Should men be allowed to have a "legal abortion"?

CoolGirl101

I think it should be legally a mutual decision, it is funny how if a underage man has sex with an overage woman, he is still blamed, yet when it comes to something like terminating life, women can manage all on their own!

Women's rights have gone way too far, and men need to have as much say as we do!

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really the point I was making. This inequity between the genders is often defended as being for the good of the children. The reality is that it has nothing to do with the good of the children, it's simply a choice made by a woman in her interests and or wishes - the good of the children may be a consideration, but often it is not. Legally, the good of the children doesn't even register outside of the most extreme of cases.

Thus claiming that it is for the good of the children is frankly a disingenuous argument.

Unless we set up some body to officiate on whether a woman aborting or putting a child up for adoption, is in the best interest of the child, parents decide and if it's a single parent family, the mother decides. Can't see that happening any time soon!

I don't think abortion or adoption are fair comparisons to paternal abdication. With abortion well, the child isn't born and with adoption, a couple or single person takes on all responsibilities willingly and the mother wants to give up the child.

With paternal abdication the child would still exist and he isn't really adopting the child.

metrovelvet

^ With one exception. The bio father can adbicate all rights and responsibilities if another man adopts his child.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Unless we set up some body to officiate on whether a woman aborting or putting a child up for adoption, is in the best interest of the child, parents decide and if it's a single parent family, the mother decides. Can't see that happening any time soon!

Why not? Personally I think that there are plenty of cases where it is not in the child's best interests to stay with the mother, for example. It may be better off in the custody of the father or with adoptive parents. There appears to be practically no protection for children from this, which is why I reject the argument that claims that it is done in their name.

The World is full of people who are not psychologically equipped to be parents - recently I heard of one who's reason for having a child was that she wanted someone who would love her. FFS!

I don't think abortion or adoption are fair comparisons to paternal abdication. With abortion well, the child isn't born and with adoption, a couple or single person takes on all responsibilities willingly and the mother wants to give up the child.

All I have suggested is exactly the same as your description of adoption - where one person (the mother) takes on all responsibilities willingly.

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ With one exception. The bio father can adbicate all rights and responsibilities if another man adopts his child.

You're confusing abdication with usurpation.

metrovelvet

TC,

I am not confusing anything. A bio dad can abdicate his paternal rights and obligations if another man adopts his child.

A mother can abdicate hers if she lets someone adopt her children too.

I think you are confused yourself.

The Corinthian

Not at all confused.

Abdication is a voluntary action - one chooses it. If involuntary then it is always qualified by being referred to as "forced". Usurpation is always forced.

Unless a father a guardian, then any adoption of by another man does not require his consent - it is involuntary by nature. He may be happy that it has happened or not; either way it's still involuntary and thus a usurpation.

I suggest you look up the terms in a dictionary for further clarification.

metrovelvet

The vast majority of them are guardians and the ones who never applied for it abdicated their rights anyhow, so no I dont need a dictionary and I dont need snide comments either.

Clearly, you dont want to discuss things civilisedly or to garner some sort of understanding on these complex areas, but some sort of victory in an argument and to me that is not always that interesting.

The subject at hand is interesting and worthy of exploration and consideration of several perspectives but this can't happen if you are going to hang onto erroneously representing things as fact which are simply not true. It will only lead to confusion and ultimately a fictitious discussion.

The Corinthian

metrovelvet wrote: »

The vast majority of them are guardians and the ones who never applied for it abdicated their rights anyhow, so no I dont need a dictionary and I dont need snide comments either.

Clearly, you dont want to discuss things civilisedly or to garner some sort of understanding on these complex areas, but some sort of victory in an argument and to me that is not always that interesting.

I don't think you're in a position to accuse someone of being 'confused' and then get upset about 'snide comments' TBH.

The subject at hand is interesting and worthy of exploration and consideration of several perspectives but this can't happen if you are going to hang onto erroneously representing things as fact which are simply not true. It will only lead to confusion and ultimately a fictitious discussion.

Without guardianship, it is not abdication, but usurpation.

If you are discussing men who do not want to be fathers (hint: the thread topic) then of course they will naturally not seek guardianship (why would they?) and as I already said "he may be happy that it has happened or not; either way it's still involuntary".

So if there is a need "to hang onto erroneously representing things as fact which are simply not true", I would suggest it is fulled by a need to put culpability on men, no matter what.

Otis Driftwood

Folks can we keep to the topic at hand without the sniping please.

Cheers,
OD.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Why not? Personally I think that there are plenty of cases where it is not in the child's best interests to stay with the mother, for example. It may be better off in the custody of the father or with adoptive parents. There appears to be practically no protection for children from this, which is why I reject the argument that claims that it is done in their name.

The World is full of people who are not psychologically equipped to be parents - recently I heard of one who's reason for having a child was that she wanted someone who would love her. FFS!

All I have suggested is exactly the same as your description of adoption - where one person (the mother) takes on all responsibilities willingly.

You're confusing abdication with usurpation.

I'd be all for a body that would vet parents, preferably before sex!
Considering the amount of checks on adoptive parents I'd be all for it. Do you think it could happen here or is it just some theoretical body?

I can tell of plenty of cases of parents wanting children for stupid reasons but most of it is anecdotal, like your story above.

The mother by default accepts responsibility willingly by choosing bot to abort or adopt. I wonder would a father abdicating result in a higher abortion rate?

Are there any countries that have a system like this?

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I'd be all for a body that would vet parents, preferably before sex!
Considering the amount of checks on adoptive parents I'd be all for it. Do you think it could happen here or is it just some theoretical body?

