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

[Deleted User]

Kinda hard to explain things to someone who confuses the issues of paying towards the costs of a child that exists in the world and the impossibility of forcing a woman to carry a foetus to term.

Even if these issues were related the thought processes of someone that would claim that either was a bargaining chip for their vote on an issue is an alien mental landscape to me.

ForestFire

NollagShona wrote: »

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

I think we are only talking about the choice of not wanting the baby? The women can still decide to avoid the 9 month pregnancy or continue alone?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

ForestFire wrote: »

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?

Absolutely the father can make that choice for himself if he personally is pregnant.

pemay

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

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.

Not to play word games, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say "you want the responsibility to not have responsibility"?

I mean, you can say a man or woman already has responsibility when it comes to getting pregnant, I see this as a "way out" of that responsibility.

Like different tiers of responsibility, you screw it up once, you need a second chance.

Everyone, men and women, already have the personal responsibility and personal agency and available methods and lifestyles to avoid pregnancy.

ForestFire

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

Absolutely the father can make that choice for himself if he personally is pregnant.

So he can be forced to accept a chid he did not want, that may not be planned, that may be from the result of contraception not working, from any case of male rape.

The father get no say (Again I'm only talking about the case of not wanting child)

JRant

NollagShona wrote: »

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

Forcing?
Is it not about choice?
Nobody should be forced to have an abortion and the citizens shouldn't be forced to pony up for it either.

pemay

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

Absolutely the father can make that choice for himself if he personally is pregnant.

Well that's real nice.

So heres a better way of putting then, is it, or is it not, HIS child/foetus/lump of cells/chicken nugget?

If yes, then why would he be legally excluded from decision making on his own chicken nugget?

One eyed Jack

ForestFire wrote: »

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)

No man is a father unless or until the woman he impregnated gives birth.

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?

No, he shouldn't, because a man has no responsibility for a child before they are born, and when the child is born, then it's a completely different scenario to abortion because without meaning to state the obvious - no abortion took place. You're then in a situation where the rights and welfare of the child is paramount, and that child needs to be provided for by both parents of that child.

NollagShona

JRant wrote: »

Forcing?
Is it not about choice?
Nobody should be forced to have an abortion and the citizens shouldn't be forced to pony up for it either.

We pay for lots of things we’d rather not with our taxes. I don’t see abortions as any different

repeal the hate

NollagShona wrote: »

A man has a choice. His job is done in seconds

Any chap whose 'job is done in seconds' is no man.
A real man is someone who understands that his real job and real commitments begin when he is involved in creating life.
That's the difference between a father and a sperm donor.

It appears some ladies are so committed to ending the patriarchy that they see no problem with dispensing with fatherhood entirely.

NollagShona

ForestFire wrote: »

I think we are only talking about the choice of not wanting the baby? The women can still decide to avoid the 9 month pregnancy or continue alone?

The man doesn’t grow the embryo

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote:

If yes, then why would he be legally excluded from decision making on his own chicken nugget?

How do you propose enforcing his legal right to make decisions?

NollagShona

repeal the hate wrote: »

Any chap whose 'job is done in seconds' is no man.
A real man is someone who understands that his real job and real commitments begin when he is involved in creating life.
That's the difference between a father and a sperm donor.

It appears some ladies are so committed to ending the patriarchy that they see no problem with dispensing with fatherhood entirely.

What? Fertilisation takes seconds. That’s a fact.

Gestation takes 40 weeks

pemay

NollagShona wrote: »

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

Such a dumb position to take.

Yes, the outcome, owing to sheer biological difference, means that the woman must carry the child for 9 months. Just like the rest of human history.

But to say a man has already "made his decision" by ejaculating, and theres nothing more to it? Come on!!

repeal the hate

NollagShona wrote: »

What? Fertilisation takes seconds. That’s a fact.

Gestation takes 40 weeks

You're making my point for me... you just see men as sperm donors.
What a fantastic recipe for a society.

Triceratops Ballet

repeal the hate wrote:

It appears some ladies are so committed to ending the patriarchy that they see no problem with dispensing with fatherhood entirely.

Nobody has said that, and you're the first person to mention the patriarchy!

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pemay wrote: »

Not to play word games, but wouldn't it be more accurate to say "you want the responsibility to not have responsibility"?

I mean, you can say a man or woman already has responsibility when it comes to getting pregnant, I see this as a "way out" of that responsibility.

Like different tiers of responsibility, you screw it up once, you need a second chance.

Everyone, men and women, already have the personal responsibility and personal agency and available methods and lifestyles to avoid pregnancy.

It would be financially and personally irresponsible for me to become a parent. Therefore I take measures to avoid pregnancy, and if those were to fail I would continue the habit of being responsible and get an abortion. How is that a way out? I also smoke, if I started developing an illness because of that should I just go "Oh well, I did smoke those cigarettes so I better be responsible and not get any medical treatment"?

You want people only to take responsibility in one specific way. Everyone has the available methods and lifestyles to reduce the risk of pregnancy, but not to eliminate it, short of total celibacy.

Now, if I believed that a human soul, precious little baby or whatever was present from the moment of conception, perhaps total celibacy would be something worth doing. But I don't, so it's not.

pemay wrote: »

Well that's real nice.

So heres a better way of putting then, is it, or is it not, HIS child/foetus/lump of cells/chicken nugget?

If yes, then why would he be legally excluded from decision making on his own chicken nugget?

For all of the reasons already pointed out in this thread. The burden of responsibility is not the same, so the burden of rights isn't. Trying to actually implicate any kind of "paper abortion" rules would throw up a lot of serious problems around heritable illnesses, inheritance, enforcement when the child is grown up, the rights of the father's extended family, social protection etc etc.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I don't have to explain the thinking behind why we shouldn't make laws about when a man is allowed to compel a woman to get an abortion.

repeal the hate

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

Nobody has said that, and you're the first person to mention the patriarchy!

And you're the second... point?

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

How do you propose enforcing his legal right to make decisions?

I am not making a legal proposal, I am putting forward a philosophical proposal.

If people cant agree philosophically, then it is merely a waste of time talking about legal infrastructure, and would be even worse to enforce it. (or at least, that's how it should be....*takes a look at the current things happening*)

But then again, if one half of a relationship can make unilateral decisions without consensus, well then I guess the other half should too!

ForestFire

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No man is a father unless or until the woman he impregnated gives birth.

No, he shouldn't, because a man has no responsibility for a child before they are born, and when the child is born, then it's a completely different scenario to abortion because without meaning to state the obvious - no abortion took place. You're then in a situation where the rights and welfare of the child is paramount, and that child needs to be provided for by both parents of that child.

I am talking about the right to end a pregnancy, Is it that hard to change Father, to Potential Father?

Why does he not get the same right as a potential Mother to say no this is not what I wanted. Why can he be forced into Fatherhood he does not want?

ForestFire

Originally Posted by NollagShona View Post
"A man has a choice. His job is done in seconds- a woman has to grow the baby for 9 months. Huge difference"

I am talking about the right not to have the baby. No 9 months to carry the baby, back to the status Quo.

(Unless the mother still wants to continue alone as her own choice)

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote:

But then again, if one half of a relationship can make unilateral decisions without consensus, well then I guess the other half should too!

If the burden on all parties were equal then that would be feasible, it's not though, so there can't be an equal outcome.

end of the road

NollagShona wrote: »

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

because they want to have the abortion and it isn't the tax payer's responsibility to pay for it. with what is being proposed it shouldn't create a two tier system if it is true that abortion pills are very low cost as some are telling us.

[Deleted User]

ForestFire wrote: »

I am talking about the right to end a pregnancy, Is it that hard to change Father, to Potential Father?

Why does he not get the same right as a potential Mother to say no this is not what I wanted. Why can he be forced into Fatherhood he does not want?

men cannot be forced into fatherhood. they can father a child with a woman but they cannot be forced to stick around.

