you're reading...
Abortion, Ethics, Feminism, Gender Roles

Should men be able to speak about Abortion?

There is a popular ‘defeater’ that is commonly brought up by pro-abortion/choice women whenever men present their views in support of human life and against the intentional killing of the most vulnerable members of the human community through abortion. It pretty much amounts to little more than, ‘you have no right to speak about abortion because…’ 1. You have a penis 2. You don’t have a womb 3. You are a man.

Its happened a lot lately and I’ve heard other men tell me how a number of people have attempted to silence them based on nothing but their gender.

Some women essentially want to remove men from the discussion, and it doesn’t matter that women make the exact same points you make, because you have a penis and your views don’t matter, it’s the new sexism. Can you imagine the commotion if men told women that they weren’t allowed to air their views on domestic violence because they don’t have balls (testicles)? I can, we’d never here the end of it, and rightly so because valid moral arguments don’t have genders, people do.

So why should men be able to voice their concerns on abortion?womens reporights

Because ignoring our voice is a form of sexism. You won’t find me arguing here that women are not the most common victims of sexism, they are, and it doesn’t look like changing any-time soon unfortunately (e.g. page three, men watching copious hours of on-line porn & other common examples of the objectification of women) . But because women are the most common victims of sexism does not mean that it’s okay to discriminate against and silence a persons moral views because they are a man, that is hypocrisy. You have a penis, therefore, your argument is invalid is not a sound argument, it is sexist prejudice though. It’s simply terrible logic, should only men be able to condemn sex trafficking because it is primarily men who procure the ‘services’ of kidnapped sex slaves? Sure, it is women who are primarily harmed by sex trafficking, but as I point out below, half the victims of abortion are males.

I find the attempt to remove men from the discussion so ironic because Pro-abortion/choice feminists are so quick to criticise sexism against them but much slower to see their own, something about a log in one’s eye comes to mind.

Because tens of thousands of boys are killed by abortion each year in the UK. Although there has been the recent discovery of illegal gender-selective abortions to be happening in the UK, of the nearly 200,000 abortions that take place every year, half end the lives of little boys and future men. Therefore, to claim that abortion doesn’t involve or affect men is simply nonsense, of course it does. It is true that I might not be able to have an abortion but I also can’t be a victim of female genital mutilation, but I don’t know of any women campaigning against men having a view against that practice.

Because poor excuses for men are part of the problem. I was listening to a discussion on BBC Radio 2 this afternoon, its was so sad. A women rang up who wanted to have a child and said that she had no choice but to have an abortion because her partner didn’t want to be a father. This women’s ‘reproductive choice’ was to give birth to her child, but, because of an unsupportive excuse for a man she procured an abortion and was still visibly psychologically distressed two years later. The only people who benefited from her decision were BPAS or another abortion provider. Since the vast majority of human beings owe their existence to sexual intercourse between a man and woman, men are already involved, in fact… they couldn’t be much more involved.  One study published in the Medical Science Monitor found that 37% of Russian women and 64% of American women felt ‘pressured’ into having an abortion and it doesn’t take much common sense to realise who may be doing most of the pressuring (although family and friends are other guilty parties)!

So please don’t tell me men have no right to be part of the discussion because not only are men part of the problem but part of the solution! Men need to be part of the discussion because it is so often unsupportive lousy men who put pressure on women to have abortions when all they want is to be a mum. Of course not all men are bad, many are good men who want nothing more than to be good fathers.

Because abortion is wrong whoever says it. Abortion is wrong because it intentionally and without proper moral justification takes the life of a human being, and it would be wrong whether it was a man or woman who said so. See here for a clear description of the prolife view.

I can think of numerous other reasons why men ought to be able to air their views on abortion but put quite simply and most obviously, any attempts to silence men are simply forms of modern sexism.

Please share your valuable thoughts as usual.


About @Nicodemus

I'm a Holmesian Christian, a former atheist, university lecturer and a husband of one wife.


11 thoughts on “Should men be able to speak about Abortion?

  1. My late second wife was a black South African. A friend of hers describes lying silently on the floor in her own house, whilst two armed burglars debated whether to kill her. She described this experience as “chilling”. Many a father (myself included) has similarly heard a debate between the pregnant mother of his unborn child and a health professional, from which he was excluded, as to whether to kill his son or daughter. Of course men should have a say. It’s so obvious that I am surprised you even bother to let those rude people who want to rattle you in this way, succeed in rattling you enough for you even to blog about this comparative non-issue.

    Liked by 1 person

    Posted by John Allman | December 11, 2014, 5:53 pm
  2. “woman’s reproductive rights” unless women can have asexual reproduction then every men has the right to protect his offspring, it is not a woman’s choice, it is not doctors choice no one has the right to kill another human being


    Posted by igor | December 13, 2014, 2:59 pm
  3. Reblogged this on Apologetics UK.


    Posted by TysonB | December 26, 2014, 4:49 pm
  4. Interestingly argued case, which i tend to agree with…. until “Because abortion is wrong whoever says it” which is more a question of entering the discussion rather than arguing the ‘right’ to enter the discussion. I could share with others if the sentence had been “Because whether abortion is right or wrong is still true whoever says it”. But good post anyway. Thanks


    Posted by Minimalist Christian | January 3, 2015, 6:17 pm
    • Thanks for stopping by and reading.

      However, I’m not sure I understand your distinction, if I had written what you have suggested I would be implying that abortion may not be wrong, which would be false. The key point is that truth is truth whether its from the mouth of Gandhi or Beelzebub. I do appreciate your point ,however, that it doesn’t necessarily flow with the intention of the piece which you correctly to point out is about the right to enter the discussion and not to offer an argument for or against it as a practice.

      Do you not think abortion is morally wrong?


      Posted by @failedatheist | January 3, 2015, 6:41 pm
      • The distinction is simply that I felt the rest of the post could be accepted as sound argument by people with any view about whether abortion is morally right or wrong, and that it made a good case for everyone being able to enter the discussion.

        Do I think abortion is morally right or wrong myself? I’m not sure. I tend to view things in the context of a loving God and his instruction and purpose. So if an abortion is done in circumstances where it is an act of love, then would God consider this to be immoral? I’m not sure the word moral occurs in the Bible? I thing motive is more important than act. Someone can be very virtuous in the worlds eyes but sinful in God’s…



        Posted by Minimalist Christian | January 3, 2015, 7:29 pm
    • How persnickety! However, not knowing just how many more millions might follow Failed Atheist’s blog, if only Minimalist Christian were to deign to share a post on it with people with whom he was on sharing terms, might I suggest, “Because whether something is right or wrong does not depend upon who says so.” (Unless, for example, what is said is, “Man the lifeboats! Abandon ship!”, I suppose.)

      Funnily enough, it is usually pro-abortion women who object to men expressing opinions about abortion. I never have heard of any of them object to men expressing pro-abortion opinions. It appears that men are allowed to express one opinion about abortion, but not another.


      Posted by John Allman | January 3, 2015, 7:54 pm
    • Yes you’re right the term ‘moral’ doesn’t appear anywhere in the Bible, but, neither do a number of words. For instance the Bible doesn’t say drink driving (an anachronism I know) or child abuse are explicitly wrong anywhere but we wouldn’t be justified in concluding they were morally permissible.

      You said “So if an abortion is done in circumstances where it is an act of love, then would God consider this to be immoral?” Would you accept this argument to justify infanticide? If not you are simply begging the question about the nature of unborn humans e.g. that they unequal and that it is permissible to kill them for reasons it wouldn’t be okay to kill born humans for. Theologically, do you think they any less possess the image of God, would it have been permissible to kill Jesus the embryo or fetus as an act of love?

      I completely agree with you that someone can be virtuous in the world’s eyes but sinful in Gods, heck most of us (mistakenly) think God ought to lay out the red carpet for us we’re so good. But tearing apart a fellow member of the human community created in the image of God in the womb is never a virtuous act or intention.


      Posted by @failedatheist | January 6, 2015, 2:47 pm
      • I think that the question of whether / when an embryo becomes a person is unknown, and so yes, I think there is a difference between unborn and born humans – even if it is only of perception. I don’t know the answer, and so if someone decides that the balance of circumstances lead them out of love to ‘terminate’ then I will not judge them to be immoral / sinful. (It is not my job anyway – none of us are supposed to judge others).

        It seems it was permissible for God to kill Jesus as an act of love….


        Posted by Minimalist Christian | January 6, 2015, 6:39 pm
  5. But I haven’t mentioned the concept of personhood yet, what do you even understand by personhood? Are you thinking of a functioning definition like Peter Singer?

    As a fellow Christian I appealed to the rich tradition of all human beings having been made in God’s image and that to murder another is always a prima facie moral wrong in scripture. Surely that is what matters? Every Embryology textbook I’ve ever read also confirms that from conception-fertilization we have a new human being in existence, the disagreement is whether all human beings are persons but that is a separate question.

    ‘Termination’ is simply a modern euphemism to describe the tearing part of a small human being (it’s the modern equivalent of child sacrifice which scripture unanimously condemns), would you judge someone who killed heir newborn out of love?

    Did you seriously just compare Jesus willing sacrifice for our salvation to an abortion? The number of reasons that this is not analogous in the slightest should be obvious.


    Posted by @failedatheist | January 7, 2015, 12:45 pm
    • This “personhood” neologism is, basically a rehash of the non-scientific doctrine of “ensoulment” found in Islam and all sorts of paganism, ancient and modern, but alien equally to Judaism and Christianity and a modern, narrowly scientific worldview, rightly regarded as mere hand-waving or metaphysical mumbo-jumbo.

      The abortion apologists work backwards from the desired conclusion (abortion is a moral good, a “compassionate” deed), to invent a vaguely-expressed pseudo-premiss. No rigour is present. I debunked this red herring in “The Mumbo-Jumbo of Choice”.

      Ensoulment’s comeback and rebranding as “enpersonment”, is a made-up superstition peddled only by abortion apologists, not by people with any sort of joined-up worldview. There’s no substance to it. It’s just making the “right” noises, if the purpose is to deceive others into seeing abortion as something virtuous, which only an evil person would oppose.

      One Abort 67 picture ought to be enough to shock anybody with half a brain out of belief in the doctrine of ensoulment. Science and human knowledge have advanced since the middle ages. Abortion is a retro evil, not a “progessive” one. A return to the dark ages, the result of onfuscation rather than enlightenment.


      Posted by John Allman | January 7, 2015, 2:53 pm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: