Why Should Men Have ANY Say In Abortion?

Like all your claims you have no proof of this....hyperbole doesn't help your cause....so keep it up , it's amusing.

 

This poem was written by a young single man whose girlfriend decided to have an abortion without consulting him:

Please tell me about our child.
Don’t tell me you haven’t thought about it.
I know it’s been on your mind a lot.
So tell me.
Please.
I need to know.
Was our baby a little boy or a little girl?
What would he have looked like?
Would she have smiled when you held her to your breast?
Would she have reached out with tiny hands with that warmth in her eyes,
that comes from knowing that she was safe and loved?
How much did she weigh?
Was carrying her all that hard as you both grew larger and larger?
Did you feel full again and alive, like a woman?
What color was her hair, her eyes?
Did she kick inside you?
Don’t tell me you haven’t thought about it.
I know you have.
I know it’s probably been on your mind a lot since then.
So please tell me.
I need to know.
I need to know because I am a man and I have thought about it a lot.
Every day.
Since before you left me.
And I know that if our baby’s going away has torn out of me as much as it has,
it tore out of you, too, only more.
She was inside of you.
And she was torn out.
I know that what I say is true.
So please don’t deny that.
I need to know.
And so do you.

“Unanticipated Grief,” Robert Fulton in The Sociology of Death, University of Minnesota, Spring, 1988, p.7

 

A big ""So?""

 

Didn't he say over 4 years ago he wanted his two ugly picaninnies to have the right to abortion?

 

But it wasn't "disastrously stupid." And that's the point. Unless there is more to what he said that no one has posted here, then his words have been almost pathologically distorted by people who need to believe he said something that he did not say. Choosing to infer things that are not present in order to make him the bad guy. Disagreeing with someone's position is one thing. But if you have to misrepresent that position in order to refute it, then you are being dishonest and you need to be called out. And this is what they are doing. Their entire objection is based on a straw man.

 

Men and women alike can be ideologues who will set aside even their own well-being accordingly.

 

It is silly to suggest one must be able to carry out a bodily system function one is not designed for as a prerequisite for an opinion/position. Must a doctor have cancer to have an opinion on how to treat a cancer patient? A psychiatrist must or for some time be mentally unstable to have the wherewithal to counsel his patients? So only women doctors can be OB/GYN's and deliver babies? Or police officers must be shot with every firearm they carry before using it in the line of duty while protecting/taking life? That just don't make no sense.

If it is about design then the father looks after the mother as the mother looks after the child. Nature dictates who will protect and nurture the developing child in the womb. Nature sets the course.

Men and women have a vested interest in their own bodies but who represents the best interest of the developing child?

I do not see the developing human, in his mother's womb, as property but if you were talking about human chattel then I would say the father does have some property rights. An important part of that right is that the person entrusted with the responsibility to care for that property must do so with due diligence, so as not to devalue, harm or diminish his property interest.

 

While I agree with you on some of this, the one thing you miss is that in order for all of this

to be correct you have to have two people who actually want the pregnancy to continue, what you have put is how it would be in an ideal world, we live in a world far from that.
As to nature mankind has for centuries played around with nature, if we hadn't how many would be dead now if nature was allowed to take it course.
As to property, no one has the right to tell you what to do with your property, at best the man is a minimum share holder which as you probably know means he can be outvoted by the majority share holder, in this case the woman.

 

Which is exactly why it's women who get to decide whether to abort or not.

Slight inconvenience???? Pregnancy and childbirth have a HUGE impact on a woman's body, and some of the effects can last for the rest of her life. Some of them can kill her. She is the ONLY one who gets to decide if she will undertake those risks and effects. While the father may have and voice an opinion, it's HER and HER ALONE who gets the final say.

 

why do non-gun owners get a say in gun control then?

 

And you think abortion has no effects on the body? Ask those who have been injured, ask the family whose daughter or wife died during an abortion. And the emotional damage???

Curious....you state here that you are for allowing the woman to choose. You also think late term abortions should be legal, right? Because you would not tell her or take her right away....do I get your position correct?

 

Different subject, irrelevant to abortion .. take it to the gun forum.

