Men Abortion and Choice

[smurfalicious]

Originally Posted by Ibram

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.

Right on.

In most cases, when a child is born the father has financial responsibility for that child, so he should have a say.

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

Originally Posted by Crimson Ghost

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

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?

[Aliantha]

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.

[DanaC]

I'd agree with that Ali.

[yesman065]

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?

[DanaC]

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.

[wolf]

Originally Posted by DanaC

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.

Not in the United States.

The "up to the end of the first trimester" is a matter of convention, not law.

[Undertoad]

Originally Posted by wolf

Not in the United States.

The "up to the end of the first trimester" is a matter of convention, not law.

Up to viability, is the current US law.

[Cicero]

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.

[DanaC]

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

[yesman065]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Ain't his child til it exits her body.

Really?

Originally Posted by yesman065

Really?

Sure, she made it all by herself.

[bluecuracao]

Originally Posted by rkzenrage

Sure, she made it all by herself.

Of course she didn't make it all by herself. But she's growing it all by herself. So she gets to be selfish about whether she wants to keep growing it or not.

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?

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.

[DanaC]

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.

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.