Fox News Host Advocates Men's "Veto Power" Over Women Seeking Abortions

[marmar]

Fox News Host Advocates Men's "Veto Power" Over Women Seeking Abortions


It takes two to make a baby (well, unless you purchase your own goods) so why shouldn't it take two to decide on an abortion? Or so claims Dr. Keith Ablow a (surprise!) Fox News Medical Team psychiatrist.

I believe that in those cases in which a man can make a credible claim that he is the father of a developing child in utero, in which he could be a proper custodian of that child, and in which he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery, that the pregnant woman involved should not have the option to abort and should be civilly liable, and possibly criminally liable, for psychological suffering and wrongful death should she proceed to do so.

I have limited the scope of my argument intentionally, in order to focus on what I consider to be a question that puts fairness front and center: If a man has participated in creating a new life and is fully willing to parent his child (independently, if necessary), why should he not have any control over whether that life is ended?

We are ignoring the quiet message that current abortion policy conveys to every American male: You have no voice in, and, therefore, no responsibility for, the pregnancies which you help to create. Your descendants are disposable, at the whim of the women you choose to be intimate with.

Ironically, his closing point is that since women have full control over sexual activity as well as their contraceptive use, there's no reason she should ever be pregnant unless she actually wanted to be. Which, wouldn't that inherently negate his whole need for a veto, since every pregnancy based on his assertion must be wanted in the first place?


By Robin Marty | Sourced from RH Reality Check
Posted at July 25, 2011, 5:17 am


http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/639319/fox_news_host_advocates_men%27s_%22veto_power%22_over_women_seeking_abortions/

[fascisthunter]

1. Fox News = the US Nazi Channel

[Jim__]

2. "... he is willing to take full custody of that child upon its delivery"

We might want to add the requirement that he is willing and able to continue carrying the child to delivery.

[GreenPartyVoter]

17. Thank you!

[NYC Liberal]

19. Anti-choicers always seem to forget those 9 months of

pregnancy when they tell women, "Just put your baby up for adoption!"

[KamaAina]

23. As opposed to the 45 seconds or so that men put in

or at least the kind of men who watch Faux. :eyes:

[Ilsa]

24. Absolutely. Just hand it over right away! nt

[spanone]

3. fuck faux and put murdoch in jail...NOW

[Azathoth]

4. It's a morally valid argument. It's also utterly impossible from a practical standpoint n/t

[LeftinOH]

5. Dear fellow men: If you're sticking it into a woman with whom you:

a)are not using a condom; and b) have not discussed how to handle the possible unplanned pregnancy that may result, then.. it's not your call.

[The Doctor.]

13. Agreed.

If she wants to terminate the pregnancy, it's entirely up to her.

That always brings me to this point though; If a woman has the freedom to avoid all the responsibility of becoming a parent by choosing not to become one, why should a man not have that choice as well?

No woman should be forced to terminate or complete a pregnancy. But in a day and age when any woman can have sex at will and never have to become a parent, how can it be fair that a man, engaging in exactly the same activity as the woman, can be forced into the obligations of parenthood financially or otherwise?

I've given this a good deal of thought, and I really believe that there would be fewer deadbeat dads if women, with the choice of carrying to term or not, had no guarantee of binding a man to take financial responsibility. It seems reasonable that fewer women would have a child if the man had the legal right to 'opt out' of the responsibility entirely. Also, it would reduce the number of people forced into adversarial relationships by bringing a child into an arguably hostile environment.

Some people actually think this through in a balanced fashion and can at least agree that there is indeed an imbalance under current circumstances. The question then becomes; how could such a right (to 'opt-out') be fairly implemented. As this would cause more people to take seriously the prospects of raising a child together rather than apart, I truly believe that this would be a better thing for women and for society in general. Getting rid of a guy who isn't right for fatherhood to begin with would certainly be good for women, as well would be women knowing that they had a willing partner before making a decision to have a child.

Then, of course, there are those who just yell and scream at me for even suggesting such a thing.

[Mrs. Ted Nancy]

31. Married women with kids have abortions also.

I get the impression that you are presuming that only unmarried women have abortions.

Women who "can have sex at will and never have to become a parent" are using some form of birth control. I think that it is fair to require the guys to do the same. This is what I told my son, "if a guy doesn't wear a condom, then he cannot opt out of the financial responsibility of raising a child." Seems like a reasonable requirement to me.

[The Doctor.]

32. ?

Ummm... where was I talking about married women?

That's a whole other ballgame.

As for what you told your son, why would it be unfair to say that if a woman doesn't use birth control (including a condom), then she cannot opt out of the responsibility either?

It wouldn't be fair to force that responsibility on her any more or less than forcing it on a man. I'm just not a big fan of double-standards that treat anyone unfairly. The ability to bind a man to that responsibility was from an archaic time when a woman could not reasonably avoid that responsibility either.

Times have changed. Transplanting an injustice from one gender to another is still unjust.

