Jump to content
IGNORED

Men Should Veto Women's Abortions,Says Fox News Psychiatrist


Toothfairy

Recommended Posts

Fox's Keith Ablow thinks getting an abortion should be a two-person decision.

“I think men should be able to veto women’s abortions if they’re willing to care for the child after it’s born,†the psychiatrist said on Tuesday’s episode of "Outnumbered."

None of the show’s four female panelists challenged the statement, though they did swiftly bring the conversation back to the topic at hand: actress Sofia Vergara’s ongoing legal battle with ex Nick Loeb over frozen embryos the couple had created while still together. Vergara has said she wants the embryos to remain frozen, but Loeb wants the right to bring them to term without her consent should he choose to.

Ablow’s musings on abortion veto rights weren’t really relevant to this conversation, since Vergara and Loeb’s embryos are frozen rather than inside the body of a pregnant woman.

However, Ablow had plenty of thoughts on Vergara and Loeb, too.

“If he wants to bring these embryos to term, good for him," he said. "If he wants to parent, if he wants to have them adopted, good for him."

In a 2011 opinion piece, Ablow said that if a man gets a woman pregnant, he should be able to stop her from getting an abortion. Additionally, he wrote that the pregnant woman should be legally penalized for “psychological suffering and wrongful death†if she has one anyway.

“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?†he asks in the piece, as if unaware of which person’s body a fetus resides inside for nine months.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/7216150

I can't believe this guy is a psychiatrist. Maybe he should see his own shrink.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

“I think men should be able to veto women’s abortions if they’re willing to care for the child after it’s born,” the psychiatrist said on Tuesday’s episode of "Outnumbered."

I think men should be able to veto women's abortions if they're able to implant the embryo in their own bodies for the duration of the pregnancy. Otherwise, STFU.

“If he wants to bring these embryos to term, good for him," he said. "If he wants to parent, if he wants to have them adopted, good for him."

Except that these two signed contracts when they created the embryos, stating that they both had to agree before either using the embryos or destroying them. So fuck Nick Loeb. He's just an asshole who wants to exert power over a famous woman, and sue her for child support.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Men should veto women's abortions," male psychiatrist says.

"I don't know why no women will talk to me or consider sleeping with me," same psychiatrist continues.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I typed out a whole comment on the Paraguay thread on this.

As for the embryo issue:

- it's not the same as requiring father's consent for an abortion, for the simple reason that the embryos are not currently residing in anyone's body. It's the whole control-over-body thing that's the real issue with abortion. For example, if there was an actual already-born person who could only survive if they were attached to you, or received a bone marrow or organ transplant from you since you are a 1 in a million match, you would have the legal right to say no. Yes, their life is valuable, and most retrieval procedures are relatively safe, but the law can't take control of your body that way.

- in terms of the frozen embryos, that's why they had an agreement in the first place! To make sure that no child would be created from the embryos unless they both wanted it.

He's 39. He has the ability to make babies, should he wish to do so, without using these embryos. If anything, she would have a harder time. Having children with another person is a big commitment - bigger than marriage, IMHO, because it truly forms a permanent connection. There's a difference between planning to raise a child in the context of a committed relationship between two loving parents, and deliberately bringing a child into the world knowing that the parents have split and do not see eye to eye.

Finally - who cares that Ablow is a psychiatrist. Another good example of the False Appeal to Authority logical fallacy, because this is not a psychiatric issue. That's like me saying, "As a Degreed Law Professional[tm][/tm], this is how I change a light bulb."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men can't opt of parenting either if a women decides to carry a baby to term. It's a complicated issue but ultimately women retain control over their bodies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This dude wrote some really good murder novels that I was super into when I was like 18.

/that's all I have to add to this discussion

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think men should be able to veto women's abortions if they're able to implant the embryo in their own bodies for the duration of the pregnancy. Otherwise, STFU.

Except that these two signed contracts when they created the embryos, stating that they both had to agree before either using the embryos or destroying them. So fuck Nick Loeb. He's just an asshole who wants to exert power over a famous woman, and sue her for child support.

Loeb is independently wealthy. I believe this is ALL about control.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think men should be able to veto women's abortions if they're able to implant the embryo in their own bodies for the duration of the pregnancy. Otherwise, STFU.

That's what I think. If and when medical science finds a way to safely remove the embryo from the woman's body and transplant it into the man's body, and he carries that baby for 9 months, goes through childbirth, takes paternity leave from his job, deals with the 24/7 demands of infancy --- then he might have the right to a say in the matter. Until then, STFU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

what the fresh heck?

Dude - you willing to carrying that baby in your body and go through pain of childbirth?

Didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Men can't opt of parenting either if a women decides to carry a baby to term. It's a complicated issue but ultimately women retain control over their bodies.

Are you trying to say can't opt out of parenting? Because, yeah, they can. They can sign some papers and say they want nothing to do with said child. They can terminate their rights to the child if they desire. Men opt out of parenting all the time. Plenty just disappear.

Back to OP, Ablow is a total moron and his opinion means nothing. He's not a doctor that deals with women and their bodies. Does he have any biological female body parts that can carry a child? No? Then his opinion is invalid to this issue. Not to mention the discussion in question had nothing to do with abortion, but a heated legal battle over frozen embryos between famous people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God yes, thank you. Men can have a say the hot minute the woman doesn't have to carry to term for 9 months.

Regarding Loeb, the thing that gets me is that he (narcissistic, control freak with no comprehension of reproduction, apparently) is saying that Vergara can sign away her rights and have nothing to do with the child. This has been splashed all over the news now. There's no privacy for any child that would come out of these embryos and there's no way they wouldn't know Vergara is the other half of the equation. And what's worse is they'd have to see their egg donor all over national TV and listen to Loeb's psychotic mewling about how it all didn't work out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man cannot just say I want to terminate my rights unless the mother wants him too. At the very least , he will still be financially responsible for that child. Once the baby is conceived , a man really has little say. He could be uninvolved but he still has a child in the world and is still responsible for it. It's the only way it can be, of course a woman should have control of her body. It's just a silly proposal, if they can't choose an abortion then why should they get a veto?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know who else has opted out of parenting? Jill and David Rodrigues.

And because of that, there is an ever increasing number of innocent children getting hurt. Children going hungry. Children being denied an education.

I opted out of parenting and got an abortion. My baby daddy opted out of parenting too.

You know how many children got hurt there? 0.

When people start taking the welfare of living, breathing, feeling children seriously, then AND ONLY THEN can you talk to me about my unsuffering fetus.

But for as long as you allow children to suffer with parents who don't care for them, you have nothing to say to those people who made a choice to do a hard thing just so that one less unwanted child would be in this world.

Remove the beam from your eye pls, Faux News.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A man cannot just say I want to terminate my rights unless the mother wants him too. At the very least , he will still be financially responsible for that child. Once the baby is conceived , a man really has little say. He could be uninvolved but he still has a child in the world and is still responsible for it. It's the only way it can be, of course a woman should have control of her body. It's just a silly proposal, if they can't choose an abortion then why should they get a veto?

Generally a man can't legally opt out of parenthood, even if the mother wants him to, if there is any sort of state aid involved. Of course, if no aid is involved, or no father is named, the parties can agree for him not to participate. Or he can fly under the radar, and evade responsibility, as is often the case. Sometimes mothers do the same.

But generally, to actually formally terminate or relinquish, parental rights ( at least in my state) there is a whole lot of paperwork, and , I believe, it's usually reserved for cases where either the state steps in and terminates, or a step- parent adopts ( only with the agreement of the absent biological parent).

As far as abortion and men, I understand it isn't practical to have the father have a right to the child -- due to the increased burden and risk to the woman - which he can't possibly take on.

But I think it's pretty callous to completely discount the man's opinions and feelings and brush it off as if it has no impact on him. We don''t say to women who have are grieving a miscarriage that it's no big deal and it was just a clump of cells. How is the impact not similar for men who may have wanted the child?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you trying to say can't opt out of parenting? Because, yeah, they can. They can sign some papers and say they want nothing to do with said child. They can terminate their rights to the child if they desire. Men opt out of parenting all the time. Plenty just disappear.

Nope. No man can just sign a paper and get out of support. He's stuck being a parent in some capacity unless a judge approves of an adoption or a TPR.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as abortion and men, I understand it isn't practical to have the father have a right to the child -- due to the increased burden and risk to the woman - which he can't possibly take on.

But I think it's pretty callous to completely discount the man's opinions and feelings and brush it off as if it has no impact on him. We don''t say to women who have are grieving a miscarriage that it's no big deal and it was just a clump of cells. How is the impact not similar for men who may have wanted the child?

I've said this before, and was called anti-choice. Problem is there isn't any way there can be a middle ground. But it's important to let me who wanted the aborted babies grieve. I can even understand the men who try to get their girlfriends or wives to not abort because, to the men, it's still a loss of an unborn baby they want, and nobody would blame a woman for grieving over losing a baby she wanted. It's similar in both cases where there's no choice about the loss.

But there's still no middle ground. It's a complicated issue, and I don't see how there ever can be a middle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Keith Ablow wrote a book 25 years ago or so called Medical School: Getting In, Staying In, Staying Human. I once had a copy of said book. Once I learned that "Dr Ablow" had indeed not managed to stay human as attested by his many comments on Faux News, that copy went into the garbage where it belonged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope. No man can just sign a paper and get out of support. He's stuck being a parent in some capacity unless a judge approves of an adoption or a TPR.

Where I'm from they can. There's a choice, if they are named & don't (want to) give up their rights then they are subject to child support, etc. But it's actually a fairly simple process here for a man to give up his rights.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before, and was called anti-choice. Problem is there isn't any way there can be a middle ground. But it's important to let me who wanted the aborted babies grieve. I can even understand the men who try to get their girlfriends or wives to not abort because, to the men, it's still a loss of an unborn baby they want, and nobody would blame a woman for grieving over losing a baby she wanted. It's similar in both cases where there's no choice about the loss.

But there's still no middle ground. It's a complicated issue, and I don't see how there ever can be a middle.

I see a distinction between giving men the legal tools to FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will (which I absolutely oppose) and acknowledging a man's feelings of loss.

There are lots of issues where a feeling of loss is common and acknowledged as legitimate, but it still can't prevent something from happening legally. Divorce is a prime example - I have clients who are totally devastated by the loss of the marriage, but the law here is pretty clear that you cannot force someone to stay married. Parent-child relationship are another: It's painful as hell if a parent or child rejects a relationship with the other, but in many cases it's not something that can be legally forced.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Where I'm from they can. There's a choice, if they are named & don't (want to) give up their rights then they are subject to child support, etc. But it's actually a fairly simple process here for a man to give up his rights.

Legally, how does that work? Any links to the laws and process?

Laws vary from place to place, so it's possible that the laws in your area on this are very different.

By "signing a paper", I assume you mean that the other parent needs to consent as well?

What happens if the parent is on social assistance? I know that here (Ontario, Canada), social assistance monitors the family courts, identifies all cases where someone is on assistance, and needs to sign off on any agreements.

Is there any requirement to show that terminating rights is in the best interests of the child?

To clarify: In my jurisdiction, the only way that someone can 100% give up all parental rights and support obligations is if the child is adopted. Otherwise, both access and support are seen as rights of the child. Someone may refuse to visit the child and you can't really force a relationship, but that doesn't mean that the child should also be deprived of the right to support. Informally, you do have situations where a mother may simply never name the father of the child, or where a custodial parent simply never pursues support from an absent parent because they don't want to open a can of worms, but that's a bit different because a future support claim is still possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "Men's Rights" people want something like that where men can choose to terminate their rights and not be responsible for contributing anything for the child. That idea of a "financial abortion" is controversial and I hadn't heard before that it is already an option some places.

I do sympathize with men in the process. The idea of being forced to be a parent terrifies me, and while women at least have the option of abortion early on and then adoption if they're willing to go through with the pregnancy, men are out of luck if they don't want to be a parent and the woman does. Similarly, I do think it would be really awful for the man if he badly wants the child but the woman has an abortion.

It sucks, but I really don't see any way to give men any legal rights when it comes to abortion when it is the woman whose body it affects. The idea that a man could force a woman to either go through with pregnancy or to have an abortion is terrifying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A lot of "Men's Rights" people want something like that where men can choose to terminate their rights and not be responsible for contributing anything for the child. That idea of a "financial abortion" is controversial and I hadn't heard before that it is already an option some places.

I do sympathize with men in the process. The idea of being forced to be a parent terrifies me, and while women at least have the option of abortion early on and then adoption if they're willing to go through with the pregnancy, men are out of luck if they don't want to be a parent and the woman does. Similarly, I do think it would be really awful for the man if he badly wants the child but the woman has an abortion.

It sucks, but I really don't see any way to give men any legal rights when it comes to abortion when it is the woman whose body it affects. The idea that a man could force a woman to either go through with pregnancy or to have an abortion is terrifying.

I think the best way to avoid this kind of issue is individually-- by discussing what you will do in the case of an unplanned pregnancy. It's not 100% guaranteed, of course, because facing the reality of an unplanned pregnancy is different than facing the concept of one (plus, sometimes people are just plain dishonest).

But ideally, that would give both parties the option of solving things before it's an issue. He doesn't think he could stomach an abortion, but she would want to get one? He can decide the risk isn't worth it and break up. She would want to continue the pregnancy, but he says he wouldn't want to be involved in a child's life? She can decide it's better to be with someone whose plans in that regard are more compatible with hers.

As a side note, with my strong desire for children one day, I will admit that if I were a man, a potential partner having an abortion would gut me. I have total respect for the grief men face in those situations. It's probably very much like the grief fathers face when a woman miscarries a child they both wanted. (Which, just to clarify, doesn't mean I think that men should have any control over a woman's access to abortion.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've said this before, and was called anti-choice. Problem is there isn't any way there can be a middle ground. But it's important to let me who wanted the aborted babies grieve. I can even understand the men who try to get their girlfriends or wives to not abort because, to the men, it's still a loss of an unborn baby they want, and nobody would blame a woman for grieving over losing a baby she wanted. It's similar in both cases where there's no choice about the loss.

But there's still no middle ground. It's a complicated issue, and I don't see how there ever can be a middle.

I agree with you and I'm strongly pro-choice. Watching my brother go through an experience in which he became a parent without his consent and after sleeping with a woman who told him she was on birth control* did give me more sympathy for men in the process.

I do think one of the reasons pro-choice people can often approach the whole "men can grieve abortions too" idea with skepticism, is because in many of the higher profile cases that one comes across, the man's grief often appears to be a thinly veiled platform for his political beliefs, rather than genuine emotion. But I don't doubt that there are men who have truly experienced feelings of loss and grief, and I feel for them and agree with you that they should be able to express those feelings.

*Just to clarify, my brother did step up and is a great parent, and things have actually worked out quite well, all considered. And yeah, I know, he was a dumbass for not using a condom.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently had a heated argument over this with a male friend. He's going through a nasty divorce, his wife is keeping their toddler daughter away from him, & he's bitter & angry. He also has made new friends who are steering him into MRA territory. He sent me a couple of links & asked me what I thought about it all. He was not pleased with my answer, & doesn't talk to me much anymore.

Makes me sad, cause he really was a decent guy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.