> " 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 …
> " 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.
> " 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.