Personally, I believe that the presumption that the mother is best for the child is a rediculously outdated and sexist one.

To begin with the father, if he so wishes, may be not only the better parent but also financially better equipped to provide and give the child the best possibilities.

Secondly neither parent may be competent (or willing) at child care. Unfortunately there are cases where a child would frankly be better off adopted in a loving and stable environment than grow up in a broken one with a psychologically disturbed, criminal and/or even addicted parent.

Some form of check on such cases is probably long overdue.

The mother by default accepts responsibility willingly by choosing bot to abort or adopt. I wonder would a father abdicating result in a higher abortion rate?

Quite likely, but would you suggest denying men such a right so that women don't exercise theirs too often? Seriously, when do men stop having to pay for women's rights?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Personally, I believe that the presumption that the mother is best for the child is a rediculously outdated and sexist one.

To begin with the father, if he so wishes, may be not only the better parent but also financially better equipped to provide and give the child the best possibilities.

Secondly neither parent may be competent (or willing) at child care. Unfortunately there are cases where a child would frankly be better off adopted in a loving and stable environment than grow up in a broken one with a psychologically disturbed, criminal and/or even addicted parent.

Complete agreement again, it's a shame that adoption is very rare these days, a shame. That's where I'd have issue with the women's right to choose, why not let the father be a parent and adopt the child?

I'd add parents to the parent line, I think societal attitudes are far harsher on negligent single parents than married parents.

Some form of check on such cases is probably long overdue.

The Corinthian wrote:

Quite likely, but would you suggest denying men such a right so that women don't exercise theirs too often? Seriously, when do men stop having to pay for women's rights?

I don't see it as paying for women's rights.

Personally I'd be against anything that increases the abortion rate, indeed the reason I'd want abortion legalised here it to try and reduce our rate.

Can you answer the couple of questions asked in the last post, I'd be interested in your opinion and if there are practical examples.

flowerchild

metrovelvet wrote: »

^ That is a terrible story flowerchild.

Without knowing the ins and outs of it and just getting superficial knowlege here, yes children learn very young to blame themselves for these things.

However, I suspect most single mothers are aware and sensitive to this, and take strides to counteract the child blaming themselves with extra investments into ego development and self esteem building, with hope and also with learning to forgive the parent who betrayed them. Whatever way people want to tinker with this intellectually about rights and philosophies, the child FEELS the abandonment regardless.

It would be nice if you could say more because I find it hard to believe that this suicide rests entirely on the father's rejection, although you do see it commonly in addictions- a kind of chronic suicide- where as teenagers and adults try to drown and suffocate the big holes in their hearts.

I don't think that suicides are based on one factor alone. I was saying that the father believed it was his fault and then suicided himself. My argument is not that male abortion is wrong, although I argued fiercely with my friend about his behaviour. My argument is that the male risks dreadful feelings of failure and consequence depending on how the child copes.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Touching, but I'm not sure what it has to do with the topic at hand. Parental rejection will take place regardless of whether there is 'male abortion' or whatever you want to call it or not. It's simply that we live in a society where parental rejection by one parent is vilified and the other we are told we should have sympathy for.

I knew a girl in college who was adopted and sought out her birth mother. She wrote to her and in the reply she was politely but sternly told not to contact her again. She suffered from depression following this.

True story also, but equally irrelevant to the topic.

Men don't really have a choice but to accept this and have been conditioned to accept it without question - not exactly the same thing as actually accepting it.

After all, think about it; you may accept that it is a woman's right to choose to abort or not. You may accept that it is a woman's right to put the child up for adoption or not. You may accept that it is a woman's right to keep and raise a child or not. But does it make sense that you should also pay for that her right to choose?

You can't make someone pay. If they don't want to, then they won't. You can't make someone pay attention to their children, sometimes even though they live in the same house. Should someone be able to opt out of their parental responsibilities, even financial ones? Yes, in my view.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

That's where I'd have issue with the women's right to choose, why not let the father be a parent and adopt the child?

You're actually suggesting 'male abortion' but with the genders reversed, and unfortunately this cannot be done in the present legal framework.

Single men (possibly single women either) cannot adopt under law, so this could only work in the scenario of the father being in a relationship with someone else. Even then I don't know if a biological parent can actually 'adopt' their own child in Ireland. The father could get guardianship and custody however, but then the mother would be legally obliged to pay maintenance. She would have to 'trust' him not to come looking for it and he would have to 'trust' her not to change her mind.

So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a woman who does not want to be a mother will seek an option that will avoid such 'complications'.

I don't see it as paying for women's rights.

I disagree. Presently, in the event of an unplanned (or even planned) pregnancy a single woman has three options of choice; abortion, adoption and keeping the child. Not only does a man, in that situation, have absolutely no options of choice, but if she picks the last he is legally obliged to pay towards the consequences of it. That is paying for, or at least towards, the choice of another.

When one is obliged to pay for the consequences of another's rights (that you do not have) then you are ultimately paying for their rights.

Personally I'd be against anything that increases the abortion rate, indeed the reason I'd want abortion legalized here it to try and reduce our rate.

I don't follow your logic; one would think that making availability easier (and potentially cheaper) would increase it - supply and demand.

Can you answer the couple of questions asked in the last post, I'd be interested in your opinion and if there are practical examples.

Could such a 'parental vetting' body exist in practice? Yes, but one would have to be careful about it's implementation. To begin with it might not be able to act unless a third party challenges the mother's automatic right to custody. Secondly, the scope of what constitutes a healthy, or unhealthy, environment would have to be properly defined.

