Talking of ethics does a right to choose extend necessarily to foetocide? Should an aborted late foetus be delivered live? 21 weeks may be viable, 24 weeks certainly is. Choices and yet more choices it seems.

"Yet the males opinion is almost always ignored."

The male isn't facing nine months of pregnancy which are both inconvenient and painful, nor a labor which is even more painful and could on occasion be life threatening. Or, in case an the abortion is chosen, the male isn't facing a medical procedure that could possibly leave him infertile. So, the male's stake in this doesn't even come close to that of the female.

Also, even if the female makes the choice, she can still consult the male and consider his opinion. I believe that under normal circumstances, for insrance when the male and the female have a healthy relationship, that is actually what happens in most cases. So, it isn't even true that the "male's opinion is almost always ignored."

Ah yes that's the guy - Kermit Gosnell.

@phil
"And I believe, on the whole, the negative discrimination of women far outweighs the positive discrimination."

That's probably because you ascribe all different (average) outcomes in favor of men to discrimination rather than to free choice.

But anyway, as support for the hypothesis of the patriarchy your beliefs are irrelevant. Believe just ain't a valid form of evidence in scientific discourse.

So, whereas I fully acknowledge your right to promote policies that favor women, I will not take you seriously if you argue for them based off the clearly false notion that there exists a patriarchy that oppresses women (in Western civilization anyway).

I don't think discussing abortion and feminism together makes sense. I understand the argument both sides are trying to make here, but I don't think there is a correct answer.

Ultimately, feminism is about every women having the same opportunities afforded to men, to have the ability to make their own choices. Feminism is about women getting to set and achieve goals to the same extent that men can. Feminism is about women not having to worry about being marginalized or attacked. physically or emotionally on the basis of their gender.

When you bring abortion into the discussion, it's difficult. I mean, it's argued here that every women should be able to choose what to do with their own body wrt to abortion. But there is also a valid argument to be made that every woman should be able to choose whether or not she "views" abortion as murder.

I mean, I get that the latter view is barbaric, every women in my opinion should be afforded this choice. But some people choose to be barbaric - homophobes and racists exist, some people think euthanasia is murder.

The point is, if we're going to fight for women's rights, we can't then be picky about how women then act if we're successful. The horrendous POVs described above are reprimandable, and we would hope that anyone who would support women's rights wouldn't have them, but ultimately some people are shittier than other people, regardless of gender.

As for oscar, if you think this isn't an issue you are mistaken. If only the community here could attack and demean you for this horrible attitude and disgusting misogyny in the same manner that women in western society are subjected to on the regular.

We can't be empathetic because we don't know what they can deal with, but we can be compassionate and try to help.

There isn't a patriarchy that oppresses or represses women in western society. Instead, they just try to control them. It has always been that way, and it always will be that way.

Women have the babies. That's it.

Until a replacement for the womb exists, that's how it always will be.

@ Jamiet, I know this is was a while ago.... But *thank you* for being respectful of other people's views. I also disagree with your opinion, but I think you were very respectful, and I think more highly of you for it. Something I think is important is for people who disagree on some things to at least work together for the things they *do* agree on.

@Jeff, would you be in favor of making abortion of viable babies illegal? Example, one of my friends just had a kid at 25 weeks. While they are closely monitoring him, he is doing fine.

@ Kargo: "the male in the case of abortion is completely unrecognized which I find very disturbing because as far as biology goes, the fetus is as much the woman's as it is the male's."

The fetus is literally inside the woman. It is not inside the man. Please explain how this affects them equally.

@kargo - I understand your point about men's opinions being ignored in the case of abortion. By the time men are ready to impregnate a woman, to use your term, they should be aware that said woman then generally has the right to abort a resulting fetus within a certain time limit. You are able to deny this woman the life and death decission over what happens to fetus partially created by your sperm - keep it in your pants or only have sex with people who agree with your perspective on abortion.

On abortion, I support the woman's right to choose. Not because it's a simple choice to make - ask any person who's gone through it themselves or with a partner. But I support a woman's right to choose because the converse of that right is simply unbearable.

The same goes for men's say over abortion. Yes, it's unequal for men, and I wish it wasn't. But again, the converse, making it unequal for women who have to carry the baby, is much worse.

@ Maniac - that's a really good angle on the issue. Thanks for posting that.

I'm 100% pro choice. If the woman carrying the fetus wants to abort, she should have that right no matter how close the she is to term.

However, if there is a married couple, then I think the spouse could have some legal rights in this situation. I don't think the spouse should have any right to veto a decision to abort by the pregnant woman, but notification could possibly be appropriate.

The woman making this decision will have to live with it the rest of her life. That is weight enough.

And with respect to "keep your pants on"...

For the most part that is true. But for many people, learning they are to become a father or mother is a transforming experience, second only to actually becoming a parent. I can easily imagine scenarios where the man and woman were adamantly against having kids, and then an "accident" happening with birth control, and then one or the other changing their mind when the reality is upon them.

@Jeff, what about partial-birth abortion?

@KingCyrus: I wish your friend the best with his/her son. 25 weeks is pretty early, but a loving, caring family will go a long way.

Dilation and extraction is pretty gut-wrenching, but it's her choice.

Thanks Jeff! The baby is SOOO tiny! His foot is about the length of the last section of the dad's forefinger.

You realize that partial birth happens after dilation, and partway through extraction, right? It literally only has the baby's head inside the birth canal.

I have kids who could have kids. I know the drill. I also have a friend who used to sign people up for pro-life petitions in high school...until she had to deal with an unwanted pregnancy. She's no longer pro-life, and no longer Catholic.

So two seconds makes the difference between a human life or not? At what point is it not OK to dispose of a child?

It's not like abortion is some easy procedure that can serve as birth control. That's a ridiculous point people try to make. In the same sense, it's not like birth control pills serve only as a contraceptive - they are used for countless other purposes too. The fact that people want to outlaw abortion or contraceptives for everyone is ridiculous. If a couple (presumably both man and woman) agree to abort a fetus or use contraceptives, there should be no law in place that tells them that they can't because some churchgoer down the road says it's bad.

I thought this wasn't supposed to turn into an abortion thread.... But alas, I have contributed.

Back to the point of abortion on this topic, can someone be pro-life and a feminist?

Sure, if they as an individual would not abort or approve the abortion of a fetus within their own immediate family for whatever reason, they can still be a feminist. However, you can't intend to outlaw abortion or contraceptives if you want to consider yourself a feminist, and feminists will not recognize you if you do. That's like trying to call yourself a conservationist and then offering support to drilling and logging projects within our National Parks - those views aren't compatible.

If you define a feminist as someone who agrees 100% with modern, majority opinion of the feminist movement then yes, I agree. But people can be Republican and be for gay marriage, or Democrat but be against it. I don't see feminists as an all-or-nothing group. A woman can support equal treatment and not consider abortion to fall under that.

Being Republican and being for gay marriage aren't mutually exclusive ideals. Hell, given the Republican platform, marriage rights ought to be highly supported. I am amazed at how anti-progressive the Republican party is given how much progress there could be if they would stop being a bunch of old cranky white men and actually live by their ideal of less government involvement in petty issues such as these.

I don't see feminists as an all-or-nothing group either, but the modern feminist is not going to accept you as one of their own if you are willing to fight them on abortion. If you don't openly support it but don't mouth off about how bad it is, you could probably get by. If you're openly anti-abortion, you might be a 60s/70s-era feminist, but not compatible with today's.

Can you be a feminist and be anti-choice? Different phrasing then the OP, but I'd say "NO" to both.

Bo, it definitely is comparable. I know you can be a Republican and support gay marriage, and that it is not mutually exclusive. That is the point. I think the same goes for the feminists. Now, I am not saying you will be ACCEPTED as a feminist by the mainstream modern feminist, but does that mean you aren't?

From the GOP Party Platform of 2012:

"We reaffirm our support for a Constitutional Amendment defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman."

A Republican who is for gay marriage goes against the party in that respect. But, they are still a Republican.

When nothing changes, it's a win for the conservative position. From 2003 to 2007, the GOP was able to pass reactionary legislation and tax cuts while the War on Iraq was raging. From then on, their policy has been to stall and keep those changes intact as much as possible.

With two notable exceptions, the Affordable Care Act (legislative) and continued quantitative easing (executive continuation of Bush's desperation moves in 2008), it has worked.