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; } } }

Child Item

Abortion For Men

Engine No.9

Not as daft as it sounds, but with thank in the news about abortion cases, recently, it got me thinking. Should there be provisions, whether here or anywhere else in the world, where men get to decide if a child is carried to term or not.

If a couple become pregnant, even though they had decided that they didn't want any (more) children, the woman decides to keep the baby but the man decides he wants nothing to do with a pregnancy or child, does he have a case for insisting she get an abortion and should he take legal steps to ensure she gets one?

Abortion is legal in this specific case.

Discuss

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Holsten

Man should have the choice to have nothing to do with the child if he doesn't want it, no payments, nothing.

No one should have any say over what another does to their own body, so it should be down to the pregnant woman herself.

Reekwind

Dolbert wrote: »

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

I'm not sure we need a new name for what is essentially a return to the days of pre-mothers' rights. The reason that there is a host of legislation in place around maintenance, etc is to stop precisely that happening.

pajopearl wrote:

Not even remotely related to what I was getting at. Women have the option to abort a child that was created with another party. Why can't a man also have that option if he's the other party in question? Surely both parties should have an equal say in proceedings... In this world of equality etc...

Seriously, just stop. This was answered in the first sentence of the first response.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

yeah, such an easy decision for her to carry a pregnancy to full term and then hand the baby over.

again, you're 50% responsible for an difficult situation, in which you bear (figure plucked out of the air, but it's considerably less than 50%) 20% of the burden, and you're claiming *you're* the one who should be allowed walk away with no obligation; when the other party has absolutely no such luxury.

it'd be great if women could walk away from a pregnancy with the same nonchalance you demand.

It's not as easy for women to walk away but legally they can, legally a man can't walk away.

I don't get the point for penalising men because of the biology differences of women. Each party should have as much freedom as possible, but unfortunately the woman has to deal with actually being pregnant, unfortunately there's not much we can do about that.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

no
no
no
no
and no again.
you have this utterly arseways.
the woman has the choice precisely because she's the one in the *worse* off position.
can you seriously not realise this? seriously?

Physically and mentally the woman is worse off initially. Once you get past the pregnancy stage the women now can make decisions for the father for the next 23 years.

diveout

GarIT wrote: »

It's not as easy for women to walk away but legally they can, legally a man can't walk away.

I don't get the point for penalising men because of the biology differences of women. Each party should have as much freedom as possible, but unfortunately the woman has to deal with actually being pregnant, unfortunately there's not much we can do about that.

Ok.... well let's think about what will happen when men can have responsibility free children.

You can hark back to a day when you will not get within two miles of a women without a ring on her finger and a father behind her holding a gun.

[Deleted User]

GarIT wrote: »

She has the choice not to get pregnant too. Generally with pregnancies that would end up like this it wasn't a choice at the conception stage.

What do you mean by act like a man exactly?

If you impregnate a woman, do the right thing and support her should she decide to keep it and if she doesn't then respect her decision.

Fairly fairly simple. If you dont want kids with a particular woman then dont have unprotected sex with her and even if your unlucky and the condom breaks or is of poor quality or something then thats tough luck

We know it takes two people to make a baby and all of that but the fact is that its her body that will carry and nourish the child for the next 40 weeks. If she chooses to keep the baby then at the very least the man should offer to support her.

Reekwind

GarIT wrote: »

...the woman has to deal with actually being pregnant, unfortunately there's not much we can do about that.

Well you could start with legislation that ensures that in the event of pregnancy the woman is not the only one saddled with the costs of raising a child. Oh wait, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the purpose of current laws.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

It's not as easy for women to walk away but legally they can, legally a man can't walk away.

the examples where a woman 'walks away' (presumably the abortion or adoption route) also allows the man to walk away.
you'd swear women were deliberately deciding to keep and raise the children to spite the fathers, when the burden of parenthood lies more heavily on the women.

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

Man should have the choice to have nothing to do with the child if he doesn't want it, no payments, nothing.

MAN MAKE FIRE! MAN IMPREGNATE WOMAN, FIGHT MAMMOTH! RAAR!

magicbastarder

this thread is great fun. it's been a while since i've argued against such a patently ludicrous position. it allows you to get a bit lazy.

Galwayguy35

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I need to stop reading this thread, it's making me so mad. Some people are talking like someone magically waved a wand and the women ended up pregnant. Men have a choice. Zip up your mickeys if you don't want a child. If you want to have sex, take every precaution to stop a women getting pregnant. Don't take anyone's word for contraception. The onus is on you too. Pregnancy doesn't happen from swallowing water. The semen had to come from somewhere, you need to stop the flow of it!

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

[Deleted User]

Holsten wrote: »

Man should have the choice to have nothing to do with the child if he doesn't want it, no payments, nothing.

No one should have any say over what another does to their own body, so it should be down to the pregnant woman herself.

Cant agree with that

It would probably better for the child if it had nothing to do with the man in terms of being forced to spend time with him if that was his mindset but at the very least they should be legally obliged to pay costs

ShaShaBear

Reekwind wrote: »

Well you could start with legislation that ensures that in the event of pregnancy the woman is not the only one saddled with the costs of raising a child. Oh wait, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the purpose of current laws.

I can assure you that all the money in the world being thrown at you doesn't make pregnancy any easier. My partner is still here supporting me and our planned daughter, but it didn't make getting fingered by strangers weekly in my last month of pregnancy any easier to deal with. It also didn't much relieve the random fainting spells from the rapid change in blood pressure. His money did very little to alleviate the 6 weeks I spent hung over a toilet bowl becoming rapidly dehydrated and losing throat tissue from constant vomiting. It didn't make defecating with piles any easier. When sciatica kicked in and turning in bed became Russian roulette between uneventful and screaming in excrutiating agony, his money meant diddly squat.

When you become pregnant, the foetus emits a hormone to trick the woman's body into stopping what it does naturally - to destroy invading cells. The side effects aint pleasant.

takamichinoku

I find it really hard to think of a situation where I wouldn't accept responsibility unless I was deliberately tricked into impregnating the woman, which is extremely unlikely and even then I think I'd nearly put it on my own stupidity.
Although I'd be vocal about my own opinion, better then than later, like... which I could see causing issues (as in, unintentionally bullying the woman into making the decision I'd like); not doing so sounds far worse though, I think? There's counselling services for this kind of thing, I imagine? Like that Jeremy Kyle guy, except with good intentions?

GarIT

Reekwind wrote: »

Well you could start with legislation that ensures that in the event of pregnancy the woman is not the only one saddled with the costs of raising a child. Oh wait, I'm fairly sure that that's exactly the purpose of current laws.

It's unfair to put undue hardship on other people just to help pregnant women.

magicbastarder wrote: »

the examples where a woman 'walks away' (presumably the abortion or adoption route) also allows the man to walk away.
you'd swear women were deliberately deciding to keep and raise the children to spite the fathers, when the burden of parenthood lies more heavily on the women.

If a woman chooses an abortion or adoption yes the man can also walk away, but a man can't walk away if the woman doesn't choose abortion or adoption.

Certainly, if you choose to raise a child the burden will be on you, but you shouldn't be able to drag other people into it.

magicbastarder

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

you know what? life is sometimes tough. things happen which you didn't want to happen, or which look unfair, but you suck it up and deal with it, instead of deciding it's up to the other party to have to deal with on their own.

shruikan2553

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

The man should remain in a room on his own and avoid women until he is ready to be a father. But don't dare suggest such a thing for women.

diveout

ShaShaBear wrote: »

I can assure you that all the money in the world being thrown at you doesn't make pregnancy any easier. My partner is still here supporting me and our planned daughter, but it didn't make getting fingered by strangers weekly in my last month of pregnancy any easier to deal with. It also didn't much relieve the random fainting spells from the rapid change in blood pressure. His money did very little to alleviate the 6 weeks I spent hung over a toilet bowl becoming rapidly dehydrated and losing throat tissue from constant vomiting. It didn't make defecating with piles any easier. When sciatica kicked in and turning in bed became Russian roulette between uneventful and screaming in excrutiating agony, his money meant diddly squat.

When you become pregnant, the foetus emits a hormone to trick the woman's body into stopping what it does naturally - to destroy invading cells. The side effects aint pleasant.

