Abortion For Men

Holsten

Deleted User wrote: »

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

What? Why? What if he 100% does not want a child, and would prefer the pregnancy aborted?

Why should he be made pay, and suffer financially for a child he doesn't want?

Madness.

Men becoming fathers against their will isn't fair. But I think the concept of legal abortion is being represented very simplistically here. It's not a simple solution to a complex problem, it's a problematic solution to a simple problem. It might sound fairer in its basic form, but in reality it swaps one injustice for another.

I posted this a while ago in response to a similar proposition.

Personally I just see this as substituting one injustice for another. Fathers who's partner goes ahead and has a baby they don't want, are presently left with no choice as to the role expected of them, legally and socially. Obviously this is difficult, and an inequality.

Mothers, or pregnant women can choose to abort or adopt, thereby removing themselves legally from the role of mother and its responsibilities. Fathers, or partners of pregnant women do not have this choice.

BUT, I think if we were to offer 'legal' abortions to the would be fathers, we run the risk of turning back the clock when it comes to womens roles as mothers. This could very well see the rise of men who refuse any responsiblity for contraception, since they can walk away consequence free, from its absence or misuse. It also means that the only party to sex who has any consequences to a pregnancy - wanted or unwanted - is the woman.

Its very possible that in time, society could see children as the sole domain of women, with men being seen as more optional than at present. It would also be heaven for a certain type of feckless young man, some of whom rack up several children by different mothers without a second thought at present. I think this quite rare, thankfully.

In this scenario the woman pays in pregnancy and lone parenthood, if she chooses to see the pregnancy to term, or in the (possible) emotional, or physical, or financial consequences of (travelling for) an abortion. Not to mention the stigma.

The woman pays either way, which isn't a more just situation that present, it just changes the person who suffers the injustice.

Of course, the child who's father decides to 'abort' them will know about this and has to learn to live with it, and explain it to their schoolfriends, partners, colleagues and acquaintances throughout their lives, something an aborted foetus doesn't do, and that is likely to be a major issue in many of their lives. So the potential child also pays a price to some degree.

I don't think its fair to make a man a father against his wishes and expect him to pay for a 'mistake'. I'm not sure the alternative is more appealing either. It'd take wiser heads than mine to come up with a truly equitable solution.

In addition, there are the fathers who decide when the child is older that they want to be part of the childs life. Legally, what recourse would they have? There is the risk of a substantial number of men who'll suffer a lifetime of regrets because of a decision made when under pressure, or maybe very young.

And how long do we give them to decide? Is it fair to make them decide before the pregnancy reaches it's second trimester? Before the baby is 2? What are the consequences for the child?

It's not a simple get out of jail free card.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

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.

The woman chose to keep the child. A woman getting pregnant does not mean she will have to raise a child, it should not for men either.

shruikan2553

ShaShaBear wrote: »

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.

Say that about women in one of the abortion threads and see what kind of reaction you would rightfully get.

ShaShaBear

diveout wrote: »

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.

Um, not really sure where you are going with this but I don't think a man should be allowed to dictate what a woman does with her pregnancy and I already said as much. I was simply stating how difficult a normal pregnancy can be and how forcing a man to pay maintenance doesn't make the pregnancy any easier. Which is why saying a man who will have to pay maintenance should get a say in what happens to a pregnancy is utter tripe.

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

Why should he be made pay, and suffer financially for a child he doesn't want?

i know a couple of guys who are fathers through unplanned pregnancies, some of whom found out about them years later.
to a person, they are doing their best to help, be it financially or emotionally, and some have formed some fantastic bonds with their kids.

you know why they do it? cos they're good guys. they didn't bitch and moan that they should not have to pay for a child they did not want.

ShaShaBear

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Say that about women in one of the abortion threads and see what kind of reaction you would rightfully get.

You know I've already said I'm pro-choice in three comments, right? I'm saying that it is entirely possible to 100% prevent having a child and both a man and a woman can take those steps. If a man doesn't take those steps, what right does he have to demand an abortion?

Reekwind

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.

And?

Really, hands up here all men who do not know that when you have sex with a woman (aka shooting her up with your sperm) there is a chance of pregnancy? This is literally sex ed stuff. Very few contraceptives are 100% foolproof and, to quote the good Elvis, accidents will happen. That's life.

Trying to improve this unfortunate situation for yourself by shifting the entire burden of this unwanted pregnancy onto the mother (ie absolving yourself of any part in the event) is just cowardly and selfish in the extreme.

ShaShaBear wrote:

I can assure you that all the money in the world being thrown at you doesn't make pregnancy any easier

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that money alleviates the difficulties of labour or indeed the horrible choice that a pregnant woman must make if she decides to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Not at all. What I'm saying is that given that this is on the woman the very least that the law that guarantee is that some of the financial burden of raising the child is shared by the man. That is, a man cannot simply get a woman pregnant and then bugger off into the sunset.

GarIT wrote:

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

"Just to help"? What, the man was just passing by and the woman mysteriously started to inflate? You went out for a paper and suddenly your sperm were swimming around Ms McGrath's fallopian tubes? Aggh, how did that happen?

As above, it is selfish and cowardly to deny the man's role in creating a baby. It's symptomatic of a society that wants rewards, wants fun but isn't willing to countenance any tough choices or take on any responsibilities.

shruikan2553

ShaShaBear wrote: »

You know I've already said I'm pro-choice in three comments, right? I'm saying that it is entirely possible to 100% prevent having a child and both a man and a woman can take those steps. If a man doesn't take those steps, what right does he have to demand an abortion?

He shouldn't be able to force a women to have or not have an abortion but that leaves us in a situation where the woman can decide if the man will be a father or not and be legally financially responsible.

My issue is more towards the double standards of pro choice people using the same arguments as pro life people use when it comes to the men being involved.

diveout

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Um, not really sure where you are going with this but I don't think a man should be allowed to dictate what a woman does with her pregnancy and I already said as much. I was simply stating how difficult a normal pregnancy can be and how forcing a man to pay maintenance doesn't make the pregnancy any easier. Which is why saying a man who will have to pay maintenance should get a say in what happens to a pregnancy is utter tripe.

Some will want amnio to help them decide whether they will be involved or not. IF you really want them to have the same choice as a women does, then it is only consistent that you would support them having the right for you to get an amnio.

groucho marx

Stupidest thread I think ive ever seen

Wibbs

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.

And women, the people who actually get knocked up have no agency or responsibility then? Nice one, but sadly all too common with a few areas of "feminist" thinking.

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.

Observe the lack of knowledge on the subject. Condoms have a lower contraceptive efficacy compared to the pill. If the individual actually remembers to take it regularly, isn't on antibiotics and hasn't had a feed of booze and chucked up her stomach contents. It's quite sobering to realise how many women don't know about some of the things that can affect the pills efficacy. The injection/implant is far more efficacious, mainly because it's not reliant on the individual.

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!

This is really quite gobsmacking to read TBH(and it's not the only example of this thinking). Nada about the choices of the woman involved. Unless it's rape, she threw her legs in the air too. The egg "had to come from somewhere". Women are apparently blameless, agency and responsibility free, barely in the room it seems when this hypothetical pregnancy kicks off. Again the all too oft seen "it's the fault of men", even when it requires by definition a woman involved it's still all about the men. As daft a position as one could muster.

Ficheall

Sweet Rose wrote: »

This scenario happened to me. The next day, the guy drove me to a chemist. He gave me the money to go in and buy the MAP. Then I went back to his car and I swallowed the pill while he watched me. Guess why we did that, because both of us didn't want to have children and we were both responsible adults. Not rocket science.

And what if you had decided you wanted a kid but he didn't want one?

Galwayguy35

Reekwind wrote: »

And?

Really, hands up here all men who do not know that when you have sex with a woman (aka shooting her up with your sperm) there is a chance of pregnancy? This is literally sex ed stuff. Very few contraceptives are 100% foolproof and, to quote the good Elvis, accidents will happen. That's life.

Trying to improve this unfortunate situation for yourself by shifting the entire burden of this unwanted pregnancy onto the mother (ie absolving yourself of any part in the event) is just cowardly and selfish in the extreme.

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that money alleviates the difficulties of labour or indeed the horrible choice that a pregnant woman must make if she decides to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Not at all. What I'm saying is that given that this is on the woman the very least that the law that guarantee is that some of the financial burden of raising the child is shared by the man. That is, a man cannot simply get a woman pregnant and then bugger off into the sunset.

