• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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

Uh....

The grounds for an abortion are not contained in the CS&A Act but in the Crimes Act 1961 (and two amendments passed in December 1977 and July 1978). These grounds are:

Serious danger to life
Serious danger to physical health
Serious danger to mental health
Any form of incest or sexual relations with a guardian
Mental subnormality

Fetal abnormality (added in the July 1978 amendment)

In addition, other factors which are not grounds in themselves but which may be taken into account are:

Extremes of age
Sexual violation (previously rape)

The above is from your link
:shrug:

Woah... I just read more and that is crap. I had no idea. I am going to be contacting our MP about this bull**** and see about getting that over turned.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Woah... I just read more and that is crap. I had no idea. I am going to be contacting our MP about this bull**** and see about getting that over turned.

Yep...not good IN MY OPINION. But that's just me.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Yep...not good IN MY OPINION. But that's just me.

I just checked with a pregnant women in my department and she says that a woman can have an abortion for any reason in New Zealand, even just on a whim if she wants. I think that the wording is off and there were new Acts that over ruled those Laws.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Yep...not good IN MY OPINION. But that's just me.

New Zealand's abortion rate (number of abortions per 1000 women aged 15–44 years) is (21.0) slightly below Australia's (22.2), and the United States (21.3), but above Japan's (13.8), Finland and Scotland's (both 10.9) and many European countries.

Obviously the mental health exemption is so broad that it basically allows abortion. I will check with more people though and see what their understanding is.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I just checked with a pregnant women in my department and she says that a woman can have an abortion for any reason in New Zealand, even just on a whim if she wants. I think that the wording is off and there were new Acts that over ruled those Laws.

That's good.
 
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.

Yup! it's surprising to me that the men have not had a say in the matter. it's always "the women this, and the woman that" and yet it seems women don't have the ability to make smart choices when it comes to abortions. Unfortunately neither do men (who are really boys). They immature young hoodlums some of them. But if he can keep the relationship strong and then protect the woman form the clutches of the evil abortionists then all the better.
 
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.

This is not a compromise, it's tyranny. Furthermore, an embryo is not a "separate" being as evidenced by the fact that they are contained within a fluid filled sack WITHIN a woman's body. Women die every day giving birth to these "separate" beings. With that very real risk comes the right to say, "get it out of me" and if the embryo must be cut up into little pieces or pureed and sucked through a tube to prevent risk of pain or harm to a woman, then it's perfectly OK by me. If something unwanted were growing in my body, I'd expect women and men alike to stay the hell out of my decision to have it removed or be accused of wishing harm upon me.

There is a sick idea in this country, no doubt derived in faith, that men share ownership of fetuses. It's a lie. As long as that fetus only threatens the well being of one person, only draws nutrition directly from the bloodstream of one person, the idea of joint ownership is a pernicious brand of misogyny that the religious practice with an arrogance that only the spiritually certain possess.

I would go as far as to say that any law for which a religious opinion is the only justification should never be allowed to be debated in the USA. Keep your religion to yourself should be our national motto. It's no coincidence, though, that belief systems that rely on their adherents to suspend disbelief are also those which seem to constantly demand we ignore the harmful effects of not understanding. In the case of abortion, the collective christian ignorance of this nation comes at a high cost to women.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Yup! it's surprising to me that the men have not had a say in the matter. it's always "the women this, and the woman that" and yet it seems women don't have the ability to make smart choices when it comes to abortions. Unfortunately neither do men (who are really boys). They immature young hoodlums some of them. But if he can keep the relationship strong and then protect the woman form the clutches of the evil abortionists then all the better.

It does not surprise me to think you need to control a woman's body.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Yup! it's surprising to me that the men have not had a say in the matter. it's always "the women this, and the woman that" and yet it seems women don't have the ability to make smart choices when it comes to abortions. Unfortunately neither do men (who are really boys). They immature young hoodlums some of them. But if he can keep the relationship strong and then protect the woman form the clutches of the evil abortionists then all the better.

What a myopic and misogynist opinion. You just can't wrap your mind around the idea that woman might not want to be pregnant, PERIOD, regardless of their relationship with any man, can you? You also seem to struggle with the idea that women own themselves and anything that grows within them. Of course you're surprised that abortion discussions focus on women, I have the feeling you're dumbfounded by many things.

Your tag line as well is profoundly stupid. Once you admit that the fetus is "in the womb", everything else you write is just ignorance piled upon more ignorance. A womb is not a disembodied organ, floating around in space waiting for some man to use it for the creation of a trophy, a womb is a part of the female reproductive system and is HER domain. It will NEVER be a male-centric discussion...never.

This whole pathology of hating women enough to deny them physical autonomy is just jealousy on behalf of a made up man's god, who gets called the "creator", while REAL women actually DO create life every day. What women do is amazing and real and risky as hell. To ignore their sacrifice in order to placate a figment of faith is a crime against humanity as a whole. Women, and me, deserve better than what your ilk offers by way of rational legislation.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This is not a compromise, it's tyranny. Furthermore, an embryo is not a "separate" being as evidenced by the fact that they are contained within a fluid filled sack WITHIN a woman's body. Women die every day giving birth to these "separate" beings. With that very real risk comes the right to say, "get it out of me" and if the embryo must be cut up into little pieces or pureed and sucked through a tube to prevent risk of pain or harm to a woman, then it's perfectly OK by me. If something unwanted were growing in my body, I'd expect women and men alike to stay the hell out of my decision to have it removed or be accused of wishing harm upon me.

There is a sick idea in this country, no doubt derived in faith, that men share ownership of fetuses. It's a lie. As long as that fetus only threatens the well being of one person, only draws nutrition directly from the bloodstream of one person, the idea of joint ownership is a pernicious brand of misogyny that the religious practice with an arrogance that only the spiritually certain possess.

I would go as far as to say that any law for which a religious opinion is the only justification should never be allowed to be debated in the USA. Keep your religion to yourself should be our national motto. It's no coincidence, though, that belief systems that rely on their adherents to suspend disbelief are also those which seem to constantly demand we ignore the harmful effects of not understanding. In the case of abortion, the collective christian ignorance of this nation comes at a high cost to women.

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides, if she decides to give birth? All I hear you saying here is that a woman needs to have control of her body, which means that you WANT her destroy the baby and maybe herself.

And the man certainly deserve a say in important decisions. Why wouldn’t he? Oh, maybe because you want to have her mind poisoned by you and your ilk. Yeah, that’s right. I forgot.

And what have you got against religion? They have had their problems because they try to follow God, and God has some ideas of His own and has laid down some laws. Do you think He cares about your government’s laws about abortion? To Him, it is and always shall be murder. It’s HIS law you are breaking.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides, if she decides to give birth? All I hear you saying here is that a woman needs to have control of her body, which means that you WANT her destroy the baby and maybe herself.

And the man certainly deserve a say in important decisions. Why wouldn’t he? Oh, maybe because you want to have her mind poisoned by you and your ilk. Yeah, that’s right. I forgot.

And what have you got against religion? They have had their problems because they try to follow God, and God has some ideas of His own and has laid down some laws. Do you think He cares about your government’s laws about abortion? To Him, it is and always shall be murder. It’s HIS law you are breaking.

Religion is a deeply personal experience. The fact that people experience religion and God different than you do is their business, not yours. Likewise, a lack of belief in religion or God has no effect on your faith.

Your statement of a woman destroying herself through abortion is AMAZINGLY naïve. Having had serious consequences of pregnancy (SEVERE health crisis, including surgery and effects that plague me 20 years later)and knowing women who have died as a result of pregnancy......legal abortion rarely causes major health crisis and death. If you looked up some stats on the subject you probably would not believe them.

Aside from the physical effects of pregnancy, there is a tremendous financial burdoun as well. This includes time off (frequently totally unpaid) loss of seniority, loss or promotion. Personally - I was off over 6 months due to complications. I lost tens of thousands of dollars. I lost seniority. I lost a promotion. I had to cobra my medical on top of all of my medical bills and lack of a paycheck. Legally - after 12 weeks I could have been fired - but some extra credentialing kept me on the books.

By the way, I do not agree with abortion. BUT HELL IF I AM GOING TO INSIST SOMEONE GO THROUGH WHAT I DID.

But it is crystal clear you feel some God given need to control women's bodies. Sad.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides, if she decides to give birth?


I don't believe he said it is.


All I hear you saying here is that a woman needs to have control of her body, which means that you WANT her destroy the baby and maybe herself.

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. Saying that a woman needs to have control of her body is NOT wanting her to destroy the zef and herself.


And the man certainly deserve a say in important decisions. Why wouldn’t he?

Because it's not his body that is undergoing the risks, side effects and pains of pregnancy/childbirth.


And what have you got against religion? They have had their problems because they try to follow God, and God has some ideas of His own and has laid down some laws. Do you think He cares about your government’s laws about abortion? To Him, it is and always shall be murder. It’s HIS law you are breaking.

My god is pro-choice, so keep your religion OUT of my medical decisions.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Why is it any of your business what a woman decides, if she decides to give birth? All I hear you saying here is that a woman needs to have control of her body, which means that you WANT her destroy the baby and maybe herself.

That doesn't even make sense... if he/we want the woman to control her own body then whe/we want her to also have/save the baby and give birth if she wants.

And the man certainly deserve a say in important decisions. Why wouldn’t he? Oh, maybe because you want to have her mind poisoned by you and your ilk. Yeah, that’s right. I forgot.

The man has a say... why do you think that he doesn't? You are having your say right here and to some poisoning open women's minds...

And what have you got against religion? They have had their problems because they try to follow God, and God has some ideas of His own and has laid down some laws. Do you think He cares about your government’s laws about abortion? To Him, it is and always shall be murder. It’s HIS law you are breaking.

Talked to Him about it personally, did you? Some evidence please...
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

When a man gets pregnant, he can have all the right in the world to make that decision. A wife has no jurisdiction over her husbands body or it's functions. The embryo wouldn't exist without the mother. It is her right as a woman to decide that for herself.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Religion is a deeply personal experience. The fact that people experience religion and God different than you do is their business, not yours. Likewise, a lack of belief in religion or God has no effect on your faith.

Your statement of a woman destroying herself through abortion is AMAZINGLY naïve. Having had serious consequences of pregnancy (SEVERE health crisis, including surgery and effects that plague me 20 years later)and knowing women who have died as a result of pregnancy......legal abortion rarely causes major health crisis and death. If you looked up some stats on the subject you probably would not believe them.

Aside from the physical effects of pregnancy, there is a tremendous financial burdoun as well. This includes time off (frequently totally unpaid) loss of seniority, loss or promotion. Personally - I was off over 6 months due to complications. I lost tens of thousands of dollars. I lost seniority. I lost a promotion. I had to cobra my medical on top of all of my medical bills and lack of a paycheck. Legally - after 12 weeks I could have been fired - but some extra credentialing kept me on the books.

By the way, I do not agree with abortion. BUT HELL IF I AM GOING TO INSIST SOMEONE GO THROUGH WHAT I DID.

But it is crystal clear you feel some God given need to control women's bodies. Sad.

I am not sure why you would say that I am amazingly naïve. Not all women suffer but many do. In fact, it would really be naïve to think or believe that all women are happy and glad to abort their babies and then do a happy dance. I think that it is you who are naïve..

And why do I need to listen to another sob story about how women suffer when it is clear that they DO suffer but not to the extreme that you portray here. I know women do suffer, but if you are telling me this just to get my sympathy you are seriously mistaken. You women have tried this on me before, and it did not work then. So what gives you the idea that it will work now?

