David Futrelle dug deep into the Men’s Rights Movement, looking for some kind of activism. Here’s what he found.
When I started my blog Man Boobz around six months ago, I intended to mostly discuss the issues motivating those in the Men’s Rights Movement, and to highlight some of the sillier misogynist emanations from men’s rights activists (MRAs). But the more I delved into the movement online, the more convinced I became that, for most of those involved in it, the movement isn’t really about the issues at all—rather, it’s an excuse to vent male rage and spew misogyny online.
To borrow a phrase from computer programmers: misogyny isn’t a bug in the Men’s Rights Movement; it’s a feature.
Men’s rights activists aren’t much like any other activists I’ve ever run across. For one thing, for supposed activists they 
are almost completely inactive. Sure, they complain endlessly about things they see as terrible injustices against men. They just don’t do anything about them. While some of those who consider themselves fathers’ rights activists—a slightly different breed from your garden-variety MRAs—try to influence laws and legislatures, MRAs do little more than cultivate their resentments.
MRAs complain about (and dramatically overstate the number of) false rape accusations, but instead of mounting media campaigns or protests or anything else that would involve trying to bring this issue to a wider world, the overwhelming majority of MRAs seem content to use the issue as an excuse to rant about lying bitches online. MRAs, meanwhile, are quick to raise the issue prison rape (which mostly affects men) whenever rape is being discussed, but generally only to score rhetorical points; very few MRAs seem to even be aware there is an established national organization, Just Detention, devoted to fighting prison rape.
♦◊♦
Similarly, MRAs complain that there are virtually no domestic violence shelters specifically designed for male victims, but unlike the feminists and other activists who fought for years to get the woman-centered shelters we have today, MRAs seem content to gripe that feminists haven’t given them shelters, too. The closest thing we’ve seen to an actual activist campaign from MRAs on this issue was when Glenn Sacks, a fathers’ rights activist, called on his supporters to besiege the biggest donors to one domestic-violence shelter serving mostly women—they had run an ad Sacks didn’t like—in an attempt to get them to stop donating to the shelter. That’s right: instead of trying to raise money to build domestic-violence shelters for men, Sacks’ fans instead tried to take money away from a shelter for women.
|
MRAs are as sensitive to signs of oppression as the princess from “The Princess and the Pea.”
|
At its heart, men’s rights activism doesn’t really seem to be about activism at all. What the movement has turned into is a strange parody of “victim feminism,” an endless search for proof that men (despite earning more than women, heading up the overwhelming majority of companies and governments in the world, getting all the best movie roles, never having to wear heels, and so on and so on and so on) are in fact second-class citizens.
MRAs are as sensitive to signs of oppression as the princess from Hans Christian Andersen’s “The Princess and the Pea,” who was able to detect the presence of a pea under 20 mattresses. No sign of “oppression” is too trivial to whine about; these are people who think that whenever a woman “gets away with” calling a man a “creep”—apparently the worst insult in the world, far worse than “slut” or “bitch” or other insults directed at women that I cannot repeat here—it is a sign that women “sit on a pedestal of privilege.”
Others see themselves as besieged by women … dressing slutty. One would-be patriarch complained on a forum promoting patriarchy that “dressing provocatively and then suppressing male urges is an assault on men’s sexuality.” By “suppressing male urges” he essentially means not having sex with any man who lusts after her. Meanwhile, his idea of “dressing provocatively” includes wearing blue jeans, “because a tight pair of jeans will accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks. High heels meet the same conflict as tight jeans, while they may not show extra skin, they accentuate a woman’s legs and buttocks. “Even uncovered hair is bad,” as “raw, long hair can excite men.”
♦◊♦
Next: A vacation from empathy
About David Futrelle
Young men are beginning to question why they HAVE to give women rights and respect if all it means is that they get belittled, scorned, accused and disadvantaged. After all, men are stronger, faster, tougher. Why should the strong be made to yield to the weak? I think a lot of young men are changing their minds. If enough young, Western men become fed up with the continual insolence of Western women they may decide that actually, things were better for them when they were allowed to put their foot down and get nasty.
