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

krudler

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.

Why did the woman have sex with a guy who didnt wear a condom? She knows her body better than him. Both parties are invovled.

Man and woman have sex, man doesnt wear condom, woman has sex with him anyway, gets pregnant, all men are bastards.

Got it.

Macavity.

One of the most ridiculous ideas I have ever seen, truly mad.

dickface

Should be some legal recourse for men to 'opt out' of a pregnancy if they do not want it.

krudler

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Please do not take a tiny snippet of what I've commented on to make a point. I said a lot of other things about men and women being equally responsible.

Got it??

Mostly about hating men though least be honest about that.

magicbastarder

dickface wrote: »

Should be some legal recourse for men to 'opt out' of a pregnancy if they do not want it.

why? they were involved in a consensual act in creating it, even if the pregnancy was not intended.

there are *loads* of scenarios in life where it would be great to opt out of situations you helped get yourself into, but biology/physics/morality/the law prevent it.

'not wanting' =/= 'not responsible'.

krudler

magicbastarder wrote: »

why? they were involved in a consensual act in creating it, even if the pregnancy was not intended.

there are *loads* of scenarios in life where it would be great to opt out of situations you helped get yourself into, but biology/physics/morality/the law prevent it.

'not wanting' =/= 'not responsible'.

But women can. What about when a man wants to keep the child but a woman doesnt? he has no rights then either.

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

Please do not take a tiny snippet of what I've commented on to make a point. I said a lot of other things about men and women being equally responsible.

Got it??

You haven't really though.

You keep saying the pill is impossible to take for some women, you seem to have ignored the fact there are other options for women and you continually repeat that the man should wear a condom and if he doesn't he's the only a fault.

You don't acknowledge at the role and the choice of the woman.

Forgive me but it doesn't seem like you understand the concept of equality.

[Deleted User]

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

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.

I don't think anyone would want an uninterested and uninvolved father forced to spend time with a child.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't take some responsibility for their actions in some way though, and contributing financially, if not emotionally, to the life they helped create isn't quite equal to the burden of the parent with primary care of the physical and emotional well being of the child 24/7, in addition to half the cost of raising it.

Everyone makes mistakes, but it's not a fair world if one person gets to wash their hands of it and walk way with no consequence while the mother takes the full burden on board. It'd be back to the good old days where men were free to come and go (pun intended), and women (and subsequently the child) bore the sole consequences.

I find it astonishing that people actually feel that situation would be 'fairer' in any way at all.

AudreyHepburn

Candie wrote: »

I don't think anyone would want an uninterested and uninvolved father forced to spend time with a child.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't take some responsibility for their actions in some way though, and contributing financially, if not emotionally, to the life they helped create isn't quite equal to the burden of the parent with primary care of the physical and emotional well being of the child 24/7, in addition to half the cost of raising it.

Everyone makes mistakes, but it's not a fair world if one person gets to wash their hands of it and walk way with no consequence while the mother takes the full burden on board. It'd be back to the good old days where men were free to come and go (pun intended), and women (and subsequently the child) bore the sole consequences.

I find it astonishing that people actually feel that situation would be 'fairer' in any way at all.

But that's whole point of this discussion.

Why should any man be forced to support financially a child he didn't want?

No-one would dream of forcing a woman to do so.

Once again it's not his fault alone that there's a baby.

[Deleted User]

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But that's whole point of this discussion.

Why should any man be forced to support financially a child he didn't want?

No-one would dream of forcing a woman to do so.

Are you suggesting they bear no responsibility for the life they create 50/50?

Are you suggesting a fairer way of dealing with the situation is by forcing an abortion on a person who may be ethically opposed to the idea or who has perhaps (it happens) found out too late for an abortion, should shoulder the ENTIRE burden of responsiblity for that child?

And how about the women who were told that the baby was wanted, but the father changes his mind when she's already pregnant? Should she be compelled to abort in some fantastical dystopian world? Or compelled to pay the price in every way for that deception?

Are you seriously suggesting that only women should be held responsible for the consequences of sex? How is that fairer?

magicbastarder

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Why should any man be forced to support financially a child he didn't want?

and round and round we go.

Riskymove

Candie wrote: »

Are you suggesting a fairer way of dealing with the situation is by forcing an abortion on a person

you need to read more of the thread beyond the OP

the discussion has moved on

NOBODY supports forcing someone to have an abortion

AudreyHepburn

Candie wrote: »

Are you suggesting they bear no responsibility for the life they create 50/50?

Are you suggesting a fairer way of dealing with the situation is by forcing an abortion on a person who may be ethically opposed to the idea or who has perhaps (it happens) found out too late for an abortion, should shoulder the ENTIRE burden of responsiblity for that child?

And how about the women who were told that the baby was wanted, but the father changes his mind when she's already pregnant? Should she be compelled to abort in some fantastical dystopian world? Or compelled to pay the price in every way for that deception?

Are you seriously suggesting that only women should be held responsible for the consequences of sex? How is that fairer?

Where on earth did I ever say any of the above?! Talk about willfully misinterpreting what I said.

Whether a woman wants to have an abortion or not is her own choice.

All I'm saying is if she decides to keep the child and if the father doesn't want to be involved she shouldn't have the right to force him.

Fabreo

Candie wrote: »

I don't think anyone would want an uninterested and uninvolved father forced to spend time with a child.

That doesn't mean they shouldn't take some responsibility for their actions in some way though, and contributing financially, if not emotionally, to the life they helped create isn't quite equal to the burden of the parent with primary care of the physical and emotional well being of the child 24/7, in addition to half the cost of raising it.

Everyone makes mistakes, but it's not a fair world if one person gets to wash their hands of it and walk way with no consequence while the mother takes the full burden on board. It'd be back to the good old days where men were free to come and go (pun intended), and women (and subsequently the child) bore the sole consequences.

I find it astonishing that people actually feel that situation would be 'fairer' in any way at all.

What days were these you speak of where men could come and go? Not saying they didn't exist, just would like to know the time period people are referring to when they say these things.

Riskymove

magicbastarder wrote: »

and round and round we go.

indeed it is doomed to do so

once you form the view that while a man has 50% responsibility for a pregnancy occuring but 0% input into what happens but is 100% liable for the child regardless of his circumstances...there really is no where to go

Riskymove

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

All I'm saying is if she decides to keep the child and if the father doesn't want to be involved she shouldn't have the right to force him.

in fairness, she cannot force him "to be involved"

only to provide financial support

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

I never said it was impossible to take the pill. Again, you are twisting my words to suit yourself. Please do not say something that I have not said.

I completely understand the concept of equality. I really don't think you do though.

I have always said that contraception is a two way street.

Yes, I'm a single mother and I know how bloody hard it is doing it on your own. I also know how hard it is to get some men to face up to their responsibilities. This is seeing in from a personal point of view with my friends and acquaintances and in my work. It is horrible seeing little children growing up without a Dad. It has long long long term repercussions for everyone involved.

I would never ever ever take giving up a child of mine lightly. If you produce it, you are responsible for it in my opinion.

I do. Perfectly.

And denying men the right to choose whether they want to be fathers goes against that. Don't assume any man would take that choice lightly. They aren't cold unfeeling robots you know.

I'm sorry you are in such a difficult situation but please don't allow it to stop you thinking logically.

AudreyHepburn

Riskymove wrote: »

in fairness, she cannot force him "to be involved"

only to provide financial support

But I don't think she should even be allowed to do that.

Why should he suffer financially for a child he doesn't want.

No-one would for the mother to do the same if she left the child with the father. If anything he probably be told just to suck it up and fend for himself.

Fabreo

One thing that I think should be hard to argue against is that with responsibilty for children should come rights. At the moment Father's rights don't match the responsibilty of Father's.

Riskymove

Candie wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that only women should be held responsible for the consequences of sex? How is that fairer?

but just about everyone has put forward the view that the woman has sole ownership of what happens

whether to keep the child or not etc...regardless of what the man wants, either way

so if she is solely responsible for what happens...why not be responsible for the consequences?

blackwhite

Sweet Rose wrote: »

How have I hated on men exactly??? I do not have any respect for adult men who are not responsible for their own off spring. This is not representing all men is it. So be more selective about using the word 'men'.

You posted earlier (and then deleted) that you "despise men."

Sisko

Dolbert wrote: »

There have been arguments for a 'legal abortion', i.e. the idea of the father signing all rights/responsibilities away if he doesn't want the child. He could never be pursued for maintenance etc. but could also never be in the child's life in any way.

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

OP here is your answer. It is the only answer their could ever be.

The idea of a "legal abortion".

That is it, end of thread. The idea of forcing a woman to not have a baby against her will is insanity. Would cause all sorts of physiological torture on so many levels.

Legal abortion is the only answer to your question in an enlightened and humane society.

blackwhite

Sweet Rose wrote: »

That was a joke actually. Did you not read the rest of the posts before?? It's called tongue in cheek!

Again selectively picking out something that suits you to make a point.

Where exactly have I done that before?

AudreyHepburn

Sweet Rose wrote: »

To be frank, I just have such a difference of opinion to you. I wouldn't spend any more of my time or energy responding to this.

Get off your pedestal.

You said yourself earlier you despise men. I just think you need to try not let whatever dirt bag hurt you blacken your view of men as whole.

Fabreo

Sweet Rose wrote: »

That was a joke actually. Did you not read the rest of the posts before?? It's called tongue in cheek!

Again selectively picking out something that suits you to make a point.

It wasn't very clear it was a joke, it was a relevant quote to select as it would discredited much of your arguments thus far if genuine. If someone said the same about women I'd say they should also be questioned about it.

Potatoeman

Sisko wrote: »

OP here is your answer. It is the only answer their could ever be.

The idea of a "legal abortion".

That is it, end of thread. The idea of forcing a woman to not have a baby against her will is insanity. Would cause all sorts of physiological torture on so many levels.

Legal abortion is the only answer to your question in an enlightened and humane society.

Because it gives the mother a chance to opt out of parenthood. Shouldnt the father be offered that right too, if not physically at least financially?

tinz18

I really hope male contraceptive treatments like vasilgel and RISUG end up succeeding and be adequately reversible for guys who want kids later in life when they're ready and financially stable. Then both parties can hopefully be on very reliable birth control substantially reducing the chances of unwanted pregnancy and this will be a non-issue. I'm an optimist at heart (however I'd be slightly worried it would lead to higher rate of STIs for those people (on both sides) who don't suit up).

ash23

Riskymove wrote: »

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

Lol you're seeing something that isn't there. I grew up in a home where the woman was 100% financially responsible. For the past 12 years I have been solely responsible for my own child.

Simply because I believe that my daughter should have the same rights as my exs "own family" doesn't mean I have a notion that men should be the breadwinners and I've no idea where you pulled that notion from because it certainly isn't my posts.

I'm just seriously uncomfortable with the idea that you feel a child born from an unplanned pregnancy should somehow have different legal rights to the inheritance of its parent than children born of planned pregnancies. Absolutely nothing to do with some archaic notion that the man should provide.

Shakespeare's Sister

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

But I don't think she should even be allowed to do that.

Why should he suffer financially for a child he doesn't want.

What if he had unprotected sex with her? What if they were in a relationship at the time and they broke up after she conceived/had the baby?
If they were in a relationship and she put holes in the condom or told him she was on the pill (and you should be able to trust your partner) I'd see where you're coming from, but there are scenarios where a father should pay for his child even if he doesn't want to be part of the child's life.

Holsten

Magaggie wrote: »

I'd see where you're coming from, but there are scenarios where a father should pay for his child even if he doesn't want to be part of the child's life.

Yes currently because of our messed up sexist laws, but this should not be the case at all.