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

liah

So you're telling me that, if the roles were reversed and you were forced against your will to give birth to someone else's child, despite it changing your body permanently, despite not wanting it, despite it using all your resources for nine months, despite it messing with your hormones and making you batshit crazy, despite it causing you hours of physical agony in childbirth, days of bedrest, bruising, and general physical recovery, that you would be completely okay with it?
And that the psychological subjugation and forced submission would not eat away at your mental health, would not traumatize you? The idea that you were being forced against your will to operate as someone else's factory, that you were being treated as inhuman, that another person's human right supercedes your own right to your own body? The implication that you are lesser, you are not equal, that your choice has no validity even though it is growing inside of your own body and using you as a host, something that you do not want?

I'll never believe anyone would be okay with that tbh and would question the empathy and basic humanity of anyone who would be fine with forcing another person to do undergo that based upon their own whim, especially when all they have to do is go bang another bird to make a new one. And that's the hardest thing they have to do - have sex.

It's all nice and clean cut for a guy looking in and maybe that's the reason you have so much disconnect here, but believe me, if you were talking about yourself right now I'd find it very hard to believe you would be perfectly fine with the scenario.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

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".

The woman has a greater attachment to the child at that stage because of biology which is why for a lot of women miscarriage is so much tougher to deal with than their respective men. That is not fair, but it is how it is. It is proven fact that a man does not have the same bond with the child while it is still in the female's womb; it would be impossible for him to do so. Women are built to give birth, our brains are geared for it, our bodies are geared for it, our hormones are primed for it, we are made to bond with our children.
Men are made to impregnate but they cannot bond the same way prior to birth as the woman does with the fetus; he would have no reason to, she is made to to because it is growing inside of her and using her body.
This is why I cannot see your argument as valid enough to allow for forced pregnancy and childbirth. The stresses on the mother, both physical and emotional, in both situations is always going to be harder than that of the father simply due to biology, and currently, we do not have the technology to correct that. So in that respect, it damn well is "tough break." You cannot seriously expect someone to give birth against their will. It's inhuman.

Comparatively, the psychological damage incurred by forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is much worse than severing a tentative connection with the possibility of a child, due to biology. I've seen you argue many times in favour of biology when it suits you, so it's interesting to see you rejecting it point-blank now.

thebullkf

Mallei wrote: »

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.

not so meagre...

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

So you're telling me that, if the roles were reversed and you were forced against your will to give birth to someone else's child, despite it changing your body permanently, despite not wanting it, despite it using all your resources for nine months, despite it messing with your hormones and making you batshit crazy, despite it causing you hours of physical agony in childbirth, days of bedrest, bruising, and general physical recovery, that you would be completely okay with it?

I wouldn't like it but I would be ok with it because the things you describe don't come close to losing a child.

And that the psychological subjugation and forced submission would not eat away at your mental health, would not traumatize you?

You don't think the fact someone else has aborted your child wouldn't eat away at you? You do realise a lot of people view a abortion as murder how do you think they would cope when they believe someone has murdered their child.

The idea that you were being forced against your will to operate as someone else's factory, that you were being treated as inhuman, that another person's human right supercedes your own right to your own body? The implication that you are lesser, you are not equal, that your choice has no validity even though it is growing inside of your own body and using you as a host, something that you do not want?

You are going so over the top. First off it's not inhuman, that doesn't make any sense. Also stop using phrases like "factory" to try and have an impact. Your entire post is very try hard.

I'll never believe anyone would be okay with that tbh and would question the empathy and basic humanity of anyone who would be fine with forcing another person to do undergo that based upon their own whim, especially when all they have to do is go bang another bird to make a new one. And that's the hardest thing they have to do - have sex.

You question empathy when you are ok with someones child being aborted against their will. How in gods name is it based on a whim. It's their child.

especially when all they have to do is go bang another bird to make a new one.

Wow tell that to anyone who has had a miscarriage.

It's all nice and clean cut for a guy looking in and maybe that's the reason you have so much disconnect here, but believe me, if you were talking about yourself right now I'd find it very hard to believe you would be perfectly fine with the scenario.

It's not that I'd be perfectly fine with it but I'd recgonize that losing a child is a bigger deal than going through pregnancy. I think if a lot of women had the choice of dieing through pregnancy or the their baby dieing they would prefer for themselves to die.

You call me disconnected but look back over your own view of how you view a man losing his child as if it's nothing.

thebullkf

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?

so if your boyfriend, { unknown to you btw } aborted your baby... you wouldn't feel traumatised?.... thats what currently happens to men when their partners abort.

liah

thebullkf wrote: »

so if your boyfriend, { unknown to you btw } aborted your baby... you wouldn't feel traumatised?.... thats what currently happens to men when their partners abort.

meet

liah wrote: »

The woman has a greater attachment to the child at that stage because of biology which is why for a lot of women miscarriage is so much tougher to deal with than their respective men. That is not fair, but it is how it is. It is proven fact that a man does not have the same bond with the child while it is still in the female's womb; it would be impossible for him to do so. Women are built to give birth, our brains are geared for it, our bodies are geared for it, our hormones are primed for it, we are made to bond with our children.
Men are made to impregnate but they cannot bond the same way prior to birth as the woman does with the fetus; he would have no reason to, she is made to to because it is growing inside of her and using her body.
This is why I cannot see your argument as valid enough to allow for forced pregnancy and childbirth. The stresses on the mother, both physical and emotional, in both situations is always going to be harder than that of the father simply due to biology, and currently, we do not have the technology to correct that. So in that respect, it damn well is "tough break." You cannot seriously expect someone to give birth against their will. It's inhuman.

Comparatively, the psychological damage incurred by forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is much worse than severing a tentative connection with the possibility of a child, due to biology. I've seen you argue many times in favour of biology when it suits you, so it's interesting to see you rejecting it point-blank now.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

The woman has a greater attachment to the child at that stage because of biology. That is not fair, but it is how it is. It is proven fact that a man does not have the same bond with the child while it is still in the female's womb; it would be impossible for him to do so. Women are built to give birth, our brains are geared for it, our bodies are geared for it, our hormones are primed for it, we are made to bond with our children.
Men are made to impregnate but they cannot bond the same way prior to birth as the woman does with the fetus; he would have no reason to, she is made to to because it is growing inside of her and using her body.
This is why I cannot see your argument as valid enough to allow for forced pregnancy and childbirth. The stresses on the mother, both physical and emotional, in both situations is always going to be harder than that of the father simply due to biology, and currently, we do not have the technology to correct that. So in that respect, it damn well is "tough break." You cannot seriously expect someone to give birth against their will. It's inhuman.

The man is being denied the chance to bond with it's child because it's being aborted. It's still his child he's losing. He's being denied his fatherhood.

It's inhuman

You really need to look up what this means. There is nothing inhuman about not giving someone an abortion. Stop using phrases for their impact and actually pay attention to what they mean.

Comparatively, the psychological damage incurred by forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is much worse than severing a tentative connection with the possibility of a child, due to biology. I've seen you argue many times in favour of biology when it suits you, so it's interesting to see you rejecting it point-blank now.

I haven't rejected biology you are just making up stuff to try and paint your own opinion as a Scientific one and mine as anti-Science one. It's once again going completely over the top in the discussion.

thebullkf

liah wrote: »

meet

yes or no would've sufficed, not an answer to a different question.

Count Duckula

Whilst I largely agree with you liah, you're confusing me a little by calling women "baby factories" in a negative way, but then in the next post saying that you are "built to make babies" in a positive way to prove a point.

Surely it's one or the other?

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

The man is being denied the chance to bond with it's child because it's being aborted. It's still his child he's losing. He's being denied his fatherhood.

You accuse me of using phrases for their impact and then toss out something like "He's being denied his fatherhood" when discussing the differences in biology. Right.

Your argument of the man's bond being so strong during early stages of pregnancy that he would be psychologically traumatized due to an abortion being reason enough for a woman to be forced to give birth is simply not logical. There is a clearly outlined biological difference in paternal and maternal bonding. There are clearly outlined reasons why forced pregnancy and delivery would be more psychologically traumatizing for a woman than losing an early-term fetus for a man due to this bonding and biology.

