Men's rights on Abortion?

drunkmonkey

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

LeinsterDub

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

Basically your asking can a man force a woman to carry a baby to term?

NO!

Sesame

No. Seeing as a man can walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, a woman should be able to as well.

I know the argument back will be a woman can claim for child support etc so a man can't really walk away, but in reality no man can be forced to parent, whereas at the moment the 8th amendment is trying to inflict forced pregnancy.
Allowing abortion evens this up so both adults involved can decide not to proceed.

drunkmonkey

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Basically your asking can a man force a woman to carry a baby to term?

NO!

Yes that's what I'm asking

pauldla

Nope. You ain’t got no rights, jack. And if she decides to go ahead and have an abortion, there’s not a damn thing you can do about it. Hell, she might not even tell you; you’d never know.


So you’ll just have to give her trust and respect and see how it goes. Funny old world, eh?

drunkmonkey

Sesame wrote: »

No. Seeing as a man can walk away from an unwanted pregnancy, a woman should be able to as well.

.

It's not unwanted if one side or the coupe wants to go ahead.

MayoSalmon

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Basically your asking can a man force a woman to carry a baby to term?

NO!

Well he shouldn't have to maintain said baby if the opposite is true.

Man favors abortion and woman does not.

drunkmonkey

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Well he shouldn't have to maintain said baby if the opposite is true.

Man favors abortion and woman does not.

Unfortunately you can't just pull it out and put it in the top oven.

eviltwin

No and it should never be allowed.

Equality is important but there is no equality when one person has the burden to carry a pregnancy.

If you have a woman who wants an abortion and a man who doesn't who "wins" in that situation. If the man can prevent it, is it not saying a man's wishes have more worth than the woman? I believe the woman's right to have a say over what happens to her body has to be paramount.

It's not fair but neither is it fair for a woman to have her wishes ignored. And tbh, I can't imagine many men really being comfortable forcing a woman to remain pregnant against her will.

The Specialist

Nope, it's 100% a choice for the female in my view.

seamus

No, because pregnancy is for the most part a one-sided affair and I don't believe the "I produced some sperm" argument holds much weight against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

If you break it down into two component parts - the embryo and the woman - the man has rights when it comes to the embryo, but doesn't have any right when it comes to the woman.

In the case of frozen embryos, a man can refuse/permit an embryo to be implanted, but he cannot insist that the woman carry it.

I would still largely support a system of "abortion" that allows a man to permanently forgo all parental rights and obligations to a pregnancy, but that doesn't mean the opposite - a system which forces someone to become a parent - should be allowed to exist.

Delirium

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Do we get a look in anywhere or can a man/boyfriend/fiance/husband legally challenge a woman's decision to abort?

I've put in a poll to see what you think

No. A woman shouldn't be forced to have / or be denied an abortion if the guy objects.

.......

This post has been deleted.

MayoSalmon

So going by the majority of comments Men will continue to have zero rights when it concerns the welfare of their own child.

Now equality can probably never been achieved nor should it really be since a man cannot carry the child however there is zero provisions given to men considering it is their child.

Strange that but doesn't surprise me.

Delirium

MayoSalmon wrote: »

So going by the majority of comments Men will continue to have zero rights when it concerns the welfare of their own child.

Now equality can probably never been achieved nor should it really be since a man cannot carry the child however there is zero provisions given to men considering it is their child.

Strange that but doesn't surprise me.

Do explain how not supporting the idea that a guy can veto a womans choice to have an abortion means someone is opposed to any improvement of rights for fathers and their kids.

NollagShona

Men have rights to become guardians of their own children (if they are not married to the mother)

Forcing anyone to go through a pregnancy against their will is barbaric

MayoSalmon

Delirium wrote: »

Do explain how not supporting the idea that a guy can veto a womans choice to have an abortion means someone is opposed to any improvement of rights for fathers and their kids.

A womans right to choose supersedes a mans right to choose concerning their own child basically

Effects

MayoSalmon wrote: »

So going by the majority of comments Men will continue to have zero rights when it concerns the welfare of their own child.

It's not yet a child at that stage though.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

No, because pregnancy is for the most part a one-sided affair and I don't believe the "I produced some sperm" argument holds much weight against a woman's right to bodily autonomy.

If you break it down into two component parts - the embryo and the woman - the man has rights when it comes to the embryo, but doesn't have any right when it comes to the woman.

In the case of frozen embryos, a man can refuse/permit an embryo to be implanted, but he cannot insist that the woman carry it.

I would still largely support a system of "abortion" that allows a man to permanently forgo all parental rights and obligations to a pregnancy, but that doesn't mean the opposite - a system which forces someone to become a parent - should be allowed to exist.

let's say Seamus number 4 is on the way or whatever number your on now and the baby has a cleft lip, you think it could have been worse but no way should you terminate, now Mrs Seamus wants an abortion because of it. Your both married, do you think you should have no right to challenge that decision?
I suppose the reason I'm asking is probably more got to do with couples, should a man as part of an existing relationship have a right.

Snickers Man

Not that it would make any difference here but there was a cause celebre back in England in the 1970s when a father tried to prevent his estranged partner from aborting the pregnancy they had initiated together (Jeesh it's hard phrasing all this in neutral language!!)

He launched court proceedings attempting to effect this outcome and his argument, to the press at least, was "It takes two to make a baby, mate"

He lost.

utyh2ikcq9z76b

We should have the male abortion option, which

would allow a potential father to legally abdicate his responsibility toward the child up to the 18th week of a woman's pregnancy. The man would lose any rights to visit the child but also would not pay any child support he may otherwise be required to contribute.

For equalities sake we need this option.

Triceratops Ballet

MayoSalmon wrote: »

A womans right to choose supersedes a mans right to choose concerning their own child basically

What's your suggested alternative?

seamus

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Your both married, do you think you should have no right to challenge that decision?

No. If I can't reason with her, then obviously there are serious questions to be asked about our future together.

But there's no logical scenario in which I should be allowed to try and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.

There is no "win" in the scenario you posit, no good outcome for anyone.

Triceratops Ballet

Daniel Long Duct wrote: »

We should have the male abortion option, which



For equalities sake we need this option.

I understand the logic behind this, but it may be unworkable. Isn't there legislation around a persons rights to know their parents? It's mostly applicable in adoption cases, but I could see it being an issue with that.

MayoSalmon

seamus wrote: »

No. If I can't reason with her, then obviously there are serious questions to be asked about our future together.

But there's no logical scenario in which I should be allowed to try and force her to carry the pregnancy to term.

There is no "win" in the scenario you posit, no good outcome for anyone.

The woman does not want the baby hence the abortion yet in the same scenario the man might.

The man is willing to raise the child can sign whatever legal documents etc etc.

Is it not selfish of the woman to have an abortion in this instance when she knows the baby/child soon to be adult would have a life...

seamus

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Is it not selfish of the woman to have an abortion in this instance when she knows the baby/child soon to be adult would have a life...

Every outcome in this scenario is selfish on someone's part.

Triceratops Ballet

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The woman does not want the baby hence the abortion yet in the same scenario the man might.

The man is willing to raise the child can sign whatever legal documents etc etc.

Is it not selfish of the woman to have an abortion in this instance when she knows the baby/child soon to be adult would have a life...

It's no more selfish to not have a child when you don't want one than it is to have a child when you do want one. Both actions serve your individual desires.

Delirium

MayoSalmon wrote: »

A womans right to choose supersedes a mans right to choose concerning their own child basically

Doesn't explain how someone that is opposed a man being able to veto a woman having an abortion means they are opposed to any improvement of a fathers rights regarding their kids.

How is opposing a woman being denied the abortion she seeks mean that a person is opposed to better paternal leave for working fathers for example?

MayoSalmon

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

It's no more selfish to not have a child when you don't want one than it is to have a child when you do want one. Both actions serve your individual desires.

The future child's/adults desires are whats primarily being served in the form of life

Triceratops Ballet

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The future child's/adults desires are whats primarily being served in the form of life

That's not the question you asked? You asked was the mother not being selfish, then answer is both her and the father are being selfish.

The foetus has no desires and it has no time machine to know what it's future self would think. It doesn't even have a guaranteed future.

LegacyUser

Daniel Long Duct wrote: »

We should have the male abortion option, which



For equalities sake we need this option.

But the issue with that is once a child is born there are 3 people involved not 2. If a man has the right to a legal 'abortion' does that mean when the child is an adult they have no rights to know who their father is? What if they change their mind and try contact the child when its older - the legal abortion was between mother and father, the child had no say. What about the rights of grandparents etc if the father opts to have no involvement but they would like to meet and know their grandchild is that removed from them? On the flip side if we take the 8th amendment to be literal and that from the moment of conception it is a person does that mean a woman can demand support from the father from the moment of conception? Currently a father has no legal obligation (not taking about all the amazing men who are there the whole way from conception to birth as solid support, just taking in cases where the two people are not together) to support a child until it is born but should child support payments start from conception rather than birth. If a man can stop a woman having an abortion are they also allowed to force their choices in other areas of the pregnancy like what they eat for example or other medical choices. Honestly if you start going down that road it's a Pandoras box of what ifs

It is true that it takes two to create a baby but only one person can care for it for the first 9 months after conception. There is a difference between conception and pregnancy and currently there isn't equality in pregnancy as the burden to develop a fetus till it is viable outside the womb falls 100% on women. Unless there is a massive medical breakthrough down the line allowing for equal sharing of this by men or by artificial means, my view is it is a medical issue that should be left to the person and their doctor to decide what is the best course of action.

MayoSalmon

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

That's not the question you asked? You asked was the mother not being selfish, then answer is both her and the father are being selfish.

The foetus has no desires and it has no time machine to know what it's future self would think. It doesn't even have a guaranteed future.

The foetus/baby has an inherent desire to live. Its heart is beating and it is feeding.

The man wants to take care of that foetus/baby upon birth, the woman wants to destroy it.

drunkmonkey

seamus wrote: »

Every outcome in this scenario is selfish on someone's part.

Isn't it more selfish by the woman though, she's picking a slight physical deviance from the norm over your son's right to life.
Junior is the one really holding the short stick though.

Saruhashi

No way. I'm firmly in the "her body, her choice" camp on this one.

Nobody should have the power to force a woman to carry a pregnancy to term.*

*Obviously beyond a certain point she should not be allowed an abortion unless it's a medical emergency. I wouldn't be OK with allowing an abortion "on demand" at 8 months, for example.

Triceratops Ballet

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The man wants to take care of that foetus/baby upon birth, the woman wants to destroy it.

both serving their own desires

Saruhashi

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't it more selfish by the woman though, she's picking a slight physical deviance from the norm over your son's right to life.
Junior is the one really holding the short stick though.

Surely, this whole aspect of the conversation depends on the stage of the pregnancy?

If the woman is 2 or 3 weeks pregnant then there is no "junior" to speak of.

If she is 7 or 8 months pregnant then the question is a lot more serious.

The Specialist

MayoSalmon wrote: »

The foetus/baby has an inherent desire to live. Its heart is beating and it is feeding.

The man wants to take care of that foetus/baby upon birth, the woman wants to destroy it.

The foetus does not have any sense of conscience or self-awareness, it's a collection of cells. What you are saying is akin to thinking every sperm has the desire to live - it can't because it isn't sentient.

MayoSalmon

The Specialist wrote: »

The foetus does not have any sense of conscience, it's a collection of cells. What you are saying is akin to saying every sperm has the desire to live - it can't because it isn't sentient.

Ah the sentient argument.

So when exactly does the foetus become sentient?

2 weeks, 20 weeks, birth??

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Isn't it more selfish by the woman though, she's picking a slight physical deviance from the norm over your son's right to life.
Junior is the one really holding the short stick though.

Forgetting the cleft palate bit for a second.

The mother does not want to have a another baby, and does not want to be pregnant.
The father does want another baby and does not have the option of being pregnant.

Aside from the fact that the two are clearly no longer on the same page when it comes to their relationship.

Who's wants are more important, in your opinion?

eviltwin

If this ever became a requirement, which it won't, then women will just return to taking a trip to the UK. I can see a proportion of women being negativly affected, those who were raped, those in abusive relationships, those who had one night stands. Besides how do you prove paternity in the early stage of pregnancy? It's completely unworkable.

The Specialist

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Ah the sentient argument.

So when exactly does the foetus become sentient?

2 weeks, 20 weeks, birth??

About 5 months, long after the proposed time limit for abortion.

boardsuser1

LeinsterDub wrote: »

Basically your asking can a man force a woman to carry a baby to term?

NO!

But a woman can choose to keep it and force a man to pay up.

Yet if the man wanted to keep it and the woman didn't it's tough luck!

Takes 2 to tango.

seamus

eviltwin wrote: »

If this ever became a requirement, which it won't, then women will just return to taking a trip to the UK. I can see a proportion of women being negativly affected, those who were raped, those in abusive relationships, those who had one night stands. Besides how do you prove paternity in the early stage of pregnancy? It's completely unworkable.

The potential for abuse with such a measure would be incredible. Angry (ex)partners dragging women into court, getting legal injunctions against them and basically making their lives hell, and potentially forcing them to have a child with someone who beat them and/or raped them.

You'd see a pretty sizeable spike in suicides if such a proposal ever came into play.

MayoSalmon

The Specialist wrote: »

About 5 months, long after the proposed time limit for abortion.

Well a fetus can open its eyes at 18 weeks but anyway varying degrees of dependency or feeling does not determine a fetuses humanity.

Whether it feels pain while being killed is irrelevant really.

Hitman3000

Don't dip the wick, no issues arise.

Triceratops Ballet

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

But a woman can choose to keep it and force a man to pay up.

Yet if the man wanted to keep it and the woman didn't it's tough luck!

Takes 2 to tango.

So what's your solution? women forced to stay pregnant against their wishes? how do you monitor that?

seamus

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

But a woman can choose to keep it and force a man to pay up.

This is a separate issue though really.

Just because the law is sh1tty for men, doesn't mean we should be looking at ways to make it equally sh1tty for women.

How about we find ways to make it less sh1tty for everyone?

MayoSalmon

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So what's your solution? women forced to stay pregnant against their wishes? how do you monitor that?

But there wishes are to not have to care for the child nothing to do with being pregnant albeit I understand pregnancy isnt exactly a walk in the park.

Triceratops Ballet

MayoSalmon wrote: »

But there wishes are to not have to care for the child nothing to do with being pregnant albeit I understand pregnancy isnt exactly a walk in the park.

If women are alright being pregnant but not wanting to be mothers, then why are there not more babies up for adoption?

It's my understanding that domestic adoption within Ireland is almost non existant, (open to correction on that)

eviltwin

MayoSalmon wrote: »

But there wishes are to not have to care for the child nothing to do with being pregnant albeit I understand pregnancy isnt exactly a walk in the park.

Women have abortions because they don't want to be pregnant

boardsuser1

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So what's your solution? women forced to stay pregnant against their wishes? how do you monitor that?

I'm offering no solution whatsoever, merely just making my own personal point from personal experience.

seamus wrote: »

This is a separate issue though really.

Just because the law is sh1tty for men, doesn't mean we should be looking at ways to make it equally sh1tty for women.

How about we find ways to make it less sh1tty for everyone?

Yeah i agree with you, in a modern age of women screaming for equality, this is the one area that will never be equal.