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

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

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?

Just telling you what the law says; basically that it is not compulsory.

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

Actually no. A company may not discriminate against a woman on the basis of her being pregnant - the law specifically introduces this protection to compensate for the biological differences between the genders. If you want to say it's OK to accept these biological differences between the genders when deciding if equality should be enforced or not, then pregnant women - or any woman of child baring age - should have no legal protection.

metrovelvet

So you think they should be able to fire her on the grounds she's pregnant?

Why not? They do it anyway. May as well legalise it right?

Thats the trip this thread is on.

Saying that, the reason the choice is not equal is because the consequences of a pregnancy are not equal.

And acknowledging that, the more I think about this, the more I think its a great idea, so long as contracts can be made which are then binding. So at least then people have to talk about it and know where they stand.

Pre sex agreements so to speak. One that says 'your right not to use birthcontrol does not supercede your child's right to be fed and clothed." ID checks too and registered with an agency.

So Ladies and Gentlemen, dont have sex with someone you dont want to have a child with.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Just telling you what the law says; basically that it is not compulsory.

Actually no. A company may not discriminate against a woman on the basis of her being pregnant - the law specifically introduces this protection to compensate for the biological differences between the genders. If you want to say it's OK to accept these biological differences between the genders when deciding if equality should be enforced or not, then pregnant women - or any woman of child baring age - should have no legal protection.

I'm not saying it's okay, just that the law recognises a woman may need time of towards the end of her pregnancy to give birth and stuff like that.

Same as women can have the final say on an abortion because she carries the child.

kazzy89

Count Duckula wrote: »

Someone's comments in another thread got me thinking about this. There's no provision for it under EU law as far as I'm aware, but in a discussion about men's rights I wondered if this would crop up.

Note that I am not talking about the actual act of abortion. That, I'm sure we will all agree, is for the mother to decide herself. She is the one carrying the child and only she can decide whether she will or will not have an abortion. In this way, if a woman gets pregnant and the father wants to keep the child but she does not, she is legally entitled to have it aborted.

However, men do not seem to have these same rights. Of course we as a gender cannot enforce the termination of pregnancies in other people's bodies, but it does work out that if a woman decides she wants to keep the baby, the man will often be asked for child support further down the line.

Is this fair? Surely both partners should have the same rights and options available? Whilst a man cannot and should not be able to enforce a physical termination upon a woman, could he enforce a "legal abortion"? One that, during the pregnancy itself, he can distance himself completely and utterly from the child and therefore when it's born not have anything to do with it.

Of course, he would also therefore not have any rights or claims to the child. He would have no hold over its life, or any right to see it. To him it should be as if the child were aborted; ie, it doesn't exist in his life.

Is this feasible? Would there be moral objections? Does a man have a duty, whether he wants to or not, to provide for a baby that he has helped bring into the world?

Please keep this thread free from flaming and personal attacks; I understand that it's an emotive subject, but I'd like to provoke a reasoned and rational discussion on the topic.

its hard to say,who's to say that if this could happen that both parties wouldnt argue and tell lies about who did or did not use contraception at the time of conception the man could easily say and stand by his word that he used a condom when both parties no he didnt there's no proof its 1 persons word against they other or even reversed if the man did use a condom but she got pegnant anyway and doesnt want to face this alone but doesnt want to terminate could say he didnt use 1,
if someone could please answer this perfectly i would love to hear the solution

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

I'm not saying it's okay, just that the law recognises a woman may need time of towards the end of her pregnancy to give birth and stuff like that.

I understand what the law is designed to do; it recognizes that women have certain biological differences that can lead to unequal treatment or exercise or rights, and so it intercedes to make such treatment illegal - the principle is that biology should not be a barrier to equality.

The law, as I pointed out, is full of such protections for women, and not simply connected to pregnancy - entry requirements to many jobs (e.g. military) are another example.

Same as women can have the final say on an abortion because she carries the child.

Well, this is where the law is presently inconsistent with the above principle that biology should not be a barrier to equality.

So either biology should be a barrier to equality or it should not - but you can't have your cake and eat it.

kazzy89 wrote: »

its hard to say,who's to say that if this could happen that both parties wouldnt argue and tell lies about who did or did not use contraception at the time of conception the man could easily say and stand by his word that he used a condom when both parties no he didnt there's no proof its 1 persons word against they other or even reversed if the man did use a condom but she got pegnant anyway and doesnt want to face this alone but doesnt want to terminate could say he didnt use 1,
if someone could please answer this perfectly i would love to hear the solution

Why are you over-complicating the issue?

Regardless of who lied or used contraception or didn't or had bad luck or whatever, both man and woman are responsible for the pregnancy.

But this is where rights and responsibilities diverge, because men no longer have any rights to determine what happens next (despite the profound effect upon their lives) while women have three principle options they may peruse - abortion, adoption or keeping the child.

Naturally a man should be held accountable for his part in the pregnancy, but it seems ridiculous that he should be held legally accountable for the decisions that follow, given he has no legal part in them.

Wibbs

The Corinthian wrote: »

Naturally a man should be held accountable for his part in the pregnancy, but it seems ridiculous that he should be held legally accountable for the decisions that follow, given he has no legal part in them.

This.

metrovelvet

The solution is to give them the freedom to opt out but only if people can make legally binding contracts before hand that they can negotiate the terms and conditions. The contract would say, your right not to use birth control does not superced your child's right to be fed and clothed. Im sure once men have their opt out rights in place you will see a lot less premarital sex.

ANd so again, dont have sex with people you dont want to have kids with.

metrovelvet

Wibbs wrote: »

This.

He cant be held responsible for his part of the pregnancy because as it stands now you can't legally establish paternity during pregnancy.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

I understand what the law is designed to do; it recognizes that women have certain biological differences that can lead to unequal treatment or exercise or rights, and so it intercedes to make such treatment illegal - the principle is that biology should not be a barrier to equality.

The law, as I pointed out, is full of such protections for women, and not simply connected to pregnancy - entry requirements to many jobs (e.g. military) are another example.

Well, this is where the law is presently inconsistent with the above principle that biology should not be a barrier to equality.

So either biology should be a barrier to equality or it should not - but you can't have your cake and eat it.

Why are you over-complicating the issue?

Regardless of who lied or used contraception or didn't or had bad luck or whatever, both man and woman are responsible for the pregnancy.

But this is where rights and responsibilities diverge, because men no longer have any rights to determine what happens next (despite the profound effect upon their lives) while women have three principle options they may peruse - abortion, adoption or keeping the child.

Naturally a man should be held accountable for his part in the pregnancy, but it seems ridiculous that he should be held legally accountable for the decisions that follow, given he has no legal part in them.

When it comes down to things like maternity leave and abortion women enjoy more rights because well, they get pregnant! They get maternity leave so they can have the baby and have the final say on abortion because well, they are pregnant. What I'm getting from your posts is that because women have these "benefits" men must have some sort of equal options. I'm questioning that reasoning and explaining why women are treated differently because of biological reasons and you seem to be actually agreeing with the logic behind the differences. It just seems that you want to ignore the biological and physical differences and want a morally absolute "equality" despite recognising the reasons for maternity leave etc.

How would he be held accountable other than legally?

Tbh, I don't think the interest comes from some noble "egalitarian" principle, it seems to be more "well they have rights, we don't, lets get us some of them rights" agenda.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

It just seems that you want to ignore the biological and physical differences and want a morally absolute "equality" despite recognising the reasons for maternity leave etc.

Is that not the basis of modern gender equality? Do we not ignore that women need not fulfill the same entry criteria as men in many jobs because they are physically different? Do we not compensate for the limitations of biology for this higher cause? You appear to be cherry picking which compensation we should apply.

How would he be held accountable other than legally?

There's a big difference between being held legally accountable for a pregnancy and 18+ years.

Tbh, I don't think the interest comes from some noble "egalitarian" principle, it seems to be more "well they have rights, we don't, lets get us some of them rights" agenda.

That's your opinion and an accusation. Perhaps I could suggest that you hold your views not out of any noble "egalitarian" principle, but out of a religiously motivated viewpoint?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Is that not the basis of modern gender equality? Do we not ignore that women need not fulfill the same entry criteria as men in many jobs because they are physically different? Do we not compensate for the limitations of biology for this higher cause? You appear to be cherry picking which compensation we should apply.