Basically: an early-stage abortion is something that should not psychologcally traumatize an otherwise mentally sound male for decades. A forced pregnancy, on the other hand, is something that could psychologically traumatize an otherwise mentally sound female for decades.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_bonding#Maternal_bonding

Maternal bonding
Main article: Maternal bond
Of all human bonds, the maternal bond (mother–infant relationship) is one of the strongest. The maternal bond begins to develop during pregnancy; following pregnancy, the production of oxytocin during lactation increases parasympathetic activity, thus reducing anxiety and theoretically fostering bonding. It is generally understood that maternal oxytocin circulation can predispose some mammals to show caregiving behavior in response to young of their species.
Breastfeeding has been reported to foster the early post-partum maternal bond, via touch, response, and mutual gazing.[9] Extensive claims for the effect of breastfeeding were made in the 1930s by Margaret Ribble, a champion of "infant rights,"[10] but were challenged by others.[11] The claimed effect is not universal, and bottle-feeding mothers are generally appropriately concerned with their babies. It is difficult to determine the extent of causality due to a number of confounding variables, such as the varied reasons families choose different feeding methods. Many believe that early bonding ideally increases response and sensitivity to the child's needs, bolstering the quality of the mother–baby relationship—however, many exceptions can be found of highly successful mother–baby bonds, even though early breastfeeding did not occur, such as with premature infants who may lack the necessary sucking strength to successfully breastfeed.


[edit]Paternal bonding


Father playing with his young daughter—an activity that tends to strengthen the father–child bond.
Main article: Paternal bond
In contrast to the maternal bond, paternal bonds tend to vary over the span of a child's development in terms of both strength and stability. In fact, many children now grow up in fatherless households and do not experience a paternal bond at all. In general, paternal bonding is more dominant later in a child's life after language develops. Fathers may be more influential in play interactions as opposed to nurturance interactions. Father–child bonds also tend to develop with respect to topics such as political views or money, whereas mother–child bonds tend to develop in relation to topics such as religious views or general outlooks on life.[12]
In 2003, a researcher from Northwestern University in Illinois found that progesterone, a hormone more usually associated with pregnancy and maternal bonding, may also control the way men react towards their children. Specifically, they found that a lack of progesterone reduced aggressive behavior in male mice and stimulated them to act in a fatherly way towards their offspring.[13]

You really need to look up what this means. There is nothing inhuman about not giving someone an abortion. Stop using phrases for their impact and actually pay attention to what they mean.

Forcing a person to grow something inside their body against their will is violating a basic human right - to do with your body what you choose. Thus, forcing a woman to grow a person inside their body against their will is violating a basic human right - to do with her body what she chooses.

If something is in violation of human rights, I consider it to be inhuman, and this clearly is.

I haven't rejected biology you are just making up stuff to try and paint your own opinion as a Scientific one and mine as anti-Science one. It's once again going completely over the top in the discussion.

I am clearly not making anything up, everything I have said is easily backed up by numerous studies on basic human biology. See above wiki quote and check its references.

SugarHigh

Count Duckula wrote: »

Whilst I largely agree with you liah, you're confusing me a little by calling women "baby factories" in a negative way, but then in the next post saying that you are "built to make babies" in a positive way to prove a point.

Surely it's one or the other?

She was just using that phrase for its's emotional impact when it suits.

liah

Count Duckula wrote: »

Whilst I largely agree with you liah, you're confusing me a little by calling women "baby factories" in a negative way, but then in the next post saying that you are "built to make babies" in a positive way to prove a point.

Surely it's one or the other?

Not really, no. When a woman is being forced against her will to make a child, she is being used as a factory, because that's all she's being seen as, so in the context, she's a baby factory.

It's different if she actually wants the child, and that is a positive thing.

philologos

Good post.

Count Duckula wrote: »

That, I'm sure we will all agree, is for the mother to decide herself.

Personally I don't think it is right for anyone to decide to take another persons life. If there is a serious risk to the life of the mother than this is different as it isn't out of choice but out of necessity to save one life rather than lose two, but I wouldn't advocate abortion-on-demand.

Count Duckula wrote: »

However, men do not seem to have these same rights.

In Ireland at the very least abortion isn't a right.

Count Duckula wrote: »

Is this fair?

I think so, if you aren't ready of capable of having a child you should probably think twice about getting too involved with someone. P

Count Duckula wrote: »

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.

Do you really think that this understanding towards children is a good idea to encourage? As I would see it the child's rights are above and beyond your rights. They are considerably more important. Fathers have responsibilities towards their children. Unfortunately some are just unwilling to step up to the plate?

Count Duckula wrote: »

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?

Of course it isn't feasible, and of course parents have duties in respect to their children.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

She was just using that phrase for its's emotional impact when it suits.

Don't throw stones while in glass houses etc etc.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

You accuse me of using phrases for their impact and then toss out something like "He's being denied his fatherhood" when discussing the differences in biology. Right.

That's not an emotional statement.

Your argument of the man's bond being so strong during early stages of pregnancy that he would be psychologically traumatized due to an abortion being reason enough for a woman to be forced to give birth is simply not logical. There is a clearly outlined biological difference in paternal and maternal bonding. There are clearly outlined reasons why forced pregnancy and delivery would be more psychologically traumatizing for a woman than losing an early-term fetus for a man due to this bonding and biology.

. You are ignoring the fact that in the case of a woman not wanting a baby her bond would not be as strong as a woman who does want the baby if their would even be any bond at all. Look at surrogate mothers who aren't traumatized.

In the case of a father who wants the kid and a mother who doesn't I believe the man will have a stronger bond.

Basically: an early-stage abortion is something that should not psychologcally traumatize an otherwise mentally sound male for decades. A forced pregnancy, on the other hand, is something that could psychologically traumatize an otherwise mentally sound female for decades.

It's not that simple because you are ignoring context of the pregnancy. It's not just a case of losing a child like in a miscarriage it's actually being actively denied by someone who you might have been close to.

Forcing a person to grow something inside their body against their will is violating a basic human right - to do with your body what you choose. Thus, forcing a woman to grow a person inside their body against their will is violating a basic human right - to do with her body what she chooses.

Being denied the choice of an abortion is not being denied a basic human right. You are once again throwing out emotional phrases for their impact.

If something is in violation of human rights, I consider it to be inhuman, and this clearly is.

People make the argument that abortion is denying the basic human right to life. I've never hear do abortion being considered a basic human right.

I am clearly not making anything up, everything I have said is easily backed up by numerous studies on basic human biology. See above wiki quote and check its references.

I didn't mean you were making the biology part up I was talking about you trying to paint me as anti-Science.

HellFireClub

Count Duckula wrote: »

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.

I think it is a vindictive kind of an aloof and intransigent argument that is being extended here, one that is very much along the lines of, "You can abort my child without my knowledge let alone my consent, or you can decide to carry and give birth to my child without my knowledge let alone my consent, so I'm going to see if I can an explore where it might be possible to come up with a solution of sorts for my own gender, which will afford you the same degree of consultation and discussion, (i.e. NONE!), as I am entitled to receive from you in relation to a child that we might have conceived together...

goose2005

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.

Wouldn't it be nice if one could
maintain male privileges simply by invoking the phrase "fundamental difference".

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.

And adoption? Not to mention that many aborted foetuses would have a chance of life if they were born at that early stage.

EMF2010 wrote: »

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.

But you're OK with women usin abortion/adoption as a 'get out of jail' clause?

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.

Imagine if women were required to prove that they were being "careful" in order to get an abortion or adoption.

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?

But a woman can do the same, plan for a child and then change her mind and get an abortion or leave the man, or place the child up for adoption (in Irish law, an unmarried father can't prevent his child being adopted).

bluecatmorgana

Can we call it paternal adoption instead? I dont like the word abortion.
And as someone else pointed out , I think something similiar already exists were the father gives up all rights to the child and signs over custody to the mother and/or step parent. It can be done anytime and the father does not have to pay maintenance. I'm citing this from a friends personal experience.

