Should men have the right to "abort" their unborn child?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by zayn008
I guess it depends on individual morals and upbringing, I personally wouldn't have sex with an awful person
why are you assuming we are talking about cases where the awful nature of the woman is known about though? total straw man
and would make sure I'd want them to be the mother of my child before I have sex with them. I'd also use protection, in the event she did get pregnant I wouldn't pressure her to get an abortion.
why? :|
If I didn't want to be a father I'd make that clear then let her decide.
oh my god why?! as if your say is meaningless? an abortion isn't murder at that stage, so what's the moral issue? "to let her potentially force me into 18 years of payments for a kid I don't want" is somehow the right thing to do just to not present the obviously more legitimate case of her getting the abortion?!
But do you think it's okay for you to make a women take away a human life against her will?
a foetus isn't a human "life". not in a full sense. it has the potential to become life, but it is not life at that point.
Do you realise what you'd put her through? It's incredibly selfish.
like forcing a man into 18 years of child support payments ISN'T selfish?! :|
It's also proven children are more violent without a motherly bond in their upbringing.
evidence?
Perhaps you could make an agreement beforehand if you're regularly having sex if you're that prepared and determined to not have a baby, at least she won't suffer as much emotional trauma.
**** emotional trauma - that's nothing like forcing a man into 18 years of child supporter for HER potential deception. **** this. any emotional trauma would have been entirely brought upon herself. you're not taking that into account.
^can't refute any points
"aha ha you all got triggered aha ha".
"aha ha you all got triggered aha ha".
No. It does seem unfair but ultimately, it's her body and it'd be problematic if someone were able to make such a decision about another adult without their consent.
Original post by zayn008
I think men should have the ability to financially opt out during the early stages of development and later stages in special circumstances rather than have the right to make a women have an abortion
you realise that this thread isn't about forcing a woman to have an "abortion" but rather a man's "financial abortion", right? I actually agree with what you say here - we're not talking about forcing women to have abortions though, as I said
Yes
I'm afraid I just can't see it this way. If we go by what you're saying, as it is solely part of the mother then that means the mother should be solely responsible for it financially when it is born.
But no, the father got her pregnant you say? Then the father should have a say.
Also what if this was flipped then? What if the mother wanted to abort and the father desperately wanted the child? Will you say it's her fault for getting pregnant then?
You've already been chewed out for this but yeah, that is a horrible thing to say. You are basically advocating the idea that men and women are indeed not equal.
Original post by -Simon-
In terms of not paying child support/giving up "rights" of the father, i'm afraid that feels like a nonsense. You have made the mistake (in your view) of getting another human being pregnant...you now have the responsibility to raise that child/ensure that child is provided for to the best of your ability. If you aren't prepared to be a father either:
- Don't have sex
- Have sex with someone you know well enough to know their views on reproductive health/ethics are the same as yours
It's really that simple.
The foetus is part of them, not a human in it's own right.
- Don't have sex
- Have sex with someone you know well enough to know their views on reproductive health/ethics are the same as yours
It's really that simple.
The foetus is part of them, not a human in it's own right.
I'm afraid I just can't see it this way. If we go by what you're saying, as it is solely part of the mother then that means the mother should be solely responsible for it financially when it is born.
But no, the father got her pregnant you say? Then the father should have a say.
Also what if this was flipped then? What if the mother wanted to abort and the father desperately wanted the child? Will you say it's her fault for getting pregnant then?
Original post by zayn008
We get to make the choice before sex after that it's a negotiation. Being a father doesn't compare to the bond a child has with their mother…
You've already been chewed out for this but yeah, that is a horrible thing to say. You are basically advocating the idea that men and women are indeed not equal.
Original post by DerpTwerk
how is a woman you inseminate somebody "you aren't sure about"? what if you only inseminated her because she was trustworthy beforehand? and even if she was a stranger, surely if she lied to you about the insemination not causing a pregnancy, this stems from the lie or the act of the woman and not the man? so why should the man be accountable for the wrong doing of the woman?
Because it has been stated that she has 'hoodwinked' you in to this pregnancy via putting holes in condoms or some other nefarious plan. Trustworthy before what? I'm confused what her wrongdoing is that you are referring to?
Surely, we should be having conversations about the potential pregnancy with anyone we plan to have sex with and if you don't agree about contraception, abortion etc. then don't have sex. Of course there is greater complexity in this issue about people changing their mind after becoming pregnant.
Original post by DerpTwerk
who said the kids saw these shooters in those famous US shootings with guns!?
No one. I was demonstrating why your simile/metaphor was not so apt to the reference point.
Original post by DerpTwerk
"some risk"?
so it's a proportional state of affairs?
I must assume all woman I go to bed with, whether they are woman I've only just met or women I've known for years romantically, are potential scam artists who will take my money? wouldn't that make me into a misogynist? I mean, is this against basic human decency? isn't the idea of trust being placed reasonably enough to negate the idea that a man must answer for something that is unreasonable to expect as an outcome in any kind of situation? how is this proportional in the slightest? what a ****ing harsh punishment for something so trivial. mother of god.
so it's a proportional state of affairs?
I must assume all woman I go to bed with, whether they are woman I've only just met or women I've known for years romantically, are potential scam artists who will take my money? wouldn't that make me into a misogynist? I mean, is this against basic human decency? isn't the idea of trust being placed reasonably enough to negate the idea that a man must answer for something that is unreasonable to expect as an outcome in any kind of situation? how is this proportional in the slightest? what a ****ing harsh punishment for something so trivial. mother of god.
You should assume everytime you have sex it could end in a pregnancy. (contraception is not fool proof) Therefore, make sure you know who you are having sex with and are prepared to be a father. Unless of course you have had an bilateral orchidectomy.
Original post by ChargingStag
I'm afraid I just can't see it this way. If we go by what you're saying, as it is solely part of the mother then that means the mother should be solely responsible for it financially when it is born.
But no, the father got her pregnant you say? Then the father should have a say.
Also what if this was flipped then? What if the mother wanted to abort and the father desperately wanted the child? Will you say it's her fault for getting pregnant then?
But no, the father got her pregnant you say? Then the father should have a say.
Also what if this was flipped then? What if the mother wanted to abort and the father desperately wanted the child? Will you say it's her fault for getting pregnant then?
The foetus is part of the mother's body. When it is a foetus, you are not expected to pay for it as a father. When it is born it is no longer a foetus. You are then in it 50/50.
She can have an abortion. It's her body and her right. The father isn't in the picture as there will never be a child for him to have a say about.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by Kvothe the Arcane
No. It does seem unfair but ultimately, it's her body and it'd be problematic if someone were able to make such a decision about another adult without their consent.
it seems incredibly unfair because it is
again, you haven't address the possibility of a woman being deceptive to make the pregnancy occur when the male is not desiring the woman bear a child from his semen. you haven't, as well, addressed the fact that if a child costs money and if the man does not want that potential future child, then him opting out does not end the pregnancy, it merely means that the woman has to potentially raise it within her own means. at such an early stage (which we've been discussing as the fertile ground for such an opt up) it is not a child but merely an embryo or undeveloped foetus that is not a human life.
Original post by Kvothe the Arcane
No. It does seem unfair but ultimately, it's her body and it'd be problematic if someone were able to make such a decision about another adult without their consent.
The baby is not her body.
Original post by DerpTwerk
you realise that this thread isn't about forcing a woman to have an "abortion" but rather a man's "financial abortion", right? I actually agree with what you say here - we're not talking about forcing women to have abortions though, as I said
Oh in which case I completely agree with a financial abortion unless in marriage (unless agreed otherwise) or if it's at a late stage (unless there's a special circumstance like he didn't know about the child) … but you guys seem to ageee with forcing women to have abortions :|
There's no such thing as true equality. There's always other factors i.e the mother (bearer of the child) would generally have more rights than the father of the child. So no to the OP's question.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by -Simon-
Because it has been stated that she has 'hoodwinked' you in to this pregnancy via putting holes in condoms or some other nefarious plan. Trustworthy before what? I'm confused what her wrongdoing is that you are referring to?
Surely, we should be having conversations about the potential pregnancy with anyone we plan to have sex with and if you don't agree about contraception, abortion etc. then don't have sex. Of course there is greater complexity in this issue about people changing their mind after becoming pregnant.
Surely, we should be having conversations about the potential pregnancy with anyone we plan to have sex with and if you don't agree about contraception, abortion etc. then don't have sex. Of course there is greater complexity in this issue about people changing their mind after becoming pregnant.
so you're saying that it should be legal for a woman to trap a man in 18 years of unwanted financial payments for conduct that he REASONABLY and in good faith did not regard as resulting in a pregnancy reliant upon the expressions of the woman? I'm sorry but I don't understand this - the woman is the person who is doing the immoral action (lying about the lack of pregnancy resulting) yet you're blaming the man? is the man acting unreasonably? I've once had unprotected sex with a girl I knew very well - extremely well - yet you'd be saying that I DESERVE 18 years of child support payments if she suddenly decided one day to lie that she was on the pill after all that time?! is that rational of me to suddenly assume of her? surely you don't think that trust should be a necessary part of a functioning human relationship??
No one. I was demonstrating why your simile/metaphor was not so apt to the reference point.
it was though because you should have used common sense.
You should assume everytime you have sex it could end in a pregnancy. (contraception is not fool proof) Therefore, make sure you know who you are having sex with and are prepared to be a father. Unless of course you have had an bilateral orchidectomy.
wtf no I shouldn't - if she says "don't worry I'm on the pill" are you then assuming that, by law, men MUST see women as liars no matter how credible they have been in the past? you are establishing a MONUMENTAL consequence over a REASONABLE act on the part of the man (believing a credible woman). and even if the woman wasn't credible, surely it's her action that caused the pregnancy? the woman made the dude ***, surely, unless he was jerking off and then put the penis into the vagina. it takes two to tango. you can't pin this all on the male. she shouldn't have had her pussy so close to the potentially ejaculating penis, right? it;s her fault - she didn't take the pill. it's all via her own choice and hardly anything to do with the man unless the man can legally force her to swallow morning after pills because she promised that she would
(edited 7 years ago)
father should either get the right to choose .....or opt out of any future child support payments if he asks her to get an abortion and she refuses.
The way things currently stand it's unfair. If the woman decides she's made a mistake but the man wants to keep the baby then it's the womans decision and she will off to the clinic to get an abortion... If the man decides he's made a mistake but the woman doesn't see it as a mistake then it's tough sh*t and he will financially responsible for the baby for life.
technically she doesn't even need to obtain his sperm legally for him to be obligated to pay. She could literally rape him at gun/knife point and still sting him for payments for 18 years and he would still have to pay.
The way things currently stand it's unfair. If the woman decides she's made a mistake but the man wants to keep the baby then it's the womans decision and she will off to the clinic to get an abortion... If the man decides he's made a mistake but the woman doesn't see it as a mistake then it's tough sh*t and he will financially responsible for the baby for life.
technically she doesn't even need to obtain his sperm legally for him to be obligated to pay. She could literally rape him at gun/knife point and still sting him for payments for 18 years and he would still have to pay.
Oh my goodness.
Did you realise that no form of contraception is 100% successful? Even if pills are taken, condoms are used, even sterilisation isn't 100% successful. An unplanned pregnancy is not normally the result of a woman lying about contraception.
Men have the right to have a vasectomy to help reduce the chance of conceiving a child, to use as many forms of contraception as they wish, or to abstain from sex, as do women.
A thought experiment...if men were allowed the right to financially "abort" their unborn child, but in order to do so, this had to be recorded on a public register, do you think many men would take it up? If not, why not? Because they wanted to hide their indiscretions under the carpet? Do you think they'd have good chances for a new relationship if their new girlfriend could see they'd ditched their ex when she got pregnant?
Did you realise that no form of contraception is 100% successful? Even if pills are taken, condoms are used, even sterilisation isn't 100% successful. An unplanned pregnancy is not normally the result of a woman lying about contraception.
Men have the right to have a vasectomy to help reduce the chance of conceiving a child, to use as many forms of contraception as they wish, or to abstain from sex, as do women.
A thought experiment...if men were allowed the right to financially "abort" their unborn child, but in order to do so, this had to be recorded on a public register, do you think many men would take it up? If not, why not? Because they wanted to hide their indiscretions under the carpet? Do you think they'd have good chances for a new relationship if their new girlfriend could see they'd ditched their ex when she got pregnant?
Original post by ChargingStag
You've already been chewed out for this but yeah, that is a horrible thing to say. You are basically advocating the idea that men and women are indeed not equal.
You've already been chewed out for this but yeah, that is a horrible thing to say. You are basically advocating the idea that men and women are indeed not equal.
Of course. We are different. We have different hormones, different body structures, different strength, different emotional needs, different ways of thinking. When it comes to having a child that becomes apparent hence why the women can breast feed, get pregnant, handle the stress, etc. Not saying all women can do it but certainly if it were a competition with a man and a woman of equal abilities the woman would do better. I don't believe in extreme equality but I do believe we shouldn't be discrimated for our differences.
Original post by zayn008
Oh in which case I completely agree with a financial abortion unless in marriage (unless agreed otherwise) or if it's at a late stage (unless there's a special circumstance like he didn't know about the child) … but you guys seem to ageee with forcing women to have abortions :|
when did we ever say that though?
but honestly I don't see a forced abortion as immoral if it was under the pretence that the woman was going to extort 18 years old financial servitude upon a man. honestly, it really isn't in proportion to view an abortion as "bad" when it is merely terminating the progressing growth of an embryo or lifeless foetus. I see a forced abortion hypothetically as not as bad as the man being forced into such a grossly unfair situation. a forced abortion might not be fair, but the latter is far less fair, surely?
but** this is assuming too that the man would otherwise have to pay for the child if there is no abortion. if the man is never going to have to pay for it then an abortion shouldn't be forced.
We are going round in circles so i'll just reply to a few bits and leave an interesting article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/suppl_2/ii10.full
No contraceptive is 100%. Therefore there is always the possibility intercourse will lead to a pregnancy. Both parties should be prepared for this. Please see this from the NHS for good sexual health advice: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/how-effective-contraception.aspx
That answers all of the above, see my previous points for the legal bits.
Original post by DerpTwerk
so you're saying that it should be legal for a woman to trap a man in 18 years of unwanted financial payments for conduct that he REASONABLY and in good faith did not regard as resulting in a pregnancy reliant upon the expressions of the woman? I'm sorry but I don't understand this - the woman is the person who is doing the immoral action (lying about the lack of pregnancy resulting) yet you're blaming the man? is the man acting unreasonably? I've once had unprotected sex with a girl I knew very well - extremely well - yet you'd be saying that I DESERVE 18 years of child support payments if she suddenly decided one day to lie that she was on the pill after all that time?! is that rational of me to suddenly assume of her? surely you don't think that trust should be a necessary part of a functioning human relationship??
wtf no I shouldn't - if she says "don't worry I'm on the pill" are you then assuming that, by law, men MUST see women as liars no matter how credible they have been in the past? you are establishing a MONUMENTAL consequence over a REASONABLE act on the part of the man (believing a credible woman). and even if the woman wasn't credible, surely it's her action that caused the pregnancy? the woman made the dude ***, surely, unless he was jerking off and then put the penis into the vagina. it takes two to tango. you can't pin this all on the male. she shouldn't have had her pussy so close to the potentially ejaculating penis, right? it;s her fault - she didn't take the pill. it's all via her own choice and hardly anything to do with the man unless the man can legally force her to swallow morning after pills because she promised that she would
wtf no I shouldn't - if she says "don't worry I'm on the pill" are you then assuming that, by law, men MUST see women as liars no matter how credible they have been in the past? you are establishing a MONUMENTAL consequence over a REASONABLE act on the part of the man (believing a credible woman). and even if the woman wasn't credible, surely it's her action that caused the pregnancy? the woman made the dude ***, surely, unless he was jerking off and then put the penis into the vagina. it takes two to tango. you can't pin this all on the male. she shouldn't have had her pussy so close to the potentially ejaculating penis, right? it;s her fault - she didn't take the pill. it's all via her own choice and hardly anything to do with the man unless the man can legally force her to swallow morning after pills because she promised that she would
No contraceptive is 100%. Therefore there is always the possibility intercourse will lead to a pregnancy. Both parties should be prepared for this. Please see this from the NHS for good sexual health advice: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/how-effective-contraception.aspx
That answers all of the above, see my previous points for the legal bits.
(edited 7 years ago)
Original post by orangestripes
Oh my goodness.
Did you realise that no form of contraception is 100% successful? Even if pills are taken, condoms are used, even sterilisation isn't 100% successful. An unplanned pregnancy is not normally the result of a woman lying about contraception.
Men have the right to have a vasectomy to help reduce the chance of conceiving a child, to use as many forms of contraception as they wish, or to abstain from sex, as do women.
A thought experiment...if men were allowed the right to financially "abort" their unborn child, but in order to do so, this had to be recorded on a public register, do you think many men would take it up? If not, why not? Because they wanted to hide their indiscretions under the carpet? Do you think they'd have good chances for a new relationship if their new girlfriend could see they'd ditched their ex when she got pregnant?
Did you realise that no form of contraception is 100% successful? Even if pills are taken, condoms are used, even sterilisation isn't 100% successful. An unplanned pregnancy is not normally the result of a woman lying about contraception.
Men have the right to have a vasectomy to help reduce the chance of conceiving a child, to use as many forms of contraception as they wish, or to abstain from sex, as do women.
A thought experiment...if men were allowed the right to financially "abort" their unborn child, but in order to do so, this had to be recorded on a public register, do you think many men would take it up? If not, why not? Because they wanted to hide their indiscretions under the carpet? Do you think they'd have good chances for a new relationship if their new girlfriend could see they'd ditched their ex when she got pregnant?
what about situations where a woman lies about being on the pill, or has a diaphragm that has been punctured? or otherwise says that she will take the morning after pill if her ejaculates? why is the woman's right to force the man into such a state of legal relations justified here under such conditions? this is so grossly out of proportion it's hysterical. it's also victim blaming.
Original post by -Simon-
We are going round in circles so i'll just reply to a few bits and leave an interesting article: http://jme.bmj.com/content/27/suppl_2/ii10.full
No contraceptive is 100%. Therefore there is always the possibility intercourse will lead to a pregnancy. Both parties should be prepared for this. Please see this from the NHS for good sexual health advice: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/how-effective-contraception.aspx
That answers all of the above, see my previous points for the legal bits.
No contraceptive is 100%. Therefore there is always the possibility intercourse will lead to a pregnancy. Both parties should be prepared for this. Please see this from the NHS for good sexual health advice: http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/contraception-guide/Pages/how-effective-contraception.aspx
That answers all of the above, see my previous points for the legal bits.
OR
the woman should just have an abortion,
and if not, the man can merely opt out because of the fact that he shouldn't have automatically assumed that pregnancy was necessary going to be the inevitable result
such a simpler option here that you are blinding yourself to.
if he doesn't want the child, he doesn't have to be forced into it if the woman has the choice of an abortion. if she proceeds with the pregnancy then this is to assume that she isn't going to be aided by the man.
Original post by DerpTwerk
when did we ever say that though?
but honestly I don't see a forced abortion as immoral if it was under the pretence that the woman was going to extort 18 years old financial servitude upon a man. honestly, it really isn't in proportion to view an abortion as "bad" when it is merely terminating the progressing growth of an embryo or lifeless foetus. I see a forced abortion hypothetically as not as bad as the man being forced into such a grossly unfair situation. a forced abortion might not be fair, but the latter is far less fair, surely?
but** this is assuming too that the man would otherwise have to pay for the child if there is no abortion. if the man is never going to have to pay for it then an abortion shouldn't be forced.
but honestly I don't see a forced abortion as immoral if it was under the pretence that the woman was going to extort 18 years old financial servitude upon a man. honestly, it really isn't in proportion to view an abortion as "bad" when it is merely terminating the progressing growth of an embryo or lifeless foetus. I see a forced abortion hypothetically as not as bad as the man being forced into such a grossly unfair situation. a forced abortion might not be fair, but the latter is far less fair, surely?
but** this is assuming too that the man would otherwise have to pay for the child if there is no abortion. if the man is never going to have to pay for it then an abortion shouldn't be forced.
Fair enough. I've actually never thought about a situation where a woman wanted a baby and the man didn't but the woman wanted the man to pay… in that case I'd say the man should be able to financially opt out or the woman should have an abortion. I'd like to think most women would have the decency to keep the fathers completely out if they wish to do so but I guess it does happen. I thought paying for child maintenance only happened after a divorce so that's why I said what I did.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Possibly pregnant with my exes baby
- I don’t know if I should tell my ex I’m pregnant
- Thoughts on Abortion?
- Pls help me mark my answer
- Of Mice And Men GCSE Essays
- my friend stopped talking to me to become a strict muslim
- NEED HELP from people who took WJEC English GCSE Of Mice and Men Higher IN 2023
- AQA A-level Religious Studies 1 (7062/1) 12 Jun & 2 (7062/2A-2E) 19 Jun [Exam Chat]
- Of Mice and Men essay on Crooks - Please mark
- AQA A GCSE Religious Studies Paper 2 (8062/ 2A and 2B) - 23rd May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Help on PQA (Point, Quote, Analysis)
- Are women fully protected by the Law?
- Poetry edexcel 9-1 relationships revision help
- Pregnant & no partner
- a level english lit DOAS analysis
- inspector calls aqa
- How is Macbeth presented as a guilty character?
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- Is there someone for everyone in this world
- Romeo&Juliet: Quote analysis ??
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
Edexcel A Level Politics Paper 1 (9PL0 01) - 21st May 2024 [Exam Chat]
