The Student Room Group

Should men get equal say in abortion?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 160
Original post by quasa
hmm, depends if the man knows. I would say both should get a say in that case


but who makes the ultimate decision?
Original post by Cherub012
but who makes the ultimate decision?


that is a toughie. :holmes:
Should a woman be forced to undergo an invasive surgical procedure? No.

Should a woman be forced to remain pregnant and carry a child she doesn't want? No.*

Should a man be forced to keep a child he doesn't want and pay child support for 18 years (or go to prison)? No.*

*Up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

Let a woman choose what happens with her body, and let a man choose what happens with his wallet and his freedom. Both parents are responsible for the pregnancy, and both stand to be significantly affected by it, so it's only fair that both parents should have an out clause.

Right now, men don't have enough rights when it comes to sexual reproduction and their children .
Original post by Dandaman1
Should a woman be forced to undergo an invasive surgical procedure? No.

Should a woman be forced to remain pregnant and carry a child she doesn't want? No.*

Should a man be forced to keep a child he doesn't want and pay child support for 18 years (or go to prison)? No.*

*Up to a certain point in the pregnancy.

Let a woman choose what happens with her body, and let a man choose what happens with his wallet and his freedom. Both parents are responsible for the pregnancy, and both stand to be significantly affected by it, so it's only fair that both parents should have an out clause.

Right now, men don't have enough rights when it comes to sexual reproduction and their children .
if two are responsible, then would they not need to honor that responsibility?

Where as these "rights" and choices begin prior to pregnancy.
(edited 6 years ago)
Original post by da_nolo
Talk about an emotional appeal. "child likely leads to heavy abuse and neglect which causes suffering [for child and society]."

if we were considering this as a logical as possible, then we would not assume the child's life (when unexpected) is going to be consumed in suffering their entire life. An unknown environment would remain unknown.

That would be the absolute most illogical thing to do, because then you would be ignoring statistics.


we would not assume "suffering" to be a horrible thing either because every single human suffers. that is recognized in everyone's life.

And that means we should try to minimise suffering, not say "because there's suffering, what does a little more matter".


Instead, we would consider words such as those of Don Marquis, who recognized that induced abortion denies human beings a future like our own.

http://www.prolifehumanists.org/secular-case-against-abortion/

Abortion is an emotionally complex issue, stacked with distressing circumstances that elicit our sympathy and compassion, but abortion is not morally complex: If the preborn are not human beings equally worthy of our compassion and support, no justification for abortion is required. Women should maintain full autonomy over their bodies and make their own decisions about their pregnancies. However, if the preborn are human beings, no justification for abortion is morally adequate, if such a reason cannot justify ending the life of a toddler or any born human in similar circumstances.
Would we kill a two year-old whose father suddenly abandons his unemployed mother, in order to ease the mother’s budget or prevent the child from growing up in poverty? Would we dismember a young preschooler if there were indications she might grow up in an abusive home? If the preborn are indeed human beings, we have a social duty to find compassionate ways to support women, that do not require the death of one in order to solve the problems of the other.

A strict logical analysis towards the situation should recognize pre-born are human, and we should not kill other humans. regardless to our own desire.

That paragraph is full of slippery slope arguments, and aims to argue from a utilitarian viewpoint yet does not consider the full impacts of killing birthed children, such as severe psychological damage which extremely reduces happiness.
Original post by h3rmit
That would be the absolute most illogical thing to do, because then you would be ignoring statistics.
What statistics?! Majority studies are demographics for induced abortions, which are mixed (consisting of poor and rich, ill and healthy - etc.). Where as the events for a given incidence would be considered as an unknown. There are several incidences where women have chosen not to abort and lived happily with their boy or girl. To claim an unborn child will only experience x, is an attempt to foretell the future. Not a human trait.


And that means we should try to minimise suffering, not say "because there's suffering, what does a little more matter".

Exactly, minimize suffering. Extinguishing or killing humans does not minimize suffering that has continued since humans first existed. By which one can claim that the experience of suffering is part of humanity.

The definition being: the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship. Every human does these things and can overcome them. Those who have not can still be happy. Such a broad paint brush to justify abortions that all human's can experience is illogical.


That paragraph is full of slippery slope arguments, and aims to argue from a utilitarian viewpoint yet does not consider the full impacts of killing birthed children, such as severe psychological damage which extremely reduces happiness.

1 I doubt you read the paragraph as there was one argument, not "arguments"
Otherwise, please highlight where slippery slopes are? I have read none, as the author did not suggest act a would lead to act b, but compared acts a and b. which author indicated were different acts.

2.
there is severe psychological damage experienced by abortion technicians and surgeons. Some have recognized their distress and given up on providing induced abortions. But the paragraph was not mentioning mentality of the person doing the act. Instead - the author recognizes that the question of morality that is involved with induced abortions revolve around a single state; being human.
The theme of abortion was and will always be one of the most complicated. It also involves the religious aspects. But the decision should be made only by both partners in agreement.

Quick Reply

Latest