On balance, I favor legal abortion and have supported that for many decades in many ways. Keep that in mind and please do not falsely impute beliefs to me.
However, I try to understand the thinking on all sides. And in that context, I think that your concept that men have no standing in regard to abortion kind of begs the question. By …
On balance, I favor legal abortion and have supported that for many decades in many ways. Keep that in mind and please do not falsely impute beliefs to me.
However, I try to understand the thinking on all sides. And in that context, I think that your concept that men have no standing in regard to abortion kind of begs the question. By which I mean assuming one conclusion in a contested issue, as part of the reasoning to support that same conclusion.
Suppose we assume that it has been proven or can be axiomatic that a fetus is just a bundle of cells with no human rights. From there we can reason that the only human being involved in abortion is the mother, and that only females (who might become pregnant) should have any say on whether the mother can abort that non-human bundle of cells or not; males should abstain from discussion or voting on the matter and leave it up to females.
But there are those who in good faith believe that a fetus is already a human with rights even before birth, not just a non-human bundle of cells. So they believe that abortion involves balancing the needs of two humans, not just one. So for such people, there is zero reason for males to avoid discussion or voting on abortion, because protecting the rights of an unborn human is equally the duty of both males and females. - just as both males and females should be able to vote on a bill legalizing infanticide.
So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells. But before that, deciding whether a fetus is a human being or not would be a question in which both males and females would have standing.
Both males and females would have a vote on legalizing infanticide. The sex of the person voting or discussing it, is not relevant to deciding whether that's homicide or not. And that's how the anti-abortion folks see it.
And pro-abortion males mostly do act as if they believe they have standing, whatever they say about it being up to women. They don't in general abstain from the discussion or from voting, to turn the issue over to just women alone to decide.
What I think some pro-abortion folks really want is for pro-abortion men to vote for abortion, but anti-abortion men to abstain. But that's inverting the logic - it's the pro-abortion men whose belief system would suggest their own abstention, and the anti-abortion men whose belief system ethically requires them to participate.
How do I resolve this? I'm pro abortion AND I believe the both sexes have standing to weigh in on the question of whether fetuses are humans or not (but *IF* and after it's decided that they are not human beings, then only the individual pregnant women has a right to decide whether to terminate it - not other women nor men). So I support men and women discuss it, and support both sexes to vote, without any hypocrisy.
"So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells."
No, I don't think so. We're not talking about a couple who have gotten pregnant and are trying to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not. Here, we probably agree that the man absolutely deserves a say. Though ultimately, it's still going to be the woman's decision. Because she's going to take on 100% of the risk and suffering related to bringing that baby into the world. A vote on infanticide wouldn't be a woman's rights/health issue. Which is why we'd agree that all voices would be equally valid in that debate.
But as regards abortion LAW, we're talking about something that, practically speaking, doesn't affect men at all. The existence of a law that protects women's right to an abortion doesn't infringe on a man's right to weigh in if he gets a woman pregnant and wants to keep the baby (and I'd be willing to bet that more often than not it's the man asking the woman to have an abortion). So I think it's fair that women lead the charge on the legal debate.
There are many societal issues where there's overlap. Or at least where we can all be affected by the outcomes of a law. But abortion laws are among the few where only one group is really affected. So I have no problem with the idea that that group decides the boundaries of the law.
You're right, about pro-abortion males acting as if they believe they have standing. But, of course, the exact same is true for anti-abortion males. And there's a significant difference between saying,
"I will never have to deal with the significant and potentially life threatening implications of this decision, so I defer to those who will,"
and,
"I will never have to deal with the significant and potentially life-threatening implications of this decision, but it doesn't feel good to me, so I want to force all those who ARE affected to do as I say."
You may think it trivial but men do have an interest. Eighteen years of child support or a loveless marriage as a result of an unintended pregnancy. Just as a woman's life is changed in a big way, so is a man's, where abortion is a pragmatic solution.
Suppose that two unmarried people have consensual sex, taking supposedly responsible care not to cause a pregnancy, but it happens anyway.
Under current law, only the woman has any right to decide whether to bear the child. (Of course, it would be polite for her to discuss the matter with the father and take his views into account, but entirely optional).
However, if she decides to have the child, the man has no rights - none at all - in regard to that child. He has only responsibilities, no corresponsing rights. The woman can give it up for adoption or keep it. If she keeps it, the man is legally on the hook for child support for 18+ years, even if he is never allowed to see that child, much less make any decisions regarding it's upbringing.
If the woman agrees, he can choose to marry her, to have some rights.
If we change the scenarios and say that the woman intentionally lied about being on birth control, EXACTLY the same results apply as described above.
(There was even a case where the woman surreptitiously sequestered the used condom to use in impregnating herself without the man's knowledge, and won child support in the courts. A strange case; the man counter-sued based on not having given consent for his semen being used in that matter, but the court ruled that the semen was functionally a "gift" without restrictions on how it was later used)
I do not see this as impacting only the woman. It may impact her more on average (not in all cases), but both parties are hugely impacted and have a legitimate interest.
Now you would have a better case if the law allowed the man's rights and responsibilities to align more closely. Like if he agrees to the woman carrying to term, he is financially responsible; but if disagrees and favors an abortion, he would not be responsible for child support if the woman decides to give birth anyway as a single parent. That is, if a child is wanted by both gamete suppliers, both would be responsible for it; if only one (the woman) wanted the child, they would have both sole parental rights and sole parental responsibility. In this context, the woman would still have full control of whether to have an abortion, but not unilateral control over whether the man would be burdened with child support for a child in which has has zero rights. Note: I am not advocating this here, just saying that IF it were how things work, then your argument would be much stronger.
