Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Abortion and men

Announcements Posted on
Live webchat: Student Finance explained - on TSR from 2 - 3pm 17-09-2014
Got a question about Student Finance? Ask the experts this week on TSR! 14-09-2014
  • View Poll Results: Should men pay child support when women could have had an abortion?
    Yes, definitely, every time
    40
    32.00%
    Depends on the circumstances
    57
    45.60%
    No, but they should pay for some/all of the abortion
    18
    14.40%
    No, definitely not
    10
    8.00%

    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    In another thread, I suggested abortion as a solution to avoid screwing up the poster's life. This was met with large amounts of neg rep. Now, I understand abortion has been discussed a lot - this is not a thread about whether it's right or wrong, it's about the financial effect on men.

    It got me thinking, though... I mean, abortion is largely seen as the woman's choice, right? Most girls I know who've had abortions just went ahead regardless of the guy. However, if they kept the baby they would probably have expected help from the guy.

    Society - or rather, the government - seems to want men to "help out" mothers by partially funding the child. Does society - and the government - consider that if the woman chooses not to have an abortion, it's her problem, not the man's problem?

    That would be my opinion. I mean, why should the guy chip in when the woman could have resolved the problem herself? Sure, I could understand a guy putting up some money for the abortion fees - paying half, say. And if he wants to keep the baby and is willing to pay child support, then fine.

    But why should he be punished because the would-be-mother can't be bothered to go through with an abortion?

    I mean, imagine... you're a guy, you sleep with some girl on a night out, you wake up in the morning horrified, realise you were drunk and she took advantage (yes, girls can do this) and then a few months later she tells you she's having a baby. Then, a few years later you're told you need to be paying for this kid, like it's your responsibility... seems completely unfair to me.

    What does everyone else think?

    Here's some for and against links:

    For
    Against

    Logic decrees that if a woman decides to have a baby against the potential father's will, she should pay for it.
    • 6 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    it depends, if it was the guys fault for not wearing a condom then that's different to the condom splitting and the MAP not working . . .
    • Thread Starter
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nix-j-c)
    it depends, if it was the guys fault for not wearing a condom then that's different to the condom splitting and the MAP not working . . .
    Isn't it considered rape if the guy has sex with the girl when she wants him to wear a condom and he refuses? I mean, according to the Assange case...

    Point is, she should take responsibility for that too, unless she can't. I mean, what, is she not going to notice? Feels completely different.
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    it does seem a bit unfair. women can choose whether or not they can have the baby, while men are expected to support the women in whatever they choose. if women can have the option to not raise the baby, why shouldn't men? a kind of paperwork abortion could work, where the man severs all ties with the woman and child and is not expected to support them

    I have seen this topic come up before, and it people kept saying "well if you didn't want to get her pregnant you should have worn a condom/never had sex", so preemptively for people saying that why is contraception totally down to the man all of a sudden?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I think saying 'a would be mother cant be bothered' is a completely insane idea. I doubt many women have children because they cant be bothered to go out and have an abortion..
    The fact is sometimes women have as little choice as the man in the matter; social pressures are a perfect example of this. I knew a Christian girl who fell pregnant (not legitimately) and the man said he wanted her to have an abortion, this is also what she wanted. However her parents said she would be disowned by her whole family, the boy was not willing to support her through that...
    Having an abortion can be a horrifically traumatic thing for males and females, but the social stigma is far more attached to a women and it would be the woman who would have to quit her job or drop out of education, over the male..
    You must also think of the child in all of this, yes the male may not have had a choice and the female may have completely ignored his views (unfairly so of course) but if a child is created it is an innocent. Would you have that child suffer for the ignorance of it's mother? living below the poverty line? And having a poorer quality of life?
    • 1 follower
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    My view is that if contraception is used, both parties have agreed that they wish to have intercourse and not conceive.

    That's why it troubles me when a woman does get pregnant and the man doesn't want the child. IMO if they used contraception and she wants to keep the kid, the man has every right to walk away.

    Similarly, if the woman gets pregnant and wishes to terminate and the man has a change of heart. The woman has every right to terminate if contraception was used.

    The first of the two scenarios seems to be the one more likely to occur and I think it's quite unfair towards men. Women didn't choose to be the child bearing gender and men didn't choose not to be so there should be equality. To give women all the power in pregnancy is akin to any other kind of discrimination in my eyes.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Jesus... be as angry as you want towards the mother but don't take it out on the child you helped to create, why anyone would ever actively try to make their own child's life a misery before it's even out the womb I'll never know, but here's how you can be summed up:

    Utter c***
    • 3 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evekenzie)
    I think saying 'a would be mother cant be bothered' is a completely insane idea. I doubt many women have children because they cant be bothered to go out and have an abortion..
    The fact is sometimes women have as little choice as the man in the matter; social pressures are a perfect example of this. I knew a Christian girl who fell pregnant (not legitimately) and the man said he wanted her to have an abortion, this is also what she wanted. However her parents said she would be disowned by her whole family, the boy was not willing to support her through that...
    Having an abortion can be a horrifically traumatic thing for males and females, but the social stigma is far more attached to a women and it would be the woman who would have to quit her job or drop out of education, over the male..
    You must also think of the child in all of this, yes the male may not have had a choice and the female may have completely ignored his views (unfairly so of course) but if a child is created it is an innocent. Would you have that child suffer for the ignorance of it's mother? living below the poverty line? And having a poorer quality of life?
    This
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evekenzie)
    I think saying 'a would be mother cant be bothered' is a completely insane idea. I doubt many women have children because they cant be bothered to go out and have an abortion..
    The fact is sometimes women have as little choice as the man in the matter; social pressures are a perfect example of this. I knew a Christian girl who fell pregnant (not legitimately) and the man said he wanted her to have an abortion, this is also what she wanted. However her parents said she would be disowned by her whole family, the boy was not willing to support her through that...
    Having an abortion can be a horrifically traumatic thing for males and females, but the social stigma is far more attached to a women and it would be the woman who would have to quit her job or drop out of education, over the male..
    You must also think of the child in all of this, yes the male may not have had a choice and the female may have completely ignored his views (unfairly so of course) but if a child is created it is an innocent. Would you have that child suffer for the ignorance of it's mother? living below the poverty line? And having a poorer quality of life?
    depending on the situation having a child can pretty badly screw up a mans life too. to support a child you would pretty much certainly have to drop out of uni if you were still there, and you are losing a good part of your income even if you have a job. unless you are already settled in a decent career, it is going to make life much more difficult for you. is it worth it for a girl you were not that serious with? if you don't stay together, how is supporting a child going to effect new relationships?
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HSG1992)
    My view is that if contraception is used, both parties have agreed that they wish to have intercourse and not conceive.

    That's why it troubles me when a woman does get pregnant and the man doesn't want the child. IMO if they used contraception and she wants to keep the kid, the man has every right to walk away.

    Similarly, if the woman gets pregnant and wishes to terminate and the man has a change of heart. The woman has every right to terminate if contraception was used.

    The first of the two scenarios seems to be the one more likely to occur and I think it's quite unfair towards men. Women didn't choose to be the child bearing gender and men didn't choose not to be so there should be equality. To give women all the power in pregnancy is akin to any other kind of discrimination in my eyes.
    this.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I honestly don't know... this is a difficult one!
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    I find it odd how it is only the effects on the lives of the irresponsible parents (who should never have fornicated anyway) which are being discussed, rather than the life of the child in question, who, incidentally, is also human and not a mere product of financial gain/loss.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rant)
    Isn't it considered rape if the guy has sex with the girl when she wants him to wear a condom and he refuses? I mean, according to the Assange case...

    Point is, she should take responsibility for that too, unless she can't. I mean, what, is she not going to notice? Feels completely different.
    And you would know...? Personally I don't think it feels all that different
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Endo)
    Jesus... be as angry as you want towards the mother but don't take it out on the child you helped to create, why anyone would ever actively try to make their own child's life a misery before it's even out the womb I'll never know, but here's how you can be summed up:

    Utter c***
    Exactly this
    • 3 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    If the mother is legally able to have an abortion, then the father should be able to cut all ties (rights as well as responsibilities) with the child as well. If the situation is such that it is illegal for the mother to have an abortion, then they both have to live with it.
    • 6 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wikiellie)
    I find it odd how it is only the effects on the lives of the irresponsible parents (who should never have fornicated anyway) which are being discussed, rather than the life of the child in question, who, incidentally, is also human and not a mere product of financial gain/loss.
    well I think this discussion is using the assumption that abortion is ethical, which means that the childs wellbeing is only relevant if the woman decides not to have an abortion. and in that case the man is arguably no more selfish for not wanting to support it than the woman is for deciding to keep it while unable to support it herself. I mean I am sure no man WANTS their child to live in poverty, but it is unfair to force them into the position that they are responsible for stopping that
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Goody2Shoes-x)
    I honestly don't know... this is a difficult one!
    hmm yes interesting point
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lucaf)
    well I think this discussion is using the assumption that abortion is ethical, which means that the childs wellbeing is only relevant if the woman decides not to have an abortion. and in that case the man is arguably no more selfish for not wanting to support it than the woman is for deciding to keep it while unable to support it herself. I mean I am sure no man WANTS their child to live in poverty, but it is unfair to force them into the position that they are responsible for stopping that
    Interesting that you have stated the meaning of this thread- one which I understood anyway, yet you have not tackled the issues I have raised: a) the parents were irresponsible for fornicating b) the child's life begins at conception, thus making abortion unethical and c)Yes, no one wants their child to live in poverty. In which case, they should never have fornicated! Sinple as!
    I'm sure the reason why you have not looked at those issues is because no one can tackle them, because they are blatantly obvious and true. Regardless of one's religious views, when 'ethics' are concerned, the entire situation began because two people were unethical and irresponsible.
    • 11 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    It's a very valid discussion point. A man essentially has no choice over the issue of abortion.

    And I think this in-line with Child Support needs to be reviewed.

    I mean for instance, I have made it clear to my current GF that I do not want a child, and I would not be a father. So if something went wrong, and she got pregnant there would be an expectation from me that the featous would be aborted. Now with my feelings clear, if she made the decision to keep that child, why am I then obligated to look after it? I can't put it up for adoption by myself, I can't abdicate responsibility at any stage after the birth, and yet before it there is no way for me to either. Essentially, the woman holds all of the power in the situation by virtue of the featous being in her body. I think there should be a way to abdicate responsibility, including all parental rights, to a child you do not want. This would however have to be before birth and reversable only with consent from the mother later on. It seems a fairer system to me.

    Although I'm sure people will say it's open to abuse, there has to be some way to allow the male some sort of choice in this matter, otherwise it is just sexist.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    this does make sense yeah, I mean, so the woman has the foetus inside her for a while, so what? what if somehow, neither parent carried it?
    why does that mean it's solely her decision on whether or not to abort, but if she decides no, then both parties suffer the consequences?
Updated: February 22, 2013
New on TSR

Writing your personal statement

Our free PS builder tool makes it easy

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.