"Just to help"? What, the man was just passing by and the woman mysteriously started to inflate? You went out for a paper and suddenly your sperm were swimming around Ms McGrath's fallopian tubes? Aggh, how did that happen?

As above, it is selfish and cowardly to deny the man's role in creating a baby. It's symptomatic of a society that wants rewards, wants fun but isn't willing to countenance any tough choices or take on any responsibilities.

And what about forcing a man to be a father and hammering him for maintenance for the next 20 years, when a pill could have been taken next morning and there would be no issue, is that not selfish?

Let her wait to have a kid with a man who wants to be a father, seems reasonable to me.

Holsten

Holsten wrote: »

What? Why? What if he 100% does not want a child, and would prefer the pregnancy aborted?

Why should he be made pay, and suffer financially for a child he doesn't want?

Madness.

Why have sex with her then? Thats the risk you take

Galwayguy35

Sweet Rose wrote: »

This scenario happened to me. The next day, the guy drove me to a chemist. He gave me the money to go in and buy the MAP. Then I went back to his car and I swallowed the pill while he watched me. Guess why we did that, because both of us didn't want to have children and we were both responsible adults. Not rocket science.

I never said it was rocket science, the man is at the mercy of the woman though, he can't force the MAP down her neck if she refuses to take it.

Holsten

Deleted User wrote: »

Why have sex with her then? Thats the risk you take

Absolute bollox.

Come back with an actual argument.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

And women, the people who actually get knocked up have no agency or responsibility then? Nice one, but sadly all too common with a few areas of "feminist" thinking.

Observe the lack of knowledge on the subject. Condoms have a lower contraceptive efficacy compared to the pill. If the individual actually remembers to take it regularly, isn't on antibiotics and hasn't had a feed of booze and chucked up her stomach contents. It's quite sobering to realise how many women don't know about some of the things that can affect the pills efficacy. The injection/implant is far more efficacious, mainly because it's not reliant on the individual.

This is really quite gobsmacking to read TBH(and it's not the only example of this thinking). Nada about the choices of the woman involved. Unless it's rape, she threw her legs in the air too. The egg "had to come from somewhere". Women are apparently blameless, agency and responsibility free, barely in the room it seems when this hypothetical pregnancy kicks off. Again the all too oft seen "it's the fault of men", even when it requires by definition a woman involved it's still all about the men. As daft a position as one could muster.

I get your point about the apparent imbalance of power here.

Look, no matter what way you cut it the woman will be forced to make a decision and live with those consequences, financial and otherwise.

Are you suggesting there should be NO consequences for men who father children?

What's to stop them in the future from leaving a litter of abandoned children among multiple women?

Ignorant etc.

Holsten wrote: »

Absolute bollox.

Come back with an actual argument.

Its not bollox though is it. If the man really really desperately doesn't want to have a child why does he have sex? Same with a woman who wants to make sure she doesn't have a kid. The only absolutely sure way is to not have sex at all. Anal is about 99.9% safe, but if he cums in her a little bit could dribble out and if she's got her ass in the air its bound to trickle down a bit.

Reekwind

Wibbs wrote: »

This is really quite gobsmacking to read TBH(and it's not the only example of this thinking). Nada about the choices of the woman involved. Unless it's rape, she threw her legs in the air too. The egg "had to come from somewhere". Women are apparently blameless, agency and responsibility free, barely in the room it seems when this hypothetical pregnancy kicks off. Again the all too oft seen "it's the fault of men", even when it requires by definition a woman involved it's still all about the men. As daft a position as one could muster.

Cop yourself on, Wibbs. That's a ridiculous and dishonest strawman that you've constructed.

The whole point to this thread, or at least the discussion that it's turned into, is that women cannot escape the consequences of their role in generating an unwanted pregnancy. It really shouldn't be necessary to point out that a woman getting pregnant involves a woman engaging in sex. (Mind you, the same could be said about men, yet see above.)

Far from "it's all the fault of men", the comments about men taking responsibility for their actions (aka 'put your willy away') have been direct responses to idiotic statements that men have no responsibility; ie, that if accidental pregnancy occurs then the burden it lies entirely on the woman. Hence the unfortunate necessity of pointing out that if you want to be 100% certain that the woman will not get pregnant then don't have sex.

I said dishonest above because all this is very, very obvious from the thread. You've lifted out of context quotes/replies to construct a narrative that was entirely absent beforehand. Now the thread reads like:

POSTER 1: If an accident happens then it's nothing to do with me
POSTER 2: That's not how it works. Men have to take responsibility too.
POSTER 3: You didn't explicitly mention women taking responsibility [ed - even though its pretty obvious] therefore you're blaming it all on men!

Galwayguy35 wrote:

And what about forcing a man to be a father and hammering him for maintenance for the next 20 years, when a pill could have been taken next morning and there would be no issue, is that not selfish?

Let her wait to have a kid with a man who wants to be a father, seems reasonable to me.

Did you read that in a Stephen King book?

Calina

I have to say that this thread disillusions me greatly about a lot of men in this thread. There seem to be quite a lot of you who cannot be trusted to be supportive in the event of a crisis pregnancy.

Wibbs

Sweet Rose wrote: »

To be quite frank, I don't care what your opinion is.

Seems you do.

All I'm saying if as a man, you have responsibility for contraception too.

Fine, but so far it did seem that it was nearly all on the man.

Also, the pill have an endless of side effects which can effect a woman emotionally and physically. All forms of contraception do. Any of my friends on the pill have come off it due to this (they have used other contraception instead). Of course all this is unknown to man as they don't have to deal with the side effects.

Yes we're all clearly unaware of this being idiots an all.

All I want is men to face up to contraception to and not be so shocked if a woman gets pregnant if they don't use!!

Only morons are gonna hop on bareback if the woman isn't on some form of contraception. Though personally speaking unless I really trusted the woman involved I'd no way go sans latex regardless of what she told me she was on. Given that they're the ones who will be left "holding the baby" regardless of outcome it has surprised me how many women won't insist on condoms and are prepared to risk it in the heat of the moment even on one nighters. The blood is up and brains can go out the window in both genders.

LiveIsLife

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?

Not all men are going to be like that. Some are obviously, but most men wouldn't just sign away their child like that. And as sure as you'll have men scumbags, you'll have women who'll get pregnant to try and trap a man or in the hope that it'll save a relationship or whatever.

I'm not saying she shouldn't have had sex, I'm countering the stupid notion that men shouldn't have sex if they don't want children. Another thing to think about is if you really want someone who would sign away all rights to their child to be involved?

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.

Would it though? There's fairly good financial supports in place at the moment.

I don't really to talk about this but I guess I'm anonymous. My sister got pregnant at a young age. Obviously wasn't planned, but there was massive pressure from the father (and to a lesser extent his family) for her to have an abortion. Luckily she was strong enough to make up her own mind, but there's times I think he'd be better off out of the picture altogether. Only sees his daughter sporadically and inevitably involves disappointment for her with cancelled visits and pays a negligible amount in support.

I think it would nearly have been easier if he walked away fully, rather than putting her though mental torture before and after the child was born.

Obviously its tough for a lone parent, but at least there'd be some certainty.

Reekwind

Calina wrote: »

I have to say that this thread disillusions me greatly about a lot of men in this thread. There seem to be quite a lot of you who cannot be trusted to be supportive in the event of a crisis pregnancy.

If it's of any use, I'm operating under the assumption that any poster who genuinely believes that they have the right to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy with no strings attached (never mind the paranoia about being trapped by a deliberate pregnancy) are unlikely to ever be in the position to test that theory.

geret

Wibbs wrote: »

Seems you do.
Fine, but so far it did seem that it was nearly all on the man.

Yes we're all clearly unaware of this being idiots an all.

Only morons are gonna hop on bareback if the woman isn't on some form of contraception. Though personally speaking unless I really trusted the woman involved I'd no way go sans latex regardless of what she told me she was on. Given that they're the ones who will be left "holding the baby" regardless of outcome it has surprised me how many women won't insist on condoms and are prepared to risk it in the heat of the moment even on one nighters. The blood is up and brains can go out the window in both genders.

the pill also fails more often in women over 30 for some reason

Galwayguy35

Reekwind wrote: »

Did you read that in a Stephen King book?

:rolleyes:

Ignorant etc.