What I am saying is that child support cannot be completely disentangled from abortion, in the specific context of who has standing because of the impact on their lives, until and unless the previous paragraph were to become the norm.
That's pretty much what I said above about having "standing".
AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available, then a stronger case can be made that male fertilizers would thereafter not need to bear any undue consequences from abortion and could be well argued to have no standing *based on the impact upon themselves*, individually or collectively.
And in that case, and IF no fetus at any stage is considered to be a human being, the decision about abortion would strongly impact only one human being - the pregnant woman.
There are two major IFs above which cannot be entirely swept under the rug, tho.
(And just to head it off - nowhere have I asserted anything about "from the moment of conception", nor do I personally find that relevant.)
"AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available"
You seem to be convinced that I'm going to misinterpret everything you say at the moment, so let me just say that it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want.
There are a few wrinkles with this, most obviously the question of when the guy gets to abdicate responsibility? Does he get the same three months the woman gets before he can't back out? What happens if she doesn't realise she's pregnant until its too late to abort? What if she's made it clear to him ahead of time that she won't abort if she does get pregnant and he still chooses to have sex with her?
An under-appreciated point on the unwanted pregnancy issue is that men are to blame for what must be very close to 100% of unwanted pregnancies. A woman who doesn't want a child isn't poking holes in a condom or wrapping her legs around her parter's waist and forcing him to orgasm inside her after all.
Outside of contraceptive failure, an unwanted pregnancy is almost always going to be a case of the man losing control and impregnating the woman. No semen, no baby. So the question of whether he should be held blameless if the women doesn't want to go through an abortion, whether for religious or just personal moral reasons, isn't straightforward.
But the bigger point, again, is that men can argue their case about when and whether they should be held responsible for a pregnancy that they cause, independently of whether a woman has a right to an abortion. And, of course, women not having the option to get abortions only makes men's predicament worse.
I didn't mention "the moment of conception" anywhere in this particular conversation. Nor did you. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to "head it off." Can we go back to operating under the assumption that I can read and interpret English sentences without difficulty?😅 If I misinterpret something, as we all do from time to time, I'm sure you'll correct me. But you don't have to fill your responses with provisos.
> " it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want."
Can I be more precise? My point is that arguing that men should have no say in the legality of abortion because there is no substantial impact on their lives is invalid unless it really does have no substantial impact. (Note: two or more parties can each have substantial interests in an outcome, even if not equal interests).
However, men are free abstain from all discussions of abortion for any reason they wish, or no reason. I'm not in any way trying to force them to participate, just partially disputing a line of reasoning about why you think they should abstain.
(You brought up "from the moment of conception" in another response to one of my comments on this article, after I had not mentioned it in that subthread or indeed anywhere, so I wanted to avoid that happening a second time in this subthread. Search the comments if you doubt this.)
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept or debate your personal intuitions about the typical dynamics of unwanted pregnancy. Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive. You do very well at data driven argumentation, but when you shoot from the hip with that kind of guesses about the circumstances of unwanted pregnancies, let's say that it's less compelling.
I was dissenting in regard to a specific narrow sub-point - that since men cannot get pregnant and thus suffer no consequences, the legal status of abortion is none of their concern and should be decided entirely by women.
I think that line of reasoning (that only those classes of people who might be directly affected have standing to weigh in on an issue) leads to many undesirable corollaries and so must be questioned; and I also think that very few people honestly adhere to it (including you) so it's more a sweet sounding poetic notion than an actual reality. I have never yet met a pro-abortion man, nor an anti-abortion man, who abstains from the issue (no matter what they say), or who entirely defers to women to discuss it, donate to support their side, and vote on it. I believe those who promote that idea really only want anti-abortion men to abstain, not themselves, so it's generally not an honest point.
I think I've made my case for all that, and will let it rest; restating it in slightly different terms doesn't appear to benefit anybody.
Also (I did go back and check) 😄 I mentioned the moment of conception because you wrote:
"So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells."
Now, it's true, "moment of conception" and "bundle of cells" aren't *exactly* the same thing. But can we agree that the conflation isn't exactly unreasonable?
I intended to refer to some people believing that a fetus is still not a human but just a bundle of cells (ie: tissues) up until the moment of birth, whereupon it suddenly becomes a human being within a second.
But if you were thinking that by bundle of cells I meant "two cells merging into a zygote" then I can see where this could be ambiguous.
This illustrates what I said in another reply, about how we know what we meant and so sometimes do not anticipate how it could be interpreted otherwise. Peace.
"Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive"
Are you really asking me to provide data regarding what happens while an unwanted pregnancy is conceived? Gathering that data might be a little...sensitive, don't you think? But this is hardly some wild guess, it's a logical conclusion based on the basic mechanics of conception.
Assuming that neither partner wants to make a baby, how do you suppose the semen finds it's way to the egg without the man putting it there? Excluding the cases where contraception fails, how can it be the woman's fault if the semen finds its way there?
Asking for data on such an obvious (and obviously impossible to scientifically research) point feels disingenuous.