The feminist contingent who run this site may laugh at such a notion now, but the changes that have already occurred in the West – and those yet to come – are not going to be in the best interests of the feminist movement or women in general, and I think they know it. Why else would they set up a site like this in an attempt to try and subtly invalidate and undermine the fledgling Men’s Rights Movement?Feminists are uncomfortable about the growing dissonant hum in the air.
The fact that men wonder whether they have to GIVE rights shows that men feel that rights are THEIRS to GIVE.
Show me a man who doesn’t talk in a way that clearly show they KNOW they have POWER and they are the ones who can GIVE and TAKE it away.
Come to Australia, women have plenty of power here. Hell in the U.S women are the majority of voters, so really women have more power than men.
That relies on the patently false logic that US politics reflect the will of the voters, rather than the will of a smaller oligarchical class. It also relies on the false logic that women are a unified voting bloc prioritizing their own well-being.
But, then, if we can’t even expect women themselves to act politically in their own best interests, then what hope is there that men will act in women’s best interests? It seems presumptuous for a man to say what male behavior is in women’s interest, when women themselves are unable to reach a consensus about it.
If it’s inaccurate to suggest that women today act in their own best interest, then what point is there in trying to keep men conscious of where anyone’s best interests lay?
Yet you project the same flawed idea of a unified MALE conspiracy onto YOUR opponents.
At first after reading a number of Mr. Futurelle’s posts I was convinced he was actually a woman. His writing was so FEMININE. Virtually ANY activist movement that generates a fair amount of support is motivated by real issues. Men generally try to argue by logically de constructing arguments of the opposition. It’s rare to find a male activist who isn’t able to at least comprehend the issues of the opposing side. Mr. Futurelle’s posts by contrast were either completely disingenuous or blinded by emotion. There isn’t ONE single serious argument in his posts. It’s completely contrary to all my long years of life experience that Man Boobz was the writing of a man. Then I read his bio and the “aha”! moment came. You see he’s a “freelance writer” ( a euphemism for failed writer). It dawned on me that he INTENTIONALLY acts the fool because the flood of outrage and indignation he gets feeds his craving for someone, ANYONE to read his work. I applaud him for that because he’s gained an audience. But don’t take him seriously.
Mocking the the author of being your perception that his writing is ‘feminine’.
And here, in a nutshell, is what is so transparently wrong with the mensrights movement: the thinly veiled hatred of women, to the point where your first reaction to criticism is to accuse opponents of being like women.
@Diver
What a nonsense talk – the Men’s Rights Movement does not hate women, and I consider myself as MRA, I am married since over 35 years, 2 daughters already adults and 1 fostergirl. My mother in law was sharing our rooms for over 20 years until she died. And now, the only argument against the MRAs is to claim, they hate women?
MRAs are against feminism, not against women…
*MRAs are against women’s rights, not against women…
because we have to have sex with SOMEONE, and we obviously can’t be gay…that’d be too feminine.
*MRAs are against women’s rights, not against women…
because we have to have sex with SOMEONE, and we obviously can’t be gay…that’d be too feminine.
There are gay men in the MRM, misandric laws only consider a person’s sex, not their gender.
Wendy, I think he means anti-male feminist inspired laws and policy, not anti-woman’s rights. Basically raise women up to equality is fine, but don’t actually cause harm to men in the process. And I don’t mean men losing privilege but things like gendered laws on domestic violence where men miss out on protection quite a bit (which commenters regularly discuss here).
“At first after reading a number of Mr. Futurelle’s posts I was convinced he was actually a woman. His writing was so FEMININE.”
Implying that being feminine is bad, and by extension that most women are bad since most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures rather than complex human beings.. That’s pretty misogynistic.
“Virtually ANY activist movement that generates a fair amount of support is motivated by real issues.”
Corrupt evangelicals who build megachurches generate a fair amount of support. Propaganda from all political parties generates a fair amount of support. Hate movements like the Nazi Party and the KKK generated a fair amount of support. Popularity is a very low standard for truth.
“Men generally try to argue by logically de constructing arguments of the opposition. It’s rare to find a male activist who isn’t able to at least comprehend the issues of the opposing side.”
