ADVERTISEMENT

Your opinion on Should men be allowed to vote on laws defining abortions for women ?

P

PalmettoTiger1

The Jack Dunlap Club
Gold Member
Jan 25, 2009
8,520
7,522
113
Since I started a firestorm with another thread , I have a good one I think should challenge all of us male testosterone types.

I am open to any fair and reasonable laws requiring abortions and a woman has just gave me hell about what right do I have to decide what she does with her body.

The lady has stated that all the woman should vote to outlaw male masturbation, if men feel they have the right to vote on female abortion.

Do the ladies have a point?
 
Anyone can have an opinion on the matter of life. The number one killer of children in this country is abortion. The whole her body her choice thing is crazy because that choice ends when you decide to have sex. At that point there are two human beings living in one body. It isn't just a woman's body anymore. And everyone has a right to an opinion when it comes to matters of life. You made a comparison earlier with Fauci and Mengele. One thing we do in this country that is worthy of the Nazis is abortion. On that we have no rival and no excuse for our barbaric behavior.
 
I've always found this conversation interesting, because the party that's so staunchly supportive of abolishing abortion is the same party that is doing its damnedest to prevent support for these children once the child is born. It makes the whole thought process ring hollow, at least in my eyes.
 
Willence said:
The whole her body her choice thing is crazy because that choice ends when you decide to have sex.
Click to expand...
and this is really what it’s all about. Abortion laws aren’t about life or protecting children or anything else, if they were then the same people would be for more restrictions on firearms (the actually leading cause of death for children in the US).

Abortion laws are about punishing women for having sex. ”Choice ends when you decide to have sex” has a very “well you wouldn’t have gotten raped if you weren’t dressed like that” feel to it.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: cfurn, dpic73 and Willence
WapPride said:
I've always found this conversation interesting, because the party that's so staunchly supportive of abolishing abortion is the same party that is doing its damnedest to prevent support for these children once the child is born. It makes the whole thought process ring hollow, at least in my eyes.
Click to expand...

May I ask what you view as seeking to prevent support? What are example of support you're referring to?
 
dbjork6317 said:
and this is really what it’s all about. Abortion laws aren’t about life or protecting children or anything else, if they were then the same people would be for more restrictions on firearms (the actually leading cause of death for children in the US).

Abortion laws are about punishing women for having sex. ”Choice ends when you decide to have sex” has a very “well you wouldn’t have gotten raped if you weren’t dressed like that” feel to it.
Click to expand...

It's entirely about protecting children who are unborn and defenseless. News flash: To get pregnant there must first be sex in most cases. Your extended argument is totally absurd. But then, I don't expect that you'd keep in fair and on point because that's tough. Instead, we extrapolate to 1000 other things. Hint: There's inconsistency and hypocrisy on both sides of the aisle. That's not the point of an individual issue argument/discussion.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Hammerdawg.NEAR and PAWrocka
Willence said:
May I ask what you view as seeking to prevent support? What are example of support you're referring to?
Click to expand...
Providing economic assistance for those in the lower income bracket - the people who are going to be most negatively impacted by these abortion bans. Middle class/upper class can just fly to a state that is fine with abortion, the people lower on the economic ladder don't have that option.

There's no argument that republicans want to get rid of welfare, food stamps, and other "handouts" as i see them called on here. GOP was leading the charge on getting rid of universal free lunches for kids in school. GOP wants to penalize non-working families that have children by cutting the amount of benefits they can receive (this punishes the children as well as the parents.) Just a couple off the top of my head while waiting on a meeting to start
 
  • Like
Reactions: flotiger and dpic73
I dont like it, and if asked by a woman "Pawrocka, what should I do" I would encourage that woman to keep her baby ... but I think a woman should be able to have an abortion up to 12-15 weeks into the pregnancy with late term abortions only being allowed in the case of danger to the life of the mother.

I believe this is aligned with the majority of Americans, but like most things nowadays the conversation is dominated by the extreme minorities on either side .... the far right that wants to ban all abortions regardless of timing or circumstance and the far left who wants to allow abortions at any time regardless of time or circumstance.
 
PAWrocka said:
I dont like it, and if asked by a woman "Pawrocka, what should I do" I would encourage that woman to keep her baby ... but I think a woman should be able to have an abortion up to 12-15 weeks into the pregnancy with late term abortions only being allowed in the case of danger to the life of the mother.

I believe this is aligned with the majority of Americans, but like most things nowadays the conversation is dominated by the extreme minorities on either side .... the far right that wants to ban all abortions regardless of timing or circumstance and the far left who wants to allow abortions at any time regardless of time or circumstance.
Click to expand...

this fits my thinking

or if you dont want abortions dont have sex with a woman
 
PalmettoTiger1 said:
this fits my thinking

or if you dont want abortions dont have sex with a woman
Click to expand...
It is interesting that "male birth control" isnt discussed more. Apparently there is a pill that is working its way through FDA approvals for men called dimethandrolone unecanoate (say that three times fast), which cuts down sperm production.

