care as much as a woman about producing offspring.
Which, besides being drawing lines, would beg to be abused by lies for access. “Medical need” is so fuzzy that any doctor who is pro-choice can find some loophole - mental health, if nothing else. “Rape” is easy to write on an insurance claim. I’m sure other acceptable reasons would be similarly exploited if they were the only way women could get access to abortions, much the same way divorce laws see some couples claiming “mental cruelty” simply because it’s expedient and quicker than the waiting period for “irreconcilable differences”.
Women will always get abortions, even if they’re totally illegal. They get abortions in countries which have outlawed it today, at about the same or greater rates than they do in countries where it’s legal. So I’m not actually concerned that women won’t be able to get abortions if abortion is outlawed or severely restricted. The difference is that legal abortions tend to be *safer *for the women, and I have no interest in forcing women to bleed to death or die of sepsis if they want an abortion.
His interest, pre-birth, is irrelevant. His interest doesn’t entitle him to anything, nor is he harmed if he doesn’t get it.
Come on, man. I’m sure you 100% support your wife’s right to have an abortion just like I support my girlfriend’s right to do the same. You can’t tell me that if she did have one, it wouldn’t affect your life or mine. It’s about a relationship, not ownership of someone else’s body.
Right - but that doesn’t make him a victim. It means he’s affected by someone else’s actions.
Yes, but free speech doesn’t mean it’s OK to yell “Fire!” in a crowded uterus.
Or something.
We’re talking about terminated pregnancies, not failed one. No woman owes a man a baby. A man being broken up about a woman terminating a pregnancy is like a man being broken up because she won’t buy him a Corvette.
I find it simply incredible to read things like this. Women are right not wanting to be considered as sex objects or walking wombs, why should men be considered that way when it comes to pregnancies and abortions?
I can honestly say that it wouldn’t have made the slightest difference to me if my wife had terminated any of her preghnancies. I told her every time that I was down for whatever she wanted. I had no preference.
But he’s NOT affected. He just maybe didn’t get something he wanted. He’s not actually affected.
Men aren’t. Abortions and pregnancies have nothing to do with them.
Actually, it isn’t. Pro-choice means just that, give the gestating woman the choice to continue or terminate the pregnancy. Whether or not someone disagrees with her reasons, the choice itself is not in their control.
Men have nothing to do with pregnancies? I’m sure there must be an internet site with the basics about human reproduction.
In light of certain statements you’ve made about wanting to correct this sort of thing, I’m going to point out that you’ve made an absurd, dogmatic, absolutist, offensive and indefensible claim. It’s really your argument that, for instance, having to pay 18 years of child support, or starting a family with the woman you love and dedicating the rest of your natural life to your child has “nothing” to do with the father? Nothing?
Come on Dio. There is a substantial difference between “a man doesn’t have the right to control the reproductive future of a woman, even if she’s his wife.” and “yeah, whether a man has the rest of his life to have a huge disposable income-and-margarita budget or if he’s a father has absolutely nothing to do with the guy.”
And that’s the last thing I’ll say on the subject.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Men aren’t. Abortions and pregnancies have nothing to do with them.
[/QUOTE]
Sure they do. For one thing they are rather integral in the whole conception part. For another, they have an emotional stake. I don’t think that the emotional stake outweighs a woman’s right to make her own choice (she IS the one who has to carry the baby to term, after all), just as I said earlier that societies or the churches needs don’t outweigh the choice of a woman, but it’s silly to say that a man involved with a woman who becomes pregnant has nothing to do with the equation or has no stake in what’s happening. Not everyone feels the same way as you do, Dio.
-XT
Not after the initial sperm donation, they don’t. Pregnancy is something that happens in the woman’s body and has nothing to do with the men.
I’ll take you at your word, but for most people, having children is a very emotional subject and an abortion can have some emotional fallout even if both partners agree it’s the right thing to do - nevermind that sometimes they don’t agree, or don’t want to get the abortion but decide it’s medically necessary, or they know they won’t have another chance to have a child.
Not getting something you want is an effect, particularly if it’s something as emotionally fraught as not having a child.
Big Bill Clinton had it right, Americans want abortion to be safe, legal and rare. Rathermuch like the thread on Afghanistan, the real issue is the culture. Ideally, we would have few abortions as we would raise our young people not to want or need them.
But in such an ideal world, government would have little say.
You seem to be implying that it’s unfair for the man to have no say in the termination of a pregnancy he helped create. That is correct. But it also doesn’t matter, because there is no way tomake the situation equitable. Biology makes it impossible. The woman’s involvement in a pregnancy is enormously higher than the most loving partner’s can possibly be.
This is my position, too.
But I’ll add that I don’t feel any need to say it’s a shitty reason or a bad reason to have an abortion. It doesn’t matter. The only reason to say it’s a “shitty” decision is if you think the fetus actually is a human life, which it isn’t (for those of us who are pro-choice).
No, I’m sayinmg the physical pregnancy has nothing to do with the man. Once the kid is born, then his rights and responsibilities begin, but not until then.
I’m only talking about the actual phase of pregnancy. A man also has absolute control over whether or not he wants to contribute sperm to a pregnancy, and he agrees to be responsible for any potential child when he comes.
Why is it that so many guys see children as nothing but financial responsibilities anyway and are incapable of seeing them as innocent and dependent human beings who they are morally responsible for?
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Not after the initial sperm donation, they don’t. Pregnancy is something that happens in the woman’s body and has nothing to do with the men.
[/QUOTE]
Then why don’t the majority of men simply walk away once a woman becomes pregnant? Why don’t they go and find other females who aren’t pregnant? Why do men bond at all with their children if they have nothing to do with it? Why do we feel the need to protect women who are pregnant if we have nothing to do with the process?
You do realize that we have adapted to a certain set of behaviors to do all this stuff…and that those adaptions have indeed made most of us men have a role in a woman’s pregnancy, and an emotional stake on what’s going on with that baby…right? Just because things have changed a bit from when we were hunters and gatherers or lived in caves or wandered around the savanna scrounging for snacks doesn’t mean we don’t still have all those behavioral and emotional queues (well, most of us) in place. Going to be a while before all that baggage is gone from most humans.
-XT