Abortion For Men

Engine No.9

Not as daft as it sounds, but with thank in the news about abortion cases, recently, it got me thinking. Should there be provisions, whether here or anywhere else in the world, where men get to decide if a child is carried to term or not.

If a couple become pregnant, even though they had decided that they didn't want any (more) children, the woman decides to keep the baby but the man decides he wants nothing to do with a pregnancy or child, does he have a case for insisting she get an abortion and should he take legal steps to ensure she gets one?

Abortion is legal in this specific case.

Discuss

BeerWolf

It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

magicbastarder

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds

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

geret

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds, but with thank in the news about abortion cases, recently, it got me thinking. Should there be provisions, whether here or anywhere else in the world, where men get to decide if a child is carried to term or not.

If a couple become pregnant, even though they had decided that they didn't want any (more) children, the woman decides to keep the baby but the man decides he wants nothing to do with a pregnancy or child, does he have a case for insisting she get an abortion and should he take legal steps to ensure she gets one?

Abortion is legal in this specific case.

Discuss

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

Faux Socialist

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

Dolbert

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

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

RayM

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds

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

Engine No.9

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

Accidents happen mate.

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

Dave_The_Sheep

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

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

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

magicbastarder

pajopearl wrote: »

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

examples?

Annasopra

BeerWolf wrote: »

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

This... Just this... Nothing else

Wibbs

Dolbert wrote: »

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

I'd be all for this TBH.

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

+1000 D Beyond barbaric. Utterly daft.

Lapin

pajopearl wrote: »

Not as daft as it sounds,

pajopearl wrote: »

If a couple become pregnant,

Oh dear.

magicbastarder

women bear the considerable majority of the brunt of an unplanned or unwanted pregnancy.
some of the ideas expounded above sound like men wanting to shed the minority share of fallout that does land on them back onto the women.

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be all for this TBH.

with or regardless of the woman's agreement?

Annasopra

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

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

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

Dolbert

Wibbs wrote: »

I'd be all for this TBH.

+1000 D Beyond barbaric. Utterly daft.

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

Dave_The_Sheep

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

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

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

ShaShaBear

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

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

Wibbs

magicbastarder wrote: »

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

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

some of the ideas expounded above sound like men wanting to shed the minority share of fallout that does land on them back onto the women.

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

kylith

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

Wibbs

magicbastarder wrote: »

with or regardless of the woman's agreement?

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

Engine No.9

magicbastarder wrote: »

examples?

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

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

magicbastarder

ShaShaBear wrote: »

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

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

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

PLUG71

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

Have to strongly agree!

Its the woman's choice as its her body!

BTW i'm a male!!

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

takamichinoku

Dolbert wrote: »

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

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

whirlpool

pajopearl wrote: »

Accidents happen mate.

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

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

magicbastarder

Wibbs wrote: »

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

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

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

Dave_The_Sheep

takamichinoku wrote: »

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

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

endacl

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