Are there any countries that have a system like what? That allow 'male abortion'? No - historically I think the need for this is only now becoming apparent in the West to balance out the inequity in gender rights that has become apparent. That none exist does not mean that none will exist in the future; personally I think it is only a matter of time.

flowerchild wrote: »

My argument is that the male risks dreadful feelings of failure and consequence depending on how the child copes.

It is interesting to note how attitudes have changed in the 38 years since Roe v. Wade in the US. Abortion has gone from being morally vilified to something we are told we should show sympathy towards the woman and an entire counseling infrastructure exists to help women who have had abortions deal with guilt - none of which existed when it was illegal in the West.

metrovelvet

Are people here advocating this for married men too?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

You're actually suggesting 'male abortion' but with the genders reversed, and unfortunately this cannot be done in the present legal framework.

Single men (possibly single women either) cannot adopt under law, so this could only work in the scenario of the father being in a relationship with someone else. Even then I don't know if a biological parent can actually 'adopt' their own child in Ireland. The father could get guardianship and custody however, but then the mother would be legally obliged to pay maintenance. She would have to 'trust' him not to come looking for it and he would have to 'trust' her not to change her mind.

So it doesn't take a genius to figure out that a woman who does not want to be a mother will seek an option that will avoid such 'complications'.

I have read of cases were single men and women have adopted, gay couples, they can't legally adopt together but can as individuals.

I would have thought that if we brought in paternal abdication that it as a balance men would be able to take on the single parent role if a mother didn't want to keep the child, a kind of maternal abdication as such. A woman can't do that atm so in the interests of equality and all that!

The Corinthian wrote:

I disagree. Presently, in the event of an unplanned (or even planned) pregnancy a single woman has three options of choice; abortion, adoption and keeping the child. Not only does a man, in that situation, have absolutely no options of choice, but if she picks the last he is legally obliged to pay towards the consequences of it. That is paying for, or at least towards, the choice of another.

When one is obliged to pay for the consequences of another's rights (that you do not have) then you are ultimately paying for their rights.

The problem I have with that is that both the man and woman have a choice before sex and are aware of the consequences then, that is where the opt out exists for the man. Men can't have abortions physically so it seems odd to me to be looking for equality because biology discriminates.

The Corinthian wrote:

I don't follow your logic; one would think that making availability easier (and potentially cheaper) would increase it - supply and demand.

Not necessarily at all. England which we tend to look to on abortion has an increasing rate AFAIK, other countries like Sweden and Switzerland have managed to reduce it substantially, I'd hope we'd be following their models, not England.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I would have thought that if we brought in paternal abdication that it as a balance men would be able to take on the single parent role if a mother didn't want to keep the child, a kind of maternal abdication as such. A woman can't do that atm so in the interests of equality and all that!

I agree with you - I was simply commenting that this is not presently possible.

The problem I have with that is that both the man and woman have a choice before sex and are aware of the consequences then, that is where the opt out exists for the man. Men can't have abortions physically so it seems odd to me to be looking for equality because biology discriminates.

As I have already said, in my first post, this entire debate really has nothing to do with the pregnancy, or abortion, or even adoption, per say. The choice that I am speaking about is the unilateral choice to keep and raise a child. Even if abortion did not exist, this choice - or adoption - would still exist and being post natal has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

Not necessarily at all. England which we tend to look to on abortion has an increasing rate AFAIK, other countries like Sweden and Switzerland have managed to reduce it substantially, I'd hope we'd be following their models, not England.

What's the logic behind the reduction and what figures are you basing the Swedish and Swiss experiences on?

metrovelvet

Can the people who support this tell me if they support it for married men as well as single men?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree with you - I was simply commenting that this is not presently possible.

As I have already said, in my first post, this entire debate really has nothing to do with the pregnancy, or abortion, or even adoption, per say. The choice that I am speaking about is the unilateral choice to keep and raise a child. Even if abortion did not exist, this choice - or adoption - would still exist and being post natal has absolutely nothing to do with biology.

It has everything to do with abortion and even adoption. That's the choices that exist for women, otherwise they wouldn't have options, or am I missing something? What choice do they have without abortion - or adoption - ?

The options are abortion and adoption so they are going to be compared, it would be odd not to, especially if it's an equal rights agenda and equality for women's choice.

The Corinthian wrote:

What's the logic behind the reduction and what figures are you basing the Swedish and Swiss experiences on?

It's a couple of years since I looked at it. I'd need to refresh on it, AFAIK they were the official figures.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

The options are abortion and adoption so they are going to be compared, it would be odd not to, especially if it's an equal rights agenda and equality for women's choice.

In that case, why have you ignored adoption?

And on the subject of equal rights and biology, are you suggesting that biology should allow equal rights not to be pursued? If so, you've just opened the door to overturning a raft of laws that protect women.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

In that case, why have you ignored adoption?

And on the subject of equal rights and biology, are you suggesting that biology should allow equal rights not to be pursued? If so, you've just opened the door to overturning a raft of laws that protect women.

Can you answer my question please? I don't understand what are the options besides abortion - or adoption -

I haven't ignored adoption, I mentioned it before a couple of posts ago and before that again. Adoption needs to be a 2 way process, both parties agree. If paternal abdication was agreed between the mother and father I'd have no major problem with it, indeed it goes on atm, if the mother doesn't agree there isn't a 2 way consent.

