Her Body, Her Choice....Her Responsibility?

Kumejima

irishrebe wrote: »

It was already lopsided before, just in your favour. If a man wanted the child and the woman didn't, she was having it. If neither party wanted it, she was the one who had to go through with the actual pregnancy and birth. If the man decided to leave while she was pregnant, she was left with the baby. Were you up in arms about that, or are you only concerned now that you no longer have the upper hand? 

I'm not denying that there is the issue of some women becoming pregnant on purpose against the man's will, but women have spent decades living with the 'tough luck, that's just biology' attitude. Why now that the shoe is on the other foot do you feel this hard done by?

Yep there were loads of irish men going around trying their best to impregnate women and making them give birth against their will. I'm not saying that didn't happen at all but it was probably about as common as the forgotten pill situation, probably less so.

As for men leaving women holding the baby I think its totally wrong. Children need their parents. Both of them. Maybe you didn't want it but it wants and needs you. If you bring life into the world you should face up to your responsibilities as a parent. Not run from them. Unless you're a woman of course, then you can do what you like, and society will praise you as a hero either way.

irishrebe

Kumejima wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

It was already lopsided before, just in your favour. If a man wanted the child and the woman didn't, she was having it. If neither party wanted it, she was the one who had to go through with the actual pregnancy and birth. If the man decided to leave while she was pregnant, she was left with the baby. Were you up in arms about that, or are you only concerned now that you no longer have the upper hand? 

I'm not denying that there is the issue of some women becoming pregnant on purpose against the man's will, but women have spent decades living with the 'tough luck, that's just biology' attitude. Why now that the shoe is on the other foot do you feel this hard done by?

Yep there were loads of irish men going around trying their best to impregnate women and making them give birth against their will. I'm not saying that didn't happen at all but it was probably about as common as the forgotten pill situation, probably less so.

As for men leaving women holding the baby I think its totally wrong. Children need their parents. Both of them. Maybe you didn't want it but it wants and needs you. If you bring life into the world you should face up to your responsibilities as a parent. Not run from them. Unless you're a woman of course, then you can do what you like, and society will praise you as a hero either way.

I didn't say there were lots of individuals doing that. I said the law forced women to have children whether they wanted them or not, just as it now forces men to pay for any children they create, whether they want them or not. You seriously can't see that it's the same thing? 

Your statement that society would praise a women for abandoning a child is so ridiculous I can only assume you're a troll. The percentage of women who walk out leave their children with their father is astonishingly small, and those who do so are harshly judged  as monsters by all of society ("how could she leave her kids?"). Sure, people do look down on men who walk out on their kids, but it's not considered totally unacceptable in the way a woman doing it is. You're basically a social pariah.

One eyed Jack

Kumejima wrote: »

I didn't say that men's bodily autonomy is under threat from people trying to extract their sperm? So they should then be able to rape?
Am I writing this badly or you reading this badly? I've clarified my position in further posts.

Basically what I'm saying is this. We placed restrictions on both genders with regards to their reproductive roles. Men weren't allowed to rape. Women weren't allowed to kill.

Now we've removed the restriction from one gender it creates a lopsided situation where women can choose to become parents or not but men can't. They have to abide by the women's decision. Shut up if she wants an abortion or pay up if she wants to keep it. There's already another thread on after hours
going on about this lack of fairness.

You're writing it terribly, because you're trying to make an argument for something that you don't even support yourself. That's why you're having to phrase it in such a way that bears no relationship to reality. How does permitting men to rape equate to permitting women to commit murder? How does your suggestion even address the inequality you claim exists? Women still aren't permitted to commit murder, so arguing that men should be permitted to rape women and impregnate them with impunity is just an argument that doesn't even get off the starting blocks. It still doesn't mean women actually will avail of abortion, it still doesn't mean that they won't choose to give birth, it still doesn't mean that a child won't be born, but all it means is that you're arguing that men should be permitted to rape women, and you don't offer any reasonable explanation as to how you're even linking them.

You say men's bodily autonomy is not under threat like women's. Is this because men can't be made forcibly pregnant by a woman? This is of course a biological fact. They can however be forced into becoming fathers against their will by someone who "forgot" to take the pill. Not all women I know, but it happens and men have zero recourse at the moment to opt out unlike women. How is this fair?

Men will still be forced to be fathers against their will when a child is born, and no legislation can erase that child from existence, children have rights and they have the right to be provided for. The right of parents to ignore the fact that they are either a father or a mother doesn't exist. This is nothing to do with gender equality, and everything to do with the rights of the child, unless you also want to suggest that children should have no right to be provided for? How is that fair on the child?

As for you saying that men not being able to initiate a pregnancy without the woman's consent is not the same as a woman terminating the pregnancy without the man's - ok I'll ask you a new question:

If a mother can initiate an abortion of a father's child without his consent, why can't a father initiate an abortion of a mother's child without hers?

Because he's not pregnant, is the answer to your question, and women could not force men to have abortions or force them to stay away from their children because that would generally be viewed as unfair on the child to deny them access to their father. Therefore using your scenario where men could commit rape and impregnate women with impunity, it would also mean that they could not be denied access to their children if a woman decided she didn't want to have an abortion. Why can't a man initiate an abortion on a woman without her consent? He would be likely to face criminal prosecution if he did, because to do so would be a violation of her bodily integrity.

I'm NOT arguing for this, just to be clear, but how can anyone claim this is fair? If you are going to abort the child the least there should be is some way for the man to have a say.

If you're going to say, her body, her choice, he should have no rights in this situation, then it should be HER responsibility and hers alone.

It's a good thing you're not arguing for it, because you really don't have a very convincing argument. Her pregnancy is her responsibility and her responsibility alone, but when she gives birth, then the child isn't just her responsibility and her responsibility alone, because now there is a child that needs to be provided for, and to suggest that they shouldn't be provided for is unfair on the child who has no responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves.

noodler

irishrebe wrote: »

So spend 30 years campaigning for it, like women had to do.

What twisted logic is this?

Regardless of the topic being discussed.


BTW, alot of men have pushed for the recent change. Alot of us were able to vote yes without students with no clue of the real world haranguing us every day for the past month.

irishrebe

noodler wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

So spend 30 years campaigning for it, like women had to do.

What twisted logic is this?

Regardless of the topic being discussed.


BTW, alot of men have pushed for the recent change. Alot of us were able to vote yes without students with no clue of the real world haranguing us every day for the past month.

How is it twisted? Why do you seem to think you can snap your fingers and demand immediate change because one single thing is now less in your favour than it used to be? If you support the idea of a man being able to avoid paying for a child he created, go ahead and campaign for it. Who is stopping you?

Kumejima

irishrebe wrote: »

I didn't say there were lots of individuals doing that. I said the law forced women to have children whether they wanted them or not, just as it now forces men to pay for any children they create, whether they want them or not. You seriously can't see that it's the same thing? 

Your statement that society would praise a women for abandoning a child is so ridiculous I can only assume you're a troll. The percentage of women who walk out leave their children with their father is astonishingly small, and those who do so are harshly judged  as monsters by all of society ("how could she leave her kids?"). Sure, people do look down on men who walk out on their kids, but it's not considered totally unacceptable in the way a woman doing it is. You're basically a social pariah.

As regards your first point men now have to pay for kids whether they wanted them or not. That was always true regardless of the referendum. Thats changed nothing.

Women's options have changed though. They can now choose not to become parents. Yes it was far harder socially for a woman to abandon her child than a man. Men who do so are considered deadbeats but women monsters I agree.

So how is it that if you abandon your child as a woman you're a monster, but if you kill it you're merely exercising your reproductive rights?

Most baffling of all is that this choice to kill is being presented as some noble struggle for freedom? F&%k me I'd rather be abandoned by my mother than killed by her.

Honestly I feel like I woke up in opposite land over the last few days

noodler

irishrebe wrote: »

How is it twisted? Why do you seem to think you can snap your fingers and demand immediate change because one single thing is now less in your favour than it used to be? If you support the idea of a man being able to avoid paying for a child he created, go ahead and campaign for it. Who is stopping you?

Keep your strawman argument going there.


Bizarre with your 30 year logic tho. As if one follows the other.

irishrebe

Kumejima wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I didn't say there were lots of individuals doing that. I said the law forced women to have children whether they wanted them or not, just as it now forces men to pay for any children they create, whether they want them or not. You seriously can't see that it's the same thing? 

Your statement that society would praise a women for abandoning a child is so ridiculous I can only assume you're a troll. The percentage of women who walk out leave their children with their father is astonishingly small, and those who do so are harshly judged  as monsters by all of society ("how could she leave her kids?"). Sure, people do look down on men who walk out on their kids, but it's not considered totally unacceptable in the way a woman doing it is. You're basically a social pariah.

As regards your first point men now have to pay for kids whether they wanted them or not. That was always true regardless of the referendum. Thats changed nothing.

Women's options have changed though. They can now choose not to become parents. Yes it was far harder socially for a woman to abandon her child than a man. Men who do so are considered deadbeats but women monsters I agree.

So how is it that if you abandon your child as a woman you're a monster, but if you kill it you're merely exercising your reproductive rights?

Most baffling of all is that this choice to kill is being presented as some noble struggle for freedom? F&%k me I'd rather be abandoned by my mother than killed by her.

Honestly I feel like I woke up in opposite land over the last few days

I can see logic isn't your strong point. Plenty would also still consider a woman a monster for having an abortion, but nobody really needs to know, do they? It's the woman's private business. More so if she doesn't need to go on a mysterious one night visit to London. If she has children and leaves them, she's the talk of the town. But that's not the point. You claimed that a woman would be called a hero no matter what and that's clearly utter bullsh1t. 

You're clearly too deficient in empathy to be able to comprehend the many valid reasons a woman would feel she needed to end her pregnancy, so I'm not even going to bother going there.

irishrebe

noodler wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

How is it twisted? Why do you seem to think you can snap your fingers and demand immediate change because one single thing is now less in your favour than it used to be? If you support the idea of a man being able to avoid paying for a child he created, go ahead and campaign for it. Who is stopping you?

Keep your strawman argument going there.


Bizarre with your 30 year logic tho. As if one follows the other.

What part of it is bizarre? It took 30 years for the state to decide that a woman was able to choose whether she wanted to be a mother or not. Why wouldn't it potentially take another 30 to decide if a man is able to choose whether or not he wants to be a father? Fine, maybe the way society is moving quickly it could take less time, but it would certainly be a long process. There is no straw man.

Kumejima

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're writing it terribly, because you're trying to make an argument for something that you don't even support yourself. That's why you're having to phrase it in such a way that bears no relationship to reality. How does permitting men to rape equate to permitting women to commit murder? How does your suggestion even address the inequality you claim exists? Women still aren't permitted to commit murder, so arguing that men should be permitted to rape women and impregnate them with impunity is just an argument that doesn't even get off the starting blocks. It still doesn't mean women actually will avail of abortion, it still doesn't mean that they won't choose to give birth, it still doesn't mean that a child won't be born, but all it means is that you're arguing that men should be permitted to rape women, and you don't offer any reasonable explanation as to how you're even linking them.





Men will still be forced to be fathers against their will when a child is born, and no legislation can erase that child from existence, children have rights and they have the right to be provided for. The right of parents to ignore the fact that they are either a father or a mother doesn't exist. This is nothing to do with gender equality, and everything to do with the rights of the child, unless you also want to suggest that children should have no right to be provided for? How is that fair on the child?





Because he's not pregnant, is the answer to your question, and women could not force men to have abortions or force them to stay away from their children because that would generally be viewed as unfair on the child to deny them access to their father. Therefore using your scenario where men could commit rape and impregnate women with impunity, it would also mean that they could not be denied access to their children if a woman decided she didn't want to have an abortion. Why can't a man initiate an abortion on a woman without her consent? He would be likely to face criminal prosecution if he did, because to do so would be a violation of her bodily integrity.





It's a good thing you're not arguing for it, because you really don't have a very convincing argument. Her pregnancy is her responsibility and her responsibility alone, but when she gives birth, then the child isn't just her responsibility and her responsibility alone, because now there is a child that needs to be provided for, and to suggest that they shouldn't be provided for is unfair on the child who has no responsibility for the situation in which they find themselves.

First things first this is really therapeutic because its showing me how pointless it is to try to get people to see why I have a problem with Friday's decision. So thanks for sparing me having arguments with people at work. I will try and address your points though.

You can't see how I'm equating rape with murder. Again I'm taking about laws that have been put in place by society with regards to reproduction. Women have claimed to have been oppressed by unfair abortion laws that only impact on them as they are the only ones that have a uterus. They don't have a penis, though so they can't get charged with rape.

Men can't be charged for abortion since they don't have a uterus, but they can be charged with rape because they do have a penis.

I think the confusion for you with my posts and mine with yours is that you believe there is no child until after birth, hence abortion isn't killing for you? Correct me if I'm wrong.

So we've removed all restrictions on the uterus, but none on the penis.
Women CAN now commit murder ( according to the NO viewpoint ) but men will continue to be charged with rape. If you're going to "liberate" one set of reproductive organs why not another, so to speak.


Your position seems to be, until the baby is born there is no child, there is only a foetus who is the sole responsibilty of the mother. Once its born, the father's responsibilities kick in. There is no child up to that point so what rights could he have never mind should he have seems to be your take: again correct me if I'm wrong.

I profoundly disagree. The child carries half his DNA so its half his, hence he should have an equal right. You can argue that he's not carrying the child or sustaining its existence so should have no rights. Fair enough, but then if the mother isn't working or earning a wage all rights should revert to the father once born - its his money keeping the child alive and sustaining its existence.


If a man did cause a woman to abort by kicking her in the stomach, what then should the charge be? Common assault or murder?

Calhoun

Woodward wrote: »

The results are in, the amendment will be repealed and Ireland will have abortion on demand. While I personally am happy (no offense to the No voters), it does bring to the table the question of 'what next?' in intergender relations around the issue of parenthood and responsibility. Do you think there will (or should be) a push towards something along the lines of 'financial abortion', where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy? Essentially the argument is that consenting to sex no longer carries the risk of pregnancy for the woman, ie she can opt out of parenthood by getting an abortion, so men should be granted the same opportunity by relinquishing future obligations while abortion is still possible and introducing a 'parenthood by consent only' model for society. Personally I do not think this would be a positive change for society but I do find the concept interesting and support for it seems to be growing, at least online as far as I can tell.

I would be in favor within a set degree of time and under certain conditions. However, another route to not necessarily solve this but take allot of sting out of the argument is by pushing for more fathers rights within the law.

Today if a surprise pregnancy happened and you did happen to want to be involved in the childs life its not so easy to do. So i can understand why some men are like why do i have to pay but not really allowed be involved.

Kumejima

irishrebe wrote: »

I can see logic isn't your strong point. Plenty would also still consider a woman a monster for having an abortion, but nobody really needs to know, do they? It's the woman's private business. More so if she doesn't need to go on a mysterious one night visit to London. If she has children and leaves them, she's the talk of the town. But that's not the point. You claimed that a woman would be called a hero no matter what and that's clearly utter bullsh1t. 

You're clearly too deficient in empathy to be able to comprehend the many valid reasons a woman would feel she needed to end her pregnancy, so I'm not even going to bother going there.

Some would consider a woman a monster for having an abortion, sure. Not me. Plenty of people I know and love have had them and I don't think they are terrible human beings.

That said, I do think abortion is at the end of the day a very selfish act. There may be cases where you'd have a heart of stone not to see why someone might want to choose that option, but for the small percentage of very hard cases you have to allow a large number where the reasons is basically "this isn't what I want for my life".

I get it, a crisis pregnancy is tough but so is life in general. Ask the parents of Ana Kriegel and Jastine Vazquez. Ask people who are worn to their end caring for parents with dementia, or sons with violent schizophrenia, or partners who may kill them or drive them to suicide by denying them access to their kids.

All of these people might have their suffering hugely alleviated by being given the right to end the life of the person causing their suffering. But we don't give that power to them. We don't even give it to judges to use on the worst criminals.

We ask people all the time to bear the unbearable for the good of society as a whole.

We were offered a choice on Friday. Allow the suffering of mothers to continue for the sake of their children or allow children to be killed for the sake of their mothers.

If you feel that the first option is utterly unacceptable and the second option is wholly desirable, I don't know what to tell you.

I guess I just feel if someone has to suffer, and its inevitable that one or other will, that the parents should bear that burden, not babies.

irishrebe

Kumejima wrote: »

irishrebe wrote: »

I can see logic isn't your strong point. Plenty would also still consider a woman a monster for having an abortion, but nobody really needs to know, do they? It's the woman's private business. More so if she doesn't need to go on a mysterious one night visit to London. If she has children and leaves them, she's the talk of the town. But that's not the point. You claimed that a woman would be called a hero no matter what and that's clearly utter bullsh1t. 

You're clearly too deficient in empathy to be able to comprehend the many valid reasons a woman would feel she needed to end her pregnancy, so I'm not even going to bother going there.

Some would consider a woman a monster for having an abortion, sure. Not me. Plenty of people I know and love have had them and I don't think they are terrible human beings.

That said, I do think abortion is at the end of the day a very selfish act. There may be cases where you'd have a heart of stone not to see why someone might want to choose that option, but for the small  percentage of very hard cases  you have to allow a large number where the reasons is basically "this isn't what I want for my life".

I get it, a crisis pregnancy is tough but so is life in general. Ask the parents of Ana Kriegel and Jastine Vazquez. Ask people who are worn to their end caring for parents with dementia, or sons with violent schizophrenia, or partners who may kill them or drive them to suicide by denying them access to their kids.

All of these people might have their suffering hugely alleviated by being given the right to end the life of the person causing their suffering. But we don't give that power to them. We don't even give it to judges to use on the worst criminals.

We ask people all the time to bear the unbearable for the good of society as a whole.

We were offered a choice on Friday. Allow the suffering of mothers to continue for the sake of their children or allow children to be killed for the sake of their mothers.

If you feel that the first option is utterly unacceptable and the second option is wholly desirable, I don't know what to tell you.

I guess I just feel if someone has to suffer, and its inevitable that one or other will, that the parents should bear that burden, not babies.

You seem to be confusing foetuses with babies, maybe this is the root of all your confusion regarding who deserves to suffer more.

Kumejima

irishrebe wrote: »

You seem to be confusing foetuses with babies, maybe this is the root of all your confusion regarding who deserves to suffer more.

Yep, thats almost certainly it. Believe me, I recognise that if you believe unborn babies aren't human beings and should have no rights and fathers should have no say, then YES was the only logical choice.


If you're taking a situation involving 3 people and only recognising that one of them has rights then you have to do whats best for that one person.

Cyrus

irishrebe wrote: »

What part of it is bizarre? It took 30 years for the state to decide that a woman was able to choose whether she wanted to be a mother or not. Why wouldn't it potentially take another 30 to decide if a man is able to choose whether or not he wants to be a father? Fine, maybe the way society is moving quickly it could take less time, but it would certainly be a long process. There is no straw man.

The irony is that most of the case that the pro choice side made would support the assertion that men have the right to choose so you have done most of the spade work

Cheers

El_Duderino 09

Patww79 wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Wrongs against a man? You mean having to actually campaign to create change as opposed to having it handed to you?

That’s ridiculous. Noting happens without being willing to campaign for it. It’s so childish to think you can just expect your pet issue to be enacted immediately without having to campaign and create public support.

Unfortunately it seems endemic in the men’s rights side. Oppose successful women’s rights activists, then turn around and complain that they aren’t also experiencing the benefits of activism.

If you care about the issue you’re talking about, be willing to do what the repeal side have dove over the last 30 odd years. P1ss or get off the pot

El_Duderino 09

Cyrus wrote: »

The irony is that most of the case that the pro choice side made would support the assertion that men have the right to choose so you have done most of the spade work

Cheers

No problem. It should be less difficult for you to achieve your goal now. Have at it... or just whinge about how unfair it all is that the work isn’t done for you. Naturally, It’s your choice.

Cyrus

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

No problem. It should be less difficult for you to achieve your goal now. Have at it... or just whinge about how unfair it all is that the work isn’t done for you. Naturally, It’s your choice.

It's not my goal at all I'm just pointing out the uncomfortable truth to those of you who haven't followed the logic through , but you don't want to hear that

El_Duderino 09

Cyrus wrote: »

It's not my goal at all I'm just pointing out the uncomfortable truth to those of you who haven't followed the logic through , but you don't want to hear that

Who doesn’t want to hear what? The feminists and the left pushed abortion for decades so they did lots of the heavy lifting. I completely agree.

I changed relevant word from my last reply.

No problem. It should be less difficult for them to achieve their goal now. Have at it... or just whinge about how unfair it all is that the work isn’t done for them. Naturally, It’s their choice.

El_Duderino 09

I’m amazed that nobody has suggested cleaning and beautifying your room as a solution to the problem.

The prophet Peterson would be disgusted at all the self pity and playing the victim of external circumstances.

If Peterson’s sermons are so inspired, surely his teachings can be applied to this problem.

GingerLily

Just worth adding, most Irish women do not want an abortion themselves, we voted for choice, not to celebrate abortions.

I could never ask a women to abort a child, just like I could never ask a women to keep a crisis pregnancy, there's a serious lack of empathy on this forum, it's disgusting.

Tell me how

GingerLily wrote:

Just worth adding, most Irish women do not want an abortion themselves, we voted for choice, not to celebrate abortions.

That is the central argument here. Men do not have a legal choice.

GingerLily wrote:

I could never ask a women to abort a child, just like I could never ask a women to keep a crisis pregnancy, there's a serious lack of empathy on this forum, it's disgusting.

I'm not in agreement with most of the arguments/posts being made here but surely given that the referendum was driven by the desire to have a legal choice, it's a fair question to ask.

To discount potential mental health issues of fathers either as a result of unexpected responsibility or due to inability to get access to their offspring would also indicate a lack of empathy.

ted1

the_syco wrote: »

Woodward wrote: »

where the man has the opportunity to opt out of future obligations towards the child should the woman choose to continue the pregnancy

Get a vasectomy. Otherwise, pay up if you knock her up.

Not that easy, now that the women can abort. She has a choice to mitagate the costs.

ted1

GingerLily wrote: »

Just worth adding, most Irish women do not want an abortion themselves, we voted for choice, not to celebrate abortions.

I could never ask a women to abort a child, just like I could never ask a women to keep a crisis pregnancy, there's a serious lack of empathy on this forum, it's disgusting.

Many people will say that you have the choice to have sex or not and a pregnancy is as a result of the choice.

There may be s lack of empathy but that’s expected when you change the law, you need to look at the consequences

ted1

irishrebe wrote: »

Patww79 wrote: »

Should definitely be the case but it's a woman's world now and would never happen.

It's fair enough though. Takes two to tango and both parties need an equal choice to opt out.

It's not a 'women's world'. But there is no possible way to be equally fair to both parties in this situation. There just isn't. Hence the law now siding with the woman, on the grounds that she is the one who has to physically carry and give birth to the child, and statistically speaking, the one who is far more likely to be left bringing up the child in the event of a relationship breakdown. Up until now, women have been forced to carry and give birth to children whether they wanted to or not, even in cases or rape, incest, or the baby having severe abnormalities, but yeah, keep playing the victim card.

You are playing the victim card. Which since Friday is no longer valid.

GingerLily

How do you actually imagine this works out?

You'll be paying for that child either way - through taxes - and imagine the abuse of the system, we already have enough dole fraud.

El_Duderino 09

Tell me how wrote: »

GingerLily wrote:

Just worth adding, most Irish women do not want an abortion themselves, we voted for choice, not to celebrate abortions.

That is the central argument here. Men do not have a legal choice.

Yep women have a choice. It took decades of activism and campaigning. It’s a long road ahead to get a change to the laws. Those who want it should probably get cracking.

Tell me how

El_Duderino 09 wrote:

Yep women have a choice. It took decades of activism and campaigning. It’s a long road ahead to get a change to the laws. Those who want it should probably get cracking.

Do you think that men should have the choice?

One eyed Jack

Tell me how wrote: »

Do you think that men should have the choice?

When men can become pregnant, then they too will have the choice as to whether or not they want to continue their pregnancy and give birth to a child, or whether they want to avail of abortion. Pregnancy and responsibility for ones children are not the same thing, and suggesting that men should have the right to absolve themselves of any responsibility towards their children that they helped to bring into the world is effectively denying the child of their rights.

Women don't have that right, I don't see any compelling reason why men should have it either.

Tell me how

One eyed Jack wrote: »

When men can become pregnant, then they too will have the choice as to whether or not they want to continue their pregnancy and give birth to a child

I think it is false to suggest that all abortion decisions will be made solely in terms of needing to just end a pregnancy without being affected by considerations of what will be the scenario if the child is born.

I believe that some abortions will be carried out because of the females concerns as to the changes in her life, her readiness for a child or her incapacity to look after the child when it is born. She is abdicating her responsibility in this way through availing of an abortion.

Why then, should a man not have the same right?

Also, I think it is much more common that couples refer to their pregnancies as "we are expecting" not just I am expecting. It is again misleading, (in my view) to suggest men do not become invested in the thoughts of being a father until the child is born.