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

magicbastarder

Holsten wrote: »

The mother in this case has the choice 100% what to do, the man does not.

If she chooses to have the child then she has taken aboard all the costs.

this is an odious choice to force on the woman, and is utter moral cowardice.
just because you don't have the ultimate choice does not absolve you of responsibility.

are you really saying that if you had a one night stand with a nice woman, and found out six months later she was pregnant, your first action would be to legally disown any responsibility (were the option available) for the child?
that you are saying to her she either has to go for an abortion, which can be a stupendously difficult decision; go full term and adopt, which can be a stupendously difficult decision, as well as physically and emotionally draining, and financially draining; or go full term and keep the kid on her own, with no input from you?
don't forget - you're 50% responsible for placing her in this position, and this is what you think your responsibility is?

LiveIsLife

Candie wrote: »

If men have the option to walk away from a pregnancy they're 50% responsible for, why would any man use protection in the future? How will it not turn back the clock to the days where women were responsible for all the consequences of sex?

You have a poor opinion of men if you think all would just go around having unprotected sex not caring who they get pregnant. Most people are decent, they wouldn't do this. You also seem to think that pregnancy has no emotional impact on men. Yes there will be a few scumbags, thats pretty much a fact of life.

And a woman can also refuse to have sex if the man won't wear a condom.

Calina

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Oh my god, you've just given me a great business idea. A contraception drive through, there'd need to be one on every street corner. We live in a very promiscuous society it seems.

You know. I used to live in a small town in France and all the pharmacies had condom vending machines attached to the walls outside. That was like 20 years ago.

You'd think we'd sort it out here although I suppose all the 24 hour convenience stores do sell condoms...

DeadHand

Holsten wrote: »

She has 3 options in that case, fly over to UK and have abortion, give the child up for adoption or keep the child and raise it herself.

3 choices, whats not fair about that? What is not fair is expecting a man who does not want a child being forced to pay for it by the courts. THAT'S unfair!

It's not unfair. As a man, if you help to bring a child into this world, whether you planned to or not, it is your responsibility to look after him/her in whatever capacity you can, no one else's. This is basic morality, basic duty, basic decency.

The woman in that situation must make her choices as she sees fit because the burden of pregnancy and, in all likelihood, being the primary caregiver is on her. She's the one taking all the risks, suffering most of the associated pain and hardship, the person most effected by the consequences of her decisions. The attitude of her partner (if he's in the picture) is likely to have a bearing on that decision. And if his attitude is "I don't want to pay for my child, I didn't want it, that's unfair", then, brother, I'm not sure what he is but he is not a man.

The selfish abdication of responsibilities in general and the absence of fathers or positive male role models in homes and schools in particular are key elements in the worsening social situation we are seeing in this country.

Sweet Rose

I'm going to stop reading this thread. I think the thought of the little babies growing up unwanted and fatherless really upsets me. I know because I'm a single mother and I know how it feels. Even though her father has now decided after a year that he does want to get to know her after all. It's the children who suffer at the end of the day.

Any man who thinks that a woman chooses to become a mother because they want an easy life should try it for a while. It's an extremely hard life, you have to shoulder the burden in every way... financially, emotionally, physically etc. It's a very lonely life too.

Anyway, I wouldn't change her for the world. I adore her so much. All I'm saying is before you have sex, protect it. Before you give up your baby, think of the long term implications for you, the baby and the mother.

Peace out

DeadHand

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I'm going to stop reading this thread. I think the thought of the little babies growing up unwanted and fatherless really upsets me. I know because I'm a single mother and I know how it feels. Even though her father has now decided after a year that he does want to get to know her after all. It's the children who suffer at the end of the day.

Any man who thinks that a woman chooses to become a mother because they want an easy life should try it for a while. It's an extremely hard life, you have to shoulder the burden in every way... financially, emotionally, physically etc. It's a very lonely life too.

Anyway, I wouldn't change her for the world. I adore her so much. All I'm saying is before you have sex, protect it. Before you give up your baby, think of the long term implications for you, the baby and the mother.

Peace out

All the hardship, all the loneliness it'll all have been for something. It'll have been for her. She'll reward you everyday of the rest of your life for the sacrifices you have made.

Best wishes to you and yours.

Bafucin

This thread is daft.

No you shouldn't.

How would the OP imagine this actually happening? With the woman being dragged kicking and screaming?

The whole CASE for abortion is self volition for a woman over her body. If you refuse a woman that right than the case for abortion goes out the window.

