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

One eyed Jack

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?

It's not that it's hard to change it, the point is that they're two completely different circumstances. The mother has the right to decide whether or not she wants to become a mother, whether implied or implicit, because she is the person who will ultimately have to give birth.

No man is forced into fatherhood they don't want, but they do have to provide for their children, because that is in the best interests of the child, nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights for men and women where the circumstances simply aren't equal by virtue of the differences in biology between the two sexes.

[Deleted User]

JRant wrote: »

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.

I haven't heard any one arguing it should be free, maybe some are, but I haven't heard.
currently women have to pay for the abortion and travel, so it won't change much i wouldn't think.

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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.

We can yip and yap about percentages 20/80/, 34/66 blah blah, but the crux of the matter is that one person has 100% control and the other has 0% control.

And that's b*ull****.

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote: »

We can yip and yap about percentages 20/80/, 34/66 blah blah, but the crux of the matter is that one person has 100% control and the other has 0% control.

And that's b*ull****.

it's biology though, there's no way around it!

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

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

Stating the obvious of the 9 month difference, whats making a mother stick around more than a father?

ForestFire

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not that it's hard to change it, the point is that they're two completely different circumstances. The mother has the right to decide whether or not she wants to become a mother, whether implied or implicit, because she is the person who will ultimately have to give birth.

No man is forced into fatherhood they don't want, but they do have to provide for their children, because that is in the best interests of the child, nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights for men and women where the circumstances simply aren't equal by virtue of the differences in biology between the two sexes.

Its not the hard but you still used Mother before she actually becomes a mother, But I understand what you mean.

"Not Man is forced.....but they do have too"

That's a bit of a contradition

If a women can decided to end for any reason, including financial, then why can't a man have the same freedome of choice about his finance situation?

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

Stating the obvious of the 9 month difference, whats making a mother stick around more than a father?

nothing at all, but a woman has to give birth unless she decides to terminate.
women don't have to stick around either. just making the point that men cannot be forced into fatherhood.

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

it's biology though, there's no way around it!

Responsibility isn't dictated by biology, its dictated by society and laws.

JRant

The Jman wrote: »

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?

Well it's certainly worth discussing but how would you even begin to enfoce it? It's an absolute minefield.

What I would like to see is that rather than being able to walk away from a child, a father should have a complete equal say and responsibility in the child's life. Everything equal from paternity leave, custody, child benefit etc. This should be the automatic starting point when any child is born, none of this nonsense of having to apply for guardianship, begging courts to let them see them or not paying a cent towards them.

martingriff

A man can't and should never be able to force a woman to do something she does not want to do. However if the couple are in a relationship then there should be some conversation between them but if she wants to do then she can.

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

nothing at all, but a woman has to give birth unless she decides to terminate.
women don't have to stick around either. just making the point that men cannot be forced into fatherhood.

So you admit that women cant be forced into motherhood either. So its a moot point.

Edward M

ForestFire wrote: »

Its not the hard but you still used Mother before she actually becomes a mother, But I understand what you mean.

"Not Man is forced.....but they do have too"

That's a bit of a contradition

If a women can decided to end for any reason, including financial, then why can't a man have the same freedome of choice about his finance situation?

I asked that same question last night on another thread, I got no answer.

pemay

martingriff wrote: »

A man can't and should never be able to force a woman to do something she does not want to do. However if the couple are in a relationship then there should be some conversation between them but if she wants to do then she can.

A woman can't and should never be able to force a man to do something he does not want to do. However if the couple are in a relationship then there should be some conversation between them but if he wants to do then he can

See how stupid that sounds?

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote: »

Responsibility isn't dictated by biology, its dictated by society and laws.

So you're looking for social change and or laws that give men the right to challenge a womans who wants to have an abortion?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pemay wrote: »

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?

I 100% don't want to have a child. Getting pregnant is an acceptable, very small risk to me for the sake of a loving, healthy, rewarding sex life. But I sure as shít ain't staying pregnant. Like I said, if I felt differently about foetuses, I'd behave differently, but I don't. That's still not refusing to take responsibility.

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.

And yet, because we live in the real world, every day medical practitioners and tax payers step up and help smokers, alcoholics, drug users, boy racers, people with things stuck in their bottoms, people who got a broken arm arguing about a match etc etc. It's only when it comes to sex and pregnancy that this "You got yourself into this, tough titty" attitude comes up. Which, again, makes a certain amount of sense if you believe an embryo or foetus is as important as an adult human being, but no sense otherwise.

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.

"Zero" and "all" are different levels of responsibility. You don't have to grow a person out of sperm and food inside you, possibly negatively impact your health and career, give birth, you don't get to make the final call on the pregnancy.

You say you're talking philosophically and not legally. I would imagine in relationships when crisis pregnancy occurs the conversation does happen and a man's input can change a woman's decision.

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

So you're looking for social change and or laws that give men the right to challenge a womans who wants to have an abortion?

Whatever shape it takes, it is 100% lopsided as it stands.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

Edward M wrote: »

I asked that same question last night on another thread, I got no answer.

Because when it gets to the point of maintenance, there is a child who has rights that need to be taken into consideration.

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

So you admit that women cant be forced into motherhood either. So its a moot point.

if women can avail of abortion, then they cannot be forced into having a child.
anyone can walk away once a child is born

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote: »

Whatever shape it takes, it is 100% lopsided as it stands.

then explain to me how you envisage how it could be different?

JRant

One eyed Jack wrote: »

It's not that it's hard to change it, the point is that they're two completely different circumstances. The mother has the right to decide whether or not she wants to become a mother, whether implied or implicit, because she is the person who will ultimately have to give birth.

No man is forced into fatherhood they don't want, but they do have to provide for their children, because that is in the best interests of the child, nothing whatsoever to do with equal rights for men and women where the circumstances simply aren't equal by virtue of the differences in biology between the two sexes.

I would argue there are men who have been forced into fatherhood. In the case of male rape victims where the "mother" has successfully gone after maintenance (like the case in Florida last year). There are probably other examples so I would be weary of dealing in absolutes on this.

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

A woman can't and should never be able to force a man to do something he does not want to do. However if the couple are in a relationship then there should be some conversation between them but if he wants to do then he can

See how stupid that sounds?

a woman cannot force a man into fatherhood. a man can walk away. what is it about that you dont understand?

JRant

bubblypop wrote: »

I haven't heard any one arguing it should be free, maybe some are, but I haven't heard.
currently women have to pay for the abortion and travel, so it won't change much i wouldn't think.

Well hopefully they won't have to travel for much longer and we grow up as a society.

[Deleted User]

One of the saddest conversations I’ve had was with the father of an aborted baby. He felt that he had no right to stand in her way. Ten years later he was still grieving his child. (His words, not mine) The relationship didn’t last, he recons that it wouldn’t have anyway, but that didn’t lessen his grief. He hadn’t told anyone before. He felt alone.

Not all fathers of unexpected pregnancies are ba***rds.

pemay

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

I 100% don't want to have a child. Getting pregnant is an acceptable, very small risk to me for the sake of a loving, healthy, rewarding sex life. But I sure as shít ain't staying pregnant. Like I said, if I felt differently about foetuses, I'd behave differently, but I don't. That's still not refusing to take responsibility.

And yet, because we live in the real world, every day medical practitioners and tax payers step up and help smokers, alcoholics, drug users, boy racers, people with things stuck in their bottoms, people who got a broken arm arguing about a match etc etc. It's only when it comes to sex and pregnancy that this "You got yourself into this, tough titty" attitude comes up. Which, again, makes a certain amount of sense if you believe an embryo or foetus is as important as an adult human being, but no sense otherwise.

"Zero" and "all" are different levels of responsibility. You don't have to grow a person out of sperm and food inside you, possibly negatively impact your health and career, give birth, you don't get to make the final call on the pregnancy.

You say you're talking philosophically and not legally. I would imagine in relationships when crisis pregnancy occurs the conversation does happen and a man's input can change a woman's decision.

So you 100% don't want to get pregnant, but youre willing to take the risk for your personal pleasure. That's an oxymoron.

