Abortion For Men

crossmolinalad · 22-08-2014 03:02PM

diveout wrote: »

You as an adult have the right to refuse medical treatment or vaccinations, your child does not have that right should you insist on it.

.

maybe not here in ireland but there are countries like belgium holland and others where children have those rights
in some cases they even have the rights to let end their lifes

crossmolinalad · 22-08-2014 03:18PM

Riskymove wrote: »

so if the woman doesn't want to have the child but the man does she should become a single mother to meet that desire?

yes we did
she went pregnant with a twin she didnt want them and i wanted to keep them
After a long discussion she made up her mind and the boys were born
After birth ,3 months later she handed them over to me
Happens 7 years ago
And now she love them and is always there when there is something important with them birthday,christmas ect ect shes there for them
Thats all she does
no payments from her or the state i dont want it i have chosen for them she didnt
And i didnt sit home when they were little gone to work as usuall

Riskymove · 22-08-2014 03:20PM

crossmolinalad wrote: »

yes we did

great that it worked out for you both

Sweet Rose · 22-08-2014 03:23PM

crossmolinalad wrote: »

yes we did
she went pregnant with a twin she didnt want them and i wanted to keep them
After a long discussion she made up her mind and the boys were born
After birth ,3 months later she handed them over to me
Happens 7 years ago
And now she love them and is always there when there is something important with them birthday,christmas ect ect shes there for them
Thats all she does
no payments from her or the state i dont want it i have chosen for them she didnt
And i didnt sit home when they were little gone to work as usuall

Fair play to you. It's fantastic to hear a positive story like this coming from a male point of view. I felt so happy reading it. Your children sound like they have a great father. They are very lucky

ash23 · 22-08-2014 03:27PM

Fabreo wrote: »

Yes and what's being proposed is making it an option to men to absolve themselves of their rights and responsibilities over the child.

But there is a child. That's the difference. One who needs adults in order to survive. A woman having an abortion means no child. A man abortion means a child missing one parent and putting all the responsibility on the other parent when both are responsible for the existence of the child.

ash23 · 22-08-2014 03:30PM

Riskymove wrote: »

"Still"

where have I maintained such a thing?

I'm not saying you proposed it. It's the entire gist of the thread though. The right of a man to absolve himself of any obligation to a child he fathered.

Riskymove · 22-08-2014 03:38PM

ash23 wrote: »

The right of a man to absolve himself of any obligation to a child he fathered.

which I haven't agreed with

ash23 · 22-08-2014 03:43PM

Riskymove wrote: »

which I haven't agreed with

Fair enough. So we're in agreement then

Riskymove · 22-08-2014 03:46PM

ash23 wrote: »

Fair enough. So we're in agreement then

on being able to completely walk away...yes

but I do have issues with some things as I have been discussing

The Purveyor of Truth · 22-08-2014 04:25PM

Here's an interesting case where a guy slipped his six week pregnant girlfriend the abortion pill because he did not want her to have the child.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__Pz8ClVcxQ

Doesn't say it there but he ended up getting 14 years for it.

Potatoeman · 22-08-2014 04:30PM

ash23 wrote: »

But there is a child. That's the difference. One who needs adults in order to survive. A woman having an abortion means no child. A man abortion means a child missing one parent and putting all the responsibility on the other parent when both are responsible for the existence of the child.

It may not be practical to absolve responsibility but I do think there is an arguement to be made for those that very clearly dont want to father the child. If you ignore their wishes you dont really get to claim the moral high ground.

osarusan · 22-08-2014 04:31PM

I would imagine that often, the consequence of the man legally removing himself from responsibility regarding the future child is that the woman would then get an abortion, and there is no longer a future child.

(In keeping with the OP's scenario in which abortion is legal on demand)

blue note · 22-08-2014 05:11PM

Ignorant etc. wrote: »

I in no way would support a man walking away from his child. In fact, if it were my own son I'd disown him.

I haven't read the whole thread, but I hope this gem of a comment was highlighted!

I'm going to give the poster the benefit of the doubt and assume it was intentional.

Strong Life in Dublin · 22-08-2014 06:34PM

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

And who should financially support the child then? The tax payer?