I'm suggesting maybe having everything equal and ignoring biological differences mightn't be a good idea. What laws that protect women are you on about?

metrovelvet

Im going to ignore all the science fiction of the last couple of pages and maybe try to look on the bright side of men having this choice, as long as this choice is made early and is irreversible like a woman's choices are.

While I do not want to see an increase in state care, it has to be noted that with the advent of ivf and strict adoption laws, as well as the public nature of pregnancy, unless those homes that women were sent to are reconstructed, it might lead to an increase in abortion as adoption becomes less and less viable. Ok thats not the bright side I was talking about, I digress but I had to get that out of the way. So state care might be an inevitablity if abortion does not. People will be paying for that. Higher taxes. Ok I will get to the brightside, right about now..

On the brightside, outside of an increase in abortion, statecare, and higher taxes, orphans, poverty and crime levels, the children who escape these fates will at least not be raised by bad role models of men who dont want to pay for their kids. So maybe if the men were given a choice not to pay for their kids, then it would be pretty clear to all involved that they have no rights and no relationship legally with their kids aside from perhaps a legal obligation to provide a medical history and a photo to give to bernardos for such children. Also a national record so as a small country we can keep track of who is related to who since these same guys probably wont name themselves on the birthcert either.

So back in the day before Roe V Wade abortion was abhorent. One of the arguments around supporting abortion, was women are going to do it anyway, so by keeping it legal you are keeping it safe. Its only as it became more and more in practise that the moral shift moved away from the baby and onto sympathy for the mother, as more and more people talked about it, but focus on the baby and the moral sympathy shfts again. So you could apply the same reasoning to maintenance. Men arent paying for their kids anyway, so you may as well formalise it legally and keep it safe? scratch my head on that one there. But of course Roe V Wade wasnt won on the people are doing it anyway may as well regulate it to keep it safe, it was won on the right to privacy clause in the US constitution, the state cant interefere in your body. Ok so under right to privacy how can the state not interfere in your wallet? Not possible or no one would be paying taxes, or indeed subsidising all these mortgages that could ironically one day be paid for by kids for whom their dads who own these homes didnt pay any maintennce. [They probably couldnt afford to pay for their kids anyway with those huge mortgages and SUV payments and sure they didnt want the kids anyway so why should they pay for them, but thank god they will one day grow up and be able to pay back all the bad loans taken out by teh adults of this country;the same homes they wont inherit because they have no legal rights to inheritance.] So yeah, another brightside.

But then Ireland doesnt have the same constitution as the US, there is no right to privacy here. So how do you suppose that abortion for men would be won on constitutional grounds?

And of course we would then have to have manditory blood tests before people get married since as a small country, no one will have a clue who is related to whom.

But see...are you talking about married men or all men? Can someone please clear that up?

goose2005

metrovelvet wrote: »

Can the people who support this tell me if they support it for married men as well as single men?

Why not? Married women get abortions, and sometimes put their children up for adoption. They have no obligations to support a child. In fact, a woman can poison a foetus with heroin and alcohol and suffer no punishment.

Morrigin

goose2005 wrote: »

Why not? Married women get abortions, and sometimes put their children up for adoption.

Married couples (including women) can't legally put a baby up for adoption in Ireland.

alex73

Unbelievable this thread!. I am ashamed to see so many men who think about nothing more than #1. With Sex comes responsibility. Condoms or pill only provides 99% prevention...

If you get a woman pregnant... Then be a MAN about it...

Mallei

Frankly if a man is that repulsed and terrified by the idea of creating life that he'll refuse to take responsibility for it, perhaps he should stop going through the process that does it?

It would be like me being terrified of having a car accident but still driving at 200km/h because I enjoy the feeling of driving fast.

Sid_Justice

I remember seeing this thread earlier, now it's 227 posts long. i feel Im a bit laate to the party. Thanks to the corinthian and metrovelvet for keeping it interesting.

I guess my rational for abortion is this:

Women should have a right to elect to have surgerys on themselves. If this results in the death of fetus so be it.

I do not support abortion for social reasons. However, if a women decides to have an abortion for social reasons, the above rule still applies.

I think metro said she wanted to turn away from science fiction but i'd like to come back. if in the future, all babies are actually born in vitro, in artificial uteri I would not support their abortion.

If given the context a male and a female had made a contract to create life, they cannot renegade on that for social reasons, regardless of how logical it may seem (they both lost their jobs, hate each other etc.). Why is this case different to reality?

Because the growth of the foetus has no direct medical affect on the female (or male obviously). Her right to do what she wants with her body no longer is relevant.

Etc.

goose2005

Mallei wrote: »

Frankly if a man is that repulsed and terrified by the idea of creating life that he'll refuse to take responsibility for it, perhaps he should stop going through the process that does it?

But the entire point is that women don't have to take responsibility, but I'd be called a Neanderthal if I told them to keep their legs shut.

SugarHigh

alex73 wrote: »

Unbelievable this thread!. I am ashamed to see so many men who think about nothing more than #1. With Sex comes responsibility. Condoms or pill only provides 99% prevention...

If you get a woman pregnant... Then be a MAN about it...

Mallei wrote: »

Frankly if a man is that repulsed and terrified by the idea of creating life that he'll refuse to take responsibility for it, perhaps he should stop going through the process that does it?

It would be like me being terrified of having a car accident but still driving at 200km/h because I enjoy the feeling of driving fast.

Do you apply the same thought process to women who get abortions?

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you apply the same thought process to women who get abortions?

No because single men who have babies dont have any responsibilities. And maintenance is a joke, its like the basket that goes around at church.

ALso, the reason people dont get judgemental about abortions is they think its the 'clump of cells' [I dont buy into this] so they dont think there is much wrong with it, but once a child is born they feel its a real live person that is entitled to be part of their fathers life and their fathers side of the family's life and to reject that is hard to sympathise with.

The women have all the responsibility. That's the difference.

This thread is confusing. Its saying its about the right to a legal abortion, which for all intents and purposes is already in place. Men can do this. It looks to me like this thread is demanding more than rights for men, but sympathy for their choices too.

Perhaps, it is a good idea to formalise the option which is already there, so at least we all know where we stand, instead of the mess it is now. That way, we all know at any time, that with sex comes the risk of pregnancy and the risk the single man can walk away from the children he helped to create.

If this were in place, we would perhaps hark back to 50 years ago where we didnt engage too much in premarital sex for exactly these reasons, to be left holding the baby.

flowerchild

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you apply the same thought process to women who get abortions?

I really like your question. It encourages me to question my attitudes.

I think abortions are fundamentally about fear - fear of the unknown, about losing independence, about not having enough ...stability, money, time, heart ...whatever it is for that person.

If you think about it, those thoughts can come up for either gender. You might say that people can get panicky thoughts and still go on to be great parents. But some people's panicky thoughts are correct. They do end up in poverty. They are dreadful parents.

Can people, male or female, opt out of that scary future?

I have never had an abortion. And I personally think that babies are a unique human being from the time they are a two cell embryo. When I look at the ultrasounds of my boys they sit and behave like they little sit and behave in real life.

But I support a woman's right to choose. Why should a man not have that same freedom to opt out?

I am not saying that a man should be able to coerce an abortion. But to say I cannot do this - I am not ready/able may be very honest and what needs to be said.

So, in answer to the thread question, yes, men should be able to opt out of parenting - the legal equivalent of an abortion. Except that the babe is left alive, which is a good thing in my view.

alex73

flowerchild wrote: »

But I support a woman's right to choose. Why should a man not have that same freedom to opt out?

I am not saying that a man should be able to coerce an abortion. But to say I cannot do this - I am not ready/able may be very honest and what needs to be said.

So, in answer to the thread question, yes, men should be able to opt out of parenting - the legal equivalent of an abortion. Except that the babe is left alive, which is a good thing in my view.

Why not make the couple choose to be responsible before they have sex? All religious morals aside.. If people were to accept what sex really means then they would be more responsible about it. Problem in todays society is that sex is seen nowadays more like the end of a night out rather that a deeply personal act. In the office there are 2 young guys early 20's who on Mondays will talk (to other lads) about the girls they banged.. We have turned the sexual act around and as a society don't want to live with its consequences (the ST disease and the children)

Its a poor reflection in men this thread.

cocoa

alex73 wrote: »

Why not make the couple choose to be responsible before they have sex? All religious morals aside.. If people were to accept what sex really means then they would be more responsible about it. Problem in todays society is that sex is seen nowadays more like the end of a night out rather that a deeply personal act. In the office there are 2 young guys early 20's who on Mondays will talk (to other lads) about the girls they banged.. We have turned the sexual act around and as a society don't want to live with its consequences (the ST disease and the children)

Its a poor reflection in men this thread.

Sex, and anything else for that matter, only had a meaning if people give it that meaning. There is no inherent meaning, it's just about what people think and that can change. Before there was contraception, it was a relatively high probability that sex would lead to a pregnancy so it might have made sense to refer to that as the meaning, but now with contraception the probability of sex leading to a baby can be very low indeed so that's not so commonly considered as the meaning any more.

To be honest, it seems a little odd to talk about sex meaning something in a general sense, it means different things to different people at different times, is that so terrible? I'm not saying hedonism is the best way to live, but it is a way to live and I don't feel I have the right to judge someone else's outlook when it mostly comes down to a personal choice. Sex is many things, and there are many possible outcomes, what is so inherently wrong with someone seeking just a small subset of those?

metrovelvet

flowerchild wrote: »

I really like your question. It encourages me to question my attitudes.

I think abortions are fundamentally about fear - fear of the unknown, about losing independence, about not having enough ...stability, money, time, heart ...whatever it is for that person.

If you think about it, those thoughts can come up for either gender. You might say that people can get panicky thoughts and still go on to be great parents. But some people's panicky thoughts are correct. They do end up in poverty. They are dreadful parents.

Can people, male or female, opt out of that scary future?

I have never had an abortion. And I personally think that babies are a unique human being from the time they are a two cell embryo. When I look at the ultrasounds of my boys they sit and behave like they little sit and behave in real life.

But I support a woman's right to choose. Why should a man not have that same freedom to opt out?

I am not saying that a man should be able to coerce an abortion. But to say I cannot do this - I am not ready/able may be very honest and what needs to be said.

So, in answer to the thread question, yes, men should be able to opt out of parenting - the legal equivalent of an abortion. Except that the babe is left alive, which is a good thing in my view.

Men can already opt out. They do all the time.

Mallei

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you apply the same thought process to women who get abortions?

Well, no, because pregnancy is a traumatic and potentially life-threatening biological process that drains the woman's body and permanently disfigures certain parts of her anatomy. She has the right to determine what goes on inside her own body; that's why she's allowed an abortion.

She's not allowed to abort the child because she might not like the idea of having a kid; it's because the pregnancy itself can kill her, and she might not want to take that risk for a child she didn't want in the first place. Her right to life trumps the child's.

In case you hadn't noticed, men don't tend to get those same health issues. Thus the child's right to life trumps his desire to not pay child support. Sorry, he put his **** inside his partner knowing full well what the outcome could be. If he doesn't like those odds, then don't do it. There are other forms of sex than penetration, after all.

flowerchild

alex73 wrote: »

Why not make the couple choose to be responsible before they have sex? All religious morals aside.. If people were to accept what sex really means then they would be more responsible about it. Problem in todays society is that sex is seen nowadays more like the end of a night out rather that a deeply personal act. In the office there are 2 young guys early 20's who on Mondays will talk (to other lads) about the girls they banged.. We have turned the sexual act around and as a society don't want to live with its consequences (the ST disease and the children)

Its a poor reflection in men this thread.

I think it is a poor reflection on those guys - disrespectful and immature. But each generation has historically complained about the morals of a later one. Perhaps people delete their own behaviour from their memories.

metrovelvet wrote: »

Men can already opt out. They do all the time.

Yes, of course you are right, they do. What is the implication of my position?

We stop the pretence that men who didn't want to be a parent are actually financially and emotionally and physically raising a child. And we give single parents income support that puts them and their children above the poverty line. Why? Because it is the morally right thing to do. Whenever we say it is the responsibility of the man to pay, and he often doesn't, we are condemning children to a life of poverty.

And that is the major moral outrage we need to be discussing.

metrovelvet

Well, right now, even when a man exempts himself from responsiblity, there is no formality to it, which means he can walk in and out as he chooses. His parents can also be involved in the child's life. If the men can formalise this choice, then like parents who give their children up for adoption, these doors shut tight. As of now, a man can formalise giving up his rights and duties if he agrees to another man adoption his child, but that is the only way to do it right now.

I also think, that if he procrastinates long enough and shows no interest in the child up to a certain time limit, the choice should be made for him and the mother can petition to have the court fomalise the abandonment, which they are hesitant to do because they dont want to close the door forever on a bio dad.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

ALso, the reason people dont get judgemental about abortions is they think its the 'clump of cells' [I dont buy into this] so they dont think there is much wrong with it, but once a child is born they feel its a real live person that is entitled to be part of their fathers life and their fathers side of the family's life and to reject that is hard to sympathise with.

I agree the 'clump of cells' argument is nonsense as you could just as easily apply it to adults.

The women have all the responsibility. That's the difference.

So then there can't really be a problem with men being able to formally give up a responsibility they don't have.

This thread is confusing. Its saying its about the right to a legal abortion, which for all intents and purposes is already in place. Men can do this. It looks to me like this thread is demanding more than rights for men, but sympathy for their choices too.

Can they really get out of maintenance without doing something similar to what you'd do for tax avoidance? I thought that to get out of maintenance you would need to be able to play the system.

Perhaps, it is a good idea to formalise the option which is already there, so at least we all know where we stand, instead of the mess it is now. That way, we all know at any time, that with sex comes the risk of pregnancy and the risk the single man can walk away from the children he helped to create.

If this were in place, we would perhaps hark back to 50 years ago where we didnt engage too much in premarital sex for exactly these reasons, to be left holding the baby.

I wouldn't have a problem with this as it would also reduce the number of abortions. I think the increase in demand for abortions has changed how we view them and it does seem to be a late form of contraception for a lot of people.

The new figures from the BPAS, Britain's leading abortion provider, reveal that 181,582 terminations were carried out in England and Wales in 2003, a 3.2 per cent increase on the previous year and a 15 per cent rise since 1993.
Among these some 57,241 - 32 per cent - were on women who had already undergone a termination at least once. This is almost a third higher than the 1993 figure.
Earlier this year it was revealed that one woman from London had six abortions in just 12 months.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-348906/Women-abortions-again.html#ixzz1JmFqEfi8

Yes I know it the daily mail but they are factual quotes.

SugarHigh

flowerchild wrote: »

I really like your question. It encourages me to question my attitudes.

I think abortions are fundamentally about fear - fear of the unknown, about losing independence, about not having enough ...stability, money, time, heart ...whatever it is for that person.

If you think about it, those thoughts can come up for either gender. You might say that people can get panicky thoughts and still go on to be great parents. But some people's panicky thoughts are correct. They do end up in poverty. They are dreadful parents.

+1

Can people, male or female, opt out of that scary future?

Women can through abortion and adoption.

I have never had an abortion. And I personally think that babies are a unique human being from the time they are a two cell embryo. When I look at the ultrasounds of my boys they sit and behave like they little sit and behave in real life.

But I support a woman's right to choose. Why should a man not have that same freedom to opt out?

I am not saying that a man should be able to coerce an abortion. But to say I cannot do this - I am not ready/able may be very honest and what needs to be said.

So, in answer to the thread question, yes, men should be able to opt out of parenting - the legal equivalent of an abortion. Except that the babe is left alive, which is a good thing in my view.

+1 on everything although I consider it to be the legal equivalent to adoption instead of abortion.

SugarHigh

metrovelvet wrote: »

Well, right now, even when a man exempts himself from responsiblity, there is no formality to it, which means he can walk in and out as he chooses. His parents can also be involved in the child's life. If the men can formalise this choice, then like parents who give their children up for adoption, these doors shut tight. As of now, a man can formalise giving up his rights and duties if he agrees to another man adoption his child, but that is the only way to do it right now.

How does a man exempt himself from the financial responsibility? Is it through ignoring court orders and then going unpunished?

Why would a woman chase someone through the courts for maintenance if it's so easy for him not to pay it, surely she is just wasting time and money?

I also think, that if he procrastinates long enough and shows no interest in the child up to a certain time limit, the choice should be made for him and the mother can petition to have the court fomalise the abandonment, which they are hesitant to do because they dont want to close the door forever on a bio dad.

She could just move to Australia.:D

I'm joking but I do agree with you.

SugarHigh

Mallei wrote: »

Well, no, because pregnancy is a traumatic and potentially life-threatening biological process that drains the woman's body and permanently disfigures certain parts of her anatomy. She has the right to determine what goes on inside her own body; that's why she's allowed an abortion.

If you think the majority of people get abortions for health reasons you are kidding yourself.

Women between 20 and 24 have taken over from teenagers as the largest age group to have terminations, while only one in 100 abortions is carried out solely because of a medical risk to the baby.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-348906/Women-abortions-again.html#ixzz1JmJ1LLoU

Again it's the dail mail but a factual quote from BPAS.

She's not allowed to abort the child because she might not like the idea of having a kid; it's because the pregnancy itself can kill her, and she might not want to take that risk for a child she didn't want in the first place. Her right to life trumps the child's.

She can abort the child for whatever reasons she wants. Like I said medical reasons are rare. How many women die from child birth in a first world country like the UK?

Doesn't having an abortion also carry medical risks?

In case you hadn't noticed, men don't tend to get those same health issues. Thus the child's right to life trumps his desire to not pay child support. Sorry, he put his **** inside his partner knowing full well what the outcome could be. If he doesn't like those odds, then don't do it. There are other forms of sex than penetration, after all.

The part in bold applies just as much to women as to the man. Since the outcomes for a woman are worse than that just gives more reason why it applies to her.

flowerchild

SugarHigh wrote: »

+1

Women can through abortion and adoption.

Men can do too, through abandonment, or through simply telling lies about who they are and their marital status. You may say that this would only work if the woman didn't know them well, and that is true. But it is still vaporising the possibility of a second parent. And thus perhaps influencing a woman's response to a pregnancy.

+1 on everything although I consider it to be the legal equivalent to adoption instead of abortion.

Adoption has the important distinction of the babe or babes being alive. But it can be lifechangingly awful for the woman concerned.

SugarHigh

flowerchild wrote: »

Men can do too, through abandonment, or through simply telling lies about who they are and their marital status. You may say that this would only work if the woman didn't know them well, and that is true. But it is still vaporising the possibility of a second parent. And thus perhaps influencing a woman's response to a pregnancy.

That's not exactly a legal procedure though is it? You could still be chased through the courts eventually. It's also something that's not open to every man but abortion and adoption is open to every woman. Someone made the point that married women can't give up her child for adoption but I'm not sure if that's even true.

Adoption has the important distinction of the babe or babes being alive. But it can be lifechangingly awful for the woman concerned.

This would also apply to a man giving up his rights. He may one day regret it.

flowerchild

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's not exactly a legal procedure though is it? You could still be chased through the courts eventually. It's also something that's not open to every man but abortion and adoption is open to every woman. Someone made the point that married women can't give up her child for adoption but I'm not sure if that's even true.

Anyone can give up a child. It's just that if there are two parents, a husband would have many more rights than a partner or a casual one night stand.

This would also apply to a man giving up his rights. He may one day regret it.

I'm sure. Men can be as broody as women about having a babe, or as loving as any mother about the ones they have, in wedlock or not.

SugarHigh

flowerchild wrote: »

Anyone can give up a child. It's just that if there are two parents, a husband would have many more rights than a partner or a casual one night stand.

I don't think thats true. I thought if you get girl from a ONS knocked up and she had the kid she can still chase you for maintenance, even though you're not even a legal guardian.

I don't think is an official way to get out of that. You need to either hide your income, leave the country(Hoping it's too much effort for her to chase you) or simply ignore the courts order(risking punishment).

If it was so easy to get out of women wouldn't bother chasing you through the courts to get maintenance because it would just be a waste of their time.

The Corinthian

Been away from this thread for a few days and see it's developed...

First of all, to respond to K-9:

K-9 wrote: »

Can you answer my question please? I don't understand what are the options besides abortion - or adoption -

Abortion and adoption are the options open to women.

I haven't ignored adoption, I mentioned it before a couple of posts ago and before that again. Adoption needs to be a 2 way process, both parties agree. If paternal abdication was agreed between the mother and father I'd have no major problem with it, indeed it goes on atm, if the mother doesn't agree there isn't a 2 way consent.

Legally, unless the father is a guardian, the mother does not need to agree anything with him to put the child up for adoption. She is only required to make a 'reasonable attempt' at informing him of her decision - which means she is not even required to do that.

I'm suggesting maybe having everything equal and ignoring biological differences mightn't be a good idea. What laws that protect women are you on about?

There's lots of them. The most obvious laws are those that protect women in employment whenever they get pregnant - thus compensating for a biological disadvantage they have compared to men. Additionally there are a reams of other laws that 'compensate' for biological differences - physical entry requirements to many occupations being an example.

As such, if you're going to play the 'equality does not apply for biological reasons' card, then you need to also concede that all these rights and protections in law that compensate for biology should also be discarded.

Then there's been a few points recently made here that I feel merit comment:

Men can already 'walk away'. Legally no and this is an important distinction. The reason that it is important is that a man who 'walks away' may only be able to do so if the mother chooses not to pursue him or cannot reach him.

At best, this leads to to him being forced to live a life dictated by this reality, forever with a sword of Damocles over his head, should the mother choose to pursue him or not; keeping under the radar, hiding his money, possibly even leaving the country.

