Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Men have a deep and equal stake in preserving reproductive choice.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 09:45 PM
Original message
Men have a deep and equal stake in preserving reproductive choice.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jacob-m-appel/transcending-ovaries-towa_b_559843.html

(clip)
Rather than urging men to stand down, abortion-rights advocates should reach out to convince men that they have a deep and equal stake in preserving reproductive choice.

(clip)
Those who favor abortion rights presumably share my belief that fetuses do not possess "personhood"--that they are not meaningfully human. That is very different from declaring that fetuses are fully-realized human beings, but women should be able to abort them anyway. Defining abortion as a "women's issue" all too easily enables opponents to characterize the struggle as one between the "rights of the mother" and the "rights of the child"--which, to pro-choice thinkers, it most certainly is not. Often, this leads abortion-rights advocates to be perceived as agents of identity politics, as part of a special interest group (ie. women) promoting its private agenda. Rather than "winning" the abortion debate, efforts to tag abortion opponents as bigotted against women merely cloud the underlying issues. For example, the proposition that it is sexist for states to pay for Viagra but not for abortion, which one hears all too often in liberal circles, sounds speciously appealing, but is actually rather reductive and shows a stunning inability to grapple with the ideology of abortion opponents. (If one believes abortion kills babies, as some folks sincerely do, of course the taxpayers shouldn't pay for it.) I can think of hundreds of powerful reasons why the government should pay for abortions--but the frequent claim that it's sexist to pay for ED drugs, but not pregnancy termination, or even women's contraceptives, is so deeply illogical and philosophically simplistic that it actually adds to the challenge of making the case for public funding.

(clip)

So why should abortion rights matter to men? The most obvious and dramatic reason, although likely not the most persuasive, is that the lives lost through illegal abortions will be of our sisters and daughters and partners. I have often heard that interest described as "secondary"--after all, some naysayers ask, how can one compare a woman's interest in her own life or health with a male relative's interest in her wellbeing? The reality is that many males do value of the lives of their loved ones, and particularly their daughters, as much as their own. Needless to say, so do women. To put the matter more bluntly: I know many men who would gladly suffer a slow death themselves if it could prevent their wives or girlfriends or daughters from succumbing to septic shock on a mattress in an underground abortion clinic. Anyone who argues that men don't merit an equal voice in the abortion debate does a grave disservice to these fathers and brothers and partners.

The second reason that abortion is a men's issue is that the entire sexual revolution, from which boys benefit as much as girls, relies heavily upon the right of pregnant women to terminate unwanted pregnancies. Couples, both single and married, would risk intimacy with considerably less frequency--and would deny themselves one of life's greatest pleasures--if they knew that the outcome might be a child that they had no desire to bear or raise. Personally, I would never have intercourse with a woman unless I were highly confident that she would terminate a pregnancy that we were not both ready for. If the law were ever changed to prohibit that option, I doubt that I would have sex with anyone until I was prepared to start a family. Recognizing that no form of birth control is ever foolproof, not even the rhythm method, I imagine most intelligent, responsible men and women, if denied an opportunity for legal termination, would make a similar decision to forgo certain forms of sex. In fact, many abortion opponents relish the prospect of rolling back the sexual progress of the 1960s and 1970s. Pro-choice women would do well to emphasize this to their lovers. These women could take a page from Aristophanes, whose play Lysistrata relates how the women of Greece deny their husbands sexual privileges until they agree to abstain from warfare. If pro-choice women consistently refused to sleep with anti-choice men, or even men who were indifferent or who voted for anti-choice candidates for non-abortion-related reasons, they might be stunned to discover how many new recruits entered the abortion rights movement. Incidentally, if you are single, looking, and reading this, I urge you to add "Pro-Choice Only" to your next personal ad....(more@link)
Refresh | +7 Recommendations Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 09:57 PM
Response to Original message
1. This piece gave me the creeps
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 10:07 PM
Response to Reply #1
2. why? serious question. Or what part?
Edited on Sat May-01-10 10:08 PM by uppityperson
"The most obvious and dramatic reason, although likely not the most persuasive, is that the lives lost through illegal abortions will be of our sisters and daughters and partners."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 10:25 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. All of it. The first part just reads lke the setup for the second part of his argument --
which seems to be confusing birth control with abortion. The sexual revolution wasn't founded on terminating pregnancy - it was founded on preventing pregnancy, via the pill.

I think the whole thing is just a roundabout way of trying to argue that men have an equal say in abortion, but he's trying to come up with a fresh angle to deflect the argument that men can't have an equal say because they aren't the ones who bear the physical risks of carrying a child to term and delivering it, and also, too often, aren't the ones who bear the emotional and practical costs after the child arrives, either.

But he still has to find a way to demand equal attention and his neediness in that regard just gave me the creeps.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 02:06 AM
Response to Reply #4
10. OCs and legal abortions brought about the sexual revolution thing
Edited on Sun May-02-10 02:09 AM by uppityperson
Being able to have sex without getting pregnant, being able to have an abortion if you did get pregnant.

I remember wayyyyyyy back some jerk hitting on me and when I refused he said "what's the matter? Aren't you liberated and on the pill?" I just think you're an asshole. It was nice when things changed back a bit to being able to say no without that crap.

Having worked with women's health issues, I see both as very important, esp when women cannot or do not want to be on OC's, as many are not yet still risk pregnancy.

Thanks for reading and replying, appreciate it. I thought it an interesting article.

On edit, rereading article, I find "Rather than urging men to stand down, abortion-rights advocates should reach out to convince men that they have a deep and equal stake in preserving reproductive choice." Didn't see that before. So, I can see where you are coming from.

And this "Arguing that men should have equal say in the abortion debate is not the same thing as claiming that men should have a say as to whether a particular woman, such as a wife or daughter, has an abortion. As a default policy, they should not. But when, if ever, men should have a say at this personal level is a challenge that neither pro-choicers nor society has yet fully grappled with. For example, should a surrogate mother be able to contract away her right to have an abortion? Under what circumstances? Would enforcing such a contract reduce liberty by restricting bodily autonomy or vindicate liberty by increasing the power that women have to make binding choices regarding their bodies? These are challenging bioethical questions, even for the most progressive advocates of abortion rights. Certainly men deserve a seat at the table when these issues are discussed."
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 11:58 AM
Response to Reply #10
12. You know, I have never ever ever seen abortion advocates urge men to "stand down" -- have you?
That's why I think his article is self-centered bullshit. He's trying to make abortion about HIM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:11 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. I've seen pro-choice people say men should stfu about it.
I think, I hope, they were talking about making the decision, not about whether or not it should be kept legal, but yes. I have seen and heard pro-choice people say "men should stfu" "men have no say", etc.

Never seen "abortion advocates urge men to stand down" though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:50 PM
Response to Reply #14
16. IMO this author is trying to confuse the two issues -- i.e. the issue of whether
men have a say in whether the women they personally knocked up has an abortion, and the issue of whether men in general should without equivocation support women's reproductive rights.

The way I see it these are two completely separate issues.

But the way I read this article, the author was trying to confuse the two issues to disguise his own POV that an individual man should have a say in whether an individual woman that he impregnated has an abortion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 01:12 PM
Response to Reply #16
19. like these bits? Rereading the article here.
"the frequent claim that it's sexist to pay for ED drugs, but not pregnancy termination, or even women's contraceptives, is so deeply illogical and philosophically simplistic that it actually adds to the challenge of making the case for public funding."

No, paying for OCs IS like paying for EDs in that both get you the ability to have intercourse. In the one case you get an erection, in the other you avoid pregnancy. This is not illogical and points out the sexism in this.

"describing 77% of anti-abortion leaders as men, as one popular T-shirt does, is not particularly relevant, and is possibly even counterproductive."

Why irrelevant or counterproductive?

"Arguing that men should have equal say in the abortion debate is not the same thing as claiming that men should have a say as to whether a particular woman, such as a wife or daughter, has an abortion. As a default policy, they should not. But when, if ever, men should have a say at this personal level is a challenge that neither pro-choicers nor society has yet fully grappled with. For example, should a surrogate mother be able to contract away her right to have an abortion? Under what circumstances? Would enforcing such a contract reduce liberty by restricting bodily autonomy or vindicate liberty by increasing the power that women have to make binding choices regarding their bodies? These are challenging bioethical questions, even for the most progressive advocates of abortion rights. Certainly men deserve a seat at the table when these issues are discussed."

The first part of this paragraph I agree with. Starting with "but then" is bullshit. Pro-choices have fully grappled with this. Men do NOT have a say at the personal level. While couples may wish to discuss it, while women may chose to involve the male partner, the men do NOT have a say and we will fight to keep it from becoming mandated(same for parents).

A surrogate mother cannot contract her right to an abortion. Same as a woman who becomes pregnant "on purpose". The right is there for all. Not a challenging bioethical question at all. No, men do not "deserve a seat at the table when these issues are discussed". They may be given one, but do NOT "deserve" one.

Thanks for keeping on talking with me about this, I am seeing what you mean.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 03:40 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. Exactly! I'm glad you're seeing what I mean. Thanks for listening to me.
Honestly, the pompous yet whiny tone of his article and the TMI nature of it, has the ring (to me anyway -- and not saying that's the case here, just how his arguments strike me) of someone got his girlfriend pregnant, she had an abortion without his consent, and he's never gotten over being left out of the process.

Whether because he truly wanted to be a dad, and thought that desire gave him an equal say, or because he is just that self-centered as to think his contribution of a sperm gave him an equal say, who knows -- but either way it doesn't really matter. The entire nature of the situation is unequal since it's the woman and not the man who gets pregnant.

No amount of this guy's attempt to create a ridiculously complicated argument, ostensibly about "deserving" men being left out of the abortion issue, when his real beef is "A" "deserving" specific man being left out of "A" specific abortion issue, can change that.

At least that's how it appeared to me and that's why it gave me the creeps. Because it was whiny, pompous, and dishonest.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 10:14 PM
Response to Reply #1
3. why?
it made a lot of sense to me.

just as I would never date a republican, I would never date an anti-choice democrat. those who demonize intended rather than spontaneous abortion are not part of the reality-based world, to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-01-10 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #3
5. Neither would I. But I don't believe men have an equal say in the matter.
Edited on Sat May-01-10 10:30 PM by katandmoon
And in squicks me out when they claim to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:14 AM
Response to Reply #5
7. Same here. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 01:05 AM
Response to Reply #5
8. I don't think that's what the post claimed
I think the post just stated reasons that men have to be openly supportive of abortion rights for females.

it's better to have larger numbers of people openly stating that they support the law than to have people remain silent while religious extremists try to chip away rights for women.

Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #8
13. Since when have abortion advocates urged men to "stand down," though?
That's why his article just redlined on my bullshit meter. He's not really addressing the non-issue of abortion advocates declining men's assistance n the reproductive rights battle, which is what he's trying to disguise his argument as, which really makes no sense at all. He just came up with that angle to disguise his real purpose: HE wants more attention.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:12 PM
Response to Reply #13
15. what is an "abortion advocate"?
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
katandmoon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:52 PM
Response to Reply #15
17. I should have typed "abortion-rights advocates" but I was quoting the author.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 01:01 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. thanks for the clarification, that is what I thought. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 02:02 AM
Response to Reply #5
9. they don't have an equal say
Edited on Sun May-02-10 02:09 AM by uppityperson


They don't have an equal say, or much of a say at all. But it does affect men, and they do have a stake (keep writing "steak") in keeping it legal, if only to save the lives of women.

edited because I reread the article to see what you mean and added to my post above.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ProgressiveProfessor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 09:21 AM
Response to Reply #9
11. I think they have a strong role and say...and should
Edited on Sun May-02-10 09:23 AM by ProgressiveProfessor
Womens reproductive rights should damn well matter to men. Everyone should strongly support them, since the loss of some rights weakens the rest. So in that sense, as part of this society, they do have a say, and it should be a strong voice. One of the most ardent gun rights supporters I know is a feminist who has never owned a gun. Her perspective is that loss of rights in one area, weakens all the rest. I agree with that approach. If someone supports some rights and favor the disallowing of others, all rights are in jeopardy and they are no progressive or liberal.

Anyone who considers the sexes as monolithic blocks is not thinking clearly.

None of the above in any way advocates that anyone should have rights to control the body of another.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Captain Hilts Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-02-10 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #1
6. Me too. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
ismnotwasm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-03-10 12:26 PM
Response to Original message
21. Well, yes. It's a human right.
I found the article a bit creepy too, but well meaning. I don't like hidden and --I'll give a little credit-- probably inadvertent 'you get laid a lot more guys' type of thinking since the 'sexual revolution'. I have other opinions on the so-called sexual revolution I won't go into, but an article like this telling women to withhold sex as a power move simply tells me how far we haven't come and how much more we need to accomplish.
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 03:23 PM
Response to Original message
22. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
uppityperson Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-09-10 05:08 PM
Response to Reply #22
23. You wish death on a woman seeking an abortion. Shame on you.
Go away
Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Mon May 06th 2024, 08:10 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Choice Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC