Abortion For Men

diveout

Fabreo wrote: »

Men could also feel emotional trauma years later for choosing to absolve their rights.

Yes they can. Which is why if a regret can be undone, there is no reason to not let that happen.

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

Do you believe women should be able to absolve themselves of responsibilty by having an abortion?

i believe they should have the option. i do not believe there should be any coercion involved in their decision.

Fabreo

diveout wrote: »

Yes they can. Which is why if a regret can be undone, there is no reason to not let that happen.

Well I think that makes it too easy and unfair on Mother's if a man can just absolve his rights and then take them back whenever he wants. If a man chooses to absolve his rights it should be 100% the mother's discretion whether he has any involvement in the child's life should he regret his decision.

Fabreo

magicbastarder wrote: »

i believe they should have the option. i do not believe there should be any coercion involved in their decision.

Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?

because men don't get pregnant. there is an unavoidable inequality in the burden placed on a couple by an unplanned pregnancy.

you are equating 'walking away from a woman you helped get pregnant' with 'being walked away from by a man who helped get you pregnant' as if the two scenarios are identical for those involved. basic biology lesson -they're not. it's not like buying a car and realising you don't like it.

AudreyHepburn

Fabreo wrote: »

Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?

No reason at all why not....and I say this as a woman.

As far as I can tell, based on the responses on this thread and others as well as comments I've heard in my day to day life, there's an awful lot of women out there who think that because men don't have to go through pregnancy and childbirth they should have no rights.

They also assume that if you get pregnant this means you have to endure being stuck with the child 24/7 for the rest of your life whether you want to or not.

Neither of these is true of course.

They also seem to feel it is solely the man's responsibility and fault if the woman gets pregnant which is ridiculous in the extreme.

Fabreo

magicbastarder wrote: »

because men don't get pregnant. there is an unavoidable inequality in the burden placed on a couple by an unplanned pregnancy.

you are equating 'walking away from a woman you helped get pregnant' with 'being walked away from by a man who helped get you pregnant' as if the two scenarios are identical for those involved. basic biology lesson -they're not. it's not like buying a car and realising you don't like it.

Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?

B0jangles

The thread title is a complete misnomer - abortion means there is no child.


What this thread is talking about is legalized child abandonment.

magicbastarder

Fabreo wrote: »

Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?

again, you seem to be making an argument based on equal consequence for both parties.

there's a difference between the argument that a man should not get his dick wet, and that a man should face up to certain responsibilities if he does and there's an unplanned pregnancy. what you're asking for is zero consequence for men if he can't keep it in his trousers, while acknowledging the same option is not available for women.

Tony EH

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

It'll sound really crass but the thread title sounds like the name of the worlds worst aftershave ever, Abortion for men:D

"Because we're worth it too"

AudreyHepburn

Fabreo wrote: »

Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?

That has to be the most sexist, over-simplistic arguments I've seen on this subject.

It takes two to have sex, two to make a baby.

Yes the man should wear a condom if he doesn't want any surprises but should we as women not ensure to take the pill on time/get the implant as required/have the coil or diaphram fitted correctly too?

Why do so many women that men, and men only, have responsibility for contraception?

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

That has to be the most sexist, over-simplistic arguments I've seen on this subject.

It takes two to have sex, two to make a baby.

Yes the man should wear a condom if he doesn't want any surprises but should we as women not ensure to take the pill on time/get the implant as required/have the coil or diaphram fitted correctly too?

Why do so many women that men, and men only, have responsibility for contraception?

You're taking a simplistic view here.

I don't think that women think men and men only have responsibility for contraception and to be frank I don't understand why men, in the interests of protecting their own interests, do not by default wear condoms. Me personally, I'd aim for a double protection and it's not like there aren't other primary benefits to wearing condoms such as reducing the risk of STDs.

However, when it comes to arguments over what to do when conception has actually happened, the bleating of a lot of men in this thread demanding their right to walk away in a way that just isn't possible for women suggests that maybe things need to be spelled out that way.

In any case, not every woman can take the pill; it's contraindicated in some cases something which terrified the living bejaysus out of one man I know when he found out.

So, you're right, it takes two to make a baby. One of those two can, in practical terms walk away from it and now some representatives of that gender are demanding the right to do so. One of them is demanding the right to force women to have abortions. I don't think there's any harm in reminding them that it took two to make that baby and frankly, given that their only primary concern is god forbid they'd have to financially support their child, are you seriously suggesting that it's sexist to suggest they do their utmost to avoid creating said baby regardless of what the woman's view of having a baby is?

I think men with that attitude shouldn't be having sex in the first place to be frank.

DeadHand

Moat_Cailin wrote: »

I would be very much Pro Abortion in any form. I think it should be legal and kept as an option until a child reaches at least their teens.

Is that an attempt at irony or do you honestly believe it should be legal to "abort" unwanted persons up to the age of 13?

Tony EH

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

They also seem to feel it is solely the man's responsibility and fault if the woman gets pregnant which is ridiculous in the extreme.

