Originally Posted by The Rani

Abortions are not part of health.

Abortion is a medical procedure.

Originally Posted by Chas'88

My opinion on the issue: Men shouldn't debate this issue as it has nothing to do with us

It has a lot to do with men, insofar as gendered relations dictate a hugely significant portion of our culture, men have dictated the rules of the system for a very long time, and the legality of abortion will undoubtedly have an effect on men's lives. Perhaps our judgment will not be completely informed, but it's not totally uninformed.

FWIW, I agree with Odin that most of the anti-choice motivation stems from various patriarchal sources. To deny women the right to their bodies strikes me as sexist indeed; there isn't a doubt in my mind that abortion would be 100% legal if men were the ones getting pregnant.

Nothing left to do now but quit arguing and pay up to the insurance companies, right? Its not like any of us individuals has any free will with which we could argue... best to just sit back and let our corrupt Congress tell us where our money is supposed to go...

Shut up and like it... or shut up and seethe... or hell, maybe its a good time to shut up and leave!

Originally Posted by independent

Nothing left to do now but quit arguing and pay up to the insurance companies, right? Its not like any of us individuals has any free will with which we could argue... best to just sit back and let our corrupt Congress tell us where our money is supposed to go...

Shut up and like it... or shut up and seethe... or hell, maybe its a good time to shut up and leave!

You forgot the need to Hope for Change.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

FWIW, I agree with Odin that most of the anti-choice motivation stems from various patriarchal sources. To deny women the right to their bodies strikes me as sexist indeed; there isn't a doubt in my mind that abortion would be 100% legal if men were the ones getting pregnant.

I don't know. From everything that I've read and heard, men and women split the same way between the pro-choice and pro-life sides.

As Roadbldr mentioned, lots of men benefit from the convenience of abortion. I can give a personal example. Over 20 years ago, I was seriously involved with a man who considered himself pro-life (we discussed marriage). During the course of our relationship, I had a pregnancy scare and he underwent a revolution in thought, discovering the virtues of abortion. Oddly enough, I was considering keeping the hypothetical baby (I had just turned 30). A few days later, I had my period, the whole discussion was moot, and he was history.

Fortunately, I've never had to deal with abortion myself, except in the case of what the doctors call a "missed abortion" -- a miscarriage that doesn't actually happen -- the embryo stopped growing very early in the pregnancy, so there was no "baby", but it was still in the womb. You could say that I had an "abortion", with a D&C and everything, but there was no potential human being that was destroyed. Also, my insurance paid for it.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

It has a lot to do with men, insofar as gendered relations dictate a hugely significant portion of our culture, men have dictated the rules of the system for a very long time, and the legality of abortion will undoubtedly have an effect on men's lives. Perhaps our judgment will not be completely informed, but it's not totally uninformed.

You're not getting that I'm agreeing with you. In my mind a man has no right to tell a woman what she can or cannot do with her body, so therefore men shouldn't debate the issue.

I.E. My thinking process:
This is a woman's issue.
Am I a woman? No.
Therefore I have no right to push the issue either way.

If we could get the rest of the guys (who surprisingly are much more vocal--on both sides--than the ladies on this issue) to get out of an issue that they have no reason dealing with. An example would be this forum. To my knowledge only Rani & Child of Socrates are the only women debating the issue (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

The rest of this mess is guys throwing our weight around where it's not needed--making a bigger deal out of it than needs to be. Refusing to not let the women settle this matter themselves, having to have our say on the matter. This argument would've been a lot shorter if the men on this forum hadn't all chimed in on the subject.

With my answer--at least in my mind--I'm denying the patriarchy of the past, by denying that as a possible solution for the present.

Belief: Men shouldn't control a woman's choice.

Conclusion: Therefore men shouldn't debate about a woman's issue.

Action: I don't debate this or other issues, despite what I may believe or not believe on the matter. Let the women sort the issue out themselves.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Matt1989

FWIW, I agree with Odin that most of the anti-choice motivation stems from various patriarchal sources. To deny women the right to their bodies strikes me as sexist indeed; there isn't a doubt in my mind that abortion would be 100% legal if men were the ones getting pregnant.

What's the old saying? If us guys could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament?

Originally Posted by The Wonkette

I don't know. From everything that I've read and heard, men and women split the same way between the pro-choice and pro-life sides.

