Should only women decide on abortion?

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

...since it concerns their body in its depths in the 1st place.

Technically, that could mean that they would be the only ones authorized to vote on the issue, submitted by referendum more likely. And why not proposition of laws would be set by commissions made by +50% percents of women.

I can't say whether that would be the best solution, but I'm attracting by a 'Yes' now, then I vote 'Yes'.

Btw, this reflexion has been inspired to me by this stat:

Ifop poll for some pro-life outfit shows that 85% of women are favourable to abortion, with only 7% opposed.

http://www.ifop.com/media/poll/1092-1-study_file.pdf

The rest of the study shows that it's not because a very large proportion of women would allow it that they think it's necessarily a  good thing to do or that they have a positive opinion of it, I prefer to precise.

Also, interesting to ask it on a 'male forum'...

[segwaystyle2012]

No. Maybe they shouldn't get any say at all actually.

[John Dibble]

I guess I fall into the "pro-choice" side of the issue, though I find there to be nothing pleasing about the notion of abortion. (I doubt there's more than a handful who do)

While I think it's not fair to a man if the woman decides to have an abortion and he's against it, the simple fact that it's her body where the pregnancy actually happens should give her a greater share in the decision process. There's nothing ideal about abortion, unfortunately, but any woman who is considering one who still has the man around and interested should at least get his opinion first. If she doesn't want it but he does then she should at least consider the option of going through with it and letting him raise it himself.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

No, but that's the way it's going to be and there is nothing to be done about it.

[paul718]

If you're asking whether only women should decide on the legality of abortion, then no.  The fact that it's the woman who carries the pregnancy is irrelevant to someone with a pro-life position.

If you're asking whether only women should decide on whether or not to terminate a pregnancy, my answer is still no.  The mother's decision to terminate should not preclude the father's decision to keep the child.

[RosettaStoned]

No.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

No. The women and men in law enforcement and the court system should decide, by deciding to enforce murder laws against abortionists.

[useful idiot]

No. 500,000 boys in this country are killed every year by the practice, I'd say men have a say too if we're going to make this a gender issue.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

No.

No. 500,000 boys in this country are killed every year by the practice, I'd say men have a say too if we're going to make this a gender issue.

^^^^

[Conservative frontier]

No. Maybe they shouldn't get any say at all actually.

[The Age Wave]

No. The women and men in law enforcement and the court system should decide, by deciding to enforce murder laws against abortionists.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

     Yes, unfortunately. It's her body & if she doesn't want the fetus growing inside of it, I think that it would be wrong to force her to carry it to term.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

     Yes, unfortunately. It's her body & if she doesn't want the fetus growing inside of it, I think that it would be wrong to force her to carry it to term.

Well, yes, I agree that's the way it is and will always be, I'm just not so sure it's "right", if you know what I mean.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

     Yes, unfortunately. It's her body & if she doesn't want the fetus growing inside of it, I think that it would be wrong to force her to carry it to term.

Well, yes, I agree that's the way it is and will always be, I'm just not so sure it's "right", if you know what I mean.

     Yeah, I know what you mean. It would be nice if they could remove the fetus at any stage & put it in an artificial uterus or a surrogate mother should the father want it but the mother not, but I think that's some ways off.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

     Yes, unfortunately. It's her body & if she doesn't want the fetus growing inside of it, I think that it would be wrong to force her to carry it to term.

So in other words, you're a sexist.

[Earth]

Hell no. It's obviously regressive to prohibit an entire gender to not have the ability to input their own view.

[Bo]

No, the men should have a say as well since the child is also theirs.

[Guderian]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

I've been arguing that the fact that women can opt-out of the child care by having an abortion while men don't have the same option available is wrong for some time. Glad to see someone shares my opinion. I think the cumpolsory abortion on the request of the father would be too harsh, though.

[John Dibble]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

     Yes, unfortunately. It's her body & if she doesn't want the fetus growing inside of it, I think that it would be wrong to force her to carry it to term.

So in other words, you're a sexist.

How is that sexist exactly? It's a fact that women are the ones that get pregnant.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

What about the opposite........what if the man wants the child and will raise it on his own if need be, and the mother wants to abort it?  Same answer?

     Yes, unfortunately. It's her body & if she doesn't want the fetus growing inside of it, I think that it would be wrong to force her to carry it to term.

So in other words, you're a sexist.

How is that sexist exactly? It's a fact that women are the ones that get pregnant.

It's the father's child as much as the mother's.


Of course neither should have the right to murder the child.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

I've been arguing that the fact that women can opt-out of the child care by having an abortion while men don't have the same option available is wrong for some time. Glad to see someone shares my opinion. I think the cumpolsory abortion on the request of the father would be too harsh, though.

     Not only that, but allowing the father to force the mother into having an abortion would contradict the principle libertarian argument in favor of abortion rights. After all, if the mother has the right to remove the fetus at will because she owns her own body, wouldn't giving someone else say over whether she keeps or removes it be a critical infringement on her jurisdiction over her own body?

[segwaystyle2012]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

I've been arguing that the fact that women can opt-out of the child care by having an abortion while men don't have the same option available is wrong for some time. Glad to see someone shares my opinion. I think the cumpolsory abortion on the request of the father would be too harsh, though.

     Not only that, but allowing the father to force the mother into having an abortion would contradict the principle libertarian argument in favor of abortion rights. After all, if the mother has the right to remove the fetus at will because she owns her own body, wouldn't giving someone else say over whether she keeps or removes it be a critical infringement on her jurisdiction over her own body?

Doesn't sound libertarian to meeeeeee.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Yes, most definitely. At the same time, men should not be compelled to support the child if the woman does not abort.

I've been arguing that the fact that women can opt-out of the child care by having an abortion while men don't have the same option available is wrong for some time. Glad to see someone shares my opinion. I think the cumpolsory abortion on the request of the father would be too harsh, though.

     Not only that, but allowing the father to force the mother into having an abortion would contradict the principle libertarian argument in favor of abortion rights. After all, if the mother has the right to remove the fetus at will because she owns her own body, wouldn't giving someone else say over whether she keeps or removes it be a critical infringement on her jurisdiction over her own body?

Doesn't sound libertarian to meeeeeee.

     I wouldn't think that ownership of one's own body would sound libertarian to an ultra-collectivist anyway.