Bottom line is that there is absolutely no legal way that a man may 'walk away' unless the mother chooses to 'walk away'.

A married woman cannot unilaterally give up her child for adoption. This is true - more or less. As married men are automatically guardians, then she would need the father's consent. The only two ways around this would be deception (she hides the birth and pregnancy from him and lies about her marital status and/or the child's paternity) or in the case of abandonment - which I believe would require the husband having to have effectively vanished for a prolonged period. She can, however, in the second scenario put the child into care pretty quickly, until an adoption can be legally effectuated.

Men should keep it in their pants. Were it not for the fact that women do not have to do the same I would agree, but there you go. The irony is that it is reminiscent of the sexist attitudes that used to exist against women - it was not too long ago that it would be described as the woman "got herself into trouble".

Along with the calls for men to "be a man about it", I just get the feeling that those coming out with such comments have never really thought through the cliches they come out with. How a man should "be a man about it", but a woman should be sympathized with if she does the opposite.

It's only financial responsibility. This is not true, because it ignores the social implications of being classified a single parent. Or the real danger that either for reasons of revenge or greed (or both) there is technically no limit to how often he can be dragged into court by the mother, for up to 23 years.

But that does not mean that we cannot ignore the financial either, as we live in a World where money is a major determinant to our lives, and such a responsibility will affect in numerous knock on effects. Amongst these are:

• The ability for a man to start and support a (new) family. This will be affected by the fact that he is paying not only towards a child he did not choose to have, but indirectly towards the mother.
• He will find it much harder to buy a house - that you are paying any maintenance will become one of the factors that you will be quizzed on when applying for a mortgage. The moment you are paying even €1 per year, what you can borrow will be immediately and significantly effected.
• It will effect a man's future relationships. Like it or not a lot of people shy away from relationships with single parents. As much as some would like to suggest it is because they don't want to be with someone who has 'abandoned' their child, in reality it's the same, if not worse, for those who are still involved with the child's life or even custodians. People when seeking a mate don't want to be second best after a child that is not theirs. Even if there's no involvement, many would shy away from a relationship with someone with such potential financial liabilities.
• Without a will to overwrite things, the man's estate will go to the child. If it happens before the child is 18, it will end up effectively going to the mother of the child. The only statuary right to an estate that trumps this is a spouse - otherwise, his parents, siblings, etc all get nothing.

metrovelvet

It will effect a man's future relationships. Like it or not a lot of people shy away from relationships with single parents. As much as some would like to suggest it is because they don't want to be with someone who has 'abandoned' their child, in reality it's the same, if not worse, for those who are still involved with the child's life or even custodians. People when seeking a mate don't want to be second best after a child that is not theirs. Even if there's no involvement, many would shy away from a relationship with someone with such potential financial liabilities.

You really do not have the right to speak for humanity.

sam34

metrovelvet wrote: »

You really do not have the right to speak for humanity.

he didnt speak for humanity. he spoke about:

a lot of people... and how many would shy away from... rather than "every single person..."

metrovelvet

SugarHigh wrote: »

I agree the 'clump of cells' argument is nonsense as you could just as easily apply it to adults.

So then there can't really be a problem with men being able to formally give up a responsibility they don't have.

Can they really get out of maintenance without doing something similar to what you'd do for tax avoidance? I thought that to get out of maintenance you would need to be able to play the system.

I wouldn't have a problem with this as it would also reduce the number of abortions. I think the increase in demand for abortions has changed how we view them and it does seem to be a late form of contraception for a lot of people.

Yes I know it the daily mail but they are factual quotes.

Yep, by ignoring court orders, summons, hiding money, etc. They can and do do it. Its not that hard. Much easier than avoiding the tv licence fee. The state takes that much more seriously.

In a lot of ways I happen to agree with you, sure give them the right to opt out. Formalise it and secure it. Fine.

But I only half believe that this thread is about seeking to "assert" a right. While I might agree that this should be legalised, I do for reasons other than moral approval, much like I might think about legalising pot for example, but sympathy for it is a whole other debate.

Maintenance is seen as the child's right. A mother may even look to vacate paternity but she cant, because she cant sign over the child's right to child support. Its a bit erroneous to pin this on paying for a woman's choice, when the woman's choice maybe to reject child support, etc. Even if both parties agreed to this a court wouldnt allow it.

Abortion has changed the playing field because it has moved from a heavily plagued moral choice to a lifestyle one and that is now how people see children. I suspect in 100 years time, people might look back on us like we are savage barbarians for it.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Been away from this thread for a few days and see it's developed...

First of all, to respond to K-9:

Abortion and adoption are the options open to women.

I think I was reading your post wrong.

Legally, unless the father is a guardian, the mother does not need to agree anything with him to put the child up for adoption. She is only required to make a 'reasonable attempt' at informing him of her decision - which means she is not even required to do that.

Within I'd expect reasonable attempt to mean that, if the Dad hasn't had contact for years and can't be found after reasonable attempts I can see the logic in that. Have you heard of cases that this didn't happen?

There's lots of them. The most obvious laws are those that protect women in employment whenever they get pregnant - thus compensating for a biological disadvantage they have compared to men. Additionally there are a reams of other laws that 'compensate' for biological differences - physical entry requirements to many occupations being an example.

As such, if you're going to play the 'equality does not apply for biological reasons' card, then you need to also concede that all these rights and protections in law that compensate for biology should also be discarded.

Does that not kind of reinforce my point? We have maternity leave because women get pregnant, men don't?