General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region Forumshaikugal
(6,476 posts)trumad
(41,692 posts)10 years ago on this forum I said the same thing except with Texaco gas stations.
phantom power
(25,966 posts)Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)Last edited Tue Apr 23, 2013, 04:54 PM - Edit history (1)
(To be accurate: more studies have found that more men than women are pro-choice than vice versa, I've seen at least one implying the contrary).
But such very limited evidence as their is suggests that if men could get pregnant, it's more likely that abortion would be harder to obtain than easier.
On edit: "More studies have found" should probably be "I've seen more studies finding" - I haven't done any kind of systematic search, and someone's just linked another poll showing the reverse.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)And most of those legislators are men.
You don't think more than a few might drop their pushback if they too could get pregnant?
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)If being able to get pregnant made one more likely to support abortion rights, you'd expect more women than men to support them.
So while being able to get pregnant might make some men more pro-choice, the (very limited) best evidence we have suggests that if anything it would probably make more of them more anti-choice.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)if men could get pregnant, they would likely also be considered more responsible for child-rearing, as are women. that alone might change a lot of anti-choice males.
Donald Ian Rankin
(13,598 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)i can see how an anti-choice woman might change her mind, if only because of selfishness...or a belief in exceptionalism. i can't see a severely anti-choice male changing his mind about abortion, even if his wife or daughter was raped.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Im not so convinced.
loyalsister
(13,390 posts)If a majority of men were pro-choice, Roe vs. Wade would have been codified in federal law long ago.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)But that doesn't mean they are out campaigning and lobbying in the same numbers the anti men are. It's the same passivity that keeps gay marriage from being legal.
MattBaggins
(7,894 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)In that poll, more men than women are pro life, not pro choice.
It's also interesting that most Americans are pro life.
abq e streeter
(7,658 posts)that fly in the face of facts and numbers. "If men could get pregnant, blah blah blah" fits many people's belief system, and as we observe on the right every day, it's so much easier to just believe than acknowledge facts.
ProudToBeBlueInRhody
(16,399 posts)marshall
(6,661 posts)Those lines in the sand would not exist.
woodsprite
(11,854 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)Hubby invited me to see one in a gas station men's room. Or at least they used to have 'em, like women's rooms had tampon dispensers.
Nowadays, though, it appears that pregnancy and STDs are not to be prevented, just written off as GawdsPlanForYourLife/Death©.
Or some such nonsense. The Idiocracy, it burns.
libodem
(19,288 posts)AnotherDreamWeaver
(2,846 posts)I was reading "Divine Intervention" by Hazel Courteney and she said it would happen. I did a little search, and looks like it has happened: http://www.malepregnancy.com/mingwei/
When I was a kid I heard some insurance company in the UK had set aside a lot of money for the first guy who got pregnant, wonder if he collected...
hfojvt
(37,573 posts)then those would be perfectly safe too
because the world has been designed to make sure nothing bad ever happens to a man.
Skittles
(152,966 posts)try to look at it this way - if women made all the rules for war and coal mines
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Skittles
(152,966 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)Skittles
(152,966 posts)smirkymonkey
(63,221 posts)Seriously, look at them.
Zoonart
(11,750 posts)Back in the 80's when I volunteered as an escort for a clinic in PA, we used to say:
"If men could get pregnant - abortion would be a sacrament."
Skittles
(152,966 posts)OhioChick
(23,218 posts)jambo101
(797 posts)We'd be extinct as a species..
snooper2
(30,151 posts)ThoughtCriminal
(14,011 posts)Batman would never get a day off.
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)Triana
(22,666 posts)There are test tubes and incubators and surrogates (whom you need have nothing to do with after they've incubated your kid). As far as the pleasure aspect of the whole mess - well you can "handle" that yourself too.
But you have to clean your own toilet, do your own laundry and cooking and vacuum your own floors, change the diapers and clean up the puke and run the little varmits all over the place until they're old enough to drive and take time off work to do it all yourself while saving for their college and your own retirement. That's what women do.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)In my house I do all those chores and more. I enjoy the structure of housework and shuttling the kids. It's a good routine ruined only because I also work from home. My wife is now the main earner. She would laugh hearing you consign all other women to toil and drudgery.
Triana
(22,666 posts)Most are not IN your situation. Or your wife's situation. It's not a CHOICE. They either DO it themselves or it doesn't get done. Then, the neighbors and friends gawp at what a mess her house and kids are. That's how it is for MOST women.
Maybe not you & your wife -- but your situation is sadly the exception and not the rule.
abq e streeter
(7,658 posts)as has been already pointed out, studies over the years have consistently shown approximately equal percentages of pro choice men and women.
whttevrr
(2,345 posts)You do realize that Gallup was projecting a Romney win for quite a while, right?
abq e streeter
(7,658 posts)that I have seen over the course of probably 2 decades. And the results have stayed amazingly consistent from one pollster to another ,and one year or one decade to another. Nice try though.
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)doesn't change the reality of male-dominated legislatures drafting laws to restrict abortion rights...right now.
abq e streeter
(7,658 posts)These republican men (with their millions of female supporters) are a national disgrace, to put it mildly. But it seems to be an undying liberal fairy tale to believe, falsely, and despite all evidence to the contrary, that it would all be different if men could get pregnant, when in fact, men are every bit as equally pro-choice as women(and I've seen polls in which men were slightly more pro choice than women. But overall, the numbers are give or take about even)
noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)it is about patriarchial control of women, including the assumption that women are too emotional, etc, to make tough moral decisions. if men could get preganant there would be ZERO discussion about the state's imperative to "protect" something in men's bodies. it would not even be an issue, and that's the truth.
abq e streeter
(7,658 posts)noiretextatique
(27,275 posts)Last edited Wed Apr 24, 2013, 03:23 PM - Edit history (1)
are as willing to control women as some men. and even those stupid women wouldn't have a problem with men controlling their own bodies.
Leslie Valley
(310 posts)They would be women.
leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)agracie
(950 posts)leeroysphitz
(10,462 posts)madinmaryland
(64,920 posts)MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Women would be men. And everything would be the same as it is now.
Always found this to be a dumb argument.
Crowman1979
(3,844 posts)There is nothing more painful than something solid emerging from your urinary tract. We all know that kidney stones are painful, now imagine something 10-20 times that size coming out. GGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIDDDDDD!!!!!