Another thing that is interesting .... I cant remember if it was a thread on TI, or a story I read somewhere ... where men who dont want children are trying to get vasectomy's; however, before they are allowed the man has to undergo a mental health evaluation if they dont already have children. Just interesting that a man has to do that for a procedure that is reversible should they change their mind.

Also if you believe the interwebz, more and more men are doing just as you suggested ... not having sex voluntarily and are certainly leaving the "dating scene" altogether. What is the benefit of dating (with a goal of marriage) for a man in today's climate? I cant imagine being 20 years younger and trying to date in todays climate.

Population growth is slowing to alarming levels (especially amongst college educated individuals), and some argue that the only reason our (US) population is growing at its current rate is due to immigration. But .... thats a topic for a different thread.
 
Last edited:
Willence said:
Anyone can have an opinion on the matter of life. The number one killer of children in this country is abortion. The whole her body her choice thing is crazy because that choice ends when you decide to have sex. At that point there are two human beings living in one body. It isn't just a woman's body anymore. And everyone has a right to an opinion when it comes to matters of life. You made a comparison earlier with Fauci and Mengele. One thing we do in this country that is worthy of the Nazis is abortion. On that we have no rival and no excuse for our barbaric behavior.
Click to expand...
It's not clear to me whatsoever that the rights and interests of a zygote exceed those of the woman who is expected to carry it to term.
 
PAWrocka said:
when does the "zygote" start to have rights and interests?
Click to expand...
Did I assert that it doesn't have rights and interests? No, I did not. In fact, I explicitly said that a zygote does, and I remain unconvinced that those rights and interests exceed those of the woman carrying it.

It's a greater injustice to make a woman carry the child to term than to terminate its life, whatever life means exactly here, shortly after conception. I'm willing to accept, as you may be too in plenty of other cases, that killing can be just
 
Last edited:
LaniKaiTiger said:
Did I assert that it doesn't have rights and interests? No, I did not. In fact, I explicitly said that a zygote does, and I remain unconvinced that those rights and interests exceed those of the woman carrying it.
Click to expand...
Im assuming when we are discussing "rights" we are discussing "unalienable rights" that are endowed, by their Creator ... that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we are discussing different "rights" please clarify.

Are our "unalienable rights" guaranteed to us based on who "needs" them more?

I was clear in my response above, life begins at conception. Please clarify what you mean. When does life begin? When does a "zygote", "fetus", "baby" begin to have rights?
 
PAWrocka said:
Im assuming when we are discussing "rights" we are discussing "unalienable rights" that are endowed, by their Creator ... that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." If we are discussing different "rights" please clarify.

Are our "unalienable rights" guaranteed to us based on who "needs" them more?

I was clear in my response above, life begins at conception. Please clarify what you mean. When does life begin? When does a "zygote", "fetus", "baby" begin to have rights?
Click to expand...
I reject any premise involving "their Creator."

I'm perfectly willing to grant that life of some form begins at conception. Should you or I regard that life as equivalent to you or me? I don't think so. To address your point explicitly, I believe that the fetus, zygote, baby has the right to life. My position is that this right is not some ultimate trump card over the interests and rights of the mother.

Fertilize an egg in vitro. Kill it while it's still in the test tube. It has no memory, no conception of the world, no relationship to anyone beyond genetics. You honestly believe that action is morally equivalent to someone killing someone you know?
 
Republicans weren't asking to see Obama's conception certificate back in 2008.

Legally, it seems pretty obvious that life begins at birth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: hopefultiger13
LaniKaiTiger said:
I reject any premise involving "their Creator."

I'm perfectly willing to grant that life of some form begins at conception. Should you or I regard that life as equivalent to you or me? I don't think so. To address your point explicitly, I believe that the fetus, zygote, baby has the right to life. My position is that this right is not some ultimate trump card over the interests and rights of the mother.

Fertilize an egg in vitro. Kill it while it's still in the test tube. It has no memory, no conception of the world, no relationship to anyone beyond genetics. You honestly believe that action is morally equivalent to someone killing someone you know?
Click to expand...
Premise of "Creator" isnt really important to the discussion. I believe our "Creator" is God, based on your response Im guessing youre a atheist or at least agnostic. Thats ok ... but lets agree that Jefferson chose his words carefully when writing that line and that "Creator" could literally mean anything. God of Abraham, Spaghetti Monster, science/evolution are all "Creators"

So again, youre implying that some "rights" are more important to some than others. What basis are are you formulating that opinion on? Who gets to decide what rights matter more?