JRant

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No man is a father unless or until the woman he impregnated gives birth.

No, he shouldn't, because a man has no responsibility for a child before they are born, and when the child is born, then it's a completely different scenario to abortion because without meaning to state the obvious - no abortion took place. You're then in a situation where the rights and welfare of the child is paramount, and that child needs to be provided for by both parents of that child.

That's just not true though. You can be a father long before the child is actually born. You can get the nursery ready, attend scans, start saving for anything they might need, he'll even talk to it as they can hear your voice from an surprisingly early stage.

I don't like this overly simplistic view that fatherhood only begins when the head pops out. It relegated father's to nothing more than a sideshow in the whole pregnancy and couldn't be further from the truth for a lot of father's. Responsibility begins long before birth and it's about time it was given a bit more respect.

I would also say that a child needs both parents in it's life, not just providing for it.

JRant

NollagShona wrote: »

We pay for lots of things we’d rather not with our taxes. I don’t see abortions as any different

Well, respectfully, we will have to agree to disagree on that so.

[Deleted User]

end of the road wrote: »

because they want to have the abortion and it isn't the tax payer's responsibility to pay for it. with what is being proposed it shouldn't create a two tier system if it is true that abortion pills are very low cost as some are telling us.

the taxpayer currently pays for abortions in ireland when they occur. maternity care is free

pemay

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

It would be financially and personally irresponsible for me to become a parent. Therefore I take measures to avoid pregnancy, and if those were to fail I would continue the habit of being responsible and get an abortion. How is that a way out? I also smoke, if I started developing an illness because of that should I just go "Oh well, I did smoke those cigarettes so I better be responsible and not get any medical treatment"?

You want people only to take responsibility in one specific way. Everyone has the available methods and lifestyles to reduce the risk of pregnancy, but not to eliminate it, short of total celibacy.

Now, if I believed that a human soul, precious little baby or whatever was present from the moment of conception, perhaps total celibacy would be something worth doing. But I don't, so it's not.

For all of the reasons already pointed out in this thread. The burden of responsibility is not the same, so the burden of rights isn't. Trying to actually implicate any kind of "paper abortion" rules would throw up a lot of serious problems around heritable illnesses, inheritance, enforcement when the child is grown up, the rights of the father's extended family, social protection etc etc.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume I don't have to explain the thinking behind why we shouldn't make laws about when a man is allowed to compel a woman to get an abortion.

To the first paragraph, I see things quite simply and efficiently. You either 100% don't want to get pregnant, or you do, nobody is forcing you to have sex, and nobody is forcing you to only use one type of contraceptive and so on. Do you ever meet those people who think just one drink is grand and can still drive?

And its a good analogy with smoking by the way, everyone and their dog knows that smoking is bad for you. If you choose to be an eejit and pay no attention to your own personal responsibility, then no, other people shouldn't have to come running to save you from your own wilful ignorance, be that medical practitioners or tax payers.

You say that the burden of responsibility isn't the same (this is assuming that two adults have ALREADY made poor choices in life) for a woman as a man. This is true. But we aren't talking about different levels of responsibility and decision making between men and women, the issue is that the man has NOTHING in regards representation. Zero.

That's a problem, and a big one too.

Youre right, you don't have to explain the fallout of where this is heading. Its pretty clear.

The Jman

If a man asks a woman to keep go through with the pregnancy and she says no she wants an abortion then that's fine with me. If a man asks a woman to have an abortion and she says no does this mean the man shouldn't have to pay any maintenance towards the child when it's born?

JRant

bubblypop wrote: »

the taxpayer currently pays for abortions in ireland when they occur. maternity care is free

Yes, when it is a medical necessity and that's the way it should stay.

Choosing to have an abortion is not part of maternity care and should be kept completely separate from it.

Quick Links

All Categories
Recent Posts
Activity
Unanswered
Groups
Best Of