Men Abortion and Choice
 

From another site... My post on another thread. Thought it would start a nice conversation.

If two people have sex and know how babies are made and know that no contraception is perfect they choose to risk getting pregnant, if they do it is a choice. They chose that risk and therefore chose the result.
If the male states that he wishes to choose full custody of the child that should be his right.
It is his child as much as hers.
The woman made a choice, one she made with someone else, knowing FULLY what her role would be before-hand... she need only fulfill her role as far as the birth is concerned, as far as she chose when she took the initial risk.

I fully agree with everything you just said. People need to realize that every action has a consequence, and you should not partake in something if you are not willing to accept all the possible outcomes. Getting pregnant is not out of control.

"Summit County is also near the top of the list with a 21 percent termination rate."
We're so proud. :love2: :doit: :sadsperm: :speechls: :censored: :gift: :behead: :skull:

A woman can get pregnant even if both she and her male partner use birth control. Didn't you guys know that? :rolleyes:

One of the consequences of the choice to have sex is that the woman may choose to abort her pregnancy. The reason why this is so, is because forcing women to stay pregnant would violate the 14th Amendment of the Constitution.

This ridiculous proposed legislation will be tossed out sooner or later. Maybe they can bring it up again, when we figure out how to implant an embryo into a man.

So, any woman who's old enough and with the mental capacity to understand that sex can and does lead to pregnancy, even if protection is used, loses the final say over whether she has to carry any baby to term? Simply because she chose to have sex with a man, he gets to make decisions about what she does with her body?

Damn, man and you call Britain fascist. You want to allow men the right to dictate what a woman does with her body? Force her to undergo a process which often carries enormous health risks, even in these modern times. Oh great so, as long as the man's willing to raise the baby with no input from her, she loses the right to refuse to undergo 9 months of pregnancy and the labour that follows.

I would never want to live in a country with a law like that.

The baby is as much the man's as it is the woman's. It takes two to tango. If there was consensual sex, and she has a brain in her head, she knows what could very well happen and accepts that possibility.
Abortion because you just don't want it is selfish and only serves as a way to further irresponsibility.

By that argument, no woman should be allowed an abortion without male permission. With the greatest of respect my friend, Fuck you and the horse you rode in on, if you think you get to make those choices for another sentient human.

How're you going to make sure she carries it to term, chain her to the bed?

Only after it's born. While it's connected to a woman's body, she's the only one who has the right to say whether it will become an actual baby or not. Damn right it's selfish--do you want someone else making medical decisions for you?

You can't have full custody of something in someone else's body. If he had a way to take custody without invasive surgery, then maybe the law could treat both parents equally. But until we can develop technology to compensate, the sexes are not the same, and can't be treated equally. The one whose body is involved gets final say.

It's just my personal opinion. For the record I am against legislation that says what you can and can't do with your body (marijuana laws, abortion laws, etc.). It is just my personal opinion that people need to be more accountable for their actions and willing to accept the consequences of them. This goes for all the deadbeat dads out there too who skip town when the girl says she's pregnant. I see the 'I just don't want it' abortions as hypocritical. I would be willing to bet that they would support punishing someone who murdered a pregnant woman for killing her and the baby, yet have no problem with aborting a child of their own.
I guess this all stems from my belief that abortion really is killing a human being and unless it is for the safety of the mother or rape, it shouldn't be done. The child is just as dependent on the mother inside as it is outside the womb. I don't see how physically disconnecting the umbilical cord changes that and suddenly it's a real child with rights, etc. It's like how you can get arrested for underage drinking the night before your 21st birthday.. what changes?

Having an abortion is not being unaccountable for your actions. Having an abortion is a scary thing that some women choose to do for their own reasons. You want to be allowed to have a say over what happens to any foetus springing from your sperm, don't put it inside a woman who hasn't said she wants your baby.

Then we are in agreement. A woman should (in most cases) take into account the views and desires of the father when she makes her decision. But "take into account" is not "defer to", and "should" is not "must", and the final decision remains hers.

I can see that. I guess it really is a case by case kind of thing. If the dad doesn't have a clue what the hell he is talking about, would make a terrible father then him having such a final say would be an incredibly bad thing.

In my mind, consenting to sex is saying just that. That your desire for sexual pleasure outweighs the potential "side effects" and that you are willing to take the risk.

That's right and sometimes the consequences of that act are not pleaasant. A woman having an abortion is facing up to the consequences of her actions.

Also, men and women have sex for a myriad of reasons. It's one of the most basic human drives we have. When a man chooses to have sex he risks losing control of his sperm, a woman risks being impregnated when she doesnt want to be. Both risk sexually transmitted disease given that condoms can break. Sex is risky.

http://www.bergwithfries.com/img/risky.jpg


Well I guess that's where we differ. My idea of owning up is having the baby, yours is doing exclusively what is in the best interest of the mother.

And now for the opinion that no one really wants to here on this issue:

I think men should get out of any legislation, court or anything that has to deal with abortion. It's actually confusing to me how men can be pro-life, IMO. Personally, I feel that's all up to her. A man ("as much as it is his") shouldn't be able to overlord something that is happening to a woman's body. She can and has all the right to do whatever she wants to do and a man can only and should only act accordingly.

The Chris Rock joke goes like this: "When she comes from outta the bathroom an' she got that "shit it happened" look on her face you got two options. You can say "Oh, I'm so happy, I will be a great father and am really looking forward to our baby!" or you can look at her like a deer in headlights an' say "....so whachu gonna do?"

So if men get the right to force a woman to take a pregnancy to term if he DOES want to be a father, should he also get the right to force her to terminate the pregnancy if he DOES NOT want to be a father? If not, how can you possibly advocate one without the other? If so, doesn't that give men full control over the reproductive function of a woman's body?

Just asking....

Stormie

Sometimes it's the right decision to make. I can hardly imagine it is an easy one. Making a decision like that is, like it or not, dealing with the consequences of her actions in a very immediate, and difficult to handle, way. This isn't about 'owning up', in my view. To me, the woman is making a choice about her body. The foetus is part of her body.

I'd rather see legislation that leaves the decision of the fetus entirely to the woman.... and the decision whether or not they have sex entirely to the man.

as long as the man can take the child at the point of that decision and carry it to term in his own womb, i agree. otherwise......stfu. think about it.

I have a question for everyone.

Would you consider forcing a women to give birth to an unwanted baby torture and why or why not?

Absolutely. Pregnancy can create extreme physical and/or mental hardship. It's not a 'natural' state for every woman.

I am about to start a shitstorm of epic proportions ...

Does this legislation cover -

1. Pregnancy from rape? What kind of repercussions will be felt when a rape victim is told - "You want to terminate this pregnancy? You have to ask the rapist for his permission to terminate."

2. The father is dead? For instance - Woman finds out she's pregnant, the problem being that the child will be deformed. She decides to terminate. The father died between insemination and discovery of situation.

3. The pregnancy will, without a doubt, be harmful to the mother and/or child. However, the father refuses to abort. Will the state wait until the mother and/or child dies in childbirth to file charges against the father?

I shall now duck and cover.........

Men should absolutely, positively, 100% have a say in whether or not a woman gets an abortion...

On a personal level. Legally, legislatively, authoritatively? He has absolutely no right to any say whatsoever.

If a man wants full custody of the child, then he should be off looking for a surrogate to carry the child to term for him. That's the only solution because ultimately it's the woman's body and if he thought it might be nice to be a daddy, he should have discussed that prior to getting his cock out.

If it's unexpected, it might be unwanted by one or both. Neither has the right to force the other to comply and the state should have absolutely no say what so ever.

I'd agree with that Ali.

All of what everyone is saying seems to hinge on WHEN the "fetus" is determined to be a "child." At what point does the child earn those rights? Upon conception, 3 months, 6 months....not until birth? Thats the real issue, no?