I think you could also have the opposite happening were a father is around however cant pay maintenance for whatever reason and the mother would prefer if he relinguished all right to the child so that she could claim for more her child off the state or have a stepparent step in. I'd imagine there would be a lot of cases of men sitting on the fence, not knowing which way to go.

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

That's not an emotional statement.

So he's being castrated is he? This child is the only one he's ever going to have? Come on now, SugarHigh.

You are ignoring the fact that in the case of a woman not wanting a baby her bond would not be as strong as a woman who does want the baby if their would even be any bond at all. Look at surrogate mothers who aren't traumatized.

Wasn't it you who said that it's okay to generalize while debating things like this?

In the case of a father who wants the kid and a mother who doesn't I believe the man will have a stronger bond.

He can have a stronger bond with the idea of a child, surely, I agree. He could want it a whole hell of a lot more. But it would not be a legitimate bond in same sense as it would be for the female, as his only contact with it is via his sperm. It would not be a chemical bond of any kind, and by default should not have the same implications on the male as the female due to this biological difference.

It's not that simple because you are ignoring context of the pregnancy. It's not just a case of losing a child like in a miscarriage it's actually being actively denied by someone who you might have been close to.

It's still, broadly and coldly speaking, a bond with the idea of the child rather than an actual bond with the child itself, which the mother would actually have at that stage by way of her biological setup as I have given evidence for above.
It is therefore not, in my view, fair to compare forcing a man to undergo a dissolution of an idea, however strong and beautiful and enticing that idea may be, to a legitimate physical, hormonal, and chemical change (on top of added psychologcal stresses that may be comparable to that of the male) that the woman must undergo in the wake of a forced pregnancy.

The cons of the woman being forced to undergo pregnancy outweigh the cons of the man forced to lose a child he does not yet have any chemical bond with.

Being denied the choice of an abortion is not being denied a basic human right. You are once again throwing out emotional phrases for their impact.

So it is not a human right to do with your body as you choose? It is not a human right to let only those you choose to use your body?

I am not throwing out emotional phrases. I genuinely believe it is everyone's right to do with their body as they choose. I'm surprised there's still people who don't, that's all.

People make the argument that abortion is denying the basic human right to life. I've never hear do abortion being considered a basic human right.

Er, isn't that what the whole pro-choice argument is based on? So wait, you've never heard a pro-choice argument before? That could explain a lot.

I didn't mean you were making the biology part up I was talking about you trying to paint me as anti-Science.

I'm giving you science and you are denying it, I don't know what else to call that, that's all.

HellFireClub

liah wrote: »

Basically: an early-stage abortion is something that should not psychologcally traumatize an otherwise mentally sound male for decades. A forced pregnancy, on the other hand, is something that could psychologically traumatize an otherwise mentally sound female for decades.

Who are you to say how any male might be affected at hearing that a child he was told he had conceived, was being aborted or had just been aborted??? This is a completely separate issue from a supposed "forced pregnancy", something that I've never even heard of...

How in all that is serious are you trying to put out such a sad and rediculous generalisation to adult men on this forum, that an early-stage abortion is something that "should not" psychologically traumatise an otherwise mentally sound male for decades???

SugarHigh

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

Can we call it paternal adoption instead? I dont like the word abortion.

+1000

And as someone else pointed out , I think something similiar already exists were the father gives up all rights to the child and signs over custody to the mother and/or step parent. It can be done anytime and the father does not have to pay maintenance. I'm citing this from a friends personal experience.

The mother would have to agree to this I'm guessing? I can't see that happening. Why should she give up a paycheck?

I think you could also have the opposite happening were a father is around however cant pay maintenance for whatever reason and the mother would prefer if he relinguished all right to the child so that she could claim for more her child off the state or have a stepparent step in. I'd imagine there would be a lot of cases of men sitting on the fence, not knowing which way to go.

