Abortion For Men

diveout

kowloon wrote: »

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.

I don't agree.

If a child is aborted by the mother, the child is gone. So that ends all second chances.

If a man walks, the child is still here, alive, breathing, growing, carrying his father's dna, possibly will pass it down through generations to come. Fact is we don't know what goes on in the hearts of men who have walked away. But the child is still here, the child means that door is open because the hole in the child's heart is itself an open door.

Its insane to think you can find a purity of equality here, you can't. Each choice carries different consequences and that has to be accommodated for. Pure sillyness to look for symmetry.

Annasopra

Ficheall wrote: »

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.

Same thing!

Wibbs

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Lolololololo, you are so ignorant.

"Lol" all you like. Pretty amazing ability you have to judge ignorance at a distance. BTW and FYI "ignorance" =/= "stuff I don't happen to agree with".

Please define as best you can... What is a one sided planned pregnancy????
I'm genuinely interested.

Is this when a woman gets access to a scientific laboratory and can create a particular man's semen and inseminate herself with it??? A bit like a DIY IVF treatment.

Oh god. Join the dots time. One sided planned pregnancy is where one participant decides unilaterally to dupe a partner into pregnancy. IE a woman tells a man she's on the pill and stops taking same. As for DIY IVF? A close mate of mine caught an ex... well... suffice to say she was attempting to put his genetic material that had ended up *ahem* elsewhere into the area that nature might have intended. On the other side where a man has claimed he's infertile/had the snip and went on to impregnate his unwitting partner(apparently this has happened and it wouldn't surprise me. "Baby brain" isn't just a woman only thing). Even so, as I said that would be rare enough, or a helluva lot rarer than some paranoid men seem to think.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Same thing!

It's not the same thing, or even close. In one case the potential child is destroyed for a start. In a "legal abortion" on the male side the potential child is alive.

Sweet Rose wrote: »

This is what I can't comprehend about some men. How can they walk away from their flesh and blood, regardless of what circumstances the child was born into.

Regardless of circumstances? So if in the extreme and rare cases(for the purposes of the argument) where a woman claims she's on the pill and for extra fun decides to poke holes in the rubber Jonathan's* because she wants a kid, you reckon the man should just naturally kowtow to societal pressure and accept that? GTFO IMHO.

I might donate sperm to couples wanting to try for a baby and if they succeed then fair play to them. There would be a person out there with my DNA, but he/she wouldn't be mine and I would have no actual connection with them. Similarly if my same DNA was obtained under false pretenses then why should I give a damn in such a case? Makes no sense to me.









*only happens in the paranoid and fertile male imagination for the most part, at least in my experience.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

"Lol" all you like. Pretty amazing ability you have to judge ignorance at a distance. BTW and FYI "ignorance" =/= "stuff I don't happen to agree with". Oh god. Join the dots time. One sided planned pregnancy is where one participant decides unilaterally to dupe a partner into pregnancy. IE a woman tells a man she's on the pill and stops taking same. As for DIY IVF? A close mate of mine caught an ex... well... suffice to say she was attempting to put his genetic material that had ended up *ahem* elsewhere into the area that nature might have intended. On the other side where a man has claimed he's infertile/had the snip and went on to impregnate his unwitting partner(apparently this has happened and it wouldn't surprise me. "Baby brain" isn't just a woman only thing). Even so, as I said that would be rare enough, or a helluva lot rarer than some paranoid men seem to think.

It's not the same thing, or even close. In one case the potential child is destroyed for a start. In a "legal abortion" on the male side the potential child is alive.

Regardless of circumstances? So if in the extreme and rare cases(for the purposes of the argument) where a woman claims she's on the pill and for extra fun decides to poke holes in the rubber Jonathan's* because she wants a kid, you reckon the man should just naturally kowtow to societal pressure and accept that? GTFO IMHO.

I might donate sperm to couples wanting to try for a baby and if they succeed then fair play to them. There would be a person out there with my DNA, but he/she wouldn't be mine and I would have no actual connection with them. Similarly if my same DNA was obtained under false pretenses then why should I give a damn in such a case? Makes no sense to me.









*only happens in the paranoid and fertile male imagination for the most part, at least in my experience.

