Why do men get to legislate abortion?

When we make laws as a society, we make sacrifices in order to protect ourselves. By outlawing theft, our property is protected, but everyone gives up their right to steal. Everyone is affected equally by drug laws, as no one has the right to do them. With free speech, since I can say what I want, I can’t stop you from saying what you want. But abortion is different. Only half of the population is affected by abortion laws, so when the whole outlaws it, one half of the population if denying another half of a right without sacrificing anything themselves. That’s not equal protection under the law. Because Congress is disproportately male, i.e., populated mostly with people who could never, ever have an abortion, even if they really wanted to, any legislation restricting abortions would be completely unfair.

Are you saying that male legislators should not allowed to express and enforce their legal opinions regarding abortion? If so, why?

This is where anti-abortionists would find fault with your argument. Every unborn person regardless of sex is affected by abortion legislation.

If women voted as a block they could do whatever they want. Maybe the question should be why don’t women make more of a difference politically?

If women voted as a block they could do whatever they want. Maybe the question should be why don’t women make more of a difference politically?
I’m not sure how you came to the conclusion that fathers and potential fathers are not affected by having or not having a child. If I’m not mistaken having a child is a milestone in men’s lives. Maybe ther’s some father out there who can correct me.

Why do men have a say in legislating abortion?

We may as well ask, why do men have NO say as to whether their pregnant partner chooses to abort? Why do men who would rather their partner aborted, but whose partner chose not to abort, have to pay child support for the next 18 years?

I agree with you ,pizzabrat. I dont think that men have any place in an abortion discussion untill they can get pregnant.

Since when is there always equal protection? If a woman doesn’t want to have a baby she’s got full discretion when it comes to deciding whether or not to carry the fetus to term. On the other hand a man will be legally required to support that child no matter what his feelings are.


I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…

If that’s the case, then Roe v. Wade should be revoked immediately. After all, how many women were on the Supreme Court when that decision was made? (HINT: Less than one.)

Firstly, of course, we have to ask if non-applicability of a law to yourself because of physical impossibility ipso facto forces you to recuse yourself from legislating (or judging) fairly on the issue. Obviously, this is NOT the principle upon which the system works.

In any case the members of Congress (or State Legislature, or Parliament) represent the whole of the electorate, male and female, who ostensibly chose them knowing what was their platform, whatever their personal characteristics.

Now, if for abortion laws to be “fair” at least 52% of each House of Congress must be female: What if then in the Senate there’s a combination vote of 35 of those 48 men plus 17 of those 52 women(*), to outlaw it? Is it then any more or less “fair” to outlaw abortion?

(* Because they are, like, Christian Coalition/Republican)

… is it any more or less right?

And there ARE males who are affected by the abortion laws. Let’s start with doctors and employees at clinics, who may like going to work every morn w/o fear of getting assaulted. And the relatives and spouses of rape victims who may not want them to have to go thru even more suffering…

No man has ever been affected by a woman’s decision to abort his child.
No man has ever been affected by a woman’s decisions not to about his child.
Pizzabrat said it. I believe it. That settles it.

Darn tootin’.

Moreover, one could argue that men are less personally affected by abortion, and thus, are better qualified to evaluate it objectively. Now, I’m not about to argue that this decision should be left in the hands of men; however, if someone is going to play the race card, then I think we should remember that women’s greater stake is pregnancy does not necessarily make them better judges of the situation.


I just told you why. They couldn’t have one even if they wanted to, so there’s no skin off their nose either way.


They have as much say as their partner will allow, and none past that, because only thier partner CAN have an abortion.

That’s something else entirely.

Of course! If the majority of women decided it would be best for society to give up thier right to abortion, it would be as fair as outlawing anything else in my OP examples.

Not affected to the degree the pregnant woman is.


Because enough men voted that that’s how it should be.

The OP is so wrong I don’t know where to start.

If men shouldn’t make laws effecting only women then women should not be allowed to vote (unless they overthrow the government).

Also if we carry your argument to affirmative action, then whites should not make laws that just effect blacks - even if it is to boost their test scores.

If we carry this over to the military then females should not be allowed to vote with regards to war related issues because most of our fighting force is male.

Also you have the issue that the fetus is arguably another person and may have God given rights to use that womb.

originaly by k2dave

God doesnt give rights to anyone the government does, and both of them are pretty stingy when it comes to what you can and cant do.

I guess the Constitution could be amended to allow this though.

Matter of symantics (rights vs. privilges).

Don’t know where you live bub, but my rights were not given to me by the government. Call them natural, call them God given, but they most certianly are not bestowed by the government. Not in this country.

The op is so crazy it isn’t worth a response.

As long as you can be arrested and imprisoned you only have the rights the government lets you have. You are realy not free to do as you please.


I have no idea how you came up with that.

Can whites vote for that? I thought schools were doing that themselves, voluntarily.

My premise is that with making LAWS, everyone’s sacrifice has the possibility to be equal, except with abortion. No hypothetical man’s sacrifce can ever equal a woman’s sacrifice when restricting abortion. Your example is vague, and doesn’t refer to any laws. “Vote with regards to war related issues”, what excatly does that mean?

A fetus couldn’t vote anyway, so it has nothing to do with this debate, which is “why should a man be able to legislate (through voting) abortion?”