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

ash23

OK so men want more rights as fathers and automatic guardianship, 50/50 custody etc but on the other hand they also want to be able to go "no thanks, not for me - you do it by yourself".

I'm sure it's heartbreaking for a man who wants a child to be left helpless when the mother has an abortion.

But when a woman has an abortion, there is no child. There's no financial or moral obligation because what was, no longer exists. They go their separate ways.
A proposed "man abortion" where he walks away and the child is born will result in a child. It will place all the financial responsibility on the mother. If she cannot manage, it places part or all of the financial responsibility of the child on the state.

If a woman has an abortion there is no child. There's nobody to grow up with the lack of a father. No social issues created by children living without fathers present in their lives or feeling abandoned by their father. There's no risk of kids growing up and meeting half siblings unknownst to them.

The womans abortion results in a end game. A mans would create a host of potential issues and problems.
A woman having an abortion is placing a risk solely on herself. A man deciding he wants an "abortion" places repercussions on the woman, the child, the state, his future siblings and wife etc.

I have a child whose father effectively had a "man abortion". Had I had the abortion there would have been no issue, no reminders other than my own issues to contend with and no repercussions other than my own. But his choice of "abortion" has and will continue to have an effect on many other people for years to come.

takamichinoku

This could just be me, but until I was about 18 or 19, I was under the impression the pill was some kind of magic solution with no side effects on the woman at all. As far as I'm aware, every woman I've spoken to about it has seemed to have had a variety of issues, some of which had lasting effects so "just take the pill" doesn't really seem a valid option to me in comparison to using a condom. I'm saying this as someone who's very very unlikely to get to to point of an orgasm with one on too.

Yeah ..."my point"? oh! my point! Television/films/etc seem to give off a misleading impression of what the pill is exactly.

Tony EH

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I did not say, women should not take the pill. I'm saying it's not easy to take for a women.

Why did the guy not put a condom on??? He is responsible too.

Why didn't she say no, not tonight?

Calina

Tony EH wrote: »

Why didn't she say no, not tonight?

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"? What is under discussion is the right of a man to run out on being a father.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I did not say, women should not take the pill. I'm saying it's not easy to take for a woman.

Why did the guy not put a condom on??? He is responsible too.

I don't think anyone's said he shouldn't.

We've only said it can't all be on him.

If a woman can't take a pill there are other options.

Tony EH

Calina wrote: »

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"?

He can, that option is there.

tinz18

Personally I believe in the two-sided preventation is the best method: that the girl should be on the pill and in fairness sakes guy should provide the condoms.
However some girls can’t take the pill due to medical reasons (some girls reactions to the pill make the pitch unplayable the whole time you’re on the pill, can screw with their moods, can cause clots to form etc) and likewise with the implant. As for the coil- most doctors won’t prescribe it for girls even if they want it under a certain age unless they pose a significant risk (Girl with two aborted pregnancies etc) or have had all the kids they want- it also can cause the above side effects.
Hence sometimes the condoms are the only protection available- the MAP fails sometimes and again it can only be taken at most 3 times without the risk causing long-term damage (I was told this by a doctor while receiving MAP- not sure if it’s a scare story or not). But if there’s only condom protection there people need to acknowledge that according to the CDC it has a 18% fail rate with typical use- the females condom is pretty high failure rate too. The two sexual partners should be ready to deal with the consequences if it does fail without playing the blame game or just not have sex (horrible idea but hey its the only 100% safe method).
I'm pro-choice but I don't believe abortion is that straight forward. Two friends who did abort their pregnancies have been told since that scarring caused by the abortions might mean that they can't have kids in the future- for girls in their early 20s that is a horrible thing to find out. (Note: in one's case she went willingly to abort with the father agreeing, in the others case the guy wanted to get pregnant changed his mind and told her he'd leave if she didn't terminate)

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I did not say, do not bother. If you read my post I said it's up to both parties but if a woman takes the pill consistently, the least a man could is provide a condom and use it. Which doesn't happen a lot here!

