Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by valtar on Feb 26, 2006, 3:54am
This board is host to a wide range of beliefs. Most posters tend to be conservative and anti-feminist, but there are a number of different position represented here. Some are very religious, for example, while others are not.
I have noticed most of you tend to be anti-abortion. Personally, although I am a staunch anti-feminist, abortion doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I am an atheist, and I look at a fetus as a collection of cells until it is born. I believe it is far more destructive and cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world than it is to abort it — for all concerned. It can ruin the life of the parents (man and women both) if they aren’t ready for it, and it can result in a screwed-up, unloved kid who turns into a screwed-up, destructive adult. An unwanted child can cause increased tax and welfare burdens, and the situation generally creates ripples of all-around misery.
My moral litmus test for this position is to ask if *I myself* would rather be born to a family that didn’t want me and/or wouldn’t be able to support me, or not be born at all. I can emphatically answer that I would prefer to be aborted. There is no body of evidence that life in and of itself is a priori a good thing; clearly for many people it is a nightmare. I would take nothingness over nightmare any day of the week.
Many people here are “no marriage” types because they are traditionalists who are disgusted with what modern women have become. I share their disgust. Others are more freedom-minded and not so much seeking a traditional life as a life without strings and fetters. For such people, a pro-choice stance is not at all a contradiction, and indeed can segue well with the anti-marriage, anti-feminist stance. Do any of you share this mentality?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Little Lion on Feb 26, 2006, 4:54am
Common morality cannot decide abortion, since there is no agreement among fully informed, impartial rational persons whether morality protects fetuses. Morality protects moral agents, and some other beings besides moral agents; e.g., infants and small children. A moral agent is a person who understands what morality requires, prohibits, encourages, discourages and allows. The abortion controversy concerns whether an entity that is not a moral agent is protected by morality; since there is no agreement on this, the matter has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution. [Stronger systems of morality than common morality can often decide the issue, but not all impartial rational persons hold those stronger views.]
I have no interest in telling what women should do with their bodies. Likewise, they should have no interest in deciding what men should do with theirs. I am against involuntary circumcision, but many men have not seen the connection between the reproductive freedom to live with the genitals you were born with, the right to one’s own body, and the right to uninterrupted sexual development. If the support of pro-choice advocates of an anti male genital mutilation bill would make a political difference, then I would support abortion if they would support the MGM bill; if pro choice advocates do not support the MGM bill, then I would favor the repeal of Roe v. Wade. This is because although I am pro-choice, my political stance is that if men cannot have a meager fraction of the reproductive rights that women have, such as the right to uninterrupted sexual development, then I see no reason to support their larger and more comprehensive reproductive rights. There is nothing immoral in this position, as I am convinced that abortion is undecidable morally and must be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution.
The moral downside of opposing abortion is that it denies the moral ideal of promoting freedom.. However, to those persons for whom abortion is morally wrong, abortion advocacy appears to be a form of feminist fanaticism. A fanatic is someone who violates a moral rule (do not kill) to follow a moral ideal (increase freedom). And disagreement about relative good and evil is inevitable, though not to the point that talk of morality is completely undermined.
My thinking on this owes a considerable debt to the philosophy of Bernard Gert; I suggest his Common Morality: deciding what to do as an introduction to his moral philosophy, which is a descriptive account of what he calls common morality. Men’s rights activists might be surprised to find in Gert a philosopher who recognizes that abortion may be a concern of the father. Gert says nothing about striking political bargains; he points out that most moral philosophers have supplemented their accounts of moral philosophy with an account of political philosophy. This is to handle matters that cannot be settled by the informal public system of common morality.
I think it is counterproductive to vilify women to correct institutional anti-male bias. I do think it may be necessary to take strong political positions to achieve reasonable political aims, however, such as opposition to Roe v. Wade if support for at least one area of legal reform of concern to men’s rights activists is not forthcoming.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by dogfaced on Feb 26, 2006, 5:10am
My position is simple. The less the government tells me what to do, the better. The less tax money I have to pay, the better. The less I have shrieking fundie moonbats and Christian taliban types trying to impose their “invisible friend in the sky” on me, the better. All this points to pro-choice.
None of this is inconsistant with a stance that wishes women would be more feminine and less feminist, that deplores the mess feminists have made of academia, that sees unfairness in divorce laws, and that would like to see a more sturdy family life for those who choose to have kids. Count me in as a pro-abortion anti-feminist.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by SuckerFreein06 on Feb 26, 2006, 5:20am
But what really is pro-choice. If it became legal to mug people would you still consider it pro-choice. Any society has to have its limits. Because something is legal doesn’t exactly make it a right or a choice. I mean the abortion debate is done to death. It’s a lose lose situation. Societies that are socialist routinely have extremely high rates of abortion. To me believing in abortion or against it doesn’t always have to be a religious thing. Many blame the Christian Right who fight it, but there are more. To me its a dark stain on a society and people should be more careful. Eventually some people are just not gonna be allowed to breed. Also, a baby is born inside a mothers womb. When the child is birthed it doesn’t magically come to life, it already was. It just simply grew to the point where it had to exit.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by dogfaced on Feb 26, 2006, 5:39am
We could go round and round debating where life begins, and indeed the net is full of such debates. So there’s no need to thrash it out here. Suffice it to say I disagree with those who call a fetus a living thing.
I don’t want to get married (this is, after all, dont-marry.com) and I sure as hell don’t want a money-sucking, time-terminating spawn on my hands. Given my own lack of enthusiasm for parenting and general freewheeling bent, I can only say that any kid born to me would likely be a miserable and unhappy creature, while also making me miserable. I’d hate to not have the option to terminate a preganancy I’d caused. Socrates advised us to “know ourselves” first and foremost, and one thing I’m rock-bottom sure of is that I’d be a shitty, resentful parent.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Mikhail on Feb 26, 2006, 9:29am
The first step in being an informed participant in the abortion debate is to recognize and acknowledge that your own beliefs are exactly that — beliefs.
Nobody knows where life begins during pregnancy; whether you consider it to be at conception, birth, or somewhere in-between, the lines that we all draw are thoroughly arbitrary in nature. Therefore, “moral” arguments based on the idea of the humanity of a fetus are doomed from the start — nobody can agree what, precisely, “human” is in this case, and when, precisely, a fetus qualifies for the status.
Personally, I am anti-feminist (big surprise, lol) yet also pro-choice; the way that I look at it, the issue is so fraught with logical uncertainty that I am inclined to err on the side of individual freedom — if I am going to make a mistake on this issue I prefer, for personal reasons of belief, to fall on the side of individual liberty.
Do I think that abortion is way overused? Yep, there is little doubt about it; far too many young women regard it as a casual form of birth control. As I noted above, I am pro-choice precisely because I AM uncertain of the human status of a fetus; therefore, a casual acceptance of abortion strikes me as being just plain wrong.
Again, this is a matter of personal belief, but I tend to think that, when an issue is in the “gray area” of morality (such as abortion), the best course is to minimize one’s involvement in the issue. It is always possible that you are making a mistake, so one must be very, very thoughtful over the merits of each individual case before coming to a decision.
…
In an odd sort of way, extremists on both sides of the abortion issue remind me of the debate between atheists and religionists over the existence of God; both sides of the debate tend to be pretty firm in their beliefs, yet the issue is one where nobody can truly certain of the answer (except, perhaps, the dead, and those folks are remarkably unforthcoming about the matter).
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by khankrumthebulgar on Feb 26, 2006, 9:50am
I am not a Christian. I am a Nichiren Buddhist. Virtually all Religions and Spiritual practices condemn taking the life of innocents. Medical Imaging technology disputes much of what you are saying. You are spouting 25 year old falsehoods.
Now that Women can see in 3D their babies they are more reluctant to abort them. And the reality is Abortion has long lasting and tragic side effects on Women as well. Abortion is the Sacrament of the Feminist Movement. As it is the power of life an death over another. And it voids any Male reproductive rights completely. Feminism is an evil hate dogma. It is a Gender based form of Stalinism. Repackaged to appeal to us today.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by nobodyspecial on Feb 26, 2006, 9:57am
The one and only way to overcome feminism is to take away from women all the functions of reproduction. Today we already have technologies for growing fetuses in artificial conditions. But governments under pressure of feminist lobby banned those technologies.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by itsdan on Feb 26, 2006, 10:36am
I’d support leaving it legal but not subsidizing it using public funds. Dump all the money into subsidizing birth control instead and I bet you’d see the amount of women seeking abortions go WAY down.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by King Karan on Feb 26, 2006, 10:41am
The philosophical debate aside, abortion concerns me more practically. If a men marries a woman (unplugged from the fem-matrix) and impregnates his wife, SHE has the say of whether the baby will be aborted or not. Assume he wants children, he married her for that purpose, and she changes directions, does not want children because she wants to pursue a career (or even for no reason).
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by JimP on Feb 26, 2006, 10:54am
I think the main problem with the abortion debate is the fact that people are forced to choose between being pro-life or pro-choice. There should be a third choice, COMPLETE INDIFFERENCE, which is how I feel. I really couldn’t care less whether abortion is legal or not, and while I don’t want to speak for anyone else, I think a lot of men feel exactly the same way, certainly most of the guys I know fall into this category.
I will add that while I couldn’t care less about abortion, I absolutely HATE the idea of some scumbag judge telling people what they can or can not do. Because if these bastard judges can decide that anti-abortion laws are “unfair”, what’s to stop them from deciding that your pre-nup is “unfair”, or that you’re guilty until proved innocent in family court?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by nobodyspecial on Feb 26, 2006, 11:13am
> If a men marries a woman (unplugged from the fem-matrix) and impregnates is wife, SHE has the say of whether the baby will be aborted or not.
Saying so, you basically say that it’s in women’s power to decide whether the society will procreate or not and how the society will procreate. Whereas THE NATURE HAS NOT GIVEN WOMEN A POSSIBILITY TO MAKE SUCH DECISIONS. The women got such possibility only due to technological and science progress. I’m sure that lawmakers who banned abortions followed the same way of thinking.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by chrisw79 on Feb 26, 2006, 11:42am
First off, I want to say that I’m glad someone broached this topic. It’s definitely going to be a vehement one. I know I’ll probably get flack for even posting once on here, but it’s still my right to do so.
I’m mostly with JimP on this one – indifference – with some caveats. The way I see it, I’m not going to be married, not going to have children, so the issue’s not going to face me personally. Likewise, I’m not going to put myself in a position where I would assert a position to someone else. Now that said, I favor abortion being available in the more extreme circumstances of rape, incest, health of the mother severely endangered, and these 30-year-old AWs screwing (and screwing up) 11-to-14 year old boys in school. No boy should have to deal with such rampant irresponsibility.
And that brings me to the personal freedom question – I’m very much in favor of personal freedom for men. Women royally screwed up their personal freedom, and that shouldn’t be foisted on men. They want to get serial abortions and ruin their bodies? Fine. Don’t drag any man along with you on your ‘independent wymyn’ decision.
This may not be entirely coherent – I’m not used to being up this early on a Sunday – so you’ll have to forgive me if I sound a bit disjointed.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Citadel on Feb 26, 2006, 1:56pm
I think women should have a slightly greater say since they’re the ones giving birth. The point is moot though if it’s decreed that only in cases of rape or a danger to the mother’s life, will abortion be permitted.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Little Lion on Feb 26, 2006, 2:48pm
JimP: you’re not required to have an opinion on abortion, as far as I’m concerned. My attitude is that since it’s a political matter, it’s fair to make the credible political threat that if at least one area of legal reform of concern to men’s rights activists isn’t supported by pro-choice advocates,, then MRA’s may apply pressure by opposing abortion. It’s fair in politics.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Valtars Future Wife on Feb 26, 2006, 5:54pm
Feb 26, 2006, 3:54am, valtar wrote:I have noticed most of you tend to be anti-abortion. Personally, although I am a staunch anti-feminist, abortion doesn’t bother me in the slightest. I am an atheist, and I look at a fetus as a collection of cells until it is born.
I believe a husband is nothing more than a collection of cells, like a donkey, who you must manipulate and guide to go the right direction. Husbands are not really human beings.
Quote:I believe it is far more destructive and cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world than it is to abort it — for all concerned. It can ruin the life of the parents (man and women both) if they aren’t ready for it, and it can result in a screwed-up, unloved kid who turns into a screwed-up, destructive adult. An unwanted child can cause increased tax and welfare burdens, and the situation generally creates ripples of all-around misery.
Indeed. I believe it is far more destructive and cruel to be married to a husband that doesn’t make me happy at *all* times. It can ruin the life of me and our future children.
Quote:My moral litmus test for this position is to ask if *I myself* would rather be born to a family that didn’t want me and/or wouldn’t be able to support me, or not be born at all. I can emphatically answer that I would prefer to be aborted. There is no body of evidence that life in and of itself is a priori a good thing; clearly for many people it is a nightmare. I would take nothingness over nightmare any day of the week.
My moral litmus test when I think of a husband is to ask myself is I would rather be in a family of a wife that didn’t want me. I can emphatically answer that would prefer to be divorced. There is no body of evidence that husbands being immune to divorce is a good thing; clearly for many wives it is a nightmare. I would take nothingness over a nightmare (husband) any day of the week.
Quote:Others are more freedom-minded and not so much seeking a traditional life as a life without strings and fetters. For such people, a pro-choice stance is not at all a contradiction, and indeed can segue well with the anti-marriage, anti-feminist stance. Do any of you share this mentality?
I, too, am freedom-minded and seeking a life without strings and fetters. This is why I believe in no-fault divorce. For such people, no-fault divorce is not at all a contradiction, and indeed can segue well with the anti-marriage, pro-choice stance. Do any of you share this mentality?
Of course, my soul mate, Valtar does. He knows, as well as I do, that Nature can be re-written via legislation. Nature, which is the cup that we drink of all delights and rights from this Earth, shall be attacked by our anti-Nature mindset. Hence, we need to make more abortions, more divorces, and to atomize society as we atomize ourselves.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by openeyes on Feb 26, 2006, 9:50pm
I came across a book recently that says with a culture that allows abortion, eventually euthanasia will also become more common. I agree, but don’t see that as a bad thing so long as it’s not forced, but simply legalized. At least with euthanasia the supposed victim can actually give consent and is likely the one requesting it, while a baby (embryo/zygote for those who prefer to dehumanize it) can do no such thing. Ironic that abortion is the one our nation chooses to allow and even fund.
As someone else said, cut abortion funding but keep it legal, and steer funds to birth control. Make sure that everyone receiving either one, abortion or birth control, knows the health risks that come with them. Until researching it, I didn’t realize birth control pills and depo-provera shots still have such strong negative effects on health, but it’s better than having an abortion. Maybe some people will actually consider a bit of sexual restraint.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by itsdan on Feb 27, 2006, 12:14am
I didn’t realize birth control pills and depo-provera shots still have such strong negative effects on health
Yeah I think the downsides to it have been underplayed by people who want it to be a ‘cure-all’. Those people are both male and female.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by specialopsdude on Feb 27, 2006, 3:11am
Quote:I believe it is far more destructive and cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world than it is to abort it — for all concerned. It can ruin the life of the parents (man and women both) if they aren’t ready for it, and it can result in a screwed-up, unloved kid who turns into a screwed-up, destructive adult. An unwanted child can cause increased tax and welfare burdens, and the situation generally creates ripples of all-around misery.
This one really gets me – are we to accept that in order not to be killed, you have to be wanted? If no one wants you, you don’t get to live?
Why stop at abortion for unwanted babies? Lets just kill any kid born with a birth defect. Yea, lets add kids without 4 good limbs. Why not add kids that have an I.Q. below 60?
Perhaps you have heard of adoption? I know many families that struggle time, hardship and money to bring home a child that will be loved more than you could fathom.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by openeyes on Feb 27, 2006, 10:26am
Feb 27, 2006, 3:11am, specialopsdude wrote:
Why stop at abortion for unwanted babies? Lets just kill any kid born with a birth defect. Yea, lets add kids without 4 good limbs. Why not add kids that have an I.Q. below 60?
While it already occurs to a degree, I can fully imagine it becoming rather common among the middle class to use fertility drugs (if necessary) to produce multiple embryos at a time, examine them for viability, carry the best one to term, freeze some for later use, and destroy any with too many defects. As testing improves, more and more disabilities may become detectable, and terminations will likely increase until the ability to repair such defects (and not all people see them as defects) is sufficiently in place.
The main thing that keeps such a scenario from approaching Brave New World proportions is the input and discretion of the parents. It’s quite possible areas such as China and Singapore will try to adopt strategies in which the state makes the decisions in who is allowed to be born. I try to be more optimistic about what our future will involve. A more positive scenario would be fixing many problems in utero that would have ended in termination before, and this too is already beginning to be done.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Chillary on Feb 27, 2006, 10:34am
Feb 27, 2006, 3:11am, specialopsdude wrote:
Quote:I believe it is far more destructive and cruel to bring an unwanted child into the world than it is to abort it — for all concerned. It can ruin the life of the parents (man and women both) if they aren’t ready for it, and it can result in a screwed-up, unloved kid who turns into a screwed-up, destructive adult. An unwanted child can cause increased tax and welfare burdens, and the situation generally creates ripples of all-around misery.Why stop at abortion for unwanted babies? Lets just kill any kid born with a birth defect. Yea, lets add kids without 4 good limbs. Why not add kids that have an I.Q. below 60?