Calina wrote: »

I have to say that this thread disillusions me greatly about a lot of men in this thread. There seem to be quite a lot of you who cannot be trusted to be supportive in the event of a crisis pregnancy.

Reekwind wrote: »

If it's of any use, I'm operating under the assumption that any poster who genuinely believes that they have the right to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy with no strings attached (never mind the paranoia about being trapped by a deliberate pregnancy) are unlikely to ever be in the position to test that theory.

Agreed. As a father, I would be thoroughly ashamed if my son did such a thing. As I said earlier in this thread, a male who walks away is a boy, not a man.

eviltwin

I can see some merits in a form of a legal 'abortion' but having the right to force a physical abortion carried out on a woman against her will is the product of a sick mind

Wibbs

Reekwind wrote: »

Cop yourself on, Wibbs. That's a ridiculous and dishonest strawman that you've constructed.

Well given some of the earlier comments on this thread such as:

some of the ideas expounded above sound like men wanting to shed the minority share of fallout that does land on them back onto the women.

(emphasis mine)

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

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

(emphasis mine)

Where apparently getting a woman pregnant has little or no effect on a man's emotional state(or financial) and it's even "zero risk". The fact that posters can't see the obvious logic fail in statements like the above, you will excuse my confusion about some of the angles taken here.

The whole point to this thread, or at least the discussion that it's turned into, is that women cannot escape the consequences of their role in generating an unwanted pregnancy.

Incorrect I'm afraid. They have a number of choices. Abort(MAP or later on), carry to term, adopt. Men have no choice nor say in the matter of an unwanted pregnancy. They have no say whether the woman choses to abort or not(rightfully as I said in my first post), nor do they have any say in the adoption process. Basically women can "escape" or not, their choice, men can't, they don't have a choice. Well outside of never having sex apparently.

Reekwind wrote: »

If it's of any use, I'm operating under the assumption that any poster who genuinely believes that they have the right to walk away from an unwanted pregnancy with no strings attached (never mind the paranoia about being trapped by a deliberate pregnancy) are unlikely to ever be in the position to test that theory.

Ah the old "you have a different opinion to mine, therefore sure no one would ride you anyway" tactic. The debate equivalent of shouting "you smell!!" across a schoolyard. I do love the classics, I do.

Ficheall

eviltwin wrote: »

I can see some merits in a form of a legal 'abortion' but having the right to force a physical abortion carried out on a woman against her will is the product of a sick mind

I don't think anyone (hopefully) other than the OP is advocating a forced abortion. It's the "legal abortion" that the debate seems to have turned to, understandably.

Holsten

Holsten wrote: »

Absolute bollox.

Come back with an actual argument.

So you should be able to have sex with all in sundry without suffering any consequences of an accidental pregnancy while any woman you impregnate should face bringing a child up on her own unsupported? That doesn't really seem fair.

kowloon

Candie wrote: »

In addition, there are the fathers who decide when the child is older that they want to be part of the childs life. Legally, what recourse would they have? There is the risk of a substantial number of men who'll suffer a lifetime of regrets because of a decision made when under pressure, or maybe very young.

If the father decided to 'abort' the child he should have no rights whatsoever. He should have to live with it the same way as a mother who decided to abort.
I agree with the principle of legal relinquishment of rights and responsibility, but it could go completely wrong like you say, how would people react?
I'd have no respect for anyone who walked away from a child, I'd also like to think I wouldn't do it myself, but it's an unknown until it actually happens.

TL;DR: I think I'll leave this dilemma to smarter people.

Wibbs

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Agreed. As a father, I would be thoroughly ashamed if my son did such a thing. As I said earlier in this thread, a male who walks away is a boy, not a man.

A genuine accident? Shít happens and responsibility would be taken. In the event of a one sided planned pregnancy* and I found out? I'd be gone, sayonara, with nary a backward glance.





*IME I'd not be too paranoid about this scenario(like too many men). IME it's rare and again IME it was more common among married couples and of the ones that weren't the women involved were as flakey as the before picture in a Head & Shoulders ad and the men were dumb as rocks to buy into the BS so...

Holsten

Deleted User wrote: »

So you should be able to have sex with all in sundry without suffering any consequences of an accidental pregnancy while any woman you impregnate should face bringing a child up on her own unsupported? That doesn't really seem fair.

She has 3 options in that case, fly over to UK and have abortion, give the child up for adoption or keep the child and raise it herself.

3 choices, whats not fair about that? What is not fair is expecting a man who does not want a child being forced to pay for it by the courts. THAT'S unfair!

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

What is not fair is expecting a man who does not want a child being forced to pay for it by the courts. THAT'S unfair!

so what if it's unfair on you? fairness has nothing to do with it.
you think it's unfair on you to have to cough up for your own kid, but don't think it's unfair for the mother to have to?

**** happens, and if you want to legislate for your **** to hit other people's fans, you're in for a disappointing life.

take responsibility for your own actions, or don't take any action.

GarIT

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.

If men have the option to walk away from a pregnancy they're 50% responsible for, why would any man use protection in the future? How will it not turn back the clock to the days where women were responsible for all the consequences of sex?

Men will just become disposable as fathers and potential fathers in this case. And what happens if a man tells a woman he wants a baby, gets her pregnant, then changes his mind? How long should he get to make up his mind? What happens if he has second thoughts? Should he also have the right to walk back in again? And walk back out again if he changes his mind again? Does the kid have any rights in all this?

You want to see a world where men can have equal parental rights if they demand it and no parental role if they demand it, regardless of the consequences to the woman they made pregnant or the child that results from it?

And what of the kids who grow up knowing they're discarded by one of the people who made them? Should it be someones right to psychologically damage a kid because they didn't use a condom or they changed their mind?

If you're absolutely sure you don't want kids, use condoms or get a vasectomy. Responsibility for your choices isn't something that only women get to have demanded of them.

Pumpkinseeds

It'll sound really crass but the thread title sounds like the name of the worlds worst aftershave ever, Abortion for men:D

Pumpkinseeds

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It'll sound really crass but the thread title sounds like the name of the worlds worst aftershave ever, Abortion for men:D

Well it is After Hours so its perfectly acceptable :pac:

Holsten

magicbastarder wrote: »

so what if it's unfair on you? fairness has nothing to do with it.
you think it's unfair on you to have to cough up for your own kid, but don't think it's unfair for the mother to have to?

**** happens, and if you want to legislate for your **** to hit other people's fans, you're in for a disappointing life.

take responsibility for your own actions, or don't take any action.

The mother in this case has the choice 100% what to do, the man does not.

If she chooses to have the child then she has taken aboard all the costs.

As I said before I think it should come down to the mother to make the choice of what to do but if the man wants to op out, he should not be forced to pay.

In the case where the man wants the child but the women does not, again it is her body so her choice.

kowloon

Sweet Rose wrote: »

A pill and condom combo.

Contraceptive takeaways! I'll have the pill condom combo and a side of cock rings.

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

The mother in this case has the choice 100% what to do, the man does not.

If she chooses to have the child then she has taken aboard all the costs.

this is an odious choice to force on the woman, and is utter moral cowardice.
just because you don't have the ultimate choice does not absolve you of responsibility.

are you really saying that if you had a one night stand with a nice woman, and found out six months later she was pregnant, your first action would be to legally disown any responsibility (were the option available) for the child?
that you are saying to her she either has to go for an abortion, which can be a stupendously difficult decision; go full term and adopt, which can be a stupendously difficult decision, as well as physically and emotionally draining, and financially draining; or go full term and keep the kid on her own, with no input from you?
don't forget - you're 50% responsible for placing her in this position, and this is what you think your responsibility is?

LiveIsLife

Candie wrote: »

If men have the option to walk away from a pregnancy they're 50% responsible for, why would any man use protection in the future? How will it not turn back the clock to the days where women were responsible for all the consequences of sex?

You have a poor opinion of men if you think all would just go around having unprotected sex not caring who they get pregnant. Most people are decent, they wouldn't do this. You also seem to think that pregnancy has no emotional impact on men. Yes there will be a few scumbags, thats pretty much a fact of life.

And a woman can also refuse to have sex if the man won't wear a condom.

Calina

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Oh my god, you've just given me a great business idea. A contraception drive through, there'd need to be one on every street corner. We live in a very promiscuous society it seems.

You know. I used to live in a small town in France and all the pharmacies had condom vending machines attached to the walls outside. That was like 20 years ago.

You'd think we'd sort it out here although I suppose all the 24 hour convenience stores do sell condoms...

DeadHand

Holsten wrote: »

She has 3 options in that case, fly over to UK and have abortion, give the child up for adoption or keep the child and raise it herself.

3 choices, whats not fair about that? What is not fair is expecting a man who does not want a child being forced to pay for it by the courts. THAT'S unfair!

It's not unfair. As a man, if you help to bring a child into this world, whether you planned to or not, it is your responsibility to look after him/her in whatever capacity you can, no one else's. This is basic morality, basic duty, basic decency.

The woman in that situation must make her choices as she sees fit because the burden of pregnancy and, in all likelihood, being the primary caregiver is on her. She's the one taking all the risks, suffering most of the associated pain and hardship, the person most effected by the consequences of her decisions. The attitude of her partner (if he's in the picture) is likely to have a bearing on that decision. And if his attitude is "I don't want to pay for my child, I didn't want it, that's unfair", then, brother, I'm not sure what he is but he is not a man.

The selfish abdication of responsibilities in general and the absence of fathers or positive male role models in homes and schools in particular are key elements in the worsening social situation we are seeing in this country.

Sweet Rose

I'm going to stop reading this thread. I think the thought of the little babies growing up unwanted and fatherless really upsets me. I know because I'm a single mother and I know how it feels. Even though her father has now decided after a year that he does want to get to know her after all. It's the children who suffer at the end of the day.

Any man who thinks that a woman chooses to become a mother because they want an easy life should try it for a while. It's an extremely hard life, you have to shoulder the burden in every way... financially, emotionally, physically etc. It's a very lonely life too.

Anyway, I wouldn't change her for the world. I adore her so much. All I'm saying is before you have sex, protect it. Before you give up your baby, think of the long term implications for you, the baby and the mother.

Peace out

DeadHand

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I'm going to stop reading this thread. I think the thought of the little babies growing up unwanted and fatherless really upsets me. I know because I'm a single mother and I know how it feels. Even though her father has now decided after a year that he does want to get to know her after all. It's the children who suffer at the end of the day.

Any man who thinks that a woman chooses to become a mother because they want an easy life should try it for a while. It's an extremely hard life, you have to shoulder the burden in every way... financially, emotionally, physically etc. It's a very lonely life too.

Anyway, I wouldn't change her for the world. I adore her so much. All I'm saying is before you have sex, protect it. Before you give up your baby, think of the long term implications for you, the baby and the mother.

Peace out

All the hardship, all the loneliness it'll all have been for something. It'll have been for her. She'll reward you everyday of the rest of your life for the sacrifices you have made.

Best wishes to you and yours.

Bafucin

This thread is daft.

No you shouldn't.

How would the OP imagine this actually happening? With the woman being dragged kicking and screaming?

The whole CASE for abortion is self volition for a woman over her body. If you refuse a woman that right than the case for abortion goes out the window.

If the argument for a woman's right over her body does not stand then you don't really have the right to abort a fetus. The man's body is not affected.

We as men tend to have a different view of childbirth. It's not IN our body I find it difficult to empathize with a pregnant woman not because I am an ass but it's just not something I think about a lot.

Male privilege etc. I am aware of it. And bloody thankful for it to be honest.


I can't imagine anyone being callous enough to force another adult human through a medical procedure like that without consent. You would want to be a psycho.

Abortions are not like getting a haircut or a filling.

Sh1tbag OToole

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

I object to this for religious reasons. If the Lord wanted it to be possible for the man to decide if the child should be born or not He would simply have equipped every foetus with a self destruct switch that the father could activate telepathically.

Sweet Rose

DeadHand wrote: »

All the hardship, all the loneliness it'll all have been for something. It'll have been for her. She'll reward you everyday of the rest of your life for the sacrifices you have made.

Best wishes to you and yours.

Thank you for your kind words. She is an amazing baby and I feel blessed to have her. I have heard so many sad stories about women not being able to have children so I feel so lucky. It is a tough life bringing up a child singlehandedly but as you say you reap all the rewards too

Annasopra

GarIT wrote: »

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

In many cases she doesnt have a choice. Financial hardship meaning she cant afford the uk trip. Or she is a migrant who may not be able to the state for various reasons.