Also, I think I've been very clear that I'm talking about lawmaking, not general discussion of the issue. I'd have a hard time claiming that men shouldn't talk about the issue at all given that I wrote an article about it, had discussions with numerous woman about it, posted one of those discussions here, and then had a bunch of other discussions about that.
As for the undesirable corollaries, I've mentioned repeatedly, both here and in the main post, that my feelings on this issue apply to this issue precisely because it's unique. I even asked you for an actual corollary. You keep repeating your position without addressing my response to the points you're making.
And lastly, your first comment here, before I'd replied to anything, instructed me "not to falsely impute beliefs" to you. I'm not sure if there's just a nuance gap created by text as opposed to in person conversation, but it feels as if we're clashing and I'm not sure why.
There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (mistake by either or both)
Failure of "rhythm" as birth control (mistake by either party)
Failure of "withdrawal" as birth control (mistake by male)
Misusing birth control devices though ignorance of either party
Malfunctioning of birth control outside the knowledge or control of participants (eg: an IUD) Deception: Male intentionally sabotaging condoms to generate pregnancy
Deception: Female deliberately wanting to become pregnant to force marriage, unsuccessfully
Both parties initially want pregnancy, but female changes mind
ETC
Any of those (and others) are plausible and likely happen at times, and lead to a desire for abortion. But I have no clue how frequent any of them are, and it seems fruitless for the two of us to discuss how similar or different our evidence-free guesses are.
---
In terms of not imputing beliefs to me, that wasn't addressed to you or to any specific person. Since I was questioning some of the reasoning used by pro-abortion people, it's common for some readers to assume that I must be anti-abortion. I've encountered similar dynamics from strong partisans many times, so when I know I'm discussing a hot button topic I sometimes try to head off a misunderstanding.
I'm kind of odd in that, within an appropriate discussion venue, I can question the strength or validity of specific arguments EVEN IF I support the overall conclusion (for other reasons). I don't believe "any argument which supposedly leads to my own conclusion is automatically valid". So we can all help refine our arguments or drop the less valid ones. (I really do believe in trying to argue in good faith, which includes omitting weak sub-points).
---
I confess that I'm puzzled as well, that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding between us. I have great respect for you and have often found your writing very insightful. I have good will towards you, and have been completely arguing in good faith, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Both of us can in general write fairly clearly much of the time, we both tend to think things through. And yet there seems to recently be a spate of unintentional (and seemingly unnecessary) miscommunications. It *feels* almost as if you are looking for some way to disagree, or assuming the worst interpretation of my words (and it might feel similarly to you). This is NOT my intention. Even when I disagree, my underlying goal is not trying to "best you" verbally, or show that I'm right and you are wrong - I see myself on a path of collaboratively seeking truth with a respected partner, initially sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing (often on just a sub-point). I prefer more illumination and less heat. It's honestly puzzling to me. Do you have any ideas?
How are they separate? I can't prove it, but I'd say that most abortions are about not wanting an unplanned child. Huge change in their lives, financial, etc. Both man and women are affected by that. Many men will be negatively affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The former is about who bears responsibility for the wellbeing and financial support of a child once it's been born. The latter is about whether a woman should be forced by law to carry a foetus for nine months, against her will, with all the psychological and physical implications that carries.
With or without Roe, men can challenge their obligation to pay child support. Without Roe, some women will have no choice but to carry a child they don't want. And then *also* have to deal with their obligations to the child.
I'm not saying men aren't affected if they father a child. I'm saying women are affected long before the man is. In ways the man will never be.
So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?
I will never have to personally deal with the consequences of, say, industrial safety regulations. Does that mean that I should have no input on them, not allowed to discuss the tradeoffs involved, nor to vote based on whose policies I prefer?
I'm also never going to have children. Does that mean I should have no say about child abuse laws?
What does "lead the charge" mean in concrete vs poetic terms? Does it mean that only legislators who personally work in dangerous industries should be allowed to opine or legislate on industrial safety? Only legislators who have children can vote on laws affecting children? Only female legislators can vote on laws about womens sports, and only male legislators can vote on laws about men's sports?
I find that kind of reasoning extremely fragile and impractical, to be generous.
> "You're right, about pro-abortion males acting as if they believe they have standing. But, of course, the exact same is true for anti-abortion males"
But the former can reason that they should not have standing (if and only if they believe that abortion involves only one human being, the mother, and since they cannot become mothers and thus have no interest in the matter at the societal level), in which case, to discuss and vote on it as males is internally hypocritical. While the latter (who see this as a balance of rights between two human beings, one of which cannot defend their own rights) are not at all internally hypocritical in championing what they see as the rights of the unborn.
I'm in a third category - I support abortion, and I think that both male and female citizens are fully empowered to weigh in on the societal issue of whether abortion is homicide or not, whether they agree with me or not.
Of course I want to listen well to women (on all sides), and I do appreciate that fertile women have a special stake in the matter. But an anti-abortion person believes that the fetus is another party with a special stake in the matter, and I can understand that viewpoint as well.
“So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?”
😁 This is veering dangerously close to the “but what is a woman reeeally” style of argumentation. So as I know you’re reasonable, I’m happy to defer to whatever definition of “woman” or let’s say “female” you normally use. As long as we agree that they’re materially different from males, and agree on the reasons why, I don’t mind the existence of exceptions.