Well the entry criteria recognises the physical differences between men and women. If they had the exact same criteria it wouldn't bother me either. I'm not cherry picking at all, I suggest it is yourself doing that. I've pointed out why women enjoy these "benefits", you've recognised why, so you want a law to recognise our physical differences, or rather, lack of ability to get pregnant.

The Corinthian wrote:

There's a big difference between being held legally accountable for a pregnancy and 18+ years.

Yeah, think we are up to speed on that one. Now, the question was, how would men be held accountable for a pregnancy without it being legal.

That's your opinion and an accusation. Perhaps I could suggest that you hold your views not out of any noble "egalitarian" principle, but out of a religiously motivated viewpoint?

How would it be religious?

It's an opinion but not an accusation. It has been repeatedly pointed out on threads like this why the differences are there, you've agreed to the logic, yet we have to have equality for equality's sake, because it's a moral absolute.

The option to not become a father is before you have sex, you don't have it. If you do, take as many precautions as you can. We can't force a woman to have an abortion or adopt a child.

That's the simple option every man has, admittedly it means a responsible attitude towards sex, rather than focusing on walking out on the result of intercourse.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

Well the entry criteria recognises the physical differences between men and women. If they had the exact same criteria it wouldn't bother me either. I'm not cherry picking at all, I suggest it is yourself doing that. I've pointed out why women enjoy these "benefits", you've recognised why, so you want a law to recognise our physical differences, or rather, lack of ability to get pregnant.

How am I cherry picking if I am the one suggesting that we should have a level playing field in terms of compensating (or not) for biology in the interests of equality?

Yeah, think we are up to speed on that one. Now, the question was, how would men be held accountable for a pregnancy without it being legal.

You make it legal - changing the law, to redress inequality, is the point of this discussion, is it not?

How would it be religious?

It could be, due to your pushing a conservative agenda. Or it could be Feminist too, given that a conservative position in this area also serves a Feminist agenda. You see we can all have opinions and point fingers.

The option to not become a father is before you have sex, you don't have it. If you do, take as many precautions as you can. We can't force a woman to have an abortion or adopt a child.

Where in this thread has I (or frankly anyone) suggested that a woman should be forced to have an abortion or put their child up for adoption? Straw man argument.

That's the simple option every man has, admittedly it means a responsible attitude towards sex, rather than focusing on walking out on the result of intercourse.

And a century ago the simple option every woman had was to help influence her husband's vote rather than having a vote herself. Sorry, but I reject such sexism in both cases.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

How am I cherry picking if I am the one suggesting that we should have a level playing field in terms of compensating (or not) for biology in the interests of equality?

But this is exactly my point, your view is totally morally absolute, either complete equality or nothing at all, that's the impression I'm getting anyway. If a woman has maternity leave, should a man get it as well?

I'd say yes after birth, no before birth, because well, it's the woman who has the physical pregnancy.

The Corinthian wrote:

You make it legal - changing the law, to redress inequality, is the point of this discussion, is it not?

How is making paternal abdication legal making men responsible for a pregnancy. Can you clarify how exactly that is?

The Corinthian wrote:

It could be, due to your pushing a conservative agenda. Or it could be Feminist too, given that a conservative position in this area also serves a Feminist agenda. You see we can all have opinions and point fingers.

Yeah, we have opinions, hence the thread and replies. Yours could be an extreme men's right agenda, mines could be conservative, I don't think mines is. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind it and it seems to be all about what women have, not an egalitarian view.

Where in this thread has I (or frankly anyone) suggested that a woman should be forced to have an abortion or put their child up for adoption? Straw man argument.

Straw man interpretation of my post. I'm stating the obvious, that a man can't force a woman to have an abortion or adoption. Where did I say you or anybody suggested men should have that right. I've read the post, can't see it myself. Why you took it up that way has me baffled!

The Corinthian wrote:

And a century ago the simple option every woman had was to help influence her husband's vote rather than having a vote herself. Sorry, but I reject such sexism in both cases.

That was never suggested. Women get period pains, should we demand equality there too?

Anyway, the options women have are abortion or adoption, that's the comparisons as women don't have any other options. Both aren't that comparable to paternal abdication as the mother still has the child. If both parents are agreeable to it, I don't see a major problem, in many ways it goes on at the moment. The problem I see is when the mother isn't amenable to it because she'd prefer the father to have the right to maybe some day, become an active parent.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

But this is exactly my point, your view is totally morally absolute, either complete equality or nothing at all, that's the impression I'm getting anyway. If a woman has maternity leave, should a man get it as well?

Not really, because I'm not suggesting that we ignore realities such as women get pregnant and men do not, however neither do I think it is right to use biological differences as a justification for gross inequality (especially given that they are compensated for elsewhere).

How is making paternal abdication legal making men responsible for a pregnancy. Can you clarify how exactly that is?

I never suggested that any form of 'male abortion' should be without consequence for a man. He is still liable towards the pregnancy, regardless of whether it goes to term or not. How that liability is determined is another discussion.

Yeah, we have opinions, hence the thread and replies. Yours could be an extreme men's right agenda, mines could be conservative, I don't think mines is. I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind it and it seems to be all about what women have, not an egalitarian view.

If you would like to frame it in terms of what rights women do not have that men do have, I'm all ears. Otherwise it is difficult to describe an inequality in rights any other way.

Straw man interpretation of my post. I'm stating the obvious, that a man can't force a woman to have an abortion or adoption. Where did I say you or anybody suggested men should have that right. I've read the post, can't see it myself. Why you took it up that way has me baffled!

Then what is the relevancy of that point?

That was never suggested. Women get period pains, should we demand equality there too?

If period pains are a cause for women to be denied equal rights then yes.

Anyway, the options women have are abortion or adoption, that's the comparisons as women don't have any other options. Both aren't that comparable to paternal abdication as the mother still has the child.

Actually it is identical to adoption - how is it not so?

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

Not really, because I'm not suggesting that we ignore realities such as women get pregnant and men do not, however neither do I think it is right to use biological differences as a justification for gross inequality (especially given that they are compensated for elsewhere).

OK, so we realise that men can't get pregnant and that women obviously deserve some breaks like maternity leave for that and the final say on an abortion. However you are saying that from one side of your mouth and then saying because men don't have a right to abort the child, men should have the right to give up their child. You aren't recognising the biological difference at all as you still want equality.

To add to that you point at differences in gender characteristics for the military as gross inequality. You see where I'm getting the impression that you are cherry picking your points? You agree with the rational about maternity leave and abortion but then swiftly dismiss it and say, men must have this equality because women are positively discriminated in other areas. I just don't get why you would agree with the logic of why women are treated differently with a pregnancy, and then dismiss that exact same point and argue men should have those rights.

Indeed, the only reason for it seems to be, well women get special consideration, why don't we have it?

The Corinthian wrote:

I never suggested that any form of 'male abortion' should be without consequence for a man. He is still liable towards the pregnancy, regardless of whether it goes to term or not. How that liability is determined is another discussion.

Well, it probably is as good a place as any to discuss it seeing as it's a thread about male abortion.

The Corinthian wrote:

If you would like to frame it in terms of what rights women do not have that men do have, I'm all ears. Otherwise it is difficult to describe an inequality in rights any other way.

Your view seems to be, well women have the right to an abortion so therefore men must have. I'm just wondering why men "must" have these rights.

The Corinthian wrote:

Then what is the relevancy of that point?

That men have options, before sex think of the consequences. That is the time to think about it and opt out. We can't have abortions and we've no control over that so that would be the time to think carefully about it, rather than 9 months down the line going, "I don't want that one, you can keep her/him".

The Corinthian wrote:

If period pains are a cause for women to be denied equal rights then yes.

Must look for my equal rights the next time a woman has to take time of because of complications!

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually it is identical to adoption - how is it not so?

Went through this a page or 2 ago.

1. One biological parent remains. Not in adoption.
2. The adoptive parents are ready and willing to take on the full responsibility, the mother may not.

metrovelvet

Disbabled people dont have to pay tax on their cars. Do you want to abolish that too?

Do you want to abolish disabled toilets and parking spaces?

There is such a thing as taking an idea of equality to a ridiculous extreme and what you are left with is a compassionless society.

A man's right NOT to use birth control does not superscede his child's right to be fed and clothed.

Yeah I get it. It must suck to pay some money for a kid you never want to see in the first place.

The Corinthian

K-9 wrote: »

You aren't recognising the biological difference at all as you still want equality.

What do the biological differences between the genders got to do with a choice to keep and raise a child?

