Abortion For Men

tinz18

I personally always did until I got into the relationship I'm in for the past few years- I'm responsible for the contraception it doesn't bother me and both of us accept there's always a risk and are ready to deal with the consequences. But what happens when not in a relationship the condom the girls carry is too small/ too big? I've had instances where the guy wanted to chance it anyways with the too big condom. my point is lads have more of an idea of what fits (given that its theres) so would they not carry their own properly fitted condoms? Or is it too much effort?

GarIT

kylith wrote: »

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.

As I've said a couple of times, it is all optional for the female, or the male you have to go along with whatever the female chooses.

eviltwin

LiveIsLife wrote: »

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

Accidents happen and sometimes people make bad choices. Imagine how much the sexual landscape would change if men had a chance to have no responsibility at all for their offspring. An unplanned pregnancy is a huge deal for a woman no matter what she does, the idea that women who choose adoption or abortion just move on from it is a myth, you don't forget, its not easy and it affects you forever even if you are totally confident you make the right choice.

I trust my partner and I feel secure in the knowledge that if I got pregnant we would face it together but how can I be totally sure of that especially if he can just absolve himself from it. This wouldn't just affect the one night stands or the casual daters, long term partners can just walk away too sometimes after a planned pregnancy when the reality gets too much for them. One of my cousins ended up a lone parent 8 yrs into her marriage because her husband couldn't cope with a disabled child. Should she have closed her legs too?

magicbastarder

suicide_circus wrote: »

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.

So the alternative is that women should be 'forced' to have an abortion to avoid the same fate. Can you see why women are at a disadvantage here?

diveout

eviltwin wrote: »

Accidents happen and sometimes people make bad choices. Imagine how much the sexual landscape would change if men had a chance to have no responsibility at all for their offspring. An unplanned pregnancy is a huge deal for a woman no matter what she does, the idea that women who choose adoption or abortion just move on from it is a myth, you don't forget, its not easy and it affects you forever even if you are totally confident you make the right choice.

I trust my partner and I feel secure in the knowledge that if I got pregnant we would face it together but how can I be totally sure of that especially if he can just absolve himself from it. This wouldn't just affect the one night stands or the casual daters, long term partners can just walk away too sometimes after a planned pregnancy when the reality gets too much for them. One of my cousins ended up a lone parent 8 yrs into her marriage because her husband couldn't cope with a disabled child. Should she have closed her legs too?

Yep.

One of my best friends is raising a child alone, a planned child ...because his father changed his mind midway through the pregnancy.

It's insane to suggest that men and fathers can move away consequence free from siring children. Spray and run like dogs.

eviltwin

GarIT wrote: »

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.

So the decent guys who work hard to provide for their children pay double then while the ones who can't be bothered get away with it?

Calina

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.

I think that if a man wants the right to force a woman to undergo an abortion he should, at the same time, under go a medical procedure he doesn't want either.

You have a horrifically simplistic understanding of the impact on women of a pregnancy so I will list them out. It is not just a case of supporting children for 23 years.

1) women who have children take a major lifetime earnings hit. Fathers tend not to.
2) women who have children tend to be under provided for pension wise as even one child has an impact on their working life earnings
3) women who have children see their career ambitions negatively impacted
4) women who have children run health risks linked to pregnancy, and linked to abortion
5) the burden of care of children falls mostly on mother.

Lone parents' allowance doesn't even come half close to sorting this out for most women.

You're whinging and howling about having to support a child for 23 years and moaning about how you can't make a decision on the matter and that because the woman has the choice blah blah blah.

However, you're not likely to have to take the time off, your pension isn't going to get hit, no one is going to say to you "ah well you've kids now, you don't want those promotions or you're not so interested" and you're not going to be the one dealing with the health ramifications of either an abortion or pregnancy.

The impact on a woman is a metric tonne load more than 23 years child support, and much of it foisted on her by society which tends to reward men more than women, so yeah, when it comes to what to do about a pregnancy, maybe she should have the greater say in the matter.

GarIT

Smidge wrote: »

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.

The mother does decide. It is the mothers choice to keep the child or not and it is the mother choice to seek maintenance. Yes the father can fight a long drawn out expensive court battle for a tiny bit of visitation but other than that the mother decides everything.

The man can't decide to not be responsible for the child. You get court ordered to pay it and it gets taken from your wages, that's not a choice. A choice is being able to say no I don't want to be involved with the child or yes I do.

diveout

eviltwin wrote: »

So the decent guys who work hard to provide for their children pay double then while the ones who can't be bothered get away with it?

Heh. Why not? There are millions of men raising and paying for other men's kids already.

That genie is long out of the bottle...

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

As I've said a couple of times, it is all optional for the female, or the male you have to go along with whatever the female chooses.

What you're saying is 'you make the hard decisions while i walk away from a situation i helped create'. Which is the act of a coward.

eviltwin

diveout wrote: »

Yep.

One of my best friends is raising a child alone, a planned child ...because his father changed his mind midway through the pregnancy.

It's insane to suggest that men and fathers can move away consequence free from siring children. Spray and run like dogs.

And then you have relationship breakdown, say a couple have been together a while and had some kids, things go south...what then? Can he just start over with a new partner, distance himself from his old family, stop paying for them?

And if not, why not? Why should it be the single guys who get all the benefits.

diveout

magicbastarder wrote: »

What you're saying is 'you make the hard decisions while i walk away from a situation i helped create'. Which is the act of a coward.

Here's the thing. Its a very tough decision to make. There is one party involved who CAN'T afford to procrastinate and one who can. The one who procrastinates long enough will have the choice made for him. And then can turn around and say "your choice...you deal with it."

GarIT

diveout wrote: »

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?

It certainly would cost the state a fair bit but thats how the social welfare system already works. I don't believe in all that protection the family sh!te.

magicbastarder wrote: »

So the alternative is that women should be 'forced' to have an abortion to avoid the same fate. Can you see why women are at a disadvantage here?

Adoption. Women aren't forced to do anything.

Women have the choice to do what they want, men should have the choice to not go along with the mothers decision rather than being forced to participate.

diveout

GarIT wrote: »

It certainly would cost the state a fair bit but thats how the social welfare system already works. I don't believe in all that protection the family sh!te.



Adoption. Women aren't forced to do anything.

Women have the choice to do what they want, men should have the choice to not go along with the mothers decision rather than being forced to participate.

So what consequences then should there be for the father?

GarIT

Calina wrote: »

I think that if a man wants the right to force a woman to undergo an abortion he should, at the same time, under go a medical procedure he doesn't want either.

You have a horrifically simplistic understanding of the impact on women of a pregnancy so I will list them out. It is not just a case of supporting children for 23 years.

1) women who have children take a major lifetime earnings hit. Fathers tend not to.
2) women who have children tend to be under provided for pension wise as even one child has an impact on their working life earnings
3) women who have children see their career ambitions negatively impacted
4) women who have children run health risks linked to pregnancy, and linked to abortion
5) the burden of care of children falls mostly on mother.

Lone parents' allowance doesn't even come half close to sorting this out for most women.

You're whinging and howling about having to support a child for 23 years and moaning about how you can't make a decision on the matter and that because the woman has the choice blah blah blah.

However, you're not likely to have to take the time off, your pension isn't going to get hit, no one is going to say to you "ah well you've kids now, you don't want those promotions or you're not so interested" and you're not going to be the one dealing with the health ramifications of either an abortion or pregnancy.

The impact on a woman is a metric tonne load more than 23 years child support, and much of it foisted on her by society which tends to reward men more than women, so yeah, when it comes to what to do about a pregnancy, maybe she should have the greater say in the matter.

But the woman has a choice to have none of that.

eviltwin

GarIT wrote: »

Adoption. Women aren't forced to do anything.

Women have the choice to do what they want, men should have the choice to not go along with the mothers decision rather than being forced to participate.

May I suggest you pop over to the Adoption board and read some of the accounts from birth mothers and educate yourself a bit about that option. Giving up a child is a huge decision, please don't reduce it to something as simple as a A or B. I find that really insulting tbh.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

What you're saying is 'you make the hard decisions while i walk away from a situation i helped create'. Which is the act of a coward.

Yes exactly like a woman does when she chooses an abortion or adoption when the father wants to keep the child.

Calina

GarIT wrote: »

But the woman has a choice to have none of that.

You've completely missed the point of my post, haven't you? It is because she has all that more extra to be thinking about that she gets the choice.

GarIT

eviltwin wrote: »

May I suggest you pop over to the Adoption board and read some of the accounts from birth mothers and educate yourself a bit about that option. Giving up a child is a huge decision, please don't reduce it to something as simple as a A or B. I find that really insulting tbh.

I never claimed it was easy. But I'd take if for 100k.

Ficheall

Given that there is a valid topic under discussion here, but the OP is idiotic, could a mod perhaps amend the first post, since some posters seem to have difficulty actually reading the thread to get the gist of the conversation before posting indignantly?

diveout

GarIT wrote: »

Yes exactly like a woman does when she chooses an abortion or adoption when the father wants to keep the child.

You like to talk about choice like it's such a great thing. This is not a choice ANY woman wants to have to face.

GarIT

diveout wrote: »

So what consequences then should there be for the father?

None, why put consequences onto somebody just to make them suffer.

diveout

GarIT wrote: »

None, why put consequences onto somebody just to make them suffer.

Uh.... so they don't carry on siring abandoned children all over the place. Maybe after a limit of 8 kids the state is paying for the state can insist on a vasectomy? Is that where we are going?

pajopearl

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds, but with thank in the news about abortion cases, recently, it got me thinking. Should there be provisions, whether here or anywhere else in the world, where men get to decide if a child is carried to term or not.

If a couple become pregnant, even though they had decided that they didn't want any (more) children, the woman decides to keep the baby but the man decides he wants nothing to do with a pregnancy or child, does he have a case for insisting she get an abortion and should he take legal steps to ensure she gets one?

Abortion is legal in this specific case.

Discuss

Great idea OP.

Here is another one, go into the likes of Tesco, stuff your face with all the unpackaged fresh food around you and then tell the cashier that you dont want to buy anything.

Yes, it should be all about the man OP, two fingers to that responsibility lark. Your OK so fúck everyone else involved

:rolleyes:

Engine No.9

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.

Not even remotely related to what I was getting at. Women have the option to abort a child that was created with another party. Why can't a man also have that option if he's the other party in question? Surely both parties should have an equal say in proceedings... In this world of equality etc...

GarIT

diveout wrote: »

You like to talk about choice like it's such a great thing. This is not a choice ANY woman wants to have to face.

Of course it's not, it's not a good situation for mother or father to be in. However the mother is in a better position than the father by being able to make a choice, under current law the father has no choice.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

Of course it's not, it's not a good situation for mother or father to be in. However the mother is in a better position than the father by being able to make a choice, under current law the father has no choice.

He has. He has the choice to prevent impregnating the woman by taking precautions. Failing that, he must then act like a man and take responsibility

GarIT

Deleted User wrote: »

He has. He has the choice to prevent impregnating the woman by taking precautions. Failing that, he must then act like a man and take responsibility

She has the choice not to get pregnant too. Generally with pregnancies that would end up like this it wasn't a choice at the conception stage.

What do you mean by act like a man exactly?

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

Yes exactly like a woman does when she chooses an abortion or adoption when the father wants to keep the child.

yeah, such an easy decision for her to carry a pregnancy to full term and then hand the baby over.

again, you're 50% responsible for an difficult situation, in which you bear (figure plucked out of the air, but it's considerably less than 50%) 20% of the burden, and you're claiming *you're* the one who should be allowed walk away with no obligation; when the other party has absolutely no such luxury.

it'd be great if women could walk away from a pregnancy with the same nonchalance you demand.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

However the mother is in a better position than the father by being able to make a choice

no
no
no
no
and no again.
you have this utterly arseways.
the woman has the choice precisely because she's the one in the *worse* off position.
can you seriously not realise this? seriously?

Holsten

Man should have the choice to have nothing to do with the child if he doesn't want it, no payments, nothing.

No one should have any say over what another does to their own body, so it should be down to the pregnant woman herself.

Reekwind

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.

I'm not sure we need a new name for what is essentially a return to the days of pre-mothers' rights. The reason that there is a host of legislation in place around maintenance, etc is to stop precisely that happening.

pajopearl wrote:

Not even remotely related to what I was getting at. Women have the option to abort a child that was created with another party. Why can't a man also have that option if he's the other party in question? Surely both parties should have an equal say in proceedings... In this world of equality etc...

Seriously, just stop. This was answered in the first sentence of the first response.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, such an easy decision for her to carry a pregnancy to full term and then hand the baby over.

again, you're 50% responsible for an difficult situation, in which you bear (figure plucked out of the air, but it's considerably less than 50%) 20% of the burden, and you're claiming *you're* the one who should be allowed walk away with no obligation; when the other party has absolutely no such luxury.

it'd be great if women could walk away from a pregnancy with the same nonchalance you demand.

It's not as easy for women to walk away but legally they can, legally a man can't walk away.

I don't get the point for penalising men because of the biology differences of women. Each party should have as much freedom as possible, but unfortunately the woman has to deal with actually being pregnant, unfortunately there's not much we can do about that.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

no
no
no
no
and no again.
you have this utterly arseways.
the woman has the choice precisely because she's the one in the *worse* off position.
can you seriously not realise this? seriously?

Physically and mentally the woman is worse off initially. Once you get past the pregnancy stage the women now can make decisions for the father for the next 23 years.

diveout

GarIT wrote: »

It's not as easy for women to walk away but legally they can, legally a man can't walk away.

I don't get the point for penalising men because of the biology differences of women. Each party should have as much freedom as possible, but unfortunately the woman has to deal with actually being pregnant, unfortunately there's not much we can do about that.

Ok.... well let's think about what will happen when men can have responsibility free children.

You can hark back to a day when you will not get within two miles of a women without a ring on her finger and a father behind her holding a gun.

GarIT

GarIT wrote: »

She has the choice not to get pregnant too. Generally with pregnancies that would end up like this it wasn't a choice at the conception stage.

What do you mean by act like a man exactly?

If you impregnate a woman, do the right thing and support her should she decide to keep it and if she doesn't then respect her decision.

Fairly fairly simple. If you dont want kids with a particular woman then dont have unprotected sex with her and even if your unlucky and the condom breaks or is of poor quality or something then thats tough luck

We know it takes two people to make a baby and all of that but the fact is that its her body that will carry and nourish the child for the next 40 weeks. If she chooses to keep the baby then at the very least the man should offer to support her.

Reekwind

GarIT wrote: »

...the woman has to deal with actually being pregnant, unfortunately there's not much we can do about that.

Well you could start with legislation that ensures that in the event of pregnancy the woman is not the only one saddled with the costs of raising a child. Oh wait, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the purpose of current laws.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

It's not as easy for women to walk away but legally they can, legally a man can't walk away.

the examples where a woman 'walks away' (presumably the abortion or adoption route) also allows the man to walk away.
you'd swear women were deliberately deciding to keep and raise the children to spite the fathers, when the burden of parenthood lies more heavily on the women.

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

Man should have the choice to have nothing to do with the child if he doesn't want it, no payments, nothing.

MAN MAKE FIRE! MAN IMPREGNATE WOMAN, FIGHT MAMMOTH! RAAR!

magicbastarder

this thread is great fun. it's been a while since i've argued against such a patently ludicrous position. it allows you to get a bit lazy.

Galwayguy35

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I need to stop reading this thread, it's making me so mad. Some people are talking like someone magically waved a wand and the women ended up pregnant. Men have a choice. Zip up your mickeys if you don't want a child. If you want to have sex, take every precaution to stop a women getting pregnant. Don't take anyone's word for contraception. The onus is on you too. Pregnancy doesn't happen from swallowing water. The semen had to come from somewhere, you need to stop the flow of it!

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

Holsten

Holsten wrote: »

Man should have the choice to have nothing to do with the child if he doesn't want it, no payments, nothing.

No one should have any say over what another does to their own body, so it should be down to the pregnant woman herself.

Cant agree with that

It would probably better for the child if it had nothing to do with the man in terms of being forced to spend time with him if that was his mindset but at the very least they should be legally obliged to pay costs

ShaShaBear

Reekwind wrote: »

Well you could start with legislation that ensures that in the event of pregnancy the woman is not the only one saddled with the costs of raising a child. Oh wait, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the purpose of current laws.

I can assure you that all the money in the world being thrown at you doesn't make pregnancy any easier. My partner is still here supporting me and our planned daughter, but it didn't make getting fingered by strangers weekly in my last month of pregnancy any easier to deal with. It also didn't much relieve the random fainting spells from the rapid change in blood pressure. His money did very little to alleviate the 6 weeks I spent hung over a toilet bowl becoming rapidly dehydrated and losing throat tissue from constant vomiting. It didn't make defecating with piles any easier. When sciatica kicked in and turning in bed became Russian roulette between uneventful and screaming in excrutiating agony, his money meant diddly squat.

When you become pregnant, the foetus emits a hormone to trick the woman's body into stopping what it does naturally - to destroy invading cells. The side effects aint pleasant.

takamichinoku

I find it really hard to think of a situation where I wouldn't accept responsibility unless I was deliberately tricked into impregnating the woman, which is extremely unlikely and even then I think I'd nearly put it on my own stupidity.
Although I'd be vocal about my own opinion, better then than later, like... which I could see causing issues (as in, unintentionally bullying the woman into making the decision I'd like); not doing so sounds far worse though, I think? There's counselling services for this kind of thing, I imagine? Like that Jeremy Kyle guy, except with good intentions?

GarIT

Reekwind wrote: »

Well you could start with legislation that ensures that in the event of pregnancy the woman is not the only one saddled with the costs of raising a child. Oh wait, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the purpose of current laws.

It's unfair to put undue hardship on other people just to help pregnant women.

magicbastarder wrote: »

the examples where a woman 'walks away' (presumably the abortion or adoption route) also allows the man to walk away.
you'd swear women were deliberately deciding to keep and raise the children to spite the fathers, when the burden of parenthood lies more heavily on the women.

If a woman chooses an abortion or adoption yes the man can also walk away, but a man can't walk away if the woman doesn't choose abortion or adoption.

Certainly, if you choose to raise a child the burden will be on you, but you shouldn't be able to drag other people into it.

magicbastarder

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

you know what? life is sometimes tough. things happen which you didn't want to happen, or which look unfair, but you suck it up and deal with it, instead of deciding it's up to the other party to have to deal with on their own.

shruikan2553

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

The man should remain in a room on his own and avoid women until he is ready to be a father. But don't dare suggest such a thing for women.

diveout

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I can assure you that all the money in the world being thrown at you doesn't make pregnancy any easier. My partner is still here supporting me and our planned daughter, but it didn't make getting fingered by strangers weekly in my last month of pregnancy any easier to deal with. It also didn't much relieve the random fainting spells from the rapid change in blood pressure. His money did very little to alleviate the 6 weeks I spent hung over a toilet bowl becoming rapidly dehydrated and losing throat tissue from constant vomiting. It didn't make defecating with piles any easier. When sciatica kicked in and turning in bed became Russian roulette between uneventful and screaming in excrutiating agony, his money meant diddly squat.

When you become pregnant, the foetus emits a hormone to trick the woman's body into stopping what it does naturally - to destroy invading cells. The side effects aint pleasant.

So imagine that with the addition of the child's father berating you about not having an abortion and why haven't you gone down to adoption offices yet? Huh huh huh? WHY WHY WHY. It's not fair. You get all the choices!!!! Your choice, you deserve to puke to death.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

Certainly, if you choose to raise a child the burden will be on you, but you shouldn't be able to drag other people into it.

you're the childs father through a consensual act. how the **** can you argue you were 'dragged into it'?
i'm really beginning to take a dislike to you.

ShaShaBear

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The man should remain in a room on his own and avoid women until he is ready to be a father. But don't dare suggest such a thing for women.

It has already been said that, if you don't want a baby, take all necessary steps to avoid it. The only 100% effective method is abstinence. If you can't do that, ensure you use all protection available to you and ensure your partner does too. If you can't be sure, don't engage in sex. Simple for both parties.