I think you and I mostly agree based on what you said above
 
PAWrocka said:
It is interesting that "male birth control" isnt discussed more. Apparently there is a pill that is working its way through FDA approvals for men called dimethandrolone unecanoate (say that three times fast), which cuts down sperm production.

Another thing that is interesting .... I cant remember if it was a thread on TI, or a story I read somewhere ... where men who dont want children are trying to get vasectomy's; however, before they are allowed the man has to undergo a mental health evaluation if they dont already have children. Just interesting that a man has to do that for a procedure that is reversible should they change their mind.

Also if you believe the interwebz, more and more men are doing just as you suggested ... not having sex voluntarily and are certainly leaving the "dating scene" altogether. What is the benefit of dating (with a goal of marriage) for a man in today's climate? I cant imagine being 20 years younger and trying to date in todays climate.

Population growth is slowing to alarming levels (especially amongst college educated individuals), and some argue that the only reason our (US) population is growing at its current rate is due to immigration. But .... thats a topic for a different thread.
Click to expand...
I’ve had 3 friends get vasectomies and none of them had to get a mental health screening prior - at least according to them. So idk if that’s true or not, or maybe state-specific.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAWrocka
PAWrocka said:
Premise of "Creator" isnt really important to the discussion. I believe our "Creator" is God, based on your response Im guessing youre a atheist or at least agnostic. Thats ok ... but lets agree that Jefferson chose his words carefully when writing that line and that "Creator" could literally mean anything. God of Abraham, Spaghetti Monster, science/evolution are all "Creators"

So again, youre implying that some "rights" are more important to some than others. What basis are are you formulating that opinion on? Who gets to decide what rights matter more?

I think you and I mostly agree based on what you said above
Click to expand...
This is a good debate topic.

I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the lawsuit in Florida where the pregnant woman argues her fetus is being illegally detained. Would your argument be that the constitutional right of the child to not be illegally detained is less important than the “unalienable rights” you mentioned above?
 
PAWrocka said:
Premise of "Creator" isnt really important to the discussion. I believe our "Creator" is God, based on your response Im guessing youre a atheist or at least agnostic. Thats ok ... but lets agree that Jefferson chose his words carefully when writing that line and that "Creator" could literally mean anything. God of Abraham, Spaghetti Monster, science/evolution are all "Creators"

So again, youre implying that some "rights" are more important to some than others. What basis are are you formulating that opinion on? Who gets to decide what rights matter more?

I think you and I mostly agree based on what you said above
Click to expand...
Science doesn't believe in an inherent right to life or existence. Greater than 99% of species that have ever existed are now extinct. But anyway, yes, as a human being I think a fertilized embryo has a right or interest to life. You may as well believe in the Spaghetti Monster creator.

I take it as essentially obvious that some rights are more important than others in one situation or another. We as human beings get to argue these things. It isn't thrust upon us by some cosmic or divine morality
 
  • Like
Reactions: PAWrocka
WapPride said:
I’ve had 3 friends get vasectomies and none of them had to get a mental health screening prior - at least according to them. So idk if that’s true or not, or maybe state-specific.
Click to expand...
looks like its state specific

Just a quick article I pulled

https://www.inverse.com/mind-body/vasectomy-depression-anxiety

Most U.S. states require a psychological assessment prior to getting a vasectomy. Mills says his primary concern when he does these evaluations is making sure there’s informed consent. This can be boiled down to two questions:

1. If you are in a serious relationship, is your partner okay with you getting the procedure?

“It’s a little bit dicey to get a vasectomy without the knowledge of your partner,” he says. “So I do try to corroborate that his partner wants this procedure done.”


2. Conversely, are you getting a vasectomy because you want to, not just because your partner does?

“I'm always more concerned with men that come in saying, ‘I don’t want this procedure done at all, but my wife said she’s never going to sleep with me again unless I do.’” Mills says. “I tell those men, ‘I don’t think this is the right operation for you.’”

Most often, when he sees men who regret getting a vasectomy, it’s because they felt pushed into it by a partner.

“That’s a really important part of pre-procedural counseling, I want to make sure they’re doing it for themselves, with the added benefit of allowing their partner to not have to be on birth control,” Mills explains.
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: WapPride
WapPride said:
This is a good debate topic.

I’d be curious to hear your thoughts on the lawsuit in Florida where the pregnant woman argues her fetus is being illegally detained. Would your argument be that the constitutional right of the child to not be illegally detained is less important than the “unalienable rights” you mentioned above?
Click to expand...
haha that is a excellent debate LOL.

I think there was a Virginia woman (maybe Texas....probably Texas) who was cited for illegally using a HOV lane which required at least 2 passengers. She argued that she was pregnant and therefore had the right to use the HOV lane. I think she got her ticket/case dismissed.

