Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

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

Options
1356789

Comments

  • Options
    #62
    RileyCoyote
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7 ✭RileyCoyote


    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.

    Yes, I do realise that a fetus does, in fact, exist. However, I was referring to the responsibilities of parents to their children, and if a fetus is aborted, clearly it doesn't develop into a child.


  • Options
    #63
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    If a man got a legal abortion he obviously wouldn't have to pay maintenance because the child no longer has a legal father.
    Obviously, yes, that's why I'm iffy about it. You still have a child which needs to be supported somehow and in the 'legal abortion' that is all left to the mother.


  • Options
    #64
    SugarHigh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,265 ✭✭✭SugarHigh


    bluewolf wrote: »
    Obviously, yes, that's why I'm iffy about it. You still have a child which needs to be supported somehow and in the 'legal abortion' that is all left to the mother.
    The state will pick up the rest. If the mother decided to give up her child it would be up to the state to support it. Why should the mother have multiple ways of giving up her responsibility and the man doesn't have any?


  • Options
    #65
    coffee_cake
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Politics Moderators, Recreation & Hobbies Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 81,309 CMod ✭✭✭✭coffee_cake


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    The state will pick up the rest. If the mother decided to give up her child it would be up to the state to support it. Why should the mother have multiple ways of giving up her responsibility and the man doesn't have any?

    That's why I said so in my first post :confused:
    As for 'the state will pick it up', that seems a little irresponsible
    I don't know, I guess this is a situation where there's no perfect solution


  • Options
    #66
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    SugarHigh wrote: »
    The state will pick up the rest. If the mother decided to give up her child it would be up to the state to support it. Why should the mother have multiple ways of giving up her responsibility and the man doesn't have any?

    I'm not convinced we should be further encouraging this, people need to take responsibilty themselves. I'd be keen to move towards less state support rather than more.

    In the case where a woman chooses to give up her child, ie for adoption, the state would surely endeavour to have the child adopted, thus offering minimal support, certainly not a lifetime of support.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #67
    Novella
    Registered Users Posts: 13,713 ✭✭✭✭Novella


    I just don't think there is a perfect solution when it comes to unplanned or unwanted pregnancies. I actually really feel for men when it comes to this. In some cases, they end up with children they didn't want because the woman chooses to keep the baby and the man feels he can't walk away and in others, the woman decides to abort and there's pretty much nothing the man can do about it, no matter how much he may want the child.

    I just don't know, it's so complicated I don't even know where I stand on the matter.


  • Options
    #68
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    dearg lady wrote: »
    Interesting idea, I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about it. I do feel very sorry for men in the situation of an unplanned pregnancy, by virtue of their gender they essentially have no rights and no say. I don't think this is fair. However, to try to give men the exact same rights as a woman in this situation is imo impossible and ludicrous. We can't pretend that men and women are the same. It might not be fair (and believe me, often it isn't!!) but it is true.

    Some interesting points being raised in this thread, and I'm sure there is a way to make things fairer, and I'd like to see that happen, but complete equality, I just can't see how that would be feasible

    Please provide some examples where women are discriminated against, especially to such a great degree that will affect the rest of their life that you feel they should not have the same rights as men.

    Closer to the topic. I think the time limit should be 4-8 weeks from the day you find out. That way you take out the whole, hiding the pregnancy to entrap problem. Once the potential father knows, 4-8 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision.

    I agree with this principle though. It is grossly unfair that one person can unilaterally take a decision to force someone else to give up a large portion of their income for life.


  • Options
    #69
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    Memnoch wrote: »
    Please provide some examples where women are discriminated against, especially to such a great degree that will affect the rest of their life that you feel they should not have the same rights as men.

    Closer to the topic. I think the time limit should be 4-8 weeks from the day you find out. That way you take out the whole, hiding the pregnancy to entrap problem. Once the potential father knows, 4-8 weeks is plenty of time to make a decision.

    I agree with this principle though. It is grossly unfair that one person can unilaterally take a decision to force someone else to give up a large portion of their income for life.

    I don't know of any such examples..my point wasn't that there's a similiar situation vice versa, just that women, by the nature of biology, have to put up with a lot.

    I agree that it's grossly unfair, and I think this should and potentially could be addressed to make it fairer. But many posters are pushing for men to have as much rights as women in this situation, and I don't think that's possible. I'm not saying it's fair, I juts can't see a reasonable solution that would give the exact same rights to both genders.


  • Options
    #70
    Count Duckula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Count Duckula


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I'm not convinced we should be further encouraging this, people need to take responsibilty themselves. I'd be keen to move towards less state support rather than more.