- - - Updated - - -

You are as bad as Anders with this fixation on late term abortions .. oh and just as hypocritical as he is as well

 

There is a higher rate of complications with gestation and delivery than legal first trimester abortion. The vast majority of women who abort have no lasting negative effects and of the ones who do have emotional problems, they were more likely to have them BEFORE getting pregnant. The only person to decide which risks to take - gestation or abortion - is the woman.

I am conservative, therefore I am for the govt. staying out of our lives as much as possible. Abortion is a medical procedure so therefore only the medical profession should decide whether to perform the procedure or not. Just like it is with bowel resection or heart surgery.

 

Thanks.

I get your point about humankind and Nature, but can we agree that whatever we humans have come up with was already present in nature. Just as our bodies can recover from insult, healing, fortunately, can be part of Nature too.

Constitutional property rights dictate just compensation when one's property is taken by State force (for public use). It is my understanding that President Obama's takeover of GM and redistribution of ownership, usurped the private property rights from some investors/stockholders, yet they (those denied due process) may still have their day in court. For private minority shareholders, I am not so sure the empowered private majority can take the property of the minority with impunity, simply because of their minority status.

When thinking of this developing human life as nothing more than mere chattel (pro-abortion mindset)...it brings to mind a question and maybe I'm wrong, just guessing here, but I suspect a fertility clinic would have a sperm donor sign away his rights so he could not come back later to claim another family's child (sharing his DNA) as his own. Along these lines, I do wonder if this world's courts would recognize a father as a vested stakeholder in this "property" collaboration with the child's mother.

 

Not a problem

Again I agree with some of this, but humans have come up with things that are not present in nature . .such as transplants or surgery.

However the outcome of that property is always decided by the majority shareholder(s) and the fetus is not being taken by state force, the woman is not being forced into an abortion. In a private company the minority shareholder(s) can be out voted and over ruled by the majority .. in the case of a pregnancy there are only two share holders with the woman being the majority holder .. in the UK this can be called a hostile take over.

See you spoil the debate now, this discussion is using the comparison method and as far as I know not many pro-choicers think that the zygote/fetus is chattel, I certainly don't .. but to answer. A sperm donor is someone who gives a donation with no expectation of a return on the investment .. if you like it is a gift, and as far as I am aware sperm donors in the UK do have to sign a waiver, this not only protects the mother from future claims on her child but also the father if the mother should try to claim maintenance (alimony)

 

Seriously, if a man/the father wants to raise the child, he should have that right as the fetus would not exist without his sperm. That is why they should have a say.
However, if they exercise their legal right for the child to be born it should be under legal contract that they will accept full responsibility for the care of the child once born. IMO.

What do you think about what I said? I would like to know your thoughts.

 

The answer I suspect would be when a zygote/fetus can be taken from the woman and inserted into the man then he can have that right, until that point he doesn't have the right to turn the woman into an incubator.

 

If a man has no fight then he has no obligation! Simple enough!

 

OK, so a fully developed 8th month old fetus that can feel pain and sensations and that's almost just about as developed as a newborn and is horribly tortured to death through a late term abortion is just a woman controlling her own body. Riiighttt......

 

It is not being 'tortured'.

 

Before he has sex he should have a contract with the woman stating if she gets pregnant she will have the baby...and he will pay for any and all time she has to take off work, drive her to Dr.'s appointments and hospital, clean her house and do chores she's unable to do because of pregnancy, pay all medical bills, support her when she loses her job because she's pregnant(and YES that happens), take classes in how to raise children, be prepared to get up during the night to care for the baby , find child care for when he works (without asking his MOMMY to do it)....


I think once a man actually finds out what having that "bundle of joy" means he may guard his sperm a little more closely

 

Funny because that is what a real man does!

To the same note if she gets prego and he wants nothing to do with it it is all on her! No child support!

 

HE doesn't get to decide...the law says he must support his "get".

 

Well you see sluts, whores and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es want it both ways.

Your body and the man has no say one way or the other because it is your body and your choice.

Decide to keep it and all of the sudden it is his responsibility as well. He needs to pay for you choice and yours alone because it is your body.

Decide to abort and he has no say again because it is your body.

He says abort but no it is your body and he will pay.

Illogical it is one or the other.

 

"""""Well you see sluts, whores and (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)es want it both ways."""""


Does anyone need more proof that Anti-Choicers are misogynists??? And THAT is what is driving their argument....