Pro-lifers, if men could get pregnant, would you still be against abortion?

Question

Just wondering, since I heard some claim pro-lifers are only against abortion to control women, which doesn't make much sense to me since many women are also pro-life.

Answer 1

The sex of the one killing doesn't change the fact that killing is wrong.

Is the law against homicide, rape, robbery and burglary "controlling people"? Yes, it is and for good reason. It is the same with abortion. Using the argument that "controlling people" is a bad thing is, in effect, stating that all laws should be eliminated because they "control people". That means that using this "logic" infers that pro-choicers must also favor anarchy or they are simply being hypocritical.

Consider that paternity laws exert control over men almost identically to the control over women who do not have legal abortion. Both simply make people liable and responsible for their own actions. It is hypocrisy (not to forget sexist) to be for abortion while at the same time in favor of paternity laws regardless which side is chosen.

Answer 2

A miscarriage isn't the selection of the female. A miscarriage is a tragedy yet something that can not be stopped. A self precipitated miscarriage is something diverse it relatively is against the regulation in maximum places, despite if an abortion is criminal. A self precipitated miscarriage is an abortion the female performs outdoors the medical device. there's a huge distinction between a organic miscarriage and a self precipitated miscarriage. i don't have self assurance a organic miscarriage is homicide because has no longer something to do with selection, purely with possibility. A self precipitated miscarriage, on the different hand, i'm against simply by fact meaning the mum is intentionally attempting to kill her new child. and that i do no longer think of people who carry out abortions are "terrible people" yet I do think of they are doing terrible issues. does not everybody think of homicide is terrible?

Answer 3

If I remember correctly prolifers are the ones who see a moral necessity in saving a baby's life. They would argue that an unborn child/human/fetus/embryo (whatever you want to call it) is still a living thing and has as much a right to live as anything else already living. Do they want to control a person's body? Well that depends upon what you mean by control. If you mean complete hegemony over women, well that's a bit paranoid. If you mean control over women's choice in this particular situation then yes. But that's not the same thing as saying they want "to control women" which implies completely controlling women. They see controlling a woman's choice in this specific situation as a matter of saving a life. It's sort of like if you wanted to pull the plug on a comatose family member. A right to lifer would say that you don't have a right to make that choice for the other person/human/whatever you want to call it regardless of the fact that your money, time, and effort is going into keeping that person alive (i.e. nourishing the person). So in a way prolifers are about controlling a woman's choice to "pull the plug" on their baby/child/human/embryo/fetus/whatever (but only in that one specific area). Also I'll note that "control of women" is not the goal of prolifers. Instead the goal is to prevent an act which they consider to be tantamount to murder. Viewing abortion as killing allows them to seek to control the actions of those who would kill a fetus/human/embryo/whatever. So yes they probably would still be against abortion.

Answer 4

I'm a pro-lifer and a man. Yes I would still be against abortion. I think that my reasons go beyond religion. I think it's a pretty invasive procedure to remove a life inside someone. Also I think its still a human life regardless of its stage, if a dead human fetus was found on Mars it'd sure as hell be called a formerly living being.

Answer 5

I think if you realy knew what the pro lifers goals were you would know that man or woman it wouldnt matter...
I would still be against it..
f y i ,,men can now carry a baby
I think it was in japan, they have a surgery that men can undergo and they can actually carry a baby to full term

Answer 6

Of course. I really don't care what other women choose to do with their lives, and I have no interest in "controlling them." I DO believe that no one has the right to kill another innocent human being, and that is exactly what every single abortion does. It doesn't have anything to do with controlling women. It has everything to do with protecting innocent lives. For more information, visit http://Abort73.com

Answer 7

I suppose it's reallly a matter of whether you're against abortion, but I see what you're getting at. Of course all the pro-life men would then have to invent the new oppressor.

Answer 8

of course id still be against it!

and im not trying to " control" anyone's life..
im only saying I do not agree.
Im very well aware that when it comes down to it..a woman will have an abortion if she wishes no matter how much I put my 2 cents in and disagree with her.

that still does not mean..i will not fight.

so prochoicers can get over that whole " trying to control a woman's reproductive rights" bullsh!t

Answer 9

I am a pro-life woman who has no interest in controlling other women's lives. My concern is the babies they are killing. My views wouldn't change if men could get pregnant.

Answer 10

My first question would be, where does the baby come out of. But no, I'd be even more against it, as it's my own gender, actually, which makes it my personal business.