Male Abortion

[Murfish]

So when a female becomes pregnant, she is faced with choices about what is to come. She can abort the fetus and avoid all further complications or benefits that might come with the pregnancy. She can go through with the pregnancy and apply to have the baby adopted through various means. Finally she can go through the pregnancy and raise the baby to adulthood. She can decide what course her life will take.

Males, on the other hand, have no actual decision to make. He can influence the choice of the mother, but he can't actually make the final call. If the mother wants go through with the pregnancy and become a mother; then he will, in all likelihood, have to accept either physical or financial responsibility for the child.

That being said, how do you feel about male abortion, a father's perceived right to give up all of his responsibilities regarding the child. Personally I think it should be his right to forfeit all responsibility, including rights to the child. It is unfair that the female is able to do as she wishes, while the male has no real set of options.

Discuss

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I think it is probably his constitutional right to do that, at least in terms of court rulings on abortion. However, the more I think about it, the more I think abortions should be made illegal in all but very rare circumstances. People should really take responsibility for their actions and realize that when you have sex...a baby might be the result. If that's the result, then the couple needs to accept responsibility for it.


In summary: Legally, men should probably be able to bail. Morally/Ethically/Humanely: No. Neither party should be able to refuse responsibility.

 

[Dave]

I think you are right to bring up this point. Men really have no say whatsoever when ti come to abortion and I can't see that ever changing in all honesty. I don't agree with Rick however, that all abortions should be made illegal. I think it really comes down to the mother and her choice. I think that males have a very limited role in the decision making process and it all depends on the willingness and financial situation of the mother that really has a say. This works alternately as well. If a father does want the child but the mother doesn't there is very little a father can do.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

In our culture, we are are accustomed to things like Coke Zero and so forth. All the taste with no calories, no sugar, all the caffeine...etc. All the good without the bad. With things like soft drinks, I think that is permissible. But there is very little human responsibility involved with choosing Coke Zero over regular Coca-Cola Classic.

With abortion, we are dealing with human's lives at a very serious level. I'm not necessarily making a stance on this because of unborn babies. I'm not sure whether I consider them to be fully human or not. I think they should be considered as having the possibility for humanity, at the very least. Anyway, I also want to look at this from the perspective of individuals taking responsibility for actions. I think it goes against the grain of the cosmic order to take away one of the elements of something as intensely significant as sex. Conception is one of those elements, just as is physical intimacy, orgasm, etc.

Note that I'm kind of thinking "out loud" (through typing)...so be merciful.

 

[HBK-aholic]

It's right that the 'father' shouldn't have a big say in whether the woman gets an abortion. If he wants the child and she doesn't, then sorry, you're going to have to have a child with another woman. Now, I think the woman should take the mans opinion into consideration, as it took both of them to make the child, however, she couldn't be expected to have the child if she didn't want to.

And yes, to an extent the father should have the same option. I think this came up in the old abortion thread. If the father doesn't want the child, legally there should be a way for him to make this clear. However, there would also be limits and restrictions. If he doesn't want to care for the child financially, that means he can't see the child at all - he can't have the 'fun' of being a parent, without the financial responsibility. All rights would be taken away - he's simply be a stranger to the child.

Also, he should have up until 20 weeks of pregnancy to decide this - around the same length of time the woman has to decide. I believe the upper limit is 24 weeks, however that's usually only in extreme circumstances. It'd also give the woman a chance to see how she felt about it - his decision may influence hers. She may not be able to afford the child without his income also, therefore she may feel the need to abort. While not ideal, it could/would happen.

 

[Pimpin]

Yes I think that the father should have a say in deciding whether the baby stays but unfortunately as Nature has it, he doesn't get the final say cause he ain't the one who has the baby inside of him. To sum it all up I think the father should have a say in this to an extent.

 

[Phoenix]

I accept that women have the ultimate decision in the final choice of the abortion, but I think she should at least get to know the father's say, hear him out and take his views into consideration. Where nature's law will give women the choice, it's respect that gives the man his right.

 

[Shua]

Well, this particular topic came up for me around November of 08. It's a long story, but it basically involved my ex telling me she was pregnant with my kid. Although I've always been against abortion, my immediate reaction was telling her that she was going to get one. I told her to find out the amount, and we'd talk of a payment plan. She fought me on it and said that she was keeping it, and that she was going to come after me for child support and all this....but, being that she was my ex, and that there was no way I'd be financially able to support a her, a child, AND myself, I kept my stance perfectly clear.

 

[Azrael Cain]

This same topic came up on a different board. I responded to it with something that I cannot recall now, so I am going to try a "take two."

Both the male and female are responsible for the consequences of choosing to engage in a sexual act. One of those consequences is the possibility of a child (and if, by the time you are an adult, you do not know that sex can lead to children, get help). If both parties have a say in whether or not they are going to have sex, then there should be equal say in the matters pertaining to the consequences of the mutually agreed upon prior act (the sex). That means an equal say in what happens in the events of a pregnancy, and the option of an abortion.

I personally believe that when it comes to abortion, it is the choice of the woman as to whether or not she should keep it, and under which circumstances is the pregnancy comes about (rape, incest, drunken one night stand, broken condom). In the aforementioned instances, the man only gets a say in the latter two, provided he is man enough to face up to the situation.

As far as it pertains to the male side, again, if he is man enough to face the issue then he should have a say. If he is not, then he is neither going to want to have a say nor should be be allowed. In this respect, I think women need to be more selective in terms of whom they choose for sexual partnerships. Mind you, I am not saying make it more difficult for guys to "pick you up," or stop having "casual sex;" merely be more careful and take all the necessary precautions. If a man "is a man," that is if he is mature enough and sensible enough to know that sex can lead to kids, etc, there should be no problems in getting him to put a rubber on.

I think that from a legality standpoint, until the male and female genders can be viewed as equal, the issue of abortion will always be determined by the mother, primarily because it is in her body that the fetus grows, develops and comes out of. Looking at it from a practical standpoint, the man has as much say as he has involvement, and let's be realistic, that involvement isn't that grandiose, now is it? If a couple knows they want kids, can discuss it and are ready (albeit never plan for a kid, that's the worst thing you can do, but do be prepared for a kid) then it should be 50/50. But if one partner is more mature, more aware, more whatever, or the two partners have different expectations about the encounter, then it's clearly an unbalanced relationship to begin with, isn't it? And so the partner who would be going through all of the hardships (the female) gets the majority of the say.

It all depends on where you are in life and what you want.... the context of the situation, I suppose. If it's a mutual decision, by all means. But few people are thinking that far in advance when they're getting intimate or flirting or seducing. It might be too much to ask for of people to be that way, too...

 

[Tastycles]

I can see where you're coming from, but there is an oppurtunity for this to be abused. Unwanted pregnancies happen all of the time, particularly in young girls, and some don't want to have an abortion for whatever reasons. Clearly, the man in the situation can't force her to go the clinic, which is why you are suggesting what you do.

The problem is that men could sleep around without consequence knowing that if they do get a girl pregnant, they can simply wash their hands of the child and never have to pay maintainance. As it stands the deterrant for men doing this, is that they will have to pay money to the woman for 18 years. If this law was passed you'd have men doing whatever they wanted and women left with the consequences. A man could say he had the snip, and a woman may believe him, and then get pregnant. With this law, it'd be a case of "sorry, you're on your own".

Sexal equality in matters of child birth shoudn't and couldn't ever exist. As it stands now, a woman can have a baby terminated without the man's say so or they can keep a baby that the man wants nothing to do with. Your proposals would mean that a man could get a girl pregnant and shirk all responsibility, basically meaning that men can take a Steve Austin-esque arrive. raise cock. leave approach to sex, which is again unequal.

Without wanting to take this down the well travelled road of pro-choice, it is ultimately the woman who has to deal with the consequences of children, so it should be the woman with the executive decision, for want of a better expression. As it stands a man can get a woman pregnant and never see the child, or ever have anything to do with the woman again except for the financial aspect. That serves as an incentive to show responsibility in sexual behaviour, something I can only support.

Personally, I'd rather take the option of letting the woman decide. After all, it is her body, not the mans, and he should put a condom on if he doesn't want to have kids. Simple as that really.

 

[TheOneBigWill]

The real story here isn't whether or not Male's should have the right to have some type of say in "abortions".. it's whether or not Male's should have the right, to refuse growing up and taking responsibility. Much like Females, with the exception that Males don't actually carry the child.

I think Ricky had a good point. In some situations, if the Male merely doesn't wish to grow up and take responsibility, then while it's Morally/Ethically/Humanely wrong.. the fact is all forcing something that big upon someone that irresponsible is going to do, is cause even bigger problems for the unborn child upon growing up after it's born.

First, you'd have to take into serious consideration of whether the Male being so irresponsible would drop so low, as to attempt causing physical harm to the pregnant Female, simply to "take care of the situation, personally".

Second, you have to accept that most Males (and Females) will see fit that if they're paying for a child, they'll want to have some remote say in how it's raised. This could come into conflict with the alternative Parent, all most all the time.

Now, on the flip side to this, I know several Females in this world who're more heartless and irresponsible than Males out there. In this situation, mainly because the Female body is the vessel (so to speak) to the unborn child.. if the Female doesn't wish to carry it.. no one should have the ultimate say to force her into doing otherwise.

Once again, just like Males who refuse to grow up and take actions for the acts of a sexual nature that have spawned an offspring.. is it morally right for Females to merely abort without any other reason than irresponsible behavior? NO. However, if we were to begin forcing Females to carry the child.. who knows what harm they could bring to their own bodies, in doing so, harm the unborn child as well. All because of being forced to do something, against their will's.

In the end, Males should have some say in whether they want to be apart of the child's life, if the Female wants to keep it. However, if the Male wants no part of the child.. just like the Female has every right to instantly abort the Male should have equal right, to at least abort by way of cutting themselves loose of any financial, mental or physical responsibility to the child and/or Mother.

 

[FromTheSouth]

But here's my problem boys. If the woman wants to shelve it, it isn't a concern for the guy. It's just that whenever the views of the parents are in conflict, the law sides with the woman every time. On the other hand, I feel she is doing right by not aborting, so why shouldn't the guy have responsibility too?

It seems like the girls who want to do right are being punished for it. This doesn't seem like a situation that can be solved with a sweeping generalization like "girls have a choice, but guys don't" because when women exercise the moral, in my opinion, choice, then the guy doesn't have to follow suit. It took two of them to make the baby, then the two of them should have to shoulder the load.

I am so conflicted, but if I have to pick sides between the girl and the guy, I choose the baby.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Thinking about this, and re-reading mine, and others, posts, I hate this idea. It's just that there isn't a way for me to be pro-choice, but say men can't have that choice, without sounding contradictory. Which was the origin behind my first post. Eugh, this is actually really tricky. The thing with this is, if the woman decides to have an abortion, the guys life, while he may be upset, won't change a great deal, even if he wanted the child. But if she decides to have that baby, there is now another person there, is it right to deny that child a father?

I don't believe that the fetus is a 'baby' until it's actually born, or at least viable. Therefore, things change when it's actually a person. The child would have rights - is being able to see your father a human right? Is expecting him to look after you financially and emotionally a bad thing? Looking at this through the eyes of the child, I'd have to say I don't think this would be a good idea.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Wow. a lot of people totally missed the boat on what this thread is on about. anyway.

The debate isnt about the child, its about equal rights to make a totally selfish, ghastly decision, prior to the child being "viable" as you creepy pro choicers like to say.

A right that the woman posseses, while the male, does not. I think its pretty weak and biased to say the mans life isnt that affected if she doesnt have the child. I never knew you had gotten a girl pregnant, thats quite a feat.

If a girl has the right to make a choice to shelf and rid her self of all responsibility, then the male should be afforded the same right. Its only in the name of being equal, and fair.

 

[Tastycles]

You can't be equal and fair about it though. If a woman decides to have an abortion, it is at a great personal cost too. Not only does she have to live with the idea for the rest of her life, she also has to risk the possiblity of being infertile.

A woman who sleeps around has the idea of pregnancy to give her a little responsibility, as nobody, pro-chioice or not, actually wants to have an abortion. For a man, his responsibility comes from the fact that if he gets a girl pregnant, he has to deal with whatever she decides.

They are two very different outomes, granted, but if this idea were true, then there would be no call to responsibility for men whatsoever. If I could sleep with a girl, get her knocked up and not fear the consequences, I'd be a lot less responsible in sleeping around. (I'm not this amoral really, I'm using "I" as a rhetorical tool.)

This idea puts all of the burden of rsponsibility onto the woman, and is actually far less equal than any current law.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

For a man, his responsibility comes from the fact that if he gets a girl pregnant, he has to deal with whatever she decides.


This idea puts all of the burden of rsponsibility onto the woman, and is actually far less equal than any current law.

so that first part, is fair and equal, in your veiw?? How?? If you slide your dick in, you forfeit all rights and decision making to the female who is partaking in the act equally with you?? really, thats fair?

and the second part, in a manner of low intelligence speaking, is bullshit. So then, is it your opinion, that every male who ever impregnates a female, only cares for his child becuase he knows he has to?? If equal rights, and options for the male were made available, EVERY man would choose the male abortion option?? I belive you give our sex far too little credit, my good sir. Speaking as a man who has dealt with the situation before, I feel thats a pretty bad blanket assesment. Its also quite the contradiciton, when above, you all but say the woman already HAS all the decision making responsibility, but then go on to say, this law shouldnt come to be, becuase it would place all the decision making responsibility on the woman. The woman already has that though, it reality.