The examples you cite are entirely sociopathic behaviors. This is so far from the typical experiences of the vast majority of people, it seems utterly absurd to me to base an entire policy which would allow the vast majority of men to reproduce without consequence of any kind, whether philosophical or legal on specifically sociopathic acts or paranoid fantasy.

diveout

Sweet Rose wrote: »

This is what I can't comprehend about some men. How can they walk away from their flesh and blood, regardless of what circumstances the child was born into.

When my babies father walked away initially, I kept having this bizarre thought that one day they'd be walking down the same street, they might brush past each other and never know they were related. As a mother, this thought would kill me that I might ever end up in this situation. Walking past my own child who I never knew

People walk away from flesh and blood all the time. Parents, siblings, cousins, first families. It's not as easy at it looks but they do it. Many different reasons.

How? The same way people go into war and kill each other. They compartmentalise, they rationalise, they destroy a part of themselves in the process.

Ficheall

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ficheall wrote: »

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.

Same thing!

Well, it's always good to know whose input one can safely ignore in a thread.

Fabreo

diveout wrote: »

The examples you cite are entirely sociopathic behaviors. This is so far from the typical experiences of the vast majority of people, it seems utterly absurd to me to base an entire policy which would allow the vast majority of men to reproduce without consequence of any kind, whether philosophical or legal on specifically sociopathic acts or paranoid fantasy.

Do you believe a man who was tricked by his partner into getting her pregnant should be forced to to take responsibilty for that child?

Fabreo

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Why are you saying 'man'? I'm not going into my personal circumstance but this is what basically happened me and I'm a woman. 2 weeks later I did a pregnancy test and it was positive. After the initial shock and emotional upset, I realised this was my flesh and blood. She was my responsibility to look after. There is no way I could have given her up for all the tea in China. She is my world and I love her to bits. It's not that easy to get rid of a baby, it's something you'll live with the rest of your life. However, this is from a woman's point of view. Men are programmed so different.

Why wouldn't I say man? I'm getting misandrist vibes from you.

Bafucin

Fabreo wrote: »

Why wouldn't I say man? I'm getting misandrist vibes from you.

You could have said partner.


I am getting take the piss vibes from you ....carry on!

Wibbs

diveout wrote: »

The examples you cite are entirely sociopathic behaviors. This is so far from the typical experiences of the vast majority of people, it seems utterly absurd to me to base an entire policy which would allow the vast majority of men to reproduce without consequence of any kind, whether philosophical or legal on specifically sociopathic acts or paranoid fantasy.

Maybe try reading what I actually wrote, rather than trying to put words into my mouth to buoy up your position. I said that in normal everyday circumstances I would take responsibility, but in some circumstances I would walk away. I made it quite clear such circumstances would be rare events(contrary to some of the more paranoid out there). However for the purposes of the debate I brought such possible circumstances into play(and I have seen examples of it, albeit rare enough).

Fabreo wrote: »

Do you believe a man who was tricked by his partner into getting her pregnant should be forced to to take responsibilty for that child?

Apparently so. Not for me in such a rare event(making sure that gets across for the possibly hard of reading) where I was "tricked" into it. In that case I would quite easily walk away and no amount of half cocked social pressure "shaming" about being a "man" would dissuade me in such a circumstance. By scratching my arse I slough off my DNA, my "flesh and blood", it doesn't mean I have an attachment to it. An attachment would be borne of connection and trust between me and the mother of such a child. In that case an "accident" would be OK. So long as it was an accident. Otherwise, no, GTFO, it's genetic rape.

Yep I went there. If a woman is raped, it is no fault of her own. None, zero, nada. Let's say she's unlucky enough to end up pregnant by the rapist bastard scum of the earth. If she chose to abort that "flesh and blood" then fair play and more power to her. Her choice was taken away in the most brutal way possible.

Fabreo

Bafucin wrote: »

You could have said partner.


I am getting take the piss vibes from you ....carry on!

I could have said I'd like a large big mac meal with coke as well, what's your point.

I asked the question I wanted to ask, Aim those simpleton vibes elsewhere.

wendell borton

The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion.... To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

- Valerie Solanas
:rolleyes:

Bafucin

Fabreo wrote: »

I could have said I'd like a large big mac meal with coke as well, what's your point.

I asked the question I wanted to ask, Aim those simpleton vibes elsewhere.

It's a message board you aim your vibes and I aim mine. Ready aim fire!

what's your point?

I think you are taking things too personally and handing out insults like 'misandry' willy nilly.

