Abortion For Men

AudreyHepburn

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Eh yeah, I know.. which is why in the post previous I said:



My comment about the tax payer having to foot the bill is a general one, giving that the tax payer currently supports many children where the mothers do not work and indeed, houses them. If your proposal was adopted, where men could just opt out of being financially libel for child support, then without a shadow of a doubt the tax payer would end up picking up the tab for it.



There is more to parenthood than money and you seem to be implying that in a man's mind, the ability to just walk away from being financially responsible for a child, somehow equates to a male abortion. What a farcical thing to suggest. Do you think men are robots or something? That they could just sign away financial responsibility for a child and then go about their lives not thinking about that kid? Come on now. There are more holes in what you propose than there was in the Titanic.




Well that's the first time I've been accused of that.

Again I said this another post;

Also I would point out that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it would a simple easy decision for a man to decide he doesn't want the child and to walk away.

I would suggest that that probably isn't the case for many men, that it comes after a lot of thought and consideration.

It may not be the case that he just doesn't want the child. It could be that he doesn't feel ready, or that he can't afford to support the child or for some reason believes the child is better off without him.

Men aren't just cold hearted machines that are there simply to provide financial support for us poor women.

In the same way a woman might spend her life wondering what if she hadn't aborted her child I am sure a man would wonder what if he hadn't he walked away.

He would have to live his life in the knowledge that he has a child out there who might one day come looking for him and wondering why he left.

Or he could find he regrets his decision to walk away, just as many women regret having terminated the pregnancy.

It isn't always a simple case of the man just walking away.

I am aware that men have feelings and emotions and aren't simply ATMs on legs, which a lot of posters here seem to missing or ignoring.

diveout

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There's nothing superficial or glib in anything I've said.

I said myself in another post ;

Yes that is glib. I don't think you really have any idea.

AudreyHepburn

diveout wrote: »

Yes that is glib. I don't think you really have any idea.

Don't read my post whatever you do.

I understand perfectly what it means, I know men aren't robots, I know they have feelings and emotions, I know they can hurt and regret.

As I said previously there is no choice here that could be considered easy.

Shakespeare's Sister

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First I never suggested that if a man had protected sex he didn't know or ignored the risks. I said we shouldn't assume the woman involved didn't know them or didn't ignore them.

But we aren't assuming that.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

neither should we as women have the right to dictate what a man does with his finances. If we are to be allowed to walk away from motherhood then men should have the same rights with regard to fatherhood.

So there are never ever ever any circumstances where a man should financially support the child he has fathered?
The stuff about women being able to just forego motherhood is dishonest. It's not always as easy as that. Particularly in this country.

Demanding anything less just smacks of bitterness and over the top feminism.

No it doesn't. To say a man should always support the child he has fathered, no matter what the circumstances, is going too far all right, but it's nuts to claim there are never situations where he has a responsibility for child support.