This is a wonderful idea! We’d never have the doofus in the white house that we have now.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by JimP on Feb 27, 2006, 10:40am
For all the people on this board that are horrified by things like eugenics, I have two things to say.
1. Breeding works. It works for race horses, it works for tomatoes, and it works for humans too. You might not like it, but it’s the truth.
2. A country like China already has state policies that dictate how many children a woman can have. If you think Western civilization is in trouble now, wait until the Chinese decide to institute an IVF based (screening sperm, eggs, and embryos) breeding program.
Does the word NEANDERTHAL ring a bell?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by scholarlee on Feb 27, 2006, 11:02am
have any of y’all read that book Freakonomics?
I don’t know whether the authors have been discredited yet or not, and I don’t remember precisely the statistics they used – however, the authors noticed a correlation between a dropping crime rate and the availability of safe, legal abortions. that is – a certain number of individuals who would turn to a life of crime because of poverty and parental neglect had not been born (were aborted) and so never grew up to commit crimes.
then the authors spend pages and pages saying “we’re not advocating abortions, we’re not saying that every child born to poverty becomes a criminal, we’re not saying this, we’re not saying that, we’re just pointing out that when the number of abortions went up in the 70s, the number of crimes went down in the 90s.”
any thoughts?
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Lee on Feb 27, 2006, 11:10am
As we can see, lots of different points of view here.
I would classify myself as a liberal libertarian, which means that given that we have to deal with a government, it should minimally make life a bit easier with police, fire, Medicaid, Medicare and SSI. Everything else is strictly mind your own business, leave me alone, and tax me not.
I honestly don’t know where I stand on abortion as I am snipped and won’t be procreating in this life cycle. It is definitely The Feminist Sacrament, and is part of the slippery slope that we are now on, skidding towards our cultural doom.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by John Ross on Feb 27, 2006, 4:04pm
I’ll go along with Thomas Sowell on this one as to the best definition of “life”: Brain function.
We may pull the plug when brain function is gone, even though the heart is still beating. Seems like a fair litmus for a fetus. If it’s nonspecific cells (which is why stem cells are so important) then it has no brain function yet.
I believe it’s a woman’s right to choose, but make that choice early on. And have the decency to keep your mouth shut if you know it wasn’t what the father would have wanted.
JR
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-abortion,anti-feminist men here?
Post by passingby on Feb 28, 2006, 10:35am
Abortion is the Sacrament of the Feminist Movement.
And the Democratic platform, but that’s another story.
Anyway, I’m most disappointed with the way the pro-abortion movement tries to deceive everybody. They make it sound like 99% of all abortions are done to 12 year old rape victims, when that isn’t the case. If the Roe v Wade is finally overturned, some newspaper predicted that most states would have some restrictions on abortion but NOT outlaw it entirely. If they provide for a rape/mothers life clause, then what’s with the big stink from the far left pro abortion crowd?
Furthermore, I don’t get what’s with D&X happening just minutes before birth. How THAT can still be considered legal…
Somebody here posted something saying that the Schiavo (sp?) case was an social experiment in euthanasia, and that in the near future, we could see morally devoid adult children ‘aborting’ their elderly parents simply because they don’t want to pay the nursing home bills. It’s a scary scenario, but the more you think about it, the more sense it makes.
Also, both of the terms pro-life and pro-choice are tired and trite, I’m glad to see that the terms pro-abortion and anti-abortion are appearing more and more in recent newspapers. At least the MSM knows how to do SOMETHING right.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by itsdan on Feb 28, 2006, 11:00am
If they provide for a rape/mothers life clause, then what’s with the big stink from the far left pro abortion crowd?
Well I’ll give you an analogy to another hot topic. The NRA tries to paint all gun owners as being responsible, when we have a LOT of gun crime in the country. So as long as they allow guns for police officers, security guards, etc, who cares if they ban them for everyone else?
Some people simply feel it’s not an issue to be decided by government.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by passingby on Feb 28, 2006, 11:44am
Some people simply feel it’s not an issue to be decided by government.
They don’t seem too upset with the verdict of Roe v Wade.
