Men's rights on Abortion?

pemay wrote: »

Its all semantics at the end of the day, babe. A womans body, a childs right to life, a mans right to be legally included yadda yadda. Everyone has their own angle and their own perceived rights to be protected.

So lets try it on for size. Its very easy for a woman to be nonchalant and casual about fathers rights when you aren't the father......

Etc

It's not really just semantics, it's forcing a woman to unwillingly carry a pregnancy to term. And men shouldn't have the right of control over a woman's body, that's essentially saying "sure, you can have control over your own body... If this man here is OK with it."
You'd be singing a different, less dismissive tune if you were being told a woman would get to force a vasectomy on you, babe.

I feel like nature has given us the final word on this argument a long long time ago, when it gave the pregnancy term solely to the woman to bear. That might not be fair - and both genders have arguments for that, but it's the way it is.

Here's what happens in the real world - The woman either decides to refuse the man's perspective, or the woman makes a decision to listen to the man and take on board his "50%" claim. In either case, the woman is 100% making a decision (after considering all the inputs she's decided to factor in). And no constitution, or amendment, or repeal, or man (or other woman), or police force is stopping that. Maybe in old Ireland, through manipulation and so on, but not the Ireland we live in today.

Hypothetically, if we were to write into the rulebook that the decision to have an abortion needs to be made by both the man and the woman (50/50), then you will have a lot of couples going to get abortions in Dublin, and again, back to the dark times - a lot of single lonely women making very difficult trips across to England. The point I'm making: Women will make the decision themselves regardless of what is in the rulebook, and regardless of anyone thinks 'should' happen. It's more about how much support we give them during that difficult time.

As long as a man cannot abort his financial obligation to a baby i feel that man have somewhat of a decision in the process.

However as far as the referendum on the 8th is concerned it is a vote on our constitution and like it or not we have an opinion.

I've seen a few posters mention that a couple should have a discussion about unplanned pregnancies from the beginning as if that would solve the issue. The thing is it is very easy to take a stance when discussing a hypothetical situation when it all seems black and white and you're removed from the situation. It is very different when you are faced with the decision and are experiencing first hand the physical, emotional and mental effects of the situation. Personally I always said I'd have an abortion if I fell pregnant- I didn't ever want children.

Then I found myself pregnant at a young age with my first child. All previous beliefs and discussions went out the window- we had the discussion as a couple prior to that and we used contraception, it failed,we were responsible and yet it still happened as it does for quite a few, despite what others want to believe.
Anyway, as a pregnant woman, my opinion changed. I didn't want an abortion, my partner at the time was in agreement. Throughout the 9 months of pregnancy my decision became more difficult, one week I'd be happy with my decision, the next I'd be feeling regret about not terminating (plus the additional guilt of feeling that way about my own growing baby), so it's never as simple as, agree beforehand so you're both on the same page about what you'd do. It is absolutely worth having the conversation but at the end of the day it can all change when you're actually in the situation.

With regards to "facing up to the consequences",which I think only one poster actually mentioned thankfully- I faced up to mine and became a mother before I was ready. Thankfully things turned out alright for us. But no person should be forced to do so- my mental health suffered greatly as a result of doing so and that was my own choice that I had control over. Post natal depression is difficult enough when your pregnancy was planned or you made your decision to continue with the pregnancy despite it being unplanned, trying to manage PND if forced to carry a baby you do not want with all control and choice taken from you would be horrific. Thats not making a woman face consequences thats a form of punishment imo.

In theory I'd support men being able to sign away their rights and obligations if they wished to end the pregnancy but the woman wished to continue. However OEJ has outlined the issues with that and it wouldn't be possible really. OeJ made great points about the child's rights once it's born so in practical terms it's not feasible I don't think but in principle I'd support the general concept if that makes sense.

In terms of men voting on the issue, rather than having a say in individual cases. They are citizens of the country and therefore have every right to have a say in its constitution. Men also play a part in creating the fetus, so abortion does have an impact on them. Also,every fetus has the potential to become either a woman or a man so I think it is only fair that both genders get to have a say in abortion legislation. It is imo ultimately a woman's right to decide though.

Sorry for the novel there :pac:

Calhoun wrote: »

As long as a man cannot abort his financial obligation to a baby i feel that man have somewhat of a decision in the process.

Realistically, it will never be legislated for that a man could abdicate his financial responsibility towards his child, that one doesn't even get out of the starting blocks, so how do you propose that a mans wishes to not become a father be enforced, to compel a woman to have an abortion? That's not going to happen either.

Vertigous_ wrote: »

If you don't want a doctor to have control then don't tell any that you are pregnant, deliver it yourself.

:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Vertigous_ wrote:

Asking for an abortion is making someone else perform an operation on your body.

No it's requesting treatment (not always surgical) and consenting to that treatment, and accepting the potential outcome of said treatment. You're not forcing anyone to carry out an abortion, nor are you being forced.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

And this attitude is exactly the problem. Bad luck for the guy? Grow up.

It is a slightly, but not entirely, crass way to put it, sure, but it is still a valid perspective even if it could be worded better.

I think your heart could appear to be generally in the right place had the mask not slipped later in the thread. That you appear to want to acknowledge that men suffer too, and it is not all about the women. I get that, and this is a good perspective to have. I share it!

But there are two different conversations there, that are overlapping badly.

The first is the Thread Title is about Men's rights. And the majority of posters here think they should have no rights in this context. And I am inclined to agree. The decision to abort, or not abort, is the Woman's alone. And certainly the idea that her partner should have any right to force her to carry a pregnancy, or to abort one she wants, is as unworkable in law as it would be horrific in practice. There is however a conversation there to be had about his rights to separate himself from the process of rearing or financing a child he does not want. And I think there is a middle ground to be found between the two extremes on that conversation. Those claiming that parents can not abdicate rights to their children are simply wrong. People walk away from parenting all the time. And I guess they have not heard of adoption either after which they have given away pretty much all responsibilities over their child.

The second is not about rights but common etiquette. The Man's right to an opinion, to be heard and have his position considered, and to have us acknowledge that a decision that goes against his will affect him emotionally and even financially. And I am mostly on the same page as you on that one. Though I do notice that a lot of the people who admonish women with the "you knew when you had sex that you could get pregnant against your wishes" narrative...... are not so quick to admonish men with the "You knew when you had sex with a woman who had no interest in having a child, that abortion of the fetus you planted was a possibility". Sauce, goose, gander here please.

But the mask slips then, and we move out of EITHER of those conversations, when you shift to lines like these.........

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It's not about wanting a child, it is about stepping up when the situation arises and not taking the easy way out.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Someone who isn't enough of an adult to face up to the result of their actions.

...... and I would suggest your high horse judgement of it is exactly the WRONG approach to take. It should not be about people choosing the hard or easy way forward just for the sake of it being hard or easy. It should be about people considering all the options and choosing the best one for THEM. Regardless of whether YOU judge their choice to be the easy one or hard one.

"Stepping up" means considering all your options.... the opinions of those around you especially those who will be affected by your decision either way............ and taking the best one on rational grounds having considered it all. THAT is what it means to be a responsible rational adult.

It does NOT mean "Do what I would do / would want you to do". We need to drop and kill off this narrative that "stepping up" means doing what OTHERS would demand of us because it is what THEY would do themselves.

That is before we point out that for many people abortion is NOT the easy way out. Many women who seek abortion are doing so for reasons that, were they otherwise, they would not seek that abortion. But they feel compelled, by others, or by their life situation, or by their own evaluation of their own fitness as a parent, to do so. This is NOT a good thing, but it is a reality alas, and one that belies the nonsense behind you sweepingly declaring it the "easy way out" from horse on high.

The mask however has not just slipped, but has been entirely dropped to the floor and stamped to pieces with lines like this one........

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you want to punish men who want to keep the child by having their baby/fetus murdered?

....... the typical anti-choice rhetoric of screaming "murdered babies/children" at all who disagree with their perspective is one that is getting old fast and the debate only really kicked off some weeks ago. Compounded by the clear canard of claiming "I have no interest either side of this debate".

If you rely on emotive and inaccurate representations of the abortion debate then you are likely only screaming to the converted. And even the converted often find that tripe embarrassing. The "Grow up" line you chose to use might have been misapplied. I like the phrase "clean your own house first, before you run a dust checking finger over anyone elses sideboards". I genuinely do not think people should be shouting "Grow up" at each other when...

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Plenty of the posters in this thread would have been better off thrust into a sock.

