nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

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

Find more posts tagged with

Comments

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.

Pejayzuz

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.

But it only takes one person to actually have to go through with the pregnancy and the birth, the woman whose body it is, and if you think men should be able to force women to go through with a pregnancy against their will, then there's something wrong with you.
As for the "force a man to pay up" that's after a child has been born, when it needs care, care that financially, a single mother may not be able to provide. There's a huge difference between a woman having an abortion (where the foetus is not yet a child and the man can have a child still with another willing woman if they both so please) and a man lumping the financial responsibility of caring for their living child or children, onto possibly not only one single mother, but several, simply by signing a form, especially in cases where the reason for the woman keeping the baby is based on an anti abortion moral view (which of course she should be fully entitled to) even though the circumstances may not suit her.
I do on the other side, agree that willing fathers (aside from dangerous ones) should have the same rights as mothers when it comes to actually born children and our system is ridiculous.
My stance may seem unfair to men in that the women would have more rights of the non sentient foetus and even restrict men's rights, and it does, but it's not me, the government or women restricting those rights, it's nature, and until we come up with a feasible way for men to carry and birth children ourselves, well... we'll just have to get over it won't we?

NollagShona

Men have a very simple way to ensure they don’t get a woman pregnant

s7ryf3925pivug

100% woman's choice.

I can relate to a man having option to walk away if they state they dont want it in first 8 weeks or something. Not sure how well it would work in practice though. Maybe it would result in people acting less responsibly; issues proving what was communicated when etc.

I'd like people to be strongly discouraged from having kids they can't/won't support. Not sure how this can be achieved. Legalising abortion is obviously a step in the right direction.

The idea of a man having the right to force a woman to carry a baby she doesn't want is horrible. Maybe worse than outright bans on abortion.

RocketRaccoon

NollagShona wrote: »

Men have a very simple way to ensure they don’t get a woman pregnant

What's that? What method do men have that women don't have?

The Specialist

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

What's that? What method do men have that women don't have?

You know those expensive rubber gloves you can get for your individual fingers? Yeah...they are meant to be used somewhere else.

Pejayzuz

NollagShona wrote: »

Men have a very simple way to ensure they don’t get a woman pregnant

Exactly, a procedure that can also be reversed it's worth pointing out.
I'd like to see how the guys saying women should be forced to carry through a pregnancy unwillingly would feel about being forced to have a vasectomy against their will.

Tenigate

Given that abortion is illegal, it's neither the decision of the man or woman.

RocketRaccoon

The Specialist wrote: »

You know those expensive rubber gloves you can get for your individual fingers? Yeah...they are meant to be used somewhere else.

If only women could use something similar, I'm going to to invent something like that and sail off into the sunset with my millions.

seachto7

I don't even know why men are involved in the debate. Nothing to do with us.
If I put a bun in the oven, and the owner of the oven doesn't want to bake that bun, they can't give me the bun to put in my oven.
It's hilarious. Men debating abortion.

Pejayzuz

Tenigate wrote: »

Given that abortion is illegal, it's neither the decision of the man or woman.

I presume the OP and all replying are talking about if and when the eight ammendment is removed or replaced, making it legal , pedantic paddy..