I've read though this thread and have had roughly the same conversations in real life (try being the only guy in a room full of girls doing that!!!).

In any case, my conclusion is usually the same.

An awful lot of people seem to think that sex is something that a man does to a woman, as opposed to there being multiple parties actually involved.

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

You're taking a simplistic view here.

I don't think that women think men and men only have responsibility for contraception and to be frank I don't understand why men, in the interests of protecting their own interests, do not by default wear condoms. Me personally, I'd aim for a double protection and it's not like there aren't other primary benefits to wearing condoms such as reducing the risk of STDs.

I'd suggest you read through this thread again. Not all women think that way of course, but an awful lot do.

However, when it comes to arguments over what to do when conception has actually happened, the bleating of a lot of men in this thread demanding their right to walk away in a way that just isn't possible for women suggests that maybe things need to be spelled out that way.

But it is possible for women, that's the point. A woman can have an abortion if she doesn't want the child.

Or if it comes to it she can have the baby adopted.

Neither are easy choices but they are choices. A woman does not have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.

In any case, not every woman can take the pill; it's contraindicated in some cases something which terrified the living bejaysus out of one man I know when he found out.

And that's the only option for female contraception is it? What about the diaphram, the coil, the implant?

So, you're right, it takes two to make a baby. One of those two can, in practical terms walk away from it and now some representatives of that gender are demanding the right to do so. One of them is demanding the right to force women to have abortions. I don't think there's any harm in reminding them that it took two to make that baby and frankly, given that their only primary concern is god forbid they'd have to financially support their child, are you seriously suggesting that it's sexist to suggest they do their utmost to avoid creating said baby regardless of what the woman's view of having a baby is?

No, god no not at all.

I'm saying it's sexist to foist all the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy on men.

It takes two to tango.

magicbastarder

can someone let me know who is arguing that it's men who get women pregnant without the woman being in any way responsible?

saying (addressing our hypothetical man) 'if you don't want a baby, wear a condom' is not implying it's solely the man's responsibility.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I'd suggest you read through this thread again. Not all women think that way of course, but an awful lot do.

REally? Because where I see that happening it is in the context of a man demanding not to have a baby, so yes, if that's his attitude he better take responsibility for contraception if he doesn't want responsibility for a baby

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But it is possible for women, that's the point. A woman can have an abortion if she doesn't want the child.

Or if it comes to it she can have the baby adopted.

In practical terms, equating walking away from pregnancy as a man to walking away from a pregnancy via abortion or baby via adoption as a woman is madness. The impact in practical terms of even getting pregnant in the first place on a woman is significantly greater and the physical impact is non-negligible even in the case of an early termination

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Neither are easy choices but they are choices. A woman does not have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.

They are significantly harder than "Bye, I don't want this baby, sayonara" which is all that's required of a man who doesn't want a child.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

And that's the only option for female contraception is it? What about the diaphram, the coil, the implant?

No it's not but some of them are contraindicated for women who have not had children yet, and there are issues with any hormonal treatment.

Strictly speaking, the side effects of condoms on a man tend to be far less than the impact of hormonal treatments for women. I personally haven't tried the female condom however.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

No, god no not at all.

I'm saying it's sexist to foist all the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy on men.

It takes two to tango.

You're right. In the context of a man specifically not wanting to be a father, then it is not sexist to tell him to man up and take responsibility for his not becoming a father.

AudreyHepburn

magicbastarder wrote: »

can someone let me know who is arguing that it's men who get women pregnant without the woman being in any way responsible?

saying (addressing our hypothetical man) 'if you don't want a baby, wear a condom' is not implying it's solely the man's responsibility.

It is when you don't then address hypothetical woman in the same breath and say ' and make sure you take your pill'.

The general tone of this thread seems to be that any and all responsibility lies with men.

It also seems that posters here feel that if the woman does get the pregnant it's the man's problem and his fault and he should be forced into being father no matter what his personal feelings on the matter whereas the woman can get an abortion no problem.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

It is when you don't then address hypothetical woman in the same breath and say ' and make sure you take your pill'.

The general tone of this thread seems to be that any and all responsibility lies with men.

It also seems that posters here feel that if the woman does get the pregnant it's the man's problem and his fault and he should be forced into being father no matter what his personal feelings on the matter whereas the woman can get an abortion no problem.

No it's not. You are refusing to see this in the context of men demanding their right to walk away from a baby or force a woman to have an abortion. They are vocalising a demand not to have a child. It is not sexist to suggest that they take responsibility for contraception in that case. No one is saying that's sole responsibility.

No one here is suggesting that if the woman gets pregnant it's the man's problem. They are pointing out that women get to make some key decisions because it is so much more the woman's problem.

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

No it's not. You are refusing to see this in the context of men demanding their right to walk away from a baby or force a woman to have an abortion. They are vocalising a demand not to have a child. It is not sexist to suggest that they take responsibility for contraception in that case. No one is saying that's sole responsibility.

No it's not, I agree 100%

I'm not refusing to see anything in that context. I think many other posters here are though. Or at least that's the tone I'm getting from what I'm reading.

No one here is suggesting that if the woman gets pregnant it's the man's problem. They are pointing out that women get to make some key decisions because it is so much more the woman's problem.

No arguments there.

My only caveat is that the one key decision the woman should be allowed to make is whether then man should be involved or not.

That's his decision as much as having an abortion or is hers.

AudreyHepburn

Also I would point out that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it would a simple easy decision for a man to decide he doesn't want the child and to walk away.

I would suggest that that probably isn't the case for many men, that it comes after a lot of thought and consideration.

It may not be the case that he just doesn't want the child. It could be that he doesn't feel ready, or that he can't afford to support the child or for some reason believes the child is better off without him.

Men aren't just cold hearted machines that are there simply to provide financial support for us poor women.

In the same way a woman might spend her life wondering what if she hadn't aborted her child I am sure a man would wonder what if he hadn't he walked away.

He would have to live his life in the knowledge that he has a child out there who might one day come looking for him and wondering why he left.

Or he could find he regrets his decision to walk away, just as many women regret having terminated the pregnancy.

It isn't always a simple case of the man just walking away.

B0jangles

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Ok, I need to stop reading this thread but I feel I have a vested interest in it from experience.

Child abandonment is what I completely disagree with. It's happening far too much. I think the laws need to be tightened around this ASAP. It's all too easy for a father (and mother in some cases) to walk away from a child they have created. I just can't comprehend how any parent can do that but what is stopping them. Not much.

Then the worse bit is when they decide to, they drop back into the child's life at the drop of a hat, as if they were never away. Like I said this scenario sickens me to the core.

I agree absolutely, I just wanted to point out that using the word "abortion" to describe renouncing all involvement, including financial, without making any effort to find some kind of replacement support for the child's existence is extremely misleading.

What is being described is the equivalent of a woman having a baby and then abandoning it on the father's doorstep and then disappearing.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Using a 99 cent condom would negate all of this. It's not that hard.

Nope, no harder than an over the counter pill.

It's for both parties to be responsible.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Also I would point out that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it would a simple easy decision for a man to decide he doesn't want the child and to walk away.

I would suggest that that probably isn't the case for many men, that it comes after a lot of thought and consideration.

It may not be the case that he just doesn't want the child. It could be that he doesn't feel ready, or that he can't afford to support the child or for some reason believes the child is better off without him.

Men aren't just cold hearted machines that are there simply to provide financial support for us poor women.

In the same way a woman might spend her life wondering what if she hadn't aborted her child I am sure a man would wonder what if he hadn't he walked away.

He would have to live his life in the knowledge that he has a child out there who might one day come looking for him and wondering why he left.

Or he could find he regrets his decision to walk away, just as many women regret having terminated the pregnancy.

It isn't always a simple case of the man just walking away.

eh, historically a metric tonne of them did just that in this country leaving a lot of women and children in mother and baby homes and laundries.

Come back to me when you've worked out whether it is harder for the man or harder for the woman in practical terms to walk away from the pregnancy. Cos it is that differential which makes all the difference.

Calina

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Nope, no harder than an over the counter pill.

It's for both parties to be responsible.

MAP can cause nausea and sickness and very heavy period.

I'm not sure that it is "no harder" than a condom.

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

eh, historically a metric tonne of them did just that in this country leaving a lot of women and children in mother and baby homes and laundries.

Come back to me when you've worked out whether it is harder for the man or harder for the woman in practical terms to walk away from the pregnancy. Cos it is that differential which makes all the difference.

I know which is harder. Don't patronise me.

I'm simply saying that just because it might be harder for the woman to opt out doesn't mean men shouldn't have that right.

Nor does it negate the woman from taking responsibility for taking precautions.

And you are assuming you know what those men were thinking, you don't, none of us do.

I'm getting the impression you have a chip on shoulder with regard to men and fathers in particular.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. Of course both parties are responsible.

Taking the pill as a means of contraception is a long term issue. It's expensive and can have long terms emotional and physical consequences for the woman.

Slipping on a condom is a short term issue, apart from going to the chemist to buy it. It doesn't have any other side effects in terms of inconvenience.

So she should simply not bother and leave it up to him?

You do realize there are other options besides the pill?

banquo

It's tricky, but the lifespan of the child that comes out of there is likely to be over 75+ years. It takes two people to make a baby, why should only one have the right to determine whether or not they're going to be a parent?

Tony EH

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I'm not saying it isn't. Of course both parties are responsible.

Taking the pill as a means of contraception is a long term issue. It's expensive and can have long term emotional and physical consequences for the woman.

Slipping on a condom is a short term issue, apart from going to the chemist to buy it. It doesn't have any other side effects outside of being inconvenient to get.

AGAIN though...this is still blaming the man for the pregnancy.

The woman didn't take the pill because of her "emotions"? But still didn't say no to guy because he didn't put a johnny on.

Man's fault she got pregnant.

Generic Dreadhead

23 pages on a thread called "Abortion for men", wow, just wow, the rabble-rabble brigade are out in force