Fabreo wrote: » Men could also feel emotional trauma years later for choosing to absolve their rights.
Fabreo wrote: » Do you believe women should be able to absolve themselves of responsibilty by having an abortion?
diveout wrote: » Yes they can. Which is why if a regret can be undone, there is no reason to not let that happen.
magicbastarder wrote: » i believe they should have the option. i do not believe there should be any coercion involved in their decision.
Fabreo wrote: » Why shouldn't the man have the right to absolve his responsibilities if the woman can?
magicbastarder wrote: » because men don't get pregnant. there is an unavoidable inequality in the burden placed on a couple by an unplanned pregnancy. you are equating 'walking away from a woman you helped get pregnant' with 'being walked away from by a man who helped get you pregnant' as if the two scenarios are identical for those involved. basic biology lesson -they're not. it's not like buying a car and realising you don't like it.
Fabreo wrote: » Well the argument has been made that if a man doesn't want a child he should keep it in his trousers, would you agree with that view and if so do you also hold women to similar standards?
Pumpkinseeds wrote: » It'll sound really crass but the thread title sounds like the name of the worlds worst aftershave ever, Abortion for men:D
AudreyHepburn wrote: » That has to be the most sexist, over-simplistic arguments I've seen on this subject. It takes two to have sex, two to make a baby. Yes the man should wear a condom if he doesn't want any surprises but should we as women not ensure to take the pill on time/get the implant as required/have the coil or diaphram fitted correctly too? Why do so many women that men, and men only, have responsibility for contraception?
Moat_Cailin wrote: » I would be very much Pro Abortion in any form. I think it should be legal and kept as an option until a child reaches at least their teens.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » They also seem to feel it is solely the man's responsibility and fault if the woman gets pregnant which is ridiculous in the extreme.
Calina wrote: » You're taking a simplistic view here.I don't think that women think men and men only have responsibility for contraception and to be frank I don't understand why men, in the interests of protecting their own interests, do not by default wear condoms. Me personally, I'd aim for a double protection and it's not like there aren't other primary benefits to wearing condoms such as reducing the risk of STDs.
However, when it comes to arguments over what to do when conception has actually happened, the bleating of a lot of men in this thread demanding their right to walk away in a way that just isn't possible for women suggests that maybe things need to be spelled out that way.
In any case, not every woman can take the pill; it's contraindicated in some cases something which terrified the living bejaysus out of one man I know when he found out.
So, you're right, it takes two to make a baby. One of those two can, in practical terms walk away from it and now some representatives of that gender are demanding the right to do so. One of them is demanding the right to force women to have abortions. I don't think there's any harm in reminding them that it took two to make that baby and frankly, given that their only primary concern is god forbid they'd have to financially support their child, are you seriously suggesting that it's sexist to suggest they do their utmost to avoid creating said baby regardless of what the woman's view of having a baby is?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » I'd suggest you read through this thread again. Not all women think that way of course, but an awful lot do.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » But it is possible for women, that's the point. A woman can have an abortion if she doesn't want the child. Or if it comes to it she can have the baby adopted.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Neither are easy choices but they are choices. A woman does not have to be a mother if she doesn't want to.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » And that's the only option for female contraception is it? What about the diaphram, the coil, the implant?
AudreyHepburn wrote: » No, god no not at all. I'm saying it's sexist to foist all the responsibility for avoiding pregnancy on men. It takes two to tango.
magicbastarder wrote: » can someone let me know who is arguing that it's men who get women pregnant without the woman being in any way responsible?saying (addressing our hypothetical man) 'if you don't want a baby, wear a condom' is not implying it's solely the man's responsibility.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » It is when you don't then address hypothetical woman in the same breath and say ' and make sure you take your pill'. The general tone of this thread seems to be that any and all responsibility lies with men. It also seems that posters here feel that if the woman does get the pregnant it's the man's problem and his fault and he should be forced into being father no matter what his personal feelings on the matter whereas the woman can get an abortion no problem.
Calina wrote: » No it's not. You are refusing to see this in the context of men demanding their right to walk away from a baby or force a woman to have an abortion. They are vocalising a demand not to have a child. It is not sexist to suggest that they take responsibility for contraception in that case. No one is saying that's sole responsibility.
No one here is suggesting that if the woman gets pregnant it's the man's problem. They are pointing out that women get to make some key decisions because it is so much more the woman's problem.
Sweet Rose wrote: » Ok, I need to stop reading this thread but I feel I have a vested interest in it from experience. Child abandonment is what I completely disagree with. It's happening far too much. I think the laws need to be tightened around this ASAP. It's all too easy for a father (and mother in some cases) to walk away from a child they have created. I just can't comprehend how any parent can do that but what is stopping them. Not much. Then the worse bit is when they decide to, they drop back into the child's life at the drop of a hat, as if they were never away. Like I said this scenario sickens me to the core.
Sweet Rose wrote: » Using a 99 cent condom would negate all of this. It's not that hard.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Also I would point out that a lot of people seem to be assuming that it would a simple easy decision for a man to decide he doesn't want the child and to walk away. I would suggest that that probably isn't the case for many men, that it comes after a lot of thought and consideration. It may not be the case that he just doesn't want the child. It could be that he doesn't feel ready, or that he can't afford to support the child or for some reason believes the child is better off without him. Men aren't just cold hearted machines that are there simply to provide financial support for us poor women. In the same way a woman might spend her life wondering what if she hadn't aborted her child I am sure a man would wonder what if he hadn't he walked away. He would have to live his life in the knowledge that he has a child out there who might one day come looking for him and wondering why he left. Or he could find he regrets his decision to walk away, just as many women regret having terminated the pregnancy. It isn't always a simple case of the man just walking away.
AudreyHepburn wrote: » Nope, no harder than an over the counter pill. It's for both parties to be responsible.
Calina wrote: » eh, historically a metric tonne of them did just that in this country leaving a lot of women and children in mother and baby homes and laundries. Come back to me when you've worked out whether it is harder for the man or harder for the woman in practical terms to walk away from the pregnancy. Cos it is that differential which makes all the difference.
Sweet Rose wrote: » I'm not saying it isn't. Of course both parties are responsible.Taking the pill as a means of contraception is a long term issue. It's expensive and can have long terms emotional and physical consequences for the woman. Slipping on a condom is a short term issue, apart from going to the chemist to buy it. It doesn't have any other side effects in terms of inconvenience.
Sweet Rose wrote: » I'm not saying it isn't. Of course both parties are responsible. Taking the pill as a means of contraception is a long term issue. It's expensive and can have long term emotional and physical consequences for the woman. Slipping on a condom is a short term issue, apart from going to the chemist to buy it. It doesn't have any other side effects outside of being inconvenient to get.