Abortion is not the same as industrial safety or athletics or child safety laws. If you can come up with an example thats similar to members of a particular group of people (and only that group) losing control of their bodily autonomy for ~9 months, no matter how traumatising it might be for them, and then having to go through a medical event that, even in the normal course of things, costs some number of them their lives, then we can compare.
But otherwise, I said in the post, my view on the abortion debate is based on the unique way the issue affects women (and only women) and the dangers it presents to them. My feelings on this can’t and shouldn’t be broadened to any other issue that isn’t equally exceptional.
Speaking of which, yes, abortion rights do only apply to women. The claim that the foetus is another individual from the moment of conception is a faith claim. If there is any logical or scientific evidence to support the claim that a zygote is a person, then I’m all ears. But I don’t think laws, particularly laws that affect those who definitely are people, should be based on unprovable, internal convictions.
(Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?". Either you are seeing something which I am not, or you have misunderstood my point to be asserting something which I am not. Elucidate if you wish.).
You have argued that since only biological females can get pregnant and bear the burdens of that, males should not have standing on the issue of abortion. So I asked if those females who cannot get pregnant any more than males can (eg: post-menopausal or otherwise infertile) should have standing on that issue, following your reasoning.
You didn't answer that question yet. Let's clear that up before building further.
"Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?"
When I talk about women's issues in trans debates, and use the word "woman," somebody will almost always ask something along the lines of, "well what *is* a woman? How do you define woman? Is a post-menopausal woman still a woman? Is a woman with Turner syndrome still a woman?" And then we waste hours nitpicking a separate, unrelated tangent instead of the main point.
The overwhelming majority of females have been, will be, or are currently directly affected by any decision made on abortion. Zero males are. Under any circumstances. So I don't think debating the intricacies of female exceptions is valuable.
So is that your way of indirectly saying that infertile women and post-menopausal women, under no more threat from an unwanted pregnancy than a man, should be able to weigh in on abortion, but men should not be?
Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception". This is nt anything close to a rare anamoly like Turner Syndrome, let's not pretend otherwise.
My point is that your rationale for excluding all males and including all females is weak. First you say because they are the ones affected by pregnancy, then you broaden it to their being the same sex as those who may be affected by a pregnancy even if they themselves are not. One could as logically expand the interested parties to include those married to people who can become pregnant rather than or in addition to expanding to include all sharing the same sex.
In any case, you are free to avoid all discussions or donations or voting in regard to abortion if you really believe what you are saying. I by contrast feel the issue is society wide, and so will continue to encourage the men I know to actively support abortion rights - in discussions, in protests, in donations, in voting. I will not ask them to be quiet and leave it entirely to women. (Tho as I said I definitely advocate listening to women about the issue). To each their own.
But it would be nice to at least admit that this very article and comments are in serious conflict with your professed abstinence.
"Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception"."
Post menopausal women are in the group that "have been, will be or are currently" affected by abortion. Specifically the "have been" segment of that group. I wasn't claiming they were an exception. I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully.
Many post-menopausal women remember what America was like pre-Roe. Some of them had abortions during that time and even bear the scars of back-alley procedures. They have unique insights into the repercussions of this decision that most females, and again, zero males, have. The fact that they can't *currently* get pregnant is beside the point.
But yes, as I said in a different reply, it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to argue that men shouldn't talk about abortion at all, given that I wrote an entire article about it, posted a conversation from it here, and am currently discussing that conversation with numerous people. I'm not quite so dim that I wouldn't realise that.😅
But as I've also said multiple times, including in the main post, I'm talking about the law, not general discussion. Our conversations have zero impact on abortion law. So why would it matter if we talk about it? We're free to be hopelessly wrong or wildly ignorant to the realities of what women go through and nothing happens.
But if I *were* in a position to affect the law, if, hypothetically obviously, I was asked to be part of a group that would decide the status and specifics of abortion law, I'd cede my place to a woman without hesitation. I'd hope that all males would.
>"I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully."
I think it's a bit challenging to read one's own words and spot what could be ambiguous to others, because one KNOWS what was intended.
So when you mentally include the category of post-menopausal women in "... have been affected by abortion", I was considering the kind of life changing "affected by" criteria which you have describe several times (and which is vastly more impactful than unconsensusal child support). I happen to know a certain post menopausal woman quite well, along with many others. Most of them do not report a high level effect (of the dramatic examples you like). So I honestly did not realize that you meant to include them.
So instead I thought your reference to exceptions must refer to the post-menopausal women I had brought up.
There is miniscule probability that you will be called upon to decide that, so it's rather abstract.
However, in the absurdly unlikely case that I had been chosen for some reason to make a decision about abortion, I would not cede that slot to an anti-abortion woman, especially if I thought that would change the decision towards anti-abortion. Would you, really? That would show true commitment to your ethical withdrawal.
More concretely, do you take abortion law into account in your political donations, or in how you vote? Do you condemn the men I know who do, as butting into something which is not their business?
On balance, I favor legal abortion and have supported that for many decades in many ways. Keep that in mind and please do not falsely impute beliefs to me.
However, I try to understand the thinking on all sides. And in that context, I think that your concept that men have no standing in regard to abortion kind of begs the question. By which I mean assuming one conclusion in a contested issue, as part of the reasoning to support that same conclusion.
Suppose we assume that it has been proven or can be axiomatic that a fetus is just a bundle of cells with no human rights. From there we can reason that the only human being involved in abortion is the mother, and that only females (who might become pregnant) should have any say on whether the mother can abort that non-human bundle of cells or not; males should abstain from discussion or voting on the matter and leave it up to females.
But there are those who in good faith believe that a fetus is already a human with rights even before birth, not just a non-human bundle of cells. So they believe that abortion involves balancing the needs of two humans, not just one. So for such people, there is zero reason for males to avoid discussion or voting on abortion, because protecting the rights of an unborn human is equally the duty of both males and females. - just as both males and females should be able to vote on a bill legalizing infanticide.
So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells. But before that, deciding whether a fetus is a human being or not would be a question in which both males and females would have standing.
Both males and females would have a vote on legalizing infanticide. The sex of the person voting or discussing it, is not relevant to deciding whether that's homicide or not. And that's how the anti-abortion folks see it.
And pro-abortion males mostly do act as if they believe they have standing, whatever they say about it being up to women. They don't in general abstain from the discussion or from voting, to turn the issue over to just women alone to decide.
What I think some pro-abortion folks really want is for pro-abortion men to vote for abortion, but anti-abortion men to abstain. But that's inverting the logic - it's the pro-abortion men whose belief system would suggest their own abstention, and the anti-abortion men whose belief system ethically requires them to participate.
How do I resolve this? I'm pro abortion AND I believe the both sexes have standing to weigh in on the question of whether fetuses are humans or not (but *IF* and after it's decided that they are not human beings, then only the individual pregnant women has a right to decide whether to terminate it - not other women nor men). So I support men and women discuss it, and support both sexes to vote, without any hypocrisy.
"So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells."
No, I don't think so. We're not talking about a couple who have gotten pregnant and are trying to decide whether to proceed with the pregnancy or not. Here, we probably agree that the man absolutely deserves a say. Though ultimately, it's still going to be the woman's decision. Because she's going to take on 100% of the risk and suffering related to bringing that baby into the world. A vote on infanticide wouldn't be a woman's rights/health issue. Which is why we'd agree that all voices would be equally valid in that debate.
But as regards abortion LAW, we're talking about something that, practically speaking, doesn't affect men at all. The existence of a law that protects women's right to an abortion doesn't infringe on a man's right to weigh in if he gets a woman pregnant and wants to keep the baby (and I'd be willing to bet that more often than not it's the man asking the woman to have an abortion). So I think it's fair that women lead the charge on the legal debate.
There are many societal issues where there's overlap. Or at least where we can all be affected by the outcomes of a law. But abortion laws are among the few where only one group is really affected. So I have no problem with the idea that that group decides the boundaries of the law.
You're right, about pro-abortion males acting as if they believe they have standing. But, of course, the exact same is true for anti-abortion males. And there's a significant difference between saying,
"I will never have to deal with the significant and potentially life threatening implications of this decision, so I defer to those who will,"
and,
"I will never have to deal with the significant and potentially life-threatening implications of this decision, but it doesn't feel good to me, so I want to force all those who ARE affected to do as I say."
You may think it trivial but men do have an interest. Eighteen years of child support or a loveless marriage as a result of an unintended pregnancy. Just as a woman's life is changed in a big way, so is a man's, where abortion is a pragmatic solution.
True. But child support laws are a separate issue to abortion laws. I fully support men's right to weigh in on the former.😄
Suppose that two unmarried people have consensual sex, taking supposedly responsible care not to cause a pregnancy, but it happens anyway.
Under current law, only the woman has any right to decide whether to bear the child. (Of course, it would be polite for her to discuss the matter with the father and take his views into account, but entirely optional).
However, if she decides to have the child, the man has no rights - none at all - in regard to that child. He has only responsibilities, no corresponsing rights. The woman can give it up for adoption or keep it. If she keeps it, the man is legally on the hook for child support for 18+ years, even if he is never allowed to see that child, much less make any decisions regarding it's upbringing.
If the woman agrees, he can choose to marry her, to have some rights.
If we change the scenarios and say that the woman intentionally lied about being on birth control, EXACTLY the same results apply as described above.
(There was even a case where the woman surreptitiously sequestered the used condom to use in impregnating herself without the man's knowledge, and won child support in the courts. A strange case; the man counter-sued based on not having given consent for his semen being used in that matter, but the court ruled that the semen was functionally a "gift" without restrictions on how it was later used)
I do not see this as impacting only the woman. It may impact her more on average (not in all cases), but both parties are hugely impacted and have a legitimate interest.
Now you would have a better case if the law allowed the man's rights and responsibilities to align more closely. Like if he agrees to the woman carrying to term, he is financially responsible; but if disagrees and favors an abortion, he would not be responsible for child support if the woman decides to give birth anyway as a single parent. That is, if a child is wanted by both gamete suppliers, both would be responsible for it; if only one (the woman) wanted the child, they would have both sole parental rights and sole parental responsibility. In this context, the woman would still have full control of whether to have an abortion, but not unilateral control over whether the man would be burdened with child support for a child in which has has zero rights. Note: I am not advocating this here, just saying that IF it were how things work, then your argument would be much stronger.
What I am saying is that child support cannot be completely disentangled from abortion, in the specific context of who has standing because of the impact on their lives, until and unless the previous paragraph were to become the norm.
Yep, I addressed this in my reply to Dave below. I think it answers your point.
But in case it doesn’t, I refer you to this Dave Chappelle joke that makes more or less the same point, only funnier.
https://youtu.be/MoudH-RPnEE
That's pretty much what I said above about having "standing".
AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available, then a stronger case can be made that male fertilizers would thereafter not need to bear any undue consequences from abortion and could be well argued to have no standing *based on the impact upon themselves*, individually or collectively.
And in that case, and IF no fetus at any stage is considered to be a human being, the decision about abortion would strongly impact only one human being - the pregnant woman.
There are two major IFs above which cannot be entirely swept under the rug, tho.
(And just to head it off - nowhere have I asserted anything about "from the moment of conception", nor do I personally find that relevant.)
"AFTER and IF society accepts that sperm suppliers will not be held responsible in any way for an unwanted pregnancy so long as abortion is available"
You seem to be convinced that I'm going to misinterpret everything you say at the moment, so let me just say that it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want.
There are a few wrinkles with this, most obviously the question of when the guy gets to abdicate responsibility? Does he get the same three months the woman gets before he can't back out? What happens if she doesn't realise she's pregnant until its too late to abort? What if she's made it clear to him ahead of time that she won't abort if she does get pregnant and he still chooses to have sex with her?
An under-appreciated point on the unwanted pregnancy issue is that men are to blame for what must be very close to 100% of unwanted pregnancies. A woman who doesn't want a child isn't poking holes in a condom or wrapping her legs around her parter's waist and forcing him to orgasm inside her after all.
Outside of contraceptive failure, an unwanted pregnancy is almost always going to be a case of the man losing control and impregnating the woman. No semen, no baby. So the question of whether he should be held blameless if the women doesn't want to go through an abortion, whether for religious or just personal moral reasons, isn't straightforward.
But the bigger point, again, is that men can argue their case about when and whether they should be held responsible for a pregnancy that they cause, independently of whether a woman has a right to an abortion. And, of course, women not having the option to get abortions only makes men's predicament worse.
I didn't mention "the moment of conception" anywhere in this particular conversation. Nor did you. So I'm not sure why you felt the need to "head it off." Can we go back to operating under the assumption that I can read and interpret English sentences without difficulty?😅 If I misinterpret something, as we all do from time to time, I'm sure you'll correct me. But you don't have to fill your responses with provisos.
> " it *seems* as if you're arguing that men should only back out of the abortion debate IF they don't have to take any responsibility for a child that they don't want."
Can I be more precise? My point is that arguing that men should have no say in the legality of abortion because there is no substantial impact on their lives is invalid unless it really does have no substantial impact. (Note: two or more parties can each have substantial interests in an outcome, even if not equal interests).
However, men are free abstain from all discussions of abortion for any reason they wish, or no reason. I'm not in any way trying to force them to participate, just partially disputing a line of reasoning about why you think they should abstain.
(You brought up "from the moment of conception" in another response to one of my comments on this article, after I had not mentioned it in that subthread or indeed anywhere, so I wanted to avoid that happening a second time in this subthread. Search the comments if you doubt this.)
Sorry, but I'm not going to accept or debate your personal intuitions about the typical dynamics of unwanted pregnancy. Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive. You do very well at data driven argumentation, but when you shoot from the hip with that kind of guesses about the circumstances of unwanted pregnancies, let's say that it's less compelling.
I was dissenting in regard to a specific narrow sub-point - that since men cannot get pregnant and thus suffer no consequences, the legal status of abortion is none of their concern and should be decided entirely by women.
I think that line of reasoning (that only those classes of people who might be directly affected have standing to weigh in on an issue) leads to many undesirable corollaries and so must be questioned; and I also think that very few people honestly adhere to it (including you) so it's more a sweet sounding poetic notion than an actual reality. I have never yet met a pro-abortion man, nor an anti-abortion man, who abstains from the issue (no matter what they say), or who entirely defers to women to discuss it, donate to support their side, and vote on it. I believe those who promote that idea really only want anti-abortion men to abstain, not themselves, so it's generally not an honest point.
I think I've made my case for all that, and will let it rest; restating it in slightly different terms doesn't appear to benefit anybody.
Also (I did go back and check) 😄 I mentioned the moment of conception because you wrote:
"So the "males should stay out of this" only makes sense if you have already decided that fetuses are just a bundle of cells."
Now, it's true, "moment of conception" and "bundle of cells" aren't *exactly* the same thing. But can we agree that the conflation isn't exactly unreasonable?
I intended to refer to some people believing that a fetus is still not a human but just a bundle of cells (ie: tissues) up until the moment of birth, whereupon it suddenly becomes a human being within a second.
But if you were thinking that by bundle of cells I meant "two cells merging into a zygote" then I can see where this could be ambiguous.
This illustrates what I said in another reply, about how we know what we meant and so sometimes do not anticipate how it could be interpreted otherwise. Peace.
"Show some data and we can discuss it, but evidence-free clashing guesses just isn't very productive"
Are you really asking me to provide data regarding what happens while an unwanted pregnancy is conceived? Gathering that data might be a little...sensitive, don't you think? But this is hardly some wild guess, it's a logical conclusion based on the basic mechanics of conception.
Assuming that neither partner wants to make a baby, how do you suppose the semen finds it's way to the egg without the man putting it there? Excluding the cases where contraception fails, how can it be the woman's fault if the semen finds its way there?
Asking for data on such an obvious (and obviously impossible to scientifically research) point feels disingenuous.
Also, I think I've been very clear that I'm talking about lawmaking, not general discussion of the issue. I'd have a hard time claiming that men shouldn't talk about the issue at all given that I wrote an article about it, had discussions with numerous woman about it, posted one of those discussions here, and then had a bunch of other discussions about that.
