Men's rights on Abortion?

repeal the hate · 30-01-2018 10:28PM

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.

Sounds like advocating abortion as contraception... slippery moral slope to be on there.
If only there were numerous other forms of contraception available or you know... behaving a bit more like a responsible adult with your reproductive organs.

Edward M · 30-01-2018 10:30PM

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

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

I would have said that too, I also asked about a woman who aborts late and the foetus survives, how does that go?

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 30-01-2018 10:30PM

repeal the hate wrote: »

Sounds like advocating abortion as contraception... slippery moral slope to be on there.

You might want to google that word.

And if that's what it sounds like to you, that's on you.

RocketRaccoon · 30-01-2018 10:30PM

repeal the hate wrote: »

Sounds like advocating abortion as contraception... slippery moral slope to be on there.

Exactly the same as the girls I was talking about earlier today. No issue at all with what she was doing, using it as a contraceptive and nothing else.

30-01-2018 10:31PM

pemay wrote: »

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.

the best case would of course be that both the man & the woman agree on the issue. obviously.
nature however dictates that the woman is the one who has to actually BE pregnant, therefore she does have the final say.
and i totally agree that it is unfair, but thats life really. men cannot be pregnant. and neither can they force the woman to stay pregnant nor to terminate.
so thats the situation as is.
its no reason to deny women access to early safe abortion in this country

eviltwin · 30-01-2018 10:31PM

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Exactly the same as the girls I was talking about earlier today. No issue at all with what she was doing, using it as a contraceptive and nothing else.

I imagine she meant having an abortion if her contraception fails.......duh!

One eyed Jack · 30-01-2018 10:32PM

[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.

Nobody is suggesting that they are, but there would have been no possible way for that man to have the child he wanted without a woman being forced to give birth against her will, and that would have had a detrimental effect on her, and a detrimental effect on the child had they been born to a parent who didn't want them.

Of course there is no implication that any father of an unexpected pregnancy is a bastard, but that's not who we're talking about here. We're talking about the idea that men should be given the legal right to abdicate their legal responsibilities towards their children. That's not even in the same ball park as the situation you described.

pemay · 30-01-2018 10:32PM

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

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.

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.

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.

You have said it twice, categorically, now, that you are willing to take a risk. Crossing the road is not the same as smoking, or drink driving, or risky sexual behaviour.

And yeah I'll say it again, people who knowingly engage in poor lifestyle choices, when it has been made apparent for decades and centuries in some cases......should not be allowed a "get out of jail free card". You don't learn and grow as person by having mistakes forgiven, you learn from the ons that actually have an impact.

Mother nature doesn't provide legislation and clinics and so on for abortion. People do. So I'll take issue with the completely (100%) imbalanced decision making made by people instead.

Regardless whether you think women need more anything, how about the most simple of admittances, that 100% versus 0% is unfair. That's an easy starting point, no?

njs030 · 30-01-2018 10:33PM

Edward M wrote: »

I would have said that too, I also asked about a woman who aborts late and the foetus survives, how does that go?

That won't be a problem abortion without restriction will only be available until 12 weeks.

Triceratops Ballet · 30-01-2018 10:33PM

repeal the hate wrote: »

Sounds like advocating abortion as contraception... slippery moral slope to be on there.
If only there were numerous other forms of contraception available or you know... behaving a bit more like a responsible adult with your reproductive organs.

Of course it sounds like that if you're looking for a sensationalist soundbite!

it sounds nothing like that to me, but then I've read the preceding posts.

martingriff · 30-01-2018 10:34PM

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?

Read what I said again.

I said she can't be forced to do what she does not want to do. E.g If she wants an abortion he can't stop but I do believe in a relation there would be some conversation but if she want to have it then she should.

repeal the hate · 30-01-2018 10:35PM

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

You might want to google that word.

And if that's what it sounds like to you, that's on you.

You might like to google the modifier 'as'...

It's actually on you because you're the one validating abortion as an alternative to acting like an adult.... it's ok guard I don't need to use a seat belt - I'm going to use the dashboard to stop me in the event of an accident.

30-01-2018 10:35PM

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Nobody is suggesting that they are, but there would have been no possible way for that man to have the child he wanted without a woman being forced to give birth against her will, and that would have had a detrimental effect on her, and a detrimental effect on the child had they been born to a parent who didn't want them.

Of course there is no implication that any father of an unexpected pregnancy is a bastard, but that's not who we're talking about here. We're talking about the idea that men should be given the legal right to abdicate their legal responsibilities towards their children. That's not even in the same ball park as the situation you described.

