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

MayoSalmon

bubblypop wrote:

really? sorry, but until it can live on its own outside the womb, then it is not alive.

If you haven't realise a newborn baby will still die if not cared for so it cannot live on its "own".

You should also note a fetus born at 21 weeks is capable of survival

njs030

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you realise how much pain etc women go through after an abortion?

Very little generally. A lot less than they go through in 9 months of pregnancy I can assure you.

[Deleted User]

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

That is the result of their actions.

If I found a rattlesnake and kept poking at it, eventually what comes naturally will happen. It would be my own fault, I wouldn't blame someone else and I would face up to that result.

but you agree, sex is not just for procreation. its important in a loving relationship.
so, if contraception fails, why should they be punished with something they never wanted?

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

but he isn't.
men can, and do walk away from pregnancies and children

And can women do the same thing after giving birth?

Yes they can.

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you realise how much pain etc women go through after an abortion?

Abortion is painful, childbirth is painful, it's not a mystery bag of fun choices.

If you don't want a child you'll think the pain worth it
If you do want a child you'll also think the pain worth it!

end of the road

Deleted User wrote: »

None of your business why any medical procedure takes place. You'd be the first to correct anyone who thought paying tax gave them a say in the specific decisions made by professionals on the ground.

like it's none of my business if someone kills their born child? under your logic, that's exactly what is being said, that it isn't society's business if someone kills another human being within the state.

WhiteRoses wrote: »

Do you think people who are forced into parenthood because they have no other options make good parents? Do you think it’s in the best interests of the child to be brought up by a mother who didn’t want him/her?

Or do you just want to condemn the woman to a fate she doesn’t want just for the sake of making her miserable and punishing her?

And don’t say you don’t want to punish women. Because that’s exactly what you’re doing by denying them an abortion.

no, it's exactly not what we are doing by denying them the ability to kill the unborn. we deny the ability of ourselves to kill other human beings and correctly that is not seen as punishment because it isn't. there is no difference here.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

what business is it of yours?

the reality is, society has made it our business when someone causes harm to another human being and in this country, that correctly extends as much as is practical to the unborn.

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

it is, I'm asking why you're so concerned about it? So what if a woman has more than one abortion?

having multiple abortions is not normal or exceptible behaviour unless it's for genuine medical reasons. after all, abortion is not contraception.

meeeeh

pemay wrote: »

Your words betray your feelings. "disobedient woman", "boys", prison" "geniuses"

Youre not even worth talking to. Talking about? maybe

You really think I the thread actually merits serious response?

Triceratops Ballet

end of the road wrote: »

abortion is not contraception.

nail on the head

abortion is not contraception, and there is no evidence to show it is used as such.

lifeandtimes

seamus wrote: »

i would still largely support a system of "abortion" that allows a man to permanently forgo all parental rights and obligations to a pregnancy, but that doesn't mean the opposite - a system which forces someone to become a parent - should be allowed to exist.

Wow, if there was ever an argument that supported abortion for both sides there it is

njs030

meeeeh wrote: »

You really think I the thread actually merits serious response?

Just report him. The mod warned someone about attacking the poster instead of the post so it should apply to all I presume!

pemay

HandsomeBob wrote: »

Just home from visiting my new nephew, while also entertaining my 4 year old godson who very much knows already that there's "competition" for him and acting accordingly. It's the kind of scenario where you realise just how much work children are, and the love required between two people to raise them. Compounding this is the very difficult pregnancy my sister in law had, and I couldn't imagine someone going through that against their will.

So basically what I'm saying is that ultimately, women should have control over their own bodies. I have my own conflicting feelings about terminations but I've no problem reconciling this with the fact women can make an informed choice and be capable of living with the aftermath of their own decision.

I understand the points about males in relationships not being heard if the woman wants to terminate but if men do find themselves in that scenario, as others have pointed out, you'd have to question the legs of the relationship anyway. Chances are in that scenario, if the man feels he's been completely shut down and hurt deeply, then she's probably not for you and you should move on.

So men should just jog on while the woman decides everything. Sounds great, hope you don't instil that kind of roll-over subjugation in your nephew.

RocketRaccoon

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

nail on the head

abortion is not contraception, and there is no evidence to show it is used as such.

Give it a few years.

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

And can women do the same thing after giving birth?

