Men and Abortion

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
Both the mother and the father have parental rights, and that I believe should include the right to protect their unborn child........

By the same token, when a woman has sex, she should accept the possibility that she may have to support that child for at least the first 9 months, baring any medical reasons as to why child-bearing could be particularly dangerous of course, and one would have to allow for certain special cases like this.

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
If both parents want an abortion, then I believe it is their right to do so, but if at least one parent wants to raise the child, they should have that right. Once the baby is born, either parent can do an equally good job of raising the child, with or without the other party.

nowthen has summarised my views perfectly. After conception and if both parents agree, the foestus should be aborted. However, if there is a dispute and the father wants the child to live (and pregnancy won't harm the mother) the pregnancy should be carried out. If there was no abortion procedure the woman would carry the baby anyway. Abortion is a medical procedure that should be used only when there is a danger to the life of the mother, or infants may be born unwell (in which case both parents should agree on abortion). People use abortion now as a way of quickly relieving themselves of responsibility and conflict.

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
The current laws are based on outdated assumption that men are somehow less capable of looking after children than women..... which is as ridiculous as saying women haven't got what it takes to succeed in the boardroom or in politics.

Precisely! I was raised for three years by my father, in a seperate part of the country to my mother. I was always well fed, always had enough toys, had an excellent education, and was given alot of free rein regarding where I could go and what I could do (mainly because I lived somewhere which regarded stealing penny chews as a major crime), I was in bed at 8 o'Clock on a school night, and was actually happy. The only times I was sad was when I missed my mum, which my dad remedied by taking me to see her or arranging for her to come up to us.
Fathers are just as capable at parenting as mothers, though many do not see it.

[edit on 22/7/06 by JackofBlades]

i think that first of all if you have sex you KNOW you run the risk of getting pregnant. the best contraceptive that IS 100% reliable is of course not haveing intercorse. so right off the bat if a female doesn't want to have a baby, simple logic is don't have sex. there is choice involved for both parties right at the begining.

now both parties have DECIDED to run the risk and they end up haveing a pregnancy. if the mother wants an abortion but the father doesn't. then the mother should be forced to carry to term, give the baby to the father cutting off any parrental rights (they didn't want the kid to begine with and would gladly have killed it), and also pay appropriate child support to said father. the reverse should also be true. that way everyone should be satisfied, call the pregnancy the risks one takes when haveing sex. risks that are well known about beforehand.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
nowthen has summarised my views perfectly. After conception and if both parents agree, the foestus should be aborted. However, if there is a dispute and the father wants the child to live (and pregnancy won't harm the mother) the pregnancy should be carried out.

Should? Again.. how would you enforce this on a woman who has chosen otherwise? You said you didn't mean she should be forced to before.. so what do you mean?
That goes for you to Drogo. Are you proposing women get thrown in a prison cell? How far do you want this to go? She may be able to get a pill smuggled in and give herself an abortion.. should she be shackled and put into solitary to prevent this? You are proposing women be treated like cattle. It's sick.

If there was no abortion procedure the woman would carry the baby anyway.

Legal or illegal abortion has and will always be available so it's not really a valid point.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by riley
You are proposing women be treated like cattle. It's sick.

I think YOU are the one who is taking it to far.No one here really believes that something as sick as that should be done.

But what about the fathers who are FORCED to pay for a child they may not have wanted. If a woman gets pregnant and the man doesn't want the child he leaves. However, the mother can still claim money off him.
The father is ordered (with no possible chance of winning a plea) to pay for a child he never wanted. If he took it to court a judge would tell him he should have used a condom.

If there was no abortion procedure the woman would carry the baby anyway.

I was referring to life pre-abortion.

[edit on 22/7/06 by JackofBlades]

Figured I'd add this poem I wrote aas a bit of an artistic view on the subject.

Innocent

So tender and sweet,
So wicked and wild,
I fall to her feet,
In love like a child.

Her decision hits me as a deadly blow.
My face takes upon a scarlet glow.
Me, the big man brought to tears,
Realization of my worst fears.

Rejection of love is a travesty.
I treated her like a majesty.
My heart is broken,
She doesn't have one.
She just sits there jokin.
She says it was fun.

I sit in a storm of emotion.
I speak of my love for her.
She dismisses the notion.
Now I begin to feel anger.
She led me on.
She used me as a pon,
In her game of seduction,
My heart cleared was her deduction

Baby so tender and sweet
Woman so wicked and wild
I'll never forgive her
For aborting my child.

I have said for as long as I can remember, that in my opinion the guy should have a say too. Just because The woman doesn't want the child doesn't mean the father don't want him/her. There has to be a way to get a blood test in these situations, and if it is proven that the guy who wants the child, is the father, he should have a say in the case.

