“No Uterus, No Opinion”
First, it makes no sense to tell people who believe human rights are being violated to mind their own business. (See also: “Don’t like abortion? Don’t have one.”)
Second, views on abortion show no correlation to gender. Even if we could forever silence men on the topic, the abortion debate would remain intractable.
Third, it’s insulting (and not at all feminist) to suggest that men are incapable of considering the moral, legal, and practical aspects of abortion. More generally, it’s insulting to suggest thoughtful people of any gender, race, sexuality, etc., are incapable of considering situations that don’t directly affect them. How many men fought for votes for women? How many white people spoke out against slavery? How many straight people fight for gay marriage today? Such people aren’t just mindless minions manipulated by the relevant interest group; they are conscientious humans capable of empathy.
Finally, and most importantly, abortion does affect men. While abortion’s serious physical effects are absent, reproductive decisions (abortion, adoption, childbirth, etc.) have significant financial, social, and psychological consequences for men. This is true whether the man is pro-life, pro-choice, or ambivalent.
This is not to say abortion affects men as much as women. It is to say abortion affects men enough that they have an interest in the abortion debate.
Couldn't have said it better myself.
You think it's fair for men to make decisions that disproportionately affect women?
Do you know what the word "disproportionate" means?
You think that men can somehow know and experience how women feel about this issue?
Last time I checked, we lived in a society where men and women are both treated as equals. The relationship between men and women is not the same as the relationship between parent and child, or owner and property. It is offensive that someone on "Secular" pro-life.com would support an argument that claims women can't make these decisions for themselves.
If the anti-abortion, anti-contraception men can't even find a single woman who would speak on thier behalf, they should back off and respect women for once.
"Last time I checked, we lived in a society where men and women are both treated as equals."
You had better check again then. It's 2012 and I STILL don't earn the same amount of money as a man for doing equal work. If you consider that being treated as equal, then I have to wonder if you even know what the word "equal" means.
It's very interesting that women who want abortion to stay legal are bashing men's opinions about it. Who decided that abortion should be legal? Nine MEN on the Supreme Court. Following their logic, Roe v. Wade should be overturned because men ruled on it.
In fact, Norma McCorvey, a.k.a. 'Jane Roe,' wishes they would.
If men really should have no say on abortion then that would also mean men should not be unable to defend it.
"Not from Darfur? Can't have an opinion on genocide there!"
Because it's important to me: it's same-sex marriage, not gay marriage, because bisexual people can marry someone of the same sex and not be gay. I know, loads of people say "gay marriage," but that's actually not completely correct.
Forgive my grammar mistake. I meant to say "If men should have no say on abortion, then they should not be able to defend it."
As a pro-choicer, I find "No Uterus, No Opinion" to only really apply to a small group of people: Men who claim not to have a full grasp on the issue, who don't know much about the evidence on either side, and who nonetheless come down on the side of "pro-life" as some kind of default, "erring on the side of caution." Of course the "pro-life" side is the safer bet, if you have no stake in the game. And, having no uterus, men automatically have far less stake in the game. Simply put, a man cannot find his bodily integrity violated by a fetus. Ever. Thus, a man who is pro-life merely by default, who doesn't spend much time thinking about the argument of bodily integrity because it doesn't apply to him–he deserves the rebuke.
As Pierre de la Merde says, when something has a disproportionate impact on a group of people, other groups should not casually–without educating themselves thoroughly–support legislation that restricts the rights of that group.
It seem to me that certain people are better suited to talking about certain specific issues. So, for example, if we are talking about certain anti-abortion policies like aggressive enforcement of child support, for example, we should have men be the public face of that advocacy.
You're right, it is a very small group of people. Most people who don't know anything about the evidence on either side don't end up coming down on the pro-life side.
Abortion might not apply to men in the exact same sense as it does to women, but it does apply to men in other ways. For instance, men could become emotionally devastated if their prenatal child is killed via an abortion, and whether or not abortion is legal also affects whether or not men are forced to be held responsible for someone else's decision or not (by being forced to pay child support).
"As Pierre de la Merde says, when something has a disproportionate impact
on a group of people, other groups should not casually–without
educating themselves thoroughly–support legislation that restricts the
rights of that group."
Also, this argument could apply to denying rights to prenatal human beings as well.
And for the record, I agree with one of the Guests here that I know many people who have not thought very much about the issue of abortion and who are pro-choice.
Oh, and your statement about uninformed men could likewise apply to uninformed infetile women and to women who are above reproductive age (as well as to women who have already had hysterectomies).
You're guilty of the argumentum ad hominem fallacy.
Also, many men who are anti-abortion are not anti-contraception.
Also, the anti-abortion side is not saying that women are unable to make abortion decisions for themselves. Anti-abortion people are saying that most abortions are morally unjustifiable, similar to how they (and other people) consider infanticide, et cetera to be morally unjustifiable.
This should be changed immediately, or as soon as possible. Women should earn equal pay for equal work.
I agree with this.
Many pro-choicers conveniently seem to forget and/or ignore that Roe v. Wade was decided by nine women and by NO women.
I also want to point out that abortion is a man's issues as well because whether or not a woman is able to abort and whether or not a woman decides to abort determines if men are being forced to pay child support due to someone else's decision (which is a violation of our rights) or due to their own decision.
The YouTube user WarThemedRevolution has a nice video about this called "Hold Men Responsible for the Decisions of Women?"
You mean that "men should be unable to defend it," since if "men should not be unable to defend it," then it means that "men should be able to defend it," which is not what you meant.
I fully agree with what you meant here, though.
Bingo. Nine MEN and NO WOMEN on the U.S. Supreme Court decided Roe v. Wade. Pro-choicers often have no problem with men being FOR abortion, they only have a problem with men who are AGAINST abortion.
The most common cause of Uterine Prolapse is trauma during childbirth, in particular multiple or difficult births. About 50% of women who have had children develop some form of pelvic organ prolapse in their lifetime. It is more common as women get older, particularly in those who have gone through menopause. This condition is surgically correctable. Uterine-Prolapse.net comprehensive and informative site for mothers who want to learn about uterine prolapse and find ways to deal with pain and stress of this condition.
For what it's worth, here's my take on this issue: