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

liah

norrie rugger wrote: »

Well technically you are;)

Not in 2011 we're not.


(I get what you're saying. Just don't want to encourage that kind of thinking on any level at all whatsoever.)

liah

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

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

I already said I support the concept of legal abortion.


(and sorry for double-post.)

Memnoch

dearg lady wrote: »

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.

I read what you said.

Men and women aren't the same, therefore in this situation it's acceptable that men are discriminated against and that's tough but them's the breaks.

I asked you to provide a similar example, where, because men and women are different, we should accept that woman cannot have the exact same rights as men.

I'll ask again if you can provide such an example or are you only wanting exceptions to fairness and equality where men are concerned?

liah

Otis Driftwood wrote: »

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

Thinking on this a little more, in fairness, there is a pretty big difference. The man never has to actually give birth to the child, doesn't have to deal with hormones or weight gain or becoming massive and unattractive, doesn't have to deal with possibly ruining their body/vagina permanently or even risking death for their efforts, doesn't have to deal with the aftermath of going back to 'normal' both physically and mentally after a baby, and let's not forget, doesn't have a very high risk of dropping a deuce in front of a room full of doctors when the baby's coming.

Joking aside, forcing someone to give birth to a child against their will seems a lot more horrific and psychologically and physically damaging than simply asking for a bit of dosh to support a kid they never have anything to do with or will ever see/feel/have any kind of connection to whatsoever.

The situations are comparable in theory but very different in practice - at least the guy doesn't have to grow a person inside of him, you know?

Still, I do support legal abortion.. I just think there's a very real difference in the two scenarios, they're not 100% comparable.

Memnoch wrote: »

I asked you to provide a similar example, where, because men and women are different, we should accept that woman cannot have the exact same rights as men.

As far as I can tell, there's literally nothing a man can do that no woman can.

There is, however, one thing a woman can do that no man can do, and that is give birth. I can completely understand why people believe that this is one area where it's a "them's the breaks" scenario, we certainly didn't choose this, to be the ones with the womb. Life isn't always fair and this could be one of those circumstances.

ectoraige

liah wrote: »

Out of curiosity, are you male or female?

Male.

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.

Assuming the woman had consensual sex, it wouldn't be purely upon the whims of another person. By having sex, she took the risk that she may fall pregnant, as did her partner. If she is allowed to avoid these consequences without the other partner having any rights over her decision then I can see the argument for introducing a "legal" abortion.

I use the word "avoid" lightly by-the-way, I'm quite aware of the emotional impact of abortions on the parents.

I also dislike the "legal abortion" term used in the OP, perhaps "legal abandonment" would be more appropriate.

Earthhorse

Yeah, I agree they're not 100% comparable and I also agree that in a situation where abortion was legal there is no way a man should have a right to veto a woman's decision in that regard.

liah

ectoraige wrote: »

Male.

Assuming the woman had consensual sex, it wouldn't be purely upon the whims of another person. By having sex, she took the risk that she may fall pregnant, as did her partner. If she is allowed to avoid these consequences without the other partner having any rights over her decision then I can see the argument for introducing a "legal" abortion.

I use the word "avoid" lightly by-the-way, I'm quite aware of the emotional impact of abortions on the parents.

I also dislike the "legal abortion" term used in the OP, perhaps "legal abandonment" would be more appropriate.

You do understand that it actually uses a woman's body and not a man's as what is effectively a host body, right?

I mean, I'd totally agree if the man had to go through something equally as psychologically and physically horrific as women would with pregnancy against their will. But they don't, can't, and probably never will.

Are you seriously putting forward the notion that women should be forced to have a man's baby if he wants it and she doesn't as fair and comparable to a man paying some money every week literally without doing anything else? Come on now. It's not remotely the same thing.

I think I'd much, much, MUCH rather be the guy forced to give a bit of cash each week in that situation than the girl forced to deliver a child. In fact, do you want to trade?

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Joking aside, forcing someone to give birth to a child against their will seems a lot more horrific and psychologically and physically damaging than simply asking for a bit of dosh to support a kid they never have anything to do with or will ever see/feel/have any kind of connection to whatsoever.

There is the other side that not paying child maintenance is nowhere close to being as horrific as aborting someones child without their permission.

The situations are comparable in theory but very different in practice - at least the guy doesn't have to grow a person inside of him, you know?

Still, I do support legal abortion.. I just think there's a very real difference in the two scenarios, they're not 100% comparable.

