Abortion For Men

diveout

Fabreo wrote: »

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

Yes they can. Which is why if a regret can be undone, there is no reason to not let that happen.

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

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

i believe they should have the option. i do not believe there should be any coercion involved in their decision.

Fabreo

diveout wrote: »

Yes they can. Which is why if a regret can be undone, there is no reason to not let that happen.

Well I think that makes it too easy and unfair on Mother's if a man can just absolve his rights and then take them back whenever he wants. If a man chooses to absolve his rights it should be 100% the mother's discretion whether he has any involvement in the child's life should he regret his decision.

Fabreo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i believe they should have the option. i do not believe there should be any coercion involved in their decision.

Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?

because men don't get pregnant. there is an unavoidable inequality in the burden placed on a couple by an unplanned pregnancy.

you are equating 'walking away from a woman you helped get pregnant' with 'being walked away from by a man who helped get you pregnant' as if the two scenarios are identical for those involved. basic biology lesson -they're not. it's not like buying a car and realising you don't like it.

AudreyHepburn

Fabreo wrote: »

Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?

No reason at all why not....and I say this as a woman.

As far as I can tell, based on the responses on this thread and others as well as comments I've heard in my day to day life, there's an awful lot of women out there who think that because men don't have to go through pregnancy and childbirth they should have no rights.

They also assume that if you get pregnant this means you have to endure being stuck with the child 24/7 for the rest of your life whether you want to or not.

Neither of these is true of course.

They also seem to feel it is solely the man's responsibility and fault if the woman gets pregnant which is ridiculous in the extreme.

Fabreo

magicbastarder wrote: »

because men don't get pregnant. there is an unavoidable inequality in the burden placed on a couple by an unplanned pregnancy.

you are equating 'walking away from a woman you helped get pregnant' with 'being walked away from by a man who helped get you pregnant' as if the two scenarios are identical for those involved. basic biology lesson -they're not. it's not like buying a car and realising you don't like it.

Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?

B0jangles

The thread title is a complete misnomer - abortion means there is no child.


What this thread is talking about is legalized child abandonment.

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?

again, you seem to be making an argument based on equal consequence for both parties.

there's a difference between the argument that a man should not get his dick wet, and that a man should face up to certain responsibilities if he does and there's an unplanned pregnancy. what you're asking for is zero consequence for men if he can't keep it in his trousers, while acknowledging the same option is not available for women.

Tony EH

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

"Because we're worth it too"

AudreyHepburn

Fabreo wrote: »

Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?

That has to be the most sexist, over-simplistic arguments I've seen on this subject.

It takes two to have sex, two to make a baby.

Yes the man should wear a condom if he doesn't want any surprises but should we as women not ensure to take the pill on time/get the implant as required/have the coil or diaphram fitted correctly too?

Why do so many women that men, and men only, have responsibility for contraception?

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That has to be the most sexist, over-simplistic arguments I've seen on this subject.

It takes two to have sex, two to make a baby.

Yes the man should wear a condom if he doesn't want any surprises but should we as women not ensure to take the pill on time/get the implant as required/have the coil or diaphram fitted correctly too?

Why do so many women that men, and men only, have responsibility for contraception?

You're taking a simplistic view here.

I don't think that women think men and men only have responsibility for contraception and to be frank I don't understand why men, in the interests of protecting their own interests, do not by default wear condoms. Me personally, I'd aim for a double protection and it's not like there aren't other primary benefits to wearing condoms such as reducing the risk of STDs.

However, when it comes to arguments over what to do when conception has actually happened, the bleating of a lot of men in this thread demanding their right to walk away in a way that just isn't possible for women suggests that maybe things need to be spelled out that way.

In any case, not every woman can take the pill; it's contraindicated in some cases something which terrified the living bejaysus out of one man I know when he found out.

So, you're right, it takes two to make a baby. One of those two can, in practical terms walk away from it and now some representatives of that gender are demanding the right to do so. One of them is demanding the right to force women to have abortions. I don't think there's any harm in reminding them that it took two to make that baby and frankly, given that their only primary concern is god forbid they'd have to financially support their child, are you seriously suggesting that it's sexist to suggest they do their utmost to avoid creating said baby regardless of what the woman's view of having a baby is?

I think men with that attitude shouldn't be having sex in the first place to be frank.

DeadHand

Moat_Cailin wrote: »

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.

Is that an attempt at irony or do you honestly believe it should be legal to "abort" unwanted persons up to the age of 13?

Tony EH

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They also seem to feel it is solely the man's responsibility and fault if the woman gets pregnant which is ridiculous in the extreme.

I've read though this thread and have had roughly the same conversations in real life (try being the only guy in a room full of girls doing that!!!).

In any case, my conclusion is usually the same.

An awful lot of people seem to think that sex is something that a man does to a woman, as opposed to there being multiple parties actually involved.

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

You're taking a simplistic view here.

I don't think that women think men and men only have responsibility for contraception and to be frank I don't understand why men, in the interests of protecting their own interests, do not by default wear condoms. Me personally, I'd aim for a double protection and it's not like there aren't other primary benefits to wearing condoms such as reducing the risk of STDs.

I'd suggest you read through this thread again. Not all women think that way of course, but an awful lot do.

However, when it comes to arguments over what to do when conception has actually happened, the bleating of a lot of men in this thread demanding their right to walk away in a way that just isn't possible for women suggests that maybe things need to be spelled out that way.

But it is possible for women, that's the point. A woman can have an abortion if she doesn't want the child.

Or if it comes to it she can have the baby adopted.

Neither are easy choices but they are choices. A woman does not have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.

In any case, not every woman can take the pill; it's contraindicated in some cases something which terrified the living bejaysus out of one man I know when he found out.

And that's the only option for female contraception is it? What about the diaphram, the coil, the implant?

So, you're right, it takes two to make a baby. One of those two can, in practical terms walk away from it and now some representatives of that gender are demanding the right to do so. One of them is demanding the right to force women to have abortions. I don't think there's any harm in reminding them that it took two to make that baby and frankly, given that their only primary concern is god forbid they'd have to financially support their child, are you seriously suggesting that it's sexist to suggest they do their utmost to avoid creating said baby regardless of what the woman's view of having a baby is?

No, god no not at all.

I'm saying it's sexist to foist all the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy on men.

It takes two to tango.

magicbastarder

can someone let me know who is arguing that it's men who get women pregnant without the woman being in any way responsible?

saying (addressing our hypothetical man) 'if you don't want a baby, wear a condom' is not implying it's solely the man's responsibility.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'd suggest you read through this thread again. Not all women think that way of course, but an awful lot do.

REally? Because where I see that happening it is in the context of a man demanding not to have a baby, so yes, if that's his attitude he better take responsibility for contraception if he doesn't want responsibility for a baby

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But it is possible for women, that's the point. A woman can have an abortion if she doesn't want the child.

Or if it comes to it she can have the baby adopted.

In practical terms, equating walking away from pregnancy as a man to walking away from a pregnancy via abortion or baby via adoption as a woman is madness. The impact in practical terms of even getting pregnant in the first place on a woman is significantly greater and the physical impact is non-negligible even in the case of an early termination

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Neither are easy choices but they are choices. A woman does not have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.

They are significantly harder than "Bye, I don't want this baby, sayonara" which is all that's required of a man who doesn't want a child.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And that's the only option for female contraception is it? What about the diaphram, the coil, the implant?

No it's not but some of them are contraindicated for women who have not had children yet, and there are issues with any hormonal treatment.

Strictly speaking, the side effects of condoms on a man tend to be far less than the impact of hormonal treatments for women. I personally haven't tried the female condom however.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No, god no not at all.

I'm saying it's sexist to foist all the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy on men.

It takes two to tango.

You're right. In the context of a man specifically not wanting to be a father, then it is not sexist to tell him to man up and take responsibility for his not becoming a father.

AudreyHepburn

magicbastarder wrote: »

can someone let me know who is arguing that it's men who get women pregnant without the woman being in any way responsible?

saying (addressing our hypothetical man) 'if you don't want a baby, wear a condom' is not implying it's solely the man's responsibility.

It is when you don't then address hypothetical woman in the same breath and say ' and make sure you take your pill'.

The general tone of this thread seems to be that any and all responsibility lies with men.

It also seems that posters here feel that if the woman does get the pregnant it's the man's problem and his fault and he should be forced into being father no matter what his personal feelings on the matter whereas the woman can get an abortion no problem.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It is when you don't then address hypothetical woman in the same breath and say ' and make sure you take your pill'.

The general tone of this thread seems to be that any and all responsibility lies with men.

It also seems that posters here feel that if the woman does get the pregnant it's the man's problem and his fault and he should be forced into being father no matter what his personal feelings on the matter whereas the woman can get an abortion no problem.

No it's not. You are refusing to see this in the context of men demanding their right to walk away from a baby or force a woman to have an abortion. They are vocalising a demand not to have a child. It is not sexist to suggest that they take responsibility for contraception in that case. No one is saying that's sole responsibility.

No one here is suggesting that if the woman gets pregnant it's the man's problem. They are pointing out that women get to make some key decisions because it is so much more the woman's problem.

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

No it's not. You are refusing to see this in the context of men demanding their right to walk away from a baby or force a woman to have an abortion. They are vocalising a demand not to have a child. It is not sexist to suggest that they take responsibility for contraception in that case. No one is saying that's sole responsibility.

No it's not, I agree 100%

I'm not refusing to see anything in that context. I think many other posters here are though. Or at least that's the tone I'm getting from what I'm reading.

No one here is suggesting that if the woman gets pregnant it's the man's problem. They are pointing out that women get to make some key decisions because it is so much more the woman's problem.

No arguments there.

My only caveat is that the one key decision the woman should be allowed to make is whether then man should be involved or not.

That's his decision as much as having an abortion or is hers.

AudreyHepburn

Also I would point out that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it would a simple easy decision for a man to decide he doesn't want the child and to walk away.

I would suggest that that probably isn't the case for many men, that it comes after a lot of thought and consideration.

It may not be the case that he just doesn't want the child. It could be that he doesn't feel ready, or that he can't afford to support the child or for some reason believes the child is better off without him.

Men aren't just cold hearted machines that are there simply to provide financial support for us poor women.

In the same way a woman might spend her life wondering what if she hadn't aborted her child I am sure a man would wonder what if he hadn't he walked away.

He would have to live his life in the knowledge that he has a child out there who might one day come looking for him and wondering why he left.

Or he could find he regrets his decision to walk away, just as many women regret having terminated the pregnancy.

It isn't always a simple case of the man just walking away.

B0jangles

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Ok, I need to stop reading this thread but I feel I have a vested interest in it from experience.

Child abandonment is what I completely disagree with. It's happening far too much. I think the laws need to be tightened around this ASAP. It's all too easy for a father (and mother in some cases) to walk away from a child they have created. I just can't comprehend how any parent can do that but what is stopping them. Not much.

Then the worse bit is when they decide to, they drop back into the child's life at the drop of a hat, as if they were never away. Like I said this scenario sickens me to the core.

I agree absolutely, I just wanted to point out that using the word "abortion" to describe renouncing all involvement, including financial, without making any effort to find some kind of replacement support for the child's existence is extremely misleading.

What is being described is the equivalent of a woman having a baby and then abandoning it on the father's doorstep and then disappearing.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Using a 99 cent condom would negate all of this. It's not that hard.

Nope, no harder than an over the counter pill.

It's for both parties to be responsible.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Also I would point out that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it would a simple easy decision for a man to decide he doesn't want the child and to walk away.

I would suggest that that probably isn't the case for many men, that it comes after a lot of thought and consideration.

It may not be the case that he just doesn't want the child. It could be that he doesn't feel ready, or that he can't afford to support the child or for some reason believes the child is better off without him.

Men aren't just cold hearted machines that are there simply to provide financial support for us poor women.

In the same way a woman might spend her life wondering what if she hadn't aborted her child I am sure a man would wonder what if he hadn't he walked away.

He would have to live his life in the knowledge that he has a child out there who might one day come looking for him and wondering why he left.

Or he could find he regrets his decision to walk away, just as many women regret having terminated the pregnancy.

It isn't always a simple case of the man just walking away.

eh, historically a metric tonne of them did just that in this country leaving a lot of women and children in mother and baby homes and laundries.

Come back to me when you've worked out whether it is harder for the man or harder for the woman in practical terms to walk away from the pregnancy. Cos it is that differential which makes all the difference.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nope, no harder than an over the counter pill.

It's for both parties to be responsible.

MAP can cause nausea and sickness and very heavy period.

I'm not sure that it is "no harder" than a condom.

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

eh, historically a metric tonne of them did just that in this country leaving a lot of women and children in mother and baby homes and laundries.

Come back to me when you've worked out whether it is harder for the man or harder for the woman in practical terms to walk away from the pregnancy. Cos it is that differential which makes all the difference.

I know which is harder. Don't patronise me.

I'm simply saying that just because it might be harder for the woman to opt out doesn't mean men shouldn't have that right.

Nor does it negate the woman from taking responsibility for taking precautions.

And you are assuming you know what those men were thinking, you don't, none of us do.

I'm getting the impression you have a chip on shoulder with regard to men and fathers in particular.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. Of course both parties are responsible.

Taking the pill as a means of contraception is a long term issue. It's expensive and can have long terms emotional and physical consequences for the woman.

Slipping on a condom is a short term issue, apart from going to the chemist to buy it. It doesn't have any other side effects in terms of inconvenience.

So she should simply not bother and leave it up to him?