    In the case where a woman chooses to give up her child, ie for adoption, the state would surely endeavour to have the child adopted, thus offering minimal support, certainly not a lifetime of support.

    So, in your opinion, should the man be obliged to pay child maintenance so as to lessen the burdern on the state?

    That's certainly much fairer for the tax payer, but is it fairer for the father?


  • Options
    #71
    Mallei
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭Mallei


    I've got to say, I don't agree with this at all.

    I'm all for gender equality, and that includes men's rights as well as women's, but nobody here seems to be thinking of the child's.

    Whatever your opinion on abortion (and I won't get into that now), when the deed is done, it is done. The child doesn't have to grow up suffering in a low-income, one parent family.

    If a man is willing to have sex with a woman then he must be willing to take on the consequences. God knows, she has to. Whatever she decides in terms of keeping or aborting the baby, both are horribly traumatic experiences. If the man can just decide "feck this" and leave at any moment with no repurcussions whatsoever then there's going to be a huge number of single mothers out there deserted by their partners.

    Not to mention, how would this work? Abortion is illegal in this country. They're hardly going to introduce the "male" version when actual abortion isn't obtainable except by travelling abroad, are they?

    Abortion is available to women because it is their bodies that have to take the risk of carrying a pregnancy. Men do not have that risk. At worse, they have to pay a meagre amount of child maintenance. They don't have to be part of the child's life if they don't want to; they just need to make sure that the child they're responsible for doesn't grow up in poverty.

    Again, sex is for making babies. Sure, it feels really, really nice, but it's point is to make babies. So if you make a baby, you need to deal with that.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #72
    eilo1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭eilo1


    I agree with ^^^ to a certain point.


    I think it would be easy for a lot of men (maybe young men) to opt out of responsibility early on in the pregnancy. After all the woman is physically aware of the child's presence and has all the hormonal stuff going on. But the father just has someone's word and a lot of fear!

    Once the child is born and they bond I think that the majority would agree that although an unplanned pregnancy is terrifying they wouldn't give their child up.

    Plus at the end of the day if you created a child regardless of the circumstances you have a responsibility to it.
    Image a generation of children growing up with absolutely no way of knowing who their father was.


  • Options
    #73
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I'm not convinced we should be further encouraging this, people need to take responsibilty themselves. I'd be keen to move towards less state support rather than more.

    There's a difference between obligation and responsibility. We can oblige men and women to take part in parenting their children. Or we can not oblige and instead give them the choice. But if we oblige one and not the other then we're being hypocritical. I agree with taking personal responsibility for your actions but as the present system stands it's personal responsibility for some, miniature-person child support for others.
    Mallei wrote: »
    I'm all for gender equality, and that includes men's rights as well as women's, but nobody here seems to be thinking of the child's.

    Whatever your opinion on abortion (and I won't get into that now), when the deed is done, it is done. The child doesn't have to grow up suffering in a low-income, one parent family.

    It's not true that no one is thinking of the child's rights. It's been addressed multiple times on the thread. Whether the state or the father picks up the tab the child well have the same benefit. And as the state can't oblige people to form two parent families it would make no difference to the child's welfare if the system was changed as described but plenty of difference to men's.
    If the man can just decide "feck this" and leave at any moment with no repurcussions whatsoever then there's going to be a huge number of single mothers out there deserted by their partners.

    A lot of people have said this on thread but I find no reason to believe it. It would be like me saying that if we were to legalise abortion on demand in Ireland tomorrow there would be a huge number of abortions. There might be a small increase in them, like there might be a small increase in single mothers forced to go it alone but it would be a negligible number imo.
    Not to mention, how would this work? Abortion is illegal in this country. They're hardly going to introduce the "male" version when actual abortion isn't obtainable except by travelling abroad, are they?

    No one's talking about that except you. Everyone else is concerned with creating equivalent rights for men and women.
    Again, sex is for making babies. Sure, it feels really, really nice, but it's point is to make babies. So if you make a baby, you need to deal with that.

    Not in countries where you can get an abortion. You can opt out of having the baby. All that's being sought is an opt out clause for both parties.
    eilo1 wrote: »
    I think it would be easy for a lot of men (maybe young men) to opt out of responsibility early on in the pregnancy.

    It would be easy for the men it was always going to be easy for and difficult for those it wasn't. A person's conscience doesn't change just because the law does.
    Image a generation of children growing up with absolutely no way of knowing who their father was.

    Imagination a generation of children not growing up because they were aborted. Of course, it wouldn't be a generation at all, just a small minority, who are probably better off not knowing a parent who abdicates their responsibility.