 

[HBK-aholic]

Wow. a lot of people totally missed the boat on what this thread is on about. anyway.

The debate isnt about the child, its about equal rights to make a totally selfish, ghastly decision, prior to the child being "viable" as you creepy pro choicers like to say.

Damn us creepy pro-choicers using real words. Anyway, while I know this is the point of he thread, I was thinking about afterwards, when there's an actual child involved, which is the difference between the woman choosing to not have the child, and the man choosing. And I know it's unfair to distinguish that way, but it does change things.

A right that the woman posseses, while the male, does not. I think its pretty weak and biased to say the mans life isnt that affected if she doesnt have the child. I never knew you had gotten a girl pregnant, thats quite a feat.

That's not how I meant it at all. I simply meant that, there isn't a child involved if the woman has an abortion, therefore their life won't be changed as drastically as if she had the child.

If a girl has the right to make a choice to shelf and rid her self of all responsibility, then the male should be afforded the same right. Its only in the name of being equal, and fair.

I agree, as I said in my previous post. I know that it's contradictory to have it one way and not the other. But is it fair on the child to not have a father? To know their father didn't want them? That's the way I'm looking at this, as opposed to trying to stop men having rights.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I agree, as I said in my previous post. I know that it's contradictory to have it one way and not the other. But is it fair on the child to not have a father? To know their father didn't want them? That's the way I'm looking at this, as opposed to trying to stop men having rights.

I think thats a tad contradictory. Well, dont let the child be sad. but hey, if we decide to kill it before it has a chance to be sad, well, shit, no harm no foul. thats a tad obtuse thinking.


and the flaw in this thinking, also, is the fact that the above described scenario takes place anyway. Belive me, I know. Children grow up without fathers, and know their fathers didnt want them as it is now. It makes no difference. Therefore, its not really relevant to the conversation, nor does it make a difference to the issue.

 

[HBK-aholic]

I think thats a tad contradictory. Well, dont let the child be sad. but hey, if we decide to kill it before it has a chance to be sad, well, shit, no harm no foul. thats a tad obtuse thinking.


and the flaw in this thinking, also, is the fact that the above described scenario takes place anyway. Belive me, I know. Children grow up without fathers, and know their fathers didnt want them as it is now. It makes no difference. Therefore, its not really relevant to the conversation, nor does it make a difference to the issue.

I've agreed it's contradictory, but not for the reasons you've stated. The difference, you pointed out yourself. It doesn't have a chance to feel sad, or feel anything. Therefore, it doesn't affect the 'child' in any way, as the child doesn't exist - that's the major difference.

I know, I don't know my father, so I'm not saying it doesn't happen anyway, just that this is more likely to increase if this is allowed to happen.

 

[Tastycles]

The point you have to realise is that you cannot have equality in this sort of thing. Whichever way you play it, someone is going to get the shit end of the stick. As it stands, a man is forced to abide by the womans decision. Obviously, it isn't equal as she gets to decide whether he gets to be a dad, or if he gets to pay her for 18 years.

With the male abortion idea, he gets to decide whether the woman is forced to raise a child without financial assitance from himself, something which is frankly damn hard. In the interest of giving the man a choice, you'd have to make it legal for the man to be able to veto actual abortion too, something which I find unsettling, because it means girls will be bringing babies that they don't want into the world. You can't be "pro-choice" for a man if you don't let him be able to be the one keeping the child too.

Obviously not all men would abuse this system, but some would and you can't let those people wash their hands of responsibility because you will end up with a real social problem on your hands.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Obviously not all men would abuse this system, but some would and you can't let those people wash their hands of responsibility because you will end up with a real social problem on your hands.

and so this is to imply that there are no women out there who abuse the system?? On both sides of it? IE ones who use a pregnancy to entrap a man into dealing with her nefarious ass for 18 years, or ones who whimsically murder would be babies to wash their hands of responsibility?? It happens all the time. Im merely an advocate of equal rights and choices.

 

[Tastycles]

and so this is to imply that there are no women out there who abuse the system?? On both sides of it? IE ones who use a pregnancy to entrap a man into dealing with her nefarious ass for 18 years, or ones who whimsically murder would be babies to wash their hands of responsibility?? It happens all the time. Im merely an advocate of equal rights and choices.

Ah yes, but you cannot compare avoiding 18 years of maintainance payments which the man gets by "aborting" to the 18 years of being a mother that the mother avoids by aborting the baby. On the flip side if she aborts the baby against his wishes, it is massively negative to her wellbeing too, whereas a man can just get on with his life without consequence. Is it equal? no, but neither is parenthood.