🇳🇱
Arguing men shouldnt have a right to an opinion on abortion because they can only be the victim of abortion and never the executor is like arguing women shouldnt have an opinion on rape because they are typically the victim and not the executor.
We all started our lives as fetuses and would have been effected by abortion laws, and as such we all should have a right to an opinion on the matter.
@freemo Of course everyone has a right to their opinion on any subject.
But it does seem clear that while men are not unaffected, women *are* disproportionately affected and their voices should therefore hold more weight on the subject.
And the inverse holds true as well. Men's voices carry more weight when it comes to men's issues, such as the legality and ease of access to Viagra.
I'ma summarize this issue. Cause everyone has a right to an opinion.
Men should not have a choice in women-only decisions.
More broadly, any persons opinion does not specifically equate to a weighted position on any other person's choice.
Keep government small; keep decisions up to those who are directly impacted.
The further one is from impact, the more distorted the reality.
Except that abortion isnt a woman only issue
It is an issue that effects the woman and the feyus. So bases on your logic anyone who has been or is a woman or fetus has a right to an opinion, which is everyone.
Fetuses don't have rights. And by women, I was referring to those who could/would be affected by pregnancy. Specific circumstances for specific judgements.
If we're going down the rabbit hole of fetus and the earliest stages of life, we might as well consider the rights of microbes. If we get to that point, it no longer becomes a gender issue.
What happens to a fetus and unborn infant is between the mother and associated caretakers. All life comes with a material cost which can potentially have dynamically drastic impacts on the environments surrounding it. These factors should be weighed on those overseeing its development.
@freemo @lucifargundam @louis Good discussion here so far. Everyone can have opinions, but which should have weight? Mainly with lucifar here, personal impact should determine this.
I'd like to add that fetuses "rights", be they legal or ethical rights, are usually viewed a bit short sighted.
A mere right to live does not reflect what the ethical consequences are, and a legal right without considering the actual consequences (after birth) runs afoul of the same ethical problem.
So i see two possibilities:
- guaranteeing a right to live and putting actual work behind the contextual issues: access to birth control (prevent unwanted pregnancy), timely access to abortion (important especially in case of rape), providing care for the birthed baby (not an unwilling mothers job), securing the ability of the growing human to actually lead a good life and not just subsist.
This i can take seriously as an opinion (even if i might disagree, depending on details).
- guaranteeing only the right to live, but just some hand waving at most for the rest of the issues.
In this case, i would have to assume the fetus rights are not the actual issue.
To summarize, if anyone who may or may not be up to the task is forced to do anything, the process is surely an unethical one. Claiming to act in stead of someone who does not have a voice needs diligence and foresight, or it is a false claim.
@lucifargundam
Of course fetuses have rights. It is and has been for a long time illegal to murder a fetus 8 months into pregnancy. They jave had and clearly do have rights, the debatable part is how many rights thry have.
That said i never once argued for thrm having rights. I argued adults have the right to have an opinion on what the rules are on if someone should have been allowed to prevent my life or not.
@louis