Archive

A man's right to abortion
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
This thread is about man's right to abortion. It is not a thread on whether or not abortion should be allowed at all. Instead we make the presumption that abortion is right.

When a girl gets pregnant, there is both the girl and the boy, who had intercourse and resulted in the girl getting pregnant. It is the emotions and lives of these two entities, that must be taken into consideration.
If no abortion takes place, both of these entities are forced to have a child. That means financial support for 18 years and all kinds of emotional implications of having a child, which are real for both parents. Having a child will result emotions for the girl/mother. Having a child with result in emotions for the boy/father.

The boy and the girl can each have their own approach to the situation they are in. The boy may or may not want the child. The girl may or may not want to child.
There are 4 different variations of this:
The boy wants the child and the girl wants the child. In this case, there is no conflict. They simply have the child.
The boy doesn't want the child and neither does the girl. No conflict here either. They simply don't have the child.
The boy wants the child but the girl doesn't. In this case, because women have a right to abortion, she would have an abortion, despite what the boy thinks, desires and feels.
I'm okay with this. The emotional trouble the boy must go through from losing his child, cannot be compared to everything the girl would go through if she had a child against her will. This is what legislature in most of the western world would dictate. And it is the most mainstream opinion.

Then there is the last variation, which is the one that actually matters in this thread. The boy doesn't want the child, but the girl does. If we follow the legislature of most western world countries, she is allowed to have the child! She is allowed to put the father through a whole lifetime of having an unwanted child.

I must ask, why is there this double standard? Why is the mother allowed to control the father's life? But the father has no say in the mother's?
newstomper
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
newstomper 18 United States MelancholicCholeric INTJ 514 413C
I agree. It is a double standard. However, you must also take into consideration that if the last variation would result in abortion, than this is basically giving a man free liscence to impregnate any woman he has sex with because once he says he doesn't want it, it's gone. Also, you can't force a woman to go under the knife and have an abortion (unless you are her mother and she's a minor, but that is another topic for another time). Just like you can't force someone to go to the doctor for an illness that does not severely weaken them (i.e. influenza), you can't force a woman to have an abortion. No one who is in decent physical shape can be forced to have a surgery; they just usually do because they want to be healthy. However, as that point does not (normally) apply in abortions, with the exception of abortion for the health of the mother, then it is up to the person who would be under the knife.

I see your point, and it isn't invalid, but this leads to a lesson in responsibility for the man. They make condoms for a reason. This is probably the hardest double-standard to debunk, and I'm not entirely sure it should be.
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Condoms are for preventing STD. Condoms are not a sure way of preventing pregnancy.

You're wrong about abortion. It doesn't have to be surgical until a certain point. If she has an abortion before the ninth week of pregnancy, she just needs to take some tablets and it's over. If she doesn't tell the father before the ninth week, it is her own damn fault that she has to get a surgery. It is her responsibility to tell the father and she can't just put it off, because she doesn't want him to be involved.
Making her take a few tablets is by no means taking over her body. And even if surgical abortion was inevitable. Take a moment to compare having a small surgery and being a father for the rest of you life. You don't think the father should be allowed to force a small surgery on the mother, but you do think she is allowed to take control over his entire life?

I don't understand what you mean that it would lead to less responsibility for men. Are you saying that it is ultimately the man's responsibility to not impregnate women? The only way a man can be sure that he doesn't impregnate a girl, is by not having sex with her. So essentially, if a man has sex with anyone, he should be prepared to have a child?
And by that standard, aren't birth control pills and abortions a lessening in responsibility for women? Should those be outlawed, so that women can't have sex with anyone without risking to have a child?
newstomper
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
newstomper 18 United States MelancholicCholeric INTJ 514 413C
So you know the tablets don't always work.
And there is no sure way, but the condom is the closest thing. It's multi-purpose.
And so you know, I was in a similar situation; though the kid wasn't mine (she didn't cheat and I'll leave it at that) I still told her that though I didn't want her to have the kid, it was her decision.

Again, birth control pills are not 100%, so they are still taking the risk, just less of one.
And to the point of being prepared, when you put it that way, yes. It's a risk you take.
Kerrigor
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kerrigor 16 United States MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 514 6C
If the woman wants the child then by all means let her have it. However, If the father does not want the child then he should not be forced to support him/her.
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I have thought of that as a good compromise many times before. That if the father doesn't want the baby and the mother chooses to have it either way, she should have no right to demand him taking care of the baby, as she knew before-hand that he didn't want to be involved.

But this doesn't account for all the emotional trouble the father must go through, knowing that somewhere out there, he has a child. That could to many be just as bad as being forced to support a child, you didn't want.
Kerrigor
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kerrigor 16 United States MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 514 6C
I would think it wouldn't be any more traumatizing than knowing you technically killed that same child. But I have not and will not experience that so I guess my opinion is invalid.
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Unless the traumatizing experience haunts the mother in the form of Post Traumatic Stress, for the rest of her life. It cannot be compared to having a child for the rest of your life, especially not if you're forced to support that child.
Raligon
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Raligon 21 United States SanguinePhlegmatic ENTP 792 240C
This idea, of no child support unless I didn't want an abortion, is exceptionally grotesque. If you didn't want to pay child support, you would just say you didn't want the kid every time. Men would have total and full ability to never, ever have to pay child support under your system... I don't understand how this is largely being supported...
Stiletto Betty
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Carrying a child to term is the choice of the mother.

If born, that child MUST be supported by the people who created him. That is the child's right. After birth, neither parent has the right to get out of supporting that child unless the decision is made to put the child up for adoption.

It doesn't matter whether that kid is raised by his mother or father (hopefully both). Both parents are required to support him in some way.
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I can't help but notice that you give no reason why, the father should not be involved. If you need some pointers:

Why is it that the father must be forced to have a child, just to please the mother?
Is it justified that the mother takes complete control over the father's life?

Explain YOUR solution to this scenario:
There is a guy, about 18-19 years old. He has a girlfriend, probably a little older maybe 20-21. The girlfriend is just finishing up her studies, she's probably taken some education like teacher or journalist, which is relatively short. She wants a baby, so for some time, she has stopped taken birth control pills without telling her boyfriend.
The guy is quite bright and is just finishing up the first year in med school, but there is still a long way to go before he's finished. Because he is taking an education, he cannot afford to support a child, nor does he have the time to do so.
Now, the boy and the girl have sex. He wears a condom because, as I said, he is quite bright. But oh the humanity, the condom breaks. The sperm is loose.
Not long after this incident, the girl is pregnant. He obviously wants her to get an abortion, but who cares what the guy thinks? (He's just an evil bastard with a penis that is too big for normal sized condoms. How dare he? And premarital sex? Scum should burn in hell.)
But as you say, she doesn't care what the guy thinks, nor does society. So she has the baby and because she has just finished her education, she's all set. The guy however, he has to drop out of med school. His entire life is henceforth in ruins, having no education and a child to support.

Kerrigor, may god bless her, says that the guy should simply not be forced to support the child. And isn't she bright? But then you go ahead and say that it is the child's "right", to ruin the father's life. I don't get it.
If the father was not forced to support the child, he'd be happy. The girl can still have her child, she's happy. But you absolutely want to ruin his life over some triviality.
Stiletto Betty
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Quote:
But you absolutely want to ruin his life over some triviality.


The entire point of my post is that a child is NOT trivial. It is a child and it needs support as it grows up in this world. It is the responsibility of the people who created that child to care for him. This has nothing to do with pleasing the mother or ruining the father and everything to do with raising a child. It's a living thing that needs approximately twenty years of care to become a productive member of society and any arguments about how unfair it is for the father become irrelevant since not supporting his kid is much more unfair to the child.

If you want to talk about how the burden of support is disproportionately placed on the father I'll agree with you. Child support payments often seem extortionate; sometimes they are very unfair to the fathers. It's definitely unfortunate that past conceiving the child he has no say in the matter. It's very unfortunate that the biology is unfair. You asked whether the father has a right to disown his child and the simple answer is "no." The complex answer is "it doesn't matter if the father feels forced; for the health and security of the child he must support it once it's born." The fetus is the responsibility of the one who carries it (hey, science might make it possible for men) but once it is born it is the responsibility of both parents.
Kerrigor
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Kerrigor 16 United States MelancholicCholeric ISTJ 514 6C
If the parent that wants the child can't support it on their own then he/she shouldn't have the child in the first place. But the parent who doesn't want the child shouldn't be able to come back whenever they're "ready". That parent basically gave the child up for adoption. I don't see any important differences between this and actual adoption. The parent that doesn't want the child gives full custody to the other one and can only be a part of the child's life with the other parent's consent (or the child's if he/she is no longer a minor).
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Children can easily be taken care of be only one parent or entirely by other people than his parents. He or she will still grow up well.
By not forcing the father or the mother to take care of the child, I do not mean that the child should just be ditched onto the street. But I want you to keep in mind all the excellent alternatives, that will not result in ruining one parent's life.
Elder
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Elder 24 United States INTJ 15C
I believe that if the man does not want the child then he should be allowed to give up all affiliation with the child (with at least two weeks before an abortion is no longer legal, which should be enough time for the woman to decide whether she wants to go through with it or not based on the man's decision) this means that there would be no child support checks required from the father. In this case the father would give up all rights to see the child. In the case of the man not being knowledgeable of the child's existence, the specific situation would need to be taken to court to determine whether the man should be allowed to give up affiliation with the child or not.
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
That is a very wise opinion and as I mentioned earlier to the nice lady, Kerrigor, I fully support it<3
LeyDiFwee
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Just to start off, I personally don't believe in abortion, but I think that everyone has the right to make that decision for them selves, as there are certain situations where I would see abortion as even necessesary.

Anyway, to the point of the post. The reason why I don't think a man should have any say in the abortion is because he contributes so little to the child during the pregnancy stage. The mother is the one who has to carry the child for nine months. If she had wanted to get an abortion, but was unable to because the father wanted the child, then she would spend her entire pregnancy miserable (both at the prospect of going through labor, the knowledge that she's got something she doesn't want growing inside of her, the discomfort she has to endure during pregnancy, etc.) All he has to do is give her a few sperm, and his contribution at that point is ended.

In the reverse situation where the woman wants the child but the man doesn't: This means she is willing to go through all that comes with being pregnant and going through labor. The man has no right to force her into the abortion because forcing her into getting an abortion could be just as emotionally scarring as forcing a woman not to have an abortion in the previous situation. Furthermore, raising a child is expensive, so the father should be required to give child support if he wants no other affiliation with the child. (If the situation were reversed, to be fair, and the child lived with the father and the mother wanted nothing to do with it, then the mother should pay child support.)
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Isn't it a little sexist to objectify men as just sperm? Not taking into consideration all his emotions and what he goes through, by having a child growing, even if it is inside another human being.

I fully agree that the father should in no situation, be allowed to force a woman through pregnancy. If he wants a child, he will have to find a woman who also wants a child.
However, forcing her to have an abortion, makes perfect sense. You seem to be very fixated on how being forced to have an abortion or to go through pregnancy, can be scarring for the father. But unless you are truly a sexist, you will have to take into consideration the father's emotions as well. It is just as sexist to discriminate against men, as it is to discriminate against women. If you disagree and think it is worse when a woman is discriminated against, you are discriminating against men and thus a sexist.
Taking into consideration the emotions of the father, how can you believe that he should be forced to have a child?

You say that if the mother wants to have a child and that the father doesn't, she can just go ahead and have a child. I've established that I disagree there. But then you go on and say that, even though the mother knew beforehand that the father doesn't want a child, she can force him to pay her money for 18+ years. All because, maybe a condom broke or maybe he was drunk at a party. Both are things that happen to every male on the face on the earth. Because that particular man, has done something every other man on the person has, even if it is something that wasn't his fault, he should be forced to have a child and pay some woman money for 18+ years?
You justify this by saying that in the reverse situation, the mother should pay the father money for 18+ years, but you've already said that the father is not allowed to have a child the mother doesn't want. So those situations never exist. Thus it is a completely one-sided thing, that any man on the earth can be forced to pay any other woman on the earth money for 18+ and go through the emotional scarring of having an unwanted child.
newstomper
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
newstomper 18 United States MelancholicCholeric INTJ 514 413C
Honestly Leviathan, I was with you (not complete agreement but I knew were you were coming from) until the very last paragraph. I don't like sexist feminists. However, rather than call them names, try telling them how you don't like them POLITELY next time before you get an infraction.
LeyDiFwee
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
A. I’m not objectifying men as just sperm, I am merely outlining the exact contributions a male makes to form a child. A man simply isn’t affected by parenthood during this stage as much as a woman is. I’m not saying he isn’t affected at all, as parenthood is a massive undertaking, but a woman by far goes through more during the pregnancy. Nothing you say will ever convince me that a man faces equal hardships of the pains and effort a woman goes through for nine months to carry a child.
B. If I’m a sexist, then you’re at least equally (if not more) sexist, thinking that it “makes perfect sense” to force a woman to undergo such a process against her will.
You say it’s wrong for me to think that a woman should keep the child against the father’s will. (“Taking into consideration the emotions of the father, how can you believe that he should be forced to have a child?”)

Taking into consideration the emotions of the mother, how can you believe that she should be forced to have an abortion?

What if this woman is a Christian, of the kind who are pro-life? If she was pregnant and the father forced her into an abortion, this is just as wrong as “forcing” a father to have a child. (I believe it’s more wrong, but not because she’s female. I believe it’s wrong because she would believe her soul to be damned, but this is truly beside the point.)

C. The reverse situation does happen, just not in the way you think of it. There are many occasions where a woman should pay child support. For example, if a couple was together for a while, then they divorced and the mother wanted nothing to do with their existing children but the father loved them deeply and the children went with the father, it is a woman’s obligation to pay child support in this situation. Another example would be she would be “on the fence” about deciding whether or not to have the child, and when the day of her having a child comes, she up and decides that she doesn’t want it. She should pay child support if the father still wants the otherwise unwanted child.
D. I am not a feminist, and I believe in many ways women are inferior. You are simply hateful, and because I take a stand on one particular subject, you believe I have all of my opinions geared in this particular direction. I hate to break it to you, but I’m a bit more complex than that, and it’s wrong of you to judge me through one post.
E. Besides, I’m too lazy to press for laws all over the world. I like to sleep in on the weekends.
Son_of_Leviathan
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I'm sorry. Anger got the better of me. As I've mentioned in another thread, I find that hate makes people blind. Although, I am as prone to it myself as any other human.
Elfsoap
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
It seems like most things have been said here. But I just thought I should add that while an early stage abortion mostly has no problems there are some side effects which should be taken into account, especially if the treatment is hormonal (Which I assume depends?) which can make certain women have a greater risk of thrombus. One can of course continue arguing with; being a forced father is still worse if one wishes.

And as a side curiosity here's the birth control rates according to wikipedia ∞ LINK ∞

As for the rights of the child if it is conceived, I think that it definitively has a right to know who it's father is when it has come of age. In the best of worlds I would hope that every child would be wanted but I don't know if a father is necessarily a good father just because he had the possibility of impregnating a woman, if you get what I'm saying? A fatherhood based only on that the state demands the person to care for a child which probably constantly reminds him of his irritation of the mother might not be worth it? Though you might say that he will learn to love the child which is hopefully true, the only point I wish to make is that just because the parent is there it doesn't guarantee that the child will have a happier time growing up. But that is of course my subjective thought on it of which there are a lot.

Couldn't it be the same laws of sperm donation which I realize are different between the various posters here, be largely applied to this kind of case? When it comes to the issue of economy if we take for granted for the sake of argument that the woman will need extra money to take care of the child, I think mainly that the state should donate so that it works out. If that's not possible should the father be forced to chip in? I guess that's best handled on a case by case basis.

Lastly I'm glad that most women don't use sneaky ninja tactics to get that fertilization they've always wanted.
Aiox82
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
Aiox82 32 United States PhlegmaticMelancholic INFJ 2w1 91C
This is a very tough decision. My best friend in the world has had a siutation like what is being talked about here happen to him. The girl he was dating broke up with him and moved back home with her parents. In this case she went back to Maine from Illinois (~1300mi / ~2092km). A few months later, she called to tell him that she had been pregnant and that she had had it aborted. I have never seen a man crushed like this. It was awful. He almost drank himself to death (no joke). So, I have seen how the woman making the choice to abort without the man's input can damage the man. I wish it on no one.

Also, I have done some prison ministry before where I have talked with men in jail because they were behind on their child payments. Most of them were hard working men who loved their children, but with the economy so rough they fell behind. As a result, they were jailed. The result of this is that now they are behind on their payments, they have bills pilling up at home, and they are not working. So, they are now more in debt. I'm not sure if international governments envoke a similar penalty as the US, but it is terrible. It's not even like they were deadbeats, they paid what they could, but it wasn't enough. Granted, most of them should have been more careful about getting their girlfriend/ex-wife pregnant in the beginning, but they were honestly trying to do what they could.

*Climbs soapbox* It seems to me like a lot of these problems come from a lack of respect. Both between the two parents involved, but also for the child. A lot of the time, when a girl discovers that she is pregnant the immediate response from both the mother and father is 'My life is over'. Think about the child. There is now another life that must be put above all else. The petty squabbles, money, everything else. When people can't get over themselves and put their child first, a lot of these unfortuate situations happen. I know I am just spouting my own oppinions, but I hope that someone reading this takes my words to heart and that if you or someone you love is ever in a situation like this, think of the child. Respect it's right to have the best life the parents can give. When you find out that you will be a parent, your life is not over, just the part of your life centered around you. And that can be hard for some people. *Descends from soapbox*
drenith
0

Notice: Undefined index: FID in /home4/yalort/public_html/charcoal/code/common.php on line 11
I realize this may seem a little radical to some but wouldn't an acceptable answer be to have less sex? By choosing to have sex I personally believe that both parties accept the consequences of what may happen. I also find the excuse of 'maybe he was drunk at a party' to be absurdly weak, why do we insist on being a society of no accountability? I drink on occasion, and I mostly enjoy drinking (in the occasional social situation), however I drink responsibly and not to the point at which I've completely lost my wits. Having sex is a choice, albeit a very pleasurable one, but a choice none the less. There are also similarly powerful biological motives for wanting to have sex as there are in a woman wanting to keep her child. How can we say that the desire to have sex is so irresistible that it should be allowed unconditionally however the desire to keep the child is a lesser motive? I think the most amicable solution would be something like Elder's in which the woman's rights to keep the child are respected while still allowing consideration for the male's opinion.