What's new
By:

Abortions.

moevillini said:
typically men have the right not to get the woman pregnant in the first place - - it's difficult for me to imagine how that "right" might be taken away from them
Click to expand...

Now you are treading on thing ice there moe (which I happen to agree with, and one reason I do not favor abortion as an option). In today's world you are not allowed to imply that someone should refrain from engaging in activities that produce babies if they are not prepared to take on that responsibility. It is much more important to debate the right to kill the baby than even broach the subject that maybe not even having sex in the first place is a viable and maybe even best option. Everyone should be able to do whatever they want to do completely without consequence.

But seriously, you really just put an underscore on the quandry. So the man has one choice: have sex or not, after that his choices are null and void. Yet the woman can have sex all she wants as she has total control over whether to bring the baby into the world or not, and deprive the man of fatherhood or force it on him, regardless of his choices after the fact. Again it is limiting the man's freedom of choice in favor of the woman's. His choices: have sex but only if you want to worry about a baby. Her choice: have sex with no need to worry about a baby since she can just choose whatever she wants to do with it. In essence what he might want out of that act doesn't matter, yet what she wants is the final say in the matter.
 
One Brow said:
When the man starts carrying the baby in his body, he can have the right to end the pregnancy.

More seriously, giving the men any sort of final say in the termination of a pregnancy does amount to giving them control of the the body of the woman. Outside of that, the expectation that they will care for a child is part of the whole notion of taking responsibility for your actions. YOu seem to support holding people responsible for their actions generally. Is there an exception here?
Click to expand...

Succinctly, the man should not be forced to be any more accountable than the woman would be forced to. In that context, the woman will never be forced to be a mother as she can choose an abortion, yet the man can be forced to be a father, at least monetarily, against his wishes. Conversely he cannot choose to be a father if that is his desire as the woman has the sole choice to abort. I think both should be equally accountable, and in this there is no equal accountability.


So equitably, the man should be allowed to, at a bare minimum, legally excuse himself of all responsibilities for the child if the woman chooses to keep it. He should not be forced to pay support if he would have wanted the child aborted and she chose not to. That is not the case in our legal system. A one night stand can result in 18 years of support against the man's will, and at the woman's sole discretion. How is that equal accountability?
 
One Brow said:
When the man starts carrying the baby in his body, he can have the right to end the pregnancy.

More seriously, giving the men any sort of final say in the termination of a pregnancy does amount to giving them control of the the body of the woman. Outside of that, the expectation that they will care for a child is part of the whole notion of taking responsibility for your actions. YOu seem to support holding people responsible for their actions generally. Is there an exception here?
Click to expand...

What I've suggested is that a man should have to right to give up his part in the responsibility of the child. A "male abortion" wouldn't force a woman to get an abortion, it would just give the man the same privilege to opt out that the woman has. Men don't have that right. If the woman decides she wants to keep the child the man is bound to support that child. It would be like a man getting compensation for pain and suffering from a woman for 18 years if she aborted a child that he wanted to keep.
 
Perhaps studies have been done, but I think it would be interesting to see the psychological effects that having an abortion has on a woman, especially as they get older and have a child/attempt to have a child.

With that said, typically if you don't want something, you won't do the process that results in you getting that thing. My biggest problem with abortion (other than that I think it is murder) is that it seems like the majority of people don't use it for their own safety concerns, they use it because they don't think they're ready for a child or just don't want a child. They don't want to deal with the consequences of the mistake they made. I feel like if a womans life is in danger through having the child, then I can understand why it should be an option. It should not be an option to those who do not have a safety concern.
 
Slightly off topic, but I find the fact that most people have more problems with caged chickens than they do with abortion appalling. Somewhere our priorities got screwed up.
 
One Brow said:
Men can be raped by women. Unfortunately, it's difficult to get people to believe this.
Click to expand...

I don't doubt that a man could be violated in a sexual way by a woman. I doubt that any pregnancies have resulted from this.
Do you have a link that shows otherwise? Though I suppose it would depend on exactly what is classified as rape.


and Log, the man has two choices - the same as the woman - if he wants absolute protection against a potential pregnancy. Abstinence is one option, sterilization is another.

And even abstinence is a somewhat ambitious term. And IQ doesn't really matter. High or low, the basic mechanics are still the same. Smart people may need a little bit more help figuring it out however. But the creative types probably will have more fun with it.
 
moevillini said:
I don't doubt that a man could be violated in a sexual way by a woman. I doubt that any pregnancies have resulted from this.
Do you have a link that shows otherwise? Though I suppose it would depend on exactly what is classified as rape.


and Log, the man has two choices - the same as the woman - if he wants absolute protection against a potential pregnancy. Abstinence is one option, sterilization is another.

And even abstinence is a somewhat ambitious term. And IQ doesn't really matter. High or low, the basic mechanics are still the same. Smart people may need a little bit more help figuring it out however. But the creative types probably will have more fun with it.
Click to expand...

You are right they both have that right. But your post in no way addresses the larger point of once a pregnancy does happen, good or bad, that the man is totally at the mercy of the woman. Legally I think men should have an option to divest themselves of raising a child they do not want. Naturally there should be some limits on this.
 
Stoked said:
You are right they both have that right. But your post in no way addresses the larger point of once a pregnancy does happen, good or bad, that the man is totally at the mercy of the woman. Legally I think men should have an option to divest themselves of raising a child they do not want. Naturally there should be some limits on this.
Click to expand...

This here is a fundamental issue that I have a hard time with. Beyond anything else that has been said here, there does seem to be an issue reconciling that a woman has the option to end a fetus without consent of the man, but if a man wants to end the child and the woman does not, he still has to pay child support.
 
ElRoach0 said:
This here is a fundamental issue that I have a hard time with. Beyond anything else that has been said here, there does seem to be an issue reconciling that a woman has the option to end a fetus without consent of the man, but if a man wants to end the child and the woman does not, he still has to pay child support.
Click to expand...

I agree that is is a complicated issue. I think there should be some obvious, to me anyways, limits but it should still be an option.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top