You’re assuming that all men are automatically smart and sensical just for being men and that women are automatically, as you imply later on, disingenuous and emotional just for being women. More misogyny.
“Mr. Futurelle’s posts by contrast were either completely disingenuous or blinded by emotion. There isn’t ONE single serious argument in his posts.”
Whatever happened to your masterful manly ability to deconstruct arguments of the opposing side? Why don’t you take one of his articles and actually deconstruct it? Surely you can do this simple task. You assert a lot but you don’t back anything up.
“It’s completely contrary to all my long years of life experience that Man Boobz was the writing of a man.”
For someone with long years of life experience you have a very superficial, simplistic, and indoctrinated understanding of what human beings are like. You put people in black and white boxes. MAN == logical, intelligent, rational WOMAN == emotional, dishonest
I’m a woman yet I’m logically deconstructing your post, sentence by sentence.
“Then I read his bio and the “aha”! moment came. You see he’s a “freelance writer” ( a euphemism for failed writer). It dawned on me that he INTENTIONALLY acts the fool because the flood of outrage and indignation he gets feeds his craving for someone, ANYONE to read his work.”
For someone who claims to be able to think logically, able de-construct arguments, and comprehend arguments on the opposing side, you’re “critique” of Futrelle is nothing more than a barrage of fatuous personal attacks. Your entire post basically says Futrelle sucks as a person because he is “feminine” and because he is a freelance writer.
“I applaud him for that because he’s gained an audience. But don’t take him seriously.”
But by your double standard the MRM is “motivated by real issues” because it generates a fair amount of support. But now Futrelle is not to be taken seriously?
“Implying that being feminine is bad, and by extension that most women are bad since most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures rather than complex human beings.. That’s pretty misogynistic.”
So glad you know that most MRA’s view women as one dimensional, which is funny since a common argument I see of feminists is they don’t like to be generalized against yet you feel free to generalize towards MRA’s? Maybe try say many, quite a few, or many I have seen without stating it as most since the others are more personal observations and don’t imply the majority in the statement.
“You’re assuming that all men are automatically smart and sensical just for being men and that women are automatically, as you imply later on, disingenuous and emotional just for being women. More misogyny. ”
Agreed. Women aren’t always illogical, nor men always logical, anyone can lack logic or use emotion-based responses….but then there is still logic in emotion-based responses, it’s just not always helpful. The emotion-based response of empathy for instance which gives us things like welfare, charity, etc have good logic in ensuring a better life for more people, even though there is also logic in killing off the weak to make a superior human race. Logic can be used to justify evil and good, logic isn’t the end all/be all of intelligence and people need to keep this in mind.
You aren’t logically deconstructing this person’s arguments. You are simply sifting through them sentence by sentence and interjecting your objections and groundless accusations.
Example 1)
“Implying that being feminine is bad, and by extension that most women are bad since most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures rather than complex human beings.”
Strawman argument) at no point in Ethical’s post did he state that being feminine is bad or that it is bad to a “feminine” writing style. You could argue that this is why you use the term imply, but that would swiftly be defeated by complete lack of supporting text in the OP post and by the principle of charity.
Bare assertion) if you want to argue that most MRAs see women as one dimensional caricatures you will need to make an argument rather then merely assert this as fact
Non-sequitar) Even if most MRAs did see women as you presume they do, this would not necessitate nor even logically lead to the conclusion that most women are bad
Example 2)
“You’re assuming that all men are automatically smart and sensical just for being men and that women are automatically, as you imply later on, disingenuous and emotional just for being women”
Strawman argument) Do you know what the word generally means? It doesn’t mean all day, in every instance. The OP’s use of the term ‘generally’ precludes his argument from applying to all men automatically.
Strawman argument) At no point does the author ever state nor imply that women are automatically disingenuous and emotional. If you want to claim that the OP has then you’ll have to make an argument.
Also the “more misogyny” and the “that’s pretty mysogynistic” comments are examples of poisoning the well.
I could go on but you get my point.
So sure you may very well be a woman, but you aren’t logically deconstructing the OP’s arguments. Rather you appear to be speaking from a position of indignation, preconceived notions about the OP, loose association and shaming tactics.
yes. Feminism is bad, amirite? Its not like date rape is harmful or anything, girls will heal, and the guy gets satisfaction, amirite? Women are sexy, but they humiliate men by not giving any, which is a war crime, or something of the like. Hmm. I see some logical fallacies. Do you?
Some parts of feminism is bad, other parts good. Raising awareness on sexual assault is good, ignoring the massive amount of male victims of sexual assault is bad. Too many see feminism as either fully good, or fully bad, not enough seem to realize there is good and bad in it and as a whole it’s probably ok but needs far more work.
Agree completely with this article.
Their intention seems to be to throw a collective temper tantrum in quite a childish attempt to change things, but the harsh reality of life is that no one really cares if you get married or not, or swear off women. You can do that if that’s what you want to do, but I suspect most men in MGTOW really do want an intimate relationship, they have just convinced themselves they don’t want one (or are trying to) to prevent themselves from experiencing the inevitable pain and heartache that comes with them. Excuse me for being blunt, but that’s hardly ‘manly’ behavior anyway and may indicate just one of the reasons why they can’t get a woman in the first place.
I suspect, and hope, that this movement will not gain much steam. I have a profound distaste for tyrannical philosophies, of which MGTOW seems highly suspect. Thankfully, the vast vast majority of men (myself included) are going to continue to have or try to have relationships of various kinds with women for the duration of humanity’s sojourn in time.
@John
Like it or not, the Men’s Rights Movement so far is disproportionally strongly growing and this for good reason obviously.
The argument that people – there are also female men’s rights advocates – who are considering that men and boys also should have rights, are unable or unfit for an intimate relationship is baseless and insulting. How can you say something like that?
About myself, I am married since over 35 years and have 2 daughters. Never divorced – and what about you?
About David Futrelle and his chaotic website, as far as I can see, he left the GoodMenProject and never came back.
Good riddance.
Jesse M. says:
April 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm
…abortion is less likely to lead to the mother’s death than childbirth…
———
How can you compare pregnancy with a kidney disease?
To consider abortion healthier than childbirth is grotesque.
It sounds somehow that pregnancy is a form of illness requires surgery.
Wait, what?!
Mods, isn’t this a negative generalization of a movement? I thought we JUST covered how this type of writing wouldn’t be allowed (for feminism) an yet here it is! You all are such hypocrites…
David brings up a good point about not enough actual activism taking place. But that hardly invalidates the movement for men’s rights. Don’t belittle men, dude. Far from agreeing wih you and toeing the line, we will fucking hate you for it.
Because remember, hate bounces, Mr. Boobz.
I think it was posted before the moderation change.
If Futrelle had dug a little deeper he’d have found college campus activism, political lobbying, counselling for men, legal assistance during divorce, even community projects run by men who have retired and want to provide free training for young people. There are MRA’s who research and publish concerning proposed laws in their country so other men are informed of how it will affect them if it passed into law.
Seems pretty active for an “inactive” group.
As a guy that loves women, i hate all this gender wars between MRA’s and feminists. Thats why i never claimed myself MRA ( yes, i think many of MRA’s are bunch of angry pathetic misogynists its ridiculous ) or even feminist. I love peace, all this hates and rants are ridiculous and fucking annoying.
Thats why i love to read GMP’s article about how to raising boys and other articles about men’s feeling and vulnerability (Sadly those kinds of articles are such a rarity ). Men emotions are not all about rage and violence, we have sadness too, joy, love, we can cry too. Why MRA’s movements are not about how men need to step up to tell others about their feelings, their sadness, its okay to cry, instead of blaming women and feminists? About why we need to tell other men to stop mocking other guys “gay” , “faggots”, “pussies” when they cry and show their feelings? All those problems in men society are created by men itself, not women.
Strong pathetic White-Knighting by David Futrelle here. Apparently one isn’t a movement if a movement isn’t strong enough to protest publically, I guess.
Keep in mind that all movements go underground, especially in persecuted groups.
Men are a persecuted group, and men aware of problems and moving for change, even more so.
