Men's rights on Abortion?

Cork Truck Driver wrote: »

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

Women fighting for equality however has led to men having more rights over their children in real terms.

Society and the law determines that the child's natural carer is the woman. And while from one perspective we can say that's an inequality which disadvantages men, from another perspective it's also an inequality which disadvantages women by making them the de facto carer unless they explicitly decide otherwise.

A man can effectively walk away. A woman can't.

So believe it or not, a large chunk of modern father's rights have come about because women were not happy with being assigned childcare obligations by default, and they campaigned for the right to hand off those responsibilities, on a permanent or shared basis.

This actually affected both of my parents as children. My maternal grandmother died in childbirth, and despite my grandfather being a perfectly able-bodied man and a doting father, the state (assisted by the local parish priest), decided that a man would not be capable of raising five children and were on the verge of breaking them up and sending them off to various care homes. Luckily an aunt stepped in and moved into the family home.

Similarly, my paternal grandmother had to go into hospital for a serious surgery that would involve up to 18 months in traction (this was the 1950s). Of course my grandfather, as a man, was incapable of raising two boys, and the state planned to separate them and send them off to care homes. Luckily again, an aunt stepped in and took them both to her house.

Men didn't fight to change this. Women did. The idea nowadays that the death of a mother would require all of her children to be taken away from their father would make us sick. But before women fought for equal rights, that was the norm.

So we need to stop framing the equal rights debate as "women screaming to be treated special", because it's never been about that, and still isn't. Everyone wins when women are treated equally.

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.

you don,t really get a say while its inside another person, don't know why you would find that strange

Pejayzuz wrote: »

Exactly, a procedure that can also be reversed it's worth pointing out.

A procedure that can *potentially* be reversed. A subtle but rather important difference.

Until the day that a male pill with the same effectiveness as the female one exists, or the long muted Vasalgel passes clinical trials and is made widely available, contraception is largely going to have to remain the responsibility of the woman. (And once such a procedure has been proven safe and fully reversible, I'd be in favour of it being administered to all male students via the school system akin to how we should be delivering the HPV vaccine to girls).

Sure, men can insist on condom usage but, realistically, they have quite a high failure rate.

At the end of the day it's down to the two people concerned and the circumstance. In a long term relationship or marriage you'd assume a discussion would be had whether or not to continue with pregnancy where on both sides one would have to compromise or come to a decision where both partners can continue together other wise it's relationship over and who wants a child in that situation. Obviously it happens and things can turn out fine but one just has to get on with things. With regard to a ons or short term relationship again a conversation should take place but obviously to continue would have an immediate effect on the woman and so it is her choice to continue at the end of the day, on the flip side if the father did not want to continue the pregnancy and mother did you can't force a woman to abort either. At the end of the day precautions should have been taken prior to that point but **** happens people have to take responsibility for the sake of the child then be it maintenance or whatever but the father should also not have to fight for right to be involved with the child
Parents rights and obligations are a different matter which also could do with reform tbh.

Cool_CM wrote: »

Legislate for a "tough sh!t, you're on your own" option? Are you being serious?

It sounds bad, but not so much when you think about it.

Properly structured, it may provide freedom for women who find themselves inextricably tied to some asshole who never wanted to be there in the first place.

Is it better for a child to grow up knowing there's a resentful father who's only half-available and never really engaging, constantly fighting with their mother over maintenance payments, or to simply not have a father at all?

If the process came with serious obligations - such as mandatory prison time for even attempting to get in touch with the mother or child - it could release many men, women and future children from the obligation of maintaining a poisonous relationship.

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Because its DNA is 50% man and 50% woman

Choice is 100% woman 0% man

Quite strange in my opinion

Because it's 100% inside the woman's body. What rights/choice do you want to have?

I would say all choice should be with the woman.

On the face of it, as a man i will never know what it is like to carry a child or all the emotional, physical, social and psychological stresses that come with that journey so why should i get to dicatate to another how to make a decision on their own wellbeing.

littlevillage wrote: »

I suspect if the upcoming referendum is passed, the feminists will be quick to add a addendum to the legislation that the father can be forced to pay for the abortion, whether he agrees with it or not.

Ah yes, those evil feminists, always out to screw men over. :rolleyes:

Tell me, how exactly would one enforce this fictitious law?

It's a somewhat complicated debate. Have been dragged into it previously when female friends have discussed abortions (from both pro and anti sides). It won't be something that will be addressed for a while. We still haven't come to a conclusion for womens rights in regards to abortions!

Anyway, for my brief input, you cannot in anyway force a woman to have or not have an abortion. That is madness, and I highly doubt many believe a father should have this right or power to block an abortion or force one, although I'm certain it's a law in some countries.

Most countries do not have any male/father rights in regards to abortions. I agree with a couple of posts about changing some things however.

I agree there should be a period where if the father does not wish to have the child but the mother refuses to have an abortion he should be able to waive his rights as a guardian. He will not pay spousal support but also is not allowed to have anything to do with the child.

Also I believe that the mother should notify the father of her decision to have an abortion. In the US the woman isn't required to inform the father of the child that she is intending to have an abortion.

I know this is a tense debating topic and passions and opinions flare up, and I expect mine not to be the most popular for people on both sides of the argument but it's just the conclusion I come to.

A man cant 'force' a woman to have her stomach stappled or to have a boob job or to have a cancer op...


Why would this be different?