As for the smoking analogy, theres a difference between getting something accidentally jammed up your hole, and KNOWINGLY engaging in behaviour over protracted periods of time that is detrimental to your desired outcomes. I don't know who youre talking about when you say "oh its different when pregnancy comes up". Not for me it isn't, its all the same.

And for the last part, youre saying its cushty for a man to settle for a conversation, but women need much more. That doesn't make sense, unless you are willing to admit that its a case of women only looking out for women. That would be truthful, but it still wouldn't negate the compete imbalance.

One eyed Jack

ForestFire wrote: »

Its not the hard but you still used Mother before she actually becomes a mother, But I understand what you mean.

Yes, I used mother because you suggested it wasn't that difficult so I figured fair enough, I'll use whatever terms you're more comfortable with. I understand what I mean too and that's why men when they are only potential fathers, have no implicit right to not become potential fathers where no child exists. It's why for example men do not have to pay maintenance for a child that hasn't been born yet.

"Not Man is forced.....but they do have too"

That's a bit of a contradition

It may appear to be a contradiction to you, but it's not a contradiction to me because fatherhood implies much more than a man being legally obliged to provide financial support for his children.

If a women can decided to end for any reason, including financial, then why can't a man have the same freedome of choice about his finance situation?

Because the man isn't pregnant, and men aren't ever likely to be able to become pregnant, and therefore will never have to consider whether or not they should have an equal right to a termination of their pregnancy for financial reasons.

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

then explain to me how you envisage how it could be different?

I'll just wait for you to firstly admit that the current situation is seriously unfair.

Then I'd know that I wasn't engaging in some tactic to draw attention away from the main issue in order to suffocate it beneath technicality.

RocketRaccoon

Deleted User wrote: »

One of the saddest conversations I’ve had was with the father of an aborted baby. He felt that he had no right to stand in her way. Ten years later he was still grieving his child. (His words, not mine) The relationship didn’t last, he recons that it wouldn’t have anyway, but that didn’t lessen his grief. He hadn’t told anyone before. He felt alone.

Not all fathers of unexpected pregnancies are ba***rds.

I wish more people realised this affects men aswell.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5

pemay wrote: »

So you 100% don't want to get pregnant, but youre willing to take the risk for your personal pleasure. That's an oxymoron.

Do you WANT to get knocked down by a car? Do you cross roads?

I don't want to get pregnant, but being pregnant doesn't mean having to become a parent so yeah, I'm willing to risk that rather than lose out on one of the most important and beneficial aspects of life.

As for the smoking analogy, theres a difference between getting something accidentally jammed up your hole, and KNOWINGLY engaging in behaviour over protracted periods of time that is detrimental to your desired outcomes. I don't know who youre talking about when you say "oh its different when pregnancy comes up". Not for me it isn't, its all the same.

So you think that smokers, alcoholics, the obese, drug addicts, motorcyclists, should be denied treatment for anything arising out of that behaviour? Because that's what "it's all the same" is.

And for the last part, youre saying its cushty for a man to settle for a conversation, but women need much more. That doesn't make sense, unless you are willing to admit that its a case of women only looking out for women. That would be truthful, but it still wouldn't negate the compete imbalance.

They do need more, and again, and seriously for the last time, it's because WOMEN ARE THE ONES WHO GET PREGNANT.

If you have a problem with that imbalance, you can only take it up with Mother Nature.

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

if women can avail of abortion, then they cannot be forced into having a child.
anyone can walk away once a child is born

okay. So if a woman decides 100% to have an abortion (which she would be able to) with no input from the father.....then both can walk away.

This is not a point really, the question is whether a man should have some say (beyond a bloody conversation) as to whether his child/potential child can be born or not, in as meaningful a way as the mother could.

Triceratops Ballet

pemay wrote: »

I'll just wait for you to firstly admit that the current situation is seriously unfair.

Then I'd know that I wasn't engaging in some tactic to draw attention away from the main issue in order to suffocate it beneath technicality.

I never said it wasn't unfair, it is it's an unfair side effect of the biological differences between men and women, it's unfortunate, but short of a legal injunction to stop a woman from having an abortion when the father wants to have a child, which I see as entirely un-enforceable, I can't see a resolution.