Hypothetical. If men could have babies would abortion be legal?

[dazzleman]

what is wrong with you?

^^^^^^^^^

My sentiments exactly.

Men of course control everything, so men fixed things so they can't get pregnant.  Because we control everything, we face no problems or challenges in life.  Everything is perfect for us.

[dazzleman]

Women comprise a majority of the electorate.

Oh, but Philip, they're horribly oppressed and can't make their preferences known.  Haven't you figured that out yet?

You touch on a great point by implication.  Women voters are deeply split about abortion, and in terms of supporting versus opposing abortion, there is no real gender gap.  So it appears that a significant percentage of women are opposed to this procedure that is painted by the feminists as one of their most basic 'rights.'

Of course, I could also illustrate the absurdity of the whole question by simply turning the biological aspect around and asking -- if women could get a hard-on in public, would that be something that is celebrated (rather than considered an embarrassment)?

These types of feminazi-inspired questions are absurd.  The ability to get pregnant, versus the inability to get pregnant, is the central difference among men and women.  To ask a hypothetical question about men getting pregnant misses the whole point -- if they could get pregnant, they wouldn't be men.  Just as a person who gets a hard-on can't be a woman.

[dazzleman]

Obviously, as everyone knows, if men could become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament.

  Yes, Gloria.  Funny thing is, to the radical feminists, it is a sacrament.

[dazzleman]

#1 Abortion is legal
#2 Actually, I think it would be more heavily restricted than it is today

Of course, abortion is legal (and would still be legal if men could get pregnant). In regards to your second point, men would certainly have easier access to abortion. Part (not all) of opposition to abortion is based on lack of respect for women's choices. Most pro-lifers do believe in traditional roles for women.

What choices, if any, do you think men should have?

[dazzleman]

#1 Abortion is legal
#2 Actually, I think it would be more heavily restricted than it is today

Of course, abortion is legal (and would still be legal if men could get pregnant). In regards to your second point, men would certainly have easier access to abortion. Part (not all) of opposition to abortion is based on lack of respect for women's choices. Most pro-lifers do believe in traditional roles for women.

What choices, if any, do you think men should have?

In regards to abortion, or in general?

Both.  Because it seems to me that in all this talk about women's choices, it has largely been ignored that men often have few choices.

While Betty Friedan and her sisters were whining about being imprisoned in their sterile, upper middle class homes, how many men went to work every day at jobs they hated in order to support their families?

What choices did these men have?  I get sick and tired of hearing all this one-sided whining, with no credit given to men for the sacrifices that they/we have made for our families.  In certain marriages, women had by far the better deal.  In other cases, not.

I recognize the weaknesses of women being in traditional roles -- primarily economic dependency, which can be dangerous in an age of throwaway marriages.

What were men's choices in the past, and what are they today?  Basically, they are the same -- get out and work.  Only now, men are expected to contribute more to the home, too.  In some ways, this too is good.  More father involvement is great, assuming there's one in the home, but we shouldn't expect fathers to be second mothers, another feminist mantra, or do half the housework if he's working more than half the combined hours, which is usually the case.

And if a wife wants out of a marriage for whatever reasons today, men's choices and rights with respect to their children are severely circumscribed.  Wives often use their children as instruments of control against their estranged/former husband, denying him the right to visit his kids and be involved in their lives with little intervention from the judicial system.

And on abortion -- of course, the man has no say, but he must abide by the woman's decision regardless.  I have less sympathy for a man in this situation, since I think it is irresponsible to impregnate a woman outside a committed relationship.  Still, the legal inconsistency is glaring.  When it comes to paying for the baby, the man is considered an equal, if not dominant, parent.   But when it comes to determining the fate of his baby, he is nothing.  Even if he's willing to raise his baby himself, the baby's mother is allowed to abort it.  On the other hand, he must pay child support for 20 years is SHE decides to have the baby.

I know you'll come up with some twisted justification for all this from the NOW playbook, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.

[dazzleman]

No, fool.  The point is that cures which solve the ailments of the powerful will not be outlawed by those self-same powerful.  Women however are not powerful, and so their freedoms are contingent.

I guess the discrimination against powerless women that exists in the medical field explains why they live 8 years longer, on average, than men.  I'd hate to say how they'd have to be treated to have an equal, or shorter, lifespan.

[dazzleman]

Dazzleman,

I do believe in men's choices as well. I don't focus on it as much because I feel that it is not as threatened as women's choices are.

What were men's choices in the past, and what are they today?  Basically, they are the same -- get out and work.  Only now, men are expected to contribute more to the home, too.  In some ways, this too is good.  More father involvement is great, assuming there's one in the home, but we shouldn't expect fathers to be second mothers, another feminist mantra, or do half the housework if he's working more than half the combined hours, which is usually the case.

Men shouldn't be pressured to work outside the home anymore so than women should be. Obviously, between the couple, at least one of them has to work outside the home and at least one has to do the housework, but one should not be pressured to do more of either one simply because of their gender.

Men who choose to be homemakers are not as accepted as housewives are. But women who choose to work are not taken as seriously as men who choose to work. Both are wrong. However, fewer men want to be homemakers than women who want to work outside the home; therefore I am more concerned with increasing acceptance of women's choice to work outside the home.

And if a wife wants out of a marriage for whatever reasons today, men's choices and rights with respect to their children are severely circumscribed.  Wives often use their children as instruments of control against their estranged/former husband, denying him the right to visit his kids and be involved in their lives with little intervention from the judicial system.

I'm not denying that there are wives who abuse the system and that courts do tend to favor mothers in custody cases. Courts should try to put the child in the best situation possible, regardless of the gender of the parent.

And on abortion -- of course, the man has no say, but he must abide by the woman's decision regardless.  I have less sympathy for a man in this situation, since I think it is irresponsible to impregnate a woman outside a committed relationship.  Still, the legal inconsistency is glaring.  When it comes to paying for the baby, the man is considered an equal, if not dominant, parent.   But when it comes to determining the fate of his baby, he is nothing.  Even if he's willing to raise his baby himself, the baby's mother is allowed to abort it.  On the other hand, he must pay child support for 20 years is SHE decides to have the baby.

As for abortion, this is the one issue where I feel women's choices should take precedence over men's choices. But this is simply because of the biological reality that it's the woman's body. Having to give up one's body is more of an inconvenience than any financial burden.

Men's choices not as threatened as women's choices?  You must be joking.  Men and women in the past had roughly equal choices -- in other words very little.  What has changed is that women, at least certain women, have more choices, while men have fewer.  If women's choices are 'threatened' right now more than men's choices, it's only because women have choices and men don't.  That doesn't signify to me that women should receive preferential treatment on most issues, as you suggest.

And you think that 20 years of financial burden is less than 'giving up one's body' (which of course is not the case anyway)?

I don't know who played with your head.  It makes me sad to read what you write, actually, because you must have a lot of self-hate.