If the argument for a woman's right over her body does not stand then you don't really have the right to abort a fetus. The man's body is not affected.

We as men tend to have a different view of childbirth. It's not IN our body I find it difficult to empathize with a pregnant woman not because I am an ass but it's just not something I think about a lot.

Male privilege etc. I am aware of it. And bloody thankful for it to be honest.

I can't imagine anyone being callous enough to force another adult human through a medical procedure like that without consent. You would want to be a psycho.

Abortions are not like getting a haircut or a filling.

Sh1tbag OToole

pajopearl wrote: »

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

I object to this for religious reasons. If the Lord wanted it to be possible for the man to decide if the child should be born or not He would simply have equipped every foetus with a self destruct switch that the father could activate telepathically.

Sweet Rose

DeadHand wrote: »

All the hardship, all the loneliness it'll all have been for something. It'll have been for her. She'll reward you everyday of the rest of your life for the sacrifices you have made.

Best wishes to you and yours.

Thank you for your kind words. She is an amazing baby and I feel blessed to have her. I have heard so many sad stories about women not being able to have children so I feel so lucky. It is a tough life bringing up a child singlehandedly but as you say you reap all the rewards too

Annasopra

GarIT wrote: »

But the woman has a choice to have none of that.

In many cases she doesnt have a choice. Financial hardship meaning she cant afford the uk trip. Or she is a migrant who may not be able to the state for various reasons.

diveout

kowloon wrote: »

If the father decided to 'abort' the child he should have no rights whatsoever. He should have to live with it the same way as a mother who decided to abort.
I agree with the principle of legal relinquishment of rights and responsibility, but it could go completely wrong like you say, how would people react?
I'd have no respect for anyone who walked away from a child, I'd also like to think I wouldn't do it myself, but it's an unknown until it actually happens.

TL;DR: I think I'll leave this dilemma to smarter people.

I don't agree.

If a child is aborted by the mother, the child is gone. So that ends all second chances.

If a man walks, the child is still here, alive, breathing, growing, carrying his father's dna, possibly will pass it down through generations to come. Fact is we don't know what goes on in the hearts of men who have walked away. But the child is still here, the child means that door is open because the hole in the child's heart is itself an open door.

Its insane to think you can find a purity of equality here, you can't. Each choice carries different consequences and that has to be accommodated for. Pure sillyness to look for symmetry.

Annasopra

Ficheall wrote: »

I don't think anyone (hopefully) other than the OP is advocating a forced abortion. It's the "legal abortion" that the debate seems to have turned to, understandably.

Same thing!

Wibbs

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Lolololololo, you are so ignorant.

"Lol" all you like. Pretty amazing ability you have to judge ignorance at a distance. BTW and FYI "ignorance" =/= "stuff I don't happen to agree with".

Please define as best you can... What is a one sided planned pregnancy????
I'm genuinely interested.

Is this when a woman gets access to a scientific laboratory and can create a particular man's semen and inseminate herself with it??? A bit like a DIY IVF treatment.

Oh god. Join the dots time. One sided planned pregnancy is where one participant decides unilaterally to dupe a partner into pregnancy. IE a woman tells a man she's on the pill and stops taking same. As for DIY IVF? A close mate of mine caught an ex... well... suffice to say she was attempting to put his genetic material that had ended up *ahem* elsewhere into the area that nature might have intended. On the other side where a man has claimed he's infertile/had the snip and went on to impregnate his unwitting partner(apparently this has happened and it wouldn't surprise me. "Baby brain" isn't just a woman only thing). Even so, as I said that would be rare enough, or a helluva lot rarer than some paranoid men seem to think.

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Same thing!

It's not the same thing, or even close. In one case the potential child is destroyed for a start. In a "legal abortion" on the male side the potential child is alive.

Sweet Rose wrote: »

This is what I can't comprehend about some men. How can they walk away from their flesh and blood, regardless of what circumstances the child was born into.

Regardless of circumstances? So if in the extreme and rare cases(for the purposes of the argument) where a woman claims she's on the pill and for extra fun decides to poke holes in the rubber Jonathan's* because she wants a kid, you reckon the man should just naturally kowtow to societal pressure and accept that? GTFO IMHO.

I might donate sperm to couples wanting to try for a baby and if they succeed then fair play to them. There would be a person out there with my DNA, but he/she wouldn't be mine and I would have no actual connection with them. Similarly if my same DNA was obtained under false pretenses then why should I give a damn in such a case? Makes no sense to me.

*only happens in the paranoid and fertile male imagination for the most part, at least in my experience.

diveout

Wibbs wrote: »

"Lol" all you like. Pretty amazing ability you have to judge ignorance at a distance. BTW and FYI "ignorance" =/= "stuff I don't happen to agree with". Oh god. Join the dots time. One sided planned pregnancy is where one participant decides unilaterally to dupe a partner into pregnancy. IE a woman tells a man she's on the pill and stops taking same. As for DIY IVF? A close mate of mine caught an ex... well... suffice to say she was attempting to put his genetic material that had ended up *ahem* elsewhere into the area that nature might have intended. On the other side where a man has claimed he's infertile/had the snip and went on to impregnate his unwitting partner(apparently this has happened and it wouldn't surprise me. "Baby brain" isn't just a woman only thing). Even so, as I said that would be rare enough, or a helluva lot rarer than some paranoid men seem to think.

It's not the same thing, or even close. In one case the potential child is destroyed for a start. In a "legal abortion" on the male side the potential child is alive.

Regardless of circumstances? So if in the extreme and rare cases(for the purposes of the argument) where a woman claims she's on the pill and for extra fun decides to poke holes in the rubber Jonathan's* because she wants a kid, you reckon the man should just naturally kowtow to societal pressure and accept that? GTFO IMHO.

I might donate sperm to couples wanting to try for a baby and if they succeed then fair play to them. There would be a person out there with my DNA, but he/she wouldn't be mine and I would have no actual connection with them. Similarly if my same DNA was obtained under false pretenses then why should I give a damn in such a case? Makes no sense to me.

*only happens in the paranoid and fertile male imagination for the most part, at least in my experience.

The examples you cite are entirely sociopathic behaviors. This is so far from the typical experiences of the vast majority of people, it seems utterly absurd to me to base an entire policy which would allow the vast majority of men to reproduce without consequence of any kind, whether philosophical or legal on specifically sociopathic acts or paranoid fantasy.

diveout

Sweet Rose wrote: »

This is what I can't comprehend about some men. How can they walk away from their flesh and blood, regardless of what circumstances the child was born into.

When my babies father walked away initially, I kept having this bizarre thought that one day they'd be walking down the same street, they might brush past each other and never know they were related. As a mother, this thought would kill me that I might ever end up in this situation. Walking past my own child who I never knew

People walk away from flesh and blood all the time. Parents, siblings, cousins, first families. It's not as easy at it looks but they do it. Many different reasons.

How? The same way people go into war and kill each other. They compartmentalise, they rationalise, they destroy a part of themselves in the process.

Ficheall

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Ficheall wrote: »

I don't think anyone (hopefully) other than the OP is advocating a forced abortion. It's the "legal abortion" that the debate seems to have turned to, understandably.

Same thing!

Well, it's always good to know whose input one can safely ignore in a thread.

Fabreo

diveout wrote: »

The examples you cite are entirely sociopathic behaviors. This is so far from the typical experiences of the vast majority of people, it seems utterly absurd to me to base an entire policy which would allow the vast majority of men to reproduce without consequence of any kind, whether philosophical or legal on specifically sociopathic acts or paranoid fantasy.

Do you believe a man who was tricked by his partner into getting her pregnant should be forced to to take responsibilty for that child?

Fabreo

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Why are you saying 'man'? I'm not going into my personal circumstance but this is what basically happened me and I'm a woman. 2 weeks later I did a pregnancy test and it was positive. After the initial shock and emotional upset, I realised this was my flesh and blood. She was my responsibility to look after. There is no way I could have given her up for all the tea in China. She is my world and I love her to bits. It's not that easy to get rid of a baby, it's something you'll live with the rest of your life. However, this is from a woman's point of view. Men are programmed so different.

Why wouldn't I say man? I'm getting misandrist vibes from you.

Bafucin

Fabreo wrote: »

Why wouldn't I say man? I'm getting misandrist vibes from you.

You could have said partner.

I am getting take the piss vibes from you ....carry on!

Wibbs

diveout wrote: »

The examples you cite are entirely sociopathic behaviors. This is so far from the typical experiences of the vast majority of people, it seems utterly absurd to me to base an entire policy which would allow the vast majority of men to reproduce without consequence of any kind, whether philosophical or legal on specifically sociopathic acts or paranoid fantasy.

Maybe try reading what I actually wrote, rather than trying to put words into my mouth to buoy up your position. I said that in normal everyday circumstances I would take responsibility, but in some circumstances I would walk away. I made it quite clear such circumstances would be rare events(contrary to some of the more paranoid out there). However for the purposes of the debate I brought such possible circumstances into play(and I have seen examples of it, albeit rare enough).