I think if a father is't paying maintenance the state picks up the bill anyway. When the father starts paying the benefits go down.

bluecatmorgana

liah wrote: »

The woman has a greater attachment to the child at that stage because of biology which is why for a lot of women miscarriage is so much tougher to deal with than their respective men. That is not fair, but it is how it is. It is proven fact that a man does not have the same bond with the child while it is still in the female's womb; it would be impossible for him to do so. Women are built to give birth, our brains are geared for it, our bodies are geared for it, our hormones are primed for it, we are made to bond with our children.
Men are made to impregnate but they cannot bond the same way prior to birth as the woman does with the fetus; he would have no reason to, she is made to to because it is growing inside of her and using her body.
This is why I cannot see your argument as valid enough to allow for forced pregnancy and childbirth. The stresses on the mother, both physical and emotional, in both situations is always going to be harder than that of the father simply due to biology, and currently, we do not have the technology to correct that. So in that respect, it damn well is "tough break." You cannot seriously expect someone to give birth against their will. It's inhuman.

Comparatively, the psychological damage incurred by forcing a woman to give birth to a child she does not want is much worse than severing a tentative connection with the possibility of a child, due to biology. I've seen you argue many times in favour of biology when it suits you, so it's interesting to see you rejecting it point-blank now.

I'm curious but would you not see consensual sex as a man and a woman agreeing that theres a possibility they could have a child from the sexual encounter and so it being not forced. Obviously rape is a completely different scenario.

liah

HellFireClub wrote: »

Who are you to say how any male might be affected at hearing that a child he was told he had conceived, was being aborted or had just been aborted??? This is a completely separate issue from a supposed "forced pregnancy", something that I've never even heard of...

How in all that is serious are you trying to put out such a sad and rediculous generalisation to adult men on this forum, that an early-stage abortion is something that "should not" psychologically traumatise an otherwise mentally sound male for decades???

Because this is one area in which the genders are legitimately different in how they develop bonds with their children, and I have provided evidence for such earlier in the thread. Males and females bond differently and at different stages with their children.

Not to mention, you're taking it out of the greater context of the forced pregnancy debate. I have every sympathy in the world for a man who is upset about losing the possibility of a child, and I am not saying every male is going to react the same way. I am speaking in broad generalizations as we are discussing the biology of the matter, and I am being constantly hounded to remove emotion from any of my arguments by SugarHigh, so unfortunately I have to discuss it quite coldly.

I do have to ask, have there been any studies whatsoever on men who have been affected by abortions? Does anyone know any men whose wives had an abortion and took it badly? Since I don't, I can only use what science gives me, and as much as it sucks to hear, that's what it's saying.

bluecatmorgana

SugarHigh wrote: »

+1000


The mother would have to agree to this I'm guessing? I can't see that happening. Why should she give up a paycheck?

I think if a father is't paying maintenance the state picks up the bill anyway. When the father starts paying the benefits go down.

Because the state would pick up the tab, at the very least the child would have a good standard of living. It should balance out either way.


Just wondering about the argument that a mother bonds with a baby because its a biological thing but surely because you argue that its just a bunch of cells that doesnt have a conscious, by that stroke, the bond is chemical and only a trick of hormones and so not an emotional or familiar bond?

liah

bluecatmorgana wrote: »

I'm curious but would you not see consensual sex as a man and a woman agreeing that theres a possibility they could have a child from the sexual encounter and so it being not forced. Obviously rape is a completely different scenario.

If I did not want a child, I would use protection. So, with that in mind, if I got pregnant while using protection and wanted an abortion, but my partner forced me to give birth to his child and put me through that, my complete definition of hell, I would be pretty damn pissed off and think it was unjust and honestly try to abort the thing myself, because I had taken the precaution by using birth control and would have told my partner that I do not want kids. This is 2011, sex isn't purely for reproduction - we should be able to have sex without the end result being forced into having someone's kid! Nobody should ever have any say as to what goes on in my body except me. Ever.

Maybe there's a serious cultural difference at play here but the idea of forcing a woman to term is absolutely insane to me for so many different ethical reasons that I'm really surprised to see so many in support of it.

HellFireClub

liah wrote: »

Because this is one area in which the genders are legitimately different in how they develop bonds with their children, and I have provided evidence for such earlier in the thread. Males and females bond differently and at different stages with their children.

Not to mention, you're taking it out of the greater context of the forced pregnancy debate. I have every sympathy in the world for a man who is upset about losing the possibility of a child, and I am not saying every male is going to react the same way. I am speaking in broad generalizations as we are discussing the biology of the matter, and I am being constantly hounded to remove emotion from any of my arguments by SugarHigh, so unfortunately I have to discuss it quite coldly.

I do have to ask, have there been any studies whatsoever on men who have been affected by abortions? Does anyone know any men whose wives had an abortion and took it badly? Since I don't, I can only use what science gives me, and as much as it sucks to hear, that's what it's saying.

I'm sitting here nearly falling off the chair at your words. The issue is too serious to be generalised as you are trying to do, I think you should try intorducing some basic cop-on into the discussion and set aside your pseudo facts and statistics for a second. I imagine that any of my mates would be devastated and horrified if they heard that their partner had conceived and the pregnancy was aborted.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

So he's being castrated is he? This child is the only one he's ever going to have? Come on now, SugarHigh.

He is being denied this chance at fatherhood. i never meant he was permanently being denied it but I see how it might have read that way.

Wasn't it you who said that it's okay to generalize while debating things like this?

Is that even generalization?
We are talking about a specific scenario where the father wants a child and the mother doesn't. You used evidence from where both parents want the child. You were using Scientific evidence in a very unscientific way. This isn't similar to the humanities thread but I think you are hoping to score points, am I right?

He can have a stronger bond with the idea of a child, surely, I agree. He could want it a whole hell of a lot more. But it would not be a legitimate bond in same sense as it would be for the female, as his only contact with it is via his sperm. It would not be a chemical bond of any kind, and by default should not have the same implications on the male as the female due to this biological difference.

Says you, I disagree. The chemical bond between a mother and child isn't always as strong as you are making it out to be. How would they give it up for adoption or leave in a cop station if it was? How would surrogacy be possible?

In the case of a woman who doesn't want the child I don't believe the bond is that strong and I'm using the fact she doesn't want the child as proof of this.

When does the bond between a father and child become chemical? I'm not sure if what you are saying even makes sense.

It's still, broadly and coldly speaking, a bond with the idea of the child rather than an actual bond with the child itself, which the mother would actually have at that stage by way of her biological setup as I have given evidence for above.
It is therefore not, in my view, fair to compare forcing a man to undergo a dissolution of an idea, however strong and beautiful and enticing that idea may be, to a legitimate physical, hormonal, and chemical change (on top of added psychologcal stresses that may be comparable to that of the male) that the woman must undergo in the wake of a forced pregnancy.

The cons of the woman being forced to undergo pregnancy outweigh the cons of the man forced to lose a child he does not yet have any chemical bond with.

So when does the fathers bond equal a mothers bond. When does it become "Chemical"?

I don't think bonds are as easily measurable as you are making them out to be. I do believe it's possible for the father to have a stronger bond to the child than the mother even during pregnancy. I also believe it's possible for a mother to have no bond with her child. In the case of a mother who doesn't want the child I'd have to assume the bond isn't very strong.

So it is not a human right to do with your body as you choose? It is not a human right to let only those you choose to use your body?

You speak as if the woman was walking down the street and then Bam" she's pregnant.:D

Er, isn't that what the whole pro-choice argument is based on? So wait, you've never heard a pro-choice argument before? That could explain a lot.

I don't get involved in discussions about abortion. They normally end up circular just like this.

I'm giving you science and you are denying it, I don't know what else to call that, that's all.

It's how you are using that Science. It's why I don't like people who simply google stuff and then post whatever article they think backs up their point of view. Posting a link to a Scientific article that proves part of your argument does not make your argument true. We don't know if the scenario of the experiments you posted were even close to the scenario we are discussing. Did the experiments involve a mother who does not want her child so therefor might not have a bond?

liah

HellFireClub wrote: »

I'm sitting here nearly falling off the chair at your words. The issue is too serious to be generalised as you are trying to do, I think you should try intorducing some basic cop-on into the discussion and set aside your pseudo facts and statistics for a second. I imagine that any of my mates would be devastated and horrified if they heard that their partner had conceived and the pregnancy was aborted.

