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

pilly

Tenigate wrote:

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

Ryanair Ten, Ryanair.

Pejayzuz

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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

I think he meant condoms, I wouldn't agree that it's a 100% solution, but vasectomy is (pretty much). And if a man was OK with a woman having a hysterectomy then he should be OK with her having an abortion of a yet non sentient foetus, a lot of this seems more like guys being put out by women having more control in a situation than the actual principle of pro or anti abortion or wanting to have children.

seamus

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

seachto7 wrote: »

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.

The fallacy of if it didn't happen to you you can't speak to it

uptherebels

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

MayoSalmon

uptherebels wrote: »

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

Because its DNA is 50% man and 50% woman

Choice is 100% woman 0% man

Quite strange in my opinion

Sleepy

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.

Cool_CM

Daniel Long Duct wrote: »

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.

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

Mooooo

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.

Sleepy

MayoSalmon wrote: »

Because its DNA is 50% man and 50% woman

Choice is 100% woman 0% man

Quite strange in my opinion

It's DNA is 50/50.

It's host is 100% her own woman.

If a partner paid for half the cost of your pacemaker operation, should she have a legal right to insist on removing it at a later point? Or to force you to keep it should you need to change it for a newer model?

seamus

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.

drunkmonkey

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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?

Yes forget it was just an example.

Who's wants are more important, inside the relationship, I honestly don't know but if one parent is prepared to take responsibility and there is no medical reason why the baby should die, I do think the father should have a right to challenge the decision.

Another example and it's one why I thought Leo might have stayed silent on his decision is if it's a healthy baby but from an ethnic background where women are less desirable and the woman may be forced to have an abortion, she may tell the doctor she wants rid of it but that pressure is coming from inside the home and the woman feels she has no choice but to confirm. Should a doctor be able to stop it as the only reason for the abortion is because it's a woman. This is a real problem in India and we do have Indian people here.

uptherebels

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?

.......

This post has been deleted.

wexie

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Should a doctor be able to stop it as the only reason for the abortion is because it's a woman. This is a real problem in India and we do have Indian people here.

Is that cultural or economic though?

What I mean is it like that because historically women would have been seen as (economically) worth less simply because they would have been able to contribute less?

Just asking because I wonder if that same stigma/preference is present in Indian populations outside of (rural) India purely because of different economic circumstances?

littlevillage

I would be in favour of the father having some say as to whether or not the mother could legally abort his child.

I am not exactly sure how this could be worked legally....but the lack of debate at official levels is alarming.

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.

1hnr79jr65

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.

Triceratops Ballet

drunkmonkey wrote: »

Yes forget it was just an example.

Who's wants are more important, inside the relationship, I honestly don't know but if one parent is prepared to take responsibility and there is no medical reason why the baby should die, I do think the father should have a right to challenge the decision.

I mean of course he has the right to question the decision, but his rights end where her body begins, it's totally impractical to suggest that any legal decision in favour of a father could be carried out without the constant supervision of the woman to ensure she does not act against the judgement. In that instance not only would she be robbed of her bodily autonomy but some pretty basic freedoms too

s7ryf3925pivug

Abortion and contraception should be free. The social cost of them not being used when they might be is much greater than the cost of providing them.

drunkmonkey

That's it really, it doesn't seem to have entered the debate. There should be at least one minister saying hold on here a minute. What about mens role in all this.

seamus

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?

.......

This post has been deleted.

wexie

seamus wrote: »

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

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

And what about the times the father isn't known? Line up all suspects for DNA testing?

.......

This post has been deleted.

professore

seachto7 wrote: »

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.

If it's born it's everything to do with us financially for the next 18 years. Even from that perspective, if you go around shagging everything that moves and damn the consequences, it does affect you.

wexie

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

That's not to say I can't think of plenty scenario's where it might well be appropriate for the father to have to pay.

Legislating for it might be tricky though.

And, I'd like to think that the majority of women will either be in a situation where

1) they are in a loving relationship where payment/contribution won't be much of an issue

or

2) when this isn't the case they may well be quite happy not to have to deal with the father

Adamocovic

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.

Somedaythefire

drunkmonkey wrote: »

That's it really, it doesn't seem to have entered the debate. There should be at least one minister saying hold on here a minute. What about mens role in all this.

What exactly would you think the men's role should be? Apart from having a reasonable discussion regarding the potential abortion, I'm not seeing what else could be done? Have a male veto? If they say no, force the woman to term?

GT_TDI_150

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?

eviltwin

His opinion has no power. If a woman wants an abortion she will just have one anyway. How could we stop it unless we lock her up for nine months.