Fabreo wrote: »

Do you believe a man who was tricked by his partner into getting her pregnant should be forced to to take responsibilty for that child?

Apparently so. Not for me in such a rare event(making sure that gets across for the possibly hard of reading) where I was "tricked" into it. In that case I would quite easily walk away and no amount of half cocked social pressure "shaming" about being a "man" would dissuade me in such a circumstance. By scratching my arse I slough off my DNA, my "flesh and blood", it doesn't mean I have an attachment to it. An attachment would be borne of connection and trust between me and the mother of such a child. In that case an "accident" would be OK. So long as it was an accident. Otherwise, no, GTFO, it's genetic rape.

Yep I went there. If a woman is raped, it is no fault of her own. None, zero, nada. Let's say she's unlucky enough to end up pregnant by the rapist bastard scum of the earth. If she chose to abort that "flesh and blood" then fair play and more power to her. Her choice was taken away in the most brutal way possible.

Fabreo

Bafucin wrote: »

You could have said partner.

I am getting take the piss vibes from you ....carry on!

I could have said I'd like a large big mac meal with coke as well, what's your point.

I asked the question I wanted to ask, Aim those simpleton vibes elsewhere.

wendell borton

The male is a biological accident: the y(male) gene is an incomplete x(female) gene, that is, has an incomplete set of chromosomes. In other words, the male is an incomplete female, a walking abortion.... To be male is to be deficient, emotionally limited; maleness is a deficiency disease and males are emotional cripples.

- Valerie Solanas
:rolleyes:

Bafucin

Fabreo wrote: »

I could have said I'd like a large big mac meal with coke as well, what's your point.

I asked the question I wanted to ask, Aim those simpleton vibes elsewhere.

It's a message board you aim your vibes and I aim mine. Ready aim fire!

what's your point?

I think you are taking things too personally and handing out insults like 'misandry' willy nilly.

There was nothing in that posters comment that was slightly anti man, so I assumed you were not serious. Now that it seems you were I find that funnier.

Shakespeare's Sister

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Good men are hard to find but oh so worth the effort when you do.

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I despise men

Huh?

JerCotter7

Simplifying it quite a bit.

If female wants abortion tough ****.
If a male wants an abortion he cuts all ties to the unborn child.
If the female wants to put the kid up for adoption give the male the option of adopting the kid first.
If they both want to keep it give them equal rights to the child.

Obviously the male would have to have his "abortion" before 24 weeks like a female would. If he wants back in the childs life later it would be the mothers choice. I fail to see any downside on that. Although I didn't think it through. Just wrote it down really.

Bafucin

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I hope you're a woman because I'm finding your posts funny. Otherwise you can bore off. I despise men

Nope. Male.

I despise you right back! RIGHT BACK I SAY!

krudler

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Why are you saying 'man'? I'm not going into my personal circumstance but this is what basically happened me and I'm a woman. 2 weeks later I did a pregnancy test and it was positive. After the initial shock and emotional upset, I realised this was my flesh and blood. She was my responsibility to look after. There is no way I could have given her up for all the tea in China. She is my world and I love her to bits. It's not that easy to get rid of a baby, it's something you'll live with the rest of your life. However, this is from a woman's point of view. Men are programmed so different.

You were tricked into getting pregnant?

takamichinoku

JerCotter7 wrote: »

If he wants back in the childs life later it would be the mothers choice.

How would you enforce that though? Like, no matter what kind of punishment you put in place, if he makes contact with the son it immediately changes everything, doesn't it?

JerCotter7

takamichinoku wrote: »

How would you enforce that though? Like, no matter what kind of punishment you put in place, if he makes contact with the son it immediately changes everything, doesn't it?

Not anything to enforce about that. If he contacts the child without the mothers permission fine him or something to that affect. If he tries again increase punishment. If the mother says its okay to contact the child then nothing of it. Obviously when they are over 18 none of this would apply. But if you knew your father wanted you completely out of his life you would probably tell him to f off.

FunLover18

Dolbert wrote: »

Actually forcing a pregnant woman to have an abortion against her will would be fúcking barbaric.

This is true but if you switch the positions where the man wants to keep the baby and the woman doesn't, should the man not have a say if he's willing to allow the woman to forego all rights?

I'm not overly familiar with pregnancy and its effects but is asking a woman to carry a child she doesn't want to term for the father's sake a lot to ask?