.... coming out with lines like this. Some decorum and maturity please!

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

It is far from valid. If you are using contraception and happen to get pregnant then it is absolutely ridiculous to terminate the pregnancy just because you don't want a child. Face up to the result of your actions ffs.

Yet the world is FULL of people who take precautions and still require a fix later. People look both ways crossing the road yet STILL suffering injuries despite their caution. People playing sport wear protective gear yet STILL receive injuries on the field.

And guess what, we do not stand over people from our imaginary high horse admonishing them that they just were not careful enough...... or that it is "on them" that they suffered DESPITE their care.

So why is abortion magically the exception to this in a world full of it? Just because YOU personally have an issue with it? Or what?

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Do you think it's OK for a woman to just get pregnant every other month, wander on down to a clinic and have it terminated?

That does not happen. So it is a moot point. However I genuinely do not see where you think you are going with it. It has nothing to do with abortion, that some MINISCULE number of people would abuse it.

I also believe in your right to eat fattening fast food. I might find you morally questionable were you to decide to eat so much of it, to make yourself intentionally fat so you could claim disability allowance. But I would STILL believe in your right to eat fattening fast food despite your abuse of it, and of morality.

I would say EXACTLY the same thing of the mythical woman you have invented from the depths of imagination.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

Well then those people should stop having sex.

Abstinence approaches to contraception have been utter failures when and wherever they have been attempted. They result in MORE unwanted pregnancies and teen pregnancies.

Ideals are good things. But not mediating them against reality is not. The ideal that people should only have sex when A) they want children or they do not but are happy to accept children if they occur........ is on paper very pretty. But reality is not going to work that way. And whatever our personal ideals may be, if we soap box them despite reality..... it is not going to do much but let us hear our own voice.

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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.

Great. And I assume you would not "face up to it" by simply sitting there passively and allowing the poison to do whatever the hell it wanted inside you. Rather, you would likely seek medical attention and have it removed from you because A) you do not want it in there and there is no reason on offer to give it the right to be in there.

And while you do all this you would not expect society or the doctors to stand over you tutting that you are taking the easy way out, and it is wrong to take it out of you, because sure you brought in on yerself didntcha?

They do not get on their high horses then, nor should you here. How is abortion any different. I repeat: A) they do not want it in there and there is no reason on offer to give it the right to be in there.

Always nice when people make my points for me

RocketRaccoon wrote: »

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

Well firstly it is THEIR choice to undergo that pain. Women have a lot of pain after breast enhancement surgery too. What is your point?

Secondly however it entirely depends on the type of abortion. Medical abortions, which can be performed up to 12 weeks of gestation of the fetus, are not really comparable to surgical abortions in terms of after-care discomfort for example.

Thirdly the level of pain after an abortion is individual. Some people suffer none. Some people suffer lots. The majority suffer something in the middle. As with many things in humanity, there is a bell curve in play.

....... wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Indeed he should have, the guy was not the wisest but i think on this whole topic we understand that mistakes are made. There is responsibility on both sides to make sure contraception is involved.

If a mistake does happen what happens next? How is it fair if the mother wants to keep the child but the father wants to abort it?

If we don't have an opinion either way then men are essentially sperm donors and should be in a position to walk away.

Calhoun wrote: »

Why not we are all for equality aren't we? If your going to treat men as sperm donor then you may as well legislate for the option.

We only recently had a post in one of our threads where a woman had unprotected sex with a guy so she could produce a baby without his knowledge, in the case the woman didnt want any help from the guy but what if she did?

Tough, kids who are born and alive need care, this situation is never going to be entirely "fair" because women get pregnant and not men, it may not be fair, but it's nature and it's nature we can't avoid just yet, we don't have the tech for men to get pregnant, but we do have the tech to conduct an abortion, so without variation it's always going to be their body and the decision what to do with their body is their choice, no one's forcing vasectomy on you so don't try force pregnancy on them, you just have to accept that, the alternative is you controlling a woman's body, which if you think is an OK thing to do, then you're seriously disturbed.
AFTER the child is born is an entirely different situation, as there's then a living child who needs financial care at the very least, which a single mother may not be able to provide alone, also there's the strong likelihood of instances of a man getting several women pregnant with several children and just legally abandoning the responsibility of living children with the stroke of a pen, if that's your idea of fairness and equality then you're sick.