To add to that you point at differences in gender characteristics for the military as gross inequality. You see where I'm getting the impression that you are cherry picking your points? You agree with the rational about maternity leave and abortion but then swiftly dismiss it and say, men must have this equality because women are positively discriminated in other areas. I just don't get why you would agree with the logic of why women are treated differently with a pregnancy, and then dismiss that exact same point and argue men should have those rights.

That makes no sense. If I recognize positive discrimination for women where they are disadvantaged then feel men should also get positive discrimination where they are disadvantaged, or neither should - where is the contradiction?

Well, it probably is as good a place as any to discuss it seeing as it's a thread about male abortion.

No it's not - it's a separate topic.

Your view seems to be, well women have the right to an abortion so therefore men must have. I'm just wondering why men "must" have these rights.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous - if you accept that women have a right to avoid the serious and life changing implications of parenthood, then it's pretty obvious why men should and "must" have similar rights.

That men have options, before sex think of the consequences. That is the time to think about it and opt out. We can't have abortions and we've no control over that so that would be the time to think carefully about it, rather than 9 months down the line going, "I don't want that one, you can keep her/him".

Again, once women have no options other than to keep the child, I will take this seriously - until then go bark up another tree. Neither did I suggest anything about "9 months down the line" - that is your own invention.

That you think it appropriate that a man should be sexually responsible, but a woman (due to the options available to her) can be completely sexually irresponsible, is OK, is utterly disgusting.

Must look for my equal rights the next time a woman has to take time of because of complications!

You are misrepresenting what I wrote and at this stage I'm begining to think you're are doing it on purpose.

1. One biological parent remains. Not in adoption.
2. The adoptive parents are ready and willing to take on the full responsibility, the mother may not.

And how does that change anything? You're grasping at straws TBH.

K-9

The Corinthian wrote: »

What do the biological differences between the genders got to do with a choice to keep and raise a child?


That makes no sense. If I recognize positive discrimination for women where they are disadvantaged then feel men should also get positive discrimination where they are disadvantaged, or neither should - where is the contradiction?

No it's not - it's a separate topic.

I'm sorry, but that's ridiculous - if you accept that women have a right to avoid the serious and life changing implications of parenthood, then it's pretty obvious why men should and "must" have similar rights.

Again, once women have no options other than to keep the child, I will take this seriously - until then go bark up another tree. Neither did I suggest anything about "9 months down the line" - that is your own invention.

That you think it appropriate that a man should be sexually responsible, but a woman (due to the options available to her) can be completely sexually irresponsible, is OK, is utterly disgusting.

You are misrepresenting what I wrote and at this stage I'm begining to think you're are doing it on purpose.

It was a comment taking to the extreme, like you did there.

How does that change anything? Can you not see the differences? Seriously?



And how does that change anything? You're grasping at straws TBH.

Sorry, tbh I don't think there is any point going on with this but I'll try one last time.

What do biological differences have to do with it? Pregnancy, it's why we give the final choice on abortion to women and why you nor nobody else it seems expects a man's view to take precedence on it, so it is clearly an important difference. You recognise that, yet want a morally absolute male equivalent and point at women in the army or some such stuff!

It isn't a separate topic, I find you saying that absurd, maybe contact a mod if you think it is going of topic.

I never suggested that any form of 'male abortion' should be without consequence for a man. He is still liable towards the pregnancy, regardless of whether it goes to term or not. How that liability is determined is another discussion

We are talking about the repercussions of male abortion. Why you wont discuss those on a thread actually about male abortion, well, let's us just say, you do that a lot on these type of discussions as an out.

Your only reason for wanting these rights are because women have them, that's all there is to it when you are questioned, we could go into the reasons why women have these rights and why it isn't comparable, indeed I think I already have but I'll pull the off topic card here.

It doesn't matter about 9 months. The point's still the same whether it's 3 months or 9. "I don't want that" doesn't wash with me as the man isn't pregnant, doesn't have to carry the child or give birth.

The Corinthian wrote:

That you think it appropriate that a man should be sexually responsible, but a woman (due to the options available to her) can be completely sexually irresponsible, is OK, is utterly disgusting.

Ridiculous interpretation of my post, absurd zealot stuff. You think abortion and adoption encourages sexual irresponsibility?

You don't see the differences with Adoption? Seriously?