I am sure that the number of women who suffer and die is a great number, but I am sure that it doesn’t happen to the majority of women. There are I am sure many women who bear 3 or four kids.. all without the near death experiences that you portray. So by your theory, all men who fall in love, and marry these women, are just signing their wife's death certificates. My mother is 88 years old and she is still around. How did she escape death after delivering four kids. I have five aunts and four of them gave birth to large families without any great fear of death. My sister gave birth to 3 kids. She came out all right. We have a very large family and I feel compassion or women who go through what you describe. But I am not dwelling on it either. Naïve? Why are you I am not sure why you would say that I am amazingly naïve. Not all women suffer but many do. In fact, it would really be naïve to think or believe that all women are happy and glad to abort their babies and then do a happy dance. I think that it is you who are naïve..

And why do I need to listen to another sob story about how women suffer when it is clear that they DO suffer but not to the extreme that you portray here. I know women do suffer, but if you are telling me this just to get my sympathy you are seriously mistaken. You omen have tried this on me before, and it did not work then. So what gives you the idea now?

I am sure that the number of women who suffer and die is a great number, but I am sure that it doesn’t happen to all women. There are I am sure many women who bear 3 or four kids.. all without the near death experiences that you portray. So by your theory, all men who fall in love, and marry these women, are just signing their death certificates. My mother is 88 and she is still around. How did she escape death after delivering four kids. I have five aunts and four of them gave birth without any difficulties. One aunt was barren. My sister gave birth to 3 kids. She came out all right. We have a very large family and I feel for women who go through what you describe. But I am not dwelling on it either. Naïve? you maby, but Not me.

But I wonder why you all want abortion so badly that you come here and lie. I want the real reason. Not these excuses for fighting to keep abortion. I know what you’ll tell me, I have heard it all before. But enough with the lies. Lets hear some truth.


But I wonder why you all want abortion. The real reason. Not these excuses for fighting to keep abortion. I know what you’ll tell me, I have heard it all before. But enough with the lies. Lets hear some truth.

And I do not want to control women's bodies despite what you think or say. Tell the truth.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

And yet, the force of your arguments means you most certainly want control over women's bodies.

The bottom line is that you want to force your philosophical view point on women.

Guess what.

No thank you.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

And yet, the force of your arguments means you most certainly want control over women's bodies.

You lie.

The bottom line is that you want to force your philosophical view point on women.

Please don't pretend you aren't forcing your support for aggressive killing on those who oppose its legality.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This is not a compromise, it's tyranny. Furthermore, an embryo is not a "separate" being as evidenced by the fact that they are contained within a fluid filled sack WITHIN a woman's body. Women die every day giving birth to these "separate" beings. With that very real risk comes the right to say, "get it out of me" and if the embryo must be cut up into little pieces or pureed and sucked through a tube to prevent risk of pain or harm to a woman, then it's perfectly OK by me. If something unwanted were growing in my body, I'd expect women and men alike to stay the hell out of my decision to have it removed or be accused of wishing harm upon me.

There is a sick idea in this country, no doubt derived in faith, that men share ownership of fetuses. It's a lie. As long as that fetus only threatens the well being of one person, only draws nutrition directly from the bloodstream of one person, the idea of joint ownership is a pernicious brand of misogyny that the religious practice with an arrogance that only the spiritually certain possess.

I would go as far as to say that any law for which a religious opinion is the only justification should never be allowed to be debated in the USA. Keep your religion to yourself should be our national motto. It's no coincidence, though, that belief systems that rely on their adherents to suspend disbelief are also those which seem to constantly demand we ignore the harmful effects of not understanding. In the case of abortion, the collective christian ignorance of this nation comes at a high cost to women.

Thanks for your profound and intelligent comment, D_NATURED. I truly respect your opinion.
Though I do not agree with you in the first half of your message, I admit religion-inspired laws should be prohibited in this country. We are the nation of laws and, luckily, do not follow any religious texts as a foundation for our legislative system. More than that, religion - and Christianity in particular - should not be involved public life and represented in political structures, serving only private needs of each individual.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

This is not a compromise, it's tyranny. Furthermore, an embryo is not a "separate" being as evidenced by the fact that they are contained within a fluid filled sack WITHIN a woman's body. Women die every day giving birth to these "separate" beings. With that very real risk comes the right to say, "get it out of me" and if the embryo must be cut up into little pieces or pureed and sucked through a tube to prevent risk of pain or harm to a woman, then it's perfectly OK by me. If something unwanted were growing in my body, I'd expect women and men alike to stay the hell out of my decision to have it removed or be accused of wishing harm upon me.

There is a sick idea in this country, no doubt derived in faith, that men share ownership of fetuses. It's a lie. As long as that fetus only threatens the well being of one person, only draws nutrition directly from the bloodstream of one person, the idea of joint ownership is a pernicious brand of misogyny that the religious practice with an arrogance that only the spiritually certain possess.

I would go as far as to say that any law for which a religious opinion is the only justification should never be allowed to be debated in the USA. Keep your religion to yourself should be our national motto. It's no coincidence, though, that belief systems that rely on their adherents to suspend disbelief are also those which seem to constantly demand we ignore the harmful effects of not understanding. In the case of abortion, the collective christian ignorance of this nation comes at a high cost to women.

An embryo is an embryo. So what? An embryo being a separate being is not true. Take it out of the womb...and it can't exit.

Religion has no place in the uteruses of women. Period.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

I don't believe he said it is.

I believe he did.

Perhaps you should work on your reading comprehension skills. Saying that a woman needs to have control of her body is NOT wanting her to destroy the zef and herself.

My read reading comprehension skills are fine. Perhaps your ability to read between the lines, and knowing what a person means needs improvement.

Because it's not his body that is undergoing the risks, side effects and pains of pregnancy/childbirth.

Oh, oh, yeah, just her body. Oh and it’s just his seed which means he is out of the picture in this whole matter. How long have you been a man hater? To deny him his rights is really naïve. You really have NO IDEA of what you are talking about, I see.

My god is pro-choice, so keep your religion OUT of my medical decisions.

No you are wrong. Because my God is your God. And he is against murder, so I can't very well keep my religion out of your misguided medical foul-ups, can I?. That was a very [not smart] thing to say. That really was.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

An embryo being a separate being is not true.
Why? I bet our medical science is rather developed for growing embryos in incubators.
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Why? I bet our medical science is rather developed for growing embryos in incubators.

Please do not tell me you are another "artificial wombs will make abortions illegal" guy.:doh

I am thinking no, but nothing surprises me on this board.
 
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.
Who are these men who want their child raised in a single-parent home?
 
Re: Keith Ablow: “Men should be able to veto women’s abortions”

Why? I bet our medical science is rather developed for growing embryos in incubators.

Even if there was an existing mechanical technology that is 100% capable - what difference would it make?

If there's no forced invasive procedure used to harvest an embryo - then no harm.

There's only a couple of methods used to set the stage for the infusion of a sperm and ovum. One method is the good old fashion one, an internal process, if you will. The other requires harvesting an egg to perform "In Vitro Fertilization". That's a medical procedure.

If there was an advanced technology use to develop an embryo to viability - who would pay for all of this great technology? Will the government build incubation centers across the US? Such centers would have to be staff with IVF experts along with the necessary IVF technicians. Then there would have to be experts in fetal development. Sounds costly to me.

By simply doing a cost benefit analysis - add in the increased costs in future social services, which would become exponential after a few generations. I think that even the most conservative of pro-life would reconsider this despot baby growing operation.

Do we want to become a nation that violates women's most cherished possession - their body and emotional well being - not to mention their Constitutional Rights - when the most practical, least invasive, and cost effective solution would be to focus on birth control that would be significantly less burdensome on the taxpayers?

If girls grow up knowing that the government would forcefully control their reproductive roles. That would have take a huge psychological toll. I'm guessing the frigidity rate among women would reach an outrageous proportion.

Is society going to be able to rationalize and justify giving such control to government? Will women in this modern day lay down and be a doormat to a faction who is hell bent on saving embryos/early stage fetuses?
 
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.
Men already can veto abortions; just get an abortion ban passed.
 
Back
Top Bottom