We are aware that speaking out will cause misandrists to try and ruin our lives for trying to get equal treatment.
Call it misogyny if you like, but hatred is not targetted at the entire female gender, rather it is directed against those who unfairly oppress others. This not only includes women, but also men like yourself.
Keep strawmanning away tho bro.
MRAs complain about (and dramatically overstate the number of) false rape accusations, but instead of mounting media campaigns or protests or anything else that would involve trying to bring this issue to a wider world, the overwhelming majority of MRAs seem content to use the issue as an excuse to rant about lying bitches online.
I represented a client who was falsely accused and convicted of rape. He spent 12 years in jail before being cleared on DNA evidence. His accuser didn’t spend so much as a day in jail. She was immune from civil liability because the state was the party who brought the criminal charge. I would love for you to tell him the number of false rape accusations is dramatically overstated because even if it was just one, and it is more than just one, and someone loses their liberty because of a travesty of justice is done. There is an adage in the law, better that 100 guilty go free than one innocent man lose his liberty. Because of vindictive women, mistaken identity, misinterpreted intent and consent, jealously and downright cruelty, men have lost their liberty because of false accusation. You dismiss that as if it were inconsequential. It is only inconsequential if it not your liberty that is lost. BTW, I have waged a campaign on behalf of my client, whose identity I cannot disclose, and successful won benefits for him that he deserved. His life is still disturbed and he suffers and will continue to suffer, most likely, for the remainder of his life. His accuser, nothing.
“never having to wear heels?” “the best movie roles?”
— I almost choked on my coffee laughing on that one. Are you suggesting that heels are something women must or are forced to endure? Some of the highest paid in Hollywood are female. This is silly.
A tiny percentage of alpha males run government and corporations. What about most alphas, betas, and omegas? Do you really think that <1% of alphas care about other men? Get real.
Men earn more? Look at the different types of jobs men and women do, the hours worked, the time off to raise kids, etc. BTW, in 48/50 urban areas women earn more. Women over age 51 control most of the nations private wealth. Young women earn more than men. Be honest about the numbers.
Men do not earn more in general than women, and the ones who do, are doing especially dirty, dangerous, heavy work women often refuse. Everything from construction to combat…
If an employer pays you more for your work it is surely not because you are a man and not a woman.
If men are so expensive and women are working for such a cheap salary, most employers would accept only females applicants to save up to 20 percent of salaries for the same work done.
It also should be noticed that men often transfer money earned out of their work for their families, to their women and children. Often to their ex-wives in form of alimony and child-support.
Women are able to enjoy a much larger sortiment of various goods in department stores, and despite they are so poor, they are buying much more for themselves related to fashion/shoes industry, jewelry and similar items than men. Many products are designed for women only, and if the woman is so poor and nevertheless can buy that and the man is so rich, from where is the money coming from?
Time off to raise kids is not time off. Raising children is a full time job. You don’t put in 40 hours a week and then sit around watching football. You’re there all day, all night, constantly working. If you don’t consider raising children to be a job (one that doesn’t pay btw) you need a reality check.
@Jess
Women do have a choice – no woman is forced to give birth and to raise children.
If a woman prefers to work 40 hours instead of a family with children, it’s up to her.
What’s your problem?
Then don’t have them…
A job were you get to run around in your slippers and build gingerbread houses with the kids. Oh yes, we know that dinner is cooking and the washing machine is cleaning. Time then for yet another phone call to one of your many gal pals to continue complaining how much easier men have it.
But men don’t have to make that choice. A man can have both.
Why should ONLY women be penalised for having children?
Possibly. Looking at the situaiton regarding the uproar over contracepton and access to it at the moment in the States?
Could we not agree that
a) there are structures in place in society
b) these structures, historically (pre-1960 back to say the Pharaohs of Egypt), were designed by men
c) thus we do assume that these structures are designed to help people like those who designed the laws (including men, as well as rich, socially connected, etc.) or at the very least not to harm their position
d) if you fall outside of the narrow confines of “good” the laws were designed for, you will experience varying degrees of hardship depending on how far you fall outside of “good”.
So this takes into account men, women, sissy men, butch girls, bookish guys that would prefer to talk politics than go to a bar, a girl that would prefer to watch football and yell at the tv for 2 hours than go through an elaborate beauty routine, etc.?
If we do accept the premise of my argument, that the powerful serves to maintain or extend their own power, regardless of the group with the power, could we then not accept that to remedy this the people must attack inequitable laws rather than fighting for supremacy?
Why shouldn’t men have the right to opt out of fatherhood if their sex buddy/girlfriend/wife gets pregnant? Women can do what they want; abort, give birth, raise the kid, go back to work and use day care, etc. Women are now more of a hassle than they are worth and having a relationship with a woman is actually very very dangerous.
Men and women are also penalized for NOT having children. People with children get income tax benefits that childless/childfree people do not. That is, in effect, a tax penalty for not having children.
“Why shouldn’t men have the right to opt out of fatherhood if their sex buddy/girlfriend/wife gets pregnant?”
Perhaps because of the biological fact that the fetus grows in the woman’s body? If humans were like seahorses and the fetuses incubated in the male’s bodies, then in that case the men would get to decide whether to keep or abort. A society where others had the right to impose a surgical procedure on your body against your will would be a pretty awful one, no? If you want to complain about the injustice that this right-to-refuse-surgery has the side effect of leaving the decision about whether to keep the child entirely in the hands of the woman, it’s nature you should complain to for making reproductive biology work in such a sexist way (or God, if you’re a creationist).
And speaking of biology, a man does have one surefire way of avoiding fatherhood if he plans in advance, namely getting a vasectomy.
Good luck getting a vasectomy if you’re under 30, and haven’t had kids. Everything I’ve heard on it makes it quite difficult to get.
Do you advocate sterilization for women who don’t want to become mothers?
Abortion has nothing to do with a father’s inability to opt out of parenthood. We live in a society with adoptions and safe haven laws. In other words, a woman still has the choice to opt out even after there is a living breathing baby right there. Why don’t men have these same abilities?
Equal responsibilities and unequal rights
stupid.
@Jesse M: Your merely side stepping the issue here by saying it grows in a womans body, your basically saying sense women have all the rights to a child they can do whatever they want and men shouldn’t complain about it. Tell me whats the difference between killing it and having it then giving it to loving father after its born? The woman doesn’t want it so she can go on with her life and Abortion can be much more dangerous then actually giving birth. You act like a man has no right to the child simply because it has nothing to do with him which is blatantly false.
He’s not talking about the father demanding an abortion. He’s talkIng about legal paternal surrender. The equivalent of giving a child up for adoption, something a woman is allowed to do but a man isn’t.
The reason why doctors balk at performing or referring one to vasectomy if one is young and childless is that is shouldn’t be considered a reversible procedures. If it’s more than three years since the vasectomy a reversal procedures only have a 51% pregnancy rate*. And it declines even more as time go by.
*Belker AM, et al. Results of 1,469 microsurgical vasectomy reversals by the Vasovasostomy Study Group. Journal of Urology 1991; 145(3):505-11.
It’s a strategy to write your posts with Yahoo Replies. When we buy backlinks study your posts, you will definately get free backlinks for your website.
I think that’s a larger surgery and thus riskier, but if I’m wrong about that–or in a hypothetical world where the health risk was as low as a vasectomy–then sure, why not?
“Abortion has nothing to do with a father’s inability to opt out of parenthood. We live in a society with adoptions and safe haven laws. In other words, a woman still has the choice to opt out even after there is a living breathing baby right there. Why don’t men have these same abilities?
Equal responsibilities and unequal rights”
Well, you’re talking about a situation where the baby is actually born and the mother is raising it, and the father is free to “opt out” of any actual parenting responsibilities but usually has to pay some form of child support. So, let’s think about what would happen in this situation with the genders reversed. If the mother wanted to have the baby but then opt out of parenthood, but the biological father wanted to raise the baby (and could provide a good home environment), wouldn’t the courts be more likely to grant custody to the father than to have the child given up for adoption against the father’s wishes? In a case like this I don’t necessarily think the mother would be able to completely opt out any more than the father can opt out in a case where the mother wants to raise the baby…the mother might well have to pay some form of child support if the father was raising the baby, at least if she was making decent money. This sort of situation (mother bringing child to term but not wanting to raise it, father wanting to raise it) probably doesn’t happen that often, but to show there is are “unequal rights” you’d have to demonstrate that even when it does, the mother is always free to avoid paying any form of child support.