Obviously, I realise there are other options but they are not without their side effects and do not suit a lot of women.

That's not what I read it as, but if that is what you actually meant then I agree.

Penny Tration

I don't think that taking the pill is half as hard as some posters are claiming.

I can't have the combined pill, the implant, the injection or the coil. I can only take the minipill.

While it has side effects, they're not all that bad. It's only in rare cases that side effects are bad enough to warrant the woman not using it as a contraception.

tinz18

takamichinoku wrote: »

This could just be me, but until I was about 18 or 19, I was under the impression the pill was some kind of magic solution with no side effects on the woman at all. As far as I'm aware, every woman I've spoken to about it has seemed to have had a variety of issues, some of which had lasting effects so "just take the pill" doesn't really seem a valid option to me in comparison to using a condom. I'm saying this as someone who's very very unlikely to get to to point of an orgasm with one on too.

It really is sold that way isn't it? I'm another one of those cases who have problems on them- and thats on one of the two POPs available in this country. Try having your 16 yo little brother saying "ah sure if she gets pregnant she can always take the morning after pill"... the horror on his face when I explained it doesn't work that way.

Calina

green_screen wrote: »

I don't think that taking the pill is half as hard as some posters are claiming.

I can't have the combined pill, the implant, the injection or the coil. I can only take the minipill.

While it has side effects, they're not all that bad. It's only in rare cases that side effects are bad enough to warrant the woman not using it as a contraception.

I'm happy for you. However, you cannot and should not generalise your situation onto every other woman.

tinz18

green_screen wrote: »

I don't think that taking the pill is half as hard as some posters are claiming.

I can't have the combined pill, the implant, the injection or the coil. I can only take the minipill.

While it has side effects, they're not all that bad. It's only in rare cases that side effects are bad enough to warrant the woman not using it as a contraception.

I'm on the same pill as you (the POP) but there are three types of reactions to the POP- the bleeder (can't be healthy constantly losing blood for a month +), the non-bleeder (I quite like the idea of no monthlies for years- some don't) and then cases like me where I could be horribly anemic for three weeks and two months of freedom. You seem to be one of the lucky ones, everyone reacts differently- I was fine on Noriday but the window with that one was way too small for me to feel safe on so I changed- I'd rather three weeks of discomfort vs nine months.

Fabreo

Calina wrote: »

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"? What is under discussion is the right of a man to run out on being a father.

So I presume you are against abortion?

Penny Tration

Calina wrote: »

I'm happy for you. However, you cannot and should not generalise your situation onto every other woman.

Where did I say that my situation applies to all other women?

What I said was that it's rare for the pill to cause issues severe enough to warrant not taking it.

It's even more rare for a woman to not be medically able to huse anything but condoms.

Women and men should BOTH take responsibility for contraception

Calina

Fabreo wrote: »

So I presume you are against abortion?

No, I'm against men forcing women to have abortions which was the proposal in the OP in the same way as I'm against nation states forcing women to go through pregnancies regardless of the reason for which they may wish to have an abortion. There's an element of recognising that women have agency and integrity over their bodies here and allowing them to make the decisions on the basis of their best interest.

But you know, carry on.

UCDCritic

BeerWolf wrote: »

It's the woman's body... she gets the final say - how about the man in question doesn't stick his dick in unprotected next time ?

It's also the babies body too

Fabreo

Calina wrote: »

Really? Why didn't he say "I'd better not"? What is under discussion is the right of a man to run out on being a father.

If you don't believe a man should be able to "run out" on being a father do you also believe a woman shiuldn't be able to "run out " on being a mother by having an abortion?

AudreyHepburn

Calina wrote: »

No, I'm against men forcing women to have abortions which was the proposal in the OP in the same way as I'm against nation states forcing women to go through pregnancies regardless of the reason for which they may wish to have an abortion. There's an element of recognising that women have agency and integrity over their bodies here and allowing them to make the decisions on the basis of their best interest.

But you know, carry on.

I don't think anyone's said otherwise.

We're just arguing than men should be extended the choice of opting out of fatherhood.

Potatoeman

As unpopular as it may be if the father is left out of the choice wheather to keep the child or not you cant really blame him for doing a runner.
There seems to be the opinion that a fathers right ends at conception but if you are going to make such a life altering choice you should consult them.

ash23

Potatoeman wrote: »

As unpopular as it may be if the father is left out of the choice wheather to keep the child or not you cant really blame him for doing a runner.
There seems to be the opinion that a fathers right ends at conception but if you are going to make such a life altering choice you should consult them.

Of course they should be consulted and their opinion taken into account. BUT the problem arises when there's an impasse. Where neither can agree on what is best to do.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

A man does have a choice. He had the choice to insert his penis into a women and as a consequence impregnated her. He should have prevented this, so should she. I'm sure he was well aware of the consequences before this happened.

So it's all his fault then?

I think some posters here missed out on sex education in school.

ash23

Because it's the woman who is pregnant, she gets to choose what she does with the pregnancy. It's not possible to force her to carry and birth a baby against her will (it shouldn't be anyway!).

After the birth, the child is there. It's a person who has needs. And it's mother AND father both created it and are both responsible for choosing to have sex resulting in its existence.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I said she should have prevented this too, if you read my post!!! Again!!!

I know you did, but you are clearly laying more of the blame on him.

magicbastarder

a lot of this debate about who is responsible for contraception is moot anyway - the scenario being described presumes contraception was not used, or has failed, and that pregnancy has resulted.
so it's an argument about bolting the stable door.

Potatoeman

Sweet Rose wrote: »

A man does have a choice. He had the choice to insert his penis into a women and as a consequence impregnated her. He should have prevented this, so should she. I'm sure he was well aware of the consequences before this happened.

So could the woman. So by that logic why should anyone that has an accident have the right to an abortion?

Ficheall

Calina wrote: »

MAP can cause nausea and sickness and very heavy period.

I'm not sure that it is "no harder" than a condom.

I'm no expert, but I presume the "pill" to which most of the (sane) posters are referring is not the MAP?

I know the "normal pill" has side-effects too, and that some women can't take it at all, but I'm guessing (hoping) that when people are saying that the woman should take a pill, they're not talking about the morning after pill, except in exceptional circumstances...

suicide_circus

ash23 wrote: »

Because it's the woman who is pregnant, she gets to choose what she does with the pregnancy. It's not possible to force her to carry and birth a baby against her will (it shouldn't be anyway!).

After the birth, the child is there. It's a person who has needs. And it's mother AND father both created it and are both responsible for choosing to have sex resulting in its existence.

Women can "check- out" of their biological responsibility but men can't?

magicbastarder

Ficheall wrote: »

I'm no expert, but I presume the "pill" to which most of the (sane) posters are referring is not the MAP?

I know the "normal pill" has side-effects too, and that some women can't take it at all, but I'm guessing (hoping) that when people are saying that the woman should take a pill, they're not talking about the morning after pill, except in exceptional circumstances...

when people refer to 'the pill' they generally mean the prophylactic pill, the one which prevents a pregnancy. the MAP is the reactive pill, which (IIRC) does not prevent conception, but prevents implantation. i may have that wrong, though.

Potatoeman

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I only believe in abortion in exceptional circumstances so I'm not having a debate on that.

I was pointing out the double standard many people have. Its something Im surprised the prolifers dont highlight. If the fathers right ends at conception, as stated above when he had sex then by the same logic so should the womans.

tinz18

Ficheall, I wouldn't be too sure, personally I'm talking about the preventative oral contraceptive pill but many people seem to see the morning after pill (MAP) as the magic get out of jail free card...you only have to go to a college health centre the monday morning after a long weekend to see that.