I spose my initial gut argument would be that the "fetus" is not being detained. The fetus can leave custody as soon as they are able. Similar to if youre a passenger in a vehicle, whose driver is driving recklessly. The police cite/arrest the driver, and the passenger may have to hang out with the police until their Uber gets there, but you arent being detained. BUT that is a very good one, and certainly a case to track.

Its almost as if there is room for nuance in our laws. They dont have to be absolute one way or the other, per my response in post 10

edit: for those interested, I did a little Google on the case @WapPride mentioned. Here is a link

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...nt-woman-fetal-personhood-reproductive-rights
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: WapPride
WapPride said:
Providing economic assistance for those in the lower income bracket - the people who are going to be most negatively impacted by these abortion bans. Middle class/upper class can just fly to a state that is fine with abortion, the people lower on the economic ladder don't have that option.

There's no argument that republicans want to get rid of welfare, food stamps, and other "handouts" as i see them called on here. GOP was leading the charge on getting rid of universal free lunches for kids in school. GOP wants to penalize non-working families that have children by cutting the amount of benefits they can receive (this punishes the children as well as the parents.) Just a couple off the top of my head while waiting on a meeting to start
Click to expand...

The issue I have is what you're saying is that the angle is that there's this cruelty on the right where we want to just stop helping people and feed them to the sharks. That's not even remotely accurate. There are massive issues with almost all of our welfare and entitlement programs.

I was just dealing with one yesterday. The earned income tax credit is a program that was signed in the law by I believe President Reagan. This is designed to provide supplemental income at the taxpayers expense to low-income people to help provide them with a leg up in the world. Sounds like a great idea right? The issue is that I have a good friend who made in the $35,000 range and she is a mother of two. Now she has a fiance but they are not married so that they do not file taxes together. While in that income range she is able to qualify for myriad federal programs in addition to the earned income tax credit. All this while paying no federal income tax.

This year though she made in the mid $50s and no longer qualifies for the program. As a result she actually had her income go down for the year even though she picked up a lot of extra work this year in order to grow her income. She says given that reality that is just not worth it to try to increase her income unless she can really blow past that marker. Anyone would agree with her on that argument. That is an example of a horribly flawed mechanic that we need to do something about. We should not disincentivize people from increasing their income and rising into the middle class in this country. That's why I laugh every time I hear Democrats talk about growing the middle class. That is a very difficult proposition given the current realities of our tax system.

We need to reform all these things but let me tell you something that you probably already know. If a Republican brings up this issue they are going to get demagogued to hell by the Democrats over it. They'll recite talking points that they don't care about the poor and all these other ones that you've already regurgitated earlier and what you said. So here we are with an issue that is unbelt with but is clearly impacting Americans in a negative way.

There's so much about our system that we could fix that would properly motivate people to grow their income and become a part of the middle class in this country. And that would be good for everybody because of it increase our base of tax paying citizens and it would also give people a sense of pride and belonging in our country. We're stifling that with our welfare programs and with the way that we do things to help the poor. I should put help the poor in quotes because we're really not helping. As Reagan said the most terrifying words you can hear is that "I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
 
“Should men be allowed to vote…”

Just stop the conversation before it even starts. I cant believe some of the things we even entertain as a country. Just unbelievable how far this society has degraded in the last decade or so
 
Hammerdawg.NEAR said:
“Should men be allowed to vote…”

Just stop the conversation before it even starts. I cant believe some of the things we even entertain as a country. Just unbelievable how far this society has degraded in the last decade or so
Click to expand...
Six years or so. You contributed to it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LaniKaiTiger
Hammerdawg.NEAR said:
Oh ok
Click to expand...

Just some tongue in cheek

Of course voting cannot be abridged by basis of your gender

Just was funny how I never thought about the female side of the argument much

I definitely want a reasonable morally correct solution to abortion that is workable

Just need help from people as to what they would suggest so i can form an opinion that I can support whole heartedly
 
Who are the 'men' being referenced? Because if she is referring to elected representatives, she has gone completely off the reservation.

Elected representatives are their to represent their constituents - male and female.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

PrimeIsGettingComfortable

Project 2025 is proposing extreme govt concentration of power

Replies
0
Views
150
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
PrimeIsGettingComfortable
PrimeIsGettingComfortable
Cris_Ard

Sugar Bowl doubling as Realignment Bowl

Replies
0
Views
383
The West Zone
Cris_Ard
Cris_Ard
TigerGrowls

Dem Groups Are Trying to Eliminate “Election Lawyers” and Trump’s Attorney Needs Your Help to Stop Them

Replies
29
Views
395
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls

“Project 65” Seeks to Kill All the Trump Lawyers — By Canceling Them: The Progressive Left’s Latest Move to Destroy America

Replies
13
Views
335
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls

These 5 institutions allowed great harm to be inflicted on the world

Replies
3
Views
121
House Of Politics & Off-Topics
TigerGrowls
TigerGrowls
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back