Men, in my sincere and honest opinion, should have no vote in the matter of abortion Does the same logic extend to infertile and post-menopause women?
any form of birth control I agree with dictionary.com on this one, birth control is about preventing conception, not birth. Abortion is not birth control.
I'm not trying to preach here. I still disagree with you though :)
Ok, it does make more sense when looked at like that, I guess I didn't read it closely enough the first time. I thought she was saying 'only women get to make decisions / policies / etc. regarding abortion'. I see now that what she was actually saying was closer to 'only pregnant women thinking about having abortions get to...'
I still disagree though. I still think that any and all people that love the woman and/or would love the child have a right to input. After all, the unborn, (potential) child is very much directly affected and doesn't get to speak. It does make sense to let someone speak for it.
Gah. I had a big long reply, but the internet ate it :(. The short version is that I do not think it is the woman's decision either. I believe the unborn child is alive and I do not think that any one person has the right to choose to kill another unless life is at stake. Not quality of life, not mental health, only life.
I place the life of the mother above the life of the child. I believe abortion is justified if the mother's life is at stake, or even probably at stake. I place the life of the child above the will and quality of life of the mother.
...firstly, I should read all replies before I start replying back.
Secondly, in discussing the 'vote' I was speaking more metaphorically about the debate on abortion itself. I feel that women's opinions - for the reasons given below - should carry more weight than men's.
In the matter of an actual abortion, I believe that a woman's right to choose is absolute. Her loved ones and those who would love the child are free to offer opinions, advice and support but the decision to abort or not to abort is and must always ultimately be her choice.
Firstly, I accept that you have a different viewpoint on this and am totally cool with that. It's quite likely that we're going to hit an 'agree-to-disagree' point fairly shortly but we might as well enjoy the debate while it lasts. =3
Secondly: "Does the same logic extend to infertile and post-menopause women?"
In a specific case, yes. In general, I feel that women's opinions carry more weight purely because they can empathize - a post-menopausal woman may have had children, an infertile woman may have had a pregnancy scare.
I exclude men from the metaphorical vote for two main reasons, the first being that pregnancy is never something they will have to face no matter how long the odds. This means that they will approach this decision from a purely academic standpoint which leads to them oversimplifying (understandably so) the issue and that helps foster the idea that abortion is a black-and-white issue which polarizes the debate in a manner I consider profoundly unhealthy
( ... )
I honestly believe that men are capable of approaching it in an emotional manner, many men are so closely linked with lovers or female friends or relations that they can practically feel what they feel.
I also think that many women are capable of making their decision from a purely academic point of view, whether that is because they've always known they'd be infertile, they are celibate or they simply believe themselves to be incapable of getting pregnant for whatever reason.
I just think 'women get a say, men don't' is far, far too black and white. And that's before even mentioning transgender individuals.
prevents the fetus becoming a baby Can I ask when you think this happens? Is it when the child is born or when they could survive if they were born?
Well, yes. The above post does tend to paint things black and white. It was more a way to vent than an attempt to describe the nuances of my personal beliefs.
And I think men should be involved in the debate but the problem I find with debating abortions with men is that they want to view abortion as it reflects on them as an method of reproductive control.
This is (obviously) not true of all men but the majority of men who have defended abortion to me couch in those terms and I frankly resent it. A lot.
But I do feel that this highlights my main problem with the abortion 'debate' as it stands. Abortion can never be a purely black and white issue and so much depends on the individual case that I think most legislation involving it would be flawed from the outset.
Regarding the point at which fetus becomes baby, my personal belief is that from the time the baby could survive outside the womb, they're a person with all the inherent and implied rights that entails.
Regarding the point at which fetus becomes baby, my personal belief is that from the time the baby could survive outside the womb, they're a person with all the inherent and implied rights that entails. But then it seems to me that you face one or the other of the following: 1) A fetus becomes a baby earlier now than it used to. In that case, why does a fetus gain the right to life earlier simply because of medical technology? 2) There are fetuses (how do you pluralise that?) out there completely free of their mothers, living because of machines.
1) The right to life applies from the time you have a life to have a right to. Fetuses (Fetusi? I have no idea) develop working cardiovascular systems, etc at a fairly fixed rate. I think it's roughly 22 weeks they can survive outside the womb. That would be my personal cut-off point.
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment?
1) The right to life applies from the time you have a life to have a right to. Fetuses (Fetusi? I have no idea) develop working cardiovascular systems, etc at a fairly fixed rate. I think it's roughly 22 weeks they can survive outside the womb. That would be my personal cut-off point. Do you mean survive outside the womb with or without medical help? Because there's a huge gap between the point at which a child will survive without medical help and the point at which they will survive with it and it's getting wider all the time.
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment? No. Sorry for not being clear. What I mean by this is that if you say that the point at which a fetus gains the right to life is the point at which it could survive without medical technology then all the babies born pre-mature that survive only because of medical technology are not actually babies but rather fetuses
( ... )
Does the same logic extend to infertile and post-menopause women?
any form of birth control
I agree with dictionary.com on this one, birth control is about preventing conception, not birth. Abortion is not birth control.
I'm not trying to preach here. I still disagree with you though :)
Reply
Reply
I still disagree though. I still think that any and all people that love the woman and/or would love the child have a right to input. After all, the unborn, (potential) child is very much directly affected and doesn't get to speak. It does make sense to let someone speak for it.
Reply
Reply
I place the life of the mother above the life of the child. I believe abortion is justified if the mother's life is at stake, or even probably at stake. I place the life of the child above the will and quality of life of the mother.
Reply
Secondly, in discussing the 'vote' I was speaking more metaphorically about the debate on abortion itself. I feel that women's opinions - for the reasons given below - should carry more weight than men's.
In the matter of an actual abortion, I believe that a woman's right to choose is absolute. Her loved ones and those who would love the child are free to offer opinions, advice and support but the decision to abort or not to abort is and must always ultimately be her choice.
Reply
Secondly: "Does the same logic extend to infertile and post-menopause women?"
In a specific case, yes. In general, I feel that women's opinions carry more weight purely because they can empathize - a post-menopausal woman may have had children, an infertile woman may have had a pregnancy scare.
I exclude men from the metaphorical vote for two main reasons, the first being that pregnancy is never something they will have to face no matter how long the odds. This means that they will approach this decision from a purely academic standpoint which leads to them oversimplifying (understandably so) the issue and that helps foster the idea that abortion is a black-and-white issue which polarizes the debate in a manner I consider profoundly unhealthy ( ... )
Reply
I also think that many women are capable of making their decision from a purely academic point of view, whether that is because they've always known they'd be infertile, they are celibate or they simply believe themselves to be incapable of getting pregnant for whatever reason.
I just think 'women get a say, men don't' is far, far too black and white. And that's before even mentioning transgender individuals.
prevents the fetus becoming a baby
Can I ask when you think this happens? Is it when the child is born or when they could survive if they were born?
Reply
And I think men should be involved in the debate but the problem I find with debating abortions with men is that they want to view abortion as it reflects on them as an method of reproductive control.
This is (obviously) not true of all men but the majority of men who have defended abortion to me couch in those terms and I frankly resent it. A lot.
But I do feel that this highlights my main problem with the abortion 'debate' as it stands. Abortion can never be a purely black and white issue and so much depends on the individual case that I think most legislation involving it would be flawed from the outset.
Regarding the point at which fetus becomes baby, my personal belief is that from the time the baby could survive outside the womb, they're a person with all the inherent and implied rights that entails.
Reply
But then it seems to me that you face one or the other of the following:
1) A fetus becomes a baby earlier now than it used to. In that case, why does a fetus gain the right to life earlier simply because of medical technology?
2) There are fetuses (how do you pluralise that?) out there completely free of their mothers, living because of machines.
Reply
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment?
Reply
Do you mean survive outside the womb with or without medical help? Because there's a huge gap between the point at which a child will survive without medical help and the point at which they will survive with it and it's getting wider all the time.
2) I'm going to need to ask for a little more context here, to be sure of what you're asking. I'm assuming you mean fetuses/fetusi (this is getting annoying) for use in IVF treatment?
No. Sorry for not being clear. What I mean by this is that if you say that the point at which a fetus gains the right to life is the point at which it could survive without medical technology then all the babies born pre-mature that survive only because of medical technology are not actually babies but rather fetuses ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment