Abortion For Men

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

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.

Are you serious?

Ignorant etc.

GarIT wrote: »

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.

You're either female or you aren't a father yet. If you are male, come back and repeat the first part of that sentence when you become a Dad.

brooke 2

Riskymove wrote: »

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?

True. But he thought she was.

He reacted so badly because he believed he would be lumbered with the
responsibility of looking after a child. IIRC, he was also concerned about
a claim which might be made on his family's farm. Am not 100% sure about
that.

Riskymove

brooke 2 wrote: »

He reacted so badly because he believed he would be lumbered with the
responsibility of looking after a child. IIRC, he was also concerned about
a claim which might be made on his family's farm. Am not 100% sure about
that.

well...exactly

but, as is being discussed, why should there be such an impact for an unplanned pregnancy

he obviously got so out of his mind with fear that he carried out this terrible deed

there needs to be some middle ground

Ignorant etc.

For those who believe the man should have the option to legally negate his rights and responsibilities to the child, when would you allow for that? Any time the man didn't want the child or in special circumstances? If special circumstances, what kind of special circumstances?

If she had tricked him by telling him she was on contraception or barren?

If she had raped him?

If the child had an alternative of a better father?

If he had engaged her services as a prostitute?

If they were making a porno?

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

Are you serious?

It's no different from the point you made in reverse. Males and females are biologically different. Why should laws regarding males be made to make males have the same responsibility of females while those same laws can't provide men the same rights.

Why do we have laws telling men what do to when we can let biology suggest how things should go as you have suggested. Women physically get pregnant, naturally they get both the rights and responsibilities. Men aren't physically bound to the child so biology dictates that a man has no rights or responsibilities.

Neither parent should be forced to keep a child after birth, that's why adoption exists, if a woman can waive her rights and responsibilities by adoption why cant a man.

GarIT

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

You're either female or you aren't a father yet. If you are male, come back and repeat the first part of that sentence when you become a Dad.

I said physical didn't I. The child is physically in the woman but not in the man, therefore the male is not physically attached.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

In principle it does seem like a good idea that fathers would get an opt-out clause from all rights and responsibilities, though obviously the idea of a man being able to compel a woman to either have an abortion or continue with a pregnancy is mental.

Principle is one thing though, practice another. There are a couple scenarios off the top of my head where the rights of the child and the rights of the father further down the line come into conflict like. And time is a bit of an issue with pregnancy. Say a woman finds out she's pregnant at ten weeks, if the father doesn't want to be involved she would have an abortion, if he agrees to at least child support she wouldn't. How long does he get to make this huge decision and how long should she be expected to wait? Say a woman finds out she's pregnant at 20 something weeks (it does happen)? Is he compelled to give child support even though he wouldn't have been if she'd found out earlier? Say he suspects she knew earlier and deliberately concealed it, what options does he have?

Maximus Alexander

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm still trying to get my head around this attitude.
so men can do the 'well, we had consensual sex, and you have conceived my child, but i'm turning my back on you to deal with the physical, emotional, and financial fallout while i walk off into the sunset whistling contentedly'?

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

Abortion means that the woman can say 'well, we had consensual sex, and you I have conceived your child, but I am choosing to abort it without your consent'.

With legal abortion, there is no way around this, since of course the OP's suggestion is barbaric beyond belief. So, a woman could choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy, but a man would have no such right.

The suggestion that Wibbs is advocating would effectively allow a man to have an 'abortion' without physically terminating the the pregnancy.

It could be implemented such that during the period that the woman is allowed to abort, a man is also allowed a similar right to waive all rights and responsibilities to the child. What the woman does after that would remain her own decision.

Ignorant etc.

GarIT wrote: »

I said physical didn't I. The child is physically in the woman but not in the man, therefore the male is not physically attached.

So you say the father has no physical attachment whatsoever to the child? The child is his flesh and blood. Half of the child's gene set come from the father. There is very much a physical connection. If you are talking about the child being inside one parent then that stops at birth (well in most cases, I did once know a weird man who got up to dirty things with his Mammy, but I don't think that's what you intended).

Export

they're called condoms

Ignorant etc.

Export wrote: »

they're called condoms

What are?

GarIT

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

So you say the father has no physical attachment whatsoever to the child? The child is his flesh and blood. Half of the child's gene set come from the father. There is very much a physical connection. If you are talking about the child being inside one parent then that stops at birth (well in most cases, I did once know a weird man who got up to dirty things with his Mammy, but I don't think that's what you intended).

I don't think you're understanding physical or attached. Yes they share genes but they are not tied together. Genes would be a mental attachment and a physical similarity but not a physical attachment.

nc19

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 have been able to think but I understand if my mother did do it it would have been an extremely hard decision to make

btw, I dont apologise for being pro choice.

also, using a 5 yr old as a replacement for a foetus is ridiculous and what we have come to expect from the god bothering pro lifers

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

It's no different from the point you made in reverse. Males and females are biologically different. Why should laws regarding males be made to make males have the same responsibility of females while those same laws can't provide men the same rights.

A question for you. Let's say you were one of a couple who had just conceived accidentally and against your wishes. In this scenario, would you prefer to be the woman and pregnant, or the man and potentially a father? Under current laws.

suicide_circus

The_Valeyard wrote: »

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

Tough shiite I'd imagine.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

A question for you. Let's say you were one of a couple who had just conceived accidentally and against your wishes. In this scenario, would you prefer to be the woman and pregnant, or the man and potentially a father? Under current laws.

Woman everytime. I'd choose the physical and emotional suffering over the 100k+ financial burden restricting you for the next 23 years. (Maintenance is paid until 23 or until the child leaves full time education and is 18)

A female can have an abortion or adoption and move on with their lives, a man is stuck for 23 years if the female chooses.

GarIT

suicide_circus wrote: »

Tough shiite I'd imagine.

Currently that's how it is but is it right?

Ignorant etc.

nc19 wrote: »

I wouldnt have been able to think but I understand if my mother did do it it would have been an extremely hard decision to make

btw, I dont apologise for being pro choice.

also, using a 5 yr old as a replacement for a foetus is ridiculous and what we have come to expect from the god bothering pro lifers

I think the extremely hard decision part is missing the boat. Being from the UK, I know a lot of women over there and lets say I know an awful lot of them go out riding on a frequent basis and don't exactly pay attention to whether they're using a "saddle" or not, all with the big idea that if anything should happen they can just go to the doctors and get it sorted, easy-peasy. That is the kind of attitude that makes me pro-life. They want their rights but think nothing of their responsibilities.

You don't have that attitude in Ireland because abortion isn't generally allowed. I do suspect that when abortion finally does become freely available, some Irish pro-choicers will find that they get more than they bargained for. It also leads to a total liberation of sex. The Irish, in fairness, are generally not as sex mad as a lot of people in Britain, ye tend to be more faithful and ye tend to be more selective if you get my drift.

I don't think a 5-year-old is a ridiculous example btw. We were all foetuses once.

By the way, I am pro life, but I'm also an atheist so I'm not sure which God I'm bothering. I do like Ganesh. Boy's body and elephant's head, quite cool and about as realistic as all the other Gods.

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

Woman everytime. I'd choose the physical and emotional suffering over the 100k+ financial burden restricting you for the next 23 years. (Maintenance is paid until 23 or until the child leaves full time education and is 18)

A female can have an abortion or adoption and move on with their lives, a man is stuck for 23 years if the female chooses.

You do realise that there is as much of a financial burden on the mother of the child?

Mossess

GarIT wrote: »

Woman everytime. I'd choose the physical and emotional suffering over the 100k+ financial burden restricting you for the next 23 years. (Maintenance is paid until 23 or until the child leaves full time education and is 18)

A female can have an abortion or adoption and move on with their lives, a man is stuck for 23 years if the female chooses.

GarIT, you forgot about the kid, they would be stuck with a right Gombeen of a dipstick father for there entire lives by your reckoning.

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

You do realise that there is as much of a financial burden on the mother of the child?

No there's not, the mother has options of not paying, adoption or abortion. The father is required to pay if the mother chooses. Also if the mother does choose to keep the child there is lone parents where the male would have to work for the money.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

I think the extremely hard decision part is missing the boat. Being from the UK, I know a lot of women over there and lets say I know an awful lot of them go out riding on a frequent basis and don't exactly pay attention to whether they're using a "saddle" or not, all with the big idea that if anything should happen they can just go to the doctors and get it sorted, easy-peasy. That is the kind of attitude that makes me pro-life. They want their rights but think nothing of their responsibilities.

You don't have that attitude in Ireland because abortion isn't generally allowed. I do suspect that when abortion finally does become freely available, some Irish pro-choicers will find that they get more than they bargained for. It also leads to a total liberation of sex. The Irish, in fairness, are generally not as sex mad as a lot of people in Britain, ye tend to be more faithful and ye tend to be more selective if you get my drift.

That's actually a pro-life position that people usually dance around, at least you're out in the open about it. The big problem with access to abortion is that it turns women into dirty hoors and leads to the apocalyptic scenario of sexual liberation, gotcha.

GarIT

Mossess wrote: »

GarIT, you forgot about the kid, they would be stuck with a right Gombeen of a dipstick father for there entire lives by your reckoning.

What do you mean by that? The father could be anyone or the child could be aborted.

magicbastarder

B0jangles wrote: »

You do realise that there is as much of a financial burden on the mother of the child?

You don't understand. Women get the choice re an unplanned pregnancy, so women are better off.

It may sound like a caricature of the position being advanced, but it's not completely unfair. The real issue is women have the choice precisely because they're *worse* off.

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

No there's not, the mother has options of not paying, adoption or abortion. The father is required to pay if the mother chooses. Also if the mother does choose to keep the child there is lone parents where the male would have to work for the money.

If the child is aborted or adopted then there is no financial burden for the father or the mother, apart from the costs incurred by the pregnancy itself.

Once the child is born, then both parents have to provide for its upkeep. Lone parent allowance is available to either parent, as long as they are the one actually raising the child.

GarIT

Leilani Tasty Sandbag wrote: »

That's actually a pro-life position that people usually dance around, at least you're out in the open about it. The big problem with access to abortion is that it turns women into dirty hoors and leads to the apocalyptic scenario of sexual liberation, gotcha.

I don't agree with the poster that some people should loose rights because others abuse them but it is fairly well documented the countries that have on demand abortions have higher rates of unprotected sex and more STIs than other first world countries.

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

If the child is aborted or adopted then there is no financial burden for the father or the mother, apart from the costs incurred by the pregnancy itself.

Once the child is born, then both parents have to provide for its upkeep. Lone parent allowance is available to either parent, as long as they are the one actually raising the child.

But being the mother you have the control, you can choose adoption. If you choose to be the father you have no say in what happens and risk being landed with the financial burden.

For mothers the financial burden is your decision, for fathers the financial burden is somebody else's decision.

Also the number of males in receipt of lone parents in Ireland where the mother is not deceased is almost zero.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

GarIT wrote: »

I don't agree with the poster that some people should loose rights because others abuse them but it is fairly well documented the countries that have on demand abortions have higher rates of unprotected sex and more STIs than other first world countries.

That would figure, but it's not all that often people come out with "you shouldn't allow abortion because it will lead to more sex" anymore. Ignorant hasn't learned to adequately conceal his misogyny and sexual hang-ups god love him.

B0jangles

GarIT wrote: »

But being the mother you have the control, you can choose adoption. If you choose to be the father you have no say in what happens and risk being landed with the financial burden.

For mothers the financial burden is your decision, for fathers the financial burden is somebody else's decision.

Also the number of males in receipt of lone parents in Ireland where the mother is not deceased is almost zero.

But that's basic biological reality - only women can become pregnant thus only women should be able to decide whether or not to proceed with their pregnancies?

GarIT

Sweet Rose wrote: »

From reading these posts, it's so typical of some men. They can so easily emotionally detach themselves from their own offspring, never to be heard of again. Men have a choice, wear a flipping condom! No glove, no love and all that.

Same choice women can make.

tinz18

Sweet Rose wrote: »

From reading these posts, it's so typical of some men. They can so easily emotionally detach themselves from their own offspring, never to be heard of again. Men have a choice, wear a flipping condom! No glove, no love and all that.

That is if they remember to bring one, I've heard of lads and experienced it myself going out without any condoms and pulling (the aim of their night I might add- not just a happenstance), then expecting the girl to produce condoms (like what happens if they're not the average size;)) and if they haven't they think her being on the pill is enough to risk it (if she's impressionable/stupid enough). It seems all the responsibility is on the girls to take all the measures with contraceptives and the lads just have to show up. (Generalizing here there's plenty of safe lads out there too)

diveout

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.

This will never happen. It will never happen because it will cause greater financial burdens on the state and therefore the tax payer.

The only way it can happen is if a step dad chooses to adopt the child and then the biological father rescinds all rights and responsibilities.

It's very easily to talk about this glibly and in the abstract but the realities of the consequences of both the putative father and the child and the mother are very deep and long lasting.

ShaShaBear

At the end of the day a man should not be taking a woman's word on her contraceptive state if he truly doesn't want offspring. Anyone can say they are on the pill. They might be lying. They could be totally honest and take one two hours late the following day. Contraception is equally on both parties. Besides, the risk of STI's is high, don't go sticking your mickey in anyone, just because they tell you their womb doesn't work. Same for women. I've had men tell me they were sterile before - anything to avoid a condom!
If you are not 1000000000% sure your sexual partner is STI-free and completely contraceptively protected, then initiate your own form of contraception.

I believe a man should have the right to walk away from a child he helped create because the woman currently has options to do the same - abortion and adoption. Men currently do not have the option of walking away from a child and I feel that is unfair. I've just had a baby to my partner - I could have aborted her or given her to another family, but had I decided to keep her (as I obviously did), I could have (essentially) total financial control over my partner for the next 20 or so years, as well as being able to interfere in his career progression, relationships and travel opportunities.

And as for being pro-life on the matter, of course you have an opinion, but it should not be shoved in people's faces. Calling people who decide to opt for abortion "murderers" is very harsh to say the least and you have NO idea what emotional and mental turmoil that women went through to come to that decision. I have never forced my opinion on someone who is against abortion (and have removed many friends on Facebook who insisted on sharing pictures of half-formed foetuses on their walls in an attempt to shock and upset people who do not share their opinion) and expect the same courtesy in return.

The woman is a life too, and taking away her right to abortion is leaving her without a voice too, don't you think? There are a million reasons why a woman should wish to end a pregnancy and frankly, none of them are any of your business. Any of her reasons would likely improve her own quality of life. But reasons why a man would wish to end a pregnancy? Only one - removing his responsibility. Which could easily be solved by giving him the right to walk away. Because if he gets a woman pregnant, neither of them were engaging in correct contraceptive procedures and taking adequate precautions. The pill, condom, morning-after pill. All three methods would pretty much guarantee a fruitless encounter.

eviltwin

Cannot believe the OP. So if I get pregnant and am happy or not happy but decide to keep it and my husband is absolutely not happy he can force me to have an abortion? How would that work exactly? And sure why stop there? Why not let men force women into having babies if they feel broody and want a kid, why not force insemination of women so they become pregnant....sounds crazy and stupid but not far off what you have mentioned OP.

GarIT

B0jangles wrote: »

But that's basic biological reality - only women can become pregnant thus only women should be able to decide whether or not to proceed with their pregnancies?

I didn't say it was wrong, I was asked which side I would rather be on. Yes naturally the woman should decide if she continues with the pregnancy, but she shouldn't get to choose if the man pays for her continuing the pregnancy.

sun structures

The amount of hate towards men in here...

tritium

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 that reasoning can I presume you're completely pro life too?

eviltwin

GarIT wrote: »

I didn't say it was wrong, I was asked which side I would rather be on. Yes naturally the woman should decide if she continues with the pregnancy, but she shouldn't get to choose if the man pays for her continuing the pregnancy.

Let's be fair, a lot of the time they don't anyway.

I do see the logic in what you say but taking it through to its conclusion I wouldn't want to see any woman feel pressured into an abortion for financial reasons. Its not an easy thing to do when you are completely sure its the right decision, if you are doing it under duress, if you want the baby but feel you can't keep it then its so much worse.

Then the tax payer picks up the tab yet again further stigmatising women who are lone parents so they are damned if they do damned if they don't...its a vicious circle.

Ignorant etc.

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Obviously. It takes two to tango. Both parties should take responsibility but condoms should be more fool proof than the pill. If you are a sexually active man, you should always carry condoms with you.

I'm married, and monogomous, do I have to carry them too?

kylith

GarIT wrote: »

Woman everytime. I'd choose the physical and emotional suffering over the 100k+ financial burden restricting you for the next 23 years. (Maintenance is paid until 23 or until the child leaves full time education and is 18)

A female can have an abortion or adoption and move on with their lives, a man is stuck for 23 years if the female chooses.

Because the woman bears no financial burden for a child over that time?

The mother gets to go through physical and emotional trauma AND has a massive financial burden.

Smidge

GarIT wrote: »

I didn't say it was wrong, I was asked which side I would rather be on. Yes naturally the woman should decide if she continues with the pregnancy, but she shouldn't get to choose if the man pays for her continuing the pregnancy.

The mother doesn't decide. The court decides. The court also decides on visitation etc.
But ultimately the man decides if he will be involved with the responsibility of the child.

tritium

tinz18 wrote: »

That is if they remember to bring one, I've heard of lads and experienced it myself going out without any condoms and pulling (the aim of their night I might add- not just a happenstance), then expecting the girl to produce condoms (like what happens if they're not the average size;)) and if they haven't they think her being on the pill is enough to risk it (if she's impressionable/stupid enough). It seems all the responsibility is on the girls to take all the measures with contraceptives and the lads just have to show up. (Generalizing here there's plenty of safe lads out there too)

So, as a matter of interest, why wouldn't a woman also carry condoms?

GarIT

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Obviously. It takes two to tango. Both parties should take responsibility but condoms should be more fool proof than the pill. If you are a sexually active man, you should always carry condoms with you.

I completely agree but because it's after hours I have to say this.

I don't think my partner would like that. It might look suspicious.

LiveIsLife

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.

So do you believe in abortion? Because there's a simple way for a woman to avoid getting pregnant too

Galwayguy35

eviltwin wrote: »

Cannot believe the OP. So if I get pregnant and am happy or not happy but decide to keep it and my husband is absolutely not happy he can force me to have an abortion? How would that work exactly? And sure why stop there? Why not let men force women into having babies if they feel broody and want a kid, why not force insemination of women so they become pregnant....sounds crazy and stupid but not far off what you have mentioned OP.

What about a man being forced to pay for a kid he never wanted, condoms break and if the woman doesn't take the MAP then he has no choice at all.

I think if she wanted to keep it he should have the right to remove himself from financial responsibility in cases like I mentioned.

suicide_circus

GarIT wrote: »

Currently that's how it is but is it right?

Probably not. If no woman should be forced to carry a child to term, I struggle to see the logical argument for forcing a man to be involved in the life of a child he didn't want. Goose...gander...etc.

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

Let's be fair, a lot of the time they don't anyway.

I do see the logic in what you say but taking it through to its conclusion I wouldn't want to see any woman feel pressured into an abortion for financial reasons. Its not an easy thing to do when you are completely sure its the right decision, if you are doing it under duress, if you want the baby but feel you can't keep it then its so much worse.

Then the tax payer picks up the tab yet again further stigmatising women who are lone parents so they are damned if they do damned if they don't...its a vicious circle.

In a lot of cases the women wouldn't have the choice the men disappear but as a working law abiding citizen that would not run away they would have the choice over me.

I think the taxpayer picking up the burden is a lot fairer than men being chosen to do it because somebody has to. Lone parents are also being sorted out at the moment, it only lasts until the child is 7 now.

diveout

GarIT wrote: »

I think the taxpayer picking up the burden is a lot fairer than men being chosen to do it because somebody has to. Lone parents are also being sorted out at the moment, it only lasts until the child is 7 now.

If men are given carte blanche the option to walk away from a child and pregnancy consequence free than surely you can see the outputs of a law like that?

magicbastarder

LiveIsLife wrote: »

So do you believe in abortion? Because there's a simple way for a woman to avoid getting pregnant too

The quote you've used was made in the context of the 'men should have a legal right to completely disown the child ' argument, which, as you mention contraception, becomes an interesting topic. There would be much less impetus for men to worry about it if they could walk away from an unplanned pregnancy with nary a glance backwards.