Yes they can.

yes they can. but they should not be forced to go through pregnancy and labour if they do not wish.
you didnt answer what legal representation a father should have? would he bring the woman to court to force her to abort/go through with a pregnancy?

Triceratops Ballet

pemay you never answered me, what do you propose happens when fathers get their 50/50 representation in the legal decision regarding abortion?

Triceratops Ballet

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Give it a few years.

it's been legal in the UK for 50 years, when are you expecting the hysteria to kick in?

JRant

meeeeh wrote: »

This thread is hilarious. I'm not even surprised anymore by human stupidity.

So what do we do, chain the disobedient woman to the radiator? (Who is going to cook and clean boys?) Take away her documents for the duration of pregnancy? Report the wife to the guards she is planning an abortion and she should be put in prison till she gives birth. I want to see practical solutions. Surely the geniuses who think they should have a say thought up some action plan.

So what you're saying is your against abortions?

meeeeh

notjustsweet wrote: »

Just report him. The mod warned someone about attacking the poster instead of the post so it should apply to all I presume!

Why would I report him if it's more fun laughing at the nonsense debated here.

Anyway if we go for chaining woman to the radiator till she is full term (I mean you wouldn't want a wife to have a criminal record in case you need to go for a mortgage), what do you do in houses with underfloor heating. This question could have some serious internal decoration issues. You wouldn't want not to have radiators in the house just in case wife decides to have an abortion.

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

yes they can. but they should not be forced to go through pregnancy and labour if they do not wish.
you didnt answer what legal representation a father should have? would he bring the woman to court to force her to abort/go through with a pregnancy?

Just pointing out that you weren't making a point.

About the court, possibly? Its hard to say what shape the legal element would take, but we're heading down that rabbit hole sooner or later anyway.

Just imagine someone 30 years ago asking the same question about abortion now. "What way do you think it would be handled legally?"

The responses you would have gotten would have torn any suggestions to shreds. Anything.

Same in this situation. I suggest the number "20" in some regard to policy, people will have a field day mocking it and ridiculing it.

That's what some posters here would looooove to get stuck into, an easy to dismantle hypothetical argument. So whats the point in trying? None.

But real situation will come along eventually.

meeeeh

JRant wrote: »

So what you're saying is your against abortions?

Absolutely. No abortions at all.

HandsomeBob

pemay wrote: »

So men should just jog on while the woman decides everything. Sounds great, hope you don't instil that kind of roll-over subjugation in your nephew.

We should be more concerned with improving the rights of men in regards to the children they already have and not seeing through no fault of their own.

Don't worry I'm very much aware of the importance right now that young boys are brought up to stand up for themselves and to know when they have/haven't done something/anything wrong.

[Deleted User]

pemay wrote: »

Just pointing out that you weren't making a point.

About the court, possibly? Its hard to say what shape the legal element would take, but we're heading down that rabbit hole sooner or later anyway.

Just imagine someone 30 years ago asking the same question about abortion now. "What way do you think it would be handled legally?"

The responses you would have gotten would have torn any suggestions to shreds. Anything.

Same in this situation. I suggest the number "20" in some regard to policy, people will have a field day mocking it and ridiculing it.

That's what some posters here would looooove to get stuck into, an easy to dismantle hypothetical argument. So whats the point in trying? None.

But real situation will come along eventually.

this makes no sense whatsoever.
what legal representations do you think a potential father should have when a women is pregnant?

pemay

meeeeh wrote: »

Why would I report him if it's more fun laughing at the nonsense debated here.

Anyway if we go for chaining woman to the radiator till she is full term (I mean you wouldn't want a wife to have a criminal record in case you need to go for a mortgage), what do you do in houses with underfloor heating. This question could have some serious internal decoration issues. You wouldn't want not to have radiators in the house just in case wife decides to have an abortion.

Here, let me doll that up the way you ACTUALLY want to say...

"Poor, innocent women, who could never, ever, ever, ever, do a thing wrong, are literally chained up in the dungeons of hulking idiot man-babies who whip them nightly before raping them daily. They are only allowed out of their chains to meet the whim of the beastly man-things, such as to wash his gold coins while she must suffer, poor, poor thing that she is, in filthy rags....I forget, what were we talking about?"

I mean, Christ, man, can you layer on any more semantic, man-hating hyperbole?!

The clue in my satire is that when you present your ideas in such transparent fashion, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that you couldn't give a fig about the topic, and that it is really just an excuse to air out your rotten sentiments.

pemay

bubblypop wrote: »

this makes no sense whatsoever.
what legal representations do you think a potential father should have when a women is pregnant?

It didn't make any sense.....whatsoever?!

Sorry, youre beyond my help.

meeeeh

pemay wrote: »

The clue in my satire is that when you present your ideas in such transparent fashion, it is CRYSTAL CLEAR that you couldn't give a fig about the topic, and that it is really just an excuse to air out your rotten sentiments.

Nope I am just worried who will pay the mortgage while one person is locked away to stay pregnant and the other one is busy keeping her there. This abortion dilemma really brings us to some very practical problems.

I know!!! An insurance for nine months of lost earnings because it's full time job keeping the woman from having an abortion. Now we are getting somewhere! Is Sean Quinn still doing insurance? He might be interested.

ForestFire

bubblypop wrote: »

this makes no sense whatsoever.
what legal representations do you think a potential father should have when a women is pregnant?

The problem with the thread, and the vote, is there are two very different senario to be considered and the discussion is often mixing the two.

1. Father wants child, mother does not.
I think most will agree, if ref is passedon, it is her choice in the end, however unfair it might be.

2. Mother wants child father does not. In this case why should father not have option to request abortion, and if not granted (or possible) request not being part of child life, both physically and financillay. Saying this already happens does not answer the question. Should it be accepted and allowed and if not why not.

pemay

HandsomeBob wrote: »

We should be more concerned with improving the rights of men in regards to the children they already have and not seeing through no fault of their own.

Don't worry I'm very much aware of the importance right now that young boys are brought up to stand up for themselves and to know when they have/haven't done something/anything wrong.

Well that's good to hear. And youre dead right about the inequality in the legal system.

I suppose I'm more or less pointing out the next big inequality that's going to be dumped on men.

And that's not imply that I'm some kind of woman-hater (as seems to be implied by others in this thread!). For me, men and women happen to be the subject of the discussion, but for others they are the objective.

Big difference!

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

pemay you never answered me, what do you propose happens when fathers get their 50/50 representation in the legal decision regarding abortion?

Only saw this now because the thread is moving very fast.

I already stated that me, anonymous internet guy, is not the best situated to design far-reaching social policy. It would be fuel for others to rage and laugh about.

But as a general idea, I suppose if there was conflict about a man/woman wanting/not wanting a child, then a system could be designed with the likes of adjudicators. It would have to be a massively integrated system of course.

Its a can of worms the size of the country! But I strongly suspect we're going to hear more about it, the way things are going worldwide.

Triceratops Ballet

bubblypop wrote:

this makes no sense whatsoever. what legal representations do you think a potential father should have when a women is pregnant?

he/she won't answer that cos they can't, they've gotten into such a tizzy getting us all to say it's unfair, (despite the majority having acknowledged it prior to their arrival) that they're stuck.

Making any suggestion as to what would happen next would have to factor in the biological reality that it's women who actually carry children and give birth to them, and so there is no enforceable solution. They've worked so hard to separate the biology from it they cant go back now

pemay

meeeeh wrote: »

Nope I am just worried who will pay the mortgage while one person is locked away to stay pregnant and the other one is busy keeping her there. This abortion dilemma really brings us to some very practical problems.

I know!!! An insurance for nine months of lost earnings because it's full time job keeping the woman from having an abortion. Now we are getting somewhere! Is Sean Quinn still doing insurance? He might be interested.

Yeah, you should be running the UN with such obvious impartiality hahaha

pemay

Triceratops Ballet wrote: »

he/she won't answer that cos they can't, they've gotten into such a tizzy getting us all to say it's unfair, (despite the majority having acknowledged it prior to their arrival) that they're stuck.

Making any suggestion as to what would happen next would have to factor in the biological reality that it's women who actually carry children and give birth to them, and so there is no enforceable solution. They've worked so hard to separate the biology from it they cant go back now

Don't try it on, youre not up to it.

Besides the fact that I did give you a general answer.

You see theres difference between me asking a simple yes/no question (and receiving gymnastics in reply), and then being asked to propose a world-first solution for a highly complex issue.

Or maybe you just don't want to see that. I wonder?!!?!