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

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.

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.

[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

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.

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.

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.

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..

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

blackwhite

eviltwin wrote: »

May I suggest you pop over to the Adoption board and read some of the accounts from birth mothers and educate yourself a bit about that option. Giving up a child is a huge decision, please don't reduce it to something as simple as a A or B. I find that really insulting tbh.

That's exactly what you and others are doing in the case of a father who might choose not to want anything to do with a child.

Or is it simply your view that men are heartless b*stards and that only women can be loving, caring people?

Riskymove

magicbastarder wrote: »

but the child - by definition - is family.
.

well that view is part of the problem then

a "family" is far more (or at least should be imo) than genes

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.

I find this view ironic

surely inisting that there are inheritance rights and that a child be deemed to be somone's "family" where there is no relationship is just a further part of this olden view of dominent men and helpless dependent women?

you seem to be arguing that the man should walk away because it may be inconvenient for him not to

not at all...indeed I've been careful to suggest quite the oppossite.....but of course I dont think you really care once you can keep suggesting such things to those who decide to debate with you

ash23

Riskymove wrote: »

I find this view ironic

surely inisting that there are inheritance rights and that a child be deemed to be somone's "family" where there is no relationship is just a further part of this olden view of dominent men and helpless dependent women?

I said nothing of women in my post. It was about the child.
I also stated that there should be a relationship between all children and both their parents where possible.

A child should not be cut off from it's father (unless at risk) by either the mother or the father. Children should have the right to know both parents and have the same rights as any subsequent children born.

diveout

ash23 wrote: »

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?

50/50 Might encourage more abandonment frankly. It means more time and more money for a single father.

Personally I think it is bad for kids so I would probably agree to the father taking full custody before I agreed to 50/50.

Riskymove

ash23 wrote: »

I said nothing of women in my post. It was about the child.

it's all connected...it relates to that old idea of a woman and child otherwise struggling if the breadwinner male doesn't support them

I also stated that there should be a relationship between all children and both their parents where possible.

A child should not be cut off from it's father (unless at risk) by either the mother or the father. Children should have the right to know both parents and have the same rights as any subsequent children born.

obviously that is the ideal but has little to do with what should be legally required

AudreyHepburn

blackwhite wrote: »

That's exactly what you and others are doing in the case of a father who might choose not to want anything to do with a child.

Or is it simply your view that men are heartless b*stards and that only women can be loving, caring people?

That seems to be the view of a lot of the posters here.

I personally think that the most heartless thing any man could do would be to stay and be forced into fathering a child he didn't want.

In doing that he would succeed only in making everyone involved miserable.

Imagine growing up knowing that your father never wanted you and resents your mother for making him stay.