Abortion For Men

Engine No.9 · 20-08-2014 3:38pm #1

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

BeerWolf · 20-08-2014 3:40pm

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 ?

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 3:40pm

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds

you failed to back up this claim with your subsequent ideas.

geret · 20-08-2014 3:43pm

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

it a few cases recently the man had to keep paying even though dna showed they weren't his. Cases in Canada and uk come to mind

Faux Socialist · 20-08-2014 3:44pm

No. That sounds stupid. However, if it's the other way around, the man should automatically be the legal representative of the unborn child if there is a dispute whether a child is to be terminated.

Dolbert · 20-08-2014 3:44pm

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

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

RayM · 20-08-2014 3:44pm

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds

Sounds daft. Is daft. It's not the man's body, so he shouldn't have the right to force a woman to (or not to) have an abortion.

Engine No.9 · 20-08-2014 3:44pm

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 ?

Accidents happen mate.

Cases have been brought before where women have wanted to get abortions for whatever reason, and men have gotten injunctions stopping them from getting them so why can't the reverse be true.

Dave_The_Sheep · 20-08-2014 3:46pm

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 ?

If the rights in the case of what happens if the woman gets pregnant are all hers, should all the responsibility to stop this (assuming that's what they want) also not be all the woman's?

But on a more serious note, there's no way that the man having the right to force a pregnancy going to term or to force an abortion would ever be workable (cue a lot of comments here about how it's already the case, but you know what I mean) - nor would it be right. If the two people in question can't sort things out, the end case has to be that the woman has the right to the final decision.

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 3:46pm

pajopearl wrote: »

Cases have been brought before where women have wanted to get abortions for whatever reason, and men have gotten injunctions stopping them from getting them so why can't the reverse be true.

examples?

Annasopra · 20-08-2014 3:47pm

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's the woman's body...she gets the final say

This... Just this... Nothing else

Wibbs · 20-08-2014 3:47pm

Dolbert wrote: »

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

I'd be all for this TBH.

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

+1000 D Beyond barbaric. Utterly daft.

Lapin · 20-08-2014 3:49pm

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds,

pajopearl wrote: »

If a couple become pregnant,

Oh dear.

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 3:49pm

women bear the considerable majority of the brunt of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
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.

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 3:50pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be all for this TBH.

with or regardless of the woman's agreement?

Annasopra · 20-08-2014 3:51pm

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

there's no way that the man having the right to force a pregnancy going to term.... would ever be workable

Unfortunately many in Ireland dont accept this and we have a patriarchal theocratic approach to the issue where this effectively what is happening - the Man (AKA the state) is forcing pregancies to term through its laws and cultures.

Dolbert · 20-08-2014 3:51pm

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be all for this TBH.

+1000 D Beyond barbaric. Utterly daft.

Such cases have been reported in China where the couple couldn't afford the fine for their second child, so she's forced to the hospital for an abortion instead. It's (rightly!) regarded as a serious human rights abuse. How would it even be workable, have the woman be dragged kicking and screaming to the clinic? Beyond stupid.

Dave_The_Sheep · 20-08-2014 3:55pm

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Unfortunately many in Ireland dont accept this and we have a patriarchal theocratic approach to the issue where this effectively what is happening - the Man (AKA the state) is forcing pregancies to term through its laws and cultures.

The Irish abortion debate is a whole other thing that I'm not getting into. This specifically is about abortion for men, which is what I was talking about specifically. I was basically commenting on the assumption that abortion is legal and on-demand before getting to the "for men" part.

ShaShaBear · 20-08-2014 3:56pm

Im all for a man being given the right to sign away his rights to a child so that he never has to pay maintenance but also cannot get visitation or stop the mother leaving the country etc.

But allowing a man the right to tear a baby out of its mother's body, or forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and labour? Preposterous. Giving birth is traumatic and painful enough without the added depression of never wanting to do it and having no reward at the end of it!!

Wibbs · 20-08-2014 3:57pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

women bear the considerable majority of the brunt of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.

True and hence I say her body her rules, however they also have far more choice than the man. They choose to keep the child, they can chose to abort, they can choose to put the kid up for adoption. Essentially they have more "ownership" of the child in law, while men have little or none.

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.

I wouldn't call 20 years of financially and emotionally supporting a child you may not have wanted, or quite simply didn't want a minor share of the fallout. Those couple of divorce cases in the US where a man was forced to financially support a child that turned out wasn't even his is beyond crazy. Here's an idea luv maybe chase the bloke who wasn't your husband that knocked you up while you were married. Thankfully those case are very rare and naturally make the news but it beggars belief the courts found in favour of a judgement like that.

kylith · 20-08-2014 3:58pm

Men can, and do, walk away from pregnancies they have helped create all the time.

Wibbs · 20-08-2014 4:00pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

with or regardless of the woman's agreement?

Regardless TBH. If the man has no say at all before birth(and fair enough), why should women have the right to veto the man's wishes afterwards?

Engine No.9 · 20-08-2014 4:00pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

examples?

I know that in Florida as of 2011 anyway, fathers could apply for injunctions to stop abortions. I think amniocentesis may be needed to determine whether the complainant is in fact the father if the woman tries to stop the injunction by claiming he's not

Can't upload a screenshot of it here but will when I get home. Failing that, I'll provide a link.

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 4:00pm

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Im all for a man being given the right to sign away his rights to a child so that he never has to pay maintenance but also cannot get visitation or stop the mother leaving the country etc.

people keep saying this; again, is this with or regardless of the woman's agreement?

let's clarify this - except in *extremely* rare situations, the man did not conceive a child without any input from himself. but it's the man who should be given the option of washing his hands of the resulting pregnancy and birth?

PLUG71 · 20-08-2014 4:00pm

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 ?

Have to strongly agree!

Its the woman's choice as its her body!

BTW i'm a male!!

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 4:02pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Those couple of divorce cases in the US where a man was forced to financially support a child that turned out wasn't even his is beyond crazy. Here's an idea luv maybe chase the bloke who wasn't your husband that knocked you up while you were married. Thankfully those case are very rare and naturally make the news but it beggars belief the courts found in favour of a judgement like that.

that's immaterial to the debate at hand. it may be a stupid situation, but it does not illuminate this discussion.

takamichinoku · 20-08-2014 4:04pm

Dolbert wrote: »

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

Able to link me some decent articles on this? Seems possible but I'm trying to wrap my head around everything that'd be involved. (e.g. would it involve the man having to prove that he took measures to avoid causing the pregnancy? how would that work?)

whirlpool · 20-08-2014 4:04pm

pajopearl wrote: »

Accidents happen mate.

Cases have been brought before where women have wanted to get abortions for whatever reason, and men have gotten injunctions stopping them from getting them so why can't the reverse be true.

Because the reverse is barbaric and psychopathic. Do you honestly believe there's anything to discuss?

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 4:06pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Regardless TBH. If the man has no say at all before birth(and fair enough), why should women have the right to veto the man's wishes afterwards?

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

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

Dave_The_Sheep · 20-08-2014 4:06pm

takamichinoku wrote: »

Able to link me some decent articles on this? Seems possible but I'm trying to wrap my head around everything that'd be involved. (e.g. would it involve the man having to prove that he took measures to avoid causing the pregnancy? how would that work?)

I have a feeling that a lot of that would come down to "he said/she said".

endacl · 20-08-2014 4:07pm

Absolutely as daft as it sounds, OP. More daft, if anything. Potentially redefines 'daft'...

Engine No.9 · 20-08-2014 4:09pm

whirlpool wrote: »

Because the reverse is barbaric and psychopathic. Do you honestly believe there's anything to discuss?

Yes, I do. Many, many women have told their partners or husbands not to touch them with that thing until they get a vasectomy. And these are just people in my wider circle of friends and acquaintances

Dolbert · 20-08-2014 4:09pm

takamichinoku wrote: »

Able to link me some decent articles on this? Seems possible but I'm trying to wrap my head around everything that'd be involved. (e.g. would it involve the man having to prove that he took measures to avoid causing the pregnancy? how would that work?)

Any discussion I've read on it has been theoretical, I don't know if it's ever been put into practice.

Ignorant etc. · 20-08-2014 4:09pm

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 ?

How about women who don't want a baby keep their legs closed?

The fact that a woman can decide when to terminate with no input from the man (in the UK) is crass. And it does irritate me when people bandy about this "its the woman's body" argument. Its also the body of the unborn baby we're talking about and that body that people are murdering when they elect for an abortion.

Abortion should be for instances where the woman's health or life is at risk and in cases of rape. Not just because some dollybird went out on a Saturday night, had a shag around the back of the cinema, the johnny burst and now she's crying about her "rights" and not accepting her "responsibilities". If she, and the man, aren't big enough to step up to the mark why did she let him at her pussy and why did he throw his cock in there?

takamichinoku · 20-08-2014 4:10pm

Dolbert wrote: »

Any discussion I've read on it has been theoretical, I don't know if it's ever been put into practice.

Is there not already some kind of laws about, in some country or another, where a man can waive his rights as a father if the woman agrees? That'd be the same kind of thing, basically?

Clearly I haven't a clue!

TempAc · 20-08-2014 4:12pm

Dolbert wrote: »

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

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

No argument here, this should be the case.

I don't disagree that forcing an abortion would be barbaric, but the current status is that we do force procedures on women. So if we're barbaric in that respect anyway it's not beyond the realms of possibility that we could engage in barbarism the other way around.

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 4:12pm

takamichinoku wrote: »

Is there not already some kind of laws about, in some country or another, where a man can waive his rights as a father if the woman agrees? That'd be the same kind of thing, basically?

yes, i know someone who waived his rights when the mother of his kid got engaged; he reasoned that the kid would be better off if his mother's partner (who was going to end up with a greater role in the child's life) had legal custody.

TempAc · 20-08-2014 4:13pm

ShaShaBear wrote: »

But allowing a man the right to tear a baby out of its mother's body, or forcing a woman to endure pregnancy and labour? Preposterous. Giving birth is traumatic and painful enough without the added depression of never wanting to do it and having no reward at the end of it!!

It's perfectly ok when the state does it of course...

Riskymove · 20-08-2014 4:14pm

RayM wrote: »

Sounds daft. Is daft. It's not the man's body, so he shouldn't have the right to force a woman to (or not to) have an abortion.

I'm not so sure it is daft for all scenarios

In the majority of instances where someone decides to have an abortion its likely a formal relationship isn't in place and therefore its looked as completely the woman's choice

however, you could think of a situation whereby a couple who have decided to have a baby encounter issues where they need to make a decision

should one side have complete veto over the other, either way, without any consequence

magicbastarder · 20-08-2014 4:14pm

TempAc wrote: »

No argument here, this should be the case.

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

Riskymove · 20-08-2014 4:15pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

yes, i know someone who waived his rights when the mother of his kid got engaged; he reasoned that the kid would be better off if his mother's partner (who was going to end up with a greater role in the child's life) had legal custody.

tbf allowing someone else adopt your biological child is not quite the same as what has been suggested

Dolbert · 20-08-2014 4:15pm

TempAc wrote: »

It's perfectly ok when the state does it of course...

When did she say that?

The_Valeyard · 20-08-2014 4:16pm

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

Ignorant etc. · 20-08-2014 4:17pm

Why can't it be enough of a reward to give life to another person? There are alternatives to raising the child, like giving it for adoption, without having to murder it.

If I suddenly decided, you know what, I'm fed up being a Dad, and I did something vile to my 5-year-old son then I would quite rightly be thrown in jail. But pro-choice want it to be OK to do that to an unborn child.

Also, I'd love a pro-choice apologist to answer me this. Supposing your mother had elected for an abortion when she was pregnant with you, do you think that would have been a great idea?

krudler · 20-08-2014 4:17pm

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

How about women who don't want a baby keep their legs closed?

The fact that a woman can decide when to terminate with no input from the man (in the UK) is crass. And it does irritate me when people bandy about this "its the woman's body" argument. Its also the body of the unborn baby we're talking about and that body that people are murdering when they elect for an abortion.

Abortion should be for instances where the woman's health or life is at risk and in cases of rape. Not just because some dollybird went out on a Saturday night, had a shag around the back of the cinema, the johnny burst and now she's crying about her "rights" and not accepting her "responsibilities". If she, and the man, aren't big enough to step up to the mark why did she let him at her pussy and why did he throw his cock in there?

I like when people live up to their usernames

krudler · 20-08-2014 4:18pm

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

Why can't it be enough of a reward to give life to another person? There are alternatives to raising the child, like giving it for adoption, without having to murder it.

If I suddenly decided, you know what, I'm fed up being a Dad, and I did something vile to my 5-year-old son then I would quite rightly be thrown in jail. But pro-choice want it to be OK to do that to an unborn child.

Also, I'd love a pro-choice apologist to answer me this. Supposing your mother had elected for an abortion when she was pregnant with you, do you think that would have been a great idea?

I wouldnt be here to ponder such a stupid question. If my parents used a condom I wouldn't be here either. What's your point?

TempAc · 20-08-2014 4:19pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

sounds great - you can **** around as much as you want, and if there's any unplanned conception, you tell the woman to get stuffed and let her deal with all the physical, emotional and financial fallout.

Nope, she can have an abortion. Which the man may or may not be required to cover the costs of. Going through with the pregnancy would be entirely her decision.

Wibbs · 20-08-2014 4:20pm

magicbastarder wrote: »

i'm still trying to get my head around this attitude.

OK maybe this will help you get your head around it.

Women can do the 'well, we had consensual sex, and I have conceived a child, but I've decided to abort the foetus and you have no say in the matter/I have decided to hand the baby up for adoption and you have no say in the matter/I have decided to keep the child and you will support us both for 18 odd years and you have no say in the matter[delete as applicable to how I'm feeling about the whole thing]. What cards is the man holding?

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

You'd want to be thunderously and deliberately blinkered to not see that women hold pretty much all the cards when it comes to children. Hell forget about strangers in the night or whatever, if a marriage breaks down who gets the kids in the vast majority of cases? Men? That would be a no then. You hear of men abandoning their families and that's considered well out of order and rightly, however given that the majority of divorce cases are brought by women one could argue that women also "abandon the family", but nearly always get to keep the children and the family home, AKA "hers".

TempAc · 20-08-2014 4:21pm

Dolbert wrote: »

When did she say that?

She didn't, but that's what's happened.

For clarity: I wasn't implying that she did say that.

Ignorant etc. · 20-08-2014 4:22pm

krudler wrote: »

I like when people live up to their usernames

Why? Because I don't agree with you? That makes me scum I suppose.

The problem with society today is that people bang on and on and on about their rights but never their responsibilities. Like it or not, there are potential responsibilities when it comes to sex. One is that the woman can get pregnant, the other is you can end up with an STD. If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

Pro-choice apologists bang on and on and on about pro-life supporters being bigots, but then firmly believe that pro-life supporters have no right to an opinion.

You can skew the medical development of a baby any way you like, but for pro-life supporters we consider a baby to have been created at the point of conception.

That said, there has to be reason. Whilst the UK is too extreme one way, Ireland is likewise too extreme the other way. Abortion should be absolutely allowed to protect the woman's health and in the case of rape. At other times, the woman, and the man, should be told to grow up and face their responsibilities.

c_man · 20-08-2014 4:23pm

BeerWolf wrote: »

how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

...did he rape her??

Abortion For Men

Comments