I think it's more comparable with adoption than abortion.

As far as I can tell, there's literally nothing a man can do that no woman can.

There is, however, one thing a woman can do that no man can do, and that is give birth. I can completely understand why people believe that this is one area where it's a "them's the breaks" scenario, we certainly didn't choose this, to be the ones with the womb. Life isn't always fair and this could be one of those circumstances.

That only applies to biological abortion. Women still have the choice to give up their child through adoption or just leaving it in a police station. Men do not have these options. A man can't give up his responsibility to his child without the mothers permission yet the woman can. That's the inequality that legal abortion would solve. Men should have the ability to legally cut their ties with a child that is already born just like women can.

ectoraige

Count Duckula wrote: »

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.

I was thinking more of the child - they are the ones who will grow up never knowing their father. For this reason I would argue that the abandonment not actually be granted until sometime after the birth. Nine months is a long time to get your head around something as big as bringing another life into the world.

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.

Out of curiosity, I wonder what the process here is? Does the father have to go through an vetting process, would the child possibly be fostered to somebody else in the meantime, and what happens when the mother refuses to put his name on the birth certificate?

Knasher

Count Duckula wrote: »

There are more female graduates, they get better marks

To be honest that point, while statistically correct, always makes me more than a little bit uneasy for a number of reasons.

Firstly I recall to mind this recent experiment, the aim of which was to reduce a achievement gap between men and women in a physics course. What was interesting is how little they actually had to do in order to have an effect, in the end writing two essays which were completely unrelated to the subject matter was enough to eliminate the gap. I recall going through the Irish education system and being often told two "facts":
a) That girls mature faster than boys.

To which I would respond with this blog post which surmises that that there is no actual backing in science for this or that maturity is even a well defined or measurable thing.

b) hence girls do better in education than boys.

Always nice to know that the odds are against me before I've even started.

My point being that if writing two essays can have such a marked effect then being told regularly that you are less mature and probably not going to do all that well, it's not all that surprising that it ends up being true.

Secondly, there are a lot of initiatives whose aim is to increase the involvement of women in science. Grants or increasing coursework in areas that women do comparatively better in are pretty common methods. In general I support them because I think most of the reason for lower female involvement is cultural and is something that should be combated from a young age and hence in education. What bothers me is that seeing there are approximately an even percentage of women versus men in education and that women have traditionally scored better overall, I've never heard of an initiative to encourage boys to get into other areas or to restructure the coursework to even out the achievement gap in other subjects - for these it's enough to say that girls are just better at them. Hardly surprising that women do better in education.

I'm not arguing against the necessity of the initiatives, so be honest I would prefer if there were an even balance of men and women in science for a myriad of reasons. It just bugs me when statistics are used to pass assumptions off as fact.

SugarHigh

ectoraige wrote: »

Male.



Assuming the woman had consensual sex, it wouldn't be purely upon the whims of another person. By having sex, she took the risk that she may fall pregnant, as did her partner. If she is allowed to avoid these consequences without the other partner having any rights over her decision then I can see the argument for introducing a "legal" abortion.

I use the word "avoid" lightly by-the-way, I'm quite aware of the emotional impact of abortions on the parents.

I also dislike the "legal abortion" term used in the OP, perhaps "legal abandonment" would be more appropriate.

+1 no one is forcing a woman to get pregnant. So she isn't being forced to carry the child she's jsut being denied the chance to terminate which is something every generation bar a few had to put up. If the abortion pill wasn't invented it wouldn't be considered horrific that a woman has to go through pregnancy for a child she doesn't want but a man losing a child he does want is always horrific and the fact this has been brushed off as "tough break" pisses me off.

Why isn't the fact you got pregnant is "tough break"?

I'm not against aborting your own child but this is effectively aborting someones else's child because you don't want the hassle of pregnancy, when compared to the trauma of losing a child it's really insignificant .

liah

That only applies to biological abortion. Women still have the choice to give up their child through adoption or just leaving it in a police station. Men do not have these options. A man can't give up his responsibility to his child without the mothers permission yet the woman can. That's the inequality that legal abortion would solve. Men should have the ability to legally cut their ties with a child that is already born just like women can.

Hey, listen, I agree with you and still completely support legal abortion. I just think it's unfair to compare forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want with a man being forced to pay money for a child he doesn't want. That's all I'm arguing.

Sometimes I think guys underestimate how tough pregnancy and delivery actually can be on a woman, both physically and psychologically - doubly so if it's for a child she does not want and is being forced to give birth to.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

Hey, listen, I agree with you and still completely support legal abortion. I just think it's unfair to compare forcing a woman to give birth to a child she doesn't want with a man being forced to pay money for a child he doesn't want. That's all I'm arguing.

But you are still ignoring the other side of the debate.

There is the other side that not paying child maintenance is nowhere close to being as horrific as aborting someones child without their permission.

Sometimes I think guys underestimate how tough pregnancy and delivery actually can be on a woman, both physically and psychologically - doubly so if it's for a child she does not want and is being forced to give birth to.

Does a woman who's never been through pregnancy really have a better idea than a guy on how hard pregnancy is?

I'm not even interested in how hard pregnancy is because it's going to be nowhere close to being as horrific as losing a child. Losing a child is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to someone and your just brushing it off because they don't have to go through pregnancy. Some people have been pregnant right up until the day they give birth without even realising it. There are hard pregnancies but nothing that compares to losing a child.

ectoraige

liah wrote: »

You do understand that it actually uses a woman's body and not a man's as what is effectively a host body, right?

I mean, I'd totally agree if the man had to go through something equally as psychologically and physically horrific as women would with pregnancy against their will. But they don't, can't, and probably never will.

Are you seriously putting forward the notion that women should be forced to have a man's baby if he wants it and she doesn't as fair and comparable to a man paying some money every week literally without doing anything else? Come on now. It's not remotely the same thing.

I think I'd much, much, MUCH rather be the guy forced to give a bit of cash each week in that situation than the girl forced to deliver a child. In fact, do you want to trade?

Of course I'm not, it's a thought experiment to tease out where the differences in what standards can be applied to men and women. I leave the trolling to AH

In fact, I'd almost view the man as having committed some sort of accidental assault on the woman given what she has to go through - nausea, bloating, kidney problems, back-pain, thrush, sciatica, headaches, tiredness, and of course the aforementioned labour poo :eek: On top of that you've all the associated mental health issues which predominantly affect women.

If a father was allowed to abandon the child, should the state increase the allowance paid for that child? Should there be an "abandonment fee" to at least force the father to at least take some responsibility?

SugarHigh

ectoraige wrote: »

If a father was allowed to abandon the child, should the state increase the allowance paid for that child? Should there be an "abandonment fee" to at least force the father to at least take some responsibility?

When a mother drops her baby off at a police station does she pay an abandonment fee?

ectoraige

SugarHigh wrote: »

I'm not even interested in how hard pregnancy is because it's going to be nowhere close to being as horrific as losing a child. Losing a child is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to someone and your just brushing it off because they don't have to go through pregnancy. Some people have been pregnant right up until the day they give birth without even realising it. There are hard pregnancies but nothing that compares to losing a child.

Losing a child that you have never known isn't as traumatic as losing a child that you have. There is a real psychological impact on a father whose child is aborted against his wishes. However the abortion can be quite traumatic for the woman as well, there is of course a difference over who has control, but that comes down to biology.

ectoraige

SugarHigh wrote: »

When a mother drops her baby off at a police station does she pay an abandonment fee?

No, I think she risks prosecution though.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

But you are still ignoring the other side of the debate.

It's not the debate I'm involved in. I've clearly outlined the debate I'm involved in: the comparability of pregnancy and delivery vs. paying cold money.

Does a woman who's never been through pregnancy really have a better idea than a guy on how hard pregnancy is?

Yes, actually, they would. We can see exactly how it can affect our bodies. We know what it's like have to deal with hormones. Knowing our bodies, we have an all too real sense of what it would be like to have something coming out of our bodies, feeding on our bodies, destroying our bodies. It's much, much easier for a woman, who by default is much more familiar with her anatomy and how her mind and body work than any man, to visualize what it is like to be pregnant. But it's not simply from that, it's from being raised from birth being educated in the matter of what is going to happen to us when we get pregnant.

This is all without the added psychological horror of being turned into a baby farm and your choice removed as to whose child you can have and who gets to use your body as their own personal factory, which would be enough to traumatize any human being for decades.

I'm not even interested in how hard pregnancy is because it's going to be nowhere close to being as horrific as losing a child. Losing a child is pretty much the worst thing that can happen to someone and your just brushing it off because they don't have to go through pregnancy. Some people have been pregnant right up until the day they give birth without even realising it. There are hard pregnancies but nothing that compares to losing a child.