As for the undesirable corollaries, I've mentioned repeatedly, both here and in the main post, that my feelings on this issue apply to this issue precisely because it's unique. I even asked you for an actual corollary. You keep repeating your position without addressing my response to the points you're making.
And lastly, your first comment here, before I'd replied to anything, instructed me "not to falsely impute beliefs" to you. I'm not sure if there's just a nuance gap created by text as opposed to in person conversation, but it feels as if we're clashing and I'm not sure why.
There could well be polls or research about the frequency of different reasons for "why" an unwanted pregnancy occurs, so we don't have to just guess, as you appeared to be doing.
Some hypothetical examples:
Not using birth control at all due to intoxication (mistake by both parties)
Not using birth control at all due to other reasons (mistake by either or both)
Failure of "rhythm" as birth control (mistake by either party)
Failure of "withdrawal" as birth control (mistake by male)
Misusing birth control devices though ignorance of either party
Malfunctioning of birth control outside the knowledge or control of participants (eg: an IUD) Deception: Male intentionally sabotaging condoms to generate pregnancy
Deception: Female deliberately wanting to become pregnant to force marriage, unsuccessfully
Both parties initially want pregnancy, but female changes mind
ETC
Any of those (and others) are plausible and likely happen at times, and lead to a desire for abortion. But I have no clue how frequent any of them are, and it seems fruitless for the two of us to discuss how similar or different our evidence-free guesses are.
---
In terms of not imputing beliefs to me, that wasn't addressed to you or to any specific person. Since I was questioning some of the reasoning used by pro-abortion people, it's common for some readers to assume that I must be anti-abortion. I've encountered similar dynamics from strong partisans many times, so when I know I'm discussing a hot button topic I sometimes try to head off a misunderstanding.
I'm kind of odd in that, within an appropriate discussion venue, I can question the strength or validity of specific arguments EVEN IF I support the overall conclusion (for other reasons). I don't believe "any argument which supposedly leads to my own conclusion is automatically valid". So we can all help refine our arguments or drop the less valid ones. (I really do believe in trying to argue in good faith, which includes omitting weak sub-points).
---
I confess that I'm puzzled as well, that there seem to be a lot of misunderstanding between us. I have great respect for you and have often found your writing very insightful. I have good will towards you, and have been completely arguing in good faith, whether agreeing or disagreeing. Both of us can in general write fairly clearly much of the time, we both tend to think things through. And yet there seems to recently be a spate of unintentional (and seemingly unnecessary) miscommunications. It *feels* almost as if you are looking for some way to disagree, or assuming the worst interpretation of my words (and it might feel similarly to you). This is NOT my intention. Even when I disagree, my underlying goal is not trying to "best you" verbally, or show that I'm right and you are wrong - I see myself on a path of collaboratively seeking truth with a respected partner, initially sometimes agreeing and sometimes disagreeing (often on just a sub-point). I prefer more illumination and less heat. It's honestly puzzling to me. Do you have any ideas?
How are they separate? I can't prove it, but I'd say that most abortions are about not wanting an unplanned child. Huge change in their lives, financial, etc. Both man and women are affected by that. Many men will be negatively affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade.
The former is about who bears responsibility for the wellbeing and financial support of a child once it's been born. The latter is about whether a woman should be forced by law to carry a foetus for nine months, against her will, with all the psychological and physical implications that carries.
With or without Roe, men can challenge their obligation to pay child support. Without Roe, some women will have no choice but to carry a child they don't want. And then *also* have to deal with their obligations to the child.
I'm not saying men aren't affected if they father a child. I'm saying women are affected long before the man is. In ways the man will never be.
So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?
I will never have to personally deal with the consequences of, say, industrial safety regulations. Does that mean that I should have no input on them, not allowed to discuss the tradeoffs involved, nor to vote based on whose policies I prefer?
I'm also never going to have children. Does that mean I should have no say about child abuse laws?
What does "lead the charge" mean in concrete vs poetic terms? Does it mean that only legislators who personally work in dangerous industries should be allowed to opine or legislate on industrial safety? Only legislators who have children can vote on laws affecting children? Only female legislators can vote on laws about womens sports, and only male legislators can vote on laws about men's sports?
I find that kind of reasoning extremely fragile and impractical, to be generous.
> "You're right, about pro-abortion males acting as if they believe they have standing. But, of course, the exact same is true for anti-abortion males"
But the former can reason that they should not have standing (if and only if they believe that abortion involves only one human being, the mother, and since they cannot become mothers and thus have no interest in the matter at the societal level), in which case, to discuss and vote on it as males is internally hypocritical. While the latter (who see this as a balance of rights between two human beings, one of which cannot defend their own rights) are not at all internally hypocritical in championing what they see as the rights of the unborn.
I'm in a third category - I support abortion, and I think that both male and female citizens are fully empowered to weigh in on the societal issue of whether abortion is homicide or not, whether they agree with me or not.
Of course I want to listen well to women (on all sides), and I do appreciate that fertile women have a special stake in the matter. But an anti-abortion person believes that the fetus is another party with a special stake in the matter, and I can understand that viewpoint as well.
“So by your reasoning, would an infertile woman (including post-menopausal) have any say on abortion?”