So imagine that with the addition of the child's father berating you about not having an abortion and why haven't you gone down to adoption offices yet? Huh huh huh? WHY WHY WHY. It's not fair. You get all the choices!!!! Your choice, you deserve to puke to death.

magicbastarder

GarIT wrote: »

Certainly, if you choose to raise a child the burden will be on you, but you shouldn't be able to drag other people into it.

you're the childs father through a consensual act. how the **** can you argue you were 'dragged into it'?
i'm really beginning to take a dislike to you.

ShaShaBear

shruikan2553 wrote: »

The man should remain in a room on his own and avoid women until he is ready to be a father. But don't dare suggest such a thing for women.

It has already been said that, if you don't want a baby, take all necessary steps to avoid it. The only 100% effective method is abstinence. If you can't do that, ensure you use all protection available to you and ensure your partner does too. If you can't be sure, don't engage in sex. Simple for both parties.

Holsten

Deleted User wrote: »

Cant agree with that

It would probably better for the child if it had nothing to do with the man in terms of being forced to spend time with him if that was his mindset but at the very least they should be legally obliged to pay costs

What? Why? What if he 100% does not want a child, and would prefer the pregnancy aborted?

Why should he be made pay, and suffer financially for a child he doesn't want?

Madness.

[Deleted User]

Men becoming fathers against their will isn't fair. But I think the concept of legal abortion is being represented very simplistically here. It's not a simple solution to a complex problem, it's a problematic solution to a simple problem. It might sound fairer in its basic form, but in reality it swaps one injustice for another.

I posted this a while ago in response to a similar proposition.

Personally I just see this as substituting one injustice for another. Fathers who's partner goes ahead and has a baby they don't want, are presently left with no choice as to the role expected of them, legally and socially. Obviously this is difficult, and an inequality.

Mothers, or pregnant women can choose to abort or adopt, thereby removing themselves legally from the role of mother and its responsibilities. Fathers, or partners of pregnant women do not have this choice.

BUT, I think if we were to offer 'legal' abortions to the would be fathers, we run the risk of turning back the clock when it comes to womens roles as mothers. This could very well see the rise of men who refuse any responsiblity for contraception, since they can walk away consequence free, from its absence or misuse. It also means that the only party to sex who has any consequences to a pregnancy - wanted or unwanted - is the woman.

Its very possible that in time, society could see children as the sole domain of women, with men being seen as more optional than at present. It would also be heaven for a certain type of feckless young man, some of whom rack up several children by different mothers without a second thought at present. I think this quite rare, thankfully.

In this scenario the woman pays in pregnancy and lone parenthood, if she chooses to see the pregnancy to term, or in the (possible) emotional, or physical, or financial consequences of (travelling for) an abortion. Not to mention the stigma.

The woman pays either way, which isn't a more just situation that present, it just changes the person who suffers the injustice.

Of course, the child who's father decides to 'abort' them will know about this and has to learn to live with it, and explain it to their schoolfriends, partners, colleagues and acquaintances throughout their lives, something an aborted foetus doesn't do, and that is likely to be a major issue in many of their lives. So the potential child also pays a price to some degree.

I don't think its fair to make a man a father against his wishes and expect him to pay for a 'mistake'. I'm not sure the alternative is more appealing either. It'd take wiser heads than mine to come up with a truly equitable solution.

In addition, there are the fathers who decide when the child is older that they want to be part of the childs life. Legally, what recourse would they have? There is the risk of a substantial number of men who'll suffer a lifetime of regrets because of a decision made when under pressure, or maybe very young.

And how long do we give them to decide? Is it fair to make them decide before the pregnancy reaches it's second trimester? Before the baby is 2? What are the consequences for the child?

It's not a simple get out of jail free card.

GarIT

magicbastarder wrote: »

you're the childs father through a consensual act. how the **** can you argue you were 'dragged into it'?
i'm really beginning to take a dislike to you.

The woman chose to keep the child. A woman getting pregnant does not mean she will have to raise a child, it should not for men either.

shruikan2553

ShaShaBear wrote: »

It has already been said that, if you don't want a baby, take all necessary steps to avoid it. The only 100% effective method is abstinence. If you can't do that, ensure you use all protection available to you and ensure your partner does too. If you can't be sure, don't engage in sex. Simple for both parties.

Say that about women in one of the abortion threads and see what kind of reaction you would rightfully get.

ShaShaBear

diveout wrote: »

So imagine that with the addition of the child's father berating you about not having an abortion and why haven't you gone down to adoption offices yet? Huh huh huh? WHY WHY WHY. It's not fair. You get all the choices!!!! Your choice, you deserve to puke to death.

Um, not really sure where you are going with this but I don't think a man should be allowed to dictate what a woman does with her pregnancy and I already said as much. I was simply stating how difficult a normal pregnancy can be and how forcing a man to pay maintenance doesn't make the pregnancy any easier. Which is why saying a man who will have to pay maintenance should get a say in what happens to a pregnancy is utter tripe.

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

Why should he be made pay, and suffer financially for a child he doesn't want?

i know a couple of guys who are fathers through unplanned pregnancies, some of whom found out about them years later.
to a person, they are doing their best to help, be it financially or emotionally, and some have formed some fantastic bonds with their kids.

you know why they do it? cos they're good guys. they didn't bitch and moan that they should not have to pay for a child they did not want.

ShaShaBear

shruikan2553 wrote: »

Say that about women in one of the abortion threads and see what kind of reaction you would rightfully get.

You know I've already said I'm pro-choice in three comments, right? I'm saying that it is entirely possible to 100% prevent having a child and both a man and a woman can take those steps. If a man doesn't take those steps, what right does he have to demand an abortion?

Reekwind

Galwayguy35 wrote: »

Yet you leave out the scenario where the man wears a condom, it breaks and the woman even if she is on the pill won't bother going for the MAP, a few months later we have a man who is a Daddy through no choice of his own.

And?

Really, hands up here all men who do not know that when you have sex with a woman (aka shooting her up with your sperm) there is a chance of pregnancy? This is literally sex ed stuff. Very few contraceptives are 100% foolproof and, to quote the good Elvis, accidents will happen. That's life.

Trying to improve this unfortunate situation for yourself by shifting the entire burden of this unwanted pregnancy onto the mother (ie absolving yourself of any part in the event) is just cowardly and selfish in the extreme.

ShaShaBear wrote:

I can assure you that all the money in the world being thrown at you doesn't make pregnancy any easier

I think you've misunderstood me. I'm not arguing that money alleviates the difficulties of labour or indeed the horrible choice that a pregnant woman must make if she decides to abort an unwanted pregnancy. Not at all. What I'm saying is that given that this is on the woman the very least that the law that guarantee is that some of the financial burden of raising the child is shared by the man. That is, a man cannot simply get a woman pregnant and then bugger off into the sunset.

GarIT wrote:

It's unfair to put undue hardship on other people just to help pregnant women.

"Just to help"? What, the man was just passing by and the woman mysteriously started to inflate? You went out for a paper and suddenly your sperm were swimming around Ms McGrath's fallopian tubes? Aggh, how did that happen?

As above, it is selfish and cowardly to deny the man's role in creating a baby. It's symptomatic of a society that wants rewards, wants fun but isn't willing to countenance any tough choices or take on any responsibilities.

shruikan2553

ShaShaBear wrote: »

You know I've already said I'm pro-choice in three comments, right? I'm saying that it is entirely possible to 100% prevent having a child and both a man and a woman can take those steps. If a man doesn't take those steps, what right does he have to demand an abortion?

He shouldn't be able to force a women to have or not have an abortion but that leaves us in a situation where the woman can decide if the man will be a father or not and be legally financially responsible.

My issue is more towards the double standards of pro choice people using the same arguments as pro life people use when it comes to the men being involved.

diveout

ShaShaBear wrote: »

Um, not really sure where you are going with this but I don't think a man should be allowed to dictate what a woman does with her pregnancy and I already said as much. I was simply stating how difficult a normal pregnancy can be and how forcing a man to pay maintenance doesn't make the pregnancy any easier. Which is why saying a man who will have to pay maintenance should get a say in what happens to a pregnancy is utter tripe.

Some will want amnio to help them decide whether they will be involved or not. IF you really want them to have the same choice as a women does, then it is only consistent that you would support them having the right for you to get an amnio.