Reply #106: Not inconsistent -- the attack on RTLers is question-begging

[Jim Lane]

Those of us on the pro-choice side believe that reproductive rights are civil rights and that each woman is entitled to make the choice for herself, without governmental coercion. If, somehow, abortion laws could be put to a special plebiscite in which only women (or only fertile women) could vote, and the result were a prohibition on abortion, it would still be wrong. The wrong is in the restriction of individual rights, not in specifically the male restriction of female rights.

The other side, however, doesn't accept that framing of the issue. Whether an abortion is a purely personal choice that affects no one except the woman making the decision is precisely where the disagreement is.

We see terminating a pregnancy as a civil right, one not properly subject to majoritarian infringement. Other people, however, would see such a "right" in owning an AK-47, or even in choosing not to serve a black customer at a private restaurant. Deciding which rights merit this kind of consideration is, inevitably, a political decision. That means the decision is open to participation by men, infertile women, people who don't own restaurants, etc. My interpretation of Kerry4kerry's posts is that he was, quite properly, acknowledging this fact. He was also recognizing that people who disagree with him have a right to express their opinion. They even have the right to seek to influence public policy in ways that Kerry4kerry and I oppose.

There's also a practical point here. I suspect that this "men should STFU about abortion" is offputting to many men and makes it somewhat harder to win them over to the pro-choice side.