Why do you keep bringing up losing a child? This is not the situation I am comparing. I am comparing a man being forced to pay money for a child he does not want with a woman being forced to deliver a child she does not want.

But fine. I'll play. From my perspective, it is not losing a child, as we have discussed earlier. It is losing the possibility of a child. Do you mourn each lost sperm and egg as having lost a child? Because they are equally responsible for the possibility of a child; after all, they are the building blocks of that child, and each time sperm or an egg are wasted it is technically a loss of the possibility of that particular child, and you can never replicate the child that would have been formed from those sperm and that egg, just as you can never replicate the child that would have been formed from the zygote after they have connected after an abortion.

This is why I draw the line at consciousness. I see no difference between the separate sperm and egg versus a zygote or fetus in the beginning stages of development. They are nothing but the possibility of a person, and each time they do not come to fruition, it's the loss of a possibility.. but hardly the loss of an actual child with a heart and a mind of its own.

I would argue how many men are psychologically traumatized for decades due to a very early-stage abortion, the way that a woman would be were she forced to give birth to a child she did not want.

And you can bring up your "well women did it before, why can't they do it now" if you want, but it's a completely ridiculous argument. We could also survive on berries and use leaves as toilet paper, but it certainly doesn't mean we want to go back to that after having come so far forward.

SugarHigh

ectoraige wrote: »

Losing a child that you have never known isn't as traumatic as losing a child that you have. There is a real psychological impact on a father whose child is aborted against his wishes. However the abortion can be quite traumatic for the woman as well, there is of course a difference over who has control, but that comes down to biology.

Well actually it comes down to who carries out the abortion. I don't see what's so wrong with denying someone an abortion because the father actually wants the child. Women haven't had the option of abortion for a lot longer than they have had it.

Count Duckula

SugarHigh wrote: »

Well actually it comes down to who carries out the abortion. I don't see what's so wrong with denying someone an abortion because the father actually wants the child. Women haven't had the option of abortion for a lot longer than they have had it.

You don't see what's wrong with forcing a woman to go through pregnancy? And saying it was like that "in days gone by" is hardly a reasonable argument.

I'll be honest, you're going to have lost a lot of supporters in this thread.

ectoraige

liah wrote: »

As far as I can tell, there's literally nothing a man can do that no woman can.

Produce sperm. While research is ongoing into this, for the moment it's still male-only.

liah

ectoraige wrote: »

Produce sperm. While research is ongoing into this, for the moment it's still male-only.

I thought it was kind of obvious that I meant things that would have the possibility of requiring some kind of legislation But yes, I'm aware of that.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Well actually it comes down to who carries out the abortion. I don't see what's so wrong with denying someone an abortion because the father actually wants the child. Women haven't had the option of abortion for a lot longer than they have had it.

If you seriously want to argue that, you're going to have to come up with a much, much better argument than "well they had to put up with it before, they should have to put up with it now."

Just because it happened before doesn't make it any less horrific an experience. Try using the same argument in favour of slavery and see where that gets you; it's effectively the same thing.

dearg lady

Memnoch wrote: »

I read what you said.

Men and women aren't the same, therefore in this situation it's acceptable that men are discriminated against and that's tough but them's the breaks.

I asked you to provide a similar example, where, because men and women are different, we should accept that woman cannot have the exact same rights as men.

I'll ask again if you can provide such an example or are you only wanting exceptions to fairness and equality where men are concerned?

I already replied to that. I'm not repeating myself

Memnoch

dearg lady wrote: »

I already replied to that. I'm not repeating myself

So you accept that you are advocating/condoning discrimination against men in certain situations because 'men and women are different' however you don't think that this should work both ways?

This, to me is a sexist stance.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

It's not the debate I'm involved in. I've clearly outlined the debate I'm involved in: the comparability of pregnancy and delivery vs. paying cold money.

It's not an isolated comparison.

This is all without the added psychological horror of being turned into a baby farm and your choice removed as to whose child you can have and who gets to use your body as their own personal factory, which would be enough to traumatize any human being for decades.

This is just so over the top. The choice that is being denied is one they've never had for thousands of years.

I'm still sure that losing a child you do want is worse than giving birth to a child you don't want.

Why do you keep bringing up losing a child? This is not the situation I am comparing. I am comparing a man being forced to pay money for a child he does not want with a woman being forced to deliver a child she does not want.

Because that women is being forced to a deliver a child she doesn't want because it prevents someone from losing a child. Like I said you are treating it as an isolated comparison which it isn't.

But fine. I'll play. From my perspective, it is not losing a child, as we have discussed earlier. It is losing the possibility of a child. Do you mourn each lost sperm and egg as having lost a child? Because they are equally responsible for the possibility of a child; after all, they are the building blocks of that child, and each time sperm or an egg are wasted it is technically a loss of the possibility of that particular child, and you can never replicate the child that would have been formed from those sperm and that egg, just as you can never replicate the child that would have been formed from the zygote after they have connected after an abortion.

Sperm/unfertilized eggs and a fetus are not comparable. Tell a woman who just suffered a miscarriage she hasn't "really" lost a child because it was just a clump of cells.

This is why I draw the line at consciousness. I see no difference between the separate sperm and egg versus a zygote or fetus in the beginning stages of development. They are nothing but the possibility of a person, and each time they do not come to fruition, it's the loss of a possibility.. but hardly the loss of an actual child with a heart and a mind of its own.

You are just going the traditional abortion debate which I'm not getting into.

I would argue how many men are psychologically traumatized for decades due to a very early-stage abortion, the way that a woman would be were she forced to give birth to a child she did not want.

How could we possible argue on any of these points. How do you know how traumatized any of these people are?

And you can bring up your "well women did it before, why can't they do it now" if you want, but it's a completely ridiculous argument. We could also survive on berries and use leaves as toilet paper, but it certainly doesn't mean we want to go back to that after having come so far forward.

Just because something has happened more recently doesn't make it an advancement. regression is just as possible as progression.

Two people who don't want a child having an abortion = fine.
One parent aborting someone else's child is not fine.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

If you seriously want to argue that, you're going to have to come up with a much, much better argument than "well they had to put up with it before, they should have to put up with it now."

Just because it happened before doesn't make it any less horrific an experience. Try using the same argument in favour of slavery and see where that gets you; it's effectively the same thing.

It's men who have to put with women being able to abort their kids.

Like I said a woman should have the option of abortion but she be able to abort someone else's child against their will. The way you treat losing a child is jsut odd. Miscarriages traumatizes loads of people yet a woman doing the same thing on purpose to man is just brushed off as a "tough break".

ectoraige

liah wrote: »

But fine. I'll play. From my perspective, it is not losing a child, as we have discussed earlier. It is losing the possibility of a child. Do you mourn each lost sperm and egg as having lost a child? Because they are equally responsible for the possibility of a child; after all, they are the building blocks of that child, and each time sperm or an egg are wasted it is technically a loss of the possibility of that particular child, and you can never replicate the child that would have been formed from those sperm and that egg, just as you can never replicate the child that would have been formed from the zygote after they have connected after an abortion.

Tell that to people who suffer miscarriages.

I would argue how many men are psychologically traumatized for decades due to a very early-stage abortion, the way that a woman would be were she forced to give birth to a child she did not want.

Clearly the latter would be more traumatic, but the father really can experience long-term trauma from an unwanted abortion.

SugarHigh wrote: »

Well actually it comes down to who carries out the abortion.

I meant who has control over the decision.

liah wrote: »

I thought it was kind of obvious that I meant things that would have the possibility of requiring some kind of legislation But yes, I'm aware of that.

Point taken, although there are privacy issues relating to sperm donation but that's really not for this thread.

HellFireClub

Is the mentality behind the OP's post, which is definitely thought provoking, is it not a mentality that is essentially fuelled by a highly vindictive mindset?

I can't think of why any man would deny his own flesh and blood, (I do however accept that it does regularly happen where a man want's nothing to do with a child or it's mother post pregnancy), but is the whole mentality here not one that is essentially created and driven out of pure vindictiveness, something along the lines of, "I don't want that child and I regret sleeping with you now, you probably set out to try to catch me and get yourself pregnant, you won't hear of an abortion, so f*ck you, I'll use this option I have to legally putting you and your child on a different planet"...

No??? I think it's really a sad sign of the times we live in that men and women seem to need such a degree of legal protection from one another...

Count Duckula

I don't think it's vindictive. It's merely saying, "I want nothing to do with this child and so that's exactly what's going to happen".

Would you claim a woman putting her child up for adoption or even aborting it was vindictive? Hardly. She doesn't want the stress and trauma of a child and is thus taking the appropriate action.