The Student Room Group

Men's view on abortion if you got a women pregnant?

While the choice is ultimately up to the woman is it right a man to give his opinion or even encourage her?

There are many different situations that could cause conflict specially differing views whether to keep it or not.
I mean if she wants to keep it and you don't what do you do? Or even if you want her to keep it and she doesn't?

It does also depend on your relationship status. If she is just a casual fling or perhaps a long-term partner.

Other complications like the baby being born disabled or with down syndrone or something.

what do you guys think about this?

Scroll to see replies

Personally I would disagree with, or at least be extremely wary of the morality of abortion regardless of who wanted the child and who didn't.

But if abortion must be legal, then I would say that it should only be legal if both biological parents agree to it. I don't believe that any parent should be forced to lose their child, even if it is unborn. Currently, the law agrees with me, but only in the case of women, which I find very unjust. I also find it unjust that women currently have the right to "opt out" of parenthood entirely by refusing to carry the child, when men do not have such a right (i.e. women may still force them to shoulder responsibility for that child, in terms of financial upkeep). It should be both, or neither. Not one, or the other.
(edited 9 years ago)
Ultimately, it is the woman's body. She is going to be the one who will have to cope with the effects of pregnancy and who will ultimately have to bear the pain of giving birth. No amount of "equal rights" campaigning will change the fact that pregnancy will be extremely uncomfortable and painful for the woman, but not for the man. So I do believe that a woman should be allowed to abort a child without the father's consent. It's sad and I would hope that a conflict of opinion in this case wouldn't happen in a loving relationship, but I just can't see how you can justify forcing a woman to go through so much pain just because of the opinion of the father.
(edited 9 years ago)
A man has a right to give his opinion,if he feels abortion is best then the woman should really put it into consideration, the woman could potentially and selfishly ruin everyones lives
I mean if you're going to spend the next eighteen years paying for an unwanted child then at least you should have a say
(edited 9 years ago)
Reply 4
It's 50% the man's child as well, therefore he should have half the say. The law is too much in favour of women. Yes, it's her body but she's carrying something that's not completely hers. The biological father should be consulted all the time about major decisions.

I mean abortion is wrong anyway. How do you get to that stage? The NHS are giving away free condoms, they're available in most public toilets. Condoms plus the contraceptive pill means chance of pregnancy is practically zero.

Remember, if you kill that baby and the father wanted it, you're also killing his unborn child too and he never got a say which is very selfish.
At the end of the day, pregnancy is a risk during sex, whatever contraception you use. But there is no denying that it is most risky for the woman, who can die during childbirth due to complications.

Original post by tazarooni89
Personally I would disagree with, or at least be extremely wary of the morality of abortion regardless of who wanted the child and who didn't.

But if abortion must be legal, then I would say that it should only be legal if both biological parents agree to it. I don't believe that any parent should be forced to lose their child, even if it is unborn. Currently, the law agrees with me, but only in the case of women, which I find very unjust. I also find it unjust that women currently have the right to "opt out" of parenthood entirely by refusing to carry the child, when men do not have such a right (i.e. women may still force them to shoulder responsibility for that child, in terms of financial upkeep). It should be both, or neither. Not one, or the other.


Dude. The fact of the matter is, the foetus/embryo/child/whatever grows in the woman's womb. There is no way you could legally enforce a *both parents must agree to it* rule. The woman would have a backstreet abortion if she desperately needed to, which would only increase the risk of her own death. You cannot physically force a woman to give birth without handcuffing her to a hospital bed.
At the same time, you can't force a woman into aborting either. And it's unfair for the child to not have support from its father, when he has contributed to the child's birth and they are biologically related. A child needs financial support from both of its parents - it is not the child's fault that the father did not want him.
These situations will always be perceived by men as "unfair" because conception/pregnancy/birth take place solely in the mother's body. But that's just the way mammals are.
Original post by SiJ0NES
It's 50% the man's child as well, therefore he should have half the say. The law is too much in favour of women. Yes, it's her body but she's carrying something that's not completely hers. The biological father should be consulted all the time about major decisions.

I mean abortion is wrong anyway. How do you get to that stage? The NHS are giving away free condoms, they're available in most public toilets. Condoms plus the contraceptive pill means chance of pregnancy is practically zero.

Remember, if you kill that baby and the father wanted it, you're also killing his unborn child too and he never got a say which is very selfish.

You cannot kill something that has never been born. It doesn't matter if the "father wanted it" - the foetus is dependent on the mother and the mother should always have full bodily autonomy. It is nowhere near "selfish" to not want to be pregnant for nine months. Pregnancy involves severe health risks (i.e. pre-eclampsia) as well as severe emotional side effects (post-natal depression), and of course intense pain during childbirth. It is completely up to the woman if she is to take these risks.

And even if you use both condoms and the contraceptive pill, there is always a chance of pregnancy. (Plus many partners in exclusive relationships do not use condoms, and the pill can have many adverse effects on womens' health, but hey...)
Reply 7
Original post by tnetennba
You cannot kill something that has never been born. It doesn't matter if the "father wanted it" - the foetus is dependent on the mother and the mother should always have full bodily autonomy. It is nowhere near "selfish" to not want to be pregnant for nine months. Pregnancy involves severe health risks (i.e. pre-eclampsia) as well as severe emotional side effects (post-natal depression), and of course intense pain during childbirth. It is completely up to the woman if she is to take these risks.

And even if you use both condoms and the contraceptive pill, there is always a chance of pregnancy. (Plus many partners in exclusive relationships do not use condoms, and the pill can have many adverse effects on womens' health, but hey...)


It's been found that foetuses can survive outside the uterus way before the 24 weeks cut off. So therefore the foetus is not completely dependent.

When you put money in the bank, that money is completely dependent on the bank, however they can't just take it all off you because you own it. The woman might be carrying the baby but it's only 50% hers.

If you really don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex. Or take the morning after pill, it's still abortion but that way the zygote hasn't formed properly yet.

Sex involves health risks, most women still do it. Smoking & drinking also involves massive health risks, women still do it. Next to these, the pill isn't that much of a health risk.
Reply 8
Child Support complicates things greatly.
Original post by tnetennba
Dude. The fact of the matter is, the foetus/embryo/child/whatever grows in the woman's womb. There is no way you could legally enforce a *both parents must agree to it* rule. The woman would have a backstreet abortion if she desperately needed to, which would only increase the risk of her own death. You cannot physically force a woman to give birth without handcuffing her to a hospital bed.
At the same time, you can't force a woman into aborting either.


Why can't you force a woman into having her child aborted, if you can force a man into having his child aborted? Don't you think he goes through any emotional turmoil as a result of it as well?

Plus, I disagree with the argument of "the woman would have a backstreet abortion". Such a thing would also be illegal, and it is her responsibility to comply with that law. By this logic we shouldn't make anything illegal, for the risk of people doing it undercover. We shouldn't make drug dealing illegal, because people will just get it on the back street, and they might be of low quality and cause them to die instantly. If laws are made on the assumption that people won't abide by them, then there's no point in having laws.

And it's unfair for the child to not have support from its father, when he has contributed to the child's birth and they are biologically related. A child needs financial support from both of its parents - it is not the child's fault that the father did not want him.


However, the mother has also contributed to the child's birth, and it's also not the child's fault that the mother did not want him. Which means that she should be legally forced to shoulder just as much parental responsibility as the father.

I find that the arguments you have provided base themselves, not only on the simple fact that women give birth while men don't, but also on the notion that the woman's preferences supersede the man's preferences.
For example, if the father does not want to shoulder financial responsibility, and the mother can't afford to do this on her own, why not require her to give the child up for adoption, to parents who can look after it? Or why not require her to have an abortion from beforehand, and have a child later when she is financially ready for it? Note: I'm not saying that we should actually do this, because it would be very harsh on a mother to have to unwillingly give up her child. But you don't seem to mind so much when it's a man having to do it!

There are two conflicting principles at play here, namely that "It's their child/womb/money/whatever, so they should decide what to do with it", and "it's their own fault for creating the child in the first place, so now they should take responsibility for it". Both principles are valid for both parents. But you inconsistently apply the only first principle to women, and only the second principle to men, which is a very biased thing to do.
(edited 9 years ago)
Original post by SiJ0NES
It's been found that foetuses can survive outside the uterus way before the 24 weeks cut off. So therefore the foetus is not completely dependent.

When you put money in the bank, that money is completely dependent on the bank, however they can't just take it all off you because you own it. The woman might be carrying the baby but it's only 50% hers.

If you really don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex. Or take the morning after pill, it's still abortion but that way the zygote hasn't formed properly yet.

Sex involves health risks, most women still do it. Smoking & drinking also involves massive health risks, women still do it. Next to these, the pill isn't that much of a health risk.

I didn't specify that abortion should be available post 24 weeks. I'm talking about abortion from roughly 4 weeks - 12 weeks pregnancy, where there is sufficient time to realise that one is pregnant and decide whether to keep/get rid of it. Most women who do not want to have children abort by this time. Most women who abort after 24 weeks do so due to this being the minimum age of the foetus for screening of Downs syndrome or other severe genetic diseases. That is a different debate.

There is no way you could ever justify forcing a woman to either keep a baby or terminate it. It's just a fact of life. Women will always have the upper hand in this situation due to the fact that the foetus is dependent upon their body, and that both men and women have bodily autonomy. The state will never have the power to interfere with this, therefore there is no need to debate this. At the end of the day, the decision will always be the woman's.

Third paragraph is just too stupid to respond to..... Why don't all of you men just stop having sex since you're apparently so scared of being sued for child support

Drinking in moderation is hardly a massive health risk??? It's not just the general health risk side of the pill, it's not 100% effective, not all women can take it, (in fact women who smoke shouldn't really take it whatsoever), it can even give you depression. There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution. Most sexually active women are on the pill or another contraceptive method anyway. The problem is that these methods are never going to work 100% of the time and safe medical abortions need to be available because otherwise women will seek out more dangerous methods of abortion.
Reply 11
It's the woman's body.
As with all children, born or unborn, the decision lies solely with the mother, and the obligation to support it is split equally.
Original post by SiJ0NES
It's been found that foetuses can survive outside the uterus way before the 24 weeks cut off. So therefore the foetus is not completely dependent.

When you put money in the bank, that money is completely dependent on the bank, however they can't just take it all off you because you own it. The woman might be carrying the baby but it's only 50% hers.

If you really don't want to get pregnant then don't have sex. Or take the morning after pill, it's still abortion but that way the zygote hasn't formed properly yet.

Sex involves health risks, most women still do it. Smoking & drinking also involves massive health risks, women still do it. Next to these, the pill isn't that much of a health risk.
Cite.

With reference to the percentage of births that survive and the proportion of survivors who are left with severe disabilities and what lifesaving care for a pre-24 weeker requires.

P.S. Morning after pill is not an abortion. Morning after pill's mechanism is to either prevent ovulation (if the woman hasn't already ovulated) and to thicken uterus lining, in order to dimish chances of successful implantation. Effectiveness is therefore variable and not 100% at preventing a pregnancy.
While I wait for SiJONES' summation of any and all new research and progress in NICU care, I recommend the entries on this page to bring anyone else up to speed http://www.tampabay.com/specials/2012/reports/juniper/

The chances for pre-24 weekers are still awful.
Original post by Octopus_Garden
Cite.

With reference to the percentage of births that survive and the proportion of survivors who are left with severe disabilities and what lifesaving care for a pre-24 weeker requires.

P.S. Morning after pill is not an abortion. Morning after pill's mechanism is to either prevent ovulation (if the woman hasn't already ovulated) and to thicken uterus lining, in order to dimish chances of successful implantation. Effectiveness is therefore variable and not 100% at preventing a pregnancy.


http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/Media/Controlleddocuments/Patientinformation/Pregnancyandbirth/Havinganextremelyprematurebaby-patientinformation.pdf

There are children who are aborted who would survive outside the womb with appropriate medical treatment
Original post by Huskaris
http://www.uhs.nhs.uk/Media/Controlleddocuments/Patientinformation/Pregnancyandbirth/Havinganextremelyprematurebaby-patientinformation.pdf

There are children who are aborted who would survive outside the womb with appropriate medical treatment


Be a bit less of a coward. Quote your link. Don't use weasel words like "there are children who would..."

Detail for us what appropriate medical treatment involves, please. Go on, we're grown-ups. We can handle the truth of NICU procedures. Well, I can. You can, right?

By the way, a child is a human aged between two and twelve years old. Your attempt to use emotive language around a debate relating to abortion here is particularly careless, hurtful and tactless as so many preemies never survive to become children.

Figure 1: Survival and disability up to six years in babies admitted to neonatal units under 26
weeks from EPICURE 1 and 2 studies


22 weeks- only 1% survive with likely severe disability.

23 weeks- 2-3 in 10 survive,
of whom two-
thirds have
moderate to
severe disability.

25 weeks and over
The baby will be actively cared for to support breathing and keep it warm, and
transferred to the neonatal intensive care unit for ongoing care.

24 weeks
Resuscitation and intensive support is usually offered unless parents and doctors agree
that there is little hope of survival or baby’s level of suffering would outweigh the baby’s interest in
continuing to live.

23 weeks
At this stage of pregnancy, there is greatest uncertainty about the outcome for an
individual baby. Intensive support will be offered if parents specifically request it and the senior
neonatologist present feels it to be appropriate. Otherwise comfort care only will be given to your
baby with no active intervention to support life.

22 weeks
An experienced neonatologist will be close at hand if appropriate, though the baby would
not usually be given active support because the chances of survival are so low.

That's right. 22 weeks is our "way below 24 weeks" isn't it? God, with that attitude to numbers, I'd hate to put Si in charge of any budget decisions!
Original post by Octopus_Garden
Be a bit less of a coward. Quote your link. Don't use weasel words like "there are children who would..."

Detail for us what appropriate medical treatment involves, please. Go on, we're grown-ups. We can handle the truth of NICU procedures. Well, I can. You can, right?

By the way, a child is a human aged between two and twelve years old. Your attempt to use emotive language around a debate relating to abortion here is particularly careless, hurtful and tactless as so many preemies never survive to become children.

Figure 1: Survival and disability up to six years in babies admitted to neonatal units under 26
weeks from EPICURE 1 and 2 studies


22 weeks- only 1% survive with likely severe disability.

23 weeks- 2-3 in 10 survive,
of whom two-
thirds have
moderate to
severe disability.


That's right. 22 weeks is our "way below 24 weeks" isn't it? God, with that attitude to numbers, I'd hate to put Si in charge of any budget decisions!


Erm.. Ok, I was just providing a source to what that poster said.

Wasn't really ready for that reaction to be honest...
Original post by Huskaris
Erm.. Ok, I was just providing a source to what that poster said.

Wasn't really ready for that reaction to be honest...

Your first time supporting a glib attempt to exploit preemies in an argument on abortion, or the first time someone queried it?
Original post by Octopus_Garden
Your first time supporting a glib attempt to exploit preemies in an argument on abortion, or the first time someone queried it?


Neither. I actually support abortion rights, 100% in fact.

It doesn't mean that you can't have all the facts laid out in front of you.

Clearly something to do with this issue is distressing you, you don't have to go off the rails at anyone.

Quick Reply

Latest