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

Riskymove wrote: »

inheritance in the future when they may have their own family

but the child - by definition - is family.
you seem to be arguing that the man should walk away because it may be inconvenient for him not to.

ash23

Riskymove wrote: »

yes but the point being discussed is that the woman makes the choice to enter into that responsibility...even in cases where the man makes his position clear

while people I know have no issue with contributing to the upbringing, they have an issue with things like undue finanical burdens resulting in them not being able to make their own life and in particular, inheritance in the future when they may have their own family

The child borne from the unplanned pregnancy is "their own family" and shares the exact same amount of their parentage from the man as any planned, subsequent children.

It's degrading to the child to suggest they should not have the same rights merely because of the circumstances of their birth. It's going to back to the day of "bastards" and shaming children who had no role in what way they were brought into the world.

ash23

Riskymove wrote: »

but this is a significant factor in the issue

how do you define this?

many men would believe that the burden placed on them is not 50/50

Well if things were truly 50/50 then there would be no maintenance etc as each parent would have the child 50% of the time. Two homes, two lots of clothes and toys and everything the child needs, the cost could be split 50/50.

It's probably not really feasible but it's a starting point and it should be the starting point.
At the moment the mother has 100% of the rights but also almost 100% of the responsibility from birth.

If the father chooses not to be involved and to never see the child, he doesn't have to. If he chooses to pay minimal maintenance it can end up in having to go through the courts etc. and a lot of the time maintenance awarded isn't a fraction of half of what the child costs involve.

If the mother meets someone else, his finances are expected to support her and the child. If the father meets someone else, her income is disregarded.

On the other hand at the moment, a father who wants to be in contact with his child is at the whim of the mother and has little to no say in how the child is raised. Almost everything is on the mothers terms.

So there is MASSIVE inequality on both sides. It needs to be corrected but if a lot of men are campaigning to be able to walk away from a child they created, is it any wonder that things are slow to change?

Riskymove

kylith wrote: »

After all, in most cases it is the mother who will see her career curtailed, who will have to take maternity leave, who will be expected to take time off to care for the child when they're sick, who suffers the physical effects of pregnancy and birth AND who has a financial burden at least as great as the man's.

yes but the point being discussed is that the woman makes the choice to enter into that responsibility...even in cases where the man makes his position clear

while people I know have no issue with contributing to the upbringing, they have an issue with things like undue finanical burdens resulting in them not being able to make their own life and in particular, inheritance in the future when they may have their own family

kylith

Riskymove wrote: »

but this is a significant factor in the issue

how do you define this?

many men would believe that the burden placed on them is not 50/50

Would you say more 70% on the woman 30% on the man or what? After all, in most cases it is the mother who will see her career curtailed, who will have to take maternity leave, who will be expected to take time off to care for the child when they're sick, who suffers the physical effects of pregnancy and birth AND who has a financial burden at least as great as the man's.

magicbastarder

the child is 50% theirs genetically, and it's not unreasonable to assume they're 50% responsible for causing the pregnancy.
but those guys you mention don't want to be 50% responsible for dealing with the fallout.

Riskymove

ash23 wrote: »

50/50 from birth.

but this is a significant factor in the issue

how do you define this?

many men would believe that the burden placed on them is not 50/50

ash23

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

Not quite. A woman has to undergo an expensive and potentially risky procedure in order to "check-out" as you so simply put it.

I can see why it seems unfair to a man and I do sympathise to a certain extent with mens lack of decision once a pregnancy occurs. However my sympathy lies moreso with a man who wants the pregnancy and the woman doesn't.

I don't have any more sympathy for a man who finds his partner pregnant with an unwanted pregnancy than I have for the woman who finds herself pregnant.

To me the immediate matter of the pregnancy, the choice can ONLY be made by the mother. It affects her body and her health whichever option she chooses.

Once the child has arrived, if the mother chooses to proceed with the pregnancy, then both created it and both are equally responsible for it. I'd also be of this view in terms of fathers rights. 50/50 from birth.

Men are in the position where they don't get pregnant. This is highly unlikely to change in the near future. So I do think that arguing that men can opt out of a child they half created is too little too late.

Women having sex know that pregnancy is a risk. Men know the same. Abortion is an option but it should never be considered an automatic reaction to an unplanned pregnancy. So many people I know who would always say they would never have an abortion would have one if they found themselves in the situation and vice versa with pro-choice advocates keeping the child.

Nobody, not even a woman herself, will know how she will react until it comes calling to her door. So it's unfair I feel of a man to make assumptions about what would or would not happen in the event of a pregnancy.

Both would be far better off concentrating on avoiding getting into that position, by whatever means possible.

And should it occur then the woman has the right over her body but if the pregnancy results in a person, a living breathing child with needs, then BOTH are responsible for it being there and both should be equally responsible for it.

Standman

magicbastarder wrote: »

simple biological lesson - you're never going to have equality of status in terms of deciding the future of an unwanted pregnancy, unless you can invent a way for men to become pregnant.
the issue is created by this inescapable inequality and no farting around with theory can give, or should give, the man equal say without eliminating the rights of the woman involved.

it'd be great if there was a way around this, but there's not.

You've misunderstood me, I wasn't arguing that a man should be able to force an abortion on a woman. That would be a travesty.

I was referring to the irony of some pro choice people using similar shaming tactics towards the idea of a legal abortion for the father that pro-lifers often use.

Riskymove

magicbastarder wrote: »

no one is arguing that the man's views are inconsequential.
what people are arguing is that his opinion cannot override that of the woman.

he (in the vast majority of hypothetical scenarios being discussed) is 50% responsible for the situation, and what is being demanded is his ability to wash his hands of the situation.

I disagree

if you read through the thread you'll find a number of discussions

one perspective is that as it is the woman who is pregnant then it is her decision what to do, regardless of what the man thinks

this seems to be the view of a number of people

the original idea about "forced abortion" or whatever was quickly dismissed and no one really agrees with the idea

the third idea then is that an unwanted pregnancy should not lead to a situation whereby one party, having chosen to continue a pregnancy, should have the right to attach responsibilites similar to that of an actual partner

now there is an extreme about washing hands completely, which I wouldn't agree with but I also beleive that the situation which applies here today is too much

tinz18

I know this could possibly open another tin of worms but a thought is after occurring to me...if the man gets a legal abortion and signs away his responsibility- would that cover his parents and family too? Plenty of situations where the lad wanted nothing to do with the pregnancy and his parents wanted to know their grandchild. It wouldn't exactly be fair to the single mother having to deal with the family of the man who signed his rights away.

Gannicus

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 ?

I hate this crap....

It's just as much her responsibility to make sure she is protected asd much as it is his plus accidents happen too.

Its amazing how in this country if the man wants nothing to do with the child he is forced to be part of that childs life but if the mother wants him to have noting to do with the child she gets her way.

magicbastarder

Riskymove wrote: »

what is being argued is the idea that only the woman can decide on what happens and that the man's views are inconsequential

this applies regardless of whether he wishes to become a father or not

....yet he is held "responsible" for the outcome

no one is arguing that the man's views are inconsequential.
what people are arguing is that his opinion cannot override that of the woman.

he (in the vast majority of hypothetical scenarios being discussed) is 50% responsible for the situation, and what is being demanded is his ability to wash his hands of the situation.

AudreyHepburn

Ficheall wrote: »

I'd be reasonably sure that Audrey meant the daily pill, as opposed to the MAP which - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - you're not advised to take more than a certain amount times in your lifetime or somesuch?

Just because one pill was mentioned doesn't suggest it's the MAP in question - no more than it being understood that "wearing a condom" means multiple condoms..

And you'd be exactly right.

There is no scenario here which could logically be described as easy for anyone involved.

magicbastarder

Standman wrote: »

The irony of it.

simple biological lesson - you're never going to have equality of status in terms of deciding the future of an unwanted pregnancy, unless you can invent a way for men to become pregnant.
the issue is created by this inescapable inequality and no farting around with theory can give, or should give, the man equal say without eliminating the rights of the woman involved.

it'd be great if there was a way around this, but there's not.

tinz18

Ficheall wrote: »

I'd be reasonably sure that Audrey meant the daily pill, as opposed to the MAP which - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - you're not advised to take more than a certain amount times in your lifetime or somesuch?

Apparently its allowed once per cycle but most doctors here advise less than three times from what I've been told by a medical professional and from friends experiences with other medical professionals.

Riskymove

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the example of an unwanted pregnancy, there is pretty much no scenario which works out better for the woman than the man. some men seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge this.

apart from having a child of course

some people are very happy with their lot as a single parent

I don't think anyone is belittling the difficult choice faced by people in this situation or suggesting the life of a single parent is a laugh

i don't think that quite counts as 'holding all the cards' despite what some posters here are claiming.

tbh I think you are continually misrepresenting the central discussion

what is being argued is the idea that only the woman can decide on what happens and that the man's views are inconsequential

this applies regardless of whether he wishes to become a father or not

....yet he is held "responsible" for the outcome

Ficheall

Calina wrote: »

Because the pill isn't a single simple little pill, it's a pill every day. In the context of the post I was replying to which referred to a simple pill, I understood that as MAP.

I'd be reasonably sure that Audrey meant the daily pill, as opposed to the MAP which - and feel free to correct me if I'm wrong - you're not advised to take more than a certain amount times in your lifetime or somesuch?

Just because one pill was mentioned doesn't suggest it's the MAP in question - no more than it being understood that "wearing a condom" means multiple condoms..

Standman

shruikan2553 wrote: »

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.

It is amazing isn't it? Similar shaming tactics even used.

Neither an abortion of a child nor legal abortion of parental responsibilities is an ideal situation that anyone would want to go through, but for some people it seems abortion of a foetus is "her choice" while legal abortion for a father is a travesty worthy of contempt.

The irony of it.

Calina

Potatoeman wrote: »

It not a light commitment for the father either. Child support has large financial implications.

This is not disputed. However the financial implications for the woman tend to be greater as it may result in lower salaries, poorer career prospects, greater discrimination and less well provided for in pension terms. And that's if she has support at all.

Potatoeman

magicbastarder wrote: »

in the example of an unwanted pregnancy, there is pretty much no scenario which works out better for the woman than the man. some men seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge this.
the woman either has to 1) have an abortion, 2) miscarry, 3) carry to full term and give the baby up for adoption, or 4) in most cases where she keeps the kid, become a single mother.

option 1, 2 and 3 - no long term financial liability on the man.
option 4 - almost always harder for the mother, in terms of emotional cost, career prospects, financial costs, etc.

i don't think that quite counts as 'holding all the cards' despite what some posters here are claiming.

It not a light commitment for the father either. Child support has large financial implications.

[Deleted User]

It sounds like a reasonable idea if it's early term and pretty clear from the outset.
Ideally a couple would work through it together and come to a joint decision but I suppose you don't know until you're in the situation

magicbastarder

suicide_circus wrote: »

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

in the example of an unwanted pregnancy, there is pretty much no scenario which works out better for the woman than the man. some men seem unwilling or unable to acknowledge this.
the woman either has to 1) have an abortion, 2) miscarry, 3) carry to full term and give the baby up for adoption, or 4) in most cases where she keeps the kid, become a single mother.

option 1, 2 and 3 - no long term financial liability on the man. all options are tougher on the mother.
option 4 - almost always harder for the mother, in terms of emotional cost, career prospects, financial costs, etc.

i don't think that quite counts as 'holding all the cards' despite what some posters here are claiming.

Calina

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...

Because the pill isn't a single simple little pill, it's a pill every day. In the context of the post I was replying to which referred to a simple pill, I understood that as MAP.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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...

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?