There was nothing in that posters comment that was slightly anti man, so I assumed you were not serious. Now that it seems you were I find that funnier.

Shakespeare's Sister

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Good men are hard to find but oh so worth the effort when you do.

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I despise men

Huh?

JerCotter7

Simplifying it quite a bit.


If female wants abortion tough ****.
If a male wants an abortion he cuts all ties to the unborn child.
If the female wants to put the kid up for adoption give the male the option of adopting the kid first.
If they both want to keep it give them equal rights to the child.

Obviously the male would have to have his "abortion" before 24 weeks like a female would. If he wants back in the childs life later it would be the mothers choice. I fail to see any downside on that. Although I didn't think it through. Just wrote it down really.

Bafucin

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I hope you're a woman because I'm finding your posts funny. Otherwise you can bore off. I despise men

Nope. Male. I despise you right back! RIGHT BACK I SAY!

krudler

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Why are you saying 'man'? I'm not going into my personal circumstance but this is what basically happened me and I'm a woman. 2 weeks later I did a pregnancy test and it was positive. After the initial shock and emotional upset, I realised this was my flesh and blood. She was my responsibility to look after. There is no way I could have given her up for all the tea in China. She is my world and I love her to bits. It's not that easy to get rid of a baby, it's something you'll live with the rest of your life. However, this is from a woman's point of view. Men are programmed so different.

You were tricked into getting pregnant?

takamichinoku

JerCotter7 wrote: »

If he wants back in the childs life later it would be the mothers choice.

How would you enforce that though? Like, no matter what kind of punishment you put in place, if he makes contact with the son it immediately changes everything, doesn't it?

JerCotter7

takamichinoku wrote: »

How would you enforce that though? Like, no matter what kind of punishment you put in place, if he makes contact with the son it immediately changes everything, doesn't it?

Not anything to enforce about that. If he contacts the child without the mothers permission fine him or something to that affect. If he tries again increase punishment. If the mother says its okay to contact the child then nothing of it. Obviously when they are over 18 none of this would apply. But if you knew your father wanted you completely out of his life you would probably tell him to f off.

FunLover18

Dolbert wrote: »

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

This is true but if you switch the positions where the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, should the man not have a say if he's willing to allow the woman to forego all rights?

I'm not overly familiar with pregnancy and its effects but is asking a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term for the father's sake a lot to ask?

Bafucin

FunLover18 wrote: »

This is true but if you switch the positions where the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, should the man not have a say if he's willing to allow the woman to forego all rights?

I'm not overly familiar with pregnancy and its effects but is asking a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term for the father's sake a lot to ask?

In order to be THAT unfamiliar with pregnancy I think you might have to be inhuman as in alien.

I am male and not overly familiar with pregnancy and child labor but I hear it's a bitch.

No he should not have a say it is her body not mine.

jaymcg91

FunLover18 wrote: »

I'm not overly familiar with pregnancy and its effects but is asking a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term for the father's sake a lot to ask?

Are you out of your mind? It's probably the most stressful thing a human body can go through. It's fraught with risk of complications - from initial impregnation to the process of actually giving birth (even in the age of modern medicine, there are serious risks). Not to mention the physical and psychological effects that can affect women after birth.

Literally the most ridiculous post I've ever read on here (and there have been some contenders!).

FunLover18

Bafucin wrote: »

In order to be THAT unfamiliar with pregnancy I think you might have to be inhuman as in alien.

I am male and not overly familiar with pregnancy and child labor but I hear it's a bitch.

No he should not have a say it is her body not mine.

Her body, but the child is also his and not her's alone. I'm not a pro-lifer who thinks abortion is murder but I think when discussing a father's rights it's important to remember we are talking about a child and not just the woman's body.

krudler

FunLover18 wrote: »

This is true but if you switch the positions where the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, should the man not have a say if he's willing to allow the woman to forego all rights?

I'm not overly familiar with pregnancy and its effects but is asking a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term for the father's sake a lot to ask?

You're not overly familiar with pregnancy? your average schoolkid with basic biology would know what effects it has on a woman's body. It changes a woman's body forever.

FunLover18

krudler wrote: »

You're not overly familiar with pregnancy? your average schoolkid with basic biology would know what effects it has on a woman's body. It changes a woman's body forever.

I get that now, thanks. But a child can also change a man's life forever.

jaymcg91

FunLover18 wrote: »

I get that now, thanks. But a child can also change a man's life forever.

Not in the same way. At all. Not even in a remotely similar way.

takamichinoku

FunLover18 wrote: »

Her body, but the child is also his and not her's alone. I'm not a pro-lifer who thinks abortion is murder but I think when discussing a father's rights it's important to remember we are talking about a child and not just the woman's body.

Sure it's only 9 months, like? :rolleyes:

FunLover18

jaymcg91 wrote: »

Literally the most ridiculous post I've ever read on here (and there have been some contenders!).

Do I get any kind of reward?

jaymcg91

FunLover18 wrote: »

Do I get any kind of reward?

A lifetime supply of condoms to discourage any of the suggestions in your post

FunLover18

Hang on one minute here!! Am I to understand that a father has no legal rights over his unborn child? Paternal rights only kick in after birth or something like that?

Sorry lads but that sounds ridiculous!! How is that a man forcing a woman to have an abortion and denying her the right to be a mother is outrageous and yet a woman having an abortion and therefore denying the father the exact same right is perfectly acceptable? Now I'm not saying that they're the exact same scenario in reverse order, I now have a better grasp on the effects of pregnancy on the female body (thanks to all above) but the difference in acceptability between these circumstances cannot be that wide, can it?

Also I would like to add that obviously in certain circumstance such as medical conditions, incest, rape (although I doubt a rapist would want to be father), or if the mother's suicidal it should ultimately be the mother's choice, that should go without saying but just in case people think I'm THAT thick.

jaymcg91

FunLover18 wrote: »

Sorry lads but that sounds ridiculous!! How is that a man forcing a woman to have an abortion and denying her the right to be a mother is outrageous and yet a woman having an abortion and therefore denying the father the exact same right is perfectly acceptable? Now I'm not saying that they're the exact same scenario in reverse order, I now have a better grasp on the effects of pregnancy on the female body (thanks to all above) but the difference in acceptability between these circumstances cannot be that wide, can it?

Her body, her choice. That sums it up in a nutshell. She has to carry it, give birth and raise the child (not in all cases, but statistically she's likely to be the primary caregiver).

If men decide to not wear a condom in this day and age, then what happens. happens. I'm a guy, and it seems that many, many men don't want to take any personal responsibility for their behaviour.

Kiwi in IE

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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.

I have to agree. Of course the man shouldn't have any legal right to decide what a woman does with her body/pregnancy. The most he can do is express his wishes, but the decision is 100% hers regardless of what he wants.

There has to be a flip side to this coin. If she wants to remain pregnant and raise the child then that is her choice. She has several others; MAP, abortion (current Irish law creates a problem here), or adoption. He has none, zero, zilch, zip unless she decides to take his wishes into consideration, but she isn't obliged to. Nor should she be. This is how it should be. This is how it has to be.

Now of course all of the woman's options (with exception of MAP) are potentially traumatic, emotionally scarring and likely to cause financial disadvantage. But this could also be the case for the man, he may really want to have a baby but she has an abortion and he is emotionally distressed by this. Likewise the prospect of being responsible for a child that he really dosn't want, with a woman he dosn't want a life long relationship with could tip him over the edge into depression, possibly resulting in him becoming suicidal (considered even in Ireland as grounds for the woman to abort the pregnancy).

I think in an ideal world the man should have the option to be absolved of responsibility when the woman insists on raising the child and he absolutely does not want it. I don't think there should be a very big window of oppurtunity for him to decide this. Being totally opposed to the idea is something that would be known pretty much straight away, not something that is dithered over. It would also need to be proved that he was not living with the woman (if he was in a serious relationship he should not have this option). I think this should only be available in the case of one night stands and brief, casual relationships. Also abortion would have to be on demand up to a point without the need to travel outside the country.

I do find it hypocritical that people who are pro choice are using arguments such as 'should have kept it in his pants', 'his problem if he didn't use contraception', 'got into situation so must face responsibilities'. I would assume that anyone making these statements in the woman requesting abortion scenario was very much 'pro life'.

I realise this is not something that would ever be able to be satisfactorily legislated for. It is not a simple solution to a complex problem in any way. There are scenarios such as how long he has to apply to be absolved. A time limit couldn't be fairly imposed because he may not find out she is pregnant until after the deadline.

I cannot see a way that it can be applied satisfactorily and fairly in legislation, but I think the concept is right ethically.

