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

RocketRaccoon wrote:

I didn't make it out to be anything. I stated the facts of what I saw when I was there. A girl in her early 20s declaring, somewhat proudly, that it was her 3rd time at this clinic while laughing with her friends. This wasn't nervous laughter or anything along those lines, this was a woman taking the easy way out because she had gotten pregnant.

What is your point though?

pilly

RocketRaccoon wrote:

In MY situation that is how I looked at it.

You should have called the police so.

Hoboo

pilly wrote: »

What is your point though?

Whats yours? You don't seem to add anything to any thread, just ask random questions and make idiotic statements about others comments. 8000 posts of nonsense and still going.

[Deleted User]

wexie wrote: »

So you don't believe people should be allowed to give a child up for adoption?
Or only if both parents agree to abdicate responsibility?

Adoption? I think you're reaching. My response was clear as to what I'm talking about.

ForestFire wrote: »

But if we are giving Women the right to decide, without question, if they do not want a child before 12 week term, should the Father also have the same rights (not to have child)?

Nope.

wexie

Deleted User wrote: »

Adoption? I think you're reaching. My response was clear as to what I'm talking about.

No it wasn't....you said, literally :

Deleted User wrote: »

then I don't believe there should be any abdicating of responsibility allowed for either party.

Would you not consider adoption to be abdication of responsibility? Or do you perhaps need some more time to think things through a bit?

pilly

Hoboo wrote:

Whats yours? You don't seem to add anything to any thread, just ask random questions and make idiotic statements about others comments. 8000 posts of nonsense and still going.

Triggered much?

pilly

end of the road wrote:

to be fair, the poster made a fair point, something i didn't think of myself and something that is very real.

And nothing to do with this thread.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

how is it a low blow? if the child was born and she killed it that's exactly what she would be called. why should it be different because the child is unborn?

because the law defines murder. abortion is not murder, therefore someone who has an abortion is not a murderer. By Law.

Hoboo

pilly wrote: »

Triggered much?

No nothing at all, just noticed you have nothing to contribute, but to try wind people up. Sad really.

end of the road

bubblypop wrote: »

because the law defines murder. abortion is not murder, therefore someone who has an abortion is not a murderer. By Law.

people who kill another human being are often called murderers dispite the law possibly not agreeing.

njs030

end of the road wrote: »

people who kill another human being are often called murderers dispite the law possibly not agreeing.

Coming in throwing around the "murderers" type hysteria really doesn't add much to the discussion. You aren't going to be forced into abortion so if you don't agree with it don't do it. Simple really.

Mr.H

WhiteRoses wrote:

Your point is moot anyway because our referendum will only be allowing up till 12 weeks.

First of all its petty by a couple of buoy to say I have a low opinion if women just because I think there is a danger of women having abortions in weak emotive moments.

women are human. They make mistakes as do men. It not about low opinions its about human nature.

Secondly to your point. You obviously have been living in the clouds because our referendum is about up to 6 even 7 months!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

end of the road wrote: »

people who kill another human being are often called murderers dispite the law possibly not agreeing.

I realise you've been banned from most of the general abortion discussion threads for being a walking shítpost, but does that justify you ruining what's a pretty specific and very interesting discussion with your "it's murder because it is because it's wrong because it's murder because it's baby because it's wrong because it's murder" schtick. It's actually painful to watch.

Mr.H

Malari wrote:

Definitely agree with this. It's surprising that more couples don't have the "what if contraception fails..." chat.

This.

I mean FFS too many couples out there, men and women, who are morons. Too selfish to think what happens if WE get pregnant.

Don't have sex with someone you don't wanna be with and if you don't want a child use protection.

It is almost 100%. The .01% only accounts for people who don't use it properly. It actually is 100% effective if you are careful. In fact why not use a condom and birth control and even then pull out. I mean FFS it's not rocket science. You don't want a child then don't be reckless.

I'm obviously not talking about serious issues but the preventable unwanted pregnancies can be easily avoided by non stupid people

pilly

Hoboo wrote:

No nothing at all, just noticed you have nothing to contribute, but to try wind people up. Sad really.

So you've read my 8000 posts to come to this conclusion?

What's sad is losing the head at someone asking a simple question.

eviltwin

Mr.H wrote: »

First of all its petty by a couple of buoy to say I have a low opinion if women just because I think there is a danger of women having abortions in weak emotive moments.

women are human. They make mistakes as do men. It not about low opinions its about human nature.

Secondly to your point. You obviously have been living in the clouds because our referendum is about up to 6 even 7 months!

No it's not. Lets clear this up. It's abortion without restriction for up to 12 weeks and after that at a doctors request. This will cover treat to health of mother, fatal foetal abnormalities. I would imagine, because at this point it's a surgical abortion, there will be plenty of safeguards to ensure women aren't just rocking up looking for an abortion at seven months because they had a fight with the boyfriend......

Besides, termination of a late pregnancy doesn't always mean an abortion, it could very easily involve an induction of labour.

njs030

Mr.H wrote: »

First of all its petty by a couple of buoy to say I have a low opinion if women just because I think there is a danger of women having abortions in weak emotive moments.

women are human. They make mistakes as do men. It not about low opinions its about human nature.

Secondly to your point. You obviously have been living in the clouds because our referendum is about up to 6 even 7 months!

Where has it said that? I've seen it stated as 12 weeks with exceptions being made for fatal fetal abnormalities.

A woman who has been pregnant for 7 months doesn't decide one day she can't be bothered any more and has had a change of mind, at that late stage it's probably a ffa and a fetus who can't survive outside the womb.
I would be hopeful our government is finally going to help those poor families and stop making them travel while they are dealing with tragedy and heartbreak.

SusieBlue

Mr.H wrote: »

First of all its petty by a couple of buoy to say I have a low opinion if women just because I think there is a danger of women having abortions in weak emotive moments.

women are human. They make mistakes as do men. It not about low opinions its about human nature.

Secondly to your point. You obviously have been living in the clouds because our referendum is about up to 6 even 7 months!

Please quote your source for the referendum being up to 6/7 months.

pemay

Just the question alone makes you shake your head.

Why, exactly, should a man do anything for anyone besides himself anymore?

Opinion matters on abortion? "NO!!" (as blazoned by the first few pages, wow!)

Undeniable bias against fathers in courts and legal systems? yep

I'm sorry, where is the incentive for a bloke to have anything SERIOUS to do with a woman here? All I'm seeing are pitfalls and traps

Its a condemnation of the current status quo when one half of a relationship is disincentivised to be in a relationship and can have the rug pulled out from underneath their life at any given moment.

Bollocks to that. Let these social warriors battle their way to perpetual loneliness then, ha!

boardsuser1

seamus wrote: »

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

My own father walked away from me before i was even born, my mother immediately after,leaving my pensioner grandmother to rare me with no financial assistance from the state or my parents whatsoever, just her state pension.

Granted in the majority of cases the man can walk, but the woman isn't as tied down as some think.

My mother did it 4 times in total, i was just the first.

repeal the hate

Can't help but feel that this movement is the thin end of the wedge.

Is it time for men to start making a stand for what is right, to return to our fundamental role as the protectors of our families? Or do we continue to bend over with what is fashionable, convenient and easier, what's better for our pockets, the easy option. Have we no principles left in this society at all?

Speaking as someone who is a father, someone who has spent a considerable amount of time around the central remedial clinic... sure we'll hardly need that in a generation, eh?

Time to get off our asses lads - this is a life and death issue.

Wibbs

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

I realise you've been banned from most of the general abortion discussion threads for being a walking shost,

Dial that kinda thing right back. That's clearly attacking the poster not the posts. Next time anyone pulls this they will be removed from the forum.

JRant

Veto on abortion? Are you madder than George Mad from Madcastle?

I think the following would be fairly sensible proposals:

1- have an abortion, don't have an abortion, nobody can force you either way but it's time to give people the choice.

2- 12 week cut-off. It doesn't sit right with me for anything later than that but it gives enough time for the woman to confirm pregnancy.

3- don't ask for the tax payer to fund it.

4- this is probably the most relevant for this thread. Sort out the bloody family courts and get proper measures in place to enshire father's rights in the law and I don't mean just paying lip service. Let father's who want too, be a part of their children's lives. That to me is the biggest issue from a father's perspective.

pemay

JRant wrote: »

Veto on abortion? Are you madder than George Mad from Madcastle?

I think the following would be fairly sensible proposals:

1- have an abortion, don't have an abortion, nobody can force you either way but it's time to give people the choice.

2- 12 week cut-off. It doesn't sit right with me for anything later than that but it gives enough time for the woman to confirm pregnancy.

3- don't ask for the tax payer to fund it.

4- this is probably the most relevant for this thread. Sort out the bloody family courts and get proper measures in place to enshire father's rights in the law and I don't mean just paying lip service. Let father's who want too, be a part of their children's lives. That to me is the biggest issue from a father's perspective.

The heart of this matter is "responsibility", plain and simple.

Women don't want responsibility for this, men don't want responsibility for that and on and on, a race to disown personal agency.

"I want to do whatever I want" gets married to "nothing is my problem".

It'll be some monstrosity born between the two!

0byme75341jo28

I believe men should definitely have a right to vote on the issue, but insofar as determining whether a lawful pregnancy can occur or not.. no.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pemay wrote: »

The heart of this matter is "responsibility", plain and simple.

Women don't want responsibility for this, men don't want responsibility for that and on and on, a race to disown personal agency.

"I want to do whatever I want" gets married to "nothing is my problem".

It'll be some monstrosity born between the two!

I do want responsibility. I want the state and society in which I live to ALLOW me the responsibility to decide what to do should I become pregnant, to make an adult decision about what's best for me and those close to me. Effectively at the moment women are not trusted with that responsibility. You even see it in this thread, sure we'd be all hormonal and running off to get a major surgical procedure if we had a domestic.

pemay

Keanu Huge Handlebar wrote: »

I believe men should definitely have a right to vote on the issue, but insofar as determining whether a lawful pregnancy can occur or not.. no.

But why? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

If a man has no say in whether his own child is born or not, then it should be equally so that a man must have a say in whether he wants to support his own child or not.

That would be fair and balanced. No court cases, no months and months of legal expenses, just a simple form to say "I am not going to take responsibility for this child" and a signature. A week turnaround time (say)

Done and dusted. Just like the woman would theoretically be able to make a unilateral decision on the spot, with a week turnaround time (say)

NollagShona

Why are we forcing people to pay for it?
Surely that would create a two tier system?

NollagShona

pemay wrote: »

But why? Whats good for the goose is good for the gander!

If a man has no say in whether his own child is born or not, then it should be equally so that a man must have a say in whether he wants to support his own child or not.

That would be fair and balanced. No court cases, no months and months of legal expenses, just a simple form to say "I am not going to take responsibility for this child" and a signature. A week turnaround time (say)

Done and dusted. Just like the woman would theoretically be able to make a unilateral decision on the spot, with a week turnaround time (say)

A man has a choice. His job is done in seconds- a woman has to grow the baby for 9 months. Huge difference

ForestFire

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

to make an adult decision about what's best for me and those close to me.

And can the father not make this choice for himself too? (Only in the case of not wanting to be a father not the other way around)

Should he also have the right before 12 weeks to say no to the responsibility of a child, even if it means only in the form of no support and/or contact?

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of