Well I'm not sure that has much to do with it. After all, both sexes are living in the same system and have internalized the various norms that society imposes on individuals. My suggestion is, that if it were men, instead of women, who could bear children, the development of the "abortion issue" would look very different than under the 'women bear children' model. And I'm quite sure that it wouldn't be much of an issue at all, really.

The question at hand is not whether it's moral or not (though I personally think having an abortion may be the morally right thing to do under some non- 'life-threatening/rape' circumstances, which would classify me as "pro-abortion" by some), but whether people should have the legal right to own their bodies. And my understanding of the ongoing development of patriarchy strongly indicates that the denial of this right could have only happened to women.

Originally Posted by Odin

What's the old saying? If us guys could get pregnant abortion would be a sacrament?

That's more of what I'm saying. If we suddenly switched places today, you'd see some opinions changed, but the numbers wouldn't be terribly affected. Let it stew for a century or two, and then get back to me.

Originally Posted by Wonkette

As Roadbldr mentioned, lots of men benefit from the convenience of abortion.

Naturally. But I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well I'm not sure that has much to do with it. After all, both sexes are living in the same system and have internalized the various norms that society imposes on individuals. My suggestion is, that if it were men, instead of women, who could bear children, the development of the "abortion issue" would look very different than under the 'women bear children' model. And I'm quite sure that it wouldn't be much of an issue at all, really.

The question at hand is not whether it's moral or not (though I personally think having an abortion may be the morally right thing to do under some non- 'life-threatening/rape' circumstances, which would classify me as "pro-abortion" by some), but whether people should have the legal right to own their bodies. And my understanding of the ongoing development of patriarchy strongly indicates that the denial of this right could have only happened to women.



That's more of what I'm saying. If we suddenly switched places today, you'd see some opinions changed, but the numbers wouldn't be terribly affected. Let it stew for a century or two, and then get back to me.



Naturally. But I'm not sure why this is a bad thing.

What you propose basically if you made men the ones with the ability to be pregnant and have offspring, then you've fundamentally changed human history. Men would've been the ones forced to stay at home, rear and take care of the children, and thought the inferior gender. Thus you would've ended up with perhaps not the same but similar development of the issue.

~Chas'88

Beautiful. The House approves the most corrupt corporate handout of the year, and they've got us arguing about abortion again.

This is a 4T, right? I feel a mega-unraveling coming on.

Originally Posted by Odin

Having a rational argument does not preclude letting off steam in the meantime. Sorry, I'm just really ticked off right now.

Being ticked off is no excuse to having a non-civil discussion, particularly since the people you are debating against are being civil about it. As a Millennial, you should be well aware that your actions are doing nothing at all to further your own goals. In fact, your vitriolic rhetoric on here makes me wonder if you understand the song, and not just the words to it.

Originally Posted by independent

Beautiful. The House approves the most corrupt corporate handout of the year...

That's a pretty high bar to set. I mean, it's very corrupt, and very much a handout. I could see giving it 'worst in the past three months', easy. But there have been so very many of those passed in the last year. I mean, is this one really more of a corrupt handout than the bankster bailout? In that one, they just stuck the money right in their buddies' pockets, after all...

Originally Posted by independent

Beautiful. The House approves the most corrupt corporate handout of the year, and they've got us arguing about abortion again.

This is a 4T, right? I feel a mega-unraveling coming on.

Yeah, that definitely is sad, isn't it?

Originally Posted by Chas'88

What you propose basically if you made men the ones with the ability to be pregnant and have offspring, then you've fundamentally changed human history. Men would've been the ones forced to stay at home, rear and take care of the children, and thought the inferior gender. Thus you would've ended up with perhaps not the same but similar development of the issue.

~Chas'88

Well, ceteris paribus, dude. Otherwise it doesn't make as much sense. (Then again, I'm not sure childbirth is the key to gendered oppression.)

Originally Posted by independent

Beautiful. The House approves the most corrupt corporate handout of the year, and they've got us arguing about abortion again.

This is a 4T, right? I feel a mega-unraveling coming on.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

That's a pretty high bar to set. I mean, it's very corrupt, and very much a handout. I could see giving it 'worst in the past three months', easy. But there have been so very many of those passed in the last year. I mean, is this one really more of a corrupt handout than the bankster bailout? In that one, they just stuck the money right in their buddies' pockets, after all...

Here's Kucinich on the matter.

Dennis is a good guy.

Of course, that's why neither he nor Paul nor any other (were there another) such type will be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.

As has been said, if Democracy could change anything, they wouldn't allow it to exist.

Originally Posted by Matt1989

Well, ceteris paribus, dude. Otherwise it doesn't make as much sense. (Then again, I'm not sure childbirth is the key to gendered oppression.)

As far as I understood (or at least was taught) the Patriarchal society put women into the home because they were the ones who were having kids every year--to every other year. As I can tell from my family tree, where many women were popping out either a kid every year or every other year. Having children was a full time occupation for most of the women on my family tree, to which they usually devoted a good 20 years to if they didn't die during childbirth.

So if men were to be the ones having kids, they'd be restricted in what they would've been restricted for the entire time of the pregnancy. You couldn't have held things constant back then.

You're trying to make a simple little point about how if things were switched for a day with previous memories and societal pressures held in place how things would be different. However I'm trying to imagine if human beings had evolved like that naturally and developed a society around it. Because to me you can't scientifically isolate and change one thing without it upsetting/completely having changed the rest of society because everything contributes to the development and interaction of society.

~Chas'88

That is something we do need: Single-payer. I like Dennis too.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

As far as I understood (or at least was taught) the Patriarchal society put women into the home because they were the ones who were having kids every year--to every other year. As I can tell from my family tree, where many women were popping out either a kid every year or every other year. Having children was a full time occupation for most of the women on my family tree, to which they usually devoted a good 20 years to if they didn't die during childbirth.

I'm not sure what this means. Can you sort out cause and effect here?

You're trying to make a simple little point about how if things were switched for a day with previous memories and societal pressures held in place how things would be different. However I'm trying to imagine if human beings had evolved like that naturally and developed a society around it. Because to me you can't scientifically isolate and change one thing without it upsetting/completely having changed the rest of society because everything contributes to the development and interaction of society.

Wow, you've really internalized that Austrian School methodology quickly. I agree with you of course, yet I'm not trying to make a scientific point, but rather a feminist one (namely that men and women have been/are treated unequally), so I think I can use ceteris paribus to effect.

The feminist viewpoint:

namely that men and women have been/are treated unequally

I took for granted that it wasn't needed to be mentioned as it's already known and accepted between us.

Wow, you've really internalized that Austrian School methodology quickly

Actually I thought you were going to comment that I was applying/adhering to Chaos theory too much.

~Chas'88

Originally Posted by Chas'88

If we could get the rest of the guys (who surprisingly are much more vocal--on both sides--than the ladies on this issue) to get out of an issue that they have no reason dealing with. An example would be this forum. To my knowledge only Rani & Child of Socrates are the only women debating the issue (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong).

The Wonkette is female.

I don't really have a problem with men discussing the issue one way or another. Just as I, a woman, have no trouble expressing my opinion over the military draft.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

]...
Pro-choicers defeat their only coherent argument -- that only the woman has any right at all to make such a choice -- when they bring society to the table as a financier. If society is participating in it, then the choice gets to be shared with society. Which means the choice is not exclusively the domain of the woman anymore.

What choice are you talking about? Ending the pregnancy or providing health care?

These are two different choices. They can be related, if the woman and society choose to relate them - a woman can choose not to end her pregnancy based on society's choice to not provide her the means for it being done in a medically safe way - but, they still remain different choices.

Withholding health care (I guess, as some sort of moral punishment) is a separate ethical issue from the issue of forcing a women to the point where a viable fetus can be taken from her (i.e., slavery). Although, much like the killing of doctors, in combination, the two issues can certainly reveal the hypocrisy of some on the anti-abortion side of the ledger.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Probably they would look it that the same way they would look at repairing someone's slit wrists. Afaik, insurance companies don't refuse payment on lifesaving measures to combat injuries someone did to themselves.

Well, that is a step in the right direction. Maybe all that needs to happen to make everyone happy on the issue is for the coat hanger guys to just set up shop right outside of emergency entrance to hospitals.

Originally Posted by The Rani

Liberals really don't give people enough credit. They think they know better.

Wait, I thought Liberals were generally pro-choice - you know, giving "people enough credit" and NOT thinking "they know better."

Oh, I'm so confused!