Kiwi in IE

FunLover18 wrote: »

Sorry lads but that sounds ridiculous!! How is that a man forcing a woman to have an abortion and denying her the right to be a mother is outrageous and yet a woman having an abortion and therefore denying the father the exact same right is perfectly acceptable? Now I'm not saying that they're the exact same scenario in reverse order, I now have a better grasp on the effects of pregnancy on the female body (thanks to all above) but the difference in acceptability between these circumstances cannot be that wide, can it?

The fact you are even asking that question proves that your grasp has a long way to go!

suicide_circus

Man and woman have consensual sex. Woman gets pregnant.

Scenario 1: man does not want a child. Requests abortion. Woman continues pregnancy. Man wants nothing to do with child. Woman compels man to pay maintenance through courts. Man is deadbeat scumbag. Woman is brave hero.

Scenario 2: man wants child. Woman does not want child, has abortion. Tough shiite for the man. Courageous decision by the woman.

FunLover18

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

The fact you are even asking that question proves that your grasp has a long way to go!

Could you explain further? Being a man I know I'll never understand the true effects of pregnancy but is the idea that a woman would go through because a man wanted to raise the child she was carrying, knowing full well that she was going to leave him to it, that preposterous? I'm in no way saying a woman should be forced to do so and I know well that she has the final say but the idea that the man has no say whatsoever even though the child is his … it doesn't sit well with me and the attitude of "well, you'll just have to build a bridge" sits less well.

What if some allowance were introduced, fathers are already subject to pay for childcare if they're not around, could a system not be put in place whereby a mother who bears a child through to term for the sake of the father receive some sort of compensation allowance from the father over a certain period after the birth?

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

Maybe try reading what I actually wrote, rather than trying to put words into my mouth to buoy up your position. I said that in normal everyday circumstances I would take responsibility, but in some circumstances I would walk away. I made it quite clear such circumstances would be rare events(contrary to some of the more paranoid out there). However for the purposes of the debate I brought such possible circumstances into play(and I have seen examples of it, albeit rare enough).

Apparently so. Not for me in such a rare event(making sure that gets across for the possibly hard of reading) where I was "tricked" into it. In that case I would quite easily walk away and no amount of half cocked social pressure "shaming" about being a "man" would dissuade me in such a circumstance. By scratching my arse I slough off my DNA, my "flesh and blood", it doesn't mean I have an attachment to it. An attachment would be borne of connection and trust between me and the mother of such a child. In that case an "accident" would be OK. So long as it was an accident. Otherwise, no, GTFO, it's genetic rape.

Sorry Wibbs, I did misunderstand you- wasn't realising you were just talking about you and thought you were abstracting along general lines.

I think in the rare event of such a deception, the morality of it becomes such a quagmire for either a man or a woman and the child who did not ask for any of this.

diveout

DeadHand wrote: »

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.

Well, the feminists for years have been telling men and fathers they are redundant...so there ya go folks.... you got what you prayed for.

Fabreo

I believe both parents should have the right in the early stages of pregnancy to absolve themselves of responsibility if they feel they aren't ready to look after a child. In the case of a woman she should be allowed to have an abortion in the first 8 weeks or so. The man should be allowed ask the mother to have an abortion in the early stages, if she says no he should be absolved of responsibilty for the child if he so chooses.

magicbastarder

Kiwi in IE wrote: »

I think in an ideal world the man should have the option to be absolved of responsibility when the woman insists on raising the child and he absolutely does not want it.

what you are asking is for a scenario where in a situation where a man is 50% responsible for the pregnancy, the man gets to walk away with no obligations.
the woman gets to have the abortion/adoption/raise the child scenario, none of which are easy.

society doesn't work this way. thankfully.
i'm still amazed that there are men who consider themselves more put out than women in an unplanned pregnancy scenario. certainly put out enough that even though they are less affected, they still want to shift whatever burden falls on them onto the more affected party.

Fabreo

magicbastarder wrote: »

what you are asking is for a scenario where in a situation where a man is 50% responsible for the pregnancy, the man gets to walk away with no obligations.
the woman gets to have the abortion/adoption/raise the child scenario, none of which are easy.

society doesn't work this way. thankfully.
i'm still amazed that there are men who consider themselves more put out than women in an unplanned pregnancy scenario. certainly put out enough that even though they are less affected, they still want to shift whatever burden falls on them onto the more affected party.

