To think men shouldn’t be allowed to express pro-life opinions?

[purpledaze24]

Was just watching (by accident, went down a bit of a rabbit hole!) a YouTube video of this infuriating American far-right man talking about how abortion shouldn’t be allowed (even in the case of rape). Watching it made me angrier and angrier. It’s bad enough hearing anyone bang on about banning abortion, but of course, everyone is entitled to an opinion. However, when it’s a man who has no clue what a woman’s body goes through, and has no regard for the giant responsibility and completely life-changing effect a baby has on a mother’s life (cos let’s be realistic, many fathers find it pretty easy to walk away or continue living life completely responsibly-free), I feel like, how dare he express these opinions, he shouldn’t have a say, it’s just not his place. AIBU or should men be allowed to express anti-abortion opinions? I’m not talking about men whose partner gets pregnant, I’m talking about politicians and men with power talking about banning abortion in general. Watching them talk about it gives me the ick

No one has absolute bodily autonomy.

So, once again, ‘controlling’ someone else’s body hangs on the fact that you don’t consider the foetus to be human.

If you do (say at 30 weeks) then an abortion at this point is the same as allowing someone infected with a disease to wander freely. Many people would also favour compulsory vaccination to protect the vulnerable who cannot get vaccinated.

The main reason boys get HPV vaccine is to protect women from cervical cancer (yes, there are other very rare male cancers it also helps with).

It is a nuanced discussion of ethics and men have as much right to contribute as women to that, just as women can contribute to discussions about male circumcision and prostate cancer, despite it being outside their lived experience.

What I do find interesting though is that as far as I can see the 'pro life' lobby has b*r all interest in the welfare of children once they are born.

Ditto quite a lot of the 'anti euthanasia' people

I only see pro-life used by people who are anti-abortion but don't want to call themselves that because of the negativity

Or because it actually better reflects their opinion. From their perspective their view is about saving human life. Just like pro-choice better reflects the view of the other side than ' pro-abortion'.

Which is all well and good, but those opinions have a nasty habit of becoming law, don't they.

I agree, OP. No man can morally hold a view other than pro-choice.

Everybody should be able to express an opinion. Just ignore the ones you don't agree with

Men should definitely be allowed to express these opinions .... so we can avoid them at all costs. walking red flags

Of course they should have an opinion. It's their baby too.

You want to live without freedom of speech? Thats a slippery slope.

It is better to let people say what they want and challenge them on their views when you don’t agree.

Of course they should be allowed to have an opinion. Are you the thought police? Anyone is allowed an opinion on anything. That doesn't mean anyone has to takr any noticd of their opinion.

I don't think this is true. I had a colleague who was pro-life and the organisation she supported certainly did provide a range of support to mothers who kept their babies.

I consider the foetus to be human. I think that’s irrelevant. The woman’s rights over her own womb should be sacrosanct.

I view born children as human but would still be opposed to their parent being forced to be their organ donor.

The disease comparison makes no sense. For starters we don’t prevent people with diseases from wondering through society.

Good one !! At first sentence I was like eh ? Then I was like great point ! 100% agree.

I don't mind anyone pro-life having an opinion, male or female.

Obviously their opinion means absolutely bollock-all and is just a waste of their breath giving it, but they are still entitled to it.

Agree. I want those men where I can see them.

Of course they should be allowed opinions.

Whilst the "baby" is a foetus it is a continuation of the women's body, and she has a right to bodily autonomy. Arguably the father might have a right to know about her decision to end a pregnancy involving his genetic offspring so that he can end any sexual relationship with her so that there is no risk of it happening again, but beyond that, her body, her choice.

Exactly this. People should be allowed to express their opinions. One key advantage of them doing so is that then we know who the idiots are and we can challenge their ill-informed arguments.

No good can come of suppressing anyone's right to free speech.

@JHound ,

‘I consider the foetus to be human. I think that’s irrelevant. The woman’s rights over her own womb should be sacrosanct.’

But then you are saying that someone has the right to take the life of another human being as the rights over her own womb are sacrosanct. It is a view but it’s not obvious or non debatable.

‘The disease comparison makes no sense. For starters we don’t prevent people with diseases from wondering through society.’

We absolutely do with serious communicable diseases.

• The 1984 Act allows for magistrates to issue orders requiring individuals who are infected or suspected of being infected with a disease posing a significant risk to human health to undergo medical examination, be moved to a hospital or other suitable establishment, and be isolated or quarantined.
• Criminal Offenses:
• The Act also creates criminal offenses for individuals who fail to comply with isolation orders, abscond from isolation, or obstruct public health officials.

I do believe abortion should be legal but I find myself hanging onto that view by a thread when I read this thread.

Abortion seems to me a very clear example of a really difficult moral dilemma, especially as pregnancy progresses, with very good and strong arguments on both sides. Whatever side you come down on, a human life is harmed, whether it is the embryo/ foetus/ baby (depending on development and your choice of language), or harm to the Mother.

Hearing people on this thread basically denying that, by presenting it as a black and white, easy moral decision is really quite disturbing. That seems to be to display a lack of integrity and intellectual honesty.

I really value fact based, evidence based debate and I don't see it in the tone of this thread. If I am perfectly honest, the arguments used in this thread are rather reminding me of the type used by trans activists, who give sole consideration to men and deny any harm is caused to women by it.

Its not a continuation of a woman's body though. Its not an organ.

Its a separate human life supported by the Mother's body.

The problem isn’t that stupid, ugly, nasty men want to be able to force women and girls to give birth, even in cases of incest, rape, life-threading risk. The issue is that they have a great deal of power. The wanting to is one thing, the being able to is quite another.

And let’s not call it ‘pro-life’. If that was the case they’d be funding maternity, contraception, housing, food, education, adoption and fostering, anti-DV, anti-SA. No, they are pro-forced birth.

Anyone can have an opinion on anything. Do you think women who can’t have children shouldn’t have an opinion on it? What about people who decided they didn’t want children, what about women who have had no children and had a hysterectomy?

I prefer not to live a dystopia where anyone is unable to express their opinion about anything, however unpopular. Unfortunately, it feels the West already may be headed that way.

I’m shocked that the voting is around 50%. Freedom of speech is incredibly important.

Everyone is allowed an opinion in a free speech society. It's a very dangerous path to go down to suggest otherwise.

Men shouldn't have "blanket control" over women's bodies in that way. But i do believe individual fathers should have a say in what happens with their offspring..