He knew that he would have been wrong to object. It didn’t lessen his grief.

pemay · 30-01-2018 10:36PM

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

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.

I'm sorry, can you say that more plainly, please?

You think its unfair, because of mother nature, NOT because of the proposed legal and societal ramifications?

Its an easy question to answer. Yes or no.

NinetyTwoTeam · 30-01-2018 10:37PM

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.

Men have the right to refrain from unprotected sex with a woman who doesn't want a child. That's all you have to do if you don't want a woman to abort your progeny. Why any man would find it strange that they can't force a woman to be an incubator is beyond me.

It's just a really far-fetched justification for denying women the right to bodily autonomy, steeped in whataboutery. I'd say in most cases if a man impregnates a woman and she doesn't want it, he probably doesn't either. And in those few cases where he wants it but she doesn't, it's probably because she has figured out he's a jerk and doesn't want anything to do with him any more.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 30-01-2018 10:38PM

pemay wrote: »

You have said it twice, categorically, now, that you are willing to take a risk. Crossing the road is not the same as smoking, or drink driving, or risky sexual behaviour.

But crossing the road when you don't want to get hit by a car is exactly as much of an oxymoron as me having sex when I don't want to be a parent.

And yeah I'll say it again, people who knowingly engage in poor lifestyle choices, when it has been made apparent for decades and centuries in some cases......should not be allowed a "get out of jail free card". You don't learn and grow as person by having mistakes forgiven, you learn from the ons that actually have an impact.

Well fair play, you're consistent.

Mother nature doesn't provide legislation and clinics and so on for abortion. People do. So I'll take issue with the completely (100%) imbalanced decision making made by people instead.

Laws are rather influenced by nature you know. Physics, biology, etc. We didn't as a society just pull this situation out of our arses because, lol, fcuk men.

Regardless whether you think women need more anything, how about the most simple of admittances, that 100% versus 0% is unfair. That's an easy starting point, no?

Of course it's unfair, that's the second time you've set that up as some kind of "gotcha"

It's very unfair. Life's very unfair. This is the least worst scenario.

pemay · 30-01-2018 10:40PM

bubblypop wrote: »

the best case would of course be that both the man & the woman agree on the issue. obviously.
nature however dictates that the woman is the one who has to actually BE pregnant, therefore she does have the final say.
and i totally agree that it is unfair, but thats life really. men cannot be pregnant. and neither can they force the woman to stay pregnant nor to terminate.
so thats the situation as is.
its no reason to deny women access to early safe abortion in this country

No, I don't accept what youre saying and others too.

You are saying its unfair because of nature, while simultaneously ignoring that the abortion issue isn't about nature at all.

The societal framework (legal, lawful, expectation etc) is what is being talked about here. And those frameworks are what is granting the woman 100% control over the situation.

So, is it fair or unfair that these MAN-MADE things are distributing 100% control to one party and 0% to the other?

One eyed Jack · 30-01-2018 10:41PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

He knew that he would have been wrong to object. It didn’t lessen his grief.

Of course it doesn't lessen his grief, it probably adds to his grief significantly, but there isn't anything which could be written in legislation which would allow for the outcome that he wanted.

eviltwin · 30-01-2018 10:42PM

pemay wrote: »

No, I don't accept what youre saying and others too.

You are saying its unfair because of nature, while simultaneously ignoring that the abortion issue isn't about nature at all.

The societal framework (legal, lawful, expectation etc) is what is being talked about here. And those frameworks are what is granting the woman 100% control over the situation.

So, is it fair or unfair that these MAN-MADE things are distributing 100% control to one party and 0% to the other?

How do you suggest enforcement?

pemay · 30-01-2018 10:42PM

martingriff wrote: »

Read what I said again.

I said she can't be forced to do what she does not want to do. E.g If she wants an abortion he can't stop but I do believe in a relation there would be some conversation but if she want to have it then she should.

I didn't just read what you said, I literally rewrote it!

Its still stupid.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 30-01-2018 10:42PM

repeal the hate wrote: »

You might like to google the modifier 'as'...

It's actually on you because you're the one validating abortion as an alternative to acting like an adult.... it's ok guard I don't need to use a seat belt - I'm going to use the dashboard to stop me in the event of an accident.

No, you're the one who reads that as me thinking the act of getting an abortion is as of much significance as putting on a condom or taking my pill, if I'm reading you right? Completely inaccurate, and coming from your own head.

Triceratops Ballet · 30-01-2018 10:42PM

pemay wrote: »

I'm sorry, can you say that more plainly, please?

You think its unfair, because of mother nature, NOT because of the proposed legal and societal ramifications?

Its an easy question to answer. Yes or no.

I literally have no idea what you mean

Is it unfair, yes

Is it a less than desirable scenario, yes

is there any way around it, not that I can see.

I've asked you multiple times so how about you take a turn as answering a simple question.
What would you like to see happen in a situation where a woman is pregnant and doesn't want to be, by a man who wants to keep the baby.
I'm not interested in what you think as regards the moral responsibility of both, I'm interested in how you propose legally resolving the situation.

bodice ripper · 30-01-2018 10:43PM

Were I to become pregnant from a casual encounter, I would get an abortion and I would not be asking permission or perhaps even informing the man in question.

With a partner I would certainly discuss the matter, but the decision would be mine, and almost certainly be an abortion. This is definitely something that would be spoken about at an early stage of the relationship.

RocketRaccoon · 30-01-2018 10:43PM

Ephraim Squeaking Sympathy wrote: »

No, you're the one who reads that as me thinking the act of getting an abortion is as of much significance as putting on a condom or taking my pill, if I'm reading you right? Completely inaccurate, and coming from your own head.

It's people like you who make me want to vote against this.

pq0n1ct4ve8zf5 · 30-01-2018 10:44PM

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's people like you who make me want to vote against this.

Because I think getting an abortion is different from using a condom

SusieBlue · 30-01-2018 10:44PM

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's people like you who make me want to vote against this.

You’ve already said you don’t care either way and that you won’t be voting?

pemay · 30-01-2018 10:44PM

eviltwin wrote: »

How do you suggest enforcement?

Never mind about that for now. How about instead of losing sight of the main argument (perhaps on purpose), how about get to the basics instead?

Is it fair for man-made implements to confer 100% control of an unborn child (of a man and woman!) to just the woman?

Is that fair?

pemay · 30-01-2018 10:46PM

NinetyTwoTeam wrote: »

Men have the right to refrain from unprotected sex with a woman who doesn't want a child. That's all you have to do if you don't want a woman to abort your progeny. Why any man would find it strange that they can't force a woman to be an incubator is beyond me.

It's just a really far-fetched justification for denying women the right to bodily autonomy, steeped in whataboutery. I'd say in most cases if a man impregnates a woman and she doesn't want it, he probably doesn't either. And in those few cases where he wants it but she doesn't, it's probably because she has figured out he's a jerk and doesn't want anything to do with him any more.

Guess what, a woman has the right to refrain from sex too, and then wouldn't need an abortion.

Easy huh?

30-01-2018 10:47PM

I've been trying to see the angle here.

The few vocal posters in favour of conflating father's rights and alimony with the bodily autonomy of a pregnant woman......I don't believe for a second that these posters are anything but stirring a pot here.

The problem they have is with abortion - the positions taken to ensure that it is a problem for them -without ever being ~the~ problem- are ludicrous. The links between abortion and the issues they are linking it to in this thread are ludicrous.

They are literally just attempting to convince readers of this forum- no secret that uh the posters here are predisposed to uh certain uh leanings - that the right to abortion is somehow *another trick women are pulling on them*

I can only surmise that we have a few logins here on a mission to persuade boards MRA about the upcoming referendum

Anyone want to fess up? What's the going rate lads? Ye posting from Ireland even?

I sincerely hope the readers see through it. The ability of Irish women not to have to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term has to be seen as a matter of women's health or we are seriously in a pit of madness.

One eyed Jack · 30-01-2018 10:48PM

pemay wrote: »

No, I don't accept what youre saying and others too.

You are saying its unfair because of nature, while simultaneously ignoring that the abortion issue isn't about nature at all.

The societal framework (legal, lawful, expectation etc) is what is being talked about here. And those frameworks are what is granting the woman 100% control over the situation.

So, is it fair or unfair that these MAN-MADE things are distributing 100% control to one party and 0% to the other?

Unless you missed it, you must also acknowledge that the reason a woman has 100% of control over her pregnancy is because she also carries 100% of the responsibility for her pregnancy.

The laws aren't granting her anything that she can't do already, they are acknowledging that she can do those things because due to her biology, she already has 100% control over whether she wishes to remain pregnant or not. A man has 0% control because he has 0% of the responsibility of maintaining or ending a woman's pregnancy.

Men's rights on Abortion?

Comments