😁 This is veering dangerously close to the “but what is a woman reeeally” style of argumentation. So as I know you’re reasonable, I’m happy to defer to whatever definition of “woman” or let’s say “female” you normally use. As long as we agree that they’re materially different from males, and agree on the reasons why, I don’t mind the existence of exceptions.
Abortion is not the same as industrial safety or athletics or child safety laws. If you can come up with an example thats similar to members of a particular group of people (and only that group) losing control of their bodily autonomy for ~9 months, no matter how traumatising it might be for them, and then having to go through a medical event that, even in the normal course of things, costs some number of them their lives, then we can compare.
But otherwise, I said in the post, my view on the abortion debate is based on the unique way the issue affects women (and only women) and the dangers it presents to them. My feelings on this can’t and shouldn’t be broadened to any other issue that isn’t equally exceptional.
Speaking of which, yes, abortion rights do only apply to women. The claim that the foetus is another individual from the moment of conception is a faith claim. If there is any logical or scientific evidence to support the claim that a zygote is a person, then I’m all ears. But I don’t think laws, particularly laws that affect those who definitely are people, should be based on unprovable, internal convictions.
(Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?". Either you are seeing something which I am not, or you have misunderstood my point to be asserting something which I am not. Elucidate if you wish.).
You have argued that since only biological females can get pregnant and bear the burdens of that, males should not have standing on the issue of abortion. So I asked if those females who cannot get pregnant any more than males can (eg: post-menopausal or otherwise infertile) should have standing on that issue, following your reasoning.
You didn't answer that question yet. Let's clear that up before building further.
"Steve, I am honesty not following *any* connection to "what is a woman?"
When I talk about women's issues in trans debates, and use the word "woman," somebody will almost always ask something along the lines of, "well what *is* a woman? How do you define woman? Is a post-menopausal woman still a woman? Is a woman with Turner syndrome still a woman?" And then we waste hours nitpicking a separate, unrelated tangent instead of the main point.
The overwhelming majority of females have been, will be, or are currently directly affected by any decision made on abortion. Zero males are. Under any circumstances. So I don't think debating the intricacies of female exceptions is valuable.
So is that your way of indirectly saying that infertile women and post-menopausal women, under no more threat from an unwanted pregnancy than a man, should be able to weigh in on abortion, but men should not be?
Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception". This is nt anything close to a rare anamoly like Turner Syndrome, let's not pretend otherwise.
My point is that your rationale for excluding all males and including all females is weak. First you say because they are the ones affected by pregnancy, then you broaden it to their being the same sex as those who may be affected by a pregnancy even if they themselves are not. One could as logically expand the interested parties to include those married to people who can become pregnant rather than or in addition to expanding to include all sharing the same sex.
In any case, you are free to avoid all discussions or donations or voting in regard to abortion if you really believe what you are saying. I by contrast feel the issue is society wide, and so will continue to encourage the men I know to actively support abortion rights - in discussions, in protests, in donations, in voting. I will not ask them to be quiet and leave it entirely to women. (Tho as I said I definitely advocate listening to women about the issue). To each their own.
But it would be nice to at least admit that this very article and comments are in serious conflict with your professed abstinence.
"Post-menopausal women is a HUGE category, not an "exception"."
Post menopausal women are in the group that "have been, will be or are currently" affected by abortion. Specifically the "have been" segment of that group. I wasn't claiming they were an exception. I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully.
Many post-menopausal women remember what America was like pre-Roe. Some of them had abortions during that time and even bear the scars of back-alley procedures. They have unique insights into the repercussions of this decision that most females, and again, zero males, have. The fact that they can't *currently* get pregnant is beside the point.
But yes, as I said in a different reply, it would be extraordinarily difficult for me to argue that men shouldn't talk about abortion at all, given that I wrote an entire article about it, posted a conversation from it here, and am currently discussing that conversation with numerous people. I'm not quite so dim that I wouldn't realise that.😅
But as I've also said multiple times, including in the main post, I'm talking about the law, not general discussion. Our conversations have zero impact on abortion law. So why would it matter if we talk about it? We're free to be hopelessly wrong or wildly ignorant to the realities of what women go through and nothing happens.
But if I *were* in a position to affect the law, if, hypothetically obviously, I was asked to be part of a group that would decide the status and specifics of abortion law, I'd cede my place to a woman without hesitation. I'd hope that all males would.
>"I have to say, it doesn't feel as if you're reading my replies very carefully."
I think it's a bit challenging to read one's own words and spot what could be ambiguous to others, because one KNOWS what was intended.
So when you mentally include the category of post-menopausal women in "... have been affected by abortion", I was considering the kind of life changing "affected by" criteria which you have describe several times (and which is vastly more impactful than unconsensusal child support). I happen to know a certain post menopausal woman quite well, along with many others. Most of them do not report a high level effect (of the dramatic examples you like). So I honestly did not realize that you meant to include them.
So instead I thought your reference to exceptions must refer to the post-menopausal women I had brought up.
Thank you for clearing it up.
There is miniscule probability that you will be called upon to decide that, so it's rather abstract.
However, in the absurdly unlikely case that I had been chosen for some reason to make a decision about abortion, I would not cede that slot to an anti-abortion woman, especially if I thought that would change the decision towards anti-abortion. Would you, really? That would show true commitment to your ethical withdrawal.
More concretely, do you take abortion law into account in your political donations, or in how you vote? Do you condemn the men I know who do, as butting into something which is not their business?