Originally posted by JackofBlades
I think YOU are the one who is taking it to far.No one here really believes that something as sick as that should be done.

How then do you FORCE a woman to continue a pregnancy without physically FORCING her to..? You are the one that proposed it.. either you believe they should be or believe they shouldn't.. but you might want to ask yourself how 'humane' you really are.. in essence you are suggesting slavery become revived.

But what about the fathers who are FORCED to pay for a child they may not have wanted.

Sex causes pregancy. Most adult men know they risk impregnating a woman when they have sex with them.. unless you are suggesting men have the legal right to have sex without consequence? Conversly.. men who give ultimatums that women either have abortions or raise a kid on their own [no $ support] are also scum of the earth IMO. Thats emotional blackmail and would basically force a woman to choose to abort if she is poor. This happened to a friend of mine years ago and she was givin no option.. and the guy was rich.

If a woman gets pregnant and the man doesn't want the child he leaves. However, the mother can still claim money off him.

It's genetically half his and children need to be provided for.

The father is ordered (with no possible chance of winning a plea) to pay for a child he never wanted.

Do you want me to explain how conception takes place? If he didn't want it he wouldn't have made the 'gesture' of sexual intercourse.

If he took it to court a judge would tell him he should have used a condom.

So would I. If he really thinks he shouldn't have to pay for it.. he can always have a DNA test to prove it's not his.

If there was no abortion procedure the woman would carry the baby anyway.


I was referring to life pre-abortion.

How many hundreds of thousands of years do you want to go back?

[edit on 22-7-2006 by riley]

l0rds0fcha0s - What are you proposing the 'say' consist of? Making a woman go through a 9 month pregnancy and childbirth then giving up the child? Do you realize what you're asking a woman to do?

What if she changes her mind once she sees the child? You guys have absolutely NO IDEA what it's like to hold a life within your body. You have no idea the bond that forms during that 9 months. Then you want to force her to bear the child and hand it over to you? How realistic is that?

[edit on 22-7-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]

original quote by: JackofBlades
But what about the fathers who are FORCED to pay for a child they may not have wanted. If a woman gets pregnant and the man doesn't want the child he leaves. However, the mother can still claim money off him.

I can really see both sides to this point.

1.)ne the one side you have the fact that the man cared enough to put it in..but not enough to care for what comes out. Then I can see why men would have to pay.
2.) But at the same time, I can see the point as to where if a man didnt want the child then he shouldnt have to pay for it. But this one holds alot less water IMO. If he didnt want a kid he shouldnt have had sex in the first place. I have always been prepared for this contingency...long before I was married.

But in the end, the woman will always retain the upperhand in this issue. Because in the end, it is the womans body that must carry the child. So ultimately it is HER decision. I agree that it is not necc. fair... but life seldom is. It would be great if both parties could come together to handle this situation with patience and understanding... but we all know that that is difficult even under the best of situations.

Originally posted by riley
It's genetically half his

Your words not mine. If this is the case why then shouldn't he have a say on its birth or abortion.

And I can't believe you are talking about slavery. Whats that about? Haven't you ever heard of reasoning? Or, in a more extreme case, financial compensation? Can't a mother change her mind after seeing how badly the father wants his child to be born. We don't need to dispute using absolutes.

Originally posted by JackofBlades

Originally posted by riley
It's genetically half his

Your words not mine. If this is the case why then shouldn't he have a say on its birth or abortion.

Nice try.. I see you've ignored my other points in typical fashion while taking four word out of context. The BABY is genetically half is.. while it's a FETUS in the mothers body.. it is completely biologically dependent on her.

And I can't believe you are talking about slavery. Whats that about? Haven't you ever heard of reasoning?

Yeah. Slave masters used to force women to have babies because they could be sold. They were considered breeding stock. Cattle. If you were to get your way and legally FORCE women to have babies.. THAT would be slavery.. you know.. forcing people to follow orders against their will? Women are people with a right to determine the course of their own lives.. not incubators on life support dependent on the whim of legislation to decide their fate.

Or, in a more extreme case, financial compensation? Can't a mother change her mind after seeing how badly the father wants his child to be born. We don't need to dispute using absolutes.

Well if she AGREES to carry the child to full term thats fine as it's consentual.. but you were talking about physically FORCING a woman to continue a pregnancy against her will. You can't claim to be a defender of life while you are promoting the abuse of it.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by JackofBlades
If this is the case why then shouldn't he have a say on its birth or abortion.

Until he shares the pregnancy or birth or the abortion, my answer is no. He had a say already. He blew it.

What kind of a 'say' are you proposing? Lay it out for me here. What power do you think the man should have? Are you saying that he should be able to legally force her to carry and bear the child AND to give it up?

AM I ON IGNORE???

When I said that before I was comparing it to restraining a murderer to prevent him committing a crime. I would never condone, perform or otherwise agree with any kind of slavery or coercion. I am offended that you would even say that.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by JackofBlades
If this is the case why then shouldn't he have a say on its birth or abortion.

Until he shares the pregnancy or birth or the abortion, my answer is no. He had a say already. He blew it.

What kind of a 'say' are you proposing? Lay it out for me here.

What power do you think the man should have? Are you saying that he should be able to legally force her to carry and bear the child AND to give it up?

AM I ON IGNORE???

No why?
Surely if he pleaded with the woman and made her understand how much he wanted to actually have the child she would at least consider it. Its only 9months which will bring someone a lifetime of happiness as well as bring new life into the world.
The problem is nowadays we are all quite selfish. We like to put our own comfort and happiness before that of others. If I were a woman and was pregnant though I didn't want a child, I would ask the father what he thought about doing with it. If he wanted it and convinced me he would make sure it had a good life I would keep it.

As for using protection beforehand, many people don't even consider having children. However, the second they know they will become parents it is the only thing that matters.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

What kind of a 'say' are you proposing? Lay it out for me here.

What power do you think the man should have? Are you saying that he should be able to legally force her to carry and bear the child AND to give it up?
AM I ON IGNORE???

I realise this isn't addressed to my but I'll chip in..

The answer is to make abortion illegal without both parents consent (assuming both are known of course!). No-one is proposing locking up women to prevent them having abortions. Prosecution afterwards is still an option though.

And being forced to then give up that baby?? again, where does that idea come from? If the mother doesn't WANT the baby, then why shouldn't she have the option to give it up to the father to raise? and if when it's born she decides she doesn't want to give it up, then custody and access rights are decided as they are now, with the mother most likely getting main custody.

You seem to be proposing women have ALL the rights, and men have to go along with the whim of the woman. Please explain how this is fair?

Originally posted by JackofBlades
When I said that before I was comparing it to restraining a murderer to prevent him committing a crime. I would never condone, perform or otherwise agree with any kind of slavery or coercion. I am offended that you would even say that.

Yet you still JUSTIFY it. Do you or do you not consider physically restraining a woman from having an abortion morally justifiable because you consider it murder? Not everyone does.. is your moral perspective more superior to all women who are pro-choice? Now.. AGAIN how do you propose forcing women to continue a pregnancies [against their will] without forcing them? How is this not slavery? You keep contradicting yourself.

[edit on 22-7-2006 by riley]

Originally posted by nowthenlookhere
You seem to be proposing women have ALL the rights, and men have to go along with the whim of the woman. Please explain how this is fair?

I didn't say it was fair. In fact I said it wasn't fair (in one of these threads).

And once the woman is pregnant, then yes, it is her right to either have an abortion or bear the child. You're proposing the law make abortion illegal so that she either is forced to go through with it or must pay afterward.

I just don't see how people can think that's fair... :shk:

Originally posted by JackofBlades
Surely if he pleaded with the woman and made her understand how much he wanted to actually have the child she would at least consider it.

He has every right to plead with her now. She may consider it. But ultimately, the decision is hers.

If I were a woman and was pregnant though I didn't want a child, I would ask the father what he thought about doing with it. If he wanted it and convinced me he would make sure it had a good life I would keep it.

Well, that's fine, but are you proposing making every woman make the same choice?

As for using protection beforehand, many people don't even consider having children.

I KNOW!!! Don't you think they should??? That's when the man needs to think with his brain. He knows very well what could happen. If he doesn't want to be in the position of having another person decide whether or not his child will be born, he needs to stop and think about it, talk about it, be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN all protection against possible pregnancy is being used because he's about to completely give up all 'say' in the matter. He knows this ahead of time! If he goes ahead with it, then he's made his choice.

And what about those sudden moments of lust which pop up now and again? And why do you say only men should consider their actions? You do realise that women get just as (often more) horny then men? I personally had a relationship in which my girlfriend and me were suddenly in bed and I was fumbling with a condom wrapper and she said forget it....

Originally posted by JackofBlades
And why do you say only men should consider their actions?

I don't. Women should also consider their actions. I say to the men: Consider that you are giving up your choices at this time.

Like it or not, fair or not, the woman still has choices if she gets pregnant. The man does not. Your choice is BEFORE INTERCOURSE.

I personally had a relationship in which my girlfriend and me were suddenly in bed and I was fumbling with a condom wrapper and she said forget it....

That's when you needed to think, "Hmmm... she says 'forget it' but I'm the one who is giving up my choice here. No, I think I'll go with the condom."