I'm sure there are some men that would react as your friends do. I never once claimed that men shouldn't or wouldn't be upset or horrified at the idea. And you're right, this issue IS too serious for generalizations, and I wouldn't normally use them when arguing with anyone other than SugarHigh, but according to him they're okay so I use them for shorthand when arguing with him. I firmly understand that no generalization is valid for all people. Everyone should understand that, which is why I use generalization shorthand.

The difference is that one is both biological, physical, and emotional (pregnancy and childbirth), and the other is completely emotional (losing the unborn child). Therefore, speaking PURELY from a legislative and scientific perspective, and keeping in context with the argument you quoted me out of context from, it is unfair to compare forcing a woman to term to a man losing a child he has not yet met or felt inside of him in order to justify forcing a woman to term by using the emotional devastation argument.

You're trying to argue something that isn't on the context of what I'm saying and something I don't even disagree with; either read the whole debate and quote according to the context, or start another discussion, but mixing the two is just getting hard to follow.

SugarHigh

liah wrote: »

I'm sure there are some men that would react as your friends do. I never once claimed that men shouldn't or wouldn't be upset or horrified at the idea. And you're right, this issue IS too serious for generalizations, and I wouldn't normally use them when arguing with anyone other than SugarHigh, but according to him they're okay so I use them for shorthand when arguing with him. I firmly understand that no generalization is valid for all people. Everyone should understand that, which is why I use generalization shorthand.

More point scoring. I'm really not sure why you get so competitive in discussions.:D

liah

SugarHigh wrote: »

Says you, I disagree. The chemical bond between a mother and child isn't always as strong as you are making it out to be. How would they give it up for adoption or leave in a cop station if it was? How would surrogacy be possible?

Are you allowing for generalizations in the context of scientific discussion or not? I'm really not trying to point score and wish you could stop trying to portray me that way, I just need to know how elaborate I'm going to have to be in my replies.

I never claimed this was always the case and never would, I just assumed that since you had previously indicated you were okay with generalizations within the context of scientific discussion, it was okay generalize here with you. Is it or isn't it?

In the case of a woman who doesn't want the child I don't believe the bond is that strong and I'm using the fact she doesn't want the child as proof of this.

Is the number of these women compared to men high enough to justify the legislation required for men to have dominion over the womb of the potential mother?

When does the bond between a father and child become chemical? I'm not sure if what you are saying even makes sense.

Mistype really, multitasking and typing doesn't work well for me sometimes. Just meant bond.

I don't think bonds are as easily measurable as you are making them out to be. I do believe it's possible for the father to have a stronger bond to the child than the mother even during pregnancy. I also believe it's possible for a mother to have no bond with her child. In the case of a mother who doesn't want the child I'd have to assume the bond isn't very strong.

Do you have any studies to back up what you're saying to make it the majority case? I figure it's as well as understood that there's exceptions to literally every rule. But if you have studies to indicate that this is the majority case and therefore it should dictate legislation, I wouldn't mind seeing them.

It's how you are using that Science. It's why I don't like people who simply google stuff and then post whatever article they think backs up their point of view. Posting a link to a Scientific article that proves part of your argument does not make your argument true. We don't know if the scenario of the experiments you posted were even close to the scenario we are discussing. Did the experiments involve a mother who does not want her child so therefor might not have a bond?

meet

Do you have any studies to back up what you're saying to make it the majority case? I figure it's as well as understood that there's exceptions to literally every rule. But if you have studies to indicate that this is the majority case and therefore it should dictate legislation, I wouldn't mind seeing them.

I am not arguing that men don't ever have any kind of bond. That is not my argument. My argument is that this is not enough of a reason to force a woman to term based upon his decision, because ultimately, and yes, coldly and scientifically and in the true fashion of the law, the cons of the mother's forced pregnancy outweigh the cons of the father's loss when it comes to legislation, which is what we are arguing. Law. Not who'll be sadder.