Abortion For Men

Engine No.9

whirlpool wrote: »

Because the reverse is barbaric and psychopathic. Do you honestly believe there's anything to discuss?

Yes, I do. Many, many women have told their partners or husbands not to touch them with that thing until they get a vasectomy. And these are just people in my wider circle of friends and acquaintances

Dolbert

takamichinoku wrote: »

Able to link me some decent articles on this? Seems possible but I'm trying to wrap my head around everything that'd be involved. (e.g. would it involve the man having to prove that he took measures to avoid causing the pregnancy? how would that work?)

Any discussion I've read on it has been theoretical, I don't know if it's ever been put into practice.

Ignorant etc.

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

How about women who don't want a baby keep their legs closed?

The fact that a woman can decide when to terminate with no input from the man (in the UK) is crass. And it does irritate me when people bandy about this "its the woman's body" argument. Its also the body of the unborn baby we're talking about and that body that people are murdering when they elect for an abortion.

Abortion should be for instances where the woman's health or life is at risk and in cases of rape. Not just because some dollybird went out on a Saturday night, had a shag around the back of the cinema, the johnny burst and now she's crying about her "rights" and not accepting her "responsibilities". If she, and the man, aren't big enough to step up to the mark why did she let him at her pussy and why did he throw his cock in there?

takamichinoku

Dolbert wrote: »

Any discussion I've read on it has been theoretical, I don't know if it's ever been put into practice.

Is there not already some kind of laws about, in some country or another, where a man can waive his rights as a father if the woman agrees? That'd be the same kind of thing, basically?

Clearly I haven't a clue!

TempAc

Dolbert wrote: »

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

Actually forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will would be fúcking barbaric.

No argument here, this should be the case.

I don't disagree that forcing an abortion would be barbaric, but the current status is that we do force procedures on women. So if we're barbaric in that respect anyway it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we could engage in barbarism the other way around.

magicbastarder

takamichinoku wrote: »

Is there not already some kind of laws about, in some country or another, where a man can waive his rights as a father if the woman agrees? That'd be the same kind of thing, basically?

yes, i know someone who waived his rights when the mother of his kid got engaged; he reasoned that the kid would be better off if his mother's partner (who was going to end up with a greater role in the child's life) had legal custody.

TempAc

ShaShaBear wrote: »

But allowing a man the right to tear a baby out of its mother's body, or forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and labour? Preposterous. Giving birth is traumatic and painful enough without the added depression of never wanting to do it and having no reward at the end of it!!

It's perfectly ok when the state does it of course...

Riskymove

RayM wrote: »

Sounds daft. Is daft. It's not the man's body, so he shouldn't have the right to force a woman to (or not to) have an abortion.

I'm not so sure it is daft for all scenarios

In the majority of instances where someone decides to have an abortion its likely a formal relationship isn't in place and therefore its looked as completely the woman's choice

however, you could think of a situation whereby a couple who have decided to have a baby encounter issues where they need to make a decision

should one side have complete veto over the other, either way, without any consequence

magicbastarder

TempAc wrote: »

No argument here, this should be the case.

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

Riskymove

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, i know someone who waived his rights when the mother of his kid got engaged; he reasoned that the kid would be better off if his mother's partner (who was going to end up with a greater role in the child's life) had legal custody.

tbf allowing someone else adopt your biological child is not quite the same as what has been suggested

Dolbert

TempAc wrote: »

It's perfectly ok when the state does it of course...

When did she say that?

The_Valeyard

what if the male is suicidal as he does not want a child or responsibility of caring for this child?

Ignorant etc.

Why can't it be enough of a reward to give life to another person? There are alternatives to raising the child, like giving it for adoption, without having to murder it.

If I suddenly decided, you know what, I'm fed up being a Dad, and I did something vile to my 5-year-old son then I would quite rightly be thrown in jail. But pro-choice want it to be OK to do that to an unborn child.

Also, I'd love a pro-choice apologist to answer me this. Supposing your mother had elected for an abortion when she was pregnant with you, do you think that would have been a great idea?

krudler

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

How about women who don't want a baby keep their legs closed?

The fact that a woman can decide when to terminate with no input from the man (in the UK) is crass. And it does irritate me when people bandy about this "its the woman's body" argument. Its also the body of the unborn baby we're talking about and that body that people are murdering when they elect for an abortion.

Abortion should be for instances where the woman's health or life is at risk and in cases of rape. Not just because some dollybird went out on a Saturday night, had a shag around the back of the cinema, the johnny burst and now she's crying about her "rights" and not accepting her "responsibilities". If she, and the man, aren't big enough to step up to the mark why did she let him at her pussy and why did he throw his cock in there?

I like when people live up to their usernames

krudler

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Why can't it be enough of a reward to give life to another person? There are alternatives to raising the child, like giving it for adoption, without having to murder it.

If I suddenly decided, you know what, I'm fed up being a Dad, and I did something vile to my 5-year-old son then I would quite rightly be thrown in jail. But pro-choice want it to be OK to do that to an unborn child.

Also, I'd love a pro-choice apologist to answer me this. Supposing your mother had elected for an abortion when she was pregnant with you, do you think that would have been a great idea?

I wouldnt be here to ponder such a stupid question. If my parents used a condom I wouldn't be here either. What's your point?

TempAc

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

Nope, she can have an abortion. Which the man may or may not be required to cover the costs of. Going through with the pregnancy would be entirely her decision.

Wibbs

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm still trying to get my head around this attitude.

OK maybe this will help you get your head around it.

Women can do the 'well, we had consensual sex, and I have conceived a child, but I've decided to abort the foetus and you have no say in the matter/I have decided to hand the baby up for adoption and you have no say in the matter/I have decided to keep the child and you will support us both for 18 odd years and you have no say in the matter[delete as applicable to how I'm feeling about the whole thing]. What cards is the man holding?

and (some!) men claim they're the ones at a disadvantage.

You'd want to be thunderously and deliberately blinkered to not see that women hold pretty much all the cards when it comes to children. Hell forget about strangers in the night or whatever, if a marriage breaks down who gets the kids in the vast majority of cases? Men? That would be a no then. You hear of men abandoning their families and that's considered well out of order and rightly, however given that the majority of divorce cases are brought by women one could argue that women also "abandon the family", but nearly always get to keep the children and the family home, AKA "hers".

TempAc

Dolbert wrote: »

When did she say that?

She didn't, but that's what's happened.

For clarity: I wasn't implying that she did say that.

Ignorant etc.

krudler wrote: »

I like when people live up to their usernames

Why? Because I don't agree with you? That makes me scum I suppose.

The problem with society today is that people bang on and on and on about their rights but never their responsibilities. Like it or not, there are potential responsibilities when it comes to sex. One is that the woman can get pregnant, the other is you can end up with an STD. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Pro-choice apologists bang on and on and on about pro-life supporters being bigots, but then firmly believe that pro-life supporters have no right to an opinion.

You can skew the medical development of a baby any way you like, but for pro-life supporters we consider a baby to have been created at the point of conception.

That said, there has to be reason. Whilst the UK is too extreme one way, Ireland is likewise too extreme the other way. Abortion should be absolutely allowed to protect the woman's health and in the case of rape. At other times, the woman, and the man, should be told to grow up and face their responsibilities.

c_man

BeerWolf wrote: »

how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

...did he rape her??

magicbastarder

TempAc wrote: »

Nope, she can have an abortion. Which the man may or may not be required to cover the costs of. Going through with the pregnancy would be entirely her decision.

such a simple decision. so she's forced into being a single mother with no support if she doesn't like the idea of an abortion, which many women would balk at.

so, again, it's a zero risk game for the guy, and all the heartache and fallout is borne by the woman.

if you don't want to run the risk of being a father and having to deal with the responsibilities that entails, you've a simple way of avoiding it.

Ignorant etc.

krudler wrote: »

I wouldnt be here to ponder such a stupid question. If my parents used a condom I wouldn't be here either. What's your point?

Whether you would like for your mother to have had an abortion? Or are you quite happy that she was decent enough to give birth and raise you?

lazygal

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Whether you would like for your mother to have had an abortion? Or are you quite happy that she was decent enough to give birth and raise you?

If my mother had aborted me I'd never know about it. I'd be disgusted if she only had me because her only option was to remain pregnant. Being pregnant is crap. You should only have to continue it if you want to, regardless of the circumstances of conception.

endacl

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

How about women who don't want a baby keep their legs closed?

The fact that a woman can decide when to terminate with no input from the man (in the UK) is crass. And it does irritate me when people bandy about this "its the woman's body" argument. Its also the body of the unborn baby we're talking about and that body that people are murdering when they elect for an abortion.

Abortion should be for instances where the woman's health or life is at risk and in cases of rape. Not just because some dollybird went out on a Saturday night, had a shag around the back of the cinema, the johnny burst and now she's crying about her "rights" and not accepting her "responsibilities". If she, and the man, aren't big enough to step up to the mark why did she let him at her pussy and why did he throw his cock in there?

And the Boardsie for 'most apt username of the day' goes to...

:rolleyes:

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

It's quite hard to fcuk around without consenting females.

shruikan2553

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

You mean like how the woman can tell the man to get stuffed and to give her money?

FloatingVoter

Abortions for men. Well if we needed them you'd get one while the Guinness was settling. But its about wimmin so we get nervous and make up laws and do some legislating and fiddle with ourselves while we hope something happens to d'economy or d'middle east so they'll stop askin' us about de wimmins stuff.
Sorry, my inner Bertie comes out at times like this.

TempAc

magicbastarder wrote: »

such a simple decision. so she's forced into being a single mother with no support if she doesn't like the idea of an abortion, which many women would balk at.

so, again, it's a zero risk game for the guy, and all the heartache and fallout is borne by the woman.

if you don't want to run the risk of being a father and having to deal with the responsibilities that entails, you've a simple way of avoiding it.

She has decided she doesn't want an abortion. So yes, she has decided to be a single mother (given that the traditional shotgun marriage is gone for the most part), unless they reconcile or if she forms a relationship with another person.

She is in no way forced to be a single mother, she has the option of deciding to be s a single mother and if she has an issue with abortion then yes, that is her choice to be one. In the end the fact that she she doesn't decide to have an abortion doesn't remove her choice, that is her choice.

Riskymove

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

well can't a woman presently **** as much as she likes and if there is an unplanned pregnancy, tell the man to get suffed and that she is doing what she wants

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

OK maybe this will help you get your head around it.

Women can do the 'well, we had consensual sex, and I have conceived a child, but I've decided to abort the foetus and you have no say in the matter/I have decided to hand the baby up for adoption and you have no say in the matter/I have decided to keep the child and you will support us both for 18 odd years and you have no say in the matter[delete as applicable to how I'm feeling about the whole thing]. What cards is the man holding?

i'm not arguing that as a man, there are not scenarios involving unplanned pregnancies which do not work out best for the man.
given that, most scenarios work out worse for the woman.

but the options in most of these scenarios which lightens the negative load on the man, transfers that load to the woman.

the notion of being able to wash your hands of an issue you have helped create, in the process making life worse for the woman, is something i find odious.