  • Options
    #74
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    dearg lady wrote: »
    I don't know of any such examples..my point wasn't that there's a similiar situation vice versa, just that women, by the nature of biology, have to put up with a lot.

    I agree that it's grossly unfair, and I think this should and potentially could be addressed to make it fairer. But many posters are pushing for men to have as much rights as women in this situation, and I don't think that's possible. I'm not saying it's fair, I juts can't see a reasonable solution that would give the exact same rights to both genders.

    That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

    If you believe in equal rights then you should believe in equal rights. To say that as a society we should strive to ensure equality for women in all situations but that in certain situations it's okay to discriminate against men is not only hypocritical but in fact damaging to the very quest for equality for women.

    Either you have principles or you don't, otherwise you're just looking for a leg up at the expense of others whenever you can and using the banner of equality to hide avarice.


  • Options
    #75
    magneticimpulse
    Registered Users Posts: 1,952 ✭✭✭magneticimpulse


    Wibbs wrote: »
    Really and when did that happen? Must have missed that memo.

    Actually yeah apparently its not due to hit the market until 3 years time. Ive not had sex in a long time, so I thought the male pill was out by now. We actually got surveyed in Uni 10 years ago about the male pill, so I suppose thats why it stuck in my head that it is available by now.

    I dont have to worry about contraception at the moment, so I wasnt really paying attention to the availability of the male pill.


  • Options
    #76
    strobe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,872 ✭✭✭strobe


    Count Duckula wrote: »
    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.

    I'm sure this has been said but in the time honoured fashion of answering the OP first and then going back to read the thread...

    Child support is for the child not the mother of the child. So saying, "well she didn't have to have it" doesn't really come into it. It was not the child's, who your money is going towards, decision. So yes. You get a girl pregnant and she decides to have the kid against your wishes, tough. The kid needs to be supported. Don't want to have to deal with the possibility, triple bag or get a vasectomy or join a monastery or something.

    I would however advocate a type of credit card system. So if the child is living primarily with it's mother and therefore you are paying support, you pay the money into a fund that can only be drawn from using the card to pay for things. It could only be used to purchase food and items such as children's clothes, diapers, medicine etc.

    Sure it's not really fair that if the women decides she doesn't want to have a kid she has all the say as far as abortion goes but the man has no say in paying support. But thems the breaks. This is the real world. Fair is for when you are playing snooker. There are enough children growing up in relative poverty as it is without men crying about how they didn't want a baby when nine months ago they were riding some young one like she was going out of fashion.


  • Options
    #77
    Memnoch
    Registered Users Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    strobe wrote: »
    I'm sure this has been said but in the time honoured fashion of answering the OP first and then going back to read the thread...

    Child support is for the child not the mother of the child. So saying, "well she didn't have to have it" doesn't really come into it. It was not the child's, who your money is going towards, decision. So yes. You get a girl pregnant and she decides to have the kid against your wishes, tough. The kid needs to be supported. Don't want to have to deal with the possibility, triple bag or get a vasectomy or join a monastery or something.

    Not tough. It does come into it.

    If you make a decision to HAVE a child when the option is there to not have it, then you should be willing to bear the financial responsibility that goes with it.

    The child might need to be supported but that's the duty of the person/person's who's made the decision to bring them into the world.

    Right now, having sex means taking a risk that the girl might get pregnant and then might decide to keep the child and as a result you might be stuck with child support for the rest of your life. And therefore, don't have sex without triple protection?

    This type of thinking is wrong and what is being argued against. Sex should just be sex.


  • Options
    #78
    eilo1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 874 ✭✭✭eilo1


    Earthhorse wrote: »
    It would be easy for the men it was always going to be easy for and difficult for those it wasn't. A person's conscience doesn't change just because the law does.
    You missed the point entirely. If there was a get out of jail free card early on before the father had any sort of chance to bond with the child. It would make the prospect of walking away much easier. I have know 3 young fathers who all went through the terrified and angry stage early on in the pregnancy and were looking for some way out. Now they all have children they love very much and do not regret having.

    Earthhorse wrote: »
    Imagination a generation of children not growing up because they were aborted. Of course, it wouldn't be a generation at all, just a small minority, who are probably better off not knowing a parent who abdicates their responsibility.
    Id disagree with it only being a small number, however we have no way of knowing.
    There is also a very real danger of incest as one man could have multiple partners and not want any thing to do with any of the children. With no way of knowing who the father is, people could grow up and get into relationships with relations.


  • Options
    #79
    dearg lady
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,091 ✭✭✭dearg lady


    Count Duckula wrote: »
    So, in your opinion, should the man be obliged to pay child maintenance so as to lessen the burdern on the state?

    That's certainly much fairer for the tax payer, but is it fairer for the father?
    IMO, as the system stands, the man should be obliged to pay child maintenance. Not to 'lessen the burden on the state' but becasue he has helped create a life.

    As I said before I don't think it's fair that the man has little or no rights, but I'm unsure what is the best way to correct this.

    Memnoch wrote: »
    That doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

    If you believe in equal rights then you should believe in equal rights. To say that as a society we should strive to ensure equality for women in all situations but that in certain situations it's okay to discriminate against men is not only hypocritical but in fact damaging to the very quest for equality for women.

    Either you have principles or you don't, otherwise you're just looking for a leg up at the expense of others whenever you can and using the banner of equality to hide avarice.


    Seriously, what? Did you read what I wrote? I do believe in equal rights, but to suggest that men and women are exactly the same is untrue. With this in mind, I can see no way for men an women to have the EXACT same rights in this situation. I would be keen for things to be made fairer, but it's a very difficult area to legislate for.


  • Options
    #80
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    strobe wrote: »
    Sure it's not really fair that if the women decides she doesn't want to have a kid she has all the say as far as abortion goes but the man has no say in paying support. But thems the breaks. This is the real world. Fair is for when you are playing snooker.
    Women have a nasty habit of becoming pregnant and taking time off. Usually more than once, costing companies small fortunes in maternity leave and hiring and training replacements. Therefore I would advise not hiring a woman if you can at all avoid it. Hire a man. Better long term financial bet. Keep women in the easily replaced low paid jobs. Much better bet. Not fair? Meh them's the breaks...

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #81
    Mallei
    Registered Users Posts: 144 ✭✭Mallei


    What sexist drivel, Wibbs. I'd have expected better from a mod in the Ladies Lounge than that.

    Women have come a long way to overcome that exact attitude; that we ought to be passed over for the better jobs because we might take time off to, you know, keep the species going. How dare we.

    The fact that in places with more equal educational and vocational opportunities between the two genders (like Ireland's younger generation) women are out-learning, out-performing, out-working and out-earning men seems to be ignored because we might potentially need to take a few months off.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #82
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    Mallei wrote: »
    What sexist drivel, Wibbs. I'd have expected better from a mod in the Ladies Lounge than that.

    Women have come a long way to overcome that exact attitude; that we ought to be passed over for the better jobs because we might take time off to, you know, keep the species going. How dare we.

    The fact that in places with more equal educational and vocational opportunities between the two genders (like Ireland's younger generation) women are out-learning, out-performing, out-working and out-earning men seems to be ignored because we might potentially need to take a few months off.

    Wow,you really dont get sarcasm,do you.


  • Options
    #83
    Earthhorse
    Registered Users Posts: 14,714 ✭✭✭✭Earthhorse


    eilo1 wrote: »
    You missed the point entirely. If there was a get out of jail free card early on before the father had any sort of chance to bond with the child. It would make the prospect of walking away much easier. I have know 3 young fathers who all went through the terrified and angry stage early on in the pregnancy and were looking for some way out. Now they all have children they love very much and do not regret having.

    It's not a "get out of jail free" card and I wish people would stop describing it as such. It would be a legal process which men would have to employ or involve a solicitor to complete. How does that make it easier to walk away than the current situation? As it stands, if you want to walk away that's literally all you have to do. It's perfectly natural that people would panic when something like this happens but we still trust women to make the responsible decision when it comes to actually getting the abortion. The same courtesy should be extended to men.
    Id disagree with it only being a small number, however we have no way of knowing.

    No, we don't. But abortion rates didn't shoot up in countries where it was legalised. Even if it were a large number, it is no excuse for an unjust law.
    There is also a very real danger of incest as one man could have multiple partners and not want any thing to do with any of the children. With no way of knowing who the father is, people could grow up and get into relationships with relations.

    No more than the risk in cases of adoption so it's a moot point.


  • Options
    #84
    Wibbs
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 60,108 Mod ✭✭✭✭Wibbs


    Mallei wrote: »
    What sexist drivel, Wibbs. I'd have expected better from a mod in the Ladies Lounge than that... blah blah
    Well done. You've just proven that some people out there are actively looking for trouble. Usually where none exists. That the offence has already occurred long beforehand and all you're looking for is a trigger, any trigger. You're not looking for solutions or debate all you're looking for is anything that agrees with your own rigid and long established worldview. You've also gone a long way towards proving the chauvinist's points while you're at it. Kudos all around.

    PS Interesting you mention out earning men, so I suppose now we can ignore the usual bleat of some that the ladies ain't getting equal pay?

    Rejoice in the awareness of feeling stupid, for that’s how you end up learning new things. If you’re not aware you’re stupid, you probably are.



  • Options
    #85
    Count Duckula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Count Duckula


    Wibbs wrote: »
    PS Interesting you mention out earning men, so I suppose now we can ignore the usual bleat of some that the ladies ain't getting equal pay?

    I think anyone with half a brain has been ignoring that one for a while, since the pay gap that traditionally exists doesn't actually take into account the line of work that the genders are doing.

    Mallei actually made a good point, although unwittingly since I think she was just using it as a stick to beat men with, that when you look at the youngest generation - where opportunities are largely equal - the girls are outperforming and earning more money than their male counterparts. There are more female graduates, they get better marks, they get promoted quicker and they earn more money.


  • Options
    #86
    ectoraige
    Registered Users Posts: 2,100 ✭✭✭ectoraige


    Some interesting points-of-view coming across here.

    One thing that puts me off the idea is the number of men who initially run a mile, but have a complete change of heart once the child is born. I don't think it's in the child's best interest to deny them this opportunity.

    Would women be entitled to avail of the "legal" abortion? i.e. once the child is born she would have nothing more to do with it, entrusting the child to his father.

    On a related note, what about a mechanism for fathers to prevent a woman from having an actual abortion? Take the case where a woman falls pregnant, does not want the child, and intends to have an abortion. Should the father be able to force her to bear the child anyway?
    Memnoch wrote: »
    Right now, having sex means taking a risk that the girl might get pregnant and then might decide to keep the child and as a result you might be stuck with child support for the rest of your life. And therefore, don't have sex without triple protection?

    This type of thinking is wrong and what is being argued against. Sex should just be sex.

    It's human nature that accidents can and do happen, I don't think sex can ever just be sex.


  • Options
    #87
    Count Duckula
    Closed Accounts Posts: 570 ✭✭✭Count Duckula


    ectoraige wrote: »
    Some interesting points-of-view coming across here.

    One thing that puts me off the idea is the number of men who initially run a mile, but have a complete change of heart once the child is born. I don't think it's in the child's best interest to deny them this opportunity.

    The fathers would just have to take this risk. They're the ones that will never see their child again, and I think they should definitely be made to have a "cooling off" period so that these decisions can't be made in the heat of the moment.
    ectoraige wrote: »
    Would women be entitled to avail of the "legal" abortion? i.e. once the child is born she would have nothing more to do with it, entrusting the child to his father.

    In a situation where the parents are not married the mother has all the rights anyway. So currently she can immediately give the child up for adoption which achieves the exact same thing.
    ectoraige wrote: »
    On a related note, what about a mechanism for fathers to prevent a woman from having an actual abortion? Take the case where a woman falls pregnant, does not want the child, and intends to have an abortion. Should the father be able to force her to bear the child anyway?

    Christ no. A million times no.


  • Options
    #88
    Logical Fallacy
    Registered Users Posts: 5,933 ✭✭✭Logical Fallacy


    Mallei wrote: »
    What sexist drivel, Wibbs. I'd have expected better from a mod in the Ladies Lounge than that.

    lol, Wibbs was clearly taking the mick but even if he wasn't it's a Mods job to enforce rules and ensure the smooth running of a forum, not to necessarily post along with the common consensus of that forum in every other forum they post in, or even the one they Mod.


  • Options
    #89
    liah
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,750 ✭✭✭liah


    ectoraige wrote: »
    On a related note, what about a mechanism for fathers to prevent a woman from having an actual abortion? Take the case where a woman falls pregnant, does not want the child, and intends to have an abortion. Should the father be able to force her to bear the child anyway?

    Out of curiosity, are you male or female?

    There is no way a woman should have to be forced to have another human being grown inside of her purely upon the whims of another person. We're not baby factories for god's sake.


  • Options
    #90
    norrie rugger
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,656 ✭✭✭norrie rugger


    liah wrote: »
    We're not baby factories for god's sake.

    Well technically you are;)


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #91
    Otis Driftwood
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,925 ✭✭✭Otis Driftwood


    liah wrote: »
    Out of curiosity, are you male or female?

    There is no way a woman should have to be forced to have another human being grown inside of her purely upon the whims of another person. We're not baby factories for god's sake.

    On that,should a man be forced to pay maintenance for a child he explicitly states he doesnt want?


Advertisement