Furthermore, I’m not too sure your analogy is meaningful, since guns are explicitly mentioned in the constitution.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Lee on Feb 28, 2006, 12:33pm
Feb 28, 2006, 11:00am, itsdan wrote:If they provide for a rape/mothers life clause, then what’s with the big stink from the far left pro abortion crowd?
Well I’ll give you an analogy to another hot topic. The NRA tries to paint all gun owners as being responsible, when we have a LOT of gun crime in the country.
Fallacy alert.
Those who commit crimes with guns are not necessarily legal gun owners. Thus not responsible, law abiding citizens. Most gun crimes are committed by criminals, who often don’t legally purchase the gun.
Fact:
Cities that outlaw gun ownership, WDC, NYC, Detroit, have the highest murder rates in the U.S.A. Guns prevent crime.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by openeyes on Feb 28, 2006, 2:44pm
Feb 28, 2006, 12:33pm, Lee wrote:
Fact:
Cities that outlaw gun ownership, WDC, NYC, Detroit, have the highest murder rates in the U.S.A. Guns prevent crime.
Likewise crime tends to go DOWN in areas after concealed carry is widely endorsed.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by itsdan on Feb 28, 2006, 4:06pm
I wasn’t trying to bash gun ownership, hope it didn’t sound that way.
They don’t seem too upset with the verdict of Roe v Wade.
RvW puts the choice with the doctor and the patient. I do however agree it’s an unfair power grab and the state’s should decide. However a state deciding it isn’t any better than the federal government doing it if you believe it’s not a government issue. Different heads of the same beast.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by Drifter on Feb 28, 2006, 4:52pm
Feb 27, 2006, 11:02am, scholarlee wrote:have any of y’all read that book Freakonomics?
I don’t know whether the authors have been discredited yet or not, and I don’t remember precisely the statistics they used – however, the authors noticed a correlation between a dropping crime rate and the availability of safe, legal abortions. that is – a certain number of individuals who would turn to a life of crime because of poverty and parental neglect had not been born (were aborted) and so never grew up to commit crimes.
then the authors spend pages and pages saying “we’re not advocating abortions, we’re not saying that every child born to poverty becomes a criminal, we’re not saying this, we’re not saying that, we’re just pointing out that when the number of abortions went up in the 70s, the number of crimes went down in the 90s.”
any thoughts?
The logic used in Freakonomics was very broken and wrong. In fact, abortion has _increased_ the number of illegitimate births, thus making the effect highly uncertain.
http://www.isteve.com/abortion.htm
The problem is that abortion was used as a tool for women’s sexual liberation, allowing women to have sex whenever they wanted. In the short term, this was great for women, but in the longer term, it devalued marriage and prevented women from having secure families. The net result has been more single mothers and illegitimate births. This has meant that babies have been born into poorer families, with less parental guidance.
The other misconception in this thread is the status of a fetus. It should be obvious that a fetus is a living entity. The question is whether the fetus has rights. This hinges on whether the fetus can be classified as a human (with human rights), a parasite (with no rights), or something in between (with partial human rights?). If the fetus has human rights, it is also logical for the fetus’s rights to supersede the mother’s rights since the fetus’s right to life supersedes the mother’s right to not be pregnant for 9 months.
After much thought on the subject, I’ve decided that a fetus is much more than a lump of tissue. Maybe it’s because I’m male, knowing that I could never have a fetus inside me that made me realise that it is a special thing. Consequently, I’ve decided I’m anti-abortion.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by scholarlee on Feb 28, 2006, 5:58pm
drifter – thanks for the link. I’ll check it out.
——————————————————————————–
Re: Any other pro-choice, anti-feminist men here?
Post by dickthedog on Mar 1, 2006, 12:12am
Feb 27, 2006, 11:02am, scholarlee wrote:have any of y’all read that book Freakonomics?
I don’t know whether the authors have been discredited yet or not, and I don’t remember precisely the statistics they used – however, the authors noticed a correlation between a dropping crime rate and the availability of safe, legal abortions. that is – a certain number of individuals who would turn to a life of crime because of poverty and parental neglect had not been born (were aborted) and so never grew up to commit crimes.
then the authors spend pages and pages saying “we’re not advocating abortions, we’re not saying that every child born to poverty becomes a criminal, we’re not saying this, we’re not saying that, we’re just pointing out that when the number of abortions went up in the 70s, the number of crimes went down in the 90s.”
any thoughts?
Treading perilously close to eugenics.
——————————————————————————–