The woman has a choice to have an early abortion which minimises the burden. The facts of biology mean that it is the woman that has to have the abortion that's just the way it is. The child is the Father's too so he should have some say whether they decide to keep it or not.

Fabreo

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Unfortunately life isn't that black and white. Some men feel they 'aren't ready' to raise their own child so they cut ties. They then get in contact with the child down the line when the child is older.

I know 2 children where the father got in touch 5 or 6 years later after the mother put in the hard graft of working and looking after the child singlehandedly. How confusing for the little child too.

This scenario is not fair on both the mother and child. This whole opt in, opt out thing sickens me to the core. You are either the father or not. You should take responsibility from the start.

It takes a village to raise a child. It's certainly true.

I believe once the Father decides to absolve his responsibilities he should no rights over the child whatsoever, that's fair in my opinion.

I presume you also believe you are either the mother or not and should take responsibilty from the start and not consider an abortion.

diveout

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Unfortunately life isn't that black and white. Some men feel they 'aren't ready' to raise their own child so they cut ties. They then get in contact with the child down the line when the child is older.

I know 2 children where the father got in touch 5 or 6 years later after the mother put in the hard graft of working and looking after the child singlehandedly. How confusing for the little child too.

This scenario is not fair on both the mother and child. This whole opt in, opt out thing sickens me to the core. You are either the father or not. You should take responsibility from the start.

It takes a village to raise a child. It's certainly true.

7 is the average age. It's eerie how often it happens at 7. Some don't come back until they feel they have their **** together. They don't want their child to see them a mess. Some don't realise maybe their child was missing them. And no one seems to realise the mothers are so busy they miss out on the childhoods too.

Moat_Cailin

BeerWolf wrote: »

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

Well, she also got final say in the man going in unprotected, sorry to burst your white knight bubble.

On topic

I would be very much Pro Abortion in any form. I think it should be legal and kept as an option until a child reaches at least their teens.

Calina

Fabreo wrote: »

I believe once the Father decides to absolve his responsibilities he should no rights over the child whatsoever, that's fair in my opinion.

I think such a decision should come at a cost to the man, say, half a million euro spread over 23 years, adjusted each year for inflation?

You don't get to decide freely. Such a decision should come as a cost to yourself in the same way as whatever decision a woman makes by definition comes at a cost to her, be it the abortion or the birth. As men don't have to deal with the physical fall out, they should deal with some of the financial fall out for the decision they make.

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

I believe once the Father decides to absolve his responsibilities he should no rights over the child whatsoever, that's fair in my opinion.

i believe that i should be able to absolve myself of my responsibility for paying tax*. but society doesn't allow that, nor does it allow men to do a pontius pilate on pregnancies they helped create.

*i don't. but you know what i mean.

Fabreo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i believe that i should be able to absolve myself of my responsibility for paying tax*. but society doesn't allow that, nor does it allow men to do a pontius pilate on pregnancies they helped create.

*i don't. but you know what i mean.

Do you believe women should be able to absolve themselves of responsibilty by having an abortion?

diveout

Fabreo wrote: »

Do you believe women should be able to absolve themselves of responsibilty by having an abortion?

An abortion comes with its consequences. That is not absolving of responsibility. That is a choice that terminates all other choices.

Fabreo

diveout wrote: »

An abortion comes with its consequences. That is not absolving of responsibility. That is a choice that terminates all other choices.

It absolves the woman of having to be responsible for the well being of a child, an abortion in the early stages is a lot less responsibilty than looking after a child for 18 years.

For a man who waives his rights to that child that comes with the risk of that he might regret his decision at a future date and have no rights, so he shares burden in that case.

Fabreo

Sweet Rose wrote: »

It's not like writing on a chalkboard and rubbing out the writing after. It will be something the women has to live with for the rest of her life. I personally know a woman who had an abortion and she is still going through the emotional trauma of it 4 years later. The guilt she feels is unreal. Not to mention the physical implications and wondering will she ever have another child.

Men could also feel emotional trauma years later for choosing to absolve their rights.

AudreyHepburn

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 don't think it would ever be possible to bring in legislation so men can dictate what women do with their own bodies.

That said, I do think men should be allowed to opt out of fatherhood if they don't want it.

Women can choose to abort the pregnancy if they don't want it so I see no reason why men shouldn't also have the choice to walk away and not be involved.