[w8liftinglady]

6. Hm.

There are many shades of rape out there.
Rape her,make her have the kid, then take it away.
A sadist's dream.

[blogslut]

7. The man does not risk his life bringing a child to term

However, every pregnancy is a risk to the life of the mother.

In other words, shut the fuck up Dr. Ablow.

[chrisa]

10. Or how about the fact that men don't own women's bodies,

and therefore can't control what they do with them.

I really wish fat turds like Limbaugh and this guy would stop claiming to be experts on abortion. They have no idea what they're talking about.

[LiberalFighter]

8. It appears this guy is a psychiatrist and not a obgyn doctor or even medical doctor.

[The Doctor.]

16. One of my biggest issues with psychiatrists

is their almost universal tendency to have a God complex.

I know enough about them to know that the vast majority are not qualified to practice even psychology, let alone medicine.

[LiberalFighter]

25. Are psychiatrists required to be tested psychological every few years?

[The Doctor.]

26. Nope. Not at all.

Sometimes psychotherapy is a requirement of the University (or state, such as in CA), but that's usually in the baccalaureate phase. That's not necessarily to make certain of competence and ethics, but rather for practical experience.

After 3-4 years of residency (which is where I believe most aspiring psychiatrists acquire their slab-side manner), the course credits necessary for other non-medical degrees such as anthropology or philosophy, and passing some fairly rigorous written and oral board tests, *Poof*, you're a psychiatrist... and so shall you stay until you do something really heinous.
Psychiatrists are expected to maintain ongoing education, but plenty get by without it. It's not required unless one is a forensic psychiatrist... and I'm not even sure if that's in every state.

Virtually ever other medical professional is required to complete ongoing education in their field... including psychiatric nurse practitioners.

Many venues do require ongoing education as a condition of hiring, but there are plenty of private practitioners who don't bother at all.

I've encountered, personally, psychiatrists that were still propounding decades old, archaic theories that had been completely revamped. Ongoing education keeps a practitioner humble. Most of these people think they've reached the peak of the mountain and know everything (thought they won't come right out and say it, it's pretty obvious).

[FLAprogressive]

29. Psychiatrists are as much of a medical doctor as a brain surgeon is.

Psychiatrists have MD's.....psychologists do not.

[maxrandb]

9. I've said it before, and I'll say it again

"If men were the ones that gave birth, not only would abortion be legal and available at 7/11 Stores,...it would be TAX DEDUCTABLE"

[sinkingfeeling]

11. I would support the transfer of the embryo from the woman to the man and then he can decide.

[The Doctor.]

12. LOL... now that's a solution!

In reality though... wouldn't the embryo donor have some say on whether he would be allowed to terminate the pregnancy?

Turnabout is truly fair play.

;)

[WinkyDink]

14. And if the woman dies in childbirth, the sire should be put to death. Equality!

[ladywnch]

15. I still think we (women) should invoke the "Lysistrata" solution.

Ladies, close your legs and refuse to open them again till we get these rules rewritten. You want a piece of this? well, then things are going to be different around here. You ain't getting none of this till we get irrevocable rights to govern our own bodies, manage our own monies, manage our own lives and choices.......WITHOUT MALE INTERFERENCE.

Otherwise, let em walk around with their dicks in their hands for the rest of their lives........and corner the market on novelty gloves......fur gloves, cashmere, etc. they're going to be VERY popular.

[mysuzuki2]

18. In an ideal world people who become pregnant together

discuss their options and come to a consensus as to a course of action and then support each other in carrying it out. Obviously that scenario does not always play out that way in our real world. In that case, in my opinion, the father is entitled to 49% of the vote. Veto power? I don't think so.

[loyalsister]

20. They have quite enough "veto power"

They can refuse to sign adoption papers. Forcing a woman into a parenthood that could be good or possibly very much not. Someone close to me had an abortion because she knew that if she had the baby she would not only be tied to an abusive man forever, but he may also have had custody rights.

[bemildred]

21. Only if she gets "veto power" over his use of his dick in exchange. nt

[Last_Stand]

22. More right-wing efforts to reduce women to property...

and incubators.

Fuck them.

[SoCalDem]

27. "Father's Rights" are fine, BUT

a happily married couple WOULD discuss "options" together to start with..

a "baby-daddy" is something else entirely,. Many of these young "bees" just go around "pollinating" everywhere they can, without any plan to actually help raise & pay for those baby-bees. They should have NO input, because they have no intention of being a father to that child or a contributing partner to its Mom.

Women in abusive marriages where constant childbearing is a facet of her entrapment, should have the sole opportunity to "choose" for themselves.

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

28. I'm surprise that Megyn Kelly chick didn't back him up

She thinks she speaks for all women.

[FLAprogressive]

While it is a decision that both should have a say in, ultimately it is the woman's choice.

[FLAprogressive]

30. While it is a decision that both should have a say in, ultimately it is the woman's choice.