You do realize there are other options besides the pill?

banquo

It's tricky, but the lifespan of the child that comes out of there is likely to be over 75+ years. It takes two people to make a baby, why should only one have the right to determine whether or not they're going to be a parent?

Tony EH

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. Of course both parties are responsible.

Taking the pill as a means of contraception is a long term issue. It's expensive and can have long term emotional and physical consequences for the woman.

Slipping on a condom is a short term issue, apart from going to the chemist to buy it. It doesn't have any other side effects outside of being inconvenient to get.

AGAIN though...this is still blaming the man for the pregnancy.

The woman didn't take the pill because of her "emotions"? But still didn't say no to guy because he didn't put a johnny on.

Man's fault she got pregnant.

Generic Dreadhead

23 pages on a thread called "Abortion for men", wow, just wow, the rabble-rabble brigade are out in force

ash23

OK so men want more rights as fathers and automatic guardianship, 50/50 custody etc but on the other hand they also want to be able to go "no thanks, not for me - you do it by yourself".

I'm sure it's heartbreaking for a man who wants a child to be left helpless when the mother has an abortion.

But when a woman has an abortion, there is no child. There's no financial or moral obligation because what was, no longer exists. They go their separate ways.
A proposed "man abortion" where he walks away and the child is born will result in a child. It will place all the financial responsibility on the mother. If she cannot manage, it places part or all of the financial responsibility of the child on the state.

If a woman has an abortion there is no child. There's nobody to grow up with the lack of a father. No social issues created by children living without fathers present in their lives or feeling abandoned by their father. There's no risk of kids growing up and meeting half siblings unknownst to them.

The womans abortion results in a end game. A mans would create a host of potential issues and problems.
A woman having an abortion is placing a risk solely on herself. A man deciding he wants an "abortion" places repercussions on the woman, the child, the state, his future siblings and wife etc.

I have a child whose father effectively had a "man abortion". Had I had the abortion there would have been no issue, no reminders other than my own issues to contend with and no repercussions other than my own. But his choice of "abortion" has and will continue to have an effect on many other people for years to come.

takamichinoku

This could just be me, but until I was about 18 or 19, I was under the impression the pill was some kind of magic solution with no side effects on the woman at all. As far as I'm aware, every woman I've spoken to about it has seemed to have had a variety of issues, some of which had lasting effects so "just take the pill" doesn't really seem a valid option to me in comparison to using a condom. I'm saying this as someone who's very very unlikely to get to to point of an orgasm with one on too.


Yeah ..."my point"? oh! my point! Television/films/etc seem to give off a misleading impression of what the pill is exactly.

Tony EH

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I did not say, women should not take the pill. I'm saying it's not easy to take for a women.

Why did the guy not put a condom on??? He is responsible too.

Why didn't she say no, not tonight?

Calina

Tony EH wrote: »

Why didn't she say no, not tonight?

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"? What is under discussion is the right of a man to run out on being a father.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I did not say, women should not take the pill. I'm saying it's not easy to take for a woman.

Why did the guy not put a condom on??? He is responsible too.

I don't think anyone's said he shouldn't.

We've only said it can't all be on him.

If a woman can't take a pill there are other options.

Tony EH

Calina wrote: »

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"?

He can, that option is there.

tinz18

Personally I believe in the two-sided preventation is the best method: that the girl should be on the pill and in fairness sakes guy should provide the condoms.
However some girls can’t take the pill due to medical reasons (some girls reactions to the pill make the pitch unplayable the whole time you’re on the pill, can screw with their moods, can cause clots to form etc) and likewise with the implant. As for the coil- most doctors won’t prescribe it for girls even if they want it under a certain age unless they pose a significant risk (Girl with two aborted pregnancies etc) or have had all the kids they want- it also can cause the above side effects.
Hence sometimes the condoms are the only protection available- the MAP fails sometimes and again it can only be taken at most 3 times without the risk causing long-term damage (I was told this by a doctor while receiving MAP- not sure if it’s a scare story or not). But if there’s only condom protection there people need to acknowledge that according to the CDC it has a 18% fail rate with typical use- the females condom is pretty high failure rate too. The two sexual partners should be ready to deal with the consequences if it does fail without playing the blame game or just not have sex (horrible idea but hey its the only 100% safe method).
I'm pro-choice but I don't believe abortion is that straight forward. Two friends who did abort their pregnancies have been told since that scarring caused by the abortions might mean that they can't have kids in the future- for girls in their early 20s that is a horrible thing to find out. (Note: in one's case she went willingly to abort with the father agreeing, in the others case the guy wanted to get pregnant changed his mind and told her he'd leave if she didn't terminate)

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I did not say, do not bother. If you read my post I said it's up to both parties but if a woman takes the pill consistently, the least a man could is provide a condom and use it. Which doesn't happen a lot here!

Obviously, I realise there are other options but they are not without their side effects and do not suit a lot of women.

That's not what I read it as, but if that is what you actually meant then I agree.

Penny Tration

I don't think that taking the pill is half as hard as some posters are claiming.

I can't have the combined pill, the implant, the injection or the coil. I can only take the minipill.

While it has side effects, they're not all that bad. It's only in rare cases that side effects are bad enough to warrant the woman not using it as a contraception.

tinz18

takamichinoku wrote: »

This could just be me, but until I was about 18 or 19, I was under the impression the pill was some kind of magic solution with no side effects on the woman at all. As far as I'm aware, every woman I've spoken to about it has seemed to have had a variety of issues, some of which had lasting effects so "just take the pill" doesn't really seem a valid option to me in comparison to using a condom. I'm saying this as someone who's very very unlikely to get to to point of an orgasm with one on too.

It really is sold that way isn't it? I'm another one of those cases who have problems on them- and thats on one of the two POPs available in this country. Try having your 16 yo little brother saying "ah sure if she gets pregnant she can always take the morning after pill"... the horror on his face when I explained it doesn't work that way.

Calina

green_screen wrote: »

I don't think that taking the pill is half as hard as some posters are claiming.

I can't have the combined pill, the implant, the injection or the coil. I can only take the minipill.

While it has side effects, they're not all that bad. It's only in rare cases that side effects are bad enough to warrant the woman not using it as a contraception.

I'm happy for you. However, you cannot and should not generalise your situation onto every other woman.

tinz18

green_screen wrote: »

I don't think that taking the pill is half as hard as some posters are claiming.

I can't have the combined pill, the implant, the injection or the coil. I can only take the minipill.

While it has side effects, they're not all that bad. It's only in rare cases that side effects are bad enough to warrant the woman not using it as a contraception.

I'm on the same pill as you (the POP) but there are three types of reactions to the POP- the bleeder (can't be healthy constantly losing blood for a month +), the non-bleeder (I quite like the idea of no monthlies for years- some don't) and then cases like me where I could be horribly anemic for three weeks and two months of freedom. You seem to be one of the lucky ones, everyone reacts differently- I was fine on Noriday but the window with that one was way too small for me to feel safe on so I changed- I'd rather three weeks of discomfort vs nine months.

Fabreo

Calina wrote: »

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"? What is under discussion is the right of a man to run out on being a father.

So I presume you are against abortion?

Penny Tration

Calina wrote: »

I'm happy for you. However, you cannot and should not generalise your situation onto every other woman.

Where did I say that my situation applies to all other women?

What I said was that it's rare for the pill to cause issues severe enough to warrant not taking it.

It's even more rare for a woman to not be medically able to huse anything but condoms.

Women and men should BOTH take responsibility for contraception

Calina

Fabreo wrote: »

So I presume you are against abortion?

No, I'm against men forcing women to have abortions which was the proposal in the OP in the same way as I'm against nation states forcing women to go through pregnancies regardless of the reason for which they may wish to have an abortion. There's an element of recognising that women have agency and integrity over their bodies here and allowing them to make the decisions on the basis of their best interest.

But you know, carry on.

UCDCritic

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 ?

It's also the babies body too

Fabreo

Calina wrote: »

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"? What is under discussion is the right of a man to run out on being a father.

If you don't believe a man should be able to "run out" on being a father do you also believe a woman shiuldn't be able to "run out " on being a mother by having an abortion?

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

No, I'm against men forcing women to have abortions which was the proposal in the OP in the same way as I'm against nation states forcing women to go through pregnancies regardless of the reason for which they may wish to have an abortion. There's an element of recognising that women have agency and integrity over their bodies here and allowing them to make the decisions on the basis of their best interest.

But you know, carry on.

I don't think anyone's said otherwise.

We're just arguing than men should be extended the choice of opting out of fatherhood.

Potatoeman

As unpopular as it may be if the father is left out of the choice wheather to keep the child or not you cant really blame him for doing a runner.
There seems to be the opinion that a fathers right ends at conception but if you are going to make such a life altering choice you should consult them.

ash23

Potatoeman wrote: »

As unpopular as it may be if the father is left out of the choice wheather to keep the child or not you cant really blame him for doing a runner.
There seems to be the opinion that a fathers right ends at conception but if you are going to make such a life altering choice you should consult them.

Of course they should be consulted and their opinion taken into account. BUT the problem arises when there's an impasse. Where neither can agree on what is best to do.