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

Bodi · Jun 9, 2015

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

Removable Mind said:
No, the argument doesn't get ignored. It's one of those things in life that doesn't have an easy solution. There are a host of reasons that current laws make this situation unfair for men..

Not by you... you are one of the 1% to address it.

Yes, it can. Until then...

It won't happen nor should it... I am just saying that it could. Logically that is a flaw in the" pro-choice, I get to do what I want" woman's argument.

Removable Mind · Jun 9, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
Not by you... you are one of the 1% to address it.

It won't happen nor should it... I am just saying that it could. Logically that is a flaw in the" pro-choice, I get to do what I want" woman's argument.

I see the unfairness, Bod. It challenges both men and women to rethink their gender specific options and responsibilities when engaging in a sexual relation - whether that is defined as a one-night-stand or a long-term relationship.

Well, I can't agree with you on the flawed logic. If the law stated that woman who chooses to not abort in the face of a man simply saying, hey, I don't want the kid and I be legally obligated to pay child support - she would be fully responsible in every way for a born kid. HERE'S THE REALITY - most of the same pro-choice women who support Roe v Wade - still wouldn't get an abortion because of their individual moral beliefs.

That said...

So what would the state's interest look like if such a law existed? Herein is the problem for men. The government will not surrender it's interests.

It's sort of like doing some math functions that can't be simply calculated without doing a long, drawn out mechanical process. No shortcuts, no factoring, etc. can be used. The laws of math are strict. There is an order of operation that can't be circumvented. In this case there is no easy answer.

If the extremist wacknuts in this country gain a foothold in our government and beginsto dismantle women's rights by figuring out ways to systematically to significantly reduce access. Men are going to bear a greater and greater burden to for supporting unwanted kids.

JayDubya · Jun 9, 2015

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

Babylon_Drifter said:
The life of the unborn virtually means nothing to these people

You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You're projecting your own disdain for the human rights of abortion victims onto others and pretending that we share your disdain, only we somehow, some way have disdain for women. In reality, that dog won't hunt.

Phys251 · Jun 10, 2015

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

Babylon_Drifter said:
The life of the unborn virtually means nothing to these people...it merely serves as a seemingly noble pretext to keep their own insidious reasons undercover.

Pro-"lifers" care about the unborn? That is a joke.

Where are the outcries at fertility clinics that dispose of human embryos?
Why did pro-"life" groups like the National Right to Life Committee pour millions into the Romney campaign despite Romney profiting from servicing abortion clinics?
Where are the protests at laboratories that conduct stem cell research?
Why did the pro-"life" movement organize to address legal abortion instead of abortion?
Why do most pro-"lifers" worship a god responsible for slaying the firstborns of Egypt?

Yet if a woman decides to terminate her pregnancy, it becomes controversial? Why is that? Pro-"lifers" are giving everyone else and themselves a pass, but not pregnant women. It is because legal abortion empowers a woman's reproductive health and sex life. She transcends beyond being just an incubator for another human life and she is no longer held captive by the traditionalist's own assigned gender role.

It is all about keeping women away from controlling their own reproductive health and social conservatives DO NOT WANT women to have control over their own families or health. This is the real reason which darkly motivates these people. Raw sexism and misogyny.

Excellent post. Reminds me of George Carlin's epic takedown of "pro-life."

Babylon_Drifter · Jun 10, 2015

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

JayDubya said:
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.

You're projecting your own disdain for the human rights of abortion victims onto others and pretending that we share your disdain, only we somehow, some way have disdain for women. In reality, that dog won't hunt.

Instead of projecting your disdain for human life, why don't you counter my points which exposes the dark hypocrisy of the right to life movement instead of addressing a single sentence?

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

maquiscat said:
You are obviously missing the fact that I am addressing only one specific consequence of the pregnancy. I am not dismissing the others. I even noted that the stress that the man experiences are not the same as the woman's, but he does go through all three categories of stresses as well, in one manner or another. Additionally, I am not even denying that it is her choice, within the bounds of nature, of what to do with her body. I, and the others, are pointing out that the woman has a chance after pregnancy occurs to rid herself of the responsibility and burden of the child itself, a chance/choice the man does not have. At all other points, they have the same chance, even if the specific methods differ (e.g. pills vs condom).

The only one that we're concerned with here is $$$. And how 'unfair' it is that men cant choose after there is a pregnancy.

It's not fair. Men dont get pregnant, and I havent heard them complaining about that 'unfairness' yet.

Fact: if it's not fair to stick men with supporting a kid they *created*, it's hypocritical to then claim it's better to shove off the support onto taxpayers that had nothing to do with creating the kid. If you want fair, then justify how it's fair for taxpayers to pay for other people's kids if those people are capable of doing so?

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
Not by you... you are one of the 1% to address it.

It won't happen nor should it... I am just saying that it could. Logically that is a flaw in the" pro-choice, I get to do what I want" woman's argument.

I have written that the laws pertaining...and the judges decisions...regarding father's rights are unfair many times. I hope you are not disregarding that in your 1%.

It's not a flaw re: claims of fairness however. It cannot be fair. So you prefer to force on taxpayers what you choose to let the responsible man (or woman) responsible avoid. Even less fair.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
My argument does not care about moral choice...

Mine either. Just having those actually responsible pay for their own actions rather than those not responsible.

So it is about $$ and if you want to look at the moral side of it, the best interests of the child.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
That is the whole point of my argument... she can have an abortion. That fact gets ignored 99% of the time even though it IS a valid argument.

It's not ignored. It's a fact and one that cant be changed. Just like the fact that she's the only one getting pregnant and he's not.

It means she has an additional choice 'after' sex. Men know this...dont they? Yes, they do.

So they have all the info they need to make THEIR choice before sex. And yet...they often dont. Do you know why they put themselves at such risk? I dont. Maybe, as a man, you or another male here can answer.

Unless the answer is men cant or wont make that decision before sex, in which case, I'd like to know why?

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
Obviously a lot of men do not "accept" the risk...

At their own risk. They know the woman has these choices.

So...then why do they take the risk? No one is forcing them. They choose to accept that risk.

Bodi · Jun 30, 2015

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

Lursa said:
I have written that the laws pertaining...and the judges decisions...regarding father's rights are unfair many times. I hope you are not disregarding that in your 1%.

It's not a flaw re: claims of fairness however. It cannot be fair. So you prefer to force on taxpayers what you choose to let the responsible man (or woman) responsible avoid. Even less fair.

I do put you in that group Lursa... but again, it is not on the taxpayers if she aborts when she finds out that he wants out. That is the whole point

Mine either. Just having those actually responsible pay for their own actions rather than those not responsible.

So it is about $$ and if you want to look at the moral side of it, the best interests of the child.

Again, there is no child if she aborts... that is the whole point. It is HER CHOICE to burden the taxpayers. Hers alone.

Bodi · Jun 30, 2015

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

Lursa said:
It's not ignored. It's a fact and one that cant be changed. Just like the fact that she's the only one getting pregnant and he's not.

It means she has an additional choice 'after' sex. Men know this...dont they? Yes, they do.

So they have all the info they need to make THEIR choice before sex. And yet...they often dont. Do you know why they put themselves at such risk? I dont. Maybe, as a man, you or another male here can answer.

Unless the answer is men cant or wont make that decision before sex, in which case, I'd like to know why?

It gets 100% ignored by most. You acknowledge it but dismiss it. Most just dismiss it first.

At their own risk. They know the woman has these choices.

So...then why do they take the risk? No one is forcing them. They choose to accept that risk.

That is a different point unrelated to my argument.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

iangb said:
So you've agreed that people who are not directly responsible should not be forced to pay.

The other half of the argument is; why do you consider the man directly responsible for the birth, when he had no say in whether it happened or not?

Because the woman cannot be forced to end the natural process at the risk of her health and a gross infringement on many of her rights.

A man today in the US *knows* this. So he pays the consequences of his actions that he knowingly undertook.

Just like a woman does. As stated many times, if she gets pregnant, she also must pay the consequences of her actions. And once pregnant, a woman *cannot escape* consequences, whereas a man can.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

maquiscat said:
Here's the thing. Both get to make the choice of whether or not to have sex. She gets pregnant and he doesn't want the baby, it's too bad so sad if she does and he's footing the bill. But reverse the situation and she gets pregnant and doesn't want the baby and he does, it is once again too bad so sad for him. If she doesn't want the consequence of a baby she can avoid it after the sex. So she can have sex and then lose the baby. He can't have sex and then "lose" the baby. She can still avoid the consequence of the pregnancy, he has to avoid the pregnancy altogether. She gets to back out after the fact he doesn't. How do you not see the imbalance here?

Here's another one: they both agree to have sex. They use birth control but she still gets pregnant. Uh oh....she has NO WAY OUT. She pays the consequences of that pregnancy, period. If a baby ends up resulting from her handling the consequences, then he also ends up paying consequences. But if there's no baby, he gets no consequences. (But she still does.)

She can never escape the consequences of her pregnancy. I've written this many times, are you denying you've missed it?

She has only these options:

--give birth
--have an abortion
--have a miscarriage
--die during pregnancy/childbirth

And each of the first 3 can kill her or do permanent damage to her reproductive system or health. All are painful and have risks.

So...tell me again, how it's unfair to men? When in 3 of those, they get off scott free? See...not so unfair, men are just pissed that women get to decide. That they no longer have control or can just walk away.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
I do put you in that group Lursa... but again, it is not on the taxpayers if she aborts when she finds out that he wants out. That is the whole point

Again, there is no child if she aborts... that is the whole point. It is HER CHOICE to burden the taxpayers. Hers alone.

True, but if she aborts, there are no consequences for the man, and he doesnt have to pay, so I'm not sure what the point is.

I've always said that the right to have an abortion is a benefit to society....taxpayers, men, women.

You cant control her decision. Whether she goes on assistance immediately when the kid is born or later if her husband dies....you cannot control her actions or her circumstances. Same for a man. If he has custody and requests assistance, the same laws apply to him. Same as if the mother dies and can no longer contribute.

Everything you write just demonstrates that you resent the fact that she gets the choice. It's not fair. it's not fair she's the one that gets stuck with the pregnancy either. Fix that and then get back to me about fair (and not the medically induced freaks that get artificially altered...that doesnt happen by accident)

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
It gets 100% ignored by most. You acknowledge it but dismiss it. Most just dismiss it first.

I dont dismiss it, there's just nothing you can do about it that is 'more fair' to the kids or taxpayers.

Bodi · Jun 30, 2015

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

Lursa said:
Everything you write just demonstrates that you resent the fact that she gets the choice. It's not fair. it's not fair she's the one that gets stuck with the pregnancy either. Fix that and then get back to me about fair (and not the medically induced freaks that get artificially altered...that doesnt happen by accident)

But I have found a way to make it fair...

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
But I have found a way to make it fair...

And what way is that that does not require the taxpayers to pay before a capable male or female producer or that infringes on women's rights?

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
That is a different point unrelated to my argument.

I was quoting you directly where you discussed 'what if men didnt accept that risk.'

Bodi · Jun 30, 2015

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

Lursa said:
And what way is that that does not require the taxpayers to pay before a capable male or female producer or that infringes on women's rights?

She aborts. Taxpayers are free to frolic about in the splendor of the grass.

I was quoting you directly where you discussed 'what if men didnt accept that risk.'

A tangent...

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
She aborts. Taxpayers are free to frolic about in the splendor of the grass.

A tangent...

OK. How do you force her to abort? Again, you are discussing controlling women's behavior beyond Constitutional boundaries. It's a completely separate action, as was the sex act itself. Can the male be penalized for her death due to a miscarriage or abortion? His actions stemming from the sex act? No.

These are separate acts...sex, abortion/gestation, support of a child. And support of a child...when there is a child...is/should be applied equally under the law.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
A tangent...

It's not a tangent. For it to be so, it would mean that it's irrelevant that men recognize that having sex with women can lead to consequences that they cannot control.

And they do know this and cannot ignore it. yeah, we get that they dont like it but they can 100% protect themselves and yet...often do not.

Bodi · Jun 30, 2015

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

Lursa said:
OK. How do you force her to abort? Again, you are discussing controlling women's behavior beyond Constitutional boundaries. It's a completely separate action, as was the sex act itself. Can the male be penalized for her death due to a miscarriage or abortion? His actions stemming from the sex act? No.

These are separate acts...sex, abortion/gestation, support of a child. And support of a child...when there is a child...is/should be applied equally under the law.

I am talking about what is logical. She can abort. If she does not SHE is the one choosing to burden the taxpayer.

Lursa · Jun 30, 2015

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

Bodhisattva said:
I am talking about what is logical. She can abort. If she does not SHE is the one choosing to burden the taxpayer.

Maybe she cant. Maybe her religion (protected by the Const) or her health prevents it. THing is, the govt cannot inquire OR decide. So there is no way to control that factor. So men need to let it go. Just like before when women could identify the fathers...yet without DNA proof...not legally make them pay. Until that was possible, they had to 'let it go.'

And I am talking about what is logical, IMO moral, and best for society and kids. And the law. What are you talking about

Edit: you *want* her to abort. Hey, in most circumstances, so would I probably. I however, recognize reality. In reality, it's not fair.

Why do you think it can be? Why do you think men are entitled for it to be? Women recognize the reality that, unfairly, they're the ones that get pregnant and bear ALL the health consequences. So it doesnt mean all that much when men have to bear *some* of the financial consequences. Cuz...it's not fair.

iangb · Jul 1, 2015

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

Lursa said:
Because the woman cannot be forced to end the natural process at the risk of her health and a gross infringement on many of her rights.

A man today in the US *knows* this. So he pays the consequences of his actions that he knowingly undertook.

Just like a woman does. As stated many times, if she gets pregnant, she also must pay the consequences of her actions. And once pregnant, a woman *cannot escape* consequences, whereas a man can.

No-one is forcing the woman to 'end the natural processes'. She 100% and always has the decision over whether or not to continue a pregnancy. Sure, she can be influenced in her decision, but not forced. The two are very different.

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

Just waiting for my set...

Irremovable Intelligence

Struggler

Purge evil with Justice

Well-known member

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Tenacious

Just waiting for my set...

Tenacious

Tenacious

Just waiting for my set...

Tenacious

Tenacious

Just waiting for my set...

Tenacious

Lurker

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency