Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Men and Abortion

page: 1
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:14 PM
link   
Before I finished college, I remember one lesson which involved a debate on the ethical concerns of abortion.

Today I was thinking about it (cuz I need a life) and considered that men have absolutely no say in abortion.
Now, I understand completely that women carry the child, and give birth to it....but does this mean that the father who, although not yet physically connected to the child, feels just as much (if not more) love towards it has absolutely no control over the fate of his unborn child.

It is always going to be hard as the woman will inevitably get the final say, but how is our legal/medical system set up to accomodate the men?

How would you guys feel if your partner told you that she was pregnant with your very first child, then immediately says she plans on aborting it?




posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by JackofBlades
Before I finished college, I remember one lesson which involved a debate on the ethical concerns of abortion.


That's interesting. One of my final assignments in graduate school was a debate of the abortion issue. I argued in favor of abortion, even though I am generally against it.


how is our legal/medical system set up to accomodate the men?


It isn't. The only way to control your offspring is to control your genitalia. Unfortunately, even marriage doesn't protect a man's reproductive rights, so far a I know. As far as I know, no one can stop a woman from aborting a child. It should be noted that in New Mexico, a married man is financially responsible for all the children his wife births, regardless of paternity.


How would you guys feel if your partner told you that she was pregnant with your very first child, then immediately says she plans on aborting it?


I don't rightly know. I found out after the fact, but I didn't feel as bad as the guy whom she told the child was his and who married her and paid for the abortion.


[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:23 PM
link   
i agree that very thought HAS crossed my mind. the female should have to inform the father and if they don't agree on what to do then there needs to be some sort of arbitration (not useing the family court who tends to be only on the side of females.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 07:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott

I don't rightly know. I found out after the fact, but I didn't feel as bad as the guy whom she told the child was his and who married her and paid for the abortion.

[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]


Well... There's just not much to say to that. Damn.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:14 PM
link   
I don't know if you guys read about it earlier this year, but the (or a) Men's Rights Group pressed a federal lawsuit to give men greater rights concerning abortion. As you said, women do have all the rights in choosing whether to keep their child. The lawsuit claimed for this situation to be equal for men and women, men should have the right to choose to abort their baby or not. If the man wants an abortion and the woman does not, the lawsuit said that the man would have no legal or financial responsabilities to the child (child support). It was an interesting suit, if nothing else. From what i remember, he knew they weren't going to win, they just wanted to raise public awarness of men having no rights in the abortion issue.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 08:22 PM
link   
I found the website of the organization.




On March 9, 2006 The National Center For Men will file suit in a United States district court in Michigan on behalf of a man's right to make reproductive choice, to decline fatherhood in the event of an unintended pregnancy. We will call our lawsuit Roe vs. Wade for Men.


National Center for Men



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 09:56 PM
link   
The issue I have, here in the UK, if a Woman wants an abortion then the man has no say, but if the man wants nothing to do with the child, if the woman pursues it, he is obliged to pay support.

I'm against Abortion in all cases, however I can sympathise on some issues(even though i do believe that the child is not at fault), i just wish there was a fairer way to solve this.
But alas, this issue can never be resolved because although i'm against Abortion, no one person has the right to tell another what they should do with their bodies, and at the same time, if you are able to have sex, then you should be prepared for the consequences, and if that means paying child support, so be it.
In future you might think twice about spreading your seed.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:10 PM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves
But alas, this issue can never be resolved because although i'm against Abortion, no one person has the right to tell another what they should do with their bodies, and at the same time, if you are able to have sex, then you should be prepared for the consequences, and if that means paying child support, so be it.
In future you might think twice about spreading your seed.


This statement confuses me. Let's rephrase this:

...if you are able to have sex, then you should be prepared for the consequences, and if that means having a baby, so be it. In future you might think twice about spreading your legs.

Does that wash?



[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:22 PM
link   
This is as ambiguous as whether or not abortion should be legal. If I were to argue in court to stop the abortion, and in front of a judge who leaned in the pro-life direction, but by law upheld Roe V Wade, I would try to argue that it was a child custody case, instead of just an injunction against the abortion. Don't know if it would work, but I don't know if its been tried either.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Not really, because i was on about the men.

It was a poor grammatically and structurally.


But alas, the issue of control over abortion can never be resolved, as you cannot tell a woman what she has to do with her body, but a man should have equal say regarding his child.
At the same time, if as a man, you are feel you are able to have sex, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences, and if that means paying child support, so be it.
In future you might think twice about spreading your seed.


In fairness, its 4.24am and i've been up since 7am yesterday, so i'm allowed to be a bit ditzy.

Edit: Spelling
Edit: I should be sleeping

[edit on 21/7/2006 by JebusSaves]

[edit on 21/7/2006 by JebusSaves]

[edit on 21/7/2006 by JebusSaves]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 10:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by JebusSaves

But alas, the issue of control over abortion can never be resolved, as you cannot tell a woman what she has to do with her body, but a man should have equal say regarding his child.
At the same time, if as a man, you are feel you are able to have sex, then you should be prepared to deal with the consequences, and if that means paying child support, so be it.
In future you might think twice about spreading your seed.

[edit on 21/7/2006 by JebusSaves]


If the woman has complete control over her body, don't you think she can share some responsibility for birth control? And why not turn over custody to the man, and the woman pay child support. I might like to take care of my own child, full time, since I am willing to deal with the consequences.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:15 PM
link   
Lets just be clear on my point of view first of all. I'm Pro Life.
I'm not saying at any point i agree with Abortion, i'm just giving reasons why this is a difficult subject.
Now, as for these comments.




If the woman has complete control over her body, don't you think she can share some responsibility for birth control?

I don't remember saying the woman shouldn't take some responsibility. On the contrary, one of the reasons i'm Pro-Life, is that if two people are able to make the decision to have sex, they should also be old enough to realise and deal with the consequences without resorting to terminating a new life.

What I was getting at was, if either party, in regards to my comment a male, has sex, then they take resposibility.




And why not turn over custody to the man, and the woman pay child support. I might like to take care of my own child, full time, since I am willing to deal with the consequences.


Again, if it were so simple, I don't think there would be any abortion as mothers of unwanted children would/could place them up for adoption.
The problem is the 9 Months Labour, the illnesses, the fatigue the changes to thier body(both short term and lifelong) any mental strain of carry this child, medical bills and other stuff.
Fact is, alot of this stuff is exactly why a woman alone has the right to choose for herself, and i guess in a free society, thats how it should be ultimately.

There is no way that a Man and a Woman can have equal rights in these situations, unless all children are born of test tubes and intimate sexual relations are abandoned.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:21 PM
link   
Did you know that in the State of New Mexico and, as it appears, most states, a mother can give up her child for adoption prior to birth and not only that, but a mother of a new born can drop her baby off at any hospital, no questions asked?

Legalized Abandonment


[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:22 PM
link   
Sorry. I took your post as it being the man's responsibility.



posted on Jul, 21 2006 @ 11:25 PM
link   
JebusSaves

I understood that you are Pro-Life, or anti-abortion, as I prefer to say, but your statement seemed to absolve women of any responsibility while holding men's feet to the fire, with no wiggle room.

[edit on 2006/7/21 by GradyPhilpott]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 12:00 AM
link   
Men have reproductive rights. It is their right to use protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Men, if you don't want to run the risk of an unplanned pregnancy, the answer is quite simple, don't have sex.

The sad truth is, if both partners do not want to run the risk of a pregnancy then proper precautions should be taken. But beware, I have yet to come across any form of birth control that is 100% effective. Condoms may break, other medications may interfer with the Pill, etc. The point is, if you choose to have sex and use every form of protection the modern world has to offer, you still run the risk of pregnancy. As with any endeavor, risk carries responsibility.

If a pregnancy occurs, and the guy decides he doesn't want to be a father, he doesn't have the right to forgo his responsibilities to the child. Nor, does he have the right to force the woman into having an abortion. On the other hand, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, the man does not have the right to force her to continue the pregnancy.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 06:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by maria_stardust
Men, if you don't want to run the risk of an unplanned pregnancy, the answer is quite simple, don't have sex.

Women, same for you. But one thing you'll never see, is a man faking a pregancy to get married, or for money. Or, god forbid, what Grady posted.


The sad truth is, if both partners do not want to run the risk of a pregnancy then proper precautions should be taken.

Why is that a sad truth? Its just the truth.


If a pregnancy occurs, and the guy decides he doesn't want to be a father, he doesn't have the right to forgo his responsibilities to the child. Nor, does he have the right to force the woman into having an abortion. On the other hand, if a woman chooses to have an abortion, the man does not have the right to force her to continue the pregnancy.

I think everyone knows this. It has been quite obvious for years. This thread wasn't started because of confusion on the status quo, but questioning it.

Just so you know where I am coming from, I am not pro-choice. I am pro-abortion. Some people just should not have children.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:27 AM
link   


It is their right to use protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with. Men, if you don't want to run the risk of an unplanned pregnancy, the answer is quite simple, don't have sex.


What if the pregnancy is unplanned and the man is overjoyed with the prospect of being a father. He quits his job to take on a higher paying, full time career so he can provide for his child, moves his girlfriend out of a flat and into a two bedroom household, and then is told that the baby will be aborted?

What can he do? Physically keep the woman from leaving the house or contacting the outside world?
If he did restrain her he would be persecuted even though he was technically trying to save a child from being killed.




if that means paying child support, so be it.


Indeed? Well how many woman are you aware of that are currently paying child support to the fathers of their children? How many men are given priority custody of their children when they are obviously better suited to caring for them? How many men are actually denied any form of contact with their children because the mother wishes it?
Have any of you read l0rds0fcha0s's post about his custody case (which contributed to the creation of this thread)?




Men, if you don't want to run the risk of an unplanned pregnancy, the answer is quite simple, don't have sex.

What about women? Are they allowed to have as much sex as they want without the risk of an unplanned pregnancy?



Men have reproductive rights. It is their right to use protection to prevent unwanted pregnancies to begin with.

What about the pill? Diaphragms? Coils? Femidoms? All forms of female contraception which aren't as widely publicised as male contraception. It seems nowadays that the media, the law, and society believe that contraception is wholly the mans responsibility. Why? Do you know that the majority of girls who went to my college and were sexually active didn't know what a femidom was? How's that for sexual awareness?

[edit on 22/7/06 by JackofBlades]



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 07:51 AM
link   
pregnacy is a medical condition, and there are various ways that it can be treated. it can be allowed to progress naturally and end with a home birth, or it can end with a c-section, or an abortion.....various medications might be perscribed, in some rare cases, activity might be limited either moderately or severely. it's a medical condition.

so, who should be the ones to determine what treatment plan is to be taken for any medical condition....doctors?? the person with the condition?? health insurance companies? family and friends? the government??

If you were to find out you had cancer tomorrow, just who would you like to have deciding just how it should be treated?

If exceptions are made for pregnacy, then well, equally legitamate cases probably could be made by all those other parties of interest to take the decisions for other medical problems away from you in favor of those other parties.



posted on Jul, 22 2006 @ 08:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by dawnstar
If you were to find out you had cancer tomorrow, just who would you like to have deciding just how it should be treated?


Assuming it was terminal, I'd let my family and friends decide what I should do because I'd think that I'd just switch off life support. However I'd realise that its a selfish decision as my having cancr or dying affects other people. And if I did something that hurt someone I cared about I'd feel more dread at that than my cancer.






top topics



 
0
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join