If it is considered a child upon conception - what right does the mother have to KILL it? However, if it is not considered "human" until birth, then one could argue that everything between conception and birth is entirely up to the woman. The difficulty comes into play during the undefined period between conception and birth where we recognize the fetus as a child. I'm thinking as I'm typing, and thats always dangerous for me, but what if at, say 6 & 1/2 months the "mother" decided to (and I love this nonpersonal terminology) terminate the pregnancy? Is/would that be ok and should the father have no say under those circumstances?

There are laws in place to limit the circumstances in which a woman can seek an abortion. These laws are mainly to do with ensuring that abortions take place at the earliest possible point in the pregnancy.

Personally? I think that no man, and no government should have the right to dictate that a woman carry a child to term. As long as that baby is inside her body it is a part of her. Physically. It does not, to me, take on a separate identity until it has left the mother's body.

Right on.


Wow. I didn't realize men only had a financial responsibility to children, and that that's the motivating factor for this legislation.


1. And what about when the status of the consentuality of the sex is unclear or alleged?
2. I guess if he's dead, then it doesn't matter. Sounds like a precursor to a Fark story: Not news: Woman kills father of child for insurance proceeds. Fark: Woman kills father of child so she can have abortion.
3. Or how about even "high risk" pregnancies (although all pregnancies carry a huge risk to the mother) where it's more of a guess as to whether or not there could be severe complications?

Hey- how 'bout it- lets start the process already, I'm all for it!

If you want control of what your semen does inside our bodies and want to take more responsibility, you can also start paying when your semen mutates into Uterian Cancer instead of a baby...oh yeah.....that can happen too...And it can also come right out of your damned paycheck. States Orders. Awesome! It's nice of you to want to be more involved and responsible for your bi-products.
If men want to continue to become more and more responsible with what their little seamen, bi-products, and bacterium does to our bodies....bring it the Fu** on.....let's do it. You are not going to like it.
But it would be a good education, for all of us.

But it's ok to let a woman kill his child without his consent even though she CHOSE to get pregnant... I see.
It is not about her body it is about their fetus.

Ain't his child til it exits her body.



Her body. Hers. If you have some solution that doesn't involve forcing a woman to engage in 9 months of potential medical complications and a painful and potentially dangerous labour, I'm all ears.

And I know you have this idea that she shouldn't have taken the risk of getting pregnant if she wasn't willing to endure all that that entails...but frankly, if you are so damn protective of your sperm and whatever arises from it, you should be more careful who you put it in. Don't deposit sperm into a woman who doesn't appreciate its value:P

Really?

It would not be torture, again, because she knew that sex could lead to pregnancy and she would not be the only one involved.

Ali, yes, a surrogate would be a great option if one could be found and the transfer could be done safely.

To me the whole thing is so selfish, I want to have sex and then if I get pregnant I will not take the other party into consideration because if what I want is what I want, fuck-em.
Now I think I may be changing my opinion on men who don't take part in the kids life after they are born... if the child is so FULLY the womans she can kill it without so much as a nod to the man it is not his in ANY way EVER... might as well just move on.
You don't get to have it both ways.

Sure, she made it all by herself.

To me the whole thing is so selfish, I want to have sex and then if she gets pregnant, I will not take her into consideration because if what I want her to do, is what I want her to do, fuck-her.

You both take a risk when you have sex. You are not risking something that could potentially kill or seriously endanger your life. If every woman who has sex, does so knowing that she risks getting pregnant and you believe that automatically subjugates her physical rights over her body to those of his rights to the child, why not agitate for abortion to be illegal if the father objects? When you've finished dictating to people of my gender what we can and cannot do with the insides of our bodies, give me a nice long lecture about how I live in Fascist Europe.

I have not said that abortion should not be legal.
I simply stated if a man wanted to take full custody of the child he should be able to do so.
The other side of your rant is that you are saying it is ok for you to kill a man's child without his consent.

