Moderator: Forum Administrators
I say it's a strawman you've made up. I've heard pro-choicers say that male politicians shouldn't be able to enforce their morals on women, but never that men aren't allowed to even think abortion is wrong (or that women aren't allowed to; that's the whole point of "pro-choice").Mars80 wrote:Why does being male mean that I can't think abortion is wrong? Just because I can never get pregnant, that should mean I can't think abortion is wrong? This is nonsense, I say. It seems like prochoice people (even male prochoice people) commonly use this argument against prolife people. Is this just an excuse that prochoice people are trying to make to defend their position?
Mars80 wrote:Why does being male mean that I can't think abortion is wrong? Just because I can never get pregnant, that should mean I can't think abortion is wrong? This is nonsense, I say. It seems like prochoice people (even male prochoice people) commonly use this argument against prolife people. Is this just an excuse that prochoice people are trying to make to defend their position?
Why does being male mean that I can't think abortion is wrong?
linguoboy wrote:In general, they show a lack of understanding of female sexuality, the impact of a pregnancy, systematic discrimination, power differentials, and the like.
meidei wrote:It's not like "pro-abortion" people say "have an abortion every month, it's great and good fun" Noone is saying that it's fun, really. But it's a choice a woman needs to have available because it's her body. If anything, "pro-abortion" folk are also pro-condom and pro-contraception, and pro-social-services-that-can-help-the-woman-who-decides-to-keep-it and pro-adoption.
AndreiB wrote: A better approach should also take into consideration the impact of abortion on female sexuality and further sexual development (for example, multiple abortion is know to cause what's known as an incompetent cervix — a cervix that starts dilating prematurely). As well as other phychological issues a woman might experience, such as guilt that many relationships end after an abortion because of the stress the woman might experience.
I don't think he was being patronizing, whether on purpose or not. I think he was saying that men need to take into account how difficult having an abortion can be for a woman (both the medical and psychological effects), and how difficult of a choice it is to make, before forming an opinion of their own on it.Varislintu wrote:Take into cosideration how, though? Like what do you mean in practice? Just saying, because this is on the verge of being quite patronising and infantilising of women. Like their situation needs to be thought over by someone else than herself, like she needs extra protection for her own good, like she can't understand what an abortion would mean for her.
A vasectomy is a far less invasive procedure, and often reversible. I don't think that's a very good analogy at all.It's a bit like saying male vasectomies should be legal, but we need to, as a society, also take into consideration that the men might have some kind of side effects. Like, let's not give in to the pro-vasectomy propaganda head first, and stuff.
We've already had this discussion before about how it's not just about the woman's body but the baby's - and I agreed that the woman's is more important, so let's not revisit it now. But it is a more complex moral issue than "I want to pierce my frenulum; why shouldn't I? It's my body".But in reality I think men would feel that all they need is some impartial scientific medical information and their own brains to decide what to do with their body. Society doesn't need to wring its hands over their choice.
In the interest of fairness, I've found the more reasonable anti-abortion people are also pro-child services and pro-adoption. It would be a little hypocritical if they weren't.If anything, "pro-abortion" folk are also pro-condom and pro-contraception, and pro-social-services-that-can-help-the-woman-who-decides-to-keep-it and pro-adoption.
Well, I'm not sure what his intent was. I'm just trying to assume good faith. He did say he was pro-choice.Varislintu wrote:I'm glad if he wasn't trying to patronize. His usage of the idea of pro-abortion propaganda, however, was what made me wonder if he thinks there really is a lobby that wants to pressure women into having abortions, even if they come with health risks.
I don't think anyone was doing that here - but it certainly does happen all the time in legislatures worldwide. (Same goes for drug use, prostitution, and any number of social problems that would be better solved by harm reduction than outright banning.)I wasn't trying to make an exact analogy between vasectomies and abortions, more like make it more apparent why it feels patronising if society feels obligated to ponder a medical issue for you, over your head, as if you're a child that cannot be trusted with the decision.
In the interest of fairness, I've found the more reasonable anti-abortion people are also pro-child services and pro-adoption. It would be a little hypocritical if they weren't.
Including during childbirth?
Sure, but I still don't think a late-term abortion for non-medical reasons is a procedure that should be done without very good reason.It is unlikely that a person would seek a late term abortion for non-medical reasons, we can see that, don't we?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest