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,…
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?
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?