Abortion For Men

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.

Wibbs

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

Are you seriously suggesting that getting a woman pregnant is a "zero risk game" for a man? Yep it seems I was right, deliberately blinkered.

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.

Man the gift that keeps on giving... You could not make this stuff up folks. Let's imagine if another user had said "if you don't want to run the risk of being a mother and having to deal with the responsibilities that entails, you've a simple way of avoiding it". Attack of the vapours all around. Even though in MB's fantasy world women are unilaterally affected by pregnancy birth and raising children it would make more sense of that sentence and logic to be applied.

Ignorant etc.

lazygal wrote: »

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.

Hypothetically, would you have liked your mother to have had an abortion? H.Y.P.O.T.H.E.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y.

OK so we completely negate the responsibilities of the two adults and we completely disregard the rights of the unborn child?

During a pregnancy there is an unborn child who cannot speak for itself. It cannot protect itself. It cannot express its rights. Human instinct should be to protect it, not murder it. That's what pro-choice apologists are advocating, legalised murder. If we're going to go down the route of legalised murder of unborn children, why stop at birth?

GarIT

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

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.

So answer this for me, your logic says that's it's ok to murder (as you call it) a baby as a solution to rape?

I'm not saying it isn't just asking if that is your logic.

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that getting a woman pregnant is a "zero risk game" for a man? Yep it seems I was right, deliberately blinkered.

the suggestion above - a man being able to walk away with no obligations - would make it a zero risk game.

Wibbs

magicbastarder wrote: »

the notion of being able to wash your hands of an issue you have helped create

What's abortion, or adoption? Who has the choice there? Who has the least and the most choices between a man and a woman if an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Simple question.

Ignorant etc.

endacl wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

Ah, because my argument doesn't agree with yours. Quite ignorant from you wouldn't you say? Why is it that pro-choice apologists look upon pro-life supporters as scum but expect to be respected themselves?

brooke 2

kylith wrote: »

Men can, and do, walk away from pregnancies they have helped create all the time.

Men often don't even know they are fathers ; the same can never be said about
the mothers! Even if she does not know she is pregnant, she will definitely know
about childbirth when it is time for the child to be born, as in that tragic case
recently of the Irish girl in Australia!!

lazygal

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Hypothetically, would you have liked your mother to have had an abortion? H.Y.P.O.T.H.E.T.I.C.A.L.L.Y.

OK so we completely negate the responsibilities of the two adults and we completely disregard the rights of the unborn child?

During a pregnancy there is an unborn child who cannot speak for itself. It cannot protect itself. It cannot express its rights. Human instinct should be to protect it, not murder it. That's what pro-choice apologists are advocating, legalised murder. If we're going to go down the route of legalised murder of unborn children, why stop at birth?

Why don't we issue death certificates for babies miscarried before 24 weeks? It's still a child according to you. Why don't we prevent women travelling to murder their babies, surely we shouldn't be allowing that to continue? Why don't we pay child benefit from conception, if an unborn foetus is the same as a baby? I'll tell you why, because a zygote is not the same as a newborn and it is a fallacy to pretend otherwise.

iwantmydinner

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

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.

Sex is a crime now?!

I've never heard anyone who describes themselves as pro-choice denying anyone their right to an opinion. I personally don't care when you believe life starts. That is of literally zero relevance to me and my reproductive choices. You live your life by your belief system, and let me live my life by my value system. It'll be better that way, I promise.

It's interesting that you buy into the 'good abortion' and 'bad abortion' thing. Are there any other circumstances in which an abortion should be allowed? For example, in the case of fatal foetal abnormalities? How about when a couple already have a kid with, say, profound special needs, and a new baby would be disastrous for the family unit? How about when a woman's ability to continue earning to provide for her family would be destroyed by a(nother) pregnancy? Would they be good or bad abortions?

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

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

Honestly your posts make it seem like you think it is necessary for women to have sex, that a man decides if a woman gets pregnant and that men only ever have sex to hurt women.

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

What's abortion, or adoption? Who has the choice there? Who has the least and the most choices between a man and a woman if an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Simple question.

simple answer, the woman, because she is the person in whom the pregnancy is actually proceeding. she has the choice because she's the one who's pregnant.

Ignorant etc.

GarIT wrote: »

So answer this for me, your logic says that's it's ok to murder (as you call it) a baby as a solution to rape?

I'm not saying it isn't just asking if that is your logic.

In situations where the woman has been raped, then she has had a responsibility forced upon her. I think it would be quite cruel to force her to continue with the pregnancy until the bitter end when the baby growing inside her would constantly remind her of how it got there. What I don't like is when people consent to have sex, but then don't man (or woman) up when they find themselves pregnant. I don't like men who scarper as soon as they found out the woman is pregnant either though. That said, it is curious how men who scarper are looked down upon whereas women who have abortions are treated with (undeserving) sympathy.

humanji

I really don't want to have to say it in everyone of these threads, but let's not make this again about the rights and wrongs of abortion. There's a specific topic in the OP, and that's what you should discuss.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

Honestly your posts make it seem like you think it is necessary for women to have sex, that a man decides if a woman gets pregnant and that men only ever have sex to hurt women.

i'm arguing in the context of the suggestion that men should be legally allowed walk away with no obligations, after conception. i'm not necessarily arguing in a generalised context, so it may not be advisable to apply my argument generally.

Wibbs

magicbastarder wrote: »

simple answer, the woman, because she is the person in whom the pregnancy is actually proceeding. she has the choice because she's the one who's pregnant.

So a woman can "wash her hands of an issue she helped create"? She can also do this after the child is born. However men have zero choice in the matter. Women always have the right, men do not. OK gotcha. Good to see it spelled out.

Corkgirl210

IMHO ... NO to abortion for men.. he wrote his contract to be a father when he didn't use protection and in case of accidents.. no such thing.. you are either careful (in which more precautions can be put in place thereafter i.e. morning after pill etc.), very careful or just not bothered... in latter.. he has to suffer the consequences..

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

So a woman can "wash her hands of an issue she helped create"?

i don't think either going full term or getting an abortion (miscarriages to one side) is exactly getting to wash your hands of an issue.

don't like that a woman gets the above choice because she's the one who's pregnant? not much you can do about that, until medical science allows men to become pregnant.

Otacon

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

Wibbs wrote: »

What's abortion, or adoption? Who has the choice there? Who has the least and the most choices between a man and a woman if an unwanted pregnancy occurs? Simple question.

magicbastarder wrote: »

simple answer, the woman, because she is the person in whom the pregnancy is actually proceeding. she has the choice because she's the one who's pregnant.

There we go.

Dyr

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.

Sure we're all for barbarism against women in this country

Maybe if we shipped them off to england for the oul forced abortion it would be okay

magicbastarder

again, the proposed solution made by some posters here is that when a couple conceive accidentally, the best solution appears to be allowing the man to walk away with no obligations, leaving the woman to deal with the hard choices.

pregnancy is an unequal game, and no amount of foostering around with imaginary laws is going to change that.

Ficheall

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

IMHO ... NO to abortion for men.. he wrote his contract to be a father when he didn't use protection and in case of accidents.. no such thing.. you are either careful (in which more precautions can be put in place thereafter i.e. morning after pill etc.), very careful or just not bothered... in latter.. he has to suffer the consequences..

By the same token, you are, presumably against abortion for women too?

shruikan2553

magicbastarder wrote: »

again, the proposed solution made by some posters here is that when a couple conceive accidentally, the best solution appears to be allowing the man to walk away with no obligations, leaving the woman to deal with the hard choices.

pregnancy is an unequal game, and no amount of foostering around with imaginary laws is going to change that.

Errr no, thats not what people said.

Ignorant etc.

magicbastarder wrote: »

again, the proposed solution made by some posters here is that when a couple conceive accidentally, the best solution appears to be allowing the man to walk away with no obligations, leaving the woman to deal with the hard choices.

pregnancy is an unequal game, and no amount of foostering around with imaginary laws is going to change that.

I in no way would support a man walking away from his child. In fact, if it were my own son I'd disown him. A male who walks away from his own child is not a man, he's a boy.

Ignorant etc.

Ficheall wrote: »

By the same token, you are, presumably against abortion for women too?

In most circumstances, I am, yes.

Engine No.9

Rayanne2010 wrote: »

IMHO ... NO to abortion for men.. he wrote his contract to be a father when he didn't use protection and in case of accidents.. no such thing.. you are either careful (in which more precautions can be put in place thereafter i.e. morning after pill etc.), very careful or just not bothered... in latter.. he has to suffer the consequences..

Bit this is exactly the point! The condom splits or she "accidentally" forgets to take her pill. Precautions were taken on the man's part so he insists she take the morning after pill, when she doesn't, should he have a case for forcing an abortion???

magicbastarder

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Errr no, thats not what people said.

the argument was made that men should be allowed legally disown any responsibility for the child, regardless of the woman's wishes:

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.

magicbastarder wrote: »

with or regardless of the woman's agreement?

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless TBH. If the man has no say at all before birth(and fair enough), why should women have the right to veto the man's wishes afterwards?

what argument was being made if i misinterpreted this?

Ignorant etc.

I really don't get why abortion needs to be an issue anyway, for the man or for the woman. If you want to have sex but don't wnat a child, just shove it up her arse sure.

magicbastarder

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

I really don't get why abortion needs to be an issue anyway, for the man or for the woman. If you want to have sex but don't wnat a child, just shove it up her arse sure.

OR; buy a strapon and let her pound on him.

takamichinoku

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.

That seems pretty reasonable, assuming the kid was young enough, like. She had to agree to the waiving though?

I can't see a better approach than a mutually agreed waiving of rights. Sure very few women would want a guy who wanted an abortion and had no interest in being involved in the child's life initially potentially popping up later.

brooke 2

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

There have been many recorded instances (especially in the US where the
state rigourously follows up deadbeat fathers for monetary support) of partners/
husbands killing the mothers of their unborn children. The Peterson case in
Modesto, California, was one such tragic case. I once read of a person who was
doing research on the deaths of women in the States stumblimg on the fact
that the majority of women murdered by their husbands/partners happened
to have been pregnant at the time they were killed. In a relatively recent case
here in Ireland, a girl who told her boyfriend she was pregnant sent him into
such paroxysms of rage that he murdered her. He had wanted to resume a
relationship with a former girlfriend. He is now in jail.

An unwanted pregnancy is very dangerous for women, on so many fronts!!

padd b1975

BeerWolf wrote: »

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

Since when did contraception become an exclusively male responsibility???

magicbastarder

takamichinoku wrote: »

She had to agree to the waiving though?

it was by mutual consent.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

again, the proposed solution made by some posters here is that when a couple conceive accidentally, the best solution appears to be allowing the man to walk away with no obligations, leaving the woman to deal with the hard choices.

pregnancy is an unequal game, and no amount of foostering around with imaginary laws is going to change that.

Why can't we have equal rights where either or both parents can decide they don't want the child. The woman can put the child up for adoption, why can't a man declare that it is his wish that the child be aborted or adopted and after that he is no longer legally related to the child. Even in that situation the mother holds all the cards, she decides what to do.

What you have been suggesting is that when a child is conceived the man is entered into a legally binding contract where he is responsible for the child if the female want's to keep it but the female isn't obligated to be responsible for the child if the male wants to keep it.

shruikan2553

magicbastarder wrote: »

the argument was made that men should be allowed legally disown any responsibility for the child, regardless of the woman's wishes:



what argument was being made if i misinterpreted this?

On my phone so can multiquote but the gist of what you said is that people are saying the "best solution" is for men to abandon women leaving them with all the work. Nobody said that was the best solution and you seem to think there are no consequences for the men.

Ignorant etc.

magicbastarder wrote: »

OR; buy a strapon and let her pound on him.

Not as much pleasure for her as having her sphincter tickled!

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

What you have been suggesting is that when a child is conceived the man is entered into a legally binding contract where he is responsible for the child if the female want's to keep it but the female isn't obligated to be responsible for the child if the male wants to keep it.

it's not just what i am suggesting, i believe it is the case at the moment.

the situation above arises because of the inequality in how babies are born. it'd be reversed if men were the ones who got pregnant, and the inequality is currently biologically inescapable.

nc19

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 ?

What about times when the woman got pregnant in spite of the mans wishes? Like she told him she was infertile or on the pill or whatever because she wanted a baby and he didnt???

not exactly fair in these cases for the man to b financially bound to that child for 18 yrs

Ignorant etc.

nc19 wrote: »

What about times when the woman got pregnant in spite of the mans wishes? Like she told him she was infertile or on the pill or whatever because she wanted a baby and he didnt???

not exactly fair in these cases for the man to b financially bound to that child for 18 yrs

I think in those cases, if the man can prove it, he may have a case fit for court. I'm sure I heard of something like that before, probably in America, but I can't be certain.

Riskymove

brooke 2 wrote: »

In a relatively recent case
here in Ireland, a girl who told her boyfriend she was pregnant sent him into
such paroxysms of rage that he murdered her. He had wanted to resume a
relationship with a former girlfriend. He is now in jail.

on an aside..she wasn't actually pregnant

tbh, the discussion above includes the idea that we should be considering why a man would react so badly to the idea of making a woman pregnant?

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's not just what i am suggesting, i believe it is the case at the moment.

the situation above arises because of the inequality in how babies are born. it'd be reversed if men were the ones who got pregnant, and the inequality is currently biologically inescapable.

Also biologically speaking the man has no physical bind to the child why should he have a legal one. Why make two people suffer on the basis that one has to anyway.