Dude, rkzenrage, a man has NO, repeat NO right or legal authority to say what a woman does with HER, repeat HER body and things inside it. That doesn't mean you can't ask her to keep it, can't beg and plead and even demand... but she absolutely does NOT have to listen to you.

What was the point of that statement of the obvious?

Of course he should, if she is willing to carry it to term for him.


Okay. My honest opinion here rk, and I have a feeling this isn't likely to be a popular one: up until that baby leaves the mothers body, it is not a baby it is a feotus. A feotus is, to me, a potential baby. When it is born it is a baby in the world, experiencing life and is no longer existing within its mother's body. At that point the baby has its own, human rights, separate from the mother. At that point, it is as much his child as hers.

Prior to that...if it exists inside my body, if it is a part of me, it is mine.

Absolutely. I would imagine many women seeking abortions take into account their man's feelings on it when they're making their decision. It's not an easy thing to have to decide.

I strongly disagree.

*nods* I know you do. I think this is not one of those issues you and I are going to find common ground on :P

If you spit in my coke can it's still not your coke. We can share it- but it's really up to me whether I decide to dump it out or not.

I know, just a discussion and not aimed at anyone in particular.

Okay, rk, answer me a question. At what point in the conception/pregnancy process does the feotus/baby's human rights outweigh the woman/mother's ?

IMO, as soon as we know, and not outweigh, equal.
But, politically I do not feel I have a right to outlaw abortion up to the second trimester, unless the father wants full custody.

There is no equal if a woman who doesn't want to have a baby is forced to do so. That means the baby's right to be born has been tested against, and outweighed the woman's right not to give birth.

You keep using the word "force" attached to something she decided to do.
Does not work.

Trying to find equality in abortion is near impossible.

It takes two to have a baby but only one will pay the consequences. One group focuses on one area and another group will focus on the other area and we get nowhere.

I am attaching the word force to what you seem to feel is a man's right in this. Any and all decisions about my body are mine. When and if I have sex and who with, whether or not I carry a child to term or seek medical intervention. Those are my decisions to make as long as the law allows abortion.

I would, in that situation, I hope, give full consideration to the man's feelings on it. But, if he and I haven't actually decided to get pregnant then we both took a risk: I risked getting pregnant, and he risked getting me pregnant. One of the attendant risks of getting pregnant is that I may have a child, with all the potential health factors that involves and also, possibly end up as a single mother whose career and future plans come grinding to a halt because the world turned upside down. One of the attendant risks of getting me pregnant would be that the potential child he might have had could be denied him. Both parties decided to sleep with each other. Both knew the risks. Every woman knows condoms can break. Every man knows a woman has the legal right to seek an abortion (in those countries where it is legal of course :P). Sleep with someone you are not actually planning a family with and you take the above, and a whole host of other, risks.

For the people that believe in this...

"The greatest inequality is to make unequal things equal"


Abortion:

Woman: Has risk of getting pregnant
Man: Has risk of getting woman pregnant

Woman: Has to endure pregnancy
Man: Does not have to endure pregnancy

These are naturally unequal.

To say that a man should have an equal voice in abortion is saying that we are making something that is naturally unequal and making it equal. I thought most people on this forum oppose this idea?

Right, and I am talking about changing that paradigm for the men who wish to accept their responsibility toward their child once it is made.

No, you are talking about changing that paradigm for the men who wish to accept their responsibility and for the women who get pregnant.

There is a lot of stating the obvious in this thread.
Tell me, how often do you think this would really happen?

How often do I think what would really happen?

Deciding to have sex is not the same as deciding to have a child. Duh. That is sooo 100 years ago...
If you're trying to suggest that women should only have sex when they are hoping/willing to get pregnant then I offer a hearty Fuck You.

That a man would want to take full responsibility and want the child for himself alone.

Thanks for your outstanding contribution to the wisdom and dialog of the thread. Especially since you can't read. :D

Yeah, skipped over most of your shit actually... such utter crap I thought it was Fresh... :3eye: