Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”[W:589]

[Schwartz]

On “Outnumbered” today, Fox News’ “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow weighed in on Nick Loeb’s bizarre claim of ownership over two fertilized embryos he created with ex-fiancé Sofia Vergara.

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

 

[iangb]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This is pro-life disguised as pro-choice compromise. To illuminate this; consider the opposite scenario - should a man have the right to force a woman to have a medical abortion for a child he does not want, but she does?

Medical abortion is not about what happens after birth. Medical abortion reflects the reality that pregnancy happens within the body of the woman, and that since only she has the legal right to consent (or withhold consent) regarding the things that affect her body, only she gets to choose whether she has an abortion or not.

A man will only have the legal force to influence a pregnancy when he becomes pregnant.

 

[OrphanSlug]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

Well, this is certainly the basis thinking for those that believe a rapist should be able to tell the pregnant by rape victim to carry to term.

 

[prometeus]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Well, this is certainly the basis thinking for those that believe a rapist should be able to tell the pregnant by rape victim to carry to term.

That guy is an ignorant moron.

 

[Gaius46]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

An abortion is a medical procedure. Medical decisions rightfully belong to the individual.

This is simply just another feeble attempt by a man at control over someone else.

 

[Scrabaholic]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

The only way we should even begin to entertain the idea is if the embryo can be safely removed from the woman's body (with no risk to her) and implanted into the man's to gestate.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

I think that about the only "fair" thing to do is to allow the male to "abort" financial responsibility for a kid. Abortion is legal, so I don't think that something like the above could fly. The unborn, legally speaking, is property not human.

 

[Doppelgangirl]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

The only way we should even begin to entertain the idea is if the embryo can be safely removed from the woman's body (with no risk to her) and implanted into the man's to gestate.

:yes:

That's exactly what I was about to say. The man should be able to veto any abortion he wants -- just as soon as he physically takes over & assumes responsibility for the pregnancy.

Fair enough.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Most abortions occur because the pregnancy was unplanned...by both parties. I'd say it wouldnt be all that common for men to fight for a kid they didnt even want to begin with, but it would happen. Probably alot of the really religious people that were fornicating but then decided that they would draw the line at abortion, lol.

But it all comes down to rights and to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will would grossly infringe on many of her inalienable and Constitutional rights. What would the justification for placing the man's choice and the unborn (which has no rights) above these gross violations to women, which go up to and including the loss of her life.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I think that about the only "fair" thing to do is to allow the male to "abort" financial responsibility for a kid. Abortion is legal, so I don't think that something like the above could fly. The unborn, legally speaking, is property not human.

He's not obligated to care for it when it's 'property' as you say. However once born, if the mother cannot support the child then the state (taxpayers) have to do so. That's even less fair. We didnt create the kid.

If the mother doesnt want any assistance from the father, that's fine but as soon as one parent applies for any public assistance, the state/county now (pretty much everywhere in US) automatically go after the non-custodial for child support to take the burden off the state.

They recognize the best interests of the child first, and the taxpayers 2nd.

 

[Ikari]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

He's not obligated to care for it when it's 'property' as you say. However once born, if the mother cannot support the child then the state (taxpayers) have to do so. That's even less fair. We didnt create the kid.

Cool, so let's just have dumpster baby day then.

If the mother doesnt want any assistance from the father, that's fine but as soon as one parent applies for any public assistance, the state/county now (pretty much everywhere in US) automatically go after the non-custodial for child support to take the burden off the state.

They recognize the best interests of the child first, and the taxpayers 2nd.

Interesting. But if we're being fair, yes, then the father could abort responsibility. And yes, the mother can choose to have the baby and not be able to support it and the taxpayers are on the line. But if we want to be fair, maybe we can bring back those ol' Poor Houses, right? I mean the tax payer shouldn't be burdened by other's choices as well.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Cool, so let's just have dumpster baby day then.


Interesting. But if we're being fair, yes, then the father could abort responsibility. And yes, the mother can choose to have the baby and not be able to support it and the taxpayers are on the line. But if we want to be fair, maybe we can bring back those ol' Poor Houses, right? I mean the tax payer shouldn't be burdened by other's choices as well.

No, we're not being fair, as you said. It's not fair. No one said life or sex or pregnancy is fair.

But if we go with 'more fair' then it's more fair that the non-custodial parent pay, be held accountable instead of the taxpayers...it's not like people dont know that pregnancy is a risk.

The cheap hyperbole about 'dumpster baby' is pretty weak....and since I already mentioned the state places the child's interests first, also odd and irrelevant. What is the reason for the emotional rhetoric?

 

[Real Korimyr #9]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Men should have the right to deny paternity. They should absolutely not, under any circumstances, have any authority over the mother's body or her right to keep the child or surrender it for adoption.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

The day a male has the right to tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy is the day that he gets pregnant.

 

[Schwartz]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

The day a male has the right to tell a woman what to do with her pregnancy is the day that he gets pregnant.

1) It is not her pregnancy. It is a mutual child of two grown-up people. The fact that men cannot give birth to babies doesn't make their effort less important.
2) I am not saying that a man himself should be able to determine child's fate. Both parents have to do it jointly.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

It is not her pregnancy.

You really need to think about what you say before you say it. Because that's one of the dumbest things I've read around here in weeks.

It is a mutual child of two grown-up people. The fact that men cannot give birth to babies doesn't make their effort less important.

You need to clarify the highlighted passage. Someone could easily and sensibly interpret that as, "A man's 10-minute sexual act takes as much effort as a woman's nine-month pregnancy."

 

[Schwartz]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

You really need to think about what you say before you say it. Because that's one of the dumbest things I've read around here in weeks.



You need to clarify the highlighted passage. Someone could easily and sensibly interpret that as, "A man's 10-minute sexual act takes as much effort as a woman's nine-month pregnancy."

So you believe male responsibilities are limited to having sex with a woman? Then you are the one having a problem here.
Excuse-moi but I used to believe that baby is a common business of two people. Both of them love it, both of them care, both of them sacrifice their interests in the name of their child.

 

[Phys251]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

So you believe male responsibilities are limited to having sex with a woman? Then you are the one having a problem here.
Excuse-moi but I used to believe that baby is a common business of two people. Both of them love it, both of them care, both of them sacrifice their interests in the name of their child.

LOL, how many times have you been pregnant, sir? This discussion is about what happens prior to birth. Not after.

 

[Reformedfindlay]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Most abortions occur because the pregnancy was unplanned...by both parties. I'd say it wouldnt be all that common for men to fight for a kid they didnt even want to begin with, but it would happen. Probably alot of the really religious people that were fornicating but then decided that they would draw the line at abortion, lol.

But it all comes down to rights and to force a woman to remain pregnant against her will would grossly infringe on many of her inalienable and Constitutional rights. What would the justification for placing the man's choice and the unborn (which has no rights) above these gross violations to women, which go up to and including the loss of her life.

The old testament has over 600 different commandments including those ten that everyone knows.

Of course the hypocrites won't follow all of them except for a few.

 

[Henrin]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

No, we're not being fair, as you said. It's not fair. No one said life or sex or pregnancy is fair.

But if we go with 'more fair' then it's more fair that the non-custodial parent pay, be held accountable instead of the taxpayers...it's not like people dont know that pregnancy is a risk.

If you don't want the taxpayers held accountable then stop support holding them accountable. If your whole argument is that men must support children they don't want because of welfare, then why not just get rid of welfare? Does it not solve the problem you keep bringing up?

 

[Peter King]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

What an idiot, that is giving men dominion over a woman's body and that can never be accepted. Not bad enough to want to give government dominion over the body of a woman but even worse is to give men that power.

And who knows it is his zygote? Keith Ablow should feel ashamed for his ridiculous opinion but I think he is too much of an extreme woman-hater to ever to that.

 

[RAMOSS]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

1) It is not her pregnancy. It is a mutual child of two grown-up people. The fact that men cannot give birth to babies doesn't make their effort less important.
2) I am not saying that a man himself should be able to determine child's fate. Both parents have to do it jointly.

Except, of course, the man is not the one that is pregnant, and does not have to carry the physical burdens of the pregnancy. Any stable relationship , I am sure that the woman will listen and take into account the man's desires, but ultimately, she is the one that is pregnant, and carries the physical responsibility. As such, it's her final choice.

 

[year2late]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Fox News “Medical A-Team” member Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions” - Salon.com

According to Keith Ablow men should have a right to veto women’s abortions. It is a huge controversy. Pro-lifers advocate fetus' rights and believe abortion is almost always unacceptable. Feminists believe it is women's right to get rid of unwanted embryo. Don't fathers should have a right to influence pregnancy? Yes, it is her body, but as some say embryo is a separate being. Granting men a right to veto abortion - in case he is getting the child afterwards - is a working compromise.

Bullcrap. Not his body not his choice. The man bears NONE of the physical burdens and risks of the pregnancy. There is NO controversy. He gets NO choice in what happens to the woman's body.

 

[Peter King]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

1) It is not her pregnancy. It is a mutual child of two grown-up people. The fact that men cannot give birth to babies doesn't make their effort less important.
2) I am not saying that a man himself should be able to determine child's fate. Both parents have to do it jointly.

1. It's not her pregnancy? Is that what you are saying? Who's body is it? Who owns the uterus? Who will potentially risk her health and possibly her life? Not the guy that's who. It is her pregnancy, simple and pure.

2. Sorry, but it is not his body so it is never his, your or anybody's choice other than the woman.

 

[Lursa]

Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

1) It is not her pregnancy. It is a mutual child of two grown-up people. The fact that men cannot give birth to babies doesn't make their effort less important.
2) I am not saying that a man himself should be able to determine child's fate. Both parents have to do it jointly.

1) Sure it does. It cant kill the man. It cant permanently disable him with strokes or diabetes or kidney failure or....the list is long. It doesnt make him so so sick that he may lose his job...not everyone has a career where they are protected from firing when they take too many sick days.

2) I agree the decision should be made jointly but if there isnt agreement, then the man has way less skin in the game...he's not the one on the hook for 9 months of pregnancy and childbirth.