I think men should always financially provide for the children they are responsible for and should never have an opt out option in that regard. I also feel men should have no right to request that a woman have an abortion. Not for any nonsense and sanctimonious reasons of body autonomy but just because it is morally the right thing to do and if one parent wants to keep the child, then that should be more than sufficient reason to bring him or her into the world.

The mother supports the child if that is the case. If the man want's an abortion but female doesn't then he should not have to pay ANYTHING she wanted to keep it.

Why is it that only a female has a say in abortion? I think it's hilarious that people say "the man stuck his dink in so he knew what he was doing". Well a female is not so innocent she knows what she is doing, unless she was raped. So why is it that if a female realizes that she made a mistake she can abort but a male has NO say in the matter

Shakespeare's Sister · 22-08-2014 09:43PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

If he had unprotected sex with her I would assume it was consensual and that she knew the risks.

And he didn't? You're the one who has been saying it takes two to tango.

And whose to say they broke up through his fault? Maybe it was mutual. Maybe she cheated. Maybe they didn't know she was pregnant until after they split.

And then there are the cases when it's none of the above.

No matter the situation we all know no-one would force the woman to be a mother. Unless and until that mindset changes, and I hope it doesn't, I refuse to accept that men should be forced to be fathers in anyway, financially or otherwise.

I really don't understand this strange desire to punish men for what is generally a consensual two person act. It really doesn't sit well with me and paints all of us as women in a very bad light.

Um... no it doesn't.

How could it possibly, unless someone *wants* to see all women in a bad light in relation to something that's not our fault?
Why are you so keen to be condemning of women (and therefore yourself)?
So you don't want to "punish" the man, but "punishing" the woman (not every woman can just waltz into the abortion clinic - for one, it's not available in this country) - that's grand.

AudreyHepburn · 25-08-2014 08:30AM

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

And who should financially support the child then? The tax payer?

I think men should always financially provide for the children they are responsible for and should never have an opt out option in that regard. I also feel men should have no right to request that a woman have an abortion. Not for any nonsense and sanctimonious reasons of body autonomy but just because it is morally the right thing to do and if one parent wants to keep the child, then that should be more than sufficient reason to bring him or her into the world.

Um....the Mother maybe?

Women are quite capable of earning a living you know.

Absolutely men should not have the right to dictate what women do with there own bodies.

BUT neither should we as women have the right to dictate what a man does with his finances. If we are to be allowed to walk away from motherhood then men should have the same rights with regard to fatherhood.

Demanding anything less just smacks of bitterness and over the top feminism.

The Purveyor of Truth · 25-08-2014 08:52AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Um....the Mother maybe?

Women are quite capable of earning a living you know.

Eh yeah, I know.. which is why in the post previous I said:

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

.. personally I feel yes she should have the child if the boyfriend or husband wants her to and perhaps even consider the option of letting him raise the child in fact and then go on to pay child support to the father , in the very same way millions of men currently do.

My comment about the tax payer having to foot the bill is a general one, giving that the tax payer currently supports many children where the mothers do not work and indeed, houses them. If your proposal was adopted, where men could just opt out of being financially libel for child support, then without a shadow of a doubt the tax payer would end up picking up the tab for it.

Absolutely men should not have the right to dictate what women do with there own bodies.

BUT neither should we as women have the right to dictate what a man does with his finances. If we are to be allowed to walk away from motherhood then men should have the same rights with regard to fatherhood.

There is more to parenthood than money and you seem to be implying that in a man's mind, the ability to just walk away from being financially responsible for a child, somehow equates to a male abortion. What a farcical thing to suggest. Do you think men are robots or something? That they could just sign away financial responsibility for a child and then go about their lives not thinking about that kid? Come on now. There are more holes in what you propose than there was in the Titanic.

Demanding anything less just smacks of bitterness and over the top feminism.

Well that's the first time I've been accused of that.

diveout · 25-08-2014 08:56AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Um....the Mother maybe?

Women are quite capable of earning a living you know.

Absolutely men should not have the right to dictate what women do with there own bodies.

BUT neither should we as women have the right to dictate what a man does with his finances. If we are to be allowed to walk away from motherhood then men should have the same rights with regard to fatherhood.

Demanding anything less just smacks of bitterness and over the top feminism.

I think what you and others are proposing here is the direct product of a very superficial and glib understanding of what it does to a man to walk away from his child[ren.]

You are essentially closing the door on second chances for both these men and their children, with long term cascade effect consequences on both these families and the greater community.

There is a massive amount of pain involved, often regrets, and is a grossly misunderstood phenomenon.

AudreyHepburn · 25-08-2014 08:56AM

Shakespeare's Sister wrote: »

And he didn't? You're the one who has been saying it takes two to tango.

And then there are the cases when it's none of the above.

Um... no it doesn't.
How could it possibly, unless someone *wants* to see all women in a bad light in relation to something that's not our fault?
Why are you so keen to be condemning of women (and therefore yourself)?
So you don't want to "punish" the man, but "punishing" the woman (not every woman can just waltz into the abortion clinic - for one, it's not available in this country) - that's grand.

First I never suggested that if a man had protected sex he didn't know or ignored the risks. I said we shouldn't assume the woman involved didn't know them or didn't ignore them.

I don't want to see anyone punished for pregnancy, unplanned or otherwise.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that I want to condemn women, nothing could be further than the truth.

That's why I advocate giving women AND men the choice.

AudreyHepburn · 25-08-2014 08:59AM

diveout wrote: »

I think what you and others are proposing here is the direct product of a very superficial and glib understanding of what it does to a man to walk away from his child[ren.]

You are essentially closing the door on second chances for both these men and their children, with long term cascade effect consequences on both these families and the greater community.

There is a massive amount of pain involved, often regrets, and is a grossly misunderstood phenomenon.

There's nothing superficial or glib in anything I've said.

I said myself in another post ;

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 · 25-08-2014 09:01AM

The Purveyor of Truth wrote: »

Eh yeah, I know.. which is why in the post previous I said:

My comment about the tax payer having to foot the bill is a general one, giving that the tax payer currently supports many children where the mothers do not work and indeed, houses them. If your proposal was adopted, where men could just opt out of being financially libel for child support, then without a shadow of a doubt the tax payer would end up picking up the tab for it.

There is more to parenthood than money and you seem to be implying that in a man's mind, the ability to just walk away from being financially responsible for a child, somehow equates to a male abortion. What a farcical thing to suggest. Do you think men are robots or something? That they could just sign away financial responsibility for a child and then go about their lives not thinking about that kid? Come on now. There are more holes in what you propose than there was in the Titanic.

Well that's the first time I've been accused of that.

Again I said this another post;

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.

I am aware that men have feelings and emotions and aren't simply ATMs on legs, which a lot of posters here seem to missing or ignoring.

diveout · 25-08-2014 09:04AM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

There's nothing superficial or glib in anything I've said.

I said myself in another post ;

Yes that is glib. I don't think you really have any idea.

AudreyHepburn · 25-08-2014 09:07AM

diveout wrote: »

Yes that is glib. I don't think you really have any idea.

Don't read my post whatever you do.

I understand perfectly what it means, I know men aren't robots, I know they have feelings and emotions, I know they can hurt and regret.

As I said previously there is no choice here that could be considered easy.

Shakespeare's Sister · 27-08-2014 07:59PM

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

First I never suggested that if a man had protected sex he didn't know or ignored the risks. I said we shouldn't assume the woman involved didn't know them or didn't ignore them.

But we aren't assuming that.

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

neither should we as women have the right to dictate what a man does with his finances. If we are to be allowed to walk away from motherhood then men should have the same rights with regard to fatherhood.

So there are never ever ever any circumstances where a man should financially support the child he has fathered?
The stuff about women being able to just forego motherhood is dishonest. It's not always as easy as that. Particularly in this country.

Demanding anything less just smacks of bitterness and over the top feminism.

No it doesn't. To say a man should always support the child he has fathered, no matter what the circumstances, is going too far all right, but it's nuts to claim there are never situations where he has a responsibility for child support.

Abortion For Men

Comments