TED Conversations

Lee Wilkinson

TEDCRED 20+

This conversation is closed.

Abortion. If men can make rules for woman then surely woman should be able to make rules for men.

On the topic of Pro Life, Pro Choice. If men can make laws which govern what women can do with their bodies, then surely women should be able to make the same laws for men? Imagine if it was a law that all men much be circumcised or sterilized. Do men really have the right to vote and decide whether or not a woman can have an abortion? Surely that is one subject we should not be able to vote on?

Share:
  • Apr 28 2011: I did not realize a baby fetus is part of the woman's body and nothing more. If that's the case I guess you have a point, but last time I checked, a baby fetus with the potential to grow into a healthy adult and not harm the mother, was a separate person. And what makes you think it's just men who are against most abortion?
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2011: potential is not enough to qualify as a human being. a sperm cell and an egg cell also have the potential, but i'm sure you don't want to give equal protection to sperm cells as humans.

      to define "human", one must engage in defining human qualities, and look for them in the fetus. would you call something that does not have neurons, that is, senses and brain, a human? what human traits such a being expresses?
      • Apr 28 2011: Sperm and eggs are different-- they are each only half of what is required to develop into a human being, and they still require sexual intercourse to even activate real potential.
        While a fetus that has all required of it to develop (assuming: healthy, willing mother) and it will develop, only dependent on the mother to keep it alive.
        • thumb
          Apr 28 2011: so you believe the "work" you do to get those half cells together is more significant than the entire development of the fetus from one cell to a complete little human being? such an ego :)
      • thumb
        Apr 28 2011: And you are quite correct Austin, however you missed the point of the thread.
      • Apr 28 2011: I admit I read the title and skimmed over the rest, Lee.
  • May 6 2011: Also, I'd like to add that a fetus is an independently functioning organism. It's development and nourishment are the only things that are dependent of the mother. The fetus is a separate life-form.
    • thumb
      May 6 2011: bacteria too. what conclusions one can draw from it?
      • May 7 2011: Bacteria does not develop into a sentient, human being. How can bacteria be compared to a human fetus?
        • thumb
          May 8 2011: please be clear. you didn't mention "develop into human being" in your first post. you just said independently functioning organism. just like a bacteria. don't move the goalposts midgame.
  • Apr 29 2011: Firstly, men don't make abortion laws, men and women do. Unless in the UK women can't serve in Parliament?

    Secondly, just because a law affects only women does not justify the creation of some kind of symmetrical law that affects only men. Any law, by definition, affects only some subset of the population, be it by action or even existence. As long as a law isn't rooted in some form of bigotry, then it shouldn't be a concern. You don't think abortion is for bigots, do you?

    Thirdly, even if the idea of a symmetrical law was considered justified, it should be impotently obvious there is no equivalent function of the male body to regulate. We don't carry unborn children. They do. How can you compare circumcision or sterilization with a straight face?

    Fourthly, your question is phrased with the assumption that abortion laws only or mostly affect women. Perhaps you, sir, wouldn't give a rats ass if the mother of your unborn child decided to have an abortion, but I can assure you there are plenty of men who would. I am not a father but one day I'll have the opportunity to be the best one I can; There is no way I could not be affected by an abortion of my own offspring.
  • thumb
    Apr 28 2011: it is not a men vs women issue. the question is the status of the unborn baby. is the fetus a human being? from what age? four cells form a human? how about a 6 week old? 2 months? as soon as the fetus is considered human, abortion is murder. it might be justified, as sometimes murder is. but surely the problem can't be dismissed so easily that a woman can do whatever she wants with her own body. it is not just her own body. there are two bodies.

    one must also see that this is a technological problem. we can't separate the baby from the mother before birth. getting pregnant has its consequences. and it is not a man-made consequence, but biological. it is how nature works, and as of now, we have to accept it. maybe in a distant future we will be able to take out the fetus, and either transform it into another woman's body, or into a machine that takes care of him or her. at that point, i believe, all ethical concerns will be lifted.
    • Apr 28 2011: Yes!

      I think if the fetus has the potential to naturally develop into a human being, it qualifies as human life.

      Imagine a 80-year-old is having a heart-transplant surgery. When his original heart is removed he is technically no longer an independently-functioning human. So, since his heart has been taken out, does that make it OK for the hospital to take him off life support and kill him? I know it's a bad analogy, but I hope Lee can see my point.

      Personally, I am against abortion but think (early first trimester) abortion should be legal because making it illegal would just force women to get illegal, unsafe abortions anyways. Plus, whether or not a fetus qualifies as a human being is debatable.
  • thumb
    Apr 28 2011: Well I think your question within itself it pro-choice and I myself am pro-choice. I think the pro-life supporters see it as not the woman's choice and more as simply murder. In their eyes, aborting a child means ending a life and nobody has the right to do that.
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2011: Agreed. The "issue" of abortion, like most issues, is not a disagreement about the facts but rather about how those facts should be perceived. In my experience, I have found that both sides make a great point, and it is up to the individual to decide which are more persuasive to him or her. As for myself, I mostly just stay out of it.
  • thumb
    May 9 2011: oops Lee! The conversation stopped dead. I guess women are not allowed in the locker room!
    • thumb
      May 12 2011: Hi Debra, sadly I cannot give men credit for being able to remain on topic. The question is actually not about abortion but about the control that men have exercised over woman's lives throughout history and I thought I was pretty clear about that. I always welcome you input Debra.
  • thumb
    May 8 2011: I am curious to know whether or not you believe that the rules that women would come up with for men would be fair and if we would have the balance to understand you and what was good for you?(this is a sincere question without agenda.) Would you trust us to love you enough to make good rules for you?
  • thumb
    Apr 29 2011: Okay, so maybe a controversial topic, so I will make the thread clearer. It is a majority of men who make up the political machine I don't think that can be challenged. Why then is that men can so easily make a discussion on a topic which does not effect their bodies? When you look at all the people making a noise about abortion it is mostly men. Yes of course there are women who chose this also but for the most part it is men. My question then is; why do men still have so much control over women? I cannot think of a single similar law where women have the same authority over men. This is not a discussion about the moral values of 'Pro Choice, Pro Life' Although is you all wish to stay off topic because it is too difficult of a topic then that is fine.
  • thumb
    Apr 28 2011: Abortion is about the mother, which is a female, and about the baby, which is not necessaryly a female. So it is not something, that just concerns women.

    Is a law, that directs an operation comparable to one, that restricts the conditions under which an other operation is allowed?