Your merely side stepping the issue here by saying it grows in a womans body
I’m not side-stepping the issue, I’m saying that fact is essential to the issue.
your basically saying sense women have all the rights to a child they can do whatever they want and men shouldn’t complain about it. Tell me whats the difference between killing it and having it then giving it to loving father after its born?
Months of potentially fairly intense physical discomfort and greater risk of serious permanent harm. Do you believe it’s right to subject people to long periods of avoidable physical discomfort against their will? For example if some person had a kidney disease and the only way to keep them alive until a donor could be found would be to connect their bloodstream to the bloodstream of a person with healthy kidneys, do you think it would be moral to force a healthy person to be connected in this way for several months against their will?
The woman doesn’t want it so she can go on with her life and Abortion can be much more dangerous then actually giving birth.
If you define “dangerous” in terms of statistical risks, abortion is less likely to lead to the mother’s death than childbirth, see for example http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/248/2/188.abstract
You act like a man has no right to the child simply because it has nothing to do with him which is blatantly false.
I never said “it has nothing to do with him”, and I also wouldn’t say he “has no right to the child” if it’s born. But I don’t think the man’s involvement in creating the pregnancy should trump the basic right of anyone not to be forced to experience bodily discomfort that could be avoided with a simple procedure.
Jesse M. says:
April 25, 2012 at 12:39 pm
…abortion is less likely to lead to the mother’s death than childbirth…
———
How can you compare pregnancy with a kidney disease?
To consider abortion healthier than childbirth is grotesque.
It sounds somehow that pregnancy is a form of illness requires surgery.
“To consider abortion healthier than childbirth is grotesque.”
I was responding to Equalizer’s comment “The woman doesn’t want it so she can go on with her life and Abortion can be much more dangerous then actually giving birth”, which was pretty clearly talking about how “dangerous” it is to “the woman”, not to the fetus. And I didn’t compare abortion to a kidney disease, is your reading comprehension really that poor? I compared it to a hypothetical situation where adult person #1 (supposed to be analogous to the fetus) is attached to the body of another adult #2 (analogous to the mother, with the “attachment” analogous to pregnancy) and is dependent on remaining attached to them for survival. An abortion opponent should like this analogy, because it grants the “personhood” of the fetus by comparing them to a sentient adult…in reality I don’t think the fetus can be considered a “person” before it develops some form of consciousness, which based on the development of the brain probably doesn’t happen until around the end of the second trimester (because until then, most of the synapses that are needed for brain cells to communicate with each other haven’t formed, so no coherent brain activity can occur–see the articles at http://web.archive.org/web/20000823035839/http://www.tnr.com/013100/easterbrook013100.html and http://web.archive.org/web/20110707061912/http://eileen.250x.com/Main/Einstein/Brain_Waves.htm for some info on this). But I’m saying even in this hypothetical situation, where I would grant personhood to person #1, person #2′s right to control over their body should give them the right to sever the attachment (equivalent to terminating the pregnancy), even though this would kill person #1.
I can answer your entire comment with two words: Safe. Haven.
As long as a woman is able to dump her kid at any hospital or police station without even notifying the father it’s happened, then I will continue to claim that women have more rights than responsibilities.
But further: A quick google search shows a number of cases where the woman has given a child up for adoption out of state (usualy Utah) without the father’s notice or consent, and thanks to long delays of the judicial system the child is ultimately left with the adoptive parents because those same delays (usually years long) have left the baby in the care of the adoptive parents so the courts rule that staying there is in “the child’s best interest.”
Also, while the percentage of women who pay child support is smaller than that of men, the likelyhood of those women being “deadbeat” is greater than in men.
There is so much generalization and failed logic going on here, it’s making me dizzy.