Should men be allowed to have a "legal abortion"?

Count Duckula · 07-04-2011 10:26am #1

Someone's comments in another thread got me thinking about this. There's no provision for it under EU law as far as I'm aware, but in a discussion about men's rights I wondered if this would crop up.

Note that I am not talking about the actual act of abortion. That, I'm sure we will all agree, is for the mother to decide herself. She is the one carrying the child and only she can decide whether she will or will not have an abortion. In this way, if a woman gets pregnant and the father wants to keep the child but she does not, she is legally entitled to have it aborted.

However, men do not seem to have these same rights. Of course we as a gender cannot enforce the termination of pregnancies in other people's bodies, but it does work out that if a woman decides she wants to keep the baby, the man will often be asked for child support further down the line.

Is this fair? Surely both partners should have the same rights and options available? Whilst a man cannot and should not be able to enforce a physical termination upon a woman, could he enforce a "legal abortion"? One that, during the pregnancy itself, he can distance himself completely and utterly from the child and therefore when it's born not have anything to do with it.

Of course, he would also therefore not have any rights or claims to the child. He would have no hold over its life, or any right to see it. To him it should be as if the child were aborted; ie, it doesn't exist in his life.

Is this feasible? Would there be moral objections? Does a man have a duty, whether he wants to or not, to provide for a baby that he has helped bring into the world?

Please keep this thread free from flaming and personal attacks; I understand that it's an emotive subject, but I'd like to provoke a reasoned and rational discussion on the topic.

um7y1h83ge06nx · 07-04-2011 10:50am

Interesting topic.

People will say that he did the deed and he should take the responsibility, but you could equally say that about the female involved.

I wonder is there many cases of women aborting pregnancies when the male wants to have the child? That must be a pretty heart breaking scenario.

One flaw would be that "legal abortions" could be used as a "get out of jail free" clause, if a man gets a woman unexpectedly pregnant and doesn't want to support the child.

Although (and I'm trying my best to be sensitive here, apologies for any offence caused) you could say the same thing for a woman and an actual abortion.

It's a tricky one.

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 11:01am

It's pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. If a woman can terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that it is something that could impact on her for the rest of her life then a man should similarly be able to remove himself from any sort of involvement in the child's life because it's something that could impact on him for the rest of his life. This means he signs away any right to be involved in the child's life; no visitation rights, no gaurdianship claims - with no responsibilities comes no rights. Upon reaching the age of majority if the child decides they wish to know their father and involve them in their life that is a decision for both parties to come to terms with.

RileyCoyote · 07-04-2011 11:35am

I think you're using a poor metaphor - what you're talking about (men renouncing all rights and responsibilities to the children they bring into the world) is more like giving a child up for adoption, than having an abortion. With abortion, the child doesn't exist at all. Your idea that he can 'distance himself completely' and 'have nothing to do with the child' isn't the same thing at all. The child would still exist, and someone'll have to raise it and support it, be it the mother, other relations, or the state.

I think there must already be a certain amount of legal provision for the termination of biological father's rights and responsibilities, for sperm donors, for example.

But in answer to your main question, do men have a duty to the children they bring into the world, yes, I think we do.

Wibbs · 07-04-2011 11:49am

Earthhorse wrote: »

It's pretty simple as far as I'm concerned. If a woman can terminate a pregnancy on the grounds that it is something that could impact on her for the rest of her life then a man should similarly be able to remove himself from any sort of involvement in the child's life because it's something that could impact on him for the rest of his life. This means he signs away any right to be involved in the child's life; no visitation rights, no gaurdianship claims - with no responsibilities comes no rights. Upon reaching the age of majority if the child decides they wish to know their father and involve them in their life that is a decision for both parties to come to terms with.

This.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 07-04-2011 11:57am

Instinct saying no.

I mean when the child says who is my father? . . would the mother be legally forbidden to answer? That would be an insane scenario

A woman having an abortion falls under the category of ''her body she can do what she wants with it"

When she has the abortion there is no child to deal with the consequences. There is no male equivalent because the child is still alive.

magneticimpulse · 07-04-2011 12:03pm

I can understand the reasoning.

If a man was caught out whatever. But if a man is not using a condom and solely relying on a woman to not get pregnant, then you cant really blame her if she has an unexpected pregnancy.

Considering there is the male pill out there and if men were that worried about being a father, and not wanting to get a woman pregnant...I think they should be thinking more about their contraceptive methods they are using.

For these reasons, I think men should have responsibility for the child. The child didnt ask to be born. Im sure the mother equally was not expecting the child. It is "both" adults responsibilty when having sex to protect against unwanted pregnancy. Nobody should just rely on the woman to prevent the pregnancy in the 1st place. (i say that as typically if the woman is using pill etc, its not 100% effective, if you use another method of contraception, you decrease the chances of pregnancy and you would not be in this position in the 1st place)

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:18pm

RileyCoyote wrote: »

I think you're using a poor metaphor - what you're talking about (men renouncing all rights and responsibilities to the children they bring into the world) is more like giving a child up for adoption, than having an abortion. With abortion, the child doesn't exist at all. Your idea that he can 'distance himself completely' and 'have nothing to do with the child' isn't the same thing at all. The child would still exist, and someone'll have to raise it and support it, be it the mother, other relations, or the state.

I think there must already be a certain amount of legal provision for the termination of biological father's rights and responsibilities, for sperm donors, for example.

But in answer to your main question, do men have a duty to the children they bring into the world, yes, I think we do.

You realise a fetus does in fact exist? I'm pro-choice but I wouldn't claim the child doesn't exist. If it didn't exist there wouldn't be anything to abort.

magneticimpulse wrote: »

I can understand the reasoning.

If a man was caught out whatever. But if a man is not using a condom and solely relying on a woman to not get pregnant, then you cant really blame her if she has an unexpected pregnancy.

Considering there is the male pill out there and if men were that worried about being a father, and not wanting to get a woman pregnant...I think they should be thinking more about their contraceptive methods they are using.

For these reasons, I think men should have responsibility for the child. The child didnt ask to be born. Im sure the mother equally was not expecting the child. It is "both" adults responsibilty when having sex to protect against unwanted pregnancy. Nobody should just rely on the woman to prevent the pregnancy in the 1st place. (i say that as typically if the woman is using pill etc, its not 100% effective, if you use another method of contraception, you decrease the chances of pregnancy and you would not be in this position in the 1st place)

All of these arguments also apply to women. They have a pill and could also not have sex with a man who isn't wearing protection.

07-04-2011 12:21pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

You realise a fetus does in fact exist? I'm pro-choice but I wouldn't claim the child doesn't exist. If it didn't exist there wouldn't be anything to abort.

I think he means post abortion...

I'm a bit iffy on this, one the one hand there is obviously an imbalance down to simple biology. On the other hand, I can only imagine a lot more men would want to take advantage of this. Plus you have the issue of maintenance.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:24pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Instinct saying no.

I mean when the child says who is my father? . . would the mother be legally forbidden to answer? That would be an insane scenario

It would be the exact same as when an adopted child asks about their parents.

A woman having an abortion falls under the category of ''her body she can do what she wants with it"

Yet a man shouldn't have a say in something that is going to affect his life? If he doesn't want that kid then he gets absolutely nothing out of it and the only thing the child gets is cash.

When she has the abortion there is no child to deal with the consequences. There is no male equivalent because the child is still alive.

There is no child because it has been aborted. YOu could argue it has already dealt with the consequences. Also the father has to deal with the consequences if the child is born and he has no choice in this yet the women does because she can terminate the pregnancy.

Why should the woman have a say not only as to whether or not her life is impacted but also have a say if a mans life should be impacted? The man doesn't even have a say in is own life yet the woman has a say for both of them. How is this fair?

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:30pm

bluewolf wrote: »

I think he means post abortion...

Obviously. i don't think you understood my point. he was acting as if the womans choice wasn't going to impact the child when it clearly has a much bigger impact. An actual abortion has a greater impact on a child's life than a legal one as proposed in the OP.

I'm a bit iffy on this, one the one hand there is obviously an imbalance down to simple biology. On the other hand, I can only imagine a lot more men would want to take advantage of this. Plus you have the issue of maintenance.

If a man got a legal abortion he obviously wouldn't have to pay maintenance because the child no longer has a legal father. If you give your child up for adoption you don't have to pay maintenance. The woman also has the choice of adoption but the man doesn't.

liah · 07-04-2011 12:31pm

I'm supportive of the concept. The only problem is, it could be taken advantage of; what would happen if a couple planned and went through with a pregnancy together, then at the last second the guy freaked out and wanted a legal abortion? What would happen to the woman and child in that situation?

Is there any way to legally regulate that besides writing a contract each and every time you have sex indicating whether or not it's for the purposes of procreation, just in case you want to get a legal abortion later? Or is it going to be a free-for-all where a guy can get a legal abortion even after knowingly impregnating someone and later changing his mind about it?

Basically, how exactly would it be implemented cohesively and fairly in law?

Wibbs · 07-04-2011 12:32pm

magneticimpulse wrote: »

Considering there is the male pill out there...

Really and when did that happen? Must have missed that memo.

Galvasean · 07-04-2011 12:34pm

I'm with liah on this one. I mean it's a great concept in theory, but how do you stop it from getting abused?

PS: male pill? can I have one?

liah · 07-04-2011 12:34pm

Wibbs wrote: »

Really and when did that happen? Must have missed that memo.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html

No idea how reliable the telegraph is though as I don't use it as a source.

Ectoplasm · 07-04-2011 12:36pm

This is actually a really interesting topic. On the surface of it, I believe that something like this should already be available to consenting parties - ie man and woman, woman wants to keep child, man wants nothing to do with it, she accepts this and agreement is reached. She can't go after him for support, he can't get involved with the child if he changes his mind.

That said I do think if something like this was to become available, it would have to be seriously controlled. I know most men are responsible, but I'd hate the idea of it being used as a 'get out of jail' kind of clause as someone else said above.

I think it would need to be shown that the man made every effort to prevent pregnancy, because if he didn't then he's being irresponsible and part of me thinks you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

The problem there is, how the hell can that be done? Wouldn't it be her word against his? And if the woman in question was a lunatic trying to 'trap' him, well, she's unlikely to be honest about what happened.

I wonder if it was made law would it reduce the amount of casual sex or would it just increase the use of contraception? Probably the latter, which wouldn't be a bad thing, but I wonder would women become more wary of such encounters?

I'm basing much of this on random accidents as opposed to 'accidents' that happen in relationships btw, because I think with an existing relationship there is a whole other can of worms just waiting to be opened!

Galvasean · 07-04-2011 12:38pm

liah wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html

No idea how reliable the telegraph is though as I don't use it as a source.

I've heard of it before, but there is a big difference between 'scientists are working on it' and going down to Boots and buying it (as was seemingly implied by a poster here).

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 12:39pm

liah wrote: »

I'm supportive of the concept. The only problem is, it could be taken advantage of; what would happen if a couple planned and went through with a pregnancy together, then at the last second the guy freaked out and wanted a legal abortion? What would happen to the woman and child in that situation?

Is there any way to legally regulate that besides writing a contract each and every time you have sex indicating whether or not it's for the purposes of procreation, just in case you want to get a legal abortion later? Or is it going to be a free-for-all where a guy can get a legal abortion even after knowingly impregnating someone and later changing his mind about it?

Basically, how exactly would it be implemented cohesively and fairly in law?

In most places where you have abortion on demand you can only do so up to a certain term in the pregnancy. Every jurisdiction varies. So a man would have to sign away his rights before the same period in time. If he doesn't then he's legally obliged to contribute toward the child the same way he is in law today.

You don't have to sign anything at the point you're having sex just like a woman doesn't have to do so now if she wants to have an abortion in the case of pregnancy.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:39pm

liah wrote: »

I'm supportive of the concept. The only problem is, it could be taken advantage of; what would happen if a couple planned and went through with a pregnancy together, then at the last second the guy freaked out and wanted a legal abortion? What would happen to the woman and child in that situation?

Is there any way to legally regulate that besides writing a contract each and every time you have sex indicating whether or not it's for the purposes of procreation, just in case you want to get a legal abortion later? Or is it going to be a free-for-all where a guy can get a legal abortion even after knowingly impregnating someone and later changing his mind about it?

Basically, how exactly would it be implemented cohesively and fairly in law?

That's really a tough sh1t scenario. If you give your child up for adoption I don't think you can change your mind a year later, well not that I know of I could be wrong.

If you get an abortion you also can't change your mind.

Or is it going to be a free-for-all where a guy can get a legal abortion even after knowingly impregnating someone and later changing his mind about it?

A woman in this scenario still has the choice of abortion or adoption so why shouldn't the man?

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:40pm

Galvasean wrote: »

I'm with liah on this one. I mean it's a great concept in theory, but how do you stop it from getting abused?

PS: male pill? can I have one?

Define abuse?

How do you stop abortion getting abused?
How do you stop adoption getting abused?

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:42pm

EMF2010 wrote: »

T
I think it would need to be shown that the man made every effort to prevent pregnancy, because if he didn't then he's being irresponsible and part of me thinks you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

Do you believe a woman should have to do the same when she's getting an abortion?

Her abortion has a much bigger impact than the males legal abortion. I'm not sure why his would held to a higher standard.

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 12:43pm

EMF2010 wrote: »

I think it would need to be shown that the man made every effort to prevent pregnancy, because if he didn't then he's being irresponsible and part of me thinks you have to accept the consequences of your actions.

Does a woman need to show that she made every effort to prevent pregnancy when terminating an unwanted pregnancy? (In jurisdictions where abortion is legal).

liah · 07-04-2011 12:44pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's really a tough sh1t scenario. If you give your child up for adoption I don't think you can change your mind a year later, well not that I know of I could be wrong.

If you get an abortion you also can't change your mind.

A woman in this scenario still has the choice of abortion or adoption so why shouldn't the man?

In that case I can see a serious epidemic of single parenthood, which is entirely unfair on the children involved. A very large amount of people would take advantage of that situation.

Bottle_of_Smoke · 07-04-2011 12:47pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

It would be the exact same as when an adopted child asks about their parents.

Its a different scenario. In that case the kid has state approved parents. And if they tell the kid he/she is adopted are they prohibited from telling the child who the bio parents are? (i don't know myself)

Yet a man shouldn't have a say in something that is going to affect his life? If he doesn't want that kid then he gets absolutely nothing out of it and the only thing the child gets is cash.

I'd say yes. I think this is one of the few areas where men and women are fundamentally different and trying to legislate for some bizarre form of equality is nonsensical.

When you stick it in you know the risks.

There is no child because it has been aborted. YOu could argue it has already dealt with the consequences. Also the father has to deal with the consequences if the child is born and he has no choice in this yet the women does because she can terminate the pregnancy.

I'd answer this with my point above on fundamental differences between the genders. I accept your point about consequences but I see it as being different because the end result for women is a dead foetus who never had capacity to function so IMO no great harm done. For the male abortion there's a walking talking kid who has to deal with the consequences.

Why should the woman have a say not only as to whether or not her life is impacted but also have a say if a mans life should be impacted? The man doesn't even have a say in is own life yet the woman has a say for both of them. How is this fair?

Again fundemental differences between genders. She knew she had this option from the beginning. The man knew he didn't

Morgase · 07-04-2011 12:48pm

Galvasean wrote: »

I've heard of it before, but there is a big difference between 'scientists are working on it' and going down to Boots and buying it (as was seemingly implied by a poster here).

This is what makes it so difficult (imo) for men to really be able to take equal responsibility. As it stands, the only way he can is by using condoms (and we all know they're not 100% reliable), whereas if his partner is taking the pill, using an IUD, or whatever he has to take that on trust. And yeah, that's just the fault of biology, that's just the way it is.

I'm sure if there was a male oral contraceptive available, loads of men would take it because those men want to take responsibility.

Anyway, in principle I do agree that men should be allowed to break all legal ties to offspring that they have stated at an early stage of pregnancy that they do not want.

alexlyons · 07-04-2011 12:49pm

Interesting all right. As a male, I think yes it may be a nice "get out of jail free card" but that could easily just end up with a massive amount of single mothers with guys just using this option to live life car free and not think of the consequences.

However it's one of those things in life, men have no say, it's a women's body and all that.. Swings and roundabouts etc. Everyone doesn't always get a say, this just happens to be one of the scenarios men don't. No doubt there is some other aspect of life I can't think of right now when women don't get a say. Yes a child is extremely serious and a big responsibility. C'est la vie

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:50pm

liah wrote: »

In that case I can see a serious epidemic of single parenthood, which is entirely unfair on the children involved. A very large amount of people would take advantage of that situation.

Is abortion fair on the child?

Which has a bigger impact a biological abortion or a legal one?

The only impact a legal abortion has is a reduction in a cash. I'm not saying the only role of a father is cash but in the context of a man who wants nothing to with a child the only thing he legally has to do is pay the mother child support. So that is the only thing the child loses.

He doesn't lose the father because even without the legal abortion the father is going to have nothing to do with him.

A very large amount of people would take advantage of that situation.

What's considered taking advantage? Is it possible of a female to take "advantage" of abortion or adoption. Why is their only concern on the male?

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 12:53pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I'd say yes. I think this is one of the few areas where men and women are fundamentally different and trying to legislate for some bizarre form of equality is nonsensical.

When you stick it in you know the risks

Why doesn't this apply to the woman? She knows the risks as well.

I'd answer this with my point above on fundamental differences between the genders. I accept your point about consequences but I see it as being different because the end result for women is a dead foetus who never had capacity to function so IMO no great harm done. For the male abortion there's a walking talking kid who has to deal with the consequences.

The only consequence is less money. The father isn't going to be a loving dad just because you refused him a legal abortion.

Again fundemental differences between genders. She knew she had this option from the beginning. The man knew he didn't

Well that would obviously cease to be the case if this law was brought in.

liah · 07-04-2011 12:59pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Is abortion fair on the child?

Which has a bigger impact a biological abortion or a legal one?

The legal one clearly has a bigger impact on the child. The biological abortion takes place before the fetus is even conscious, meaning that basically it has no impact on it at all, whatsoever. Sure, how could it? Whereas a living child growing up in a single parent family will be very, very much impacted - they will lose the love and life lessons given by the other parent, they will lose out on the extras that other parent could provide for them, and they miss out on a father.

Saying the legal abortion only has an affect on cash is disingenuous. The kid doesn't care about cash. The kid cares about having a parent. In biological abortion that's irrelevant because the fetus isn't conscious and can't have wants, dreams, desires, emotions, thoughts, feelings. Come on, now. You must recognize this.

seamus · 07-04-2011 1:01pm

liah wrote: »

I'm supportive of the concept. The only problem is, it could be taken advantage of; what would happen if a couple planned and went through with a pregnancy together, then at the last second the guy freaked out and wanted a legal abortion? What would happen to the woman and child in that situation?

As Earthhorse says, you could invoke time limits on it, in the same way you would for a normal abortion. So the man has a certain amount of time to make up his mind about it, after which the option is removed from him forever.

That is, if a woman can abort up to 20 weeks (for argument's sake), then a man should be able to sign away all rights and responsibilities in the way that Earthhorse illustrates, up to that 20 week mark. If the pregnancy goes undiscovered for the first 20 weeks, then just like a woman, it's tough **** and he's stuck with it.

The only possible out would be for the man to show that the pregnancy was withheld from him for the first 20 weeks with the aim of preventing him from "aborting". There would be a legal responsibility on the mother to make an effort to contact and notify the father immediately upon finding out that she's pregnant. Which is only fair IMO.

If paternity is disputed, then all parties have the right to opt in or out of the pregnancy up to 20 weeks and a DNA test is carried out as soon as is practical. If the real father has opted out, then sin é.

There are no doubt a few "what ifs" that can be cooked up, but nothing that can't be accounted for.

Although if we're interested in fairness, a first step would be removing the ultimate control from the mother and reforming birth certification. The birth certification should always name the biological parents and mothers should not be allowed to choose who the father is. The nominated father should be required to confirm that his name should be on the birth cert, and if a dispute arises in any case, a court should be able to demand that a DNA test is carried out, and the birth cert updated with the name of the biological father, be that the nominated person or a 3rd party who has brought the dispute.

At least then men could do a certain amount of opting in and out themselves instead of being roped into or denied rights based on the testimony of the mother.

I don't think there's any case to believe that men would choose this as an "alternative contraception". Contrary to popular belief, men aren't just randy bed-hoppers who run away from accidental children. The vast, vast majority of men would stand up to their accident and do what they have to do, just like the vast, vast majority of women do. In fact, from what I recall, men are more likely to oppose feotal abortion, so there's nothing to suggest that a "men's abortion" would be used widespread to leave women in the lurch.

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 1:02pm

liah wrote: »

Saying the legal abortion only has an affect on cash is disingenuous. The kid doesn't care about cash. The kid cares about having a parent.

That's irrelevant though because under current law we aren't forcing the father to be there when he doesn't want to be. We only force him to pay child support. So the child is no better or worse off under either law (if indeed he doesn't care about cash).

liah · 07-04-2011 1:08pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

That's irrelevant though because under current law we aren't forcing the father to be there when he doesn't want to be. We only force him to pay child support. So the child is no better or worse off under either law (if indeed he doesn't care about cash).

That wasn't really the part I was addressing though - he was asking directly whether legal or biological abortion would have more impact on the child. The answer is clearly the legal abortion - at least if it's biologically aborted it doesn't have to grow up with the pain of not having a parent.

Ectoplasm · 07-04-2011 1:08pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Do you believe a woman should have to do the same when she's getting an abortion?

Her abortion has a much bigger impact than the males legal abortion. I'm not sure why his would held to a higher standard.

Earthhorse wrote: »

Does a woman need to show that she made every effort to prevent pregnancy when terminating an unwanted pregnancy? (In jurisdictions where abortion is legal).

I was really just exploring my thoughts on the subject when I wrote that. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. To answer your questions, I have no clue as to whether a woman needs to show she was trying to prevent pregnancy before getting an abortion - I doubt it is the case anywhere, but I really can't answer definitively. I do know one person who has been through this and the issue was raised in the counselling that she had to complete before being granted an abortion.

As I said, I was really just exploring this idea - and my instinct is still that heavy controls would be needed were this to be made available. I'm not sure exactly what they are, and I'm still thinking about that, but I don't think that it would be feasible without them.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:09pm

liah wrote: »

The legal one clearly has a bigger impact on the child. The biological abortion takes place before the fetus is even conscious, meaning that basically it has no impact on it at all, whatsoever. Sure, how could it? Whereas a living child growing up in a single parent family will be very, very much impacted - they will lose the love and life lessons given by the other parent, they will lose out on the extras that other parent could provide for them, and they miss out on a father.

I disagree but I don't want to get into a traditional debate. If I had the choice to a have life of poverty or no life, I'd pick poverty.

Saying the legal abortion only has an affect on cash is disingenuous. The kid doesn't care about cash. The kid cares about having a parent. In biological abortion that's irrelevant because the fetus isn't conscious and can't have wants, dreams, desires, emotions, thoughts, feelings. Come on, now. You must recognize this.

The kid isn't going to get a parent. forcing someone to pay child maintenance doesn't give them a parent.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:12pm

seamus wrote: »

I don't think there's any case to believe that men would choose this as an "alternative contraception". Contrary to popular belief, men aren't just randy bed-hoppers who run away from accidental children. The vast, vast majority of men would stand up to their accident and do what they have to do, just like the vast, vast majority of women do. In fact, from what I recall, men are more likely to oppose feotal abortion, so there's nothing to suggest that a "men's abortion" would be used widespread to leave women in the lurch.

I agreed with all of your post but especially this part. It's pretty irritating that some people in this thread seem to believe men need to be controlled more than women because they can't be trusted, yet the same doesn't seem to apply to a woman having an abortion.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:14pm

liah wrote: »

That wasn't really the part I was addressing though - he was asking directly whether legal or biological abortion would have more impact on the child. The answer is clearly the legal abortion - at least if it's biologically aborted it doesn't have to grow up with the pain of not having a parent.

It doesn't get to grow up at all. It's clearly a bigger impact. Like I said I'd rather lead a hard life than no life at all.

People with single parents do lead good lives as well.

liah · 07-04-2011 1:15pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

I disagree but I don't want to get into a traditional debate. If I had the choice to a have life of poverty or no life, I'd pick poverty.

But the fetus doesn't have the mental capabilities to be making a decision, as it is not a conscious being. Perhaps I look at the whole abortion thing rather coldly, but I don't understand how what you've said has any logic if the fetus is incapable of making that distinction in the first place. At that stage, it's just a mass of cells and blood. It's not even a person yet.

The kid isn't going to get a parent. forcing someone to pay child maintenance doesn't give them a parent.

I recognize that, but that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to the quote, and the quote only. I was simply saying the impact on a child from legal abortion is higher than biological abortion, simply due to the fact that the child, in the case of legal abortion, actually has to live their life without their father and they can understand and live through the implications of that decision, whereas the aborted fetus does not. I don't know what your family situation is like, but speaking from experience that's an incredibly hard thing to go through as a kid.

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 1:17pm

liah wrote: »

That wasn't really the part I was addressing though - he was asking directly whether legal or biological abortion would have more impact on the child. The answer is clearly the legal abortion - at least if it's biologically aborted it doesn't have to grow up with the pain of not having a parent.

Fair enough, but that answer is only clearly the case if you believe certain things about abortion. Like SugarHigh said though, I don't want to get into that old debate.

EMF2010 wrote: »

I was really just exploring my thoughts on the subject when I wrote that. I don't think it's necessarily a bad idea. To answer your questions, I have no clue as to whether a woman needs to show she was trying to prevent pregnancy before getting an abortion - I doubt it is the case anywhere, but I really can't answer definitively. I do know one person who has been through this and the issue was raised in the counselling that she had to complete before being granted an abortion.

As I said, I was really just exploring this idea - and my instinct is still that heavy controls would be needed were this to be made available. I'm not sure exactly what they are, and I'm still thinking about that, but I don't think that it would be feasible without them.

It's only right and proper that you should explore your thoughts on this and come to a conclusion in your own time. But whatever that conclusion is I think you'd have to have a good reason for imposing any constraint on this decision with regards to the man that isn't in place for women.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:25pm

liah wrote: »

But the fetus doesn't have the mental capabilities to be making a decision, as it is not a conscious being. Perhaps I look at the whole abortion thing rather coldly, but I don't understand how what you've said has any logic if the fetus is incapable of making that distinction in the first place. At that stage, it's just a mass of cells and blood. It's not even a person yet.

Obviously the fetus doesn't make a distinction.

I view abortion as something the parent does for their own benefit not for the benefit of the child. If it was for the benefit of the child they would simply give it up for adoption. Their is no child born in a rich country like Ireland who would have been better off being aborted. Adoption would have gave them a life. I'm not against abortion but I don't fool myself into thinking it's not taking away a life.

I view a male who legally aborts their child the same as I view a mother putting her child up for adoption.

I recognize that, but that's not what I was responding to. I was responding to the quote, and the quote only. I was simply saying the impact on a child from legal abortion is higher than biological abortion, simply due to the fact that the child, in the case of legal abortion, actually has to live their life without their father and they can understand and live through the implications of that decision, whereas the aborted fetus does not. I don't know what your family situation is like, but speaking from experience that's an incredibly hard thing to go through as a kid.

The fact the fetus never gets to do any of this is why I view it as a bigger impact. A child without a father has a worse life than a child with a father but it's still better than no life at all. I'm not saying the fetus views it this way which is what the opening of your post implies I was saying. From an outside view point, no life is worse than a bad life.

Galvasean · 07-04-2011 1:26pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

Define abuse?

Well in this situation I would define abuse as if a guy were to decide to walk away from all responsibility relatively soon before the child's birth. A possible solution would be to have a time frame where they can decide to leave, similar to that of the location's current abortion laws. However, that does not take into account one night stand incidents and such where the man may not be aware that he has sired offspring until after the time frame of allowed abortion.

Galvasean · 07-04-2011 1:27pm

SugarHigh wrote: »

From an outside view point, no life is worse than a bad life.

Debatable. But I won't go there as it would be an off topic discussion.

liah · 07-04-2011 1:30pm

Alright, fair enough; diff strokes and all. My perspective is that it's not an actual person until it has a consciousness; until then, it's effectively just something feeding off of my body, much like a virus, to be rather cold about it. I'd give it about as much "it's a person!" weight as the individual sperm and egg.

To me, the impact on something that is not even technically alive in the humanistic sense, that has no consciousness, feeling, emotion, etc. is automatically going to be lower than that of a living, breathing, thinking human being, regardless of the circumstances I suppose.

Interesting perspective regardless and one I tend to forget.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:33pm

Ok, moving on from that side of the debate can someone explain the consequences to the child if the father has legally aborted it?

The only consequence I see is less money because like I said the father isn't going to play a role in the child's life just because you refused him the option of abortion and then made him pay child allowance.

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 1:34pm

Galvasean wrote: »

However, that does not take into account one night stand incidents and such where the man may not be aware that he has sired offspring until after the time frame of allowed abortion.

seamus covered this in his post regarding a legal obligation to notify the father of the preganancy so a decision can be made.

No system we come up with is going to be perfect but I think a system that allowed men this option would be less imperfect than the current one (again, in jurisdictions where abortion on demand is available).

Galvasean · 07-04-2011 1:35pm

Is the mother entitled to more state benefit if the child has no known father?

liah · 07-04-2011 1:37pm

Are there any countries currently offering legal abortions? If so, what are their models like, and what has been the reception?

Or is this a completely new area?

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:39pm

Galvasean wrote: »

Is the mother entitled to more state benefit if the child has no known father?

Yea I think so. If the father increases his payments the state will reduce theirs so I guess that's pretty much the same thing.

monkeypants · 07-04-2011 1:42pm

Earthhorse wrote: »

seamus covered this in his post regarding a legal obligation to notify the father of the preganancy so a decision can be made.

No system we come up with is going to be perfect but I think a system that allowed men this option would be less imperfect than the current one (again, in jurisdictions where abortion on demand is available).

So if we have legal abortion as we've described it and the man no longer has any responsibility for the child, doesn't the responsibility get picked up elsewhere. We now have costs being paid through social welfare and council housing.

So, the biological father now has no responsibilty, but the state/taxpayer has more.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:42pm

liah wrote: »

Are there any countries currently offering legal abortions? If so, what are their models like, and what has been the reception?

Or is this a completely new area?

I've never heard of it but I view it the same as adoption. The mother can currently legally separate herself from the child so why can't the father. If the mother went through pregnancy without telling the father she could also put it up for adoption without the father ever even finding out he has a child so he has no say in it.

I view this as the closest parallel to the male legal abortion we are discussing here.

SugarHigh · 07-04-2011 1:44pm

monkeypants wrote: »

So if we have legal abortion as we've described it and the man no longer has any responsibility for the child, doesn't the responsibility get picked up elsewhere. We now have costs being paid through social welfare and council housing.

So, the biological father now has no responsibilty, but the state/taxpayer has more.

Can't a woman currently put her child into state care? I know in the states you can just drop a baby off at any police station.

Earthhorse · 07-04-2011 1:48pm

monkeypants wrote: »

So if we have legal abortion as we've described it and the man no longer has any responsibility for the child, doesn't the responsibility get picked up elsewhere. We now have costs being paid through social welfare and council housing.

So, the biological father now has no responsibilty, but the state/